DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL UNDERSTANDING
To read up on the development of thinking, refer to pages 347–358 of Eysenck’s A2
Level Psychology.
Ask yourself
 How do young children judge right from wrong? How does their judgement
differ from that of adults (if it does)?
 Is it ever right to break the law? If so, under what circumstances?
 When it comes to morality, do you and others say one thing and do another?
What you need to know
KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL
UNDERSTANDING

Description, research findings,
evaluation
EISENBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL
UNDERSTANDING

Description, research findings,
evaluation
Morality implies “a set of principles or ideals that help the individual to distinguish
right from wrong and act on this distinction” (Shaffer, 1993).
KOHLBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL UNDERSTANDING
This theory is mainly concerned with the cognitive component of morality—of how
we think about moral issues and decide between right and wrong. It consists of six
stages on three levels as shown in the table below. According to Kohlberg:
 Everyone passes through the stages in the same order (1–6) with no stages
being skipped.
 Progression through the stages depends on cognitive development. For
example, an individual must have a certain level of abstract reasoning before
the later stages can be reached.
LEVEL
THE BASIS OF MORALITY CHARACTERISICS OF THE
STAGES
Level 1:
Right and wrong
Pre-conventional morality determined by rewards
and punishment
Stage 1: Punishment and
obedience
If an action is punished it is
wrong.
Stage 2: Reward
The right way to behave is
the way that is rewarded.
Level 2:
Conventional morality
Morality based on what
others think: avoidance of
blame; seeking approval
Stage 3: Good boy/nice
girl
Acting morally consists of
doing what other people
approve of.
Stage 4: Law and order
Morality is what the law
says is right or wrong. You
should do your duty.
Level 3:
Abstract notions of justice.
Post-conventional morality Rights of others can
override obedience to laws
and rules
Stage 5: Social contract,
legalistic
Laws and rules should be
upheld in order to preserve
social order but they can
be changed.
Stage 6: Universal ethical
principles
Morality involves following
self-chosen ethical
principles. Your own
conscience is more
important than the law.
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
 Kohlberg (1976; see A2 Level Psychology page 350) studied 72 boys aged 10–
16 using the Heinz dilemma and other dilemma stories. All participants
progressed through the moral stages in the predicted sequence. Only about
10% of people in their 30s reached stage 5; all the rest remained at level 2,
mainly stage 4. There were virtually none in stage 6.
 Walker, de Vries, and Trevethan (1987; see A2 Level Psychology page 351)
found agreement with Kohlberg but put forward nine stages to account for
the fact that people often fell between two stages.
 Kohlberg (1969; see A2 Level Psychology page 351) studied several other
cultures and found the same stages but slower progress in the nonindustrialised countries.
 Snarey (1985; see A2 Level Psychology page 351) reviewed 44 studies from
27 cultures and found that people went through the first four stages at
approximately the same age but there was more evidence of stage 5
reasoning in Western cultures than in most rural or village cultures. Snarey
argues that this does not imply superior moral reasoning in Western cultures
but greater emphasis on individualistic ideals and less on the collectivist
ideal of doing what is expected by others (stages 3, 4).
 Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey (1974; see A2 Level Psychology page 351)
found that girls aged 11–12 who showed stage 5 moral reasoning were also
good at abstract reasoning (supporting Kohlberg’s view that it is necessary to
reach a certain level of cognitive development in order to progress through
the stages of moral development). However, some girls with high abstract
reasoning ability did not show high level moral reasoning indicating that the


ability to think abstractly is a necessary but not a sufficient requirement for
someone to attain stage 5 of post-conventional morality.
Denton and Krebs (1990; see A2 Level Psychology page 352) found that moral
reasoning is not consistent across different problems and in different
contexts. For example, it is lower in a social setting when students had been
drinking than in a more formal sober setting. This contradicts Kohlberg’s
theory.
Kutnick and Brees (1982; see A2 Level Psychology page 352), in a review,
found little relationship between what people say and what they actually do.
This means that moral reasoning does not closely predict moral behaviour.
EVALUATION
 Androcentric bias. Gilligan criticised Kohlberg for producing a theory
centred around how men approach moral decisions. She believes that males
develop a morality of justice (based on laws and moral principles) whilst
girls develop a morality of care (based on human wellbeing and compassion
for others). Gilligan and Attanucci (1988; see A2 Level Psychology page 353)
demonstrated this using real-life dilemmas rather than hypothetical ones but
their numbers were small and their method of interviewing open to bias.
Jaffee and Hyde (2000; see A2 Level Psychology page 353), in a large scale
review, found only small differences between men and women in the
direction predicted by Gilligan and concluded that, although different moral
orientations exist, they are not associated with gender.
 Detailed and accurate account of moral reasoning well supported by
research.
 Cross-cultural support. Children in nearly all cultures go through the same
stages of moral reasoning as predicted by the theory.
 Evidence of predicted relationship between cognitive development and
moral reasoning. This was demonstrated by Tomlinson-Keasey and Keasey
(1974).
 Not all stages are equally important. Few people progress beyond stage 4,
suggesting that stages 5 and 6 are less important in real life.
 Evidence based on artificial dilemmas. This may be why there is only a
very weak relationship between behaviour and moral reasoning. This means
the theory has little predictive value in terms of predicting how people will
actually behave.
 Moral reasoning not consistent across different problems.
 Emotional component of morality (e.g. shame and guilt) not considered.
 Too little attention to differences in moral reasoning across cultures.
EISENBERG’S THEORY OF MORAL UNDERSTANDING
Eisenberg concentrated on pro-social moral reasoning: acting in a positive way
when someone is in need. Eisenberg’s theory concentrates on the emotional
component of moral understanding.
She argued that:
 Empathy is a fundamental part of moral development. Empathy is the power
to feel as someone else does and therefore to understand how they are
feeling. There are two components of empathy:
o Sympathy—a feeling of sorrow or concern for someone else.
o Personal distress—a feeling of discomfort, misery, or anxiety to
someone else’s situation.
 Sympathy leads to pro-social behaviour whereas personal distress does not.
 Moral reasoning progresses in stages that parallel cognitive abilities.
The stages of Eisenberg’s theory
LEVEL
MAIN
ORIENTATION
DESCRIPTION
AGE (approx.)
Level 1
Self-centred
Concern only for
oneself
Up to 7 years
Level 2
Needs orientated
Considers needs of
others but
experiences little
guilt if no help is
given
7–11 years
Level 3
Approval orientated Will only help
others if rewarded
by praise and
approval
Level 4
Empathic
Is concerned to do 12 years
what is right. Has
sympathy for the
person in need and
feels guilty if help is
not given
Level 5
Internalised
Helping behaviour 16 years and over
is based strongly on
internalised beliefs
and values
11–14 years
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
Eisenberg used moral dilemma stories in which a child (adult) is give a situation and
asked if they would help (see A2 Level Psychology page 355 for an example).
 Eisenberg et al. (1983; see A2 Level Psychology pages 355–356) assessed the
same children at 4½, 6, and 7½ years and found a steady decrease in selfcentredness reasoning. There was only a small relationship between prosocial reasoning and moral reasoning, as assessed by Kohlberg-type



dilemmas, indicating that they are measuring different aspects of moral
reasoning.
With respect to mothering, younger children develop pro-social reasoning
when they receive supportive and empathic mothering; older children
develop it if given non-authoritarian mothering with encouragement to be
independent.
Eisenberg et al. (1999; see A2 Level Psychology page 356) followed up some
of these children at 19–20 years of age. Children showing the most pro-social
behaviour had the highest levels of sympathy. Personal distress was
negatively correlated with pro-social behaviour but only moderately. Both of
these findings support the theory.
Radke-Yarrow and Zahn-Waxler (1984; see A2 Level Psychology page 356)
found evidence of empathy and sympathy in children as young as 18 months.
Other studies support this.
EVALUATION
 Focuses on positive aspects of moral development. It provides an
alternative view from many theorists, including Kohlberg, who focus on
breaking the law or rules (on doing wrong, not on doing right).
 Provides new dimensions in moral reasoning. It has extended our
knowledge of moral reasoning to include emotional aspects.
 Supported by research findings. As reported above.
 Has important applications. It has demonstrated what type of parenting
best produces pro-social behaviour so can be used in providing advice to
parents.
 It is difficult to distinguish between various emotional states. The
distinction between empathy, sympathy, and personal distress is difficult yet
essential to the theory.
 It ignores important aspects of morality. It does include rule/law
breaking, which is an important part of moral reasoning.
 Empathy starts earlier than the theory predicts.
 It uses artificial dilemmas. This means that the response to a dilemma only
weakly predicts moral behaviour as behaviour depends on additional factors.
So what does this mean?
The study of moral development has traditionally been concerned with the breaking
of rules and laws and the circumstances, if any, under which people believe this to
be acceptable. The research of Eisenberg took a different tack and looked at prosocial morality, the conditions under which people would help others in need. Both
approaches have used dilemma stories and have therefore accessed attitudes to
how people believe they and others should behave rather than how they actually
behave. The relationship between attitudes and behaviour has always been tenuous
and morality is no exception—it is often difficult to predict how an individual will
behave from their attitudes as they often do not behave as they believe they would
or should. This is because there are numerous factors other than attitudes that
determine behaviour. Therefore, useful as these theories are, they tell us more about
the development of moral thinking than of the actual moral behaviour of individuals.
Over to You
Describe and evaluate one theory of moral understanding. (25 marks)