Conservation and Moral
Development:
ARE THEY RELATED?
Jean Piaget
Developmental Psychologist

August 9, 1896 – September 16, 1980

Age 10 : published article on albino sparrow

Age 21: PhD in natural sciences

1929-1939: Research resulted in Stage Theory of
cognitive development
Cognitive Development Theory:
Sensorimotor
1
2
3
4
Birth- 2 years
Pre-Operational
Ages 2-7
Concrete Operational
Formal Operational
Ages 11 +
Ages 7-11
Pre-Operational Stage
The Age of Curiosity
Limitations

Ages 2-7

Increase in representational
or symbolic activity

!
Physical actions become
internalized mental
representations
Children should not be
able to conserve liquids
at this stage according
to Piaget.
Egocentrism: the inability to distinguish the
symbolic viewpoints of others from one’s
own.
Centration: the tendency to focus on one
aspect of a situation to the neglect of other
important features.
States rather than Transformations: the final
stages in a tendency to treat the initial and
problem as completely unrelated.
Irreversibility: the inability to mentally reverse
a series of steps.
Concrete
Operational Stage

Ages 7-11

Thought more closely resembles
that of adults
Limitations:

Concrete operational reasoning
is more logical, flexible, and
organized
Children think in an organized, logical
fashion only when dealing with concrete
information they can directly perceive.
! Children able to pass
conservation tasks: Through
reversal and focusing on multiple
aspects of problem
Our study:
For our study, we worked with 12 students, ages 4-7 at a
Montessori school in Arkansas. We hypothesized that these
students, being particularly bright, would be able to
“conserve” at an earlier age than is typical given Piaget’s
theory of cognitive development.
In order to test this hypothesis, we performed a water
conservation task with each child.
We will later connect these results with Kohlberg’s theory of
moral development.
Our results are as follows….
For our study, we performed a water conservation
task with children ages 4-7
4 and 5 year olds: Shouldn’t be able to conserve
Age
Response
Conserve? Y/N
Glenna
4
“Smaller cup has more water”
No
Kannady
4
“went higher because it is heavier.
Has a lot of play-doh in it. Has more
water in it”
Almost!
Tom
5
“Just different cups. Same water.”
“The play-doh just took up space;
no water was added”
Yes
Landon
5
“One has more because we
poured all of this one into that one.
More water because play-doh
made it bigger”
No
Six year olds
(shouldn’t be able to conserve)
Conserve? Y/N
Ayva
6
“More because it is littler and water is higher. No
More because play-doh made it higher.”
Mary
Claire
6
“Same because glass is just smaller.” “Same Yes
just a little higher. Play-doh just took up some
space.”
Alex
6
“More in smaller because higher.” “Play-doh
made it higher.”
No
It is interesting to note that both Mary Claire and Tom who should not be able to conserve have older
siblings (7 year olds) who can. Perhaps having older siblings makes a difference? But this would be
another study all together…
Seven year olds
(should be able to conserve)
Age
Response
Conserve? Y/N
Emily
7
“Same. One is smaller and wider
so it looks like it has less but it is the
same.” “Play-doh just made it
higher.”
Yes
Madilyn
7
“Same in both.” “The water just
got higher because of play-doh.”
Yes
Maria
7
“Didn’t put any more or dump
any more so it has same amount.”
Yes
Mason
7
“Smaller cup has more water
because it is higher.” “Nothing
happened with play-doh.
Bubbles?”
No
Back to our hypothesis:
Two children were able to conserve at the ages of 5 and 6, an unlikely occurrence
according to Piaget. Now we would like to see if these same children who can conserve
are able to think through a Kohlberg-style moral dilemma from multiple sides.
Also according to Piaget, children under the age of seven will exemplify egocentrism and
centration; an inability to think beyond their own viewpoint and also an inability to focus
on more than one aspect of a problem. We hypothesized that children at this school
would be able to think through a moral dilemma at a more advanced level, even under
the age of seven, despite egocentrism and centration.
Lawrence Kohlberg

Grew up in Bronxville New York during the 1930s

Tested out of almost all of the undergraduate courses
he needed to take at the University of Chicago to earn
a bachelor’s degree in psychology

In his doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago,
he introduced his stage theory of moral development

Taught at the University of Chicago for 6 years then
taught at Harvard for 19 years until his death in 1987

He suffered from a tropical disease that caused him
much pain –committed suicide at the age of 59
Kohlberg’s Study

His data was gathered from 72 boys at the ages of 10, 13, 16

He would interview them personally, present them with moral
dilemmas, and record their answers

Judging by their answers, he would classify them into one of his six
stages

He created a rubric that examined 8 aspects of each of his stages
that would determine which stage they were categorized into

From these 8 aspects, he specified how the 8 aspects would be
characterized in each dilemma he would present

From these classifications, he would identify which level of moral
development his subjects were in.
Key Terms:








Value: modes of attributing moral value to acts and persons. Differentiating and
relating means and ends, intentions and consequences of one person’s evaluation
and others, etc. Modes of assessing value-consequences in the situation.
Choice: the kind of identification with the actor in conflict and methods of resolving
the conflict. The social process of moral argumentation and the capacity for making
and maintaining an independent choice. The outcome chosen in the particular
situation.
Sanction: the dominant rewards, punishments or morals to which conformity is
oriented.
Negative standard or rules: the type of concept against which an act is assessed, on
which guides conformity, e.g. taboo, rule, law. The concept of duty or moral
compulsion.
Self-image and role: modes of defining concepts of good person and good role.
Authority: the kind of respect accorded to authority and status and the reasons for
which such respect is accorded
Content: the particular rules or virtues stressed by the type.
Justice: concern for and concepts of rights and the legitimate relation of one act, as
deserved, to another. Standards of exchange, reciprocity, contract, punishment,
and reward.
Stages of Moral Development:
Stage 1
Obedience and
Punishment:
Stage 2
Individualism and
Exchange:
Reasoning based
on punishments
and rewards
Reasoning based
on self-interest. I’ll
help you if you
help me.
Stage 3
Good
interpersonal
relationships:
“Good boy” /
“Good Girl”
mentality.
Empathy, concern
for others
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Maintaining Social
Order
Social contract and
individual rights
Universal Principles
Concern with society
and laws
Follows basic rights of
individual; knows
sometimes rules can
be broken.
Universal justice that
applies to all;
more theoretical
thinking.
Once upon a time there
lived a king and his
daughter who was a
princess. They lived happily
in their kingdom until they
realized that there was a
thief stealing food from the
marketplace but they had
no idea who it was. So the
King asked George, the
bravest knight in the
kingdom, to keep watch at
night to see if he could spot
the thief. He would soon
find out that the foodstealer was none other than
a big, scaly dragon.
When George told the king
that it was a dragon stealing
the food at night, the king
became very angry. “He
may not be dangerous, but
he is stealing some of our
food which is against the
law and the village might
go hungry. He might scare
the people, too! He must be
locked up.” So that night,
George did as he was told
and caught the dragon with
a huge lasso and led him to
a cave where he was
locked up night and
day……
But we haven’t heard the
dragon’s side of the story.
The dragon didn’t like
being called scary or scaly
and was actually very kind.
He really loved people and
would never hurt anyone.
He didn’t like to steal food
from the kingdom but his
family was hungry and
there were no more fish in
the lakes for him to catch
since the king had already
scooped them all up for
himself and the people in
his kingdom. He didn’t
know what else to do to
feed his wife and baby
dragons, so he thought he
had to sneak into the
kingdom and take only a
little bit of the king’s food.
Do you think George was right to lock up
the dragon?
Age 7
Mason: “Yes and no. Because he was trying to feed the other dragons
and he would never hurt anyone. But it was against the law, too. Why
not share the food? It’s kind of confusing because he was doing both
good and bad.”
Maria: “No. Because he was trying to feed his family and he didn’t
want to hurt anyone. They should share.”
Madilyn: “Yes and no. He did steal the food and that was wrong but
he had to take the food because he could not feed his family. He
thought the dragon was mean and George was just doing what he
was told.”
Emily: “Yes and no. He shouldn’t have stolen the food but he was right
to help his family. The king was wrong to lock him up and shouldn’t
have taken all of the fish in the first place. They should all share.”
Stage 3
Interpersonal
Relationships
Stage 4
Maintaining
social order
Stage 5
Social
contract and
individual
rights
Age 6
Ayva: “Yes… but then again, the dragon was nice so kind of
both. It was right because he was stealing; it was their food
and it was against the law. But he was good and he wouldn’t
have harmed any person. They had nothing to eat so of
course they had to steal to feed his family.”
Mary Claire: “No because the dragon was nice and he
didn’t have any food. I don’t think it was good to tell
George to lock up the dragon because he was a nice
dragon.”
Alex: “No.” Then said, “Yes.” He kept saying, “Call the
cops!” during the story.
“The dragon was nice but he was stealing food”
(Said he would rather be George’s friend than the
dragon’s because the dragon was stealing food).
Stage 3
Interpersonal
Relationships
Stage 5
Individual Rights
Stage 4
Maintaining
Social Order
Ages 4 & 5
Glenna (4): “Yes. Because George went off to get the dragon and
took him into the cave. You see here the dragon got food, not good.
The dragon was scaring everyone.”
Kannady (4): “No. Because he was nice. But it was against the law to
take the food. He should have found another way to get food.”
Tom (5): “No. He could have just told the dragon to stop stealing the
food. But wasn’t right of the dragon to take the food because the
village might starve.”
Landon (5): “No. Because he was friendly. It was right of him to steal
the food because he needed to feed his family.”
Stage 4:
Maintaining
Social Order
Stage 3:
Relationships/
Empathy
Stage 5:
Individual Rights
Conclusions

It would seem that our hypothesis is partially correct. Even the
children who could not conserve had some concept of moral
judgment.

Granted the factors could easily change (characters, species,
setting, varying circumstances).

Piaget was correct in his studies and so was Kohlberg. While his
studies were much more extensive he limited himself in some ways.