Megan Kanatzar
and Katherine Wright
 Moral Judgment of Piaget & Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral
Reasoning.
 Specifically, does a child’s ability to conserve affect
their score in Kohlberg’s moral reasoning??
 Born in Switzerland
 Age 10 studied albino sparrow
 Age 15 convictions lacked scientific
foundation.
 Age 21 earned Doctorate – natural sciences
 Age 23 came up with plan of action…
 1920 decided to study children in Paris Laboratory
 Interested in children’s wrong answers
 Mainly observed children 4-12(spontaneous activities)
 Methodology was greatly criticized
 1960’s great revival of his work!
 Four stages
Sensorimotor (6 subsets -Infancy)
intelligence demonstrated thru motor activity without symbols
Object permanence comes - 6mnths
Pre-operational (2 subsets - toddler and early childhood)
use of symbols, language matures, memory/imagination develop
Egocentric thinking remains dominate
Concrete operational thought (7 types of conservation - elementary and early
adolescence)
logical, systematic manipulation of symbols
operational thinking…egocentric thought diminishes
Formal operational thought (adolescence and adulthood)
Logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts
return to egocentric thought-early on
35% high school grads achieve Formal operations
 About what ages do kids transition from
preoperational to concrete operations?
SENSORIMOTOR PERIOD Birth to 2 years
PREOPERATIONAL PERIOD 2-7 years
CONCRETE OPERATIONS 7-11 years
FORMAL OPERATIONS 11 years-adulthood
 Children are in considered in the Preoperational Stage if…
 He or she is determined that one glass has more water than
the other.
 Children are considered in a transitional sub-stage if…
 He or she can’t decide between the two glasses, or shows signs
of beginning to grasp the concept, but does not yet get it.
 Children are considered in Concrete operational if…
 He or she clearly knows that the glasses still have the same
amount of water. The child can also use the 3 arguments of –
identity, compensation, inversion – to justify their opinion.
 Hometown: Bronxville, New York
 Attended the University of Chicago
 He became interested in Piaget’s
work, specifically in his investigation
of moral judgments in children.
 Kohlberg took Piaget’s brief work with moral
development and expanded it extensively.
 Kohlberg tested children by presenting
the children with a moral dilemma,
and asking them questions to ascertain
their understanding of morality.
 The ‘yes’/ ‘no’ responses were not the main criteria
for placement in a particular stage of moral
development.
The explanation of why the child holds
a certain opinion that reveals how
advanced their moral judgments are.
 Dilemma:
Two young men, brothers, had got into serious
trouble. They are secretly leaving town in a hurry and
needed money. Karl, the older one, broke into a store and
stole a thousand dollars. Bob, the younger one, went to a
retired old man who was known to help people in town. He
told the man that he was very sick and that he needed a
thousand dollars to pay for an operation. Bob asked the old
man to lend him the money and promised that he would
pay him back when he recovered. Really Bob wasn’t sick at
all, and he had no intention of paying the man back.
Although the old man didn’t know Bob very well, he lent
him the money. So Bob and Karl skipped town, each with a
thousand dollars.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Which is worse, stealing like Karl or cheating like
Bob? Why is that worse?
What do you think is the worst thing about cheating
the old man? Why is that the worst thing?
In general, why should a promise be kept?
Is it important to keep a promise to someone you
don’t know well or will never see again?
Why shouldn’t someone steal from a store?
What is the value or importance of property rights?
Should people do everything they can to obey the
law? Why or why not?
 In Kohlberg’s dissertation,
he provided example answers
for each of the questions in this dilemma.
He also compiled a list of common
trends and key words to look for in
the children’s answers.
 The child understands rules to be set and given
by a higher authority.
 Their main concern is with the consequences,
whether the person will be punished or not.
Typically this stages is seen between the
ages of 4 and 10.
For example, a stealing is wrong “because you can
go to jail for a very long time. Plus you can get in
serious trouble” -4th grade girl (age 9)
 Punishment is no longer ‘evidence’ that something is
wrong. Instead, it is “a risk that one naturally wants to
avoid” (Crain 160).
 The idea of right and wrong is slightly more flexible,
and the first priority is doing what is most beneficial
for themselves.
For example, “stealing is worse [than
cheating] because you are more likely
to get in trouble for stealing than
cheating”. -6th grade girl (11)
 Strong desire to win approval
from peers and adults.
 Emphasis on avoiding
disapproval.
 Kids tend to cite a person’s
intentions, or motives as proof
of right & wrong.
For example, cheating is wrong “because you’re always
supposed to do the right thing”. -4th grade girl (age 9)
 Child becomes more concerned with society as a whole,
and how the rules are made for a purpose.
 ‘people want to keep society functioning’ (Crain 162)
 Can focus on the effect an action has on society.
For example, keeping promises is important because
“when you promise something, you follow through
with it, and hold your end of the bargain”. 6th grade girl
(age 12)
 The person is generally entering adolescence at this
stage, and they are able to consider ‘the big picture’ or
society as a whole.
 They have respect for the laws not because they are told
to, but because it is detrimental to society if they
disobey.
For example, stealing is worse than cheating because “you
are doing something bad, the cops will chase you could
hurt someone in the process” –8th grade boy (age 14)
 The person considers how the characters
in the dilemma can best achieve a just
result.
 The person also examines the parameters of the
situation to see if they are most likely to promote a
good outcome.
For example, when someone is given the Heinz
dilemma, they might say that their should be laws
forbidding price gauging in pharmacies.
 The purpose of our study is to discover
if Piaget’s and Kohlberg’s theories of
cognitive development complement each other.
 “Do children who are able to conserve score higher or
lower on Kohlberg’s moral development stages than
children who fail to conserve?”
If a child demonstrates the
ability to conservation ,
he or she will also demonstrate
more advanced moral reasoning than the
children who could not conserve.
 Worksheets for the Kids
 Two identically sized cups
 One graduated cylinder
 Water
 Blue food coloring (optional)
 And children ranging from ages 9 -14
 On the first side of the handout was …
 their age, grade, and gender
 The questions regarding conservation – ‘which glass has
more water in it?’
 On the second side of the handout was…
 One of Kohlberg’s dilemma
 Questions that Kohlberg wrote himself for that
particular dilemma.
 Holy Family of Nazareth School
We tested children in grades 4, 6, and 8.
 When Kohlberg performed his investigations, he
tested kids at ages 10, 13, and 16.
1. Children sat together in a group.
2. Hand out the pencils, and evaluation sheets.
3. Then, we will fill up two plastic cups with equal amounts of
water.
4. Next, we will pour the water from one cup into a different
size cup, taking all the water from one to the other.
5. Now ask them whether there is more or less water in the
second cup compared to the first one. Have them record
what they think on the worksheet,
6. Then, we will read the dilemma to them (which will also be
written on the worksheet).
7. Then the students will answer the questions about the
dilemma on their worksheets.
 Overall, we compared the moral development level of
the children who could conserve to those who could
not conserve.
 Each grades data was slightly different…
6
4th Graders who CAN conserve:
Moral
5
L
4
E
V
3
E
2
L
1
0
1
2
Fourth Graders
3
Moral
L
E
V
E
L
6
4th Graders who can NOT conserve:
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
Fourth Graders
5
6
Moral
L
E
V
E
L
6
6th Graders who CAN conserve:
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
Sixth Graders
3
4
There was only 1 eighth grader, and he was able to
conserve.
His Moral Reasoning level was determined to be in level 5.
Drum roll, please…
3.5
3
2.875
2.5
Average
Moral
2
Development
Levels
1.5
1.833
1
0.5
0
Those who CAN Conserve
Those who Can NOT Conserve
Average Moral Development for
those who CAN conserve
6
AVG.
L
E
V
E
L
5
4
3
2
1
0
4th Grade
6th Grade
8th Grade
6
AVG.
L
E
V
E
L
5
4
3
2
1
(None)
(None)
6th Grade
8th Grade
0
4th Grade
 Overall, our hypothesis was confirmed.
 The average stage of moral reasoning of the children
who could conserve was slightly higher than the
children who could not conserve.
 However, given the limited amount of test subjects we
were able to test, the results are not as adequate as we
would have liked.
 If we could do the project over again what would we
change?
 Environment where the kids were tested was very loud
and chaotic.
 Accuracy of results?
 If any errors were made, it is likely they were made in
the grading of the children’s moral reasoning answers.
(Main Sources)
 Crain, William C. "Piaget's Cognitive-Developmental
Theory." Theories of Development: Concepts and
Applications. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall, 2011.
 Kohlberg, Lawrence (1958). "The Development of
Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16". Ph.
D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
 Kohlberg, Lawrence. The Philosophy of Moral
Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981.