Kohlberg’s level of moral processing theory

Eysenck’s criminal personality Choose a topic… Create an A01 and A03 question on the topic (3 marks max) Eysenck’s criminal personality Genetic explanation Top-down approach Atavistic form Neural explanation Bottom-up approach

Keywords: Moral development refers to the set of values that we learn and internalise during our development. These values become internalised or inbuilt and we develop our own sense of right and wrong Cognitive Distortions: faulty, biased and irrational ways of thinking that mean we perceive ourselves, the world or others negatively.

Moral dilemmas: Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? A woman was on her deathbed. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife.

Heinz dilemma http://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html Note: The names of some of the stages in the clip are slightly different to the ones in the pack – do not worry about this, your understanding of the differences between the stages is more important.

Level of moral reasoning: pre-conventional (how it affects them rather than society) The concern is for self – “Will I get into trouble for doing (or not doing) it?” Good behavior is associated with avoiding punishment. The concern is “What's in it for me?” Still egocentric in outlook but with a growing ability to see things from another person’s perspective. Action is judged right if it helps in satisfying one’s needs or involves a fair exchange.

Level of moral reasoning conventional 3. The concern is “What will people think of me?” and the desire is for group approval. Right action is one that would please or impress others. This often involves self-sacrifice but it provides the psychological pleasure of ‘approval of others.’ Actions are also judged in relation to their intention. 4. The concern now goes beyond one’s immediate group(s) to the larger society ... to the maintenance of law and order. One’s obligation to the law overrides one’s obligations of loyalty to one’s family, friends and groups. To put it simply, no one or group is above the law.

Level of moral reasoning post-conventional 5. The concern is social utility or public interest. While rules are needed to maintain social order, they should not be blindly obeyed but should be set up by social contract for the greater good of society. Right action is one that protects the rights of the individual according to rules agreed upon by the whole society. 6. The concern is for moral principles ... an action is judged right if it is consistent with self-chosen ethical principles. These principles are not concrete moral rules but are universal principles of justice, reciprocity, equality and human dignity.

Task Answer the question below:   According to Kohlberg, which level of moral reasoning is more likely to lead to offending behaviour? Explain the reason for your answer and refer to evidence. (4 marks)

Kohlberg: Criminals have a lower level of moral reasoning than others. Criminals do not progress from the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning – they seek to avoid punishment and gain rewards. They have child-like reasoning. Non-criminals tend to reason at higher levels and sympathise with the rights of others, exhibiting honesty, generosity and non-violence (post-conventional moral reasoning)

Evaluation: consider the following points Why might the theory of moral development lack predictive validity? What is a limitation of the method used? Blackburn (1993) suggests this is due to their childhood lacking moral role-play opportunities which may have helped mature moral reasoning to develop. What might be a practical application of the theory?

Thornton and Reid (1982): pre-conventional moral reasoning tends to be associate with crimes such as robbery, whereas impulsive crimes such as assault did not pertain to any type of reasoning. Pre-conventional reasoning tended to be evident in crimes where the offender thought they might have had a good chance at evading punishment. Therefore, the level of moral reasoning may depend on the kind of offence committed. The cognitive approach is descriptive rather than explanatory. Can you think why? Why might this approach be less effective than the biological approach? (write a PEEL evaluation point for the above point)

Example PEEL Kohlberg’s contribution has primarily been to describe the relevant processes in offender behaviour rather than to explain those processes. Kohlberg’s level of moral reasoning, for example, can tell us that offenders have lower levels of moral development (pre-conventional level) but it does not allow us not make causal inferences about why. Although, his theory has been supported by research (Chandler, 1973, Kohlberg et al, 1973) suggesting high reliability for the theory The biological explanation of offender behaviours may offer a more detailed alternative explanation looking at the process that underpin offender behaviour (e.g. low levels of serotonin/dopamine) as opposed to just giving a description of why people are likely to offend.

Create the mark scheme Discuss one cognitive explanation for offending. Refer to at least one other explanation of offending in your answer (16marks)

 role of level of moral reasoning (Kohlberg) with focus on pre-conventional level (punishment orientation and reward orientation) punishment orientation – reasoning based on whether or not the act will lead to punishment reward orientation – reasoning based on what is to be gained use of evidence to support/contradict the cognitive explanation, eg studies supporting Kohlberg’s pre-conventional reasoning in offending populations, eg Ashkar and Kenny 2007, Hollin and Palmer 1998 sampling issues and generalisation – Kohlberg’s focus on males hypothetical nature of Kohlberg’s dilemma evidence – generalisability to real-life offences cultural bias (Kohlberg’s Western bias) and alternative theories – Gibbs’ mature and immature levels