kohlberg Flashcards
1
Q
low ecological validity
A
- were asked hypothetical dilemmas
- ps less likely to take it seriously or be as stressed as they would be in a real life situation where their response would have actual consequences
- answers they gave are unlikely to reflect how they would actually respond SO can’t be generalised to explain moral reasoning (MR) in real life
2
Q
counter to ecological validity
A
- results still useful as his theory of moral development has been successfully applied to explain certain bevs
- has been argued that person with preconventional level of MR is more likely to committ a crime as they focus on whether benefits outweigh costs or punishment can be avoided instead of how their actions could affect others
3
Q
time validity
A
- moral attitudes have changed so findings may not be relevant to contemporary situations
- eg: sexual harrassment used to be normalised or not spoken about but now people are much outraged by & are fighting against it & homosexuality was considered a crime
- m.a may have changed but arguably still relevant in areas like ed, as still used to help teachers find a better way of addressing problematic bev in classroom by helping them undrstand their students’ MR
4
Q
low internal validity
A
- high ATTRITION RATE as ps may have dropped out if they lost touch with researcher or interest in study, & sample likely 2 bd biased as only certain peeps would want 2 stay in study 4 12yrs
- SDR: may have tried 2 appear more moral to impress K
- DC: may have altered their answers based on what they thought K wanted - ps would’ve been more likely to guess the study’s ‘true aims’ as it progressed
- questioning style may’ve been unnatural 4 ps from OTHER CULTURES - affecting their performance in study
- RESEARCHER BIAS: k’s expectations of how p’s MR would develop as they aged may have affected how he interpreted & stage coded their responses
5
Q
high internal validity
A
- study being longitudinal made it clear to see the effect of age on changes in MD over time
6
Q
ANDROCENTRIC - low population validity
A
- ANDROCENTRIC as initial sample is all male so can’t generalise findings to females as have different MR (BUT may have helped mantained internal validity as gender could’ve affected results & was considered inappropriate at time when he conducted his research)
- carol gillingham (1982): W develop a care-based morality whilst M develop a justice-based morality
7
Q
high population validity
A
- cross cultural as subjects from great britain, mexico, turkey, taiwan & canada were added later on in study & their results were compared
- findings reflect stages of MR in other countries
- results can be generalised to greater variety of cultures
8
Q
aim
A
aimed 2 investigate how moral reasoning develops through adolscence & see if there was any support for k’s theory
9
Q
method
A
- longitudinal 12 year study that was cross cultural & used semi-structured interviews
- initial sample was 75 boys aged 10 - 16 year olds & from l/c & m/c families in chicago
- later added boys & girls from GB, mexico, taiwan, turkey, canada (& japan??) deliquents & younger kids
10
Q
procedure
A
1) (in semi structured interviews) ps were asked to answer a series of (9) hypothetical dilemmas to test their MR (delivered as short story)
2) responses were stage coded based on their structure
3) re-interviewed with same dilemmas every 3 years to see how MR had progressed
4) later looked at ps from taiwan, mexico, canada, turkey & UK & compared their results with sample from US
11
Q
STAGES - findings
A
- all ps progressed through stages in fixed order, no one went backwards
- as they got older, ps progressed through stages
- each boys stage of thinking could be used to explain/ linked to one of 25 aspects
- when challenged with view of a P from higher level, would often agree with view & progress 2 next stage
12
Q
COUNTRIES - findings
A
- 13 yr old taiwanese boys tended to favour st.2 thinking
- 10 yr old m/c urban boys from taiwan, mexico & USA showed that stages progressed in terms of difficulty & maturity
- for american sample, at age 16 had rarely reached st.5 & 13 yr olds hadn’t reached st.3
- st.5 thinking tended to be more prevelant in USA 16s than taiwanese 16s
13
Q
CLASS & RELIGION - findings
A
- m/c ps tended to be at a higher stage than matched l/c
- this was NOT because m/c ps favoured some superior thinking BUT did progress through st. faster & further
- was no diff between developement of MR for diff religions eg: protestant, catholicsm, buddhism, judaism, hinduism & islam (religous values seemed to go through same st. as moral ones)
14
Q
conclusion
A
- stages are universal, invariant & gone through one stage at a time in a fixed order BUT some don’t reach final stage
- m/c class ps tend to go through stages faster & further
- religous, cultural & social factors don’t significantly influence stages but may affect speed at which peeps progress through them
15
Q
RIGHT TO WITHDRAW - ethics
A
- were quite young at beginning of study so may not have understood that they could withdraw from study if no longer wanted to participate
- at younger ages, more likely to see kohlberg as an authority figure & so feel pressured to continue answering his questions even if they didn’t want to anymore
- older ps may have felt pressured to continue taking part if they felt like withdrawing from study would make their previous yrs of participation a waste of time
