Kohlberg's moral reasoning

Question 1

What did Kohlberg’s level of moral reasoning propose?

Answer 1

Based theory on peoples responses to series of moral dilemmas

Found group of violent youths significanlt lower in moral development than non-violent youths even after controlling for social background.

Question 2

What is the pre-conventional morality?

Answer 2

Seek to avoid punishment + gain reward

Rules obeyed for personal gain

–> child-like reasoning

Criminals more likely classified.

Question 3

What is the conventional morality?

Answer 3

Rules obeyed to maintain social order

Obeyed fro approval from others including society.

Question 4

What is the post conventional morality?

Answer 4

More adult like reasoning

Obey rules if fair + democratic –> challenegd if infridge rights of others

Individual establishes own rules in accordance with personal ethics.

Question 5

Research support

Answer 5

Palmer + Hollin (1998)

Moral reasoning in 332 males + female non-offenders + 126 convicted offenders using SRM-SF

11 moral dilemma related qs (keeping promise to friend)

Offender group = less mature moral reasoning than non-offender group.

Blackburn (1993) = due to childhood lacking moral role-play opportunities to help develop moral reasoning.

Question 6

Thinking vs behaviour:

Answer 6

Kohlberg’s theory is useful = provides insight into the mechanics of the criminal mind – (offenders = childlike + egocentric when making moral judgements than majority)

Struggle looking at perspective of others = lack of empathy = commit crime.

Question 7

Thinking vs behaviour

Answer 7

HOWEVER:

moral thinking ≠ moral behaviour.

Moral dilemma technique = poor predictor of real-life behaviour.
Heinz dilemma = hypothetical + artifical.

Low in external validity.

Kohlberg moral reasoning more likely to be used to justify behaviour after than before (Krebs and Denton 1995).

Suggests understanding moral behaviour = more useful as not everyone who has criminal thoughts will act on them.

Question 8

Correlational:

Answer 8

Langdon et al (2010)

Low intelligence = 3rd variable
Not morals but lack of intelligence that causes crime.

Question 9

:( Type of offence

Answer 9

Thornton + Reid (1982)

Level of morality reasoning depends on offence.

Financial gain crimes = more likely to show PCMR than impulisve crimes

Good chance of avoiding crime (robbery)