Welcome to Moral Development: Kohlberg (1968) & Lee et al. (1997)

Welcome! In this chapter of the Developmental Area for OCR A Level Psychology (H567), we explore moral development. We look at how our understanding of right and wrong changes as we grow up, and whether our moral rules come from our developing brains (nature) or the culture we live in (nurture).

Don't worry if this topic feels a bit abstract at first! We will break down every level, stage, and experiment step by step so you can ace your exam questions with confidence.

Quick Chapter Roadmap:
1. Key Concepts: Definitions you need to know.
2. Classic Study: Kohlberg (1968) – The Child as a Moral Philosopher.
3. Contemporary Study: Lee et al. (1997) – Evaluations of Lying and Truth-Telling.
4. Debates & Comparisons: How Lee et al. updates Kohlberg, plus core exam debates.

1. Key Concepts & Definitions

Before jumping into the core studies, make sure you are comfortable with these key terms:

• Moral Development: Age-related changes in reasoning, judgement, and the criteria people use to determine what is right, wrong, fair, or acceptable in social situations.
• Invariant Sequence: A development sequence that occurs in a fixed, universal order where no stages are skipped and individuals do not move backwards.
• Prosocial Behaviour: Any action intended to help, benefit, or care for other people (e.g., helping clean up a mess).
• Antisocial Behaviour: Any action intended to cause harm, break social rules, or create conflict (e.g., pushing someone or damaging property).
• Individualist Culture: A culture (such as Canada or the USA) that prioritises individual autonomy, personal rights, and personal achievement.
• Collectivist Culture: A culture (such as China) that prioritises group harmony, community needs, cooperation, and personal modesty.

2. Classic Study: Kohlberg (1968)

The Child as a Moral Philosopher

Study Aim: To show how moral reasoning develops over time through a fixed, invariant sequence of universal stages linked to cognitive development.

Methodology & Sample

• Design: Longitudinal study spanning 12+ years, using qualitative self-report via semi-structured interviews.
• Longitudinal Cohort: 75 American boys, aged 10–16 years at the start of the study, re-interviewed every 3 years until they were aged 22–28 years.
• Cross-Cultural Sample: Cross-sectional comparisons were also made with boys from Great Britain, Canada, Taiwan, Mexico, and Turkey.
• Procedure: Participants were presented with 10 hypothetical moral dilemmas. Each dilemma presented a conflict between two moral values (such as the famous Heinz Dilemma, where a man must decide whether to steal an overpriced medicine to save his dying wife). The interviewer asked open-ended questions to discover the reasons behind the boy's moral judgement.

The 3 Levels and 6 Stages of Moral Development

Kohlberg identified three overall levels of moral reasoning, each containing two stages:

Level 1: Pre-conventional Level

Focus: Self-interest and immediate physical consequences (typical in young children).
• Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation: Rules are obeyed strictly to avoid physical punishment. (Example: "Heinz shouldn't steal because he'll be put in prison.")
• Stage 2: Instrumental-Relativist / Naive Hedonistic Orientation: Actions are judged by self-interest and reciprocal benefit ("What is in it for me?"). (Example: "Heinz should steal the drug because he needs his wife to look after him.")

Level 2: Conventional Level

Focus: Conformity to social rules, expectations, and laws (typical in adolescents and most adults).
• Stage 3: Good Boy / Nice Girl Orientation: Actions are judged by the desire for social approval and pleasing others. (Example: "Heinz should steal because good husbands protect their families.")
• Stage 4: Law and Order / Authority Orientation: Focus on duty, respect for authority, and maintaining social order. (Example: "Heinz must not steal because the law must be upheld for society to function.")

Level 3: Post-conventional (Principled) Level

Focus: Abstract, universal ethical principles that transcend specific laws.
• Stage 5: Social Contract / Legalistic Orientation: Laws are seen as flexible social agreements that can be changed if they fail to protect human rights. (Example: "The law against stealing wasn't designed to let people die.")
• Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principle Orientation: Conscience-driven adherence to self-chosen, universal principles of justice, equality, and human dignity. (Example: "Saving a human life is a moral duty that overrides any property law.")

Key Findings

• Invariant Sequence: Boys progressed through the stages one by one without skipping any stage, and their progression was unidirectional (no regression).
• Cognitive Consistency: Around \(50\%\) of an individual's moral thinking was concentrated at a single stage at any given point in time.
• Social Class Differences: Middle-class boys progressed through the stages faster and further than working-class boys.
• Cross-Cultural Patterns: Taiwanese and Mexican boys showed the same sequence of development, but moved through the stages at a slower pace than American boys.
• Stage 6 Occurrence: Stage 6 reasoning was extremely rare across all cultural groups.

Conclusions

Moral development occurs in an invariant, universal sequence of six stages across three levels. Progress through these stages is tied to cognitive maturation rather than simply learning cultural rules.

Evaluation of Kohlberg (1968)

• Strengths:
- Longitudinal design: Tracking the same 75 boys over 12+ years controlled for participant variables, giving high internal validity to the sequence of stages.
- Rich qualitative data: Semi-structured interviews allowed Kohlberg to explore the reasoning behind judgements rather than simple yes/no answers.

• Weaknesses:
- Low ecological validity: Hypothetical dilemmas (e.g., Heinz) are artificial and may not reflect real-life moral decision-making under genuine emotional pressure.
- Androcentrism & Sampling Bias: The core longitudinal study tested only American males (75 boys), making it difficult to generalise the findings to females.
- Ethnocentrism: Post-conventional stages reflect Western, individualist, democratic ideals of justice, which may penalise collectivist moral reasoning.

Important Exam Pitfall: Kohlberg measured moral reasoning (how people justify what is right or wrong), NOT moral behaviour (what people actually do in real life). In your exam, never write that Kohlberg tested "whether people steal"!

Key Takeaway for Kohlberg: Moral development is an invariant, 6-stage cognitive process where individuals move from avoiding punishment (Pre-conventional) to upholding laws (Conventional) to following universal ethical principles (Post-conventional).

3. Contemporary Study: Lee et al. (1997)

Evaluations of Lying and Truth-Telling in Chinese and Canadian Children

Study Aim: To investigate whether evaluations of lying and truth-telling in prosocial and antisocial situations differ between children from a collectivist culture (China) and an individualist culture (Canada) across different age groups.

Methodology & Design

• Design: Quasi-experiment / cross-cultural study using an independent measures and mixed design.
• Independent Variables (IVs):
1. Ethnicity/Culture: Canadian children vs. Chinese children.
2. Age: 7-year-olds, 9-year-olds, 11-year-olds.
3. Deed Type: Prosocial behaviour vs. Antisocial behaviour.
4. Story Context: Social story (involving another person) vs. Physical story (involving an object).
• Dependent Variable (DV): Ratings of the character's deed and the character's speech (truth-telling or lie-telling) using a 7-point scale ranging from "very, very good" (+3) to "very, very naughty/bad" (-3), with 0 representing "neither good nor bad". (Ratings were represented visually with red and blue/black symbols/faces for the children).

Sample

A total of \(N = 228\) children participated:
• Chinese Sample: 120 children from Hangzhou, China (40 7-year-olds, 40 9-year-olds, 40 11-year-olds; balanced for sex).
• Canadian Sample: 108 children from Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada (36 7-year-olds, 40 9-year-olds, 32 11-year-olds; 58 boys, 50 girls; predominantly white middle-class).

Procedure

Each child was tested individually. They were read four illustrated stories in a counterbalanced order representing four combinations:
1. Prosocial + Lie-telling: Character does a good deed (e.g., cleans the classroom) and denies doing it.
2. Prosocial + Truth-telling: Character does a good deed and admits doing it.
3. Antisocial + Lie-telling: Character does a bad deed (e.g., pushes a child / breaks something) and denies doing it.
4. Antisocial + Truth-telling: Character does a bad deed and admits doing it.

After each scenario, children used the 7-point scale to rate: (1) the deed itself, and (2) what the character said (the truth or the lie). Children were also asked to explain why they gave that rating.

Key Findings

1. Antisocial Scenarios (Universal Agreement):
• Both Chinese and Canadian children evaluated antisocial deeds negatively.
• Both cultures rated truth-telling about bad deeds positively and lying about bad deeds negatively across all age groups.

2. Prosocial Scenarios (Cultural Differences):
• Truth-telling about a good deed: Canadian children rated this highly positively across all ages (7, 9, and 11 years). In contrast, Chinese children rated truth-telling about a good deed progressively less positively as they grew older.
• Lie-telling about a good deed: Canadian children rated lying about a good deed negatively across all age groups. In contrast, Chinese children rated lying about a good deed positively, with ratings becoming significantly more positive from age 7 (negative/neutral) to age 11 (positive).

Conclusions

• Moral evaluations of lying and truth-telling are not entirely universal; they are significantly influenced by cultural socialisation (nurture).
• Chinese children internalise cultural norms promoting modesty and group harmony (the collectivist ideal of being an "unsung hero"), leading them to view lying about one's own good deeds as praiseworthy rather than deceptive.
• As children get older, the influence of cultural socialisation becomes stronger.

Evaluation of Lee et al. (1997)

• Strengths:
- Standardised procedure: Scenarios were illustrated and counterbalanced to prevent order effects, and the 7-point scale used child-friendly visual cues to ensure validity.
- Cross-cultural comparison: Direct comparison between matched age groups in China and Canada allowed researchers to separate universal developmental trends from culturally specific ones.

• Weaknesses:
- Quasi-experimental nature: Culture cannot be randomly assigned; therefore, unmeasured differences between Hangzhou and Fredericton (e.g., educational systems, socio-economic factors) could act as confounding variables.
- Hypothetical scenarios: Children responded to illustrated stories rather than real-world situations.

Important Exam Pitfall: Do not make the blanket statement that "Chinese children think lying is good." Chinese children condemned lying in antisocial situations just like Canadian children did. They only praised lying in prosocial situations because of cultural modesty rules!

Key Takeaway for Lee et al.: Culture shapes moral judgements over time. While both cultures condemn bad deeds and lying about them, Chinese children learn through collectivist socialisation to praise modesty (lying about good deeds) and dislike self-promotion (bragging about good deeds).

4. Comparing the Core Studies & Core Debates

How Lee et al. (1997) Changes Our Understanding of Kohlberg (1968)

• Universal vs. Culturally Specific: Kohlberg argued that moral development follows a universal, cognitive invariant sequence that applies to all human beings. Lee et al. challenged this by demonstrating that moral evaluations are heavily modified by cultural norms and socialisation (individualism vs. collectivism).
• Role of Age and Culture: While both studies show that moral thinking changes with age, Lee et al. showed that age increases adherence to cultural traditions (such as Chinese modesty norms), showing that moral development is not purely a universal cognitive maturation process.

Core Debates in the Moral Development Theme

• Nature vs. Nurture:
- Kohlberg leans towards nature / cognitive maturity, arguing that moral stages unfold in a universal invariant order as cognitive capacity matures.
- Lee et al. supports nurture / environmental socialisation, showing that moral values are directly shaped by cultural traditions and societal expectations.

• Individual vs. Situational Explanations:
- Individual: Kohlberg suggests that moral judgements depend on an individual's internal stage of cognitive-moral development.
- Situational: Lee et al. highlights how the moral evaluation of lying changes drastically depending on the social context (prosocial vs. antisocial situations) and cultural background.

• Freewill vs. Determinism:
- Determinism: Kohlberg suggests that individuals are cognitively constrained by their current stage of development (one cannot jump ahead). Similarly, Lee et al. shows cultural determinism, where socialisation strongly directs children's moral reasoning by age 11.

• Psychology as a Science:
- Kohlberg relied on qualitative, subjective interpretation of interview transcripts, which has lower scientific objectivity.
- Lee et al. used a controlled quasi-experimental laboratory setup with standardized scenarios and quantitative 7-point Likert ratings, providing higher replicability and scientific rigor.

Quick Revision Checklist

Before sitting your exam, ensure you can:
• Name and describe all 3 levels and 6 stages of Kohlberg's model in order.
• State the sample size and longitudinal duration of Kohlberg's study (75 American boys, 12+ years).
• Describe the sample numbers in Lee et al. (Chinese: 120; Canadian: 108; total \(N = 228\)).
• Explain the exact findings of Lee et al. for both prosocial and antisocial scenarios.
• Clearly explain how Lee et al. challenges Kohlberg's universal view of moral development using the nature vs. nurture debate.