To find evidence in support of a progression through stages of moral development.
1 of 11
Who were the participants in Kohlberg's research?
58 boys from Chicago of working/middle class. Aged 7,10,13 and 16.
2 of 11
Describe the methodology for each participant at these ages?
Each participant given 2 hour interview with 10 dilemmas to solve (including the Heinz dilemma).
3 of 11
What was followed up?
Some boys were followed up at 3-yearly interviews up to age 30-36, making it a longitudinal study.
4 of 11
Where else did Kohlberg study and what year?
1969. Children in Taiwan, UK, Mexico, Turkey, USA and Yucatan.
5 of 11
What were the results concerning younger boys and older boys?
Younger boys tended to perform at stages 1 and 2, whilst older boys performed at stages 3 and 4.
6 of 11
What was no support found for?
No support found that there was a separate stage 6. In 1978, Kohlberg revised his review and said there may not be a separate stage 6.
7 of 11
What were stages 1 and 2?
1. Doing what is right because of fear of punishment. 2. Doing what is right for personal gain, perhaps a reward.
8 of 11
What were stages 3 and 4?
3. Doing what is right according to majority to be a good boy/girl. 4. Doing what is right because it is your duty and helps society. Laws must be obeyed.
9 of 11
What was support found for?
Support across cultures for stage theory.
10 of 11
Why has the methodology been heavily criticised?
Recent applications show criminals committing crimes for financial gain show more immature reasoning than those committing violent crimes.
11 of 11
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Who were the participants in Kohlberg's research?
Back
58 boys from Chicago of working/middle class. Aged 7,10,13 and 16.
Card 3
Front
Describe the methodology for each participant at these ages?
Comments
No comments have yet been made