Moral Development's Development: Recent Research

Introduction

Psychologists have aspired to catch a glimpse of the underlying processes in our moral development. How do we judge something as right or wrong? Do we follow stages of development in our progression of moral reasoning? What factors have an influence on our moral development? Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of the development of moral reasoning has had a profound impact on shaping the inquiries researchers now formulate on moral development. In looking at some of the recent research on moral development, questions continue to mold the understanding of moral development.

Culture and Moral Judgment

In a study conducted by Joan G. Miller dealing with cultural influences on moral reasoning, Kohlberg's logic upon which his stages of moral development is based is argued. Kohlberg's levels of development are concerned with issues of justice and goodness, but a study comparing American and Indian cultures proposes that an alternative moral reasoning, equally moral, could be based on interpersonal responsibilities (Miller & Bersoff, 541). Thus, a cross-cultural study between Americans and Indians was conducted to examine any systematic differences between the two types of reasoning. These two groups were chosen because of the diversity of cultural beliefs and values, which have and effect on views of interpersonal responsibilities (Miller & Bersoff, 542). The researchers predicted from the cultural differences that Indians would give more priority to interpersonal relations in moral situations relative to justice considerations, in comparison with American groups (Miller & Bersoff, 542).

A total sample of 120 subjects was selected from the U.S. and from a city in southern India. The American group generally held a Christian of Jewish background, whereas the Indian group generally maintained traditional Hindu beliefs and customs (Miller & Bersoff, 543). Subjects were presented with situations which dealt with breaches of justice and interpersonal relations. The results confirmed the hypotheses that there exist cultural differences in judging moral situations through interpersonal responsibility or in terms of justice concerns (Miller & Bersoff, 551). Indians more frequently resolved situations in terms of alternatives dealing with relations between people. In addition, Americans rated solutions of justice as more desirable that interpersonal choices (Miller & Bersoff, 551). The researchers argue that in the Indian framework obligations between individuals might be viewed as paramount in comparison to justice obligations when individuals are assessing moral behavior (Miller & Bersoff, 551). From these findings it seems that moral reasoning is partially culturally bound, and the researchers argue that his method of reasoning is not inferior to Kohlberg's reasoning on justice.

If a more complete understanding of cultural differences is obtained, then moral development and reasoning can be further revealed. Another study conducted by Joan G. Miller, David M. Bersoff and Robin L. Harwood, focused on assessing cultural differences in moral views of social responsibility. A sample of American and Indian subjects was obtained to examine any differences that might exist. The reasoning for the study was based on the observation that American culture seems to emphasize individuality and freedom of choice, whereas Indian culture emphasizes interpersonal relations and community influences (Miller, Bersoff, Harwood, 33).

In the methods the subjects evaluated hypothetical scenarios in which the need of help and the type of relationship was varied. For example, subjects were asked to evaluate a situation in which an individual had to help a dependent other in a life-threatening, moderate or minor experience (Miller et. al., 34). In the other types of relationships, a moderate friend and a stranger were included. In these various hypothetical situations subjects were asked to evaluate their obligations in these conditions, which reflected their moral views (Miller et. al., 34). The researchers hypothesized that Indian subjects would express more obligation to help in the situations involving a moderate friend and a stranger relative to the American group. In addition, the level of moral obligation for the Indian subjects should be fairly consistent across situations, in contrast to the American group which should change dependent on the type of relationship (Miller et. al., 34).

The results demonstrated that in particular situations American and Indians hold a common view of social obligation (Miller et. al., 43). In those situations portraying a life-threatening situation a moral obligation was universally expressed. Although, Indian subjects maintained a fairly consistent view of moral obligation to almost all situations, which was not indicative of the American group (Miller et. al., 43). These results lend further support to the claim that cultural systems play a role in formation of moral codes. The researchers claim that in Indian society individuals are seen as a fundamental part of the social structure and thus the need of others is viewed more often on moral terms (Miller et. al., 44). From these observations the complexities of moral development begin to be unraveled.

Researchers continued to ask questions dealing with cultural influences on moral development. Do cultural influences have an effect on moral reasoning and judgment? In addition, researchers continued to use American and Indian subjects as comparison groups because of the distinct cultural differences. Due to what each culture emphasizes in its social framework, the researchers were interested in how individuals explained behavior, as influenced by situational factors or personal choice. In addition they wanted to assess how readily one is willing to forgive behaviors.

In the method of this study, subjects were asked to make moral judgments on hypotheticals regarding the question of justice (Bersoff & Miller, 665). The hypotheticals included evaluating: a 10 year-old child's behavior, an act performed under anger or fear that was provoked by the situation, and lastly by an individual in an accident. Due to the Indians emphasis in the culture on situational influences, the researchers hypothesized that Indians would hold individuals less accountable for actions the anger and accident scenarios. The results demonstrated to support the hypothesis that Indians are more likely to "absolve" individuals for their actions (Bersoff & Miller, 672). Despite the cultural influences, subjects tended to "absolve" most individuals in the accident condition, and then followed with less in the anger condition and fewer in the behavior of the "immature" 10 year-old (Bersoff & Miller). This finding may emphasize that some overlap may exist in how cultures perceive influences on behavior.

Gender Effects on Moral Development

Carol Gilligan's critique of Kohlberg's theory of development asked researchers to assess if gender or even gender role has an effect on moral judgment. A recent study on moral situations, gender, and gender role was conducted in order to provide some empirical data for the theories on moral development. It is presently unclear in moral judgment research between genders, if gender differences exist due to the internal model from which judgments are claimed to derive from or because judgments are made from different moral situations (Wark & Krebs, 221). The researchers predicted that if Gilligan's perspective on Kohlberg's model is valid then females and feminine persons should make more stage 3, care based judgments, than males and masculine persons. In addition, if Gilligan's perspective is valid, female and feminine persons should make more care based judgments across moral situations and males and masculine persons should make more justice based judgments across situations (Wark & Krebs, 221). The results of the study did not validate Gilligan's perspective in gender and gender role differences in moral judgments (Wark & Krebs, 227). Members of both genders made more justice judgments relative to care judgments. In addition, the study did not support one of the foundational assumptions of Kohlberg and Gilligan which claimed that moral judgments are derived from some internal model which is consistent across situations. In the study 85% of the subjects made judgments based on three substages of Kohlberg's theory, and a quarter of the subjects made judgments ranging among five substages of moral thinking (Wark & Krebs, 228)

Conclusion

From the three studies comparing American and Indian moral development it becomes evident that understanding moral reasoning is a very complex endeavor. However universal the underlying processes of moral reasoning might extend, cultural influences have a partial impact on development. In addition, further studies try to assess what effect gender has on the development or moral reasoning. These questions are all valid ways in which the understanding of moral development can be elucidated. Are there actual stages that can be universally applied to all individuals? How many stages are there? Must different stages be applied to different cultures and genders? Do we discard old stages once we have progressed to a new stage? Is there really an "objective" way to measure the development of moral reasoning? These questions and many more that are channeled through the methods of scientific inquiry lead us down the road of understanding the development of moral reasoning.

References

Bersoff, David M. (1993). Culture, Context and the Development of Moral Accountability Judgments. Developmental Psychology, 29, 664-676.

Miller, Joan G. (1992). Culture and Moral Judgment: How are Conflicts Between Justice and Interpersonal Responsibilities Resolved. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 26, 541-554.

Miller, Joan G. (1990). Perceptions of Social Responsibilities in India and in the United States: Moral Imperatives on Personal Decisions. Journal of Personality & Social psychology, 58, 33-47.

Wark, Gillian R. (1996). Gender and Dilemma Differences in Real-Life Moral Judgment. Developmental Psychology, 32, 220-230.

Web Resources

For more information on moral development visit these web sites:

Moral Development for Both Sexes

Moral Philosophy and Empirical Research

Contributed by Brett Mulder, September 29, 1997.

Back to the List of Topics