In this diploma thesis I want to consider several approaches in the area of moral development research.Given the theory of Lawrence Kohlberg, young children (younger than 10 years of age) seem to stay completely under the constraints of authorities and rules. According to Kohlberg, children’s social judgments and behaviors are determined by instrumental aims to satisfy their own needs and wishes, or to avoid punishment. In this regard, the helping of others or meeting the needs of others is only motivated by instrumental considerations. Thus, in Kohlberg’s view young children are not able to think or to act in a genuinely moral way. In reaction to Kohlberg, other researchers have suggested that young children are capable to make genuinely moral judgments and to act in a moral way. Eisenberg (e.g. 1986) has suggested that young children can have empathic or altruistic feelings which lead them to conduct prosocial acts. Other researchers (e.g. Keller, 1996; Nunner-Winkler, 1993) assert that children under the age of ten years are able to understand and feel moral emotions, which they consider as constitutive or as indicators for morality. Turiel and his associates (e.g. Turiel, 1983) suggest that even children at about 2 years of age are able to differentiate between a moral, conventional, and personal domain of social knowledge, and that children subordinate the importance of personal and conventional rules under the importance of moral rules. These approaches to the morality of young children revealed differing results to differing aspects of morality.
The aim of my work is to examine the above mentioned approaches in order to evaluate the obvious differences between their obtained results and the results of Kohlberg.
My questions are: Is Kohlberg’s approach of using authority dilemmas appropriate to investigate children’s moral reasoning? To what extent do the results of the researchers, who claim an early emergence of morality in children’s development, disprove Kohlberg’s claims of children’s dependency and moral immaturity with regard to authority rules? Where are the boundaries of the presented approaches?
Table of Contents
1. Question
2. Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development
2.1. The stage model
2.2. Structure, justice and morality
2.3. Investigation and scoring of moral judgments
2.4. Criticism of Kohlberg’s theory
3. The role of emotions in early morality
3.1. Nancy Eisenberg’s investigations of altruistic and prosocial behavior
3.1.1. The definition of altruistic and prosocial behavior
3.1.2. General methodology and results
3.1.3. Conclusions
3.2. Other approaches regarding the relationship of emotions to morality
3.3. Conclusions
4. Elliot Turiel’s concept of social domains
4.1. Definition of the social domains
4.2. Assessment methods and results of the domain research
4.2.1. Criterion judgments
4.2.2. Justification categories
4.2.3. Ratings and rankings
4.3. The acquisition of social knowledge
4.4. Criterion judgments versus familiarity with events
4.5. The relation between seriousness of transgression, criterion judgments, and justification categories
4.6. Emotional consequences of transgressions in social domains
4.7. A first comparison of Turiel’s and Kohlberg’s assessments and results
5. Domain specifities of social judgments and authority concepts
5.1. Domain specifities, mixed domains and moral dilemmas
5.1.1. Mixed domain events
5.1.2. Moral conflicts and dilemmas
5.1.3. Conclusions
5.2. Authority concepts: Differences between legitimacy and obedience
5.3. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
6.1. Emotions
6.1.1. Dilemma type
6.1.2. Emotional consequences to moral transgressions
6.2. Domains of social knowledge
6.2.1. Conflicts
6.2.2. Justifications
6.2.3. What one would do and what one should do
6.2.4. Legitimacy and obedience
A. Stories
A.1. Killen (1990)
Objectives & Core Topics
This thesis examines the moral development of young children by comparing Lawrence Kohlberg’s traditional stage model with alternative research approaches—specifically those of Nancy Eisenberg, Elliot Turiel, and others—which argue for an earlier emergence of moral reasoning and emotional sensitivity. The core research question investigates whether Kohlberg’s authority-dilemma-based approach appropriately captures the capabilities of children under ten, or whether these children, when evaluated through prosocial or domain-specific dilemmas, demonstrate genuine moral understanding and distinct social domain knowledge.
- Comparison of Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental moral theory with emotion-based models.
- Evaluation of the role of social domains (moral, conventional, personal) in children’s judgments.
- Analysis of authority concepts, specifically the distinction between legitimacy and obedience.
- Assessment of children’s reasoning in conflict-based and mixed-domain hypothetical scenarios.
Excerpt from the book
A hot day (Weston & Turiel, 1980)
This is ( ) who goes to Park School. ( ) has been playing outside in the play area and it’s a warm day. ( ) stopped playing and decided that since he/she was hot from all that play, he/she wants to take all his/her clothes off and soon had nothing on. At Park School children are not supposed to take their clothes offf. That is not allowed Here is the teacher standing over here. The teacher saw ( ) take all his/her clothes off. Do you think the teacher will say anything? Why or why not? The teacher came over and said, „You must leave your clothes on. Children in this school are not allowed to take their clothes off.“ Is it OK or not OK for the teacher to say that? Why or why not?
I know about another school in a different city. It’s called Grove School. This school has different children and different teachers. At Grove School the children are allowed to take their clothes off if they want. Is it OK or not OK for Grove School to say the children can take their clothes off if they want to? Why or why not? This is ( ) who goes to Grove School. ( ) has been running and playing in the play area and he/she is hot. It is a warm day, so ( ) decides he/she wants to take off his/her clothes. ( ) began to take his/her clothes off and soon had nothing on. Was that OK or not OK for ( ) to do? Why or why not? Here is the teacher standing over there. . . (from here similar questions as for Park School).
Summary of Chapters
1. Question: The introduction outlines the central debate regarding the moral development of children under ten, questioning the validity of Kohlberg's claim that they are primarily governed by self-interest and authority.
2. Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development: This chapter details Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental theory, emphasizing the progression through stages based on perspective-taking and justice principles.
3. The role of emotions in early morality: This section presents Eisenberg’s and others' research, demonstrating that young children show empathetic responses and moral reasoning when confronted with prosocial dilemmas.
4. Elliot Turiel’s concept of social domains: This chapter explains the theory that children categorize social knowledge into distinct moral, conventional, and personal domains, and how they use different criteria to distinguish these.
5. Domain specifities of social judgments and authority concepts: This chapter investigates how children handle mixed-domain situations and conflicts, while also examining the nuance between authority legitimacy and obedience.
6. Conclusions: The final chapter synthesizes the findings, arguing that while young children do show some orientation toward authority rules, their ability to discern moral transgressions is more robust than Kohlberg’s model suggests.
Keywords
Moral Development, Prosocial Behavior, Social Domains, Lawrence Kohlberg, Nancy Eisenberg, Elliot Turiel, Authority, Legitimacy, Obedience, Empathy, Justice, Moral Judgment, Social Interaction, Perspective Taking, Childhood Morality
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this diploma thesis?
The thesis investigates the moral reasoning of young children (under ten years of age), challenging the traditional perspective that they lack genuine moral understanding due to their reliance on rules and authority.
What are the central thematic fields?
The work focuses on moral development theories, the role of emotions in prosocial behavior, the domain approach to social knowledge (moral vs. conventional), and the distinction between authority-based obedience and moral legitimacy.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if Kohlberg’s dilemma-based methodology provides an exhaustive view of early morality or if alternative approaches (e.g., prosocial dilemmas, domain-specific assessments) reveal a higher level of moral maturity in young children than previously assumed.
Which scientific methods are primarily analyzed?
The author analyzes cognitive-developmental assessments, structured interviews using hypothetical social dilemmas, longitudinal studies on prosocial reasoning, and naturalistic observations of peer and adult interactions.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body treats Kohlberg’s stage theory, the influence of empathy and sympathy on prosocial acts (Eisenberg), the categorization of social knowledge into domains (Turiel), and children’s ability to differentiate between an authority's social position and the morality of their commands.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include moral development, social domains, empathy, authority, legitimacy, prosocial behavior, and early childhood morality.
How do young children differentiate between an authority's command and moral duty?
According to the findings, young children often judge authority commands as lacking legitimacy if the content is immoral, though they may still comply out of fear of punishment, showing a clear distinction between moral judgment and practical obedience.
What is the "happy victimizer" research mentioned in the text?
It refers to studies where young children, when asked to attribute emotions to a transgressor who has reached a desired goal, often attribute positive feelings, suggesting a developmental gap between knowing a rule and feeling its moral weight.
Why are conflict stories considered more effective than simple domain stories?
Conflict stories force children to coordinate multiple domains or competing moral demands, providing a more rigorous test of their reasoning abilities, which researchers argue is closer to real-life moral decision-making than simple "hit vs. don't hit" scenarios.
- Citation du texte
- Dipl.-Psych. Joerg Boettcher (Auteur), 2001, The ability of young children to distinguish between morality and convention, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/115961
