16.3.2 Kohlberg's Theory

• Kohlberg’s theory and its relevance to offending behaviour is that criminals operate at a different level of moral reasoning to non-criminals
• Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is a stage theory as it sees the development of morality as linked to key developmental stages in a person’s life 
• The theory presents six stages of moral development sub-divided into two parts per stage: each stage denotes a more advanced and sophisticated level of moral reasoning
• Kohlberg measured moral development using a series of moral dilemmas designed to test the ways in which each individual responds to a specific scenario and to how they use reasoning to determine the most appropriate/desirable course of action per dilemma
• Kohlberg thought that the justification given by each individual per dilemma was more interesting than their ultimate decision as it is the reasoning which demonstrates the level of morality most clearly
• The most famous of Kohlberg’s moral dilemmas is the Heinz dilemma as outlined below:
  • Heinz had a wife who was dying from cancer
  • There was one drug that might save Heniz’ wife
  • The drug was expensive to make but the pharmaceutical company was charging ten times the cost of the drug
  • Heinz was not able to raise the money to pay for the drug, even after asking friends and family to help
  • Heinz went to the local pharmacy and asked the pharmacist to sell him the drug at a lower price or to allow him to pay later once he had found all of the money but the pharmacist said no
  • Heinz’ dilemma is: should I break into the pharmacy at night and steal the drug which will save my wife or should I follow the law which means that my wife will probably die?
  • The person who is presented with this dilemma then has to reason as to whether Heinz should/should not steal the drug and why/why not
• The results of the research on moral dilemmas led to Kohlberg producing his stage theory as follows:

Level 1 Preconventional moral reasoning (5-11 years old)	Stage 1 - punishment-avoidance orientation Right and wrong are determined by what is likely to lead to punishment e.g. Heinz should not steal the drug as he will get into trouble for it
	Stage 2 - instrumental orientation Right and wrong are determined by what is best for the individual e.g. Heinz should steal the drug so that his wife can get better and cook for him again
Level 2 Conventional moral reasoning (12 years old to adulthood)	Stage 3 - ‘good child’ orientation Right and wrong are determined by the approval of others e.g Heinz should not steal the drug as he will end up in prison which means that people who know him will think badly of him
	Stage 4 - maintenance of social order Right and wrong are determined by the law of the land, rules and regulations e.g. Heinz has a duty to save his wife' so he should steal the drug but Heinz should be prepared to accept the penalty for breaking the law
Level 3 Postconventional moral reasoning (adults)	Stage 5 - social contract  Right and wrong may be relative to the group’s or individual’s needs i.e. rules can be challenged if they are deemed unfair or unjust e.g. Heinz should steal the drug because everyone has the right to life regardless of the law against stealing and if Heinz is caught then the law needs to be reinterpreted because a person's life is at stake
	Stage 6 - universal ethical principles Right and wrong are self-chosen and drawn from the sanctity of human rights and respect for human dignity: all laws should be based on these; if not, disobedience is justified e.g. Heinz should steal the drug to save his wife because preserving human life is a higher moral obligation than preserving property

• Criminals are likely to operate at stage 1, the preconventional level of moral reasoning as this level involves a lack of reflection and self-awareness (i.e. does this crime make me a bad person? Do I want to be this sort of person?) and a simplistic assessment of right/wrong (i.e. I don’t want to get caught, that would be wrong)

What is right? What is wrong? And is there even such a thing as right/wrong?

Research which investigates Kohlberg’s theory

• Palmer & Hollin (1998) gave a series of moral dilemmas to a sample of male and female offenders and non-offenders aged 13-22 years old and found that the non-offenders showed higher levels of moral reasoning than the offenders which supports Kohlberg’s theory
• Palmer (2007) conducted a review of research and concluded that it may be that the development of moral reasoning is strongly influenced by children's early socialisation experiences

Evaluation of Kohlberg’s theory

Strengths

• Kohlberg’s theory could be applied in rehabilitative settings e.g. as a basis for incorporating moral reasoning into effective interventions with offenders
• The moral dilemmas could be replicated - and modified to suit specific samples - which means that it has some reliability

Weaknesses

• Moral reasoning does not always translate into moral behaviour or actions: anyone can claim to think/feel a particular way but it does not mean that this is actually what they think/feel hence the theory may lack validity
• Not everyone can be slotted neatly into one of the stages/levels: people may operate at different levels depending on the circumstances; people may regress or leap levels; some levels may overlap

Link to Issues & Debates:

Kohlberg’s theory has been accused of gender bias (specifically beta bias), by Carol Gilligan who pointed out that the theory was based on male perspectives and experience which she termed a morality of justice whereas women operate a morality of care. Gilligan argued that morality evolves alongside a growing sense of self, rather than being a maturational stage-driven development.

Kohlberg’s theory may also be culture-biased as it assumes that morality is a result of individual reasoning and decision-making rather than something which may develop organically via group processes i.e. it may not fully apply to collectivist cultures.