Self-Control From Birth Through Adolescence Analysis
Development of Moral Reasoning and Self-Control from Birth through Adolescence
Carol Robson
EDD557
Ferbruary 9, 2015
Jennifer Tucker
Development of Moral Reasoning and Self-Control from Birth through Adolescence
There are several widely accepted major theories of moral development, and each one is based on the concept of stages of growth and advancement. All the theories correlate stages of moral development with the concurrent stages of cognitive development and maturation that seem necessary to their emergence. A stage is defined as “a period in development in which people exhibit typical behavior patterns and establish particular capacities. … People pass through stages in a specific order, with each stage building on capacities …show more content…
developed in the previous stage … Stages are related to age … Development is discontinuous, with qualitatively different capacities emerging in each stage” (Theories of development, 2014). Kohlberg divided moral development into three levels, each consisting of two stages. The first level, which he designated as Preconventional, occurs during the first seven or eight years of life (Piaget’s Sensorimotor and Preoperational stages). Kohlberg believed that the first stage in children’s moral understanding is based solely on a belief in authority figures and on what behaviors are punished (Boyd & Bee, 2014, p. 307). Piaget called this the Moral Realism stage “which he found to be typical of children younger than 8, [who] believe that the rules of games can’t be changed because they come from authorities, such as parents, government officials, or religious figures (Boyd & Bee, 2014, p. 305). Kohlberg’s second stage moves the child into an area where “[d]eals and compromises with others are sometimes used to solve problems … Revealing a hedonistic orientation, morally right behavior depends on what satisfies one’s own desires. In both stages in level 1 the child is egoistic/ a hedonist.” (Mwale, 2010). This corresponds with the “hedonistic reasoning” stage in Eisenberg’s Model of Prosocial Reasoning “in which the child is concerned with self-oriented consequences rather than moral considerations” (Boyd & Bee, 2014, p. 312). From a psychosocial viewpoint, Kohlberg’s and Piaget’s theories correspond to Erikson’s theory of development, beginning with his “Stage 3: Initiative vs. Guilt … Between the ages of three and six, children must learn to control their impulses and act in a socially responsible way. If they can do this effectively, children become more self- confident. If not, they may develop a strong sense of guilt” (Theories of Development, 2014). Learning to control impulses and to act responsibly are necessary components in the development of moral maturity.
Erikson designates the stage between six and twelve as Industry vs. Inferiority, in which he observed children absorbing “cultural skills and norms” (Boyd & Bee, H., 2012. p. 234). Kohlberg’s model correlates with this as children move into the second level and third stage of moral development. This is the “interpersonal-concordance orientation/Good boy or Good girl orientation … Moral reasoning is guided by mutual interpersonal expectations and conformity. People try to do what is expected of them. The concern is to meet external social expectation. [The] [c]oncept of ‘right’ is there but nobody has the right to do evil. Intentions become more important in judging a person’s behaviour” (Mwale, 2010). Kohlberg’s fourth stage segues into “Social system and conscience … Moral actions are those so defined by larger social groups or the society as a whole. One should fulfill duties one has agreed to and uphold laws, except in extreme cases” (Boyd & Bee, H., 2012. p. 307). Piaget called this the Concrete Operational stage in which “[c]hildren 's thinking becomes less egocentric and they are increasingly aware of external events … During this stage, however, most children still can 't think abstractly or hypothetically” (Benaroch, 2014). This goes hand-in-hand with Kohlberg’s belief that children’s morality at this point is based on conformity and social expectation rather than on empathetic reasoning. Eisenberg believes that during this time, morality “shifts to … needs-oriented reasoning, in which the child expresses concern rather directly for the other person’s need, even if the other’s need conflicts with the child’s own wishes or desires” (Boyd & Bee, H., 2012. p. 312). He saw this as a gradual process occurring through mid-childhood. Piaget called the adolescent stage of intellectual development the Formal Operational Stage. “Adolescents who reach this fourth stage of intellectual development -- usually at age 11-plus -- are able to logically use symbols related to abstract concepts … They can think about multiple variables in systematic ways, formulate hypotheses, and consider possibilities. They also can ponder abstract relationships and concepts such as justice” (Benaroch, 2014).
This increased ability for abstract thought allows for what Kohlberg called his third level of moral development, Postconventional morality. In it, “moral thinking involves working out a personal code of ethics or self accepted moral principle. Acceptance of rules is less rigid----one might not comply with some of the society’s rules if they conflict with personal ethics” (Mwale, 2010).
In the earlier part of this level, stage 5, the “social-contract legalistic orientation … [p]eople recognize and try to balance the importance of both social contracts and individual rights. Moral behavior reflects a concern for the welfare of the larger community and a desire for community respect. [There is] [m]ore flexible understanding that we obey rules because they are necessary for social order but the rules could be changed if there were better alternatives” (Mwale, 2010). Kohlberg’s sixth and final stage (designated as Postcoventional Morality), is the “universal-ethical principle orientation/Morality of individual principle and conscience.
Behaviors conform to internal principles [justice and equality] to avoid self-condemnation and sometimes may violate society’s rules—motivation is feeling right with oneself. Individuals adopt an orientation towards universal principles of justice, which exist regardless of a particular society’s rules. Reasoning assumes a conscience that is based on self chosen ethical principles that place the highest value on human life, equality and dignity. Civil disobedience is not out of disrespect for law and order, but out of respect for a morality higher than the existing law” (Mwale, …show more content…
2010). Erikson calls this level Identity vs.
Role Confusion, and maintains that “[d] uring adolescence, which is the period between puberty and adulthood, children try to determine their identity and their direction in life. Depending on their success, they either acquire a sense of identity or remain uncertain about their roles in life” (Theories of Development, 2014). Developing an internally based definition of right and wrong is a crucial process in both forming personal identity and in moral development; it’s very much a part of the “struggle to find a balance between developing a unique, individual identity while still being accepted and ‘fitting in.’ Thus, youth must determine who they want to be, and how they want to be perceived by others” (Oswalt & Zupanick, 2015). Whether or not this identity crisis is resolved satisfactorily, Kohlberg maintained that in the area of moral development “Postconventional
reasoning
(stages 5 and 6) is relatively rare” (Boyd & Bee, H., 2012. p. 309). This would indicate that moral development in the majority of humans stops at the level of being a social contract, on the order of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”. No wonder we are so in awe of people whose internal imperatives shape their thinking and determine their behavior, even when it puts them in harm’s way. The majority of us may wish we thought at that level, but never quite master that way of thinking.
References:
Theories of development. (2014). Retrieved from sparknotes website: http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/development/section1.rhtml
Boyd, D., Bee, H., (2012). The developing child, (13th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Mwale, M., (2010). Moral reasoning during adolescence – some analytical considerations: Moral reasoning in adolescents: some analytical considerations. Retrieved from The Research Cooperative website: http://researchcooperative.org/profiles/blogs/moral-reasoning-during Benaroch, R., (2014). Piaget stages of developmen. Retrieved from WebMD website: http://www.webmd.com/children/piaget-stages-of-development?page=2 Oswalt, A, Zupanick, C.E., (2015). Erik Erikson and self-identity. Retrieved from Seven Counties Services, Inc. website:
http://www.sevencounties.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=41163&cn=1310
Carol Robson
EDD557
Ferbruary 9, 2015
Jennifer Tucker
Development of Moral Reasoning and Self-Control from Birth through Adolescence
There are several widely accepted major theories of moral development, and each one is based on the concept of stages of growth and advancement. All the theories correlate stages of moral development with the concurrent stages of cognitive development and maturation that seem necessary to their emergence. A stage is defined as “a period in development in which people exhibit typical behavior patterns and establish particular capacities. … People pass through stages in a specific order, with each stage building on capacities …show more content…
developed in the previous stage … Stages are related to age … Development is discontinuous, with qualitatively different capacities emerging in each stage” (Theories of development, 2014). Kohlberg divided moral development into three levels, each consisting of two stages. The first level, which he designated as Preconventional, occurs during the first seven or eight years of life (Piaget’s Sensorimotor and Preoperational stages). Kohlberg believed that the first stage in children’s moral understanding is based solely on a belief in authority figures and on what behaviors are punished (Boyd & Bee, 2014, p. 307). Piaget called this the Moral Realism stage “which he found to be typical of children younger than 8, [who] believe that the rules of games can’t be changed because they come from authorities, such as parents, government officials, or religious figures (Boyd & Bee, 2014, p. 305). Kohlberg’s second stage moves the child into an area where “[d]eals and compromises with others are sometimes used to solve problems … Revealing a hedonistic orientation, morally right behavior depends on what satisfies one’s own desires. In both stages in level 1 the child is egoistic/ a hedonist.” (Mwale, 2010). This corresponds with the “hedonistic reasoning” stage in Eisenberg’s Model of Prosocial Reasoning “in which the child is concerned with self-oriented consequences rather than moral considerations” (Boyd & Bee, 2014, p. 312). From a psychosocial viewpoint, Kohlberg’s and Piaget’s theories correspond to Erikson’s theory of development, beginning with his “Stage 3: Initiative vs. Guilt … Between the ages of three and six, children must learn to control their impulses and act in a socially responsible way. If they can do this effectively, children become more self- confident. If not, they may develop a strong sense of guilt” (Theories of Development, 2014). Learning to control impulses and to act responsibly are necessary components in the development of moral maturity.
Erikson designates the stage between six and twelve as Industry vs. Inferiority, in which he observed children absorbing “cultural skills and norms” (Boyd & Bee, H., 2012. p. 234). Kohlberg’s model correlates with this as children move into the second level and third stage of moral development. This is the “interpersonal-concordance orientation/Good boy or Good girl orientation … Moral reasoning is guided by mutual interpersonal expectations and conformity. People try to do what is expected of them. The concern is to meet external social expectation. [The] [c]oncept of ‘right’ is there but nobody has the right to do evil. Intentions become more important in judging a person’s behaviour” (Mwale, 2010). Kohlberg’s fourth stage segues into “Social system and conscience … Moral actions are those so defined by larger social groups or the society as a whole. One should fulfill duties one has agreed to and uphold laws, except in extreme cases” (Boyd & Bee, H., 2012. p. 307). Piaget called this the Concrete Operational stage in which “[c]hildren 's thinking becomes less egocentric and they are increasingly aware of external events … During this stage, however, most children still can 't think abstractly or hypothetically” (Benaroch, 2014). This goes hand-in-hand with Kohlberg’s belief that children’s morality at this point is based on conformity and social expectation rather than on empathetic reasoning. Eisenberg believes that during this time, morality “shifts to … needs-oriented reasoning, in which the child expresses concern rather directly for the other person’s need, even if the other’s need conflicts with the child’s own wishes or desires” (Boyd & Bee, H., 2012. p. 312). He saw this as a gradual process occurring through mid-childhood. Piaget called the adolescent stage of intellectual development the Formal Operational Stage. “Adolescents who reach this fourth stage of intellectual development -- usually at age 11-plus -- are able to logically use symbols related to abstract concepts … They can think about multiple variables in systematic ways, formulate hypotheses, and consider possibilities. They also can ponder abstract relationships and concepts such as justice” (Benaroch, 2014).
This increased ability for abstract thought allows for what Kohlberg called his third level of moral development, Postconventional morality. In it, “moral thinking involves working out a personal code of ethics or self accepted moral principle. Acceptance of rules is less rigid----one might not comply with some of the society’s rules if they conflict with personal ethics” (Mwale, 2010).
In the earlier part of this level, stage 5, the “social-contract legalistic orientation … [p]eople recognize and try to balance the importance of both social contracts and individual rights. Moral behavior reflects a concern for the welfare of the larger community and a desire for community respect. [There is] [m]ore flexible understanding that we obey rules because they are necessary for social order but the rules could be changed if there were better alternatives” (Mwale, 2010). Kohlberg’s sixth and final stage (designated as Postcoventional Morality), is the “universal-ethical principle orientation/Morality of individual principle and conscience.
Behaviors conform to internal principles [justice and equality] to avoid self-condemnation and sometimes may violate society’s rules—motivation is feeling right with oneself. Individuals adopt an orientation towards universal principles of justice, which exist regardless of a particular society’s rules. Reasoning assumes a conscience that is based on self chosen ethical principles that place the highest value on human life, equality and dignity. Civil disobedience is not out of disrespect for law and order, but out of respect for a morality higher than the existing law” (Mwale, …show more content…
2010). Erikson calls this level Identity vs.
Role Confusion, and maintains that “[d] uring adolescence, which is the period between puberty and adulthood, children try to determine their identity and their direction in life. Depending on their success, they either acquire a sense of identity or remain uncertain about their roles in life” (Theories of Development, 2014). Developing an internally based definition of right and wrong is a crucial process in both forming personal identity and in moral development; it’s very much a part of the “struggle to find a balance between developing a unique, individual identity while still being accepted and ‘fitting in.’ Thus, youth must determine who they want to be, and how they want to be perceived by others” (Oswalt & Zupanick, 2015). Whether or not this identity crisis is resolved satisfactorily, Kohlberg maintained that in the area of moral development “Postconventional
reasoning
(stages 5 and 6) is relatively rare” (Boyd & Bee, H., 2012. p. 309). This would indicate that moral development in the majority of humans stops at the level of being a social contract, on the order of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”. No wonder we are so in awe of people whose internal imperatives shape their thinking and determine their behavior, even when it puts them in harm’s way. The majority of us may wish we thought at that level, but never quite master that way of thinking.
References:
Theories of development. (2014). Retrieved from sparknotes website: http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/development/section1.rhtml
Boyd, D., Bee, H., (2012). The developing child, (13th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Mwale, M., (2010). Moral reasoning during adolescence – some analytical considerations: Moral reasoning in adolescents: some analytical considerations. Retrieved from The Research Cooperative website: http://researchcooperative.org/profiles/blogs/moral-reasoning-during Benaroch, R., (2014). Piaget stages of developmen. Retrieved from WebMD website: http://www.webmd.com/children/piaget-stages-of-development?page=2 Oswalt, A, Zupanick, C.E., (2015). Erik Erikson and self-identity. Retrieved from Seven Counties Services, Inc. website:
http://www.sevencounties.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=41163&cn=1310