Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers
Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers |
|
From: Mark Richards
Email: water@cats.ucsc.edu
Course: Psych100G: Diversity in Development
College: UC Santa Cruz
Instructor: Dr. Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych100G
ChildrenObservations: No
Date: 11 Dec 1996
Time: 22:21:00
Remote Name: porter-lab04.ucsc.edu
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the limitations in the current methodologies used to explain and measure moral development. Moreover, this paper points out the importance of considering variables such as: gender, culture and situational context when attempting to make generalizations about research findings. In addition, the importance of actual behavior in everyday situations, as opposed to the artificial environment of the laboratory setting are discussed; in regards to the investigation, measurement and development of scientifically sound literature that addresses the development of moral reasoning and moral behavior. In reviewing the literature on moral development, I believe that there is a need to develop better methods of explaining moral development. In particular, methodologies that measure actual moral behaviors, in situations that are most similar to those of everyday life, as opposed to hypothetical self-report methodologies. Unless more accurate means of measuring moral development are devised, and actual behavior is included as part of the measuring; I believe that a comprehensive understanding of moral development will remain elusive. Finally, I believe that the scientific community in general, should find this discrepancy between self-report and actual behavior, as a major flaw in the designs of the current research models aimed at measuring moral judgment, and take measures to develop models that incorporate actual behavior as a important variable in the development of morals.
This paper investigates the plausibility of research methods used by researchers attempting to explain moral development. I question the current use of methodological approaches that fail to consider the actual behavior of research participants. Moreover, I question the relevance of research findings that are based solely on self-report analysis. When the majority of research literature warns us about the inaccuracy of participants self-reports; in light of the fact that people, in most cases, attempt to present themselves in the best light, caution is warranted by researchers when generalizing their findings to other populations. Furthermore, developmental psychologists should take note of this major void between self-reporting and actual behavior; and endeavor to develop better methods that address this current flaw in methodological designs. I believe that our current understanding of moral development; as far as being of any beneficial use to local communities or society in general, is very limited in that, most of the current research findings fail to show any universality, and as such, the results of these research findings would be extremely difficult to cite as a reference for the enactment of any public policies.
If there is a construct in the human mind that gives rise to moral development, one need only look at the state of affairs in the world today, to realize that such a construct is in some way hampered or non-existent. War is still very much a common occurrence in modern times moreover, poverty, crime, racism, sexism and the violation of human rights are prevalent in most of today’s societies. In light of these global facts, evidence to support a differentiation in the moral development and moral reasoning across cultures, within cultures and between men and women, raises serious questions concerning the roots of moral development and more importantly, what is moral reasoning and how can we measure it?
Webster defines morality as: the character of being in accord with the principles or standards of right conduct. Chris MacDonald (1995) defines morality as: a system of rules that modifies our behavior in social situations, it’s about the doing of good instead of harm, and it sets some standard of virtuous conduct. Kohlberg attempts to illuminate this issue and answer the questions, by having children reason through a series of hypothetical scenarios that, if answered correctly indicate a child’s mastery of a particular level of moral reasoning as outlined by Kohlberg’s model of moral development. (Cole & Cole, pg. 527).
I believe that Kohlberg’s model fails to adequately tap into the roots or cognitive constructs that give rise to moral development. In particular, his approach to assessing the qualities of moral reasoning are gender specific (males) and fails to account for variations in cultural and socioeconomic factors. This is evident in Kohlberg’s population sample which primarily consists of middle class white male children. The strongest evidence against Kohlberg’s model is that, it doesn’t demonstrate any consistency or any connection between the subjects oral reports and their actual behavior, and as such, lacks sufficient power to demonstrate the existence of any stability or consistency in moral reasoning. For example, in his investigation of moral decision making Kurtines (in Krebs et al., 1995) emphasizes the importance of situational determinants, and points out that there are two kinds of moral situations, those that require a decision about the way to distribute rewards and punishments and those that ask for a behavioral decision, and both depend on the severity of consequences. Moreover, Gilligan’s (1993) work with its emphasis on the moral development of women found that, boys used moral reasoning that was based on justice, and girls used moral reasoning that was based on caring, thus, Gilligans findings also render Kohlberg’s model, suspect to interpretation.
Carol B. Stack suggests that, gender is not a universal construct. It is shaped by race, class, culture, and consciousness; and it is in these contexts that we should look at gender differences in moral reasoning. Furthermore, she argues that moral reasoning is profoundly affected by the context in which people live, and here in the U.S., that context includes racism, economic discrimination, and oppression. (Web Site: http://refwww.ucsc.edu ).
In a series of recent articles, Carpendale and Krebs et al. have pointed out that although they concur with Kohlberg that in optimal circumstances, such as the nonthreatening academic contexts in which thoughtful judgments to Kohlberg's philosophical dilemmas are well-probed by skillful interviewers, people base their moral judgments on the highest stage available to them. However, Kreb et al. argue that such optimal circumstances rarely exist outside the academic social situations of everyday life. Moreover, people often make "moral choices for nonmoral reasons, especially because such choices foster their interests, and then invoke socially appropriate and personally acceptable reasons to justify them" (1995, pg. 291). That is, people possess implicit expectations about appropriate social behavior in various social contexts, and that these expectations affect the forms of moral judgment advanced by participants in these contexts. For instance, Carpendale and Krebs also found that participants directing their responses to a business-oriented audience made lower stage judgments than those directing their responses to an academic audience on a dilemma about free trade. (1995, pg. 305) In a related study Damon found that whereas children tended to invoke the highest principle of distributive justice available to them when making hypothetical decisions about dividing up cardboard candy bars, they tended to invoke principles that favored themselves when making actual decisions about dividing up real candy (In Villegas de Posada, 1994, pg. 951).
If moral reasoning can’t be explained in relation to actual behavior, I question the relevance and plausibility of techniques that fall short of correlating oral reports with actual behavior across a variety of situations. This brings us back to the first part of the question, what exactly is moral reasoning? I think that moral reasoning varies from culture to culture and even within cultures depending on a variety of variables including: Costs and benefits, social status, ethnic and racial backgrounds, socioeconomic status, gender differences, the mental health of individuals and educational back ground (among other variables). Thus, a universal definition of moral reasoning is elusive. It would appear that there is much agreement and disagreement in the current literature regarding moral reasoning. Villegas de Pasada (1994) argues that, in theory and research, moral development has been considered as the development of moral reasoning but moral action has been neglected. Focusing on moral reasoning has led not only to the neglect of the study of moral action but to the consideration of this as a direct result of moral reasoning of personal traits, ignoring situational and cultural variables that could influence moral choices .
More often than not, it is the dominant culture within a society that defines what’s appropriate moral reasoning and imposes their moral ideology on the subordinate group(s). This ideology is usually tailored to protect the traditions, property and political system of the dominate culture. An example of this ideology is the concept of stealing: When the first Europeans arrived in this land they brought with them the concepts of land property rights. However, the people’s of this land who lived a predominately nomadic life style had no such concepts of the ownership of land and property (they believed that the land was to be shared by everyone). As a results many natives of this country were killed for the crime of stealing, a crime that was not comprehensible to the natives.
Finally, it would appear that moral reasoning is born out of necessity rather than any innate qualities inherent in the cognitive processes of men and women. As such, the development of moral reasoning is a social construct with variations in its attainment based upon the individual’s willingness or desire to adhere to the tenets that embody a particular society’s ideals of morality. Moreover, if moral reasoning is defined in terms of cultural values that are not universally held, I question the very existence of moral reasoning, because if what’s morally right for one individual is in contradiction to someone else’s ideas of moral reasoning who is to say who’s more morally developed. Furthermore, this lack of universality across cultures, gender and situations, renders any application of moral development in the real world, questionable and suspect to plausibility; in regards to the implementation of any public policies that may be enacted as a result of current research findings.
Women and minorities should be very concerned with this issue of moral development in that, politicians and other societal factions use research findings to push for the implementation of public policy therefore, these policies that are based on the results of research findings should be founded on sound scientific investigation. In light of the fact that most of the research in the area of moral development favors middle class (and upper class) white males; Women and minorities should recall the results of the famous IQ Research Studies, which showed white males to be intellectually superior. I believe that the misuse of moral development research results, as were those of the IQ studies, could pose a threat to the welfare of women and minorities. Because Like the IQ research, if used improperly moral development could also be interpreted as being synonymous with white male superiority. Thus, it is imperative that research that investigates moral development; does just that! actually measures moral development that is, the measurement of actual behaviors that show consistency with one’s self-report.
References
Carol, Stack. B. Moral Development, in the context of race, class, culture, and consciousness. Web Site: http://refwww.ucsc.edu
Carpendale, Jeremy, I. M.; & Krebs, Dennis L. (1995). Variations in the level of moral judgment as a function of type of dilemma and moral choice. Journal of Personality, 63. 289-313.
Cole, Michael, & Cole, Sheila. R. (1993). The development of children. 2nd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Gilligan, Carol.(1994). In a different voice. 33rd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Villegas de Posada, Christina (1994). A motivational model for understanding moral action and moral development. Psychological Reports, 74. 951-959.
