Describe and evaluate the psychological explanation of offending level of mortal reasoning. (16 marks)
Kohlberg (1969) interviewed boys and men about the reasons for their moral decisions and constructed a
stage of theory of moral development. Kohlberg proposed that this is a nomothetic theory that applies to
everyone (criminal and law-abiding), but criminals show a particular pattern of moral reasoning. He
interviewed his ps by giving them moral dilemma and then analysing how they would respond to such
dilemmas. Kohlberg came up with three levels of moral reasoning and each level has two sub-levels: Pre-
conventional level (consisting of stage one: punishment orientation, and stage two: instrumental orientation),
conventional level (consisting of stage three: god boy/good girl orientation, and stage four: maintenance of
the social order), and the post-conventional level (consisting of stage five: morality of contract and
individual rights, and stage six: morality of conscience).
A strength of level of moral reasoning as a psychological explanation is that is has supporting evidence.
Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning between 210 female non-offenders, 122 male non-
offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure Short-Form. His
questionnaire contains 11 moral dilemma-related questions such as not taking things that belong to others
and keeping a promise to a friend. The offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-
offenders. This os consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions.
A weakness is there is criticisms with the supporting evidence. The main supporting evidence comes from
Kohlberg’s moral dilemmas (including the Heinz dilemma). Participants were given the dilemmas and asked
questions about them, in the format of a questionnaire. This is a problem, because how someone says they
will respond to a dilemma is not often the same as why they would do in real life. E.g. in Milgram’s
obedience study, academic professionals predicted that only 1.2% would go all the way to 450V, but in
reality, 65% of ps went to 450V (the maximum shock level). This means that the main supporting evidence
has low predictive validity, which weakens the credibility of the moral reasoning theory of criminal
behaviour.
There a further criticisms with the supporting evidence. Kohlberg’s moral dilemma study, on which he
based his theory of moral reasoning, only had male participants. Gilligan (1982) argue that there are gender
differences in what is considered ‘moral’. She found that women tend to focus on how an action affects
other people where’s men tend to focus on fairness and justice. This means that Kohlberg’s theory is gender
biased because it is subject to beta bias: he has assumed that both men and women have the same morals,
when this may not be the case.
A strength of the theory is that it has face validity. Walker (1989) showed that morals develop over time, as
Kohlberg suggested. This can explain why more anti-social behaviour is committed by younger adults. They
haven’t reached a sufficient state of maturity/moral development, so they are more likely to commit crime.
Kohlberg (1969) interviewed boys and men about the reasons for their moral decisions and constructed a
stage of theory of moral development. Kohlberg proposed that this is a nomothetic theory that applies to
everyone (criminal and law-abiding), but criminals show a particular pattern of moral reasoning. He
interviewed his ps by giving them moral dilemma and then analysing how they would respond to such
dilemmas. Kohlberg came up with three levels of moral reasoning and each level has two sub-levels: Pre-
conventional level (consisting of stage one: punishment orientation, and stage two: instrumental orientation),
conventional level (consisting of stage three: god boy/good girl orientation, and stage four: maintenance of
the social order), and the post-conventional level (consisting of stage five: morality of contract and
individual rights, and stage six: morality of conscience).
A strength of level of moral reasoning as a psychological explanation is that is has supporting evidence.
Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared moral reasoning between 210 female non-offenders, 122 male non-
offenders and 126 convicted offenders using the Socio-Moral Reflection Measure Short-Form. His
questionnaire contains 11 moral dilemma-related questions such as not taking things that belong to others
and keeping a promise to a friend. The offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than the non-
offenders. This os consistent with Kohlberg’s predictions.
A weakness is there is criticisms with the supporting evidence. The main supporting evidence comes from
Kohlberg’s moral dilemmas (including the Heinz dilemma). Participants were given the dilemmas and asked
questions about them, in the format of a questionnaire. This is a problem, because how someone says they
will respond to a dilemma is not often the same as why they would do in real life. E.g. in Milgram’s
obedience study, academic professionals predicted that only 1.2% would go all the way to 450V, but in
reality, 65% of ps went to 450V (the maximum shock level). This means that the main supporting evidence
has low predictive validity, which weakens the credibility of the moral reasoning theory of criminal
behaviour.
There a further criticisms with the supporting evidence. Kohlberg’s moral dilemma study, on which he
based his theory of moral reasoning, only had male participants. Gilligan (1982) argue that there are gender
differences in what is considered ‘moral’. She found that women tend to focus on how an action affects
other people where’s men tend to focus on fairness and justice. This means that Kohlberg’s theory is gender
biased because it is subject to beta bias: he has assumed that both men and women have the same morals,
when this may not be the case.
A strength of the theory is that it has face validity. Walker (1989) showed that morals develop over time, as
Kohlberg suggested. This can explain why more anti-social behaviour is committed by younger adults. They
haven’t reached a sufficient state of maturity/moral development, so they are more likely to commit crime.
