Kohlberg designed a stage theory of moral development, arguing that offending behaviour is a
result of low stage moral reasoning. There are six stages, ranging from the pre-conventional
morality to post-conventional morality. During the early stages, the individual focuses on
avoiding punishment in infancy but later shifts their interest towards rewards instead. However,
gradually, the individual passes the conventional morality levels at school age, where they
prioritise securing approval and contributing towards social order. Finally, they reach adulthood,
where morality is based on principles that transcend mutual benefit. Offenders are most likely to
be classified at the pre-conventional level due to their very basic understanding of right and
wrong.
Palmer and Hollin’s research supports this theory. They found offenders were at a lower moral
reasoning level than non-offenders. They used the Socio Moral Reflection Measure Short Form,
containing moral dilemma questions, to ascertain this. However, one issue with this research is
that the participants may have shown demand characteristics, with non-offenders and offenders
opting for answers that the researchers would expect from them. Furthermore, non-offenders
may have been influenced by the social desirability bias, skewing their responses and therefore
reducing the internal validity of the data acquired.
Additionally, Kohlberg’s theory is highly deterministic. There are individuals who are at the pre-
conventional stage of moral reasoning; however, they do not commit crime. This can be
recognised in the way that almost all children hold this level of reasoning but they do not all turn
to crime. It is damaging to insist that anyone who demonstrates pre-conventional morality will
display offending behaviour and this raises questions surrounding accountability as it suggests
offenders do not have free will and therefore do not hold full responsibility for their actions.
7/8
result of low stage moral reasoning. There are six stages, ranging from the pre-conventional
morality to post-conventional morality. During the early stages, the individual focuses on
avoiding punishment in infancy but later shifts their interest towards rewards instead. However,
gradually, the individual passes the conventional morality levels at school age, where they
prioritise securing approval and contributing towards social order. Finally, they reach adulthood,
where morality is based on principles that transcend mutual benefit. Offenders are most likely to
be classified at the pre-conventional level due to their very basic understanding of right and
wrong.
Palmer and Hollin’s research supports this theory. They found offenders were at a lower moral
reasoning level than non-offenders. They used the Socio Moral Reflection Measure Short Form,
containing moral dilemma questions, to ascertain this. However, one issue with this research is
that the participants may have shown demand characteristics, with non-offenders and offenders
opting for answers that the researchers would expect from them. Furthermore, non-offenders
may have been influenced by the social desirability bias, skewing their responses and therefore
reducing the internal validity of the data acquired.
Additionally, Kohlberg’s theory is highly deterministic. There are individuals who are at the pre-
conventional stage of moral reasoning; however, they do not commit crime. This can be
recognised in the way that almost all children hold this level of reasoning but they do not all turn
to crime. It is damaging to insist that anyone who demonstrates pre-conventional morality will
display offending behaviour and this raises questions surrounding accountability as it suggests
offenders do not have free will and therefore do not hold full responsibility for their actions.
7/8
