OCR Psychology For A Level Book 1 sample

Developmental core study 3: Kohlberg on Moral development Evaluating methodological issues in the study When writing evaluations you should always: • State the point. • Contextualise your answers, use some details of the study to back up the point you are making. • Comment on what you conclude. See page 138 for further explanation. Section A of the Component 02 exam focuses on core studies. You need to know the details of the core study, covered on the previous three spreads. You also need to be aware of methodological issues in the study: the strengths and weaknesses of the research methods and techniques used in the study, sampling bias, validity, reliability, ethnocentrism, strengths and weaknesses of different types of data and ethical considerations. Attrition When one person decides to leave a group, it is quite likely that they are different from the others in some way. Why has that person decided to go when others stay? Validity John Snarey (1985) reviewed 45 studies of moral development carried out in 27 different countries. Researchers used versions of Kohlberg’s dilemmas adapted for local customs. In general the studies showed the same sequence of development found by Kohlberg. However, Stages 5 and 6 were not always apparent. Snarey argued that this may simply be because in more rural communities there is less social conflict. How does this affect our conclusions about the validity of Kohlberg’s research? Research method and techniques Both studies were quasi-experiments , one used a longitudinal design and the other made cross-cultural comparisons. Strength One strength of a longitudinal design is that it means that participant variables are controlled . The alternative is to conduct a snapshot study where two separate groups are studied at the same time – one group would be aged 10 and the other group aged 16. There may be differences in moral reasoning between these groups but we cannot be sure whether these differences are due to other aspects of participants’ personality. So it is a strength of a longitudinal design that such variables are controlled. Weakness One weakness of a longitudinal design is that participants drop out of the study over time. This is called attrition . In this study the original sample was 84 boys. By the time of the current analysis nine of the boys had dropped out. It may be that those who drop out have particular characteristics, such as they might be the ones who don’t care very much about moral decisions, leaving a sample that is not ‘typical’ of people in general. However, Kohlberg did report that those who dropped out were not lower or higher in their moral development (Colby et al . 1983). Sampling bias The participants in this study were males. One of the major criticisms of Kohlberg’s research was that it was male- biased. The dilemmas were written by a man (Kohlberg) and based on the principle of justice. The dilemmas were tested on a male-only sample (Kohlberg did this so that gender was not an extraneous variable ). Carol Gilligan (1982) argued that Kohlberg’s focus on justice meant that only one kind of moral reasoning was investigated – she suggested this overlooked the ethic of care. Gilligan provided evidence that many women and some men make moral decisions based on their concern for the welfare of others (an ethic of care), for example not wanting to hurt someone else’s feelings. Using a male-only sample provides evidence for only one kind of moral reasoning. Ethnocentrism The cross-cultural element of this study means that Kohlberg was not focused on American culture only. He tried to show that his ideas were universal and not ethnocentric . In testing the Atayal and Taiwanese boys he used an interpreter to help him make unbiased judgements. He also reframed the moral dilemma he used so it would make better sense in that culture. Validity Kohlberg’s aim was to assess moral reasoning not moral behaviour. Therefore he did test what he intended to test (high internal validity ). However, the question is what this research tells us about moral behaviour – can we generalise the results to explain why people behave as they do? Kohlberg claimed that there is a link but the research by Hugh Hartshorne and Mark May (cited by Kohlberg) suggests that what people believe about right and wrong does not predict what they actually do. In this sense Kohlberg’s research is low in ecological validity . Gilligan (1982) also criticised Kohlberg’s research because the evidence was not based on real-life decisions. The moral dilemmas were hypothetical scenarios which may have made little sense, especially to young boys. Therefore, their responses may have little meaning. Gilligan’s own research involved interviewing people about their own moral dilemmas, such as the decision about whether to have an abortion. What are the strengths and weaknesses of a cross-cultural study in the context of this research? What are the strengths and weaknesses of a quasi-experiment in the context of this research? Chapter 4: Developmental psychology 202 A level only