OCR Psychology For A Level Book 1 sample

How these core studies relate to areas, perspectives and debates The developmental area Kohlberg showed that moral thinking develops because of age and experience. This is the essence of the developmental area in psychology. Because his is a stage theory, Kohlberg also demonstrated that children (and adults) think about moral judgements in qualitatively different ways at different stages of development. The Lee et al . study also showed that moral thinking develops according to age, but in a way that is more influenced by society and culture. Perspectives Kohlberg disagreed with both of the main perspectives on moral development. He did not accept that moral thinking is learned (the behaviourist perspective ), because he believed it is culturally universal. He argued that superego strength (the psychodynamic perspective ) cannot reliably predict who behaves morally or immorally. The results of Lee et al . show that the cultural rules that govern moral thinking are different in Canada and China. Presumably they are learned, perhaps through processes of social learning such as observation, imitation and vicarious reinforcement (related to the behaviourist perspective ). Debates Kohlberg supports an individual explanation because he found that moral thinking develops through the six stages in the same way. Lee et al . offers greater support for a situational explanation because their study emphasises social and cultural influences. The same is true in terms of nature versus nurture . For Kohlberg , moral development is influenced primarily by nature because it progresses in the same way in all cultures. But Lee et al . suggest that nurture has the greater role (i.e. social and cultural factors). Both studies can be seen as examples of a determinist approach. Kohlberg argued that moral thinking is determined mostly by innate processes that unfold over the course of development. Because of this the sequence of stages is universal and invariant – everyone goes through them in the same way. But for Lee et al . , social and cultural factors determine how moral development progresses. The issue of usefulness is discussed on the left. The research questions whether children have a mature understanding of right and wrong and therefore may not be reliable witnesses in court. Importance of cross-cultural research Both of the core studies were conducted in more than one culture. Cross- cultural research has a unique place in psychology. It balances what is often seen as the pro-Western bias in psychological research and theory. It has a key role in helping us understand the interaction of nature and nurture as causes of behaviour. Is moral development a shared part of our common psychological functioning (universalism)? Or is it unique to specific cultural groups (relativism)? Kohlberg could not be clearer on this point: ‘ All individuals in all cultures use the same thirty basic moral categories, concepts, or principles, and all individuals in all cultures go through the same order or sequence of gross stage development, though they vary in rate and terminal point of development. ’ Lee et al . are equally clear. They say that their results show that moral development is ‘ . . . a highly contextualised process…and is affected by the culture and/or social environment in which children are socialised. ’ So is moral development universal? Kohlberg and Lee et al . have opposing perspectives. Kohlberg argues that the course of moral development is a universal phenomenon. The exact timings may vary, but moral thinking essentially develops in the same way in all cultures. Lee et al . ’s study provides evidence to the contrary – moral development is relativistic because it is influenced by social and cultural factors. But more recent research suggests that it is both. For example, Adrian Raine and Yaling Yang (2006) claim that moral reasoning is consistently linked to activity in certain brain areas. This implies some support for universal moral development because it may be embedded within our brains. But the researchers recognise that brain activity is merely the basis for moral reasoning, which is also partly influenced by social and cultural factors. Practical application – child witnesses in the courtroom Lee et al . give the example of child witnesses in court trials as an important application of knowledge about how our moral thinking develops. The central concern, until recent years, was that young children are not capable of understanding the difference between good and bad deeds. But this view has changed dramatically since the 1990s when there was a substantial rise in reported cases of child sexual abuse, in which the abused child was usually the only witness. So the criminal justice system came to accept that the child witness’ voice had to be heard to stand any chance of offenders being convicted for their terrible crimes. It is easy for us to accept that adult witnesses in court cases sometimes lie or more often are inaccurate. But this does not mean we exclude them from giving testimony in court altogether. We know adults may sometimes not be credible witnesses because they lie and make mistakes. But they are competent witnesses because they are able to tell the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. These days, we extend the same reasoning to child witnesses. In other words, the criminal justice system acknowledges that there is a difference between the competence of child witnesses and their credibility. Central to this acceptance is our understanding of children’s moral development – this goes to the heart of the issue of children’s competence to be witnesses. Section B exam questions on the Component 02 exam require you to relate your knowledge of core studies to areas, perspectives and debates. Some pointers are given here and also in Chapter 7. What does the research on moral development tell us about children as eyewitnesses? 213 A level only Review of developmental core studies 3 and 4