4.10 Adolescents Develop Cognitively

Moral Reasoning and Moral Emotions Moral development refers to the way people learn to decide between behaviors with competing social outcomes. In other words, when is it acceptable to take an action that may harm others or break stated or unstated societal rules? Theorists typically divide morality into two factors: (1) moral reasoning, which depends on cognitive processes, and (2) moral emotions.

Moral emotions are linked to societal interests as a whole and motivate people to do good things and avoid doing bad things. They include shame, guilt, disgust, embarrassment, pride, and gratitude. When most people are asked to consider sticking a pin in a child’s hand or stealing money from a church, they experience negative emotions. Even if they think about the actions using cognitive skills, their thoughts are influenced by their emotional reactions. In other words, the emotions come first and thinking follows (Haidt, 2007). Children’s developing sense of morality is influenced by their emotional reactions to events. So moral emotions affect moral reasoning and therefore it makes sense to study them together (Moll & de Oliveira-Souza, 2007). In fact, the development of moral emotions is vital to acting morally. Cognition and emotions are intertwined. If people lack adequate cognitive abilities, their moral emotions may not translate into moral behaviors (Tangney et al., 2007).

Psychologists who study the cognitive processes of moral behavior have focused largely on Lawrence Kohlberg’s stage theory. Kohlberg (1984) tested moral-reasoning skills by asking people to respond to hypothetical situations in which someone faced a moral dilemma (Figure 4.27). For example, should a husband steal a drug to save his dying wife because he could not afford to pay for the drug? Kohlberg was the most interested in the reasons underlying the answers, not just the answers themselves. He devised a theory of moral judgment that involves three main levels of moral reasoning.

At the preconventional level of moral reasoning, people solve a moral dilemma based on self-interest and event outcomes. For example, a person at this level might say, “The husband should steal the drug because he can get away with doing so,” or “He should not steal the drug because he will be punished.” At the conventional level of moral reasoning, people’s responses conform to rules of law and order or focus on others’ approval or disapproval. For example, a person at this level might say, “He should steal the drug because everyone will think he is a bad person if he lets his wife die,” or “He should not steal the drug because that’s against the law.” At the postconventional level, the highest level of moral reasoning, people’s responses center on complex reasoning, abstract principles, and the value of all life. This level of reasoning concerns abstract principles that transcend laws and social expectations. For example, a person at this level might say, “He should steal the drug. Sometimes people have to break the law if the law is unjust,” or “He should not steal the drug. If people always did what they wanted, the result would be anarchy. Society would break down.” As you can see, Kohlberg believed that advanced moral reasoning includes considering the greater good for all people and giving less thought to personal wishes or fear of punishment.

Not all psychologists agree with Kohlberg’s moral-reasoning theories. To begin with, Kohlberg’s initial research examined only American men (Gilligan, 1977). Does his theory also apply to women or to those raised in different cultures (Snarey, 1985)? In addition, moral-reasoning theories emphasize the cognitive aspects of morality and neglect moral emotions that influence moral judgments, such as shame, pride, or embarrassment. But think about moral actions in daily life, such as helping others in need. Aren’t they influenced as much by emotions as by cognitive processes? Finally, not everyone progresses through Kohlberg’s stages of moral development at the same rate or in the same order.

How can a parent, guardian, or other authority figure help guide a younger person’s moral development? There is great value in showing the general consequence of a specific behavior. Saying “You made Chris cry. It’s not nice to hit, because it hurts people” is more effective in changing a child’s behavior than saying simply “Don’t hit people.” Such explanations promote children’s sympathetic attitudes, appropriate feelings of guilt, and awareness of other people’s feelings. This approach is consistent with authoritative parenting styles. The resulting attitudes, feelings, and awareness then influence the children’s moral reasoning and behavioral choices, instilling moral values that guide behavior throughout life.