Formed from a purely Eurocentric monocultural perspective, Kohlberg’s research – conducted on 72 boys in suburban Chicago – yielded a framework through which he conceptualized the development of morality as occurring at three levels, through a total of six stages (Vinney, 2019). This model has been criticized “for overemphasizing a Western male perspective on moral reasoning” but also offers a unique perspective to evaluating morality cognitively, expanding on Piaget’s earlier work (Vinney, 2019). According to Kohlberg, pre-conventional morality occurs in childhood (age 9 and below) and includes two stages: punishment and obedience orientation, and individualism and exchange (Beckett & Taylor, 2019, p. 118). Morality at this level is instilled in the child as an extension of adults’ understanding and rules of right and wrong, and the child usually believes that these rules cannot be changed, and that they must be followed absolutely (Vinney, 2019). At this level of morality, a person engages in decision making from a self-serving perspective, gauging punishment and rewards as the primary motivator of judging good from bad. Progression to the second stage at this level (individualism and exchange), people begin to re-examine these external notions of right and wrong as absolute values, understanding that there are different ways to interpret different situations – observing that what is ‘right’ for one person may not be what is ‘right’ for all people (Vinney, 2019). During this stage, however, morality is still very much an extension of those holding influence over the person’s life; the person has yet to fully develop a sense of morality internal to the self. According to Vinney (2019), conventional morality is the level of morality most people achieve and, in fact, never progress fully through; only about 10-15% of people achieve post-conventional morality. Kohlberg believed that people begin to subscribe to family values and uphold the standards of their communities at stage three (good interpersonal relationships) and become law abiding citizens through stage four on this level (Vinney, 2019). At the highest level of morality (post-conventional), selflessness is attained, and a person construes morality with the betterment of society; law and order are acknowledged but not necessarily the driving force of determining what is ‘right’ or what is ‘wrong’ (Vinney, 2019).

Operant conditioning, however, is a consequence-based associative learning theory (Staddon & Cerutti, 2003). The formulation of what is right and wrong is derived from post-action experience of reward and punishment. For example, a child who feels a sense of accomplishment after being awarded the ‘gold star student’ award for doing well on a test may be encouraged to deliver good work on the next one to obtain the same reward. The ‘gold star student award’ is the positive reinforcer in this example and encourages an action to be repeated. Operant conditioning asserts that the willingness to perform an action is based, in large part, by “when and how often those behaviors were reinforced” (Cherry, 2020b), and is concerned not only about how “innate reflexes” are conditioned, but in how stimuli can be connected to voluntary action (Beckett & Taylor, 2019, p. 94). B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning theory is heavily influenced by Edward Thorndike’s law of effect, which asserts that responses which are preceded by satisfaction become “firmly attached” and likely to be repeated (Cherry, 2020a).

There are both similarities and differences in the development of moral reasoning through the lens of operant conditioning (B.F. Skinner) and Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Early in Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, a person’s understanding of right and wrong is externally controlled, just as punishments and rewards are external to the person in operant conditioning, where “behavior which is [rewarded is] likely [to] be repeated, and behavior which is punished will occur less frequently” (McLeod, 2018b). The ability to learn is inherent in both theories, as someone would need to learn – whether by experience or by the acquisition of information and the formation of knowledge – that something is right/good or wrong/bad, and it would be important for a person to have the ability to internalize these values through the processing of new information and ability to recall from memory. The concept of theory versus action is another difference between the two theories. Kohlberg understood that the responses from the participants in his study were responses formed through a hypothetical situation that did not require any action by the participant, while voluntary action is at the center of operant conditioning (Beckett & Taylor, 2019, p. 118). According to Beckett and Taylor (2019), Kohlberg’s more cognitively based theory acknowledges the continual growth and development of the human brain from birth into adulthood, an acknowledgment that behaviorists either reject or ignore altogether (p. 85). Kohlberg’s theory assigns a timeline to moral development that we do not see emphasized in operant conditioning, with pre-conventional morality occurring in childhood, conventional morality in early adolescence, and post-conventional morality reached around late adolescence and adulthood (Beckett & Taylor, 2019, p. 118).

The development of morality, from a cognitive perspective, is formed through observation and internal conviction; someone achieving the fifth or sixth stage of moral development is able to see themselves as an individual among the many, able to – through a complex web of experiential consideration, understanding of societal customs and norms, and appreciation of law and order – form an internal moral code that they will use to inform their thoughts and behaviors (Vinney, 2019). Humans define morality in many ways; whether something can be considered moral or immoral is largely dependent on a person’s culture, cognitive state, religious affiliation, spiritual belief system, and even their involvement in illegal activity. Is stealing a universal ‘wrong’? Is the killing of another person something that should never be done, regardless of the circumstance? These distinctions between law and morality are foundational to any discussion on moral reasoning and behavior. Personally, I believe our moral compass is formed in association with the ways in which we are brought up, our experiences and capability in learning, and – perhaps most importantly – our cognitive and emotional ability to embrace rules, regulations, and structures of authority.

References

Beckett, C., & Taylor, H. (2019). Human Growth and Development (4th ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Cherry, K. (2020a, May 5). The Law of Effect in Psychology. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-law-of-effect-2795331

Cherry, K. (2020b, June 4). What Is Operant Conditioning and How Does It Work? Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/operant-conditioning-a2-2794863

Staddon, J. E., & Cerutti, D. T. (2003). Operant conditioning. Annual review of psychology, 54, 115–144.

Vinney, C. (2019, June 30). Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/kohlbergs-stages-of-moral-development-4689125