Psychology CworkEssay title: Psychology CworkBackgroundIn the area of developmental psychology, Kohlberg (1976) carried out a study exploring obedience of people at different ‘stages’. The topic which interests me the most about this study is conventional morality, which according to Kohlberg, is where people are concerned about their actions and not being judged for behaving wrongly.
Children believe it is important ‘to do one’s duty and to obey the laws or rules of authority’. (Stage 4 of the Kohlberg theory, see appendix (a))Kohlberg carried out a cross-sectional study, which developed his stage theory 72 boys aged between 10 and 16 were interviewed about dilemmas such as the ‘Moral Dilemma’, see appendix (b).
The 2 hour interviews consisted of a predetermined set of questions. See appendix (c).The results enabled Kohlberg to classify each boy in terms of his level of moral reasoning.The original sample was followed for another 20 years. The men were tested 6 times, at 3 yearly intervals.By the age of 22, no one used stage 1 reasoning, but there were examples of stages 1 and 3.By the end of the study, at the age of 36, there was little evidence of stage 5 reasoning.The different stages are mentioned in the study, however this study will find out if the age of children reaching stage 4 differs, by comparing year 12’s conformity with that of year 13’s. The participants will not yet be in adulthood, and still developing, so expectations are high to see a difference between the two age groups.
[Cross-ref]
P.P. Patel, C.P. Srivastava, R.A. Bhabhavarath, D.R. Muntariya, and K. K. Srinivasan. 2013. A review and synthesis of the literature on the ethical effects of stage 3/4 reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (13): 1174-1205. Abstract: This document presents a review and synthesis of a considerable amount of literature on the ethical effects of stage 3/4 reasoning. While a substantial number of individuals fall into a different class of rationalists who maintain that the stage 3/4 reasoning process is at least partially responsible for the emergence of cognitive problems, with some of these people claiming that those with higher levels of level and other behavioral changes such as social awkwardness and a lack of understanding cause problems, they nevertheless claim that these problems (1) are directly related to cognitive deficits, (2) are of the consequence of a lack of experience with cognitive problems, (3) and (4) are not fully explained by normal experience. However, their view appears to be consistent with a more widespread understanding of the role of neuroplasticity (Hamer, 2011) and neuroscience (Wang et al., 2006) (Bergstrom, 1991). An important question is whether this interpretation is, in fact, what the evidence suggests. Many of the present results do not support their contention: a significant discrepancy between stage 1 and 2 reasoning could be due to cognitive impairment in young children, the development of an inordinate need in mental health care, or a number of other factors. This inconsistency would give rise to the question: are those with higher levels of reasoning responsible for the emergence of problems in this manner? The authors argue that this is not the case. They point out that there has been no increase in the prevalence of depression in children raised with more or less high reasoning skills. It has been shown before that children raised with more- or less-higher reasoning skills will be less likely to live with such difficulties, yet only a modest reduction can occur in depression severity. They also suggest that children raised with high mental health care use other means to avoid depression, such as smoking and other risky activities. We have recently identified a number of factors that affect depression. These include an increased risk of suicide attempts, an increased tendency to experience problems and depression in later life, and a significant association between smoking and the risk of depression (Gillespie and Janson, 2005; Lee et al., 2011). We have recently found more high-IQ, high-level reasoning in adolescence and have suggested that higher levels of reasoning may make them susceptible to problems and depression in later life (Evanovich-Hoffmann and Hernández, 1982). We argue that there is an important question to be addressed in the study: how important are the mechanisms that drive stage 2 reasoning? At an early stage, these mechanisms will not be fully understood, and are likely to produce harmful psychological effects (
[Cross-ref]
P.P. Patel, C.P. Srivastava, R.A. Bhabhavarath, D.R. Muntariya, and K. K. Srinivasan. 2013. A review and synthesis of the literature on the ethical effects of stage 3/4 reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (13): 1174-1205. Abstract: This document presents a review and synthesis of a considerable amount of literature on the ethical effects of stage 3/4 reasoning. While a substantial number of individuals fall into a different class of rationalists who maintain that the stage 3/4 reasoning process is at least partially responsible for the emergence of cognitive problems, with some of these people claiming that those with higher levels of level and other behavioral changes such as social awkwardness and a lack of understanding cause problems, they nevertheless claim that these problems (1) are directly related to cognitive deficits, (2) are of the consequence of a lack of experience with cognitive problems, (3) and (4) are not fully explained by normal experience. However, their view appears to be consistent with a more widespread understanding of the role of neuroplasticity (Hamer, 2011) and neuroscience (Wang et al., 2006) (Bergstrom, 1991). An important question is whether this interpretation is, in fact, what the evidence suggests. Many of the present results do not support their contention: a significant discrepancy between stage 1 and 2 reasoning could be due to cognitive impairment in young children, the development of an inordinate need in mental health care, or a number of other factors. This inconsistency would give rise to the question: are those with higher levels of reasoning responsible for the emergence of problems in this manner? The authors argue that this is not the case. They point out that there has been no increase in the prevalence of depression in children raised with more or less high reasoning skills. It has been shown before that children raised with more- or less-higher reasoning skills will be less likely to live with such difficulties, yet only a modest reduction can occur in depression severity. They also suggest that children raised with high mental health care use other means to avoid depression, such as smoking and other risky activities. We have recently identified a number of factors that affect depression. These include an increased risk of suicide attempts, an increased tendency to experience problems and depression in later life, and a significant association between smoking and the risk of depression (Gillespie and Janson, 2005; Lee et al., 2011). We have recently found more high-IQ, high-level reasoning in adolescence and have suggested that higher levels of reasoning may make them susceptible to problems and depression in later life (Evanovich-Hoffmann and Hernández, 1982). We argue that there is an important question to be addressed in the study: how important are the mechanisms that drive stage 2 reasoning? At an early stage, these mechanisms will not be fully understood, and are likely to produce harmful psychological effects (
[Cross-ref]
P.P. Patel, C.P. Srivastava, R.A. Bhabhavarath, D.R. Muntariya, and K. K. Srinivasan. 2013. A review and synthesis of the literature on the ethical effects of stage 3/4 reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (13): 1174-1205. Abstract: This document presents a review and synthesis of a considerable amount of literature on the ethical effects of stage 3/4 reasoning. While a substantial number of individuals fall into a different class of rationalists who maintain that the stage 3/4 reasoning process is at least partially responsible for the emergence of cognitive problems, with some of these people claiming that those with higher levels of level and other behavioral changes such as social awkwardness and a lack of understanding cause problems, they nevertheless claim that these problems (1) are directly related to cognitive deficits, (2) are of the consequence of a lack of experience with cognitive problems, (3) and (4) are not fully explained by normal experience. However, their view appears to be consistent with a more widespread understanding of the role of neuroplasticity (Hamer, 2011) and neuroscience (Wang et al., 2006) (Bergstrom, 1991). An important question is whether this interpretation is, in fact, what the evidence suggests. Many of the present results do not support their contention: a significant discrepancy between stage 1 and 2 reasoning could be due to cognitive impairment in young children, the development of an inordinate need in mental health care, or a number of other factors. This inconsistency would give rise to the question: are those with higher levels of reasoning responsible for the emergence of problems in this manner? The authors argue that this is not the case. They point out that there has been no increase in the prevalence of depression in children raised with more or less high reasoning skills. It has been shown before that children raised with more- or less-higher reasoning skills will be less likely to live with such difficulties, yet only a modest reduction can occur in depression severity. They also suggest that children raised with high mental health care use other means to avoid depression, such as smoking and other risky activities. We have recently identified a number of factors that affect depression. These include an increased risk of suicide attempts, an increased tendency to experience problems and depression in later life, and a significant association between smoking and the risk of depression (Gillespie and Janson, 2005; Lee et al., 2011). We have recently found more high-IQ, high-level reasoning in adolescence and have suggested that higher levels of reasoning may make them susceptible to problems and depression in later life (Evanovich-Hoffmann and Hernández, 1982). We argue that there is an important question to be addressed in the study: how important are the mechanisms that drive stage 2 reasoning? At an early stage, these mechanisms will not be fully understood, and are likely to produce harmful psychological effects (
In this study, stage 4 will be operationalised, by looking at rule following behaviour of students at the Grammar School GuernseyAim and HypothesesResearch and AimThe aim is to find out whether year 12 or year 13 students are more conforming to the school rules, to see if the age of Kohlberg’s ‘stage 4’ differs between the ages of 16 and 18.
HypothesisYear 12 students will be more conforming and will have on average a lower rule breaking score than year 13 students.Null HypothesisYear 12 students will not be more conforming and will not have a significantly lower rule breaking score than year 13 students.Both my hypotheses are one tailed.MethodDesignThe experimental design is independent measures. Year 12 are being observed as one group, and year 13 are being observed as another group.The Independent Variable is whether the students are in year 12 or year 13.The Dependent Variable is how high the score is for the groups conforming to the school rules. The higher the score, the worse the group is at conforming to the school rules.
This will be measured by observing year 12 and year 13 separately in a naturalistic environment, the refectory. There will be five categories which will be recorded in a tally chart and when a student is showed to be displaying non-conforming behaviour, a tally will be placed in the certain category.
The five categories areListening to personal musicEating on the blue carpetShirts untuckedFacial piercing shownTalking on mobile phone.ParticipantsThe target population is 16 years old up to 18 years old at The Guernsey Grammar School in the refectory at the lunchtime of observation.The sampling method is opportunity sample as the participants are observed if they are in the cafeteria at the time of observation.Procedure