Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BrownBaron on April 01, 2010, 02:14:39 AM
-
"KOHLBERG'S METHOD
Kohlberg's (1958a) core sample was comprised of 72 boys, from both middle- and lower-class families in Chicago. They were ages 10, 13, and 16. He later added to his sample younger children, delinquents, and boys and girls from other American cities and from other countries (1963, 1970).
The basic interview consists of a series of dilemmas such as the following:
Heinz Steals the Drug
In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug-for his wife. Should the husband have done that? (Kohlberg, 1963, p. 19)
Kohlberg is not really interested in whether the subject says "yes" or "no" to this dilemma but in the reasoning behind the answer. The interviewer wants to know why the subject thinks Heinz should or should not have stolen the drug. The interview schedule then asks new questions which help one understand the child's reasoning. For example, children are asked if Heinz had a right to steal the drug, if he was violating the druggist's rights, and what sentence the judge should give him once he was caught. Once again, the main concern is with the reasoning behind the answers. The interview then goes on to give more dilemmas in order to get a good sampling of a subject's moral thinking.
Once Kohlberg had classified the various responses into stages, he wanted to know whether his classification was reliable. In particular, he. wanted to know if others would score the protocols in the same way. Other judges independently scored a sample of responses, and he calculated the degree to which all raters agreed. This procedure is called interrater reliability. Kohlberg found these agreements to be high, as he has in his subsequent work, but whenever investigators use Kohlberg's interview, they also should check for interrater reliability before scoring the entire sample" - http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm
http://www.aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml (http://www.aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml)
Very interesting thing, the human mind :confused:
-
Stage 5...with some disposition to Stage 2.
-
Brain...hurting...must go PLAY GAME AND BECOME DUMB AGAIN!!!!
-
School project?
-
Very interesting study.
I think Kohlberg has just scratched the surface with his current studies though. I would like to see more studies on environmental morality, such as how your moral scale changes according to where you are, who you are with (peer pressure) and perceived repercussions in your current environment (i.e. an anonymous on-line bulletin board.) I think we've all experienced interactions on-line that would be totally out of place in the physical world. The on-line world is brand new to the human race and wide open for all kinds of social interaction study.
I'd also love to see studies on why such a high number of characters in our popular entertainment operate on such a low moral scale and why it is so compelling to watch. Two good examples of this are "Weeds" and "Breaking Bad", although prime time TV is loaded with other examples.
I think most people would like to think they function at level 4 or 5 but actually act at a lower level in many different situations.
-
Double Post.
-
All he needs to do is sit and observe the channel 200 text to see how people can drastically revert to less than stage 1 development within 30 seconds
:)
-
School project?
Ha! No. :)
Very interesting study.
I think Kohlberg has just scratched the surface with his current studies though. I would like to see more studies on environmental morality, such as how your moral scale changes according to where you are, who you are with (peer pressure) and perceived repercussions in your current environment (i.e. an anonymous on-line bulletin board.) I think we've all experienced interactions on-line that would be totally out of place in the physical world. The on-line world is brand new to the human race and wide open for all kinds of social interaction study.
I'd also love to see studies on why such a high number of characters in our popular entertainment operate on such a low moral scale and why it is so compelling to watch. Two good examples of this are "Weeds" and "Breaking Bad", although prime time TV is loaded with other examples.
I think most people would like to think they function at level 4 or 5 but actually act at a lower level in many different situations.
Kohlberg did try to broaden his subject base, though i'm not sure how much deviation would have occured based on these factors...and i agree that the internet is a completely novel outlet to how humans interact with one another.
-
All he needs to do is sit and observe the channel 200 text to see how people can drastically revert to less than stage 1 development within 30 seconds
:)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :bolt:
<S> Oz