Morality in development (Piaget's stages of moral development and Kohlberg's idea of moral reasoning) and the nature-nurture debate applied to development.

What this dot point is asking

Edexcel wants you to describe how morality develops (Piaget's stages of moral reasoning, and Kohlberg's idea that moral reasoning develops in levels) and to apply the nature-nurture debate to development. The debate is a formal part of the specification, assessed in extended-response questions, so be ready to argue both sides and conclude that they interact.

The development of morality

Piaget studied moral reasoning by watching children play games and react to stories. He found a shift with age. Heteronomous morality (roughly 5 to 9 years): the child sees rules as fixed and unchangeable, handed down by authority, and judges how naughty an act is by its consequences (so accidentally breaking many cups is seen as worse than deliberately breaking one). Autonomous morality (roughly 10 years and over): the child understands rules are social agreements that can be changed by consent, and judges acts by the intention behind them, not just the outcome.

Kohlberg built on this idea, proposing that moral reasoning develops through levels. At the lowest level, decisions are about avoiding punishment and gaining reward. At the middle level, decisions are about following social rules and gaining approval. At the highest level, decisions are based on abstract principles such as justice, even if they conflict with a law. Like Piaget, Kohlberg saw moral reasoning as developing in a fixed order, with later stages reached by some people more than others.

The nature-nurture debate in development

Use development as a worked example of the debate. The order of Piaget's stages looks like nature (a fixed sequence), but the speed and final level a child reaches can be influenced by nurture (schooling, conversation, opportunity). Moral development similarly combines a maturing brain (nature) with the rules, models and consequences a child experiences (nurture).

Evaluating these ideas

Strength of Piaget and Kohlberg: they give an ordered, testable account of moral reasoning that matches the general pattern of children judging intentions more as they mature. Weakness: the stages may underestimate children, who can consider intentions earlier when stories are made simpler, and moral reasoning does not always predict moral behaviour. On the debate: framing it as nature versus nurture is itself a weakness, because the evidence consistently points to interaction.

Try this

Q1. In heteronomous morality, are actions judged by their consequences or their intentions? [1 mark]

• Cue. By their consequences (the outcome), not the intention.

Q2. Give one piece of evidence for the nature side of the debate. [2 marks]

• Cue. Children pass through developmental stages in a similar order across cultures, or twin studies show genetic influence.

Q3. Explain what is meant by the interactionist view of nature and nurture. [2 marks]

• Cue. Genes and experience work together, with biology setting a framework that the environment shapes.