Kohlberg dilemma story test

Kohlberg used a series of dilemma reasoning stories, the most typical one is the story of "Hindes stealing medicine":

A woman in Europe is dying of cancer. The doctor thinks that only one medicine can save her, and that is radium recently invented by a pharmacist in this city. It costs a lot of money to make this medicine, and the pharmacist's fee is ten times the cost. He spent 200 yuan to make radium, and he charged 2000 yuan for this medicine. Hindes, the husband of the sick woman, borrowed money from acquaintances everywhere, and only borrowed 1 000 yuan, which is only half of the cost of medicine. Hindes had to tell the pharmacist that his wife was dying, and asked the pharmacist to sell it to him at a lower price, or allow him to take credit. But the pharmacist said, "No, I invented this medicine just to make money." Hindes had no choice but to pry open the shop door and steal medicine for his wife.

After telling the story, the examiner asked the subjects a series of questions: Should the husband do this? Why should I? Why not? Should the judge sentence him? Why? Wait a minute. Children can answer the questions in Kohlberg's dilemma story positively or negatively. What Kohlberg really cares about is not what kind of answer the child makes, but the reason the child gives when proving the answer. Because in Kohlberg's view, children's rationality (that is, children's reasoning concept) is based on its internal logical structure, so children's moral judgment level can be determined according to their rationality.

Kohlberg used the longitudinal method to continuously measure and record the moral judgments of 72 boys 10-26 years old 10 years. Since then, the research results have been extended to all countries in the world for verification. Finally, in 1969, he put forward his own theory: the development of children's moral judgment can be divided into three levels and six stages. The following is Kohlberg's definition and characteristics of each stage of children's moral judgment.

Kohlberg Dilemma Story Test was originally a research method used by American developmental psychologist L. Kohlberg (1927- 1987) to study the development mode of children's and adolescents' moral cognition, and now it is also used by human resource managers for moral judgment and moral evaluation of talents in recruitment and selection.

Kohlberg's dilemma story test uses nine dilemmas with conflicting moral values, allowing subjects to judge right and wrong, good and evil in dilemma reasoning and explain the reasons. Kohlberg carefully studied the subjects' statements and divided them into 30 different moral concepts, such as right and wrong, rights and obligations, responsibility, reward and punishment, moral motivation and behavioral consequences.

Level 1: pre-defined level

The characteristic of this level is that individuals have no internal moral standards, but rely on external requirements. As the benchmark of moral judgment, they depend on the concrete results of characters' behavior and their own interests.

Stage 1: punishment and obedience oriented.

Individuals determine the quality of their actions through the consequences of their actions, regardless of the significance and value of such consequences to people. It must be wrong to think that everything should be punished, no matter what the reason is. Escaping punishment and surrendering power unconditionally is value in itself. For example, they say it is reasonable for Hindes to steal medicine, because if he doesn't steal medicine, his wife will die of illness and he will be convicted. Others said that Hindes should not steal medicine, because if caught, he would go to prison and be punished.

The second stage: Relative utility is guidance.

Based on the function of behavior and meeting each other's needs, individuals begin to know that the relationship between people is judged according to the relationship like market position. They know fairness, exchange and equal distribution, but they always explain these values in material or practical ways. Exchange is "you tickle me, I tickle you", not based on loyalty, gratitude or fairness. For example, the actor in favor of stealing drugs thinks that his wife used to cook and wash clothes for Hindes, but now she is ill and should steal. Some people think that the drugstore owner invented drugs only to make money, so the boss is right.

Level 2: Custom Level

The characteristic of this level is that individuals can act according to the expectations and requirements of families, collectives or countries, and think that this is valuable in itself, regardless of the direct consequences of these actions. At this time, they can think about moral issues from the perspective of social members, understand and agree with social behavior norms, and abide by and implement these norms.

The third stage: guided by "good boy".

Individuals are guided by the harmony of interpersonal relationships, and think that any behavior that pleases others or helps others or praises others is a good behavior. In moral evaluation, we always take into account the expectations and requirements of others and society for "good children" and try to do it according to this requirement. We began to judge the right and wrong, good and evil of behavior from its motivation. If you think that Hindes's motive for stealing drugs is not bad, it is illegal and should not be done. Students' moral judgment at this stage is based on whether personal behavior is allowed or not.

The fourth stage: obeying authority and maintaining social order as the guide.

At this time, the basis of personal judgment is to believe that rules and laws maintain social order, so individuals should follow the obligations of authority and related norms. Because it is sometimes difficult to balance emotion, law and reason, students at this stage often have contradictions when judging good and evil. If stealing medicine from Hindes is to treat his wife, it is reasonable. But stealing is forbidden by law, so stealing medicine should not be done. At this stage, students are required to fulfill their obligations and others are required to abide by them.

Level 3: Post-customization level, also known as principle level.

The main feature of this level is that individuals strive to break away from the authority of the group or individual who grasps the principle, and do not regard themselves as a whole with this group, but regard universal moral principles and conscience as the basic norms of behavior. Considering the justice and personal dignity of human beings, their moral judgments exceed the standards of secular laws and authority.

The fifth stage: social contract orientation.

Individuals begin to realize that the moral norms of laws or customs are just a social contract, which is agreed by everyone and can be changed at the request of most people. When judging good or bad, it is considered that only those who love everything are moral, and the wrong behavior can reduce the degree of blame according to their good motives. But it doesn't mean that the wrong behavior is correct, because the motive is good. For example, he expressed sympathy for Hindes's behavior and was willing to appear in court to defend him and ask for a reduced sentence. Someone asked: the law allows bosses to make money regardless of people's lives, right? They believe that they have a moral responsibility to society and to other members of society.

The sixth stage: guided by universal ethical principles.

Under the guidance of life values, the standard of judging right and wrong, good and evil goes beyond the constraints of realistic moral norms, and thinks with justice, justice, equality and dignity as the standards. And carry out some activities according to the principle of your own choice, and behave completely self-disciplined. For example, they praised Hindes's behavior as a boycott of allowing drugstore owners to make huge profits. Human life is more precious than property, and it is noble to be willing to bear humiliation and punishment in order to save people from danger. This kind of understanding has broken through the existing rules and regulations, not starting from specific moral standards, but thinking and judging from the essence of morality. (Information from Baidu Encyclopedia)