Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Kohlberg's theory is one of the most frequently tested frameworks in Developmental Psychology because it illustrates how cognitive development shapes moral reasoning—a core principle you'll see across the AP exam. Understanding these stages helps you connect moral thinking to broader concepts like cognitive development, socialization, social influence, and cultural psychology. The exam loves to present moral dilemmas and ask you to identify which stage of reasoning a person is demonstrating, so you need to recognize the underlying logic, not just the stage name.
Here's the key insight: Kohlberg argued that moral development follows a predictable sequence tied to cognitive growth, but not everyone reaches the highest stages. The exam will test whether you understand why people reason differently at each level and how factors like age, culture, and gender influence moral thinking. Don't just memorize the six stages—know what motivates moral decisions at each level and be ready to critique the theory's limitations.
Kohlberg organized his six stages into three broader levels, each representing a fundamentally different relationship between the self and moral rules. The progression moves from external control to internalized principles.
Compare: Pre-Conventional vs. Post-Conventional—both can lead to law-breaking, but for opposite reasons. A Stage 1 thinker breaks rules to avoid personal harm; a Stage 6 thinker breaks unjust laws based on universal principles. If an FRQ presents civil disobedience, distinguish why the person disobeyed.
At this level, moral reasoning is entirely egocentric. The child (or adult functioning at this level) hasn't internalized society's rules—they're just responding to external pressures.
Compare: Stage 1 vs. Stage 2—both are self-focused, but Stage 1 is passive (avoiding punishment) while Stage 2 is active (seeking reward). A Stage 1 child won't steal because they'll get caught; a Stage 2 child won't steal unless they're sure they'll get something better in return.
The shift to conventional morality marks a major cognitive leap: the person now considers how their actions affect relationships and society, not just themselves.
Compare: Stage 3 vs. Stage 4—both prioritize conformity, but Stage 3 is about personal relationships ("What will my friends think?") while Stage 4 is about abstract systems ("What does society require?"). Most adults operate primarily at Stage 4.
Post-conventional reasoning requires formal operational thinking and the ability to evaluate laws against abstract ethical standards. Very few people consistently reason at this level.
Compare: Stage 5 vs. Stage 6—both question laws, but Stage 5 works within the system (change unjust laws democratically) while Stage 6 may act outside it (break unjust laws based on higher principles). Stage 6 is theoretical—Kohlberg later questioned whether anyone consistently operates here.
Kohlberg's stage progression isn't automatic—it depends on cognitive growth, social experience, and environmental factors. Understanding these influences helps you answer questions about individual differences.
Compare: Piaget vs. Kohlberg—Piaget identified two stages of moral reasoning (heteronomous and autonomous), while Kohlberg expanded this into six stages. Both agree that moral development parallels cognitive development, but Kohlberg provides more nuanced distinctions.
The AP exam frequently tests your ability to evaluate psychological theories critically. Knowing these critiques is just as important as knowing the stages themselves.
Compare: Kohlberg vs. Gilligan—both study moral development, but Kohlberg emphasizes justice and rights while Gilligan emphasizes care and relationships. An FRQ asking about gender differences in moral reasoning is looking for this contrast.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Pre-conventional reasoning | Stage 1 (punishment avoidance), Stage 2 (self-interest) |
| Conventional reasoning | Stage 3 (peer approval), Stage 4 (law and order) |
| Post-conventional reasoning | Stage 5 (social contract), Stage 6 (universal principles) |
| External motivation | Stages 1-2 (consequences determine morality) |
| Social motivation | Stages 3-4 (relationships and rules determine morality) |
| Internal motivation | Stages 5-6 (principles determine morality) |
| Gender bias critique | Gilligan's care ethics, male-only original sample |
| Cultural bias critique | Western individualism, collectivist alternatives |
A teenager refuses to cheat on a test because "my parents would be so disappointed in me." Which stage of moral reasoning does this reflect, and why?
Compare Stage 1 and Stage 6 reasoning about the same action (breaking a law). How would the motivation differ even if the behavior looks identical?
Why did Carol Gilligan criticize Kohlberg's theory, and what alternative framework did she propose? How might this appear on an FRQ about gender and development?
A person argues that civil disobedience is justified when laws violate human dignity. Which stage does this represent, and how does it differ from Stage 4 reasoning?
Explain why someone with formal operational thinking (Piaget) might still remain at the conventional level of moral reasoning (Kohlberg). What additional factors influence progression to post-conventional stages?