Introduction
Mary’s case reflects a serious case of criminal behavior, not counting the numerous crimes committed against her by her family members. Mary is a serious psychological case, as she has faced numerous negative influences in her life and suffered serious emotional trauma. Raised by a father who was abusive against the family and a mother who was emotionally distant, Mary’s childhood and most formative years were spent facing damaging abuse that would affect her for the rest of her life. Her step-father, who arrived on the scene when Mary was nearly ten, sexually abused her and her sister until they both ran away from home. Numerous high level studies have been conducted that have developed a prevailing social belief that it these crimes perpetuated against children have severely damaging effects on the psychological development of children. Mary’s unique case goes far beyond most psychological development theories, as they all fail to explain why the teenager behaved the way she did.
However, Kohlberg’s Moral Development Theory does adequately explain why Mary behaved the way she did. Kohlberg’s theory was first created after Kohlberg observed seventy-two school children by asking them to answer a serious of questions about a few case studies, including the famous “Heinz medicine” case. The children were asked the same questions in a few year intervals, and Kohlberg was amazed at the changes in their answers and the reasoning behind the choices made. Thus, the overlying foundation of the theory is that children go through various stages of moral development, based upon their progression from the previous stage and the environment surrounding them. At the end of the stages, if they have progressed appropriately, individuals should have a clear moral viewpoint in conjunction with societal norms that influence the way they think and also influences their interactions with others in society.
As will be discussed later in the study, there are a few problems with Kohlberg’s model. Kohlberg did not believe that cultural and ethnic norms affected moral development, which is a widely held belief in the current era. This means that he viewed moral development to be consistently similar in all cultures, ignoring that societal norms are different from society to society. In addition, Kohlberg did not place an emphasis on which stage of the theory is the most important for moral development, which in the case of Mary makes it difficult to directly pinpoint where her moral development was damaged.
This theory applies best to Mary’s case because she displayed a clear lack of understanding of the moral evils of her action. She did not recognize that the murder she committed was inherently wrong, and even blamed the victim for her transgression. Mary’s clear and concise misunderstanding of the importance of commonly held societal beliefs demonstrates a damaged stage four development, which is directly the result of her abusive family influencing her earlier stages. Furthermore, Mary demonstrated issues during each critical developmental stage after stage one, and the psychological problems caused by each trauma can be carefully tracked along each stage and her age as she grew older.
Application of the Theory
Unfortunately, there are many young people like Mary in the streets all over the world. By understanding their motives, it is possible to help prevent future Maries from committing similar crimes. Kohlberg’s model is divided into several stages that help determine behavior at the individual’s current age and also later on down the road. If the moral stages are not developed properly, the individual is likely to become unstable and possible psychological anomalies can arise down the road (Kohlberg, n.d.). Several studies support this hypothesis of behavioral explanation; the most famous was Kohlberg’s, where seventy-two schoolchildren were studied and asked to explain moral decisions from various case studies (Crain, n.d.). The questioning was repeated with the same group over a few year intervals, and a remarkable change in their answers reflected how their moral development had progressed.
The first stage of development corresponds to how a child understands pain; essentially, children do not have a moral compass yet, but respond to pain incentives to maintain proper behavior. Several sources cite that this stage of development, along with the second, finishes around age nine, which is about the time that Mary’s father left her household. The case study mentioned that Mary’s father subjected many in the family to regular beatings; this likely would have damaged Mary’s social development in terms of understanding proper moral behavior, especially because of the sheer excessiveness of the physical abuse. Kohlberg believed children around this age see morality as external to themselves (Crain, n.d.), as it is something they do not have to immediately concern themselves with. Mary would not have understood the reason for the excessive beatings from her father due to her inability to understand the complex psychology of her abusive father, not would she have been able to understand the immorality of his actions. She would have only been able to understand right and wrong by the punishment of the belt, and this confusion would have likely seriously damaged her stage one development.
Thus, a strong case can be made to show that Mary’s earliest perceptions of morality were damaged to begin with. This same understanding of morality likely continued under her step-father when she was little, as the case study revealed the step-father to be even more abusive to the family. If a child does not understand what specific behaviors will attract punishment, the child cannot be expected to develop an appropriate sense of right and wrong. Some consider this stage the most important in childhood moral development because it is the first and therefore the most formative; as previously mentioned, Mary could not develop an adequate stage one moral compass because she expected pain and punishment regardless of the morality of her actions, meaning she could not be expected to know true right from true wrong. The actions of her father directly helped lead her down her later road.
Kohlberg’s second stage also ties into the same level as the first one; it is not entirely clear where on ends and the other begins, but it is widely recognized both stages are over with at age nine. This stage is where children recognize that there is not one sole, universal source of authority, and that different authorities have different viewpoints. The case study says that Mary’s mother was emotionally and physically distant, standing in contrast to the authoritarian step-father. This duality likely affected Mary’s perception of authority at an early age, as the authoritarian figures in her life were inconsistent and did not project a sense of morality in their punishments. Several studies have shown that authoritarian figures are more respected by children as opposed to those who occupy a lesser social/dominant position (Edlund, 2008). This means that while her dad and step-father were abusive, they remained the dominant educators about moral development for the young girl.
Beyond these stages, individuals enter into the conventional level of development. This level reflects and individuals transition from conformity to a social group to loyalty to it (psu.edu, n.d.). Stage three is the first instance of the child performing good acts because he/she wants to be seen as good by other groups. Because Mary was not taught true right from wrong at an early age, she was unable to enter this stage of development fully prepared. Individuals are in their early teens at this stage or in their later preteens, and at that age Mary was rebelling in school. Mary likely learned that behavior in response to the injustices suffered at the hands of her step-father, and all authority was viewed as aggressively against her. There are few empirical studies to show a correlation between rebellion and a damaged stage three development, but a study conducted of school aged groups showed that younger children reacted more strongly against people in a lesser social position than others (Edlund, 2008); this means that because Mary’s social/authoritarian constructs were corrupted, it was difficult to associate appropriate authority with another power figure.
This stage revolves around interpersonal development, which Mary certainly struggled with due to numerous factors. First and foremost was the knowledge that her step-father was sexually abusing her and had abused her older sister. The internal damage that this caused is unparalleled; she was unable to develop a healthy relationship with the largest authority figure in her life because of his illegal and highly immoral actions. Attempting to tell her mother what her step-father did alienated Mary from her mother, increasing the damage done to Mary during this stage of critical development. Mary, as the case study mentioned, witnessed first-hand the hypocrisy of her step-father, who complained about her while sexually abusing her. This further damaged her ability to form expectations of what a functioning interpersonal relationship should be like, and it likely damaged her ability to advance her moral development nearly beyond repair. These conflicts inhibited her ability to advance to the next stage. Unfortunately, the case study does not mention her interaction with her siblings, which would be critical in understanding the other family relationships and her own development at this stage. What is important is her peer group, which is described as a group of delinquents much like herself. Thus, Mary appears to have formed a group of young adults much like herself to satiate her need for positive interpersonal relationships, though these friendships produced negative results and in the long run likely helped lead her further down the path of crime. This assumption is based on the fact that after running away, Mary lived with other youths who were homeless, and found a close friend who would be the murderer she was an accomplice to. While these relationships produced negative results, her increasing psychological reliance upon them is based on the fact that she was unable to develop a suitable, healthy string of relationships with her family.
The fourth stage of development involves maintaining the social order established by the place of the individual in society. During this stage, individuals are expected to have developed a strong sense of morality and be capable of using that sense to maintain their good standing in a group setting. Whereas stage three focuses more on individual interactions, stage four is the result of the individual attempting to interact with the broader social context. This context is the interaction with the law and advanced cultural norms. Stage four is similar to the first stage of development, due to the fact that Kohlberg’s case group gave similar answers to their case studies (Crain, n.d.). However, the reasoning was different, and the students were focusing on the viewpoint of society as a whole when answering the questions. Thus, to be in stage four of the development cycle, an individual must have clear and consistent knowledge of social customs and norms.
Mary demonstrated a remarkable removal from stage four development. While this is likely because her stage three development was halted by negative influences from her family and peer groups, the effects of this fact has not gone unnoticed. Mary most likely had an addiction to drugs, and did not just engage in regular illegal drug use for just the social or recreational benefit. Her reliance on drugs as a social crutch helped lead her to seek ways to pay for her addiction; upon leaving home, she began to engage in prostitution. Thus, Mary frequently committed illegal actions, one in order to fuel the other. These activities were performed in complete disregard to the ill social effects they produced, which is a strong characteristic of a poor stage four development. Mary’s inability to grow in this stage and in previous stages enabled her to continue her life of crime and eventually led her to commit murder.
Previously it was mentioned that Mary disregarded societal norms in regards to drugs usage and prostitution, but her moral development was so corrupted that it also led to murder. A possible counterargument to this would be that Mary displayed significant hesitation before the final murder, as her and her accomplice backed down from the two previous murder attempts. It can be reasoned they backed down because of fear of justice, meaning operant conditioning was at play. However, the potential negative stimulus did not prove a large enough deterrent, eliminating it as a credible defense because the crime was still committed. Under operant conditioning theories, it is possible that the perpetrators would still show remorse, even if it was due to the punishment inflicted upon them; because Mary showed no remorse or fear during her interrogation, she demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the moral implications of her action. Her accusation that the victim was to blame for his own stabbing also showed a complete disregard for any guilt complex that she should possess, further displaying her lack of conscience and poor moral development.
Possible Issues with Moral Development in this Context
There are some additional factors that should ideally be considered when considering the Moral Development Theory, but are not provided for in this unique case. A few studies emphasize the differences in moral development with a focus on the differences in race and ethnicity of the studied individuals. The purpose of these studies is to determine if these factors help influence the development of the individuals. Kohlberg did not believe that different cultures would have a significant effect on moral development, but other studies and modern though disagree (Fleming, 2006). Without knowing the cultural background of Mary and her family, it is difficult to understand fully how culture played a role in her early experiences, though this is not a key factor in understanding her locus of decision making. Factors other than Mary’s ethnic background could also affect her moral development, such as religion (Loftabadi, n.d.). Though these factors were included by later psychologists and not by Kohlberg, they could still offer even more insight into the nexus of Mary’s decision making.
Conclusion
Mary’s criminal behavior is a direct result of a failed moral development from her formative years until the time of the murder. No other theory adequately describes why Mary chose the path she did. The evolutionary based theories rely on information about her family that the case study does not provide, and the environmental theories do not fully account for her leaping to murder. Only the Moral Development Theory accounts for her actions, as her poor moral development caused the incentives of committing robbery to far outweigh the cons of going to jail. Mary simply had no concept of right or wrong, showing her to be a product of over a decade of moral development (or lack thereof). Kohlberg inadvertently incorporated environmental psychological principles into his models, as each stage of development is influenced by the world around the child. This is important because it allows us to say Mary’s early environment led to her immoral development, and helped prevent her from living a successful life. Statistics show that children raised in similar environments often end up committing similar crimes when they are older, and raising kids in a similar manner, which is an unfortunate reality in today’s world. Thus, by her family raising Mary in such a poor way, they helped influence her psychologically to being desensitized to crime, enabling her to commit horrible deeds without an ounce of remorse.
Changing her environment in her formative years would certainly have affected her future behavioral patterns. This is not to say that the environment she is exposed to does not have an effect on her behavioral patterns, but different situations she is exposed to will always provoke a different response dependent upon the variables in each issue. However, significant evidence exists that shows children raised in poor home environments develop slower than other children, and often in more negative ways. The foster care program is based upon this evidence; if Mary had been removed from this negative environment, her moral development would have definitely occurred along very different lines. The problem with Kohlberg’s model is it does not specify the most formative stage of moral development. Later studies would show that the earliest years are by far the most important in normal development, which would imply that her abusive father was most responsible for Mary’s moral absence. Her step-father cannot escape the blame, but regardless, the Moral Development Theory is the only psychological theory that adequately explains Mary’s behavioral process due to her damage during every stage and the increasing pressures exerted upon her family during each later stage. The most unfortunate aspect of this case study is that cases like this actually occur all across the world and due to similar reasons, making it all the more paramount that psychologists understand why children develop the way they do and be able to identify when a child is in need.
Work Cited:
Kohlberg, L. (n.d.). Development of Moral Character and Moral Ideology. Review of Child Development Research, 1,
Crain, W. C. Kohlberg’s moral stages. Retrieved August 5, 2016, from cs.umb.edu, http://www.cs.umb.edu/~hdeblois/285L/Kohlberg’sMoralStages.htm
Edlund, S. (2008). Observations of Childrens’ Responses to Different Types of Adult Authority Figures. Rhode Island College Digital Commons
psu.edu. Stages of Moral Development. Retrieved August 5, 2016, from info.psu.edu.sa, http://info.psu.edu.sa/psu/maths/Stages%20of%20Moral%20Development%20According %20to%20Kohlberg.pdf
Fleming, J. S. (2006). Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, and Others on Moral Development. Retrieved August 5, 2016, from warwick.ac.uk, https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/activities/modules/ugmodules/ethicalbeings/theoretical_approach_intro_reading.pdf
Loftabadi, H. Criticism on moral development theories of Piaget, Kohlberg, and Bandura and providing a new model for research in Iranian students’ moral development. Retrieved August 5, 2016, from sid.ir, http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/97420082403.pdf
