Moral Development Educational Psychology > Moral Development

RESEARCH STARTERS ACADEMIC TOPIC OVERVIEWS

field; Kohlberg and Gilligan have received as much attention for Table of Contents the supposed rivalry between the two of them as they have for the theories themselves. Because the field has been fueled by the nature of the people and relationships involved, their stories are Abstract worthy of mention. Keywords Overview Overview More than any other single individual, Lawrence Kohlberg Further Insights is responsible for bringing the topic of moral development to the study of psychology. Carol Gilligan, a Harvard colleague Piaget of Kohlberg’s remembers his “…courage, his determination to Kohlberg talk about moral values in psychology, his bravery in countering the claim that psychology was a value-neutral social science” Gilligan (Walsh, 2000, p. 39). Although Kohlberg was one of the first, he was certainly not the last; his work has inspired a new generation Neo-Kohlberg of scholars who – either by disagreeing with the central tenets of Viewpoints Kohlberg’s theory or by expanding upon his ideas – have introduced new models of moral development. What will become Terms & Concepts clear as we review the various models are the tensions that exist in the field – is morality a function of reason, emotion, or both? Bibliography Can morality be defined solely in terms of justice, rights, and responsibility, or does it also include questions of compassion Suggested Reading and care? Does morality encompass more than our interpersonal relationships, such as larger questions about how we ought to live?

Abstract Further Insights This article summarizes theories of moral development – including those proposed by Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, and Piaget Neo-Kohlberg theorists – as well as the central tensions that exist Just as Kohlberg inspired a generation of scholars who followed in the field. Although Kohlberg is often credited with introduc- in his footsteps, so too was Kohlberg inspired. Kohlberg had ing the study of moral development to the field of psychology, every intention of becoming a clinical psychologist, but after he arguably introduced as many questions as he did answers. reading Jean Piaget’s early work on moral development and His focus on reason as the ‘backbone’ of moral development, his religious experience, Kohlberg’s career changed course (Walsh, insistence that development proceeds through a series of fixed 2000). Piaget is most well-known for his work on cognitive stages, and his preoccupation with justice to the exclusion of development, but he was interested in how people learn right other ‘types’ of morality such as compassion and care, earned from wrong as well; for Piaget, and for Kohlberg too, moral him a number of critics. His critics have subsequently either dis- development was highly dependent on cognitive development. As an individual’s cognitive structures changed over time, so too credited his theory, or attempted to expand it. The summary also did that individual’s ability to reason – about both intellectual describes some of the personalities of the people involved in this and moral matters (Thomas, 1997).

not a moral action at all” (Bergman, 2002, p. 108). Similarly, Keywords Ferrari and Okamoto (2003) argue that Piaget recognized the role of emotion in moral development; they conclude, in fact, that Piaget believed “moral identity is essentially affective, Autonomous Morality although structured and informed by reason” (p. 347). Again, for Kohlberg reason was the ‘backbone’ of morality, not merely Care a periphery player.

Developmental Stages Kohlberg A product of the cultural milieu of the 1960s and 70s, Kohl- Gilligan, Carol berg was very much an activist. Toward the end of his career especially, he was as interested in the practical applications of Heteronomous Morality his work as much as the development of theory, to the extent that his colleagues questioned whether his work in the schools Justice compromised his research (Walsh, 2000). From the beginning, however, Kohlberg put his beliefs into action. As an engineer Kohlberg, Lawrence during WWII, he smuggled Jewish refugees to safety. In his article titled ‘Beds for Bananas,’ “Kohlberg recounted with glee Moral Action that he and his shipmates had convinced various government inspectors that the South American freighter’s makeshift passen- Moral Judgment ger beds were, in fact, banana-storing containers” (Walsh, 2000, p. 37). Moral Motivation As steadfast as Kohlberg was in his own beliefs, he was known Moral Sensitivity equally for his willingness to listen to other points of view. As one colleague remembers “The people that Larry brought in did Piaget, Jean not necessarily agree with him. He would bring in critics. You never felt an ‘us/them’ or ‘either/or’ approach with him” (Walsh, Schemas 2000, p. 38). Indeed, Kohlberg was challenged by people who resided very close to home; one of his biggest challengers – Carol Gilligan – was a Harvard colleague. But Kohlberg didn’t allow others to do all the work; his willingness to listen to other Piaget studied moral development in children ranging in age points of view cultivated his revisionist tendencies. He revised from 6 through 12 by presenting them with moral dilemmas, his original theory many times over the years. as well as observing them at play. Based on their responses to the dilemmas and his observations, he concluded that children In the end, perhaps the evolution of the theory is its most defin- progress from heteronomous morality to autonomous morality; ing characteristic - Kohlberg’s work was ultimately unfinished. furthermore, they do so by advancing through three successive After more than fifteen years of intense pain and suffering – the stages of reasoning (Thomas, 1997). Younger children operate result of a parasitic infection contracted in Belize, incurable by according to rules prescribed by authority figures, such as teach- both Western and non-Western medical practices – Kohlberg ers, parents, police, and/or other adults. At this stage, children committed suicide at age 59 by walking into the Atlantic Ocean adhere to rules universally, without considering the particulars of on a January day in 1987. Those who worked with him closely a situation. Eventually, moral judgment evolves, as older chil- described him as ‘a model of graceful suffering’ who never once dren begin to equate justice with equality and then with equity. complained about his pain (Walsh, 2000). In other words, as children age they define moral judgment as What kind of theory did this activist, teacher and student propose? rule-following, treating everyone the same, and then treating What did Kohlberg want to contribute to the field, after return- people fairly based on the particulars of a situation. ing from WWII, insistent that psychology not adopt a stance of Narvaez (2005) writes, “some believe Kohlberg was more Piag- moral relativism? (Walsh, 2000). Perhaps a logical starting point etian than Piaget.” Indeed, Kohlberg does, in many cases, apply is a brief review of Kohlberg’s methodology, for while his theory the tenets of the cognitive-structuralist paradigm to moral devel- became a part of the vocabulary of every psychologist, the way in opment more stringently than Piaget did himself. The differences which he studied morality became equally well-known. Recall become most apparent when comparing the primacy each gave that Piaget studied moral development by observing children at the role of reason. For Piaget, the relationship between moral play and by presenting them with brief anecdotes; because Kohl- thought and action was not particularly troubling. Whereas berg believed morality is synonymous with reason, he had no many philosophers and psychologists hoped to understand why interest in how children might act. Instead, he wanted to investi- a person’s behavior was often at odds with her understanding of gate their thought processes, and thus presented a series of moral what she ought to do – often dubbed the thought/action prob- dilemmas and follow-up questions. In other words, he primarily lem – Piaget was interested in the reverse (Bergman, 2002). talked to children, rather than observing them interact and play. He believed children’s behavior and interactions with others Arguably the most well-known dilemma – the story of Heinz – is sometimes led them to new moral understandings. By contrast, presented in its entirety below. Kohlberg believed “a right action performed without reason is In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved Page 2 Moral Development Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D. cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save as churches and governments. 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 • Social-welfare morality: Morality based on the promotion druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. of universal values and rights. Individuals at this stage rec- He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose ognize that social systems often cannot protect the rights of of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone all people – especially minority groups. People at this stage he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but make decisions to uphold equity, equality, and general wel- he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what fare for all, even if such decisions go against society’s rules. 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, • Morality of Universalizable, Reversible, and Prescriptive “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from ethical principles: The highest stage of moral reasoning, it.” So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and characterized by universal morality – applicable for all peo- considers breaking into the man’s store to steal the drug for his ple at all times; reversible morality – switching the places wife (Kohlberg, 1981). of the defendant and plaintiff in any moral incident would The series of questions following the presentation of the dilemma not change the outcome; and prescriptive morality, based on are as critical as the story itself. Children are asked if Heinz promoting positive outcomes (e.g. compassion, care, respect should steal the drug, and if it’s right or wrong for him to do so; for others) rather than prohibiting negative ones (e.g. don’t they are also asked how Heinz should act if the sick person is a steal or cheat). stranger, rather than his wife. After analyzing their responses Whether or not moral development proceeds through these fixed, to the ten follow-up questions, Kohlberg categorizes their moral invariant stages is one of the more controversial aspects of Kohl- development into one of six stages. Development through stages berg’s theory. As Thomas (1997) reports, there is some empirical is one of the most defining characteristics of Kohlberg’s theory; he evidence for the first five stages, “however, there remains a ques- believed the stages were invariant – all people pass through each tion about whether Stage 6 might perhaps be an idea condition of the successive stages, in the same order and without omission never actually achieved in practice” (p. 61). Kohlberg also sug- of any single stage, although the speed at which they progress gested these stages were universal, cutting across all cultures. might vary (Rich and DeVitis, 1985). Importantly, each stage Snarey (1985, as cited in Woods, 1996), however, suggests that represents an individual’s thought structure, not specific content Kohlberg’s model is biased in favor of middle-class, urban, relevant to any particular moral or intellectual task; Kohlberg’s industrialized nations. moral development stages were closely tied to Piaget’s cognitive development stages, such that an individual couldn’t reach the If Kohlberg’s ideas about fixed stages are controversial, he takes highest stage of moral reasoning without also having reached the a bit of a more moderate line with respect to the question of cau- highest stage of cognitive development. Each of the six stages is sation. Labeled an interactionist, Kohlberg suggests that both described briefly below: environment and heredity play a role in one’s moral development (Thomas, 1997). He believed the level of logical reasoning • Heteronomous morality: As its name suggests, this stage a person attains is largely determined by genetics, but that moral corresponds to Piaget’s first level of moral reasoning. development is also influenced by motivation, exposure to social Heteronomous moral reasoning is characterized by absolute roles, and the type of justice practiced in a child’s immediate obedience to the letter of the law. At this stage, “a person environment. Schools and families that allow students to make assumes that moral judgments are so self-evident that no decisions and assume responsibility encourage moral devel- justification is needed beyond simply stating the rule that opment, Kohlberg argued, more so that autocratic, dictatorial has been broken” (Thomas, 1997, p. 59). environments.

• Instrumental morality: Instrumental morality is a pragmatic, Gilligan individualistic approach to moral reasoning. People at this Carol Gilligan has often been portrayed in academic and popular stage recognize that people have different perspectives of circles as Kohlberg’s loudest critic. A caricature that Kohlberg moral issues, based largely on maximizing their self-inter- himself, Gilligan argues, helped create; the “Kohlberg-Gilligan” ests while minimizing negative consequences. debate took on a life of its own, very different from the real people who inhabited the roles. Gilligan doesn’t even like to • Normative morality: Recognition that people are governed view herself as a critic. “No doubt, Kohlberg has many critics, by shared – rather than individual - interests. People obey but Gilligan emphatically denies that she is one of them” (Jor- rules not because they are handed down from an authority – gensen, 2006, p. 193). Indeed, others too are beginning to view as they are in stage 1 – but because they have been created Gilligan’s theory as an extension or expansion of Kohlberg’s by a collective community. Reasoning at this level is charac- rather than as an attempt to discredit it. Kohlberg himself, some terized by the golden rule – do unto others as you would do argue, embraced her work. “It seems that Kohlberg did not reject unto yourself (Thomas, 1997). Gilligan’s work, but felt that her research…enlarged the social cognitive domain, and could exist alongside his justice domain” • Social-system morality: People at this stage look beyond the (Jorgensen, 1993, p. 187). Either way, many scholars disagree informal, commonly agreed upon rules described in norma- with some fundamental tenets of Kohlberg’s theory; Gilligan, for tive moral reasoning. Instead, individuals recognize codi- better or worse, has been portrayed as the leader of the pack. fied, institutionalized norms put forth by social systems such Gilligan first challenged the methodology Kohlberg used to

EBSCO Research Starters® • Copyright © 2008 EBSCO Publishing Inc. • All Rights Reserved Page 3 Moral Development Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D. develop his theory. She didn’t feel that hypothetical moral suggest are three equally important processes – moral sensitivity, dilemmas were accurate representations of the way people grap- moral motivation, and moral action. Sensitivity involves both pled with right and wrong in their everyday lives. She writes, perception – being able to recognize a problem – but also moral “His focus on hypothetical rather than real dilemmas sharpened imagination, the ability to empathize, take another person’s per- my awareness of the disparity between the assumptions govern- spective, and imagine all possible outcomes. Moral motivation ing research methods and the realities of people’s lives. With a involves the selection of priorities – choosing to give money to group of graduate students, I set out to explore identity and moral a charity, for example, rather than buying something for oneself development in actual situations of conflict and choice” (Gilli- – and long-term motivation, fueled by one’s religious, profes- gan, 2004, p. 132). In addition, Gilligan questioned Kohlberg’s sional, or personal code of ethics. The Neo-Kohlbergian model sample; he had used mostly men, causing Gilligan to wonder if of moral development also includes moral action, defined as both the resulting theory could accurately represent the moral devel- the ‘staying power’ to complete an ethical action, as well as the opment of women. “My question was not how well can women ‘know-how’ to reach one’s goal. Rest et al. argue that “to com- do when measured by standards derived from studying men, but plete an ethical action one must have skills in conflict resolution, rather, what had been lost by leaving out women?”(Gilligan, assertiveness, leadership, and planning” (Narvaez, 2005, p. 147). 2004, p. 132). While the Neo-Kohlbergian approach centers around the four Gilligan discovered that a great deal had been left out. In listen- components described above, it also shifts perspective with ing to women’s voices, she learned that issues of relationships respect to several other important points. Like Gilligan, Neo- and responsibilities, as opposed to justice and rights, were at Kohlbergian theorists make room for an understanding of the center of women’s moral dilemmas. Dubbed a ‘morality of morality that includes more than simply justice and rights. Nar- care’, as opposed to a morality of justice, Gilligan’s theory sug- vaez (2005) explains “Although the neo-Kohlbergian perspective gested that Kohlberg was only telling half the story. She writes, also emphasizes the primacy of justice…it conceives of care as “in this conception, the moral problem arises from conflicting inherent in justice, becoming more fundamentally integrated in responsibilities rather than from competing rights and requires the later stages” (p. 121). For Rest et. al (1999) care is subsumed for its resolution a mode of thinking that is contextual and narra- in what they call moral sensitivity, or the ability to consider the tive rather than formal and abstract” (as cited in Woods, 1996, p. needs of others. In addition, the neo-Kohlbergian perspective 377). Although Gilligan has often been criticized for highlight- shares the belief with Kohlberg critics that stage theories are “too ing gender differences in moral development, her intention was broad-brush, missing much of development, and underestimat- to suggest a different way of thinking rather than to generalize ing early signs of change” (Narvaez, 2005, p. 120). Whereas about either sex (Thomas, 1997). In fact, subsequent research Kohlberg adopted a hard-line with respect to stage development, suggests men and women use both styles of reasoning – care and believing that they are universal and fixed, neo-Kohlbergians justice – in different situations, although women tend to use the adopt a “soft-stage” model of development. More specifically, care orientation, and vice versa, more often (Woods, 1996). neo-Kohlbergians prefer using the terminology ‘schemas’ rather than ‘stages’, to refer to the changes that occur in moral judgment If Gilligan’s intention was not to prove differences between men structures as children develop. Finally, neo-Kohlbergians take in women in terms of their reasoning about right and wrong, it issue with Kohlberg’s methodology; instead of relying solely on was her intention to ensure that women’s voices were no longer verbal expression – believing that people often know more than excluded from theory building. Her contribution to social sci- they can say – Neo-Kohlbergians utilize methodologies that tap ence is in fact larger than her contribution to the study of moral implicit and tacit memories. Rest, et al. (1999) have been using development. She explains “I wrote In a Different Voice to show the Defining Issues Test (DIT) for the past 25 years, measuring how the inclusion of women’s voices changes the voice of psy- moral development with people of all ages and nationalities. chological theory” (Gilligan, 1996, p. 132). Bringing women’s lives into focus, she believes, is a disruptive act, changing our collective account of history altogether. Viewpoints Neo-Kohlberg Arnold (2000) suggests the study of morality has been plagued There are many critics who regard Kohlberg’s work as “out- by disagreement and controversy to a greater extent than other moded, beyond repair, and too faulty for anybody to take topics because of the sensitive nature of the topic itself. “Per- seriously. These critics suggest that research would advance haps because morality, by its very nature, elicits such deeply felt more profitably by taking a different approach” (Rest, Narvaez, convictions, its study has been characterized by unique challenge Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999, p. vii). Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and and rampant controversy – and, as a result, a truly revisionist Thoma (1999) however, strongly disagree. While recognizing spirit” (p. 365). Indeed, since Kohlberg proposed his theory a certain flaws in both the methodology and content of Kohlberg’s little over five decades ago, the field has experienced tremendous theory, Rest et al (1999) have reformulated his original thesis, growth and change. But the theories presented here paint just naming it a “Neo-Kohlbergian Approach.” The best way to one small picture of the field as a whole; almost every theory introduce it is to demonstrate the ways in which it addresses the of development – from behaviorist theories to attribution theory weaknesses of Kohlberg’s theory. to social learning theory to Freud’s psychoanalytic theory – has something to say about how people learn right from wrong. Phi- First and foremost, Rest et al. (1999) agree with critics who sug- losophers too, have been grappling with similar questions for gest that Kohlberg focuses too narrowly on moral judgment, at centuries. Moral development will likely remain a topic of great the expense of other psychological processes. The neo-Kohl- interest in the decades to come. bergian approach includes judgment, but alongside what they

Terms & Concepts Bibliography Autonomous Morality: According to Piaget, our moral devel- Arnold, M. L. (2000). Stage, sequence, and sequels: Changing opment proceeds from heteronomous morality – morality with conceptions of morality, post-Kohlberg. Educational a strict focus on rules handed down from authority figures – to Psychology Review, 12, 365-383. Retrieved November autonomous morality – morality that pays attention to issues 20, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search such as equality and equity, and the particulars of a situation. Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true Care: Kohlberg has been criticized for conceiving of morality &db=aph&AN=3648794&site=ehost-live as a function of justice alone, to the exclusion of other characteristics such as compassion and care. Carol Gilligan, a Harvard Bergman, R. (2004). Caring for the ethical ideal: Nel colleague, among others, has proposed alternative theories Noddings on moral education. Journal of Moral of moral development that focus on our relationships to other Education, 33, 149-162. Retrieved November 20, 2007 people instead of more formal and abstract notions of justice. from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier Developmental Stages: Kohlberg’s theory is based on the work http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ap of Piaget, who proposed that children’s cognitive development h&AN=13460964&site=ehost-live proceeds in a series of fixed and invariant stages. Like Piaget, Kohlberg suggested that moral development proceeds through six stages: heteronomous, normative, instrumental, social-sys- Bergman, R. (2002). Why be moral? A conceptual model tem, social-welfare, and universal and prescriptive morality. from developmental psychology. Human Development, Neo-Kohlberg theorists abandon the hard-line stage theory. 45, 104-124. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search. Heteronomous Morality: According to Piaget, our moral ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1137 development proceeds from heteronomous morality – morality 5816&site=ehost-live with a strict focus on rules handed down from authority figures – to autonomous morality – morality that pays attention to issues such as equality and equity, and the particulars of a situation. Ferrari, M., & Okamoto, C.M. (2003). Moral development as the personal education of feeling and reason: From James Moral Action: The Neo-Kohlberg approach to moral develop- to Piaget. Journal of Moral Education, 32, 341-355. ment criticized Kohlberg for focusing too narrowly on moral judgment or reasoning. They suggested four components to Retrieved November 20, 2007 from EBSCO online data- moral development, one of which is moral action. Action base, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost. involves two skills – the perseverance to see an ethical action com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12252613&sit through to the end, and the know-how to achieve the goal. e=ehost-live Moral Judgment: According to Kohlberg, judgment or reason is the backbone of morality. He believed that a moral action per- Gilligan, C. (2004). Recovering psyche: Reflections on life- formed without reason was not a moral action at all. His theory history and history. Annual of Psychoanalysis, 32, 131- was often criticized for focusing too narrowly on judgment, to 147. Retrieved November 28, 2007 from EBSCO online the exclusion of psychological processes such as affect and moti- database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebsco- vation. host.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15392547 &site=ehost-live Moral Motivation: The Neo-Kohlberg approach to moral development criticized Kohlberg for focusing too narrowly on moral judgment or reasoning. They suggested four components to Jorgensen, G. (2006). Kohlberg and Gilligan: Duet or duel? moral development, one of which is moral motivation. Motiva- Journal of Moral Education, 35, 179-196. Retrieved tion includes short-term motivation – selection of priorities – as November 20, 2007 from EBSCO online database, well as long-term motivation, fueled by one’s religious, profes- Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/ sional, or personal code of ethics. login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20855429&site=eh Moral Sensitivity: The Neo-Kohlberg approach to moral devel- ost-live opment criticized Kohlberg for focusing too narrowly on moral judgment or reasoning. They suggested four components to Kohlberg, Lawrence (1981). Essays on Moral Development, moral development, one of which is moral sensitivity. Sensitiv- Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. Harper & ity involves the ability to recognize a problem, and the ability Row. to imagine all possible actions and consequences for self and others. Narvaez, D. (2005). The Neo-Kohlbergian tradition and Schemas: Neo-Kohlberg theorists abandon Kohlberg’s stage beyond: Schemas, expertise, and character. Nebraska theory of moral development. Instead, they describes changes in Symposium on Motivation, 51, 119-163. Retrieved reasoning in terms of schemas - mental representations actively November 20, 2007 from EBSCO online database, constructed by people.

Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/ Woods, C. (1996). Gender differences in moral acquisi- login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=17792073&site=eh tion and development: A review of Kohlberg’s and ost-live Gilligan’s models of justice and care. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 24, 375-384. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thomas, S. (1999). Retrieved November 28, 2007 from EBSCO online data- Postconventional moral thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian base, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost. approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=8771798&site Publishers. =ehost-live

Rich, J.M., & DeVitis, J.L. (1985). Theories of moral develop- Suggested Reading ment. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. Killen, M., & Hart, D. (Eds.). (1995). Morality in every- Thomas, M. (1997). Moral development theories: Secular and day life: Developmental perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. religious. Wesport, CT: Greenwood Press. Munsey, B. (Ed.). (1980). Moral development, moral edu- Walker, L. J. (2004). What does moral functioning entail? cation, and Kohlberg. Birmingham, AL: Religious In T.A. Thorkildsen and H.J. Walberg (Eds.). Nurturing Education Press. Morality (pp. 3-18). New York, NY: Plenum Publishers. Thomas, M. (1997). An integrated theory of moral develop- Walsh, C. (2000). The life and legacy of Lawrence Kohlberg. ment. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Society, 37. 38-41. Retrieved November 20, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http:// Van Haaften, W., Wren, T., & Tellings, A. (Eds.). (2000). search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&A Moral sensibilities and education II: The schoolchild. N=2655451&site=ehost-live London, England: Concorde Publishing House.

Van Haaften, W., Wren, T., & Tellings, A. (Eds.). (2000). Moral sensibilities and education I: The preschoolchild. London, England: Concorde Publishing House.

Essay by Jennifer Kretchmar, Ph.D.

Dr. Jennifer Kretchmar earned her Doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She cur- rently works as a Research Associate in undergraduate admissions.