Don C. Locke

Cognitive Stages or Developmental Phases? A Critique of Kohlberg's Stage-Structural Theory of Moral Reasoning.

Abstract After some preliminary doubts about Kohlbergs method of assessing moral reasoning, his ‘stage‐structural’ theory is criticized under six heads. (1) The claim that the stages constitute structural wholes, representing unified and differentiated patterns of thought: it is argued that the available evidence, and Kohlbergs own methodology, unambiguously implies a developmental continuum, not discrete stage structures. (2) Invariance, which, after counter‐evidence led to a revision in the theory, has yet to be demonstrated. (3) Cultural Universality: it is argued that, because of an ambiguity in the notion of a universal principle, Kohlbergs arguments against cultural relativism tend, if anything, to support it. (4) Logical Necessity: it is argued that Kohlberg shows at most that the sequence forms a hierarchy, from which neither its logical nor even its psychological necessity follows. (5) Increasing Cognitive Adequacy, with the associated claim that it is cognitive conflict which produces movemen...

The Locke paradigm of cross cultural counseling

SummaryTo meet the needs of culturally different populations, culturally consistent assessment, evaluation, and treatment skills, as well as theoretical content must be understood by those working with these populations. The Locke Paradigm of Cross Cultural Counseling offers a framework for such action. While the paradigm does not specifically address counseling skills, the knowledge one gains from a study of a subculture is the foundation upon which a counselor builds the relationship with a client from a culturally different population. Effective counseling can only occur when the counselor has knowledge of both counseling theory and of the particular culture of the client.

The Illusion of Stage Six

Abstract Kohlbergs developmental theory of moral reasoning postulates a supremely adequate form of moral thinking to which all other stages are tending, labelled Stage Six. Kohlberg identifies this with a principle of justice, though without adequately justifying the elimination of other autonomous universal principles. The claim that this principle provides consistent, reversible and universalizable moral judgements is criticized: by itself a purely formal principle of justice can provide no particular moral judgements at all; for that we need independent values, such as the value of life which Kohlberg appeals to, but does not justify, in his discussions of the Heinz dilemma. More generally there is no reason to expect that any form of moral reasoning will be supremely adequate in Kohlbergs sense, providing a solution to all moral problems and dilemmas. The principle of justice is merely one among the many specifically moral principles which Kohlberg locats at Stage Five, albeit the one which he perso...

Female Offenders and Their Guards: a programme to promote moral and ego development of both groups

Abstract The study was designed as a test of an especially constructed series of dilemma discussion methods for an experimental group of female offenders and their guards. The programme conducted on prison grounds, consisted of a five‐month programme for the offenders and a separate ten‐month programme for the staff. The results indicated that the experimental group of inmates improved on both the Defining Issues Test (DIT), an estimate of moral judgement and the Loevinger Sentence Completion Test (SCT), an estimate of ego development, when compared to a random group. The results for the staff programme were similar except that initially the guards’ scores were much lower than those of the inmates, especially on the DIT. Two‐year, follow‐up information indicated that the experimental group of females achieved more positive outcomes than did the controls. Implications for prison reform from an educational and developmental perspective are stressed.

Deciding on a Decalogue.

Abstract Two groups of undergraduates helped to devise a contemporary Ten Commandments. By comparison with the original, they preferred general, positive formulations to specific, negative ones. The explanation may be the assumption that what is needed for morality are exceptionless principles, which can easily be formulated only in highly general terms, but at the cost of obscuring their implications for actual conduct. A preferable alternative might be to think in terms of rules which can be formulated more precisely, but which can also admit of exceptions.