On the other hand Damon proposed levels of distributive justice. He described level 0-A as simple self interest and level 0-B as self interest with justification in terms of observable characteristics. He then went on and described Level 1A as strict equality and level 1B as distributive calculations. Finally, he stated that level 2A as compromising about distribution so that there is an attempt to balance different sorts of claims and take account of need and 2B as compromising between quality and reciprocity and considering in relation to situations and what the group is trying to achieve.
Eisenberg carried out a study to investigate his theory. He aimed to find out how children’s pro-social moral reasoning changed as they grew. He did this by asking children to respond to stories in which a choice had to be made between self-interest (hedonistic orientation) and helping another person (needs orientation). Results showed preschool children were concerned with the implications for themselves rather than with moral considerations. For example ‘I wouldn’t help because I would miss the party’. Eisenberg claimed this was hedonistic reasoning. Gradually children displayed needs orientated reasoning. For example, ‘I’d help because she would feel better’.
Although this study has supported Eisenbergs theory it has both its strengths and limitation. The story used in the study was a moral dilemma. This may have resulted in inaccurate results as answers may not reflect what the participants may do in a real life situation. It therefore lacks ecological validity. He also used interviews as his method this meant the answers obtained were subjective and therefore difficult to interpret. But on the other hand using interviews resulted in detailed answers, which allowed Eisenberg to gain more information. This was an independent measures study as participants only took part in one task. Therefore there were no order effects but may have been subject variables (e.g. IQ).
Eisenbergs view of moral reasoning has developed a broader more complete understanding of the nature of children’s moral and pro-social reasoning. Another strength for Eisenberg is that although other psychologists neglected pro-social moral reasoning he still focused on it as many of the moral decisions we make on a daily basis are about pro-social behaviour rather than wrong doing. For example, we are more likely to be faced with decision about whether or not to donate money to charity street collects far more likely than we are required to decide whether or not to punish someone for stealing. This moral reasoning has also been investigated in other cultures and has been found to be culturally specific.
Just like Eisenberg, Damon also used a moral dilemma to investigate his theory of distributive justice. He used a story about a class of children who made drawings to be sold at a school fair. These drawings earned a lot of money, and the class has to decide how to divide the money. The children were interviewed and their responses were recorded. From his study Damon concluded that as children get older, reasoning about distributive justice moves from emphasis on self gratification to focus on individual merit and other’s needs.
Overall, Damon’s research on justice and fairness has provided a different perspective to the body of research into moral development. His findings have also been replicated in other cultures, including Israel, Puerto Rico and Europe. His research was also based on dilemmas that are within children’s everyday experience which therefore results in high ecological validity. But on the other hand the painting dilemmas are still hypothetical so may still not reflect how children would really share in a real life situation which means finding may have little predictive validity.
I believe both Eisenberg have developed good theories about moral development as they have backed them up with relevant supporting evidence.
