Teachers play a vital role in guiding students' social, emotional, and moral development
in the classroom. A well-rounded education must include these essential elements, as they help
shape students into individuals who are prepared for life beyond school. By fostering
meaningful interactions, support, and encouragement, teachers create environments where
students can grow in character. Understanding the reasoning behind these practices and their
impact is valuable for educators and learners alike as they navigate the journey of personal and
academic growth.
A comprehensive understanding of Jean Piaget's Theory of Moral Development,
Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development, Elliot Turiel's Moral Domain Theory, and
Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory enables one to analyze their similarities, differences,
and alignment with a biblical worldview. Each theory offers a unique perspective on how
individuals develop moral reasoning and ethical behavior. In addition, examining these theories
through a biblical lens provides insight into how psychological concepts intersect with faith-
based principles, guiding moral growth and decision-making.
Jean Piaget’s theory focuses on how children develop moral understanding through
interactions and cognitive development. He believed that cognitive structures and abilities
develop first (Slavin & Schunk, 2021, p.59). Cognitive abilities play a crucial role in a child's
capacity to reason in social situations. Moral development progresses through predictable stages,
with Piaget suggesting that as cognitive skills evolve, a child's understanding of moral issues
becomes more refined. Piaget mentioned that young children are more rigid in their views of
right and wrong than older adults tend to be (Slavin & Schunk, 2021, p.59). He identified two
specific stages of moral development including heteronomous morality and autonomous
morality. Heteronomous morality occurs between the ages of 5-9. In this stage, children see
rules as fixed and unchangeable, imposed by authority figures like parents or teachers. Young
children are consistently faced with parents and other adults telling them what to do and what not
to do (Slavin & Schunk, 2021, p.60). They believe that breaking rules leads to automatic
punishment, regardless of intent. This stage is characterized by a belief in moral realism, where
rules are seen as inherent in the situation itself, not as social agreements. Autonomous morality
happens around the age of 10 years old. As children mature, they begin to understand that rules
are created by people and can be changed through agreement. They start considering intentions
behind actions rather than just consequences. According to Piaget, children progress from the
stage of heteronomous morality to that of autonomous morality with the development of
cognitive structures, but also because of interactions with equal-status peers (Slavin & Schunk,
2021, p.60).
Kohlberg’s theory expands on Piaget’s foundation of moral development by structuring it
into six distinct stages, grouped into three overarching levels: preconventional, conventional, and
postconventional. Unlike Piaget, who studied children’s interactions through play, Kohlberg
focused on how they responded to structured moral dilemmas. He discovered that individuals
generally progress through these stages in a predictable order, with reasoning playing a
significant role in moral growth.
In the preconventional level, children’s moral decisions are primarily based on avoiding
punishment (Stage 1) and seeking personal satisfaction while acknowledging others’ interests
(Stage 2). The conventional level begins at Stage 3. Here morality is defined in terms of
cooperation with peers, just as it was in Piaget’s stage of autonomous morality (Slavin &
Schunk, 2021, p.62). A decrease in egocentrism allows children to adopt the perspective of
others, reinforcing the principle of treating others as they wish to be treated. Stage 4 emphasizes
adherence to societal rules and laws, with most adults remaining at this level, believing that laws
should not be broken under any circumstance. Stage five enters the post-conventional phase,
where fewer than 25% of adults develop an understanding that laws and societal values serve a
functional purpose, tailored to specific communities. Here, laws are upheld to maintain social
order and protect human rights. Stage six represents the highest level of moral reasoning, where
ethical principles are self-chosen and grounded in abstract ideals such as justice, human rights,
and equality. Individuals at this stage believe that laws conflicting with these principles should
be ignored. Kohlberg suggested that stages five and six could be combined, and moral dilemmas
can advance a child's reasoning, though only incrementally, as they interact with peers who are
slightly ahead in their moral development.
Elliot Turiel's theory focuses on how individuals differentiate between moral, social-
conventional, and personal domains of reasoning. He has formulated a theory of domains of
social development involving the development of moral judgments (based on concepts of
welfare, justice, and rights) and their distinction, throughout development, from understandings
of the conventions and customs of societies - as well as from arenas of personal jurisdiction
(Elliot Turiel | Research UC Berkeley, n.d.). Turiel argues that moral reasoning is distinct from
social conventions. The moral domain includes issues related to fairness, harm, and rights—
principles that apply universally and are not dependent on social rules. The social-conventional
domain, on the other hand, consists of norms and customs that vary across cultures and societies,
such as dress codes or table manners. The personal domain covers individual choices and
autonomy, like personal preferences and lifestyle decisions. His theory suggests that children
and adults naturally make distinctions between these domains based on experience rather than
simply adopting rules imposed by authority figures. For example, children recognize that hitting
someone is morally wrong regardless of social conventions, whereas using the wrong utensil at
dinner is only a violation of a cultural norm. This theory also asserts that moral reasoning is
based on the understanding of justice, rights, and welfare, differing from mere adherence to
rules. Turiel’s research investigates social opposition and moral resistance to cultural practices
perceived as unjust. (Elliot Turiel | Research UC Berkeley, n.d.). His theory suggests that
children and adults naturally make distinctions between these domains based on experience
rather than simply adopting rules imposed by authority figures. For example, children recognize
that hitting someone is morally wrong regardless of social conventions, whereas using the wrong
utensil at dinner is only a violation of a cultural norm.
Albert Bandura's theory of moral development is rooted in social learning, emphasizing
that children develop their moral understanding primarily through observation, imitation, and
reinforcement (McLeod, 2025). Bandura realized that direct reinforcement alone could not
account for all types of learning, so he added a social element to his theory, arguing that people
learn by observing others (Sutton, 2021). The theory has often been called a bridge between
behaviorist and cognitive learning theories because it encompasses attention, memory, and
motivation (David, 2020). Unlike Piaget and Kohlberg, who focused on structured stages of
moral growth, Bandura believed morality is shaped by interactions with others rather than
unfolding in predictable sequences. According to Bandura, children learn moral behaviors by
watching role models, parents, teachers, peers, or even characters in media, who demonstrate
ethical or unethical actions. When positive moral behaviors are rewarded, children are more
likely to adopt them. Conversely, if immoral actions go unpunished or are reinforced, children
may integrate them into their behavior. Self-regulation also plays a crucial role in Bandura’s
theory. Rather than blindly adhering to societal rules, individuals develop internal moral
standards and regulate their behavior according to personal beliefs. They experience moral
emotions, such as guilt or pride, which influence their choices. As people mature, their moral
reasoning becomes more complex, shaped by continued social interactions and experiences
(Bandura, 1991). Bandura's approach highlights the importance of social environments in
shaping moral development, emphasizing that morality is not simply a product of cognitive
advancement, but a dynamic process influenced by relationships and surroundings.
Piaget and Kohlberg’s theories of moral development share several similarities, as
Kohlberg built upon Piaget’s foundational ideas. Both theories propose that moral reasoning
develops in stages. As discussed earlier, Piaget identified two stages-heteronomous and
autonomous morality-while Kohlberg expanded this into six stages across three levels. Piaget
and Kohlberg believed that moral development is closely linked to cognitive development. As
children grow intellectually, their ability to reason about moral issues becomes more
sophisticated. Both theorists emphasized the role of social interactions in shaping moral
understanding. Piaget focused on peer interactions, while Kohlberg highlighted broader social
influences, including parents, teachers, and societal norms. Kohlberg’s theory is often seen as an
extension of Piaget’s, providing a more detailed framework for understanding moral
development beyond childhood. Examples to clarify the similarities of these two theories
involve rule-following reasoning situations listed below:
Piaget’s Theory: A young child playing a board game insists that the rules must be
followed exactly as written, believing that any deviation is wrong. This reflects Piaget’s
heteronomous morality, where rules are seen as absolute.
Kohlberg’s Theory: In Kohlberg’s pre-conventional stage, children follow rules to avoid
punishment because they understand the fairness behind them. As they grow, they
develop a more autonomous view, recognizing that rules can be adjusted when
necessary, just as Piaget describes in his autonomous morality stage.
Both theories emphasize the progression from external control to internalized moral
understanding, showing how moral reasoning develops alongside cognitive growth.
Bandura and Kohlberg had fundamentally different approaches to understanding moral
development. While Kohlberg focused on a structured, stage-based progression of moral
reasoning, Bandura emphasized the role of social learning and environment in shaping morality.
Kohlberg’s theory is rooted in cognitive development, asserting that morality evolves through
sequential stages, from rigid rule-following to abstract ethical principles. In contrast, Bandura
viewed morality as a learned behavior, acquired through observation, imitation, and
reinforcement. Kohlberg believed individuals progress through six moral stages, each
representing a more advanced level of reasoning. Bandura rejected fixed stages, instead arguing
that moral understanding is shaped by social interactions, role models, and experiences.
Kohlberg used hypothetical moral dilemmas to assess how individuals reason through ethical
conflicts. Bandura, on the other hand, believed moral behavior is learned by observing how
others act, particularly authority figures or influential peers. Two examples from each theory are
as follows:
Bandura’s Theory: A child watches their older sibling return a lost wallet to its owner
and receives praise from their parents. The child internalizes this behavior and later does
the same when they find a lost item, not necessarily because they reasoned through the
morality of their actions, but because they learned through observation and positive
reinforcement.
Kohlberg’s Theory: In contrast, a child at Kohlberg’s conventional stage might return a
lost wallet because they have reasoned that maintaining social order and following rules
are important. If the child were at a higher post-conventional stage, they might return the
wallet because they have developed a personal ethical principle about honesty and
fairness.
In essence, Kohlberg viewed moral development as an individual’s intellectual progression
through defined stages, while Bandura saw morality as a dynamic process shaped by social
interactions and learned behaviors.
Albert Bandura’s social learning theory suggests that people develop moral reasoning
through observation, imitation, and reinforcement. This theory aligns with a biblical worldview
in several ways. Bandura emphasizes that individuals learn morality by observing others. This is
similar to biblical teachings, where believers are encouraged to follow Christ’s example and
learn from righteous leaders. 1st Corinthians 11:1 states, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate
Christ” (YouVersion Bible App, 2008). Bandura’s theory also highlights how social
environments shape moral behavior. The Bible stresses the importance of surrounding oneself
with good influences. Proverbs 13:20 says “Whoever walks with the wise will be wise, but the
companion of fools will suffer harm” which reinforces the idea that moral development is shaped
by community and mentorship. Bandura’s key processes of self-regulation include expectations,
values, goal setting, self-evaluation, cognitive modeling, and self-instruction (Slavin & Schunk,
2021, p.109). Each of these concepts align with countless biblical principles that can be applied
to the moral fabric of human beings and assist teachers everywhere with the task of character
development for all students.
References:
Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
5978(91)90022-L
David, L. (2020, September 14). Social Learning Theory (Bandura) - Learning Theories.
Learning Theories. https://learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html
Elliot Turiel | Research UC Berkeley. (n.d.). Vcresearch.berkeley.edu.
https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/faculty/elliot-turiel
McLeod, S. (2025, March 18). Albert bandura’s Social Learning Theory. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html
Slavin, R. E., & Schunk, D.H. (2021). Learning Theories: EDUC 500 (3rd ed.). Pearson
Education
Sutton, J. (2021). What is bandura’s social learning theory? 3 examples.
PositivePsychology.com. https://positivepsychology.com/social-learning-theory-bandura/
YouVersion Bible Mobile App, 2008
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
