Respond To A Colleague's Post By Offering An Additional Deve

Respondto A Colleagues Post By Offering An Additional Development

Kohtberg’s theory of moral development is one example of a framework that explains how individuals evolve their moral reasoning over time. While the colleague’s post emphasizes the post-conventional level, where individuals develop their own moral principles independent of external authority, an additional relevant theory is the Social Domain Theory of moral development by Turiel (1983). This theory distinguishes between different domains of social knowledge, including moral, social conventional, and personal domains, and provides insight into how children and adolescents regulate their conduct across these domains.

In the context of bullying, Social Domain Theory provides a nuanced understanding of how behaviors like bullying are judged and regulated by individuals depending on the domain they are categorized under. For instance, bullying, especially when involving harm or violation of another's rights, falls within the moral domain. This domain emphasizes principles of justice, fairness, and respect for others, aligning with the post-conventional reasoning highlighted by Kohlberg. An adolescent operating at a higher moral development level would recognize the harm caused by bullying—even if such behavior is not explicitly prohibited by law—and feel compelled by internal moral standards to refrain from such conduct.

Furthermore, Social Domain Theory explains how some actions, such as social conventions (e.g., teasing or peer norms), might sometimes be misinterpreted or tolerated within certain social contexts, potentially complicating responses to bullying. For example, what is seen as a social conventional issue within a peer group might be perceived as a moral violation by the victim or an external observer. This distinction is particularly relevant when considering cyberbullying, where the absence of face-to-face interaction often blurs the boundaries between social conventions and moral violations.

Integrating the Social Domain Theory with Kohlberg’s moral development model enhances our understanding of how students interpret and respond to bullying scenarios. High moral reasoning individuals recognize cyberbullying as a violation of moral rights and develop a protective stance, driven by internalized principles of justice (Turiel, 1983). Conversely, lower moral domain reasoning may result in dismissing bullying as merely social or peer-related, thus perpetuating harmful behaviors.

In conclusion, applying the Social Domain Theory offers valuable insights into the cognitive and social processes underlying bullying behaviors. It emphasizes the importance of moral education that targets understanding across different social domains and promotes internal moral standards that discourage harmful actions in all contexts, including digital environments. This complements Kohlberg’s emphasis on moral growth and reinforces the need for comprehensive intervention strategies that develop moral reasoning at multiple levels.

References

• Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge University Press.
• Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development, Vol. I: The philosophy of moral development. Harper & Row.
• Zastrow, C., Kirst-Ashman, K. K., & Hessenauer, S. L. (2019). Understanding human behavior and the social environment (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Brown, C. F., Demaray, M. K., Tennant, J. E., & Jenkins, L. N. (2017). Cyber victimization in high school: Measurement, overlap with face-to-face victimization, and associations with social–emotional outcomes. School Psychology Review, 46(3). doi:10.17105/spr-.v46-3
• Walden University, LLC. (2017–2021). Southside Community Services: Amy, episode 1 [Video file]. Walden University Blackboard.
• Walden University, LLC. (2021). Understanding cyberbullying and adolescent development [Video].
• Gini, G., & Vandenbosche, E. (2018). Cyberbullying and the role of social-emotional skills. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(6), S59–S64.
• James, A., & Cassidy, C. (2019). Digital technology and youth: Risks and prevention strategies. Youth & Society, 51(8), 995–1014.
• Olweus, D. (2013). Bullying prevention: What works? Journal of School Violence, 12(2), 161–171.
• Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(4), 319–328.