Piaget's Stages Of Cognitive Development

1857 Words4 Pages

Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, and Erik Erikson have all determined stages of development which explain how people act and think at different points in their lives. Piaget’s theory determines that there are four stages of cognitive development, consisting of the sensorimotor stage, the preoperational stage, the concrete operational stage, and the formal operational stage. Each of these has an approximate age range and set of characteristics that explain a person’s general cognitive ability at any given age. According to Kohlberg, preconventional morality, conventional morality, and postconventional morality are the three changes in moral reasoning that a person will experience throughout their lifetime. Erikson’s theory focuses on psychosocial …show more content…

This stage ranges from ages twelve to adulthood, which suits them all. At the formal operational stage, a person is able to think logically and abstractly, which was reflected in my three interviews. One of the questions I asked my interviewees was what, in their opinion, is the biggest problem in today’s society. My dad answered that, “companies do not appreciate employees and dedication. They are too quick to let go of talented employees to save money.” My sister thought that the biggest issue in today’s society is, “our faulty United States government,” which my grandma agreed with, and she added that she would solve it by, “getting more qualified officials to be cabinet …show more content…

But, it is unattainable because of its price, so Heinz steals it. The question is whether or not he should have broken into the lab to steal the drug, and why it is or is not justified. My sister showed that she is in the conventional stage of morality, because she was focused on the law and the fact that his actions were illegal, despite the fact that the drug was necessary for Heinz’s wife’s survival. Being older, my dad and grandma appeared to be in the postconventional morality stage, because they both argued that his wife’s life was more important than the law and that it was unfair of the scientist who priced the drug to make it so unaffordable in the first

Open Document