ABSTRACT
Unlike previous studies of the development of reasoning about moral dilemmas, the 2 studies reported separated judicial reasoning (the application of rules) from legislative reasoning (the justification of rules), as well as attending to other aspects of context, using a modification of the weakly interpretive scoring method of Langford and D'Cruz. This assigns justifications to relatively simple conceptually defined categories. Findings were in accord with substantially modified versions of the views of Piaget and Kohlberg, according to which legislative reasoning can be divided into 3 main types of stages in the period 7-21 years: heteronomy (Piaget) or egocentrism (Kohlberg); local groups (attention to group interests, harmony, and reciprocity in local groups), wider groups (attention to these thing in wider groups). Findings contradicted Gibbs's theory.
