The behavioral development gets a bit tricky, at least from a historical point of view. I think I should describe my understanding of behavioral development. Behavior is, in large part, a function of the background paradigms from which the individual acts. A paradigm is a network of assumptions we all carry about how the world works and our role in it, the things we take for granted when taking action. When you jump down the stairs, you don't think about gravity, but you certainly take it into account. Moral paradigms and needs paradigms are two such that exists in the background of how we take action. Self-regulation is the ability to assert increased in-the-moment volitional control on the process. So in our discussion of behavioral development, today, we are going to stick to the development of those two paradigms which we know have tremendous influence on the behavioral decision process. Self regulation can be understood as the ability to assert more control over our cognitive responses to behavioral influences, much as emotional regulation involves the ability to control our emotional responses to social influences.
Between the two paradigms that we are considering, we can call on the source of all my favorite illustrative metaphors: quantum physics. In the study of the forces at work on the movement of particles, some of those forces are categorized as either repellers or attractors. I like this as an illustration of how these two paradigms influence behavioral development, with 'needs' functioning as an attractor a la "I must do/get x", and morals asa repeller, "I must not do/get y". Self-regulation develops the ability to be more volitional in regards to these two forces.
Maslow does not offer a strict stage-based progression, as it were, but rather a hierarchy of needs. The preceding needs simply will not allow an individual to deal with other things until they are satisfied. Clever Maslow did not name this the hierarchy of wants. The first are the biological needs for survival: food, air, water, warmth, and physical contact. Yes, physical contact. Human beings literally die without it. Need. And we reward those who fulfill these needs with emotional attachment. When these needs are met, we move on to seeking safety and stability. Which also sounds familiar. From there we move on to needing relationships and community. With those met, we seek meaning and fulfillment, and recognition of self-worth. From there we move on to the need for self actualization: or the need for autonomous intrinsic value.
Moral development marks the second significant discrepancy between the gender experiences. Apparently, boys don't have the same behavioral boundaries in regards to other boys or to girls that girls have in regards to other girls or boys. Imagine my surprise. To be fair, a great deal of the moral paradigm is influenced by the culture, but some patterns in how that happens appear to be consistent across cultures and demographics.
Piaget talked a fair bit about moral judgements, but the discussion was furthered by Lawrence Kohlberg, who asserted that the developmental process went through six stages, compared to Piaget's two. Kohlberg's male-centric view was challenged by Carol Gilligan, among others, who offered a counter-example of the female developmental path. Kohlberg's first stage is that of obedience vs punishment. Children here think morality is a thing that is outside of their control, the purview of big people. This leads into the second stage, of individualism and exchange. This stage is characterized by the awareness that people can have different reasons for doing the same thing, and that turnabout really is fair play. These are both labeled pre-conventional, as neither really associates moral value with their personal actions. In the first one, children avoid punishment. In the second the seek reward. In Gilligan's theory, pre-conventional morality is centered around immediate survival, and is based in a self-centric perspective.
Kohlberg's third stage involves an attachment of moral value to those different reasons and intentions discovered in the previous stage. Children now begin to consider people as responsible for their actions. They seek approval here, and avoid disapproval. The fourth stage takes that one step further and considers the consequences of actions not just on the people directly involved, but for the impacted systems those to which those people belong. These are the Conventional stages. Now people operate in terms of duty, or guilt. Gilligan has a similar conventional stage, which involves the transition from selfishness, which defines the first stage, to a responsibility toward others. Self-sacrifice becomes a good in and of itself.
The last two stages involve taking a more active part in what is considered a good society. Individuals start considering things such as 'human rights' to be more important than particular laws. In the last stage Kohlberg suggests that individuals will consider all possible perspectives on a situation and choose the one that is best for everyone, but has recently pulled back, suggesting that that is just theoretical, on the account of not consistently being able to find people who consistently respond in such a way. Gilligan's final stage is also post-conventional, and not universally achieved. She characterizes this stage as a recognition that other people are people, too, and becomes centered on principles of not doing harm to others.
Between Kohlberg and Gilligan, moral development appears to be a progression from prioritizing Me in the first stage, You in the second stage, and US in the rarely achieved third stage.