Psychology

Golly gosh, I haven't posted in a while! I've been so busy revising for my psychology exam on the 29th that I've not been writing any new lyrics or anything :( So, just in case you're interested (this post is especially aimed at Terra and J, as she's not a feminist but she's arguing about women!), here's a discussion about Gilligan's theory of moral reasoning. She basically argued that researchers such as Kohlberg and Piaget focused too much on males, giving a distorted understanding of female moral reasoning. It's rather long!

* * *

Gilligan argued that Kohlberg’s theory of moral development was androcentric (male-biased) in that males moral reasoning seemed to be more advanced than female moral reasoning. Holstein (1976) found that female adolescents tended to score at Kohlberg’s level 3 whereas male adolescents usually scored at level 4. Gilligan believed that Kohlberg’s dilemmas described hypothetical problems which placed too much emphasis on the principle of justice and lacked emotional relevance to participants. Therefore, Kohlberg’s dilemmas dealt with only one dimension of moral reasoning, which resulted in the androcentric view of morality and a distorted understanding of female moral reasoning. In 1977, Gilligan conducted a study where she interviewed women considering a termination. She found that female Ps did not focus on principles of justice, but on issues connected to responsibility. The judgments made were based on the impact of the individual’s behaviour on other people. Gilligan concluded that an ethic of care and responsibility was more representative of female moral reasoning than an ethic of justice. It would appear that Kohlberg’s work was limited by the focus on one dimension of moral reasoning (justice) when females use a different dimension of moral reasoning (care). From the Ps responses, Gilligan developed levels of moral reasoning which reflect the ethic of care. Level 1 is the self-interest level, where judgments are based on what is best for the individual rather than the needs of others. Level 2 is the self-sacrifice level – judgments are based on a desire to put the welfare of others before both self-interest and conventional rules. The final level is the non-violence and universal care level, where judgments are based on a desire to take everyone’s needs into account and to avoid hurting anyone who may be affected by the decision made. However, Gilligan’s research has sparked much controversy. Gilligan only interviewed women, so in effect, she has allowed 2 key variables to remain uncontrolled in this study – gender (there was no male control group) and the nature of the issue at the heart of the moral dilemma. Age was also not controlled. Therefore, the emphasis on care in moral reasoning may have arisen in this study because a) there are gender differences in moral reasoning as concluded by Gilligan or b) the subject matter of the dilemma has direct personal relevance to the individual so evokes a more empathic response. In 1988, Gilligan and Attanucci studied 80 males and females, and concluded that their results supported the theory that males and females use different orientations when reasoning about moral problems. However, 30% of women in this study demonstrated a justice focus. This raises the question as to whether there really is a significant difference in the way that males and females reason about moral problems. Walker (1989) studied 233 Ps aged 10-63. They were given Kohlberg’s moral dilemmas and also asked about real-life dilemmas. Their responses were scored according to both Kohlberg’s stage theory and Gilligan’s levels. The study was longitudinal in style (because of the age gap) with two years between the two assessment interviews. The results showed that most Ps had moved on to a higher level of moral reasoning over the 2 years. When tested on personal relationship dilemmas, both sexes used a care orientation. In fact, both sexes used both care and justice orientations. Also, personal relationship dilemmas tended to produce more sophisticated reasoning than other dilemmas. Walker concluded that the evidence favours the stage theory of moral reasoning, and that there is no male bias in Kohlberg’s dilemmas. Males and females use both care and justice orientations in moral reasoning, depending on the situation. Jaffee and Shibley (2000) reviewed 180 studies and concluded that a small sex difference does exist in the use of care vs. justice orientations but it is extremely small – it exists at a population level rather than at an individual level. Overall, males and females are much more alike in their moral reasoning than unalike. However, evidence generally supports the idea that a care orientation as well as a justice orientation arises in moral reasoning. This implies that other important dimensions could exist too.