by: adrienne gedeon allison gedeon 4/27/2009 lawrence kohlberg and carol gilligan: a study on moral...

By: Adrienne GedeonAllison Gedeon

4/27/2009

Lawrence Kohlberg and Carol Gilligan:

A Study on Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg

•Born in Bronxville, NY

•Attended Andover Academy, renowned high school

•At end of WWII, joined merchant marines and toured Europe

•1948-Enrolled at the University of Chicago

•1958-Received his doctorate from University of Chicago

•1958-Wrote his dissertation-Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

(October 25, 1927 – January 19, 1987)

Lawrence Kohlberg•1959-1961 Associate professor of psychology at Yale University

•1962-Taught at University of Chicago in the committee of human development

•1968-Professor of education and social psychology at Harvard University

•It was at Harvard that Kohlberg met Carol Gilligan

•1971-Contracted a tropical parasite in Belize

•1987-Committed suicide by drowning himself in the Boston Harbor

(October 25, 1927 – January 19, 1987)

•Kohlberg was impressed with Piaget’s studies of moral development.

•Paiget’s theory on moral development was that the ability to reason emerges spontaneously, and can be stimulated from the outside.

•Younger children regard rules as fixed and absolute. They believe rules are handed down by adults or by God. It is permissible to change the rules if everyone agrees. Rules are not sacred and absolute but are devices that humans use to get along cooperatively.

•Older children start to move away from basing their decisions on the consequences involved and begin to base their judgments on intentions.

•For example– a child who breaks 15 cups while trying to help his mother versus the child who only breaks one cup while stealing a cookie.

•Piaget found that these series of changes occur between the ages of 10 and 12

•According to Piaget, intellectual development does not stop here! This is just the beginning of formal operations, which will continue to develop until the age of sixteen.

•Kohlberg did not believe that moral development stopped here, which is where his research begins…

Piaget’s Influence on Kohlberg

Kohlberg’s Study•1958—Kohlberg began a study that was comprised of 72 boys from both middle and lower-class families in the Chicago area. The ages of the boys involved were 10, 13, and 16.

•He presented the boys with the following Heinz Dilemma:•“In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He pain $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he cold only get together about $1000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, ‘No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.’ So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that?” (Kohlberg, p. 19)

•Kohlberg looked at the reasoning behind the boy’s yes and no answers. Looked for why they believed and thought that Heinz should or should not have stolen the drug.

LEVEL ONE—Preconventional Morality

“Pre-moral stage” “No real differentiation of moral values and conformities from

self-serving and conventional conformities. Value resides in

need-relevant happenings rather than in persons or rules. No

sense of an ideal self, or a self conforming to standards or

guiding action. Self-esteem is not based on conforming to others

or to standards.”


Stage one: Type Zero—Heteronomous Type

Obedience and Punishment Orientation•Similar to Piaget’s first stage

•Powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey

•may see answers like “should give the money to father,” or “it’s bad to steal”

•The child does not speak as a member of society

•See morality as something external to themselves—something they must do because an adult said so

•Punishment proves that disobedience is wrong


Stage 2: Type 1– Hedonistic EgoismIndividualism and Exchange•Children recognize that there is not just one right view

•Different people will have different viewpoints

•Everything is relative and each person is free to pursue his or her individual interests

•In the Heinz dilemma may see answers like “Heinz might steal the drug if he wanted his wife to live, but that he doesn’t have to if he wants to marry someone younger and better looking”

•There is a notion of fair exchange or fair deals

•Speak as isolated individuals instead of members of a society

•Punishment is simply a risk that one wants to avoid

LEVEL TWO—Conventional Morality“Generalized Conformity Level”

“Value resides in good and bad roles, in maintaining the conventional

order and the expectations of others. Self esteem is based on general

conformity to the external social order”

LEVEL TWO—Conventional MoralityStage 3: Type 2—”Good Boy”

Orientation Good Interpersonal Relationships

•See morality as more than a simple deal

•People should live up to the expectations of the family and community and behave in “good” ways

•Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust and concerns for others

•In the Heinz dilemma may see answers like “He was a good man for wanting to save her”

•If Heinz’s motives were good, the druggist’s were bad. Emphasis on being selfish.

LEVEL TWO—Conventional MoralityStage 4: Type 3

Maintaining the Social Order•Works best in two-person relationships with family members or close friends

•The child becomes concerned with society as a whole

•The emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so that the social order is maintained

•In the Heinz dilemma may see answers that say thinks like Heinz’s intentions were good but it is wrong to steal

•Make moral decisions from the perspective of the society as a whole

LEVEL THREE—Postconventional Morality

“Autonomous Level”

“Value resides in the conformity of the self to some shared or

shareable standards of judgment. Duties are defined by general

rights of others.”


Stage 5: Level four—Democratic Legalists

Social Contract and Individual Rights•Adolescents to adulthood

•Where a person will begin to question what makes for a good society

•They step back from their own society and begin to consider the rights and values of that a society ought to uphold

•Adolescents in this stage believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all

•They recognize that different social groups within a society will have different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points

•1—they would all want certain basic rights (life, liberty)•2—they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair laws and for improving the society


“Conscience of Principle Orientation” Stage six—Universal Principles

•An individual’s moral judgment is motivated by his or her own principles

•A commitment to justice makes the rationale for civil disobedience stronger and broader

•Later removed this stage because realized it cannot be reached

Carol Gilligan

•bachelor of arts degree in English from Swarthmore College

•masters in clinical psychology from Radcliffe College

•Ph.D. in social psychology from Harvard University

• 1967- Began teaching at Harvard

•1986- Given tenure at Harvard in the graduate school of education

•1992- Grawemeyer Award in education (November 28, 1936- Present)

Carol Gilligan •1992-1994- Taught at Cambridge University as a Pitt Professor of American History and Institutions

•1996- Named by Time Magazine as one of the top 25 most influential Americans

•1997- Appointed to the Patricia Albjerg Graham chair in gender studies

•1998- 4th Heinz award in the human condition

•2002- Full professor at New York University with the school of education and school of law

•Currently a visiting professor at the University of Cambridge

(November 28, 1936- Present)

Kohlberg’s Influence on Gilligan •Starting in 1970, Carol Gilligan became Kohlberg’s research assistant

•Gilligan began to criticize Kohlberg’s work. This was based on

two issues:

•First; Kohlberg only studied privileged, white men and boys

•Secondly, in his stage theory of moral development, the

male view of individual rights and rules was considered a

higher stage than women's point of view of development in

terms of its caring effect on human relationships

•Her interest in the dilemmas grew as she interviewed young

men thinking about enlisting in the Vietnam war and young

women contemplating abortions (became her main focus later

on).

•Gilligan’s main focus came to be moral development in girls

Carol Gilligan continued •She helped to form a new psychology for women by listening to them and rethinking the meaning of self and selfishness.

•Many feminists insisted that there are no differences between

males and females. Gilligan asserted that women have differing

moral and psychological tendencies than men. According to

Gilligan, men think in terms of rules and justice and women are

more inclined to think in terms of caring and relationships.

•Gilligan produces her own theory of development. Like

Kohlberg’s, it has preconventional, conventional, and post

conventional. But for Gilligan, the transitions between the stages

are fueled by changes in the sense of self rather than in changes

in cognitive capability (based on a modified version of Freud’s

ego development theory)

Gilligan’s Three Stages Of Moral of Development.

•Preconventional – is egocentric and derives moral constructs from individual needs

•Conventional – judgment is based on the shared norms and values that sustain relationships, groups, communities, and societies

•Postconventional – judgment adopts a reflective perspective on societal values and constructs moral principles that are universal in application

In a Different Voice •1982 – Carol Gilligan writes In a Different Voice: Psychological

Theory and Women’s Development

•In concepts of self and morality Gilligan introduces the abortion

study

•From her careful interviews, Gilligan concluded that these

women were thinking more about the caring thing to do

rather than what the rules allow

•An ethic of care, rather than an ethic of justice

•Betty: age 16, had had one previous abortion and was

recommended for Gilligan’s study after attempting to get a

second one.

•During the first interview Betty was very egocentric, very

concerned with herself and how the baby would affect her

life

In a Different Voice Continued

•in the second interview, one year later, the language of

egocentric concern had disappeared, and the language of

relationship and care that was evident initially in Betty’s talk

about herself and the child now extends to describe her life

•The shift from concern with survival to concern with goodness,

marks the transition from selfishness to responsibility

•Instead of being concerned with survival she is now concerned

with the importance of relationship

OUR STUDYWhat we wanted to look at…

•Do males and females base their moral decisions on different

foundations? Do females have a care-based morality, while

males have a judgment based morality?

•According to Gilligan and Kohlberg as age increases, the

differences in decision making will also increase. Is there a

greater difference in moral reasoning between the ages of

children?•As age increases the level of moral reasoning will also increase.

•The girls tested versus the boys tested will be at a lower stage of moral

development.

OUR HYPOTHESES

The Experiment

The Settings:

•Holy Family School—4th Grade classroom

•St. Joseph’s Catholic School—7th Grade classroom

•The children were given the option of participating. They were

first asked the following:

•“Will you please help us with a school project? We need to

gather some data for our psychology class. There are no

right or wrong answers we just want to see how seventh

graders will respond to a certain dilemma.”

The Experiment

•If they said yes, the papers were passed out and the following

“Dad Dilemma” was read out loud while they read along:

•“Joe is a ten-year-old boy who wanted to go to camp very

much. His father promised him he could go if he saved up the

money for it himself. So Joe worked hard at his paper route

and saved up the forty dollars it cost to go to camp, and a

little more besides. But just before camp was going to start,

his father changed his mind. Some of his friends decided to

go on a special fishing trip, and Joe’s father was short on the

money it would cost. So he told Joe to give him the money he

had saved from the paper route. Joe didn’t want to give up

going to camp, so he thinks of refusing to give his father the

money.”

The ExperimentThe following questions were then asked:

1)Should Joe refuse to give his father the money?Why or why not?

2) Does the father have the right to tell Joe to give him the money?

Why or why not?

3) Does giving up the money have anything to do with being a good son?

Why or why not?

Stage 1:

Obedience and

Punishment

Orientation

1. Value—no orientation to assessing the purposes involved. Saving

money is not an identified-with purpose.

2. Choice—should give the money to the father

3. Sanction—Possibility of trouble with the father.

4. Property rules and rights—Little sense of ownership rights.

5. Son role—should give to obey, comply

6. Authority—Simply a fact that father has power to demand money, may

invoke ownership of son

8. Justice—Little since of the injustice of the broken promise, though

know it’s wrong to break promises. Some sense that if the father told the

boy he could go, he should let him.

Stage 2:

Individualism

and Exchange

1. Value—Orientation to purpose of going to camp and to holding onto

own money. No evaluation of father.

2. Choice—may be uncertain, but favors refusing the father.

3. Sanction—Assumes father can’t force the issue

4. Property rules and rights—simply fact that boy earned, it’s his money

5. Son role—no concern to be nice in sole role

6. Authority—If father wants money, he can earn it.

8. Justice—Promise is seen as bad in disappointing expectation of

gratification

Stage 3:

Interpersonal

Relationships

1. Value—May invoke belief that father is oriented to boy’s own best welfare, or to

family’s in the situation, has an unselfish goal and knows best.

2. Choice—Conflict between being nice boy and maintaining purpose and rights.

Tends to say that “boy doesn’t have to give the money but I would.” Efforts at

compromise by giving some money, insuring it will be paid back, etc.

3. Sanction—Assumes no negative sanctions by father.

4. Property rules and rights—has a right to the money. Some sense that worked

hard for the money, deserves a reward.

5. Son role—some idea of being nice, unselfish, sacrificing, grateful for past care.

6. Authority—Doesn’t invoke authority of father but being nice

8. Justice—Some assimilation of breaking promises to not being a good son or

father, not caring about other, etc.

Stage 4:

Maintaining a

Social Order

1. Value—Accepts that boy should sacrifice his interests. May be some case that in

the boy’s long range interests to do so, or that it will even out in the end.

2. Choice—Give the money to the father. No uncertainty.

3. Sanction—A sense of the potential power of the father without actually invoking

sanctions.

4. Property rules—see six

5. Son role—to show respect or not detract from, go against father’s authority

6. Authority—Some invocation of authority of the father on a categorical basis apart

from justifying compliance in this situation as nice.

8. Justice—promise assimilated to maintenance of parent-child authority system.

Boy would lose respect for father if broke promise, etc. Not a categorical

contractual attitude.

Stage 5: Social

Contract and

Individual Rights

1. Value—some sense of the value of planning, maintaining purpose.

2. Choice—Refuse the money. Little uncertainty.

3. Sanction—None invoked, may have some practical sense of the father causing

difficulty with no punitive symbolic value

4. Property rules and rights—sense of the boy’s rights to the money

5. Son role—maybe some sense that a good son might compromise in some ways

6. Authority—father has no right to ask in this situation, though may also mention

the legal definition of a father having rights over minor’s property, e.g. “he could

but shouldn’t”

7. Injustice—not an actual focus on the injustice of the father, the fact that being a

bad father. More focus on the promise, etc. as giving the son rights in the

situation, than as “unfair”

Stage 6:

Universal

Principles

Oriented to the father’s injustice but in an evaluative rather than

retaliating way.

Concept Language

Pre-conventionalActions are done with intent of helping

themselves survive or feel better.

Reference to the feelings/well-being of Joe

making his decision.

ConventionalWilling to give of themselves for the

goodness of others.

Words such as "help" in reference to the

feelings/well-being of the Dad.

“Joe wants to help his Dad.”

Post-conventionalWant to prevent harm to themselves and

others; everyone is a person.

Weighing the safety and well being of

everyone involved in the dilemma, Joe and

his Dad.

Sex Age Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Average Stage Final Stage

1 Male 10 2 2 2 2 Pre-Conventional


3 Male 10 3 2 2 2.3 Pre-Conventional

4 Female 9 1 1 1 1 Pre-Conventional

5 Female 10 2 2 3 2.3 Pre-Conventional






Kohlberg—4th Grade Class

Gilligan-4th Grade Class
















4 Male 12 4 4 4 4 Conventional


6 Male 13 3 2 3 2.67 Conventional



9 -------- -------- 3 2 1 2 Pre-Conventional

10 Female 13 3 4 4 3.67 Conventional



13 Female 12 3 3 3 3 Conventional





18 Female 13 3 2 3 2 4 2 3.3 2 Conv Pre










6 Male 13 2 1 2 1.67 Conventional



9 -------- -------- 1 1 2 1.3 Pre-Conventional









18 Female 13 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Conv Pre




Results for Kohlberg

Kohl

berg

-4th B

oys

Koh

lber

g-7

th B

oys

Kohl

berg

-4th

Girls

Kohl

berg

-7th G

irls

Kohl

berg

-4th B

oys

Kohl

berg

-4th

Girls

Kohl

berg

-4th B

oys

Results for Gilligan

Gillig

an

-7th B

oys

Gillig

an

-7th G

irls

Gillig

an

-4th G

irls

Gillig

an

-4th B

oys

Kohlberg vs Gilligan—4th Grade

Gillig

an

-4th B

oys

Gillig

an

-4th G

irls

Koh

lberg

-4th G

irls

Koh

lberg

-4th B

oys

Kohlberg vs Gilligan—7th Grade

Gillig

an

-7th B

oys

Gillig

an

-7th G

irls

Koh

lberg

-4th G

irls

Koh

lberg

-4th B

oys

Conclusions

•In Conclusion, we found that we were correct in the first half of

our hypothesis. The children in the seventh grade had more

developed moral reasoning than those in the fourth grade

•We also found that in the second half of our hypothesis, that the

girls would be at a lower stage of moral development, we found

that it was only according to Kohlberg and only in the fourth

grade, that the boys were more morally developed than the

girls. But in all other aspects the girls in our study had more

developed moral reasoning.

Nature vs. Nurture

•Follows Piaget (nature)

•Piaget believes the ability to reason through emerges

spontaneously. Can be stimulated from the outside

•Kohlberg is closer to half way between Piaget and mid point,

while Gilligan is closer to the nurture side of the line even though

she is rooted in Kohlberg’s theories

Nature Nurture

Works Cited

1) Crain, William. Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications

(4th ed.> New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Pg. 147-169.

2) Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice, Massachusetts: Harvard

University Press, 1982. pg. 1-23, 64-105.

3) Kohlberg, Lawrence. The Development of Modes of Moral Thinking

and Choice in the Years 10-16. Chicago, University of Chicago, 1958.

4) http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_09/d_09_s/d_09_s_dev/

d_09_s_dev_1a.jpg

5) http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/loveanddiane/i/sf_gilligan.jpg

6) http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wiki/images/9/9b/Piaget.jpg

by: adrienne gedeon allison gedeon 4/27/2009 lawrence kohlberg and carol gilligan: a study on moral...

Documents

drug cost

harvard university

university of chicago1958

intellectual development

carol gilligan

following heinz dilemma

lawrence kohlberg1959

social psychology