What are little girls made of, mad
of? What are little girls made of
Morality
in Kohlberg
Sugar and
spice,
and everything
and Gilligan
nice, That’s what little girls ar
made of. What are little boys mad
of, made of? What are little boy
made of? Snips and Snails, and
puppy dog tails, That’s what littl
Debra Naukam
Cassie Fredendall
What is Morality?
According to Kohlberg
According to Gilligan
Lawrence Kohlberg
♂ b. Bronxville, NY 1927
♂ d. Boston, Mass. 1987
♂ In 1958 he first published his stage
theory of moral development in
his doctoral dissertation at the
Univerisity of Chicago.
♂ He stayed at the University of
Chicago until 1968, when he went
to Harvard to teach and continue
his research until his death.
from http://en.wickipedia.org
Theory of Moral Development
♂Level 1: Preconventional:
♂ Stage 1: Punishment and Reward
♂ Stage 2: Hedonism/ Reciprocity
♂Level 2: Conventional:
♂ Stage 3: Good Boy/Bad Girl
♂ Stage 4: Rules of society
♂Level 3: Postconventional:
♂ Stage 5: Individual Rights
♂ Stage 6: Universal Principles
Preconventional: Stage 1
Morality is based on punishments and rewards. Judgments
are formed according to external authorities.
Chris, age 6:
“[Heinz] did something wrong; he will go to
jail.”
Preconventional: Stage 2
Morality is reciprocal. We seek what is in
our best interest, and only help others if it
benefits us.
Jonathan, 7 :
“He shouldn’t get in trouble for stealing it because he really
needed it and the man who was selling it was so greedy and
only wanted the money.”
Conventional: Stage 3
Morality is defined in terms of good interpersonal
relationships.
Andrea, 9:
“Because if you do you are caring about other
people instead of just you.”
Conventional: Stage 4
Morality is concerned with the well-being of all and
maintaining the social order.
Grace, 11:
“That man joined the Army and the captain
has every right to order his men.”
Postconventional: Stage 5
Morality looks at individual and moral rights within the
social contract.
Taya, 10:
“He’s doing it for the right reasons but he
shouldn’t still.”
Postconventional: Stage 6
Morality is defined by universal principles of justice. We
come to moral decisions by taking on the perspective of
those involved.
Christa, 14:
“We must recognize all humans as human.
Human life is human life.”
Carol Gilligan
♀ Student of Kohlberg’s
♀ Later criticized his theory of
moral development as being
biased toward a male
perspective
♀ Proposed care-orientation as an
alternative method of moral
reasoning
♀ Believes girls are more inclined
towards care-orientation so they
score lower on Kohlberg’s stages
because care-orientation is
associated with stage 3 (good
interpersonal relationships).
from http://www.albany.edu
Gilligan’s Three-Stage Theory
♀Preconventional: Egocentricism
♀Conventional: Care for others
♀Postconventional: Balancing care for self and others
“The moral judgments of women differ from that of men in
the greater extent to which women’s judgments are tied to
feelings of empathy and compassion and are concerned
with the resolution of real as opposed to hypothetical
dilemmas.”
Gilligan, 1982
The Question
Will girls be classified at a lower stage of
moral development, as compared to the
boys of the same age that Kohlberg
studied?
The Study
Kohlberg’s original research study included 72 middle- and upperclass males, ages 10, 13, and 16 from the Chicago area, with an
added comparison group of 12 delinquent boys. Kohlberg tested
their moral development using 8 dilemmas with questions, and he
published the results in his 1958 dissertation.
We attempted to replicate Kohlberg’s original study using only two of
the hypothetical dilemmas on an all-female subject base. Then we
compared our results with Kohlberg’s.
Hypothesis
Based on reading Carol Gilligan’s critique of
Kohlberg’s theory, we hypothesize that the girls
we test will be in a lower stage of moral
development than the boys Kohlberg originally
tested. Also, we hypothesize that as age
increases, the observed difference in moral
decision making between girls and boys will
increase.
The 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 paid $400 for
the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the
drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to
everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every
legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000
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 having
tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and
considers breaking into the man’s store to steal the drug
for his wife.
Heinz Questions
♂ Should Heinz steal the drug?
♂ Is it actually right or wrong for Heinz to steal the drug?
Why?
♂ Is Heinz violating the druggist’s rights? Why?
♂ If Heinz was caught, what sentence should the judge
give him?
♂ It is against the law for Heinz to steal. Does that make it
morally wrong? Why?
♂ Which is more important: saving another person’s life or
obeying the law? Why?
♂ Does it matter if the other person is a stranger? Why?
The Bridge Dilemma
In Korea, a company of Marines was way outnumbered
and was retreating before the enemy. The company had
crossed a bridge over a river, but the enemy were mostly
still on the other side. If someone went back to the
bridge and blew it up, with the head start the rest of the
men in the company would have, they would probably
then escape. But the man who stayed back to blow up
the bridge would not be able to escape alive. The
captain himself is the man who knows best how to lead
the retreat. He asks for volunteers, but no one will
volunteer. If he goes himself, the men will probably not
get back safely and he is the only one who knows how to
lead the retreat.
Bridge Questions
♂ Should the captain order a man to go back on the
mission, or should he go himself? Why?
♂ Should the captain send a man when it means sending
him to his death? Why?
♂ Should the captain go himself when it means the men
will probably not make it back safely? Why?
♂ Does the captain have the right to order a man if he
thinks it’s best? Why?
♂ Does the man who is selected have a duty or obligation
to go? Why?
♂ What is so important about human life that makes it so
important to save or protect? Why?
Kohlberg’s Coding Forms
Heinz Dilemma
Bridge Dilemma
Guiding Terms for Stage Assessment:
♂ Value: Modes of attributing moral value to acts and persons.
Differentiating and relating means and ends, intentions and consequences,
one person’s evaluation and others, etc. Modes of assessing valueconsequences in the situation.
♂ Choice: The kind of identification with the actor in conflict and methods
of resolving the conflict. The social process of moral argumentation and
the capacity for making and maintaining an independent choice. The
outcome chosen in a particular situation.
♂ Rule: The type of concept against which an act is assessed, on which
guides conformity, e.g. taboo, rule, law. The concept of duty or moral
compulsion.
♂ Role: Modes of defining concepts of good person and good role.
♂ Authority: The kind of respect accorded to authority and status and the
reasons for which such respect is accorded.
♂ Justice: Concern for and concepts of rights and the legitimate relation of
one act, as deserved, to another. Standards of exchange, reciprocity,
contract, punishment and reward.
Our Data
Heinz Dilemma
Bridge Dilemma
Name
Age
Value
Choice
Rule
Role
Justice
Value
Choice
Rule
Role
Authority
Justice
Final Stage
Grace
11
4
1
4
5
4
3
5
4
3
5
1
4
Jessica
10
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
5
3
1
1
Jessica
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CJ
10
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
Taya
10
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
1
4
Christa
14
5
3
5
5
4
4
2
4
3
1
5
Guadalupe
8
1
2
1
1
1
1
Kimberly
9
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Andrea
9
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
Gabriela
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Our Results
♀ Gabriela, 8:
♀ Guadalupe, 8:
♀ Kimberly, 9:
♀ Andrea, 9:
♀ CJ, 10:
♀ Jessica, 10:
♀ Taya, 10:
♀ Grace, 11:
♀ Jessica, 11:
♀ Christa, 14:
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 1
Stage 3
Stage 3
Stage 1
Stage 4
Stage 4
Stage 1
Stage 5
Kohlberg’s Results
Comparison
Kohlberg's Sample Boys
Subject
#9
Age
9
Our Girls
Stage
1
Stage
Age
Subject
1
8
Gabriela
1
8
Guadalupe
1
9
Kimberly
3
9
Andrea
#19
10
2
3
10
CJ
#15
10
3
1
10
Jessica
4
10
Taya
4
11
Grace
1
11
Jessica
4
14
Christa
#25
13
3
#29
13
4
#54
15
4
#77*
16
1
#66
16
4
#65
16
6
#76*
16
1
* deliquents
Conclusion
Although we did not have enough subjects to make a
legitimate claim about gender differences in morality, we
found that our eight and nine year olds were comparable
to Kohlberg’s nine year old, our ten and eleven year olds
were comparable to his ten year olds, and our fourteen
year old was comparable to his thirteen year olds.
We were not able to truly test our hypothesis because
our study did not include a wide enough range of girls
to assess real age-gender stage differences in morality.
Limitations of Our Study
♀ Some girls had limited comprehension of the content of
the dilemmas.
♀ We scored according to Kohlberg’s original coding form,
which has since been modified.
♀ 6 of 10 surveys were completed online.
♀ Not enough participants in the older age groups.
♀ On the coding form the description of Justice in the
Bridge Dilemma only talks about drawing straws. None
of our girls identified this as a solution.
♀ We only used two dilemmas; Kohlberg used eight.
Quotables
♀ “He should be sintenced to theft.”
♀ “A lot of the time you just have to know that you are the
only one.”
♀ “Look what you have done to your life.”
♀ “You can get kidnapped by the estranger that is trying to
give you the drug.”
♀ “Drugs can mess up your boby… like on one of the
videos we watch with the drug monster.”
♀ “Why kill them when you are the one how once to blow
up the bridge.”
♀ “No pecas eriwon may bid.”