References
Eisenberg, N. (1982). The development of reasoning regarding pro-social behavior. The
development of pro-social behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice : psychological theory and women's
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., Hewer, A. (1983). .Moral stages : a current formulation and a
response to critics. New York: Karger.
Linn, Ruth (2001). The heart has its reason and the reason has its heart: The insight of
Kohlberg and Gilligan in moral development and counseling. Social Behavior
and Personality, 29(6) 593-600
Midlarsky, E., Kahana, E., Corley, R., Nemeroff, R., Schonbar, R. A. (1999). Altrusitic
moral judgment among older adults. International journal of aging and human
development. 49(1) 27-41.
Rich, J.M., DeVitis, J. L. (1985). Theories of Moral Development. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas Publishing
Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Educational Psychology. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Zastrow, Charles H., Kirst-Ashman, Karen K. (2005). Understanding Human
Behavior and the Social Environment. 6th edition. Thomas Learning Inc,
Belmont, CA
It is important for an individual to have morals in a society. Morals are a
measurement of how well adjusted we are in the world. Though having strong morals
does not particularly gauge the success of a person, it certainly can give one a strong
sense of self and good peace of mind. There has been much literature written on moral
development since the 1970’s, and there have been some great contributions by two
theorists in particular. These two theorists are Lawrence Kohlberg, and Carol Gilligan.
They both attempt to explain how morals are developed through the life cycle in relation
to the world around them. Kohlberg’s research involved studies using men as the strong
majority of his research. In response to this, Carol Gilligan chose to expand specifically
on the moral development of women. Both of these theorists have made great
contributions to our understanding of moral development, but their accolades did not
come without criticism. In this paper, I will attempt to explain how these theories
influence men and women in middle adulthood, as well as how moral development has
played a part in my own development and will play a part in my future as a social worker.
Kohlberg’s Major Assumptions
Kohlberg’s theory on moral development is a continuation of research that was
begun by Piaget. Piaget’s theories on moral development were significant and inspiring
to Kohlberg, and gave him a cause to expand on Piaget’s work by going past the early
ages in childhood that Piaget has studied. Kohlberg also felt that the moral maturation
and moral development was much more gradual than Piaget. He also believed, like
Piaget, that changes were due to cognitive ability, rather than changes of the self.
Kohlberg interviewed children and adolescents and presented them with a hypothetical
dilemma. He then asked the participants to describe what the protagonist “should” or
“would” do (Kohlberg., 1993). This would in time aid him in defining his stages of
moral development.
Lawrence Kohlberg developed six stages of moral reasoning that is separated into
three levels. Pre conventional morality, conventional morality, and post conventional
morality (Zastrow, 2005). In the first stage of moral development, known as “obedience
and punishment orientation”, Kohlberg’s theory is much the same as Piaget’s in that
authority figures have a fixed set of rules that are not to be deviated from without
consequence. Children at this level think only in terms of right or wrong by its likelihood
of consequence or punishment. Stage two of this level is termed “individualism and
exchange”, and at this stage children are able to understand that there are different
viewpoints, and that there is not always one right answer. Children are still considered
pre-conventional at this stage because Kohlberg claims they still have no identification
with the values of family or community (Rich, 1985).
At stage three, in the conventional level, usually around teen years, people begin
to focus on having “good” motives like love, empathy, caring for others, and also trying
to live up to the expectation of family. At stage four in the conventional level a person
becomes more concerned with society as a whole. The emphasis of behavior is on
obeying laws, respecting others, and performing duties to keep social order maintained
(Kohlberg, 1983)..
At stage five, in the post conventional level, Kohlberg claims that people become
more involved in critically thinking about “what makes a good society”? People think
more theoretically about the world around them, and what would be realistic ways to
positively change the world around them. Stage six, the most debated stage by critics and
theorists, deals with the idea of universal principles. This stage of post conventional
development focuses on one’s ability to take different perspectives while remaining
impartial at the same time. It must be noted that the impartiality is necessary to achieve
any sort of reliable solution (Rich, 1985).
Gilligan’s major assumptions
Carol Gilligan did her work as a response to Kohlberg’s theory. Gilligan, who
was a student of Kohlberg, believed that females from level one did not act according to
punishment they act in terms of what seems to be the caring thing to do. Gilligan noticed
that women scored as “less developed” as men, according to Kohlberg’s work, and she
did not feel that women were any less of a person, morally or cognitively, and began to
form a response to Kohlberg’s model that focused on a feminine approach. Gilligan
responded that women were not less developed or inferior to men, they were just
different. She believes that early in life males value autonomy and females value
relationship (Gilligan, 1982). She drew attention to a person’s moral vulnerability by
focusing on the moral self, who is responsible for nurturing relationships by which they
become defined (Linn, 2001). Gilligan felt that the transition between stages was due to
changes in the self rather that cognitive ability, which Kohlberg believed. She also used
the terms pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. She asserted that many
major theorists were based on a male centered view, especially Kohlberg, who used only
men as subjects in his research (Gilligan 1982). Gilligan felt that the core of deficiency
was not within a women’s moral development, she believe it to be within the theories that
excluded women from a male definition of self (Linn, 2001).
Assumptions of Middle Adulthood phase of life
Carol Gilligan’s research, like Kohlberg’s did not emphasize a certain
development across all phases of life. Most psychologists, including Gilligan, believe that
during the adulthood years of women a focus has shifted on the development of self and
work. Gilligan (1984) states, “…in all women’s descriptions, identity is defined in a
context of relationship and judged by a standard of responsibility and care…the
underlying assumption is that morality stems from attachment…”(Gilligan, 1982 p. 160).
Gilligan briefly describes “adult aged” men and women and her findings of their selfdescription It is assumed by what Carol Gilligan found through interviews with men and
women of adult and middle adult ages, that women tend to judge their personality on the
prosperity of their family and the connectedness that is shared with them. Gilligan
showed that women were consistently describing themselves as responsible, hard
working, family oriented, maternal, or sensitive. When men were asked the same
question, they typically described themselves as intelligent, logical, perceptive, creative,
successful, or even cocky. The men’s answers were mostly based around their success
and ability to perform their jobs or within their work field.
Kohlberg’s main assumptions focus on the value of justice. In his view there was
no wrong solution to a situation as long as the person could justify his or her reasoning
for their actions. Kohlberg did not make any assumptions about moral development
during the middle adulthood phase of life. His theory describes a general moral
developmental framework through adolescence, and does not specify a correlation of
adult age to moral development stage. However, research has been done to improve on
the findings of Kohlberg in order to study patterns of altruistic behavior exhibited by
older adults. Eisenberg’s extensive work on pro-social or altruistic moral judgment uses
an approach similar to Kohlberg’s (Midlarsky, Kahana, Corley, Nemeroff & Schonbar,
1999). Eisenberg pointed out, “according to the research, reasoning regarding different
types of moral dilemmas may vary in structure and developmental course (Eisenberg,
1982 p. 245). Her research found that the majority of older adults have are likely to be
abstract and internalized in their moral judgment, meaning that through their life
experience they were able to gain new ways of analyzing and interpreting moral
dilemmas. Other researchers have found that older adults were more likely to describe
themselves as more virtuous and moral than younger adults, and that “humanitarian
concern” increases with age (Midlarsky, Kahana, Corley, Nemeroff & Schonbar, 1999).
Strengths and Limitations of Kohlberg and Gilligan’s Theories
The strength of Kohlberg’s work lies in the wisdom of how people develop over
time, and configured levels that could not be skipped. Kohlberg understood that the laws
in society were not always good, and did not discredit his subjects for devising solutions
that went against the grain. His other main strength was in how closely he followed the
workings of Piaget. Piaget was a highly respected theorist, and Kohlberg followed his
lead very well. Piaget proposed that true mental stages meet several criteria: qualitative
differences, structural wholes, invariant sequences, hierarchic integration, and universal
sequence. Kohlberg meticulously tailored his research around Piaget’s criteria.
The strength in Gilligan’s work is based in her main criticism of Kohlberg’s
research. Her critique was in Kohlberg’s lack of female subjects in his research. Gilligan
felt that Kohlberg’s theory was based on a male’s moral self. Another strength of
Gilligan’s work was finding that women’s moral development was based on a value of
care, rather than justice (Gilligan, 1982). Carol Gilligan’s other strengths lie in her
extensive research on adolescence, moral development, women's development and
conflict resolution. In theory, empirical evidence and qualitative research equals validity,
and she has provided both in her findings.
There are also critiques and limitations that come along with the accolades given
to these theorists, most of them are directed at Kohlberg’s theory. The first and most
repeated is that Kohlberg solely uses males as subjects, and generalizes his findings
across sexes. The common complaint is that he is biased against women (Gilligan,
1982).. Another problem is the definitiveness that moral development automatically
occurs in stages. This theory does not consider how much a child’s home life will play
into their moral development. Some psychologists believe that the actual home life of a
child is more relevant to their moral development, than a progression through stages.
Another limitation of Kohlberg’s work is the reliability of his testing. One researcher can
easily evaluate a child differently than another researcher (Woolfolk, 1993).
An important limitation that Gilligan shares with Kohlberg, is the lack of
explanation of life phases past adolescence. These theories are quite vague when it
comes to identifying early, middle, and late adulthood life phases. Gilligan discusses
testimonies of women of varying adult ages, but fails to specify how these age groups are
identified in moral development.
Influence of Privileges and Social Oppressions
My research has led to the conclusion that either Kohlberg’s or Gilligan’s moral
development theory is not likely to influence any privileges or social oppressions that I
will experience during the middle adult phase of life. Several males that were
interviewed by Gilligan admitted to having a desire to have a balanced moral, emotional,
and cognitive development. From Gilligan’s research, I know that I am likely to be
morally driven by personal goals of success and whatever moral decisions would reflect
my positive development.
When reflecting on Kohlberg’s theory, I am able to determine that by the time I
reach middle adulthood, I am most likely to have achieved the highest stage of moral
development relative to me. By that stage of life, whatever stage and level of moral
development I have already reached will most likely mark the end of my moral
development.