Kohlberg and Gilligan Study By : Beth Cline

Kohlberg Lived 1927-1987 From Bronxville, New York Professor at both University of Chicago and Harvard University

Theory of Moral Development

Kohlberg’s Theory He developed his theory from Piaget’s stages Hierarchical integrations Qualitative differences in modes of thinking Each stage forms a structured whole Invariant sequence Universal

Kohlberg’s Theory Cont. 6th stage was removed 1975 Rare 7th stage : Spiritual development Sociomoral perspective Curious as to the reason “why”

Levels Pre-conventional : Individual perspective Conventional : Member of Society perspective Post-conventional : Prior-to-Society perspective

6 stages

Level 1 : Preconventional Approach moral problems from individual perspective Stage 1 : Obey authority without question Stage 2 : Recognize different viewpoints (other than the authority)

Level 2 : Conventional Stage 3 : “good ways” Stage 4 : Obeying laws, respecting authority and performing ones duties ; concerned with society as a whole

Level 3 : Post-conventional What makes for a good society? Stage 5 : What keeps the society functioning Stage 6 : Working towards a conception of the good society

Gilligan Born 1936 Professor at NYU Believed there were differences between women and men morally Women would get stuck on Stage 3 of Kohlberg’s Stages Morality is that whole realm of how you decide these conflicts between personal desires and social things

Research Study

Objectives 1. Are there major differences between sophomore girls and boys morally as indicated by Gilligan? 2. At which stage of Kohlberg’s theory do sophomores in high school rank based on their responses to moral dilemmas?

Hypotheses 1. There would not be a significant difference between genders due to age 2. Generally will be around Stage 3

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 $200 for the radium and charge $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper and 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?

It was not morally right to steal. Answers to Heinz Dilemma Sex Y/N Answer Stage Female No No, cost was unreasonably high; it was still the druggists’s property. Stealing is itself wrong, so the husband had no right to take another man’s property. 2/3 (property) Yes I think it is had to answer. If I was in the man’s shoes I’d do the same so I would say she should do it. 2 (life) It was not morally right to steal. 1 (property) Male It was not morally right for man selling the drugs to raise the price. A woman’s life was at risk. 3/4 (property) He valued the life greater than $1000. Stealing isn’t right but it isn’t that bad of a crime. 3/4 (life) Husband should have done this because the death is greater evil than robbing. His intention was good.

Answer to other Questions Gender Answer Stage Female Would put it on the record because honesty is necessary fundamental. Girl can easily explain her situation and her other actions should outweigh the bad ones 3 I would not put it on her record because she’s super smart and just made a mistake which everyone does. 2/3 I would turn her in, because I don’t believe in cheating. Scholarship should not be embedded in lies. Male I would not let the student get the grade she deserves. It is wrong to cheat even it it is to get into dream college. Talk to her. There has to be another option besides failing her or lying. She shouldn’t suffer and probably deserves the A. 3/4 I would save the student because one mistake is not worth ruining someone’s lifelong dream. Believe in second chances.

Results Gender Stage Female Male 3 2 transitioning to 3

Limitations Time Number of Students Moral background Difficulty Scoring

Changes If done again, compare to students without a Moral Theology class Have more students Have more time so can orally question them

Nature-Nurture Line Kohlberg Nature Nurture

Conclusion Definite separation between genders forming, but not conclusive Generally all around stage 3 no matter the gender

Bibliography Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hersh, R. H., Paolitto, D. P., & Reimer, J. (1979). Promoting moral growth: From Piaget to Kohlberg. New York: Longman. Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgement (Vol. 2) (B. Speicher, A. Hewer, D. Candy, J. Gibbs, & C. Power, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgement (Vol. 1) (B. Speicher, A. Hewer, D. Candy, J. Gibbs, & C. Power, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.