Real-Life Dilemmas, Carol Gilligan’s Moral Development Theory
As human beings grow we somehow develop the ability to assess what is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable. In other words; we develop morality, a system of learned attitudes about social practices, institutions, and individual behavior used to evaluate situations and behavior as good or bad, right or wrong (Lefton, 2000). One theorist, Carol Gilligan, found that morality develops by looking at much more than justice. The following will discuss the morality development theory of Carol Gilligan and its implications.
Carol Gilligan was the first to consider gender differences in her research with the mental processes of males and females in their moral development. In general, Gilligan noted differences between girls and boys in their feelings towards caring, relationships, and connections with other people. More specifically Gilligan noted that girls are more concerned with care, relationships, and connections with other people than boys (Lefton, 2000). Thus, Gilligan hypothesized that as younger children girls are more inclined towards caring, and boys are more inclined towards justice (Lefton, 2000). Gilligan suggests this difference is due to gender and the child’s relationship with the mother (Lefton, 2000).
Child development literature often provides a heated comparison of Gilligan’s theory with that of Lawrence Kohlberg’s. Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory entails the famous man “Heinz” who is portrayed to have a wife that is terminally ill. Kohlberg devised his theory by asking college aged students whether or not they would break into a drug store to steal the medicine to save his wife and why or why not (Wark & Krebs, 1996). Kohlberg’s theory is comprised of three levels of moral development becoming more complex. Kohlberg’s moral development theory did not take into account gender, and from Kohlberg’s theory Gilligan found that girls do in-fact develop moral orientations differently than boys. According to Gilligan, the central moral problem for women is the conflict between self and other. Within Gilligan’s theoretical framework for moral development in females, she provides a sequence of three levels (Belknap, 2000).
At level one of Gilligan’s theoretical framework a woman’s orientation is towards individual survival (Belknap, 2000); the self is the sole object of concern. The first transition that takes place is from being selfish to being responsible. At level two the main concern is that goodness is equated with self-sacrifice (Belknap, 2000). This level is where a woman adopts societal values and social membership. Gilligan refers to the second transition from level two to level three as the transition from goodness to truth (Belknap, 2000). Here, the needs of the self must be deliberately uncovered, as they are uncovered the woman begins to consider the consequences of the self and other (Belknap, 2000).
One study by Gilligan & Attanucci, looked at the distinction between care and justice perspectives with men and women, primarily adolescence and adults when faced with real-life dilemmas. An example of one of the real-life dilemma subjects were asked to consider was a situation with a pregnant women considering an abortion (Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988). The study showed that: a) concerns about justice and care are represented in people’s thinking about real-life moral dilemmas, but that people tend to focus on one or the other depending on gender, and b) there is an association between moral orientation and gender such that women focus on care dilemmas and men focus on justice dilemmas (Gilligan & Attanucci, 1988).
Gilligan’s theory has had both positive and negative implications in the field of psychology. One positive implication is that her work has influenced other psychologists in their evaluations of morality. Also, Gilligan’s work highlights that people think about other people in a humanly caring way. Gilligan also emphasized that both men and women think about caring when faced with relationship dilemmas, similarly both are likely to focus on justice when faced with dilemmas involving others rights.
On the other hand, the most criticized element to her theory is that it follows the stereotype of women as nurturing, men as logical. The participants of Gilligan’s research are limited to mostly white, middle class children and adults (Woods, 1996. In general, literature reviews have provided that Gilligan’s work needs a broader more multicultural basis.
In summary, Carol Gilligan has provided a framework for the moral orientations and development of women. Current research on explicit schemas as to how women come to real-life decisions when faced with real-life dilemmas is limited. Gilligan’s theory is comprised of three stages: self-interest, self-sacrifice, and post-conventional thinking where each level is more complex. Overall, Gilligan found that girls do develop morality, differently than others. Gilligan’s theory holds particular implications for adolescent girls specifically as this is typically when they enter the transition from level two to level three. However, as do all theories Gilligan’s has advantages and disadvantages that should be considered when looking at moral orientations.
Belknap, R.A. (2000). One woman’s life viewed through the interpretive lens of Gilligan’s theory. Violence Against Women, 6, 586-605.
Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 223-237.
Lefton, L. A. (2000). Child Development. In Psychology, (7th ed.) pp. 350-351, Allyn & Bacon publishing.
Wark, G.R., & Krebs, D.L. (1996). Gender and dilemma differences in real-life moral judgment. Developmental Psychology, 32, 220-230.