It has been suggested that it is possible to identify sex differences in moral development. To what extent can this view be supported?

At birth, humans are amoral, that is, we don’t possess any system of personal values and judgements about what is fundamentally right or wrong. By the time we reach adulthood though, most of us possess some level of morality. Psychologists are interested in the process by which we acquire and develop our morality. Moral reasoning refers to how we reason, or judge, whether an action is right or wrong. Recent years have seen a growing debate about whether gender affects the development of moral reasoning. (McIlveen & Gross, 1998)

Jean Piaget is among the first psychologists whose work remains directly relevant to contemporary theories of moral development. In his early writings, he focused specifically on the moral lives of children, studying the way children play games in order to learn more about children's beliefs about right and wrong (Piaget, 1932/65). According to Piaget, all development emerges from action; that is to say, individuals construct and reconstruct their knowledge of the world as a result of interactions with the environment. Based on his observations of children's application of rules when playing, Piaget determined that morality too, can be considered a developmental process.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development (1969) modified and elaborated Piaget's work, and laid the groundwork for the current debate within psychology on moral development. Consistent with Piaget, he proposed that children form ways of thinking through their experiences which include understandings of moral concepts such as justice, rights, equality and human welfare. Kohlberg followed the development of moral judgement beyond the ages studied by Piaget, and determined that the process of attaining moral maturity took longer and was more gradual than Piaget had proposed.

Kohlberg’s stage theory is based on various responses to scenarios that involved a moral dilemma. Kohlberg recognised three levels of moral development which encompassed six stages. Level 1 is the preconventional level, children at this level respond to moral cues from their social reference group, most commonly their parents. At this stage children are extremely self-involved and moral behavior is only in response to sanctions and rewards based on behavior. Stage 2 is the instrumental relativism orientation, at this stage moral behavior depends on the desires of the individual. At Level 2, the conventional or moral level, moral reasoning is based on existing social norms as well as the rights of others. Kohlberg asserts that most adolescents and some adults operate at this level of reasoning. Stage 3 is the interpersonal concordance orientation, which indicates that the individual has developed the ability to empathise and is no longer selfish in their moral reasoning. Stage 4 is the orientation toward authority, law, and duty. At this stage moral activity becomes a function of following rules and has no association with the need for personal approval. Level 3, the postconventional or autonomous level is the most advanced level of moral reasoning which relies on universal principles in approaching moral problems. Stage 5 is the social contract orientation, which relies heavily on noble principles such as equality and human dignity. Stage 6 is the universal ethical principles orientation which is rarely reached. This orientation relies on principles that are self-generated and universally applicable. According to Kohlberg (1969), more males than females move beyond stage 4 of their moral development.

Kohlberg proposed that as individuals develop, so does their moral reasoning. As his or her sense of empathy and understanding of the world grows, the individual progresses through these three stages, developing a more complex understanding of moral relations. And, although many people's development may be halted before attaining the third level, he recognised the individual’s progression through this hierarchy as universal.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Carol Gilligan (1982) sparked a heated academic debate with her book “In a different Voice”. Gilligan departed from the traditional sequential stage models advocated by psychologists such as Kohlberg (1969) and developed her own moral orientation model. Gilligan criticised Kohlberg’s theory as she claimed they are insensitive to females’ ‘different voice’ on morality and therefore result in women achieving lower stages, consequently labelling them as morally inferior to men. Gilligan (1982), Lyons (1983) and Noddings (1984) proposed that male and females hold different life orientations, with particular emphasis on their moral belief structure. According to Walker, de Vries, & Trevethan (1987) a moral orientation “represents a conceptually distinctive framework or perspective for organising and understanding the moral domain” (p.844). Gilligan’s moral orientation model states that males typically have a justice/rights orientation and females have a care/response orientation. Gilligan believes that males typically have a justice/rights orientation because of their individualistic and separate conception of the self, their detached objectivity, their basing of identity on occupation and their tendency to gravitate towards applying abstract and impartial principles to situations. Therefore in her theory she claims that males view morality as involving issues of conflicting rights. The other side of Gilligan’s dichotomy believes that females have a typically care/response orientation because of their perception of the self as connected to and interdependent with others, their basing of identity on close personal relationships, their sensitivity not to endanger or hurt, and for their concern for the welfare and care of others. Thus, Gilligan believes that females view morality as involving issues of conflicting responsibilities. (Walker, 1990).

Despite Gilligan's criticism, numerous Defining Issues Test (DIT) studies find sex differences to be insignificant as a determinant of moral development. Murray (1996) suggests that both males and females base their reasoning on a combination of justice and care. Kanny (1997) finds no difference in gender in a study of 389 occupational therapists, nor does Hunter’s (1997) study of business personnel. Likewise, Coder (1975), Lee and Snarey (1988), Wilson (1995), Murray (1996), and Stewart and Sprinthall (1994) find no statistical difference in DIT scores based on gender.

Other studies do find a difference attributed to gender, but in these studies women consistently score significantly higher than men and there is no bias in favour of men as Gilligan suggests. Thoma's (1986) meta-analysis of fifty-six DIT studies administered to over six thousand male and female subjects reports that at every age and education level, females score significantly higher than males. More recent examples include Morris's (1997) study of 345 school psychologists, which found females to score significantly higher on a measure of ethical beliefs; Bernardi's (1997) findings that female accounting managers score significantly higher on the DIT; and Wark and Krebs's (1996) finding that males report more stage 2 justice orientation than females, while females report more stage 3 care orientation than males do.

However Lyons’ (1983) study shows strong support for Gilligan’s hypothesis however. Lyons (1983) conducted open-ended interviews on 36 participants in a range of ages and asked them to discuss a personal real-life moral dilemma that they had faced. Results showed that the care consideration was predominant for 75% of females and that the justice orientation was predominant for 79% of males. Pratt (1985) replicated this pattern in his study of 62 participants. He found that 53.6% of women held a predominantly care orientation and 73.5% of men showed a rights consideration. Gilligan (1986, p.10) claims that most people ’focus on one orientation and minimally represent the others.’ This claim however has little empirical evidence to support it. Walker (1989) tested this single orientation consistency and his results showed that approximately 50% of participants used one approach or the other predominantly when examining a single real-life dilemma. Gilligan and Anttanucci, (1988b) reported findings of 66.3%. Pratt, Golding and Sampson (1988) found only 60% of participants used the same modal orientation when asked to discuss two real-life moral dilemmas. Whilst Gilligan’s claim of single modal orientation consistency may not be strongly supported, however what is evident from the research is that both care and justice orientations do exist. Whether the use of these orientations is solely based on gender is unlikely, however gender does seem to play a role.

Neither Kohlberg nor Gilligan have taken into account the many variables which affect morality for people in modern society. The discussion of moral development needs to move away from whether or not there are differences between the sexes and instead, to broaden the study of this subject to the next level which integrates biological, religious and cultural differences.

References

Bernardi, Richard A., 1997, “An Examination of Moral Development Within Public Accounting by Gender, Staff Level, and Firm”, Contemporary Accounting Research 14:4:653-68.

Coder, Clarence R., 1975 "Moral Judgement in Adults.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gilligan, C (1986), Remapping the Moral Domain. In Heller,T et al (eds) Reconstructing Individualism, Stanford, Stanford University Press.

Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). “Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34, 223-237.

Hunter, Richard A., (1997), "Assessing Moral Sensitivity in Business Personnel Ethics.” Ph.D. dissertation. Georgia State University.

Kanny, Elizabeth M., (1997), "Occupational Therapists' Ethical Reasoning Assessing Student and Practitioner Responses to Ethical Dilemmas.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). “Stage and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to socialization.” In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.

Lee, L., and Snarey, J., (1988), "The Relationship Between Ego and Moral Development: A Theoretical Review and Empirical Analysis.” In D. Lapsley and J. Power, (Eds). Self, Ego, and Identity: Integrative Approaches. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lyons, N. (1983). “Two perspectives: On self, relationships, and morality”. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 125-145.

McIlveen, R. & Gross, R. (1998), Developmental Psychology, London, Hodder & Stoughton.

Morris, Richard. (1997) "Demographic and Professional Characteristics Associated with School Psychologists' Ethical Beliefs." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Arizona.

Murray, Mary Elizabeth. (1996), "An Overview of Moral Development and Education." Unpublished monograph. Chicago: University of Illinois.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child. London: Routledge.

Piaget, J. (1965). The Moral Judgement of the Child. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Pratt, A. (1985). Spinning among fields: Jung, Frye, Levi-Strauss and feminist archetypal theory. In E. Lauter & C. Rupprecht (Eds.), Feminist archetypal theory. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Pratt, M. W., Golding, G., Hunter, W., & Sampson, R. (1988). “Sex differences in adult moral orientations”. Journal of Personality, 56 (2), 373-391.

Stewart, Debra W., and Sprinthall, Norman A., 1994 "Moral Development in Public Administration." In Terry L. Cooper, ed. Handbook of Administrative Ethics. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Thoma, Steven J., (1986) "Estimating Gender Differences in the Comprehension and Preference of Moral Issues." Developmental Review 6:165-80.

Walker, L. J. (1989). “A longitudinal study of moral reasoning.” Child Development, 60, 157-166.

Walker, L. J. (1990). “The family: A viable context for moral development?” Moral Education Forum, 15(4), 13-20, 37.

Walker, L. J., de Vries, B., & Trevethan, S. D. (1987). “Moral stages and moral orientations in real-life and hypothetical dilemmas”. Child Development, 58, 842-858.

Wark, Gillian R., and Krebs, Dennis L., (1996) "Gender and Dilemma Differences in Real-Life Moral Judgment.' Developmental Psychology 32:2:220-31.

Wilson, Feleta L., (1995) "The Effects of Age, Gender, and Ethnic/Cultural Background on Moral Reasoning." Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 10:1:67-78.