Ask whether a moral scoring scheme counts care and emotion as reasons
When a framework ranks how mature a person’s moral reasons are, check whether reasons grounded in relationships, feeling and loyalty were scored at all.
Pourquoi ça marche
Bataglia, Morais and Lepre (2010) report the critique, citing Carol Gilligan (1993), that Kohlberg’s theories concern only a male morality based on justice and devalue the affective dimension and emotions. Gilligan’s own book was not read for this page, so the claim rests on that report. Jaffee and Hyde (2000), in a meta-analysis (a statistical pooling of many studies), note that Gilligan (1982) argued for two modes of moral reasoning, justice and care, and tested whether either is used predominantly by one sex. They found small differences, favoring women on care and men on justice, and said these findings do not offer strong support for that sex-predominance claim. On this page’s reading, a scheme that counts only justice-based reasons would score a care-based reason as absent rather than as less developed, so the practice asks what a framework counts.
Comment faire
- Take a framework that ranks moral reasons, and list the kinds of reason it names as more mature.
- Identify whether any reasons grounded in care, relationship, loyalty or feeling appear at all, and where they are placed.
- Write one real decision you made from a relationship reason, and ask whether the framework would score that reason as less developed or would not score it at all.
- Decide whether the ranking reflects a view of what matters or a conclusion the framework built in before you looked.
Données probantes
Bataglia, Morais and Lepre (2010) report the critique that Kohlberg’s theory concerns only male morality based on justice and devalues affect and emotions, citing Gilligan (1993), Campbell and Christopher (1996) and Flanagan (1996). Jaffee and Hyde (2000) report small differences in the care and justice orientations (d, a standardized effect size, of -.28 favoring females on care and .19 favoring males on justice) and conclude that these do not offer strong support for sex-predominant use of either. The studies concern the critique and the measured orientations, not the reading practice, which has not been tested. (mechanistic)
Gilligan’s argument is reported here through secondary sources because her book was not read for this page. The Jaffee and Hyde meta-analysis measures moral orientation in studies, which is not the same as a stage.
Sources
- Bataglia, P. U. R., Morais, A. de, & Lepre, R. M. (2010). A teoria de Kohlberg sobre o desenvolvimento do raciocínio moral e os instrumentos de avaliação de juízo e competência moral em uso no Brasil. Estudos de Psicologia, 15(1), 25–32.
- Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703–726.
- Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. The DOI cited is the 1993 Harvard printing. Bataglia et al. (2010) cite Gilligan (1993), a Portuguese translation (Rio de Janeiro: Rosa dos Ventos). Neither edition was read for this page.
Erreur fréquente
Reading a framework that scores only fairness and rules as showing that relationship-based reasons are immature. The framework may simply not have counted them, and the absence of a score is itself a choice in the scheme.
Pratiquez cela avec IX Coach
Plus de pratiques pour The Critiques of Adult Development Stage Theories, Fairly Stated
- Close the reading and come back to the room
Put the stage reading down, feel your feet and breath, and let the shame loosen before you decide anything about where you stand.
- Reach a person if the shame is more than a reading can carry
If the shame about where you stand starts to feel like not wanting to be here, reach a trusted person and a clinician now.
- Check who validated a stage model before you repeat its claims
When a stage model is described as scientifically proven, find out who ran the validation, whether the report is public, and whether anyone outside its developers has checked it.
- Prefer a scored assessment to reading yourself into a stage
Do not pick the stage description that sounds most like you; if you want a level, use a scored instrument, and treat your own sense of your stage as a guess to test.
- Do not place someone at a stage from one conversation or one moment
Before you judge where a colleague, partner or child sits in a stage model, collect more than one sample and keep what you observed separate from the label you are tempted to attach.
- Check whether the people in a stage study resemble the people you are describing
Before you apply a stage description to people in another culture, class or community, find out who the original samples were and what they had in common.
- Read a gender gap against the schooling and jobs of the people measured
When a study reports that men or women score higher on a developmental measure, check whether education and occupation explain the gap before you conclude anything about sex.
- Hold a critique next to the support the reviewers still found
When you read a critique of a stage theory, also write down what the reviewers concluded the evidence still supports, and keep both halves of the verdict in view.
- Check whether a stage claim’s evidence came from children or from adults
Before you apply a stage claim to adult life, find out how old the people were in the studies that produced it, and whether those studies tested adults at all.
Concepts associés
- Terri O’Fallon’s STAGES Model, Made Practical
Twelve stages built from three repeating questions, and how to work with the one you are in
- Ego Development Theory: What It Is and How It Is Measured
The frame you make meaning through, how researchers measure it, and how to work with it without ranking anyone
- Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, Made Practical
Six stages of moral reasoning, how they are scored, and how to work with the reasons you give
- Carol Gilligan’s Ethics of Care, Explained
Two ways of reasoning about moral problems, what the research shows, and how to use both lenses
- The Construct-Aware and Unitive Stages of Adult Development
Seeing the self and its stories as constructions — what it looks like, how rare it is, and what it does not promise
- The Model of Hierarchical Complexity, Explained
How tasks are ranked by coordination, what the 14 orders are, and how to use the idea on a hard problem
- Torbert’s Seven Action Logics of Leadership
Seven ways leaders make sense of pressure, how common each is, and how to work with your own
- La théorie sujet-objet de Kegan, en pratique
Passer d'être mené par ses présupposés à pouvoir les examiner