Morality Reasoning and Gender in Children and Adolescents

It was commonly believed for a long time, that boys will be boys, and girls should be girls. Even in the early 19th Century, the topic of a popular children’s folk songs was discussion the fact that little boys are made of ‘snails and puppy dog tails’ while little girls are made of ‘sugar, spice and everything nice.’ The notion that somehow boys and girls were believed to have different morality, and in some instances expected to have a different sense of morality has been widely believed for many years in human existence. This became the topic of the Kohlberg (1969) study, which became a seminal study in looking at the moral reasoning of children. In this study, the researcher discussed conflicts that might arise for children, and how they would resolve them based on their gender. Since then there have been countless studies that have further developed the finding so this study. This essay will look at gender-related differences related to children and adolescents using scholarly research from the last 13 years.

Personality and gender in morality reasoning

In recent studies on gender related differences related to children and adolescents, researchers have looked at several different perspectives on the topic. One of the dominant viewpoints is on personality. One study points out that “It has generally been believed that emotions and affective states as well as individual differences have had little to do with it, and not until relatively recently have researchers begun to explore the role of emotions and personality factors in moral judgment” (Agerstrom et al., 2006, p. 1260). Research is beginning to show that moral reasoning in children and adolescents goes far beyond just their gender, and can be more specifically attributed to their personalities as well. Agerstrom et al. (2006) found that “despite the present findings indicating that the content of the moral scenarios, to a large extent, influences moral reasoning, individual differences also affected the outcome of the moral dilemmas and moral self-reports, and ought to be examined more closely in a society where personality factors may exert far-reaching effects on ethical issues” (Agerstrom et al., 2006, p. 1275). The study opens the room for more research because personality and morality-dilemma content are no doubt far less rigid or black and white than gender. It is not easily defined. However, there is still an overriding focus on gender.

Emotions and gender in morality reasoning

Personality does have a dominant influence on moral reasoning, but to take this into a deeper context would be to look at emotions. In some cultures and subcultures, it is important to draw a gender line on emotions. While girls are expected to show feelings and be emotional, young boys are encouraged many times by male relatives and society not to do this. In fact, overly emotional boys, or those who show too much of their feelings are often the product of ridicule. “Aggressive and prosocial behaviors are affected not only by children’s affective judgments, but also by their moral judgments and moral reasoning. Structural developmental theory strongly emphasizes the link between undifferentiated moral reasoning and immoral, aggressive behavior” (Malti et al, 2009, p.91). In this way, socialized personality traits within genders lead to differing responses to not only their social environment but also their morality.

Boys are many times encouraged to be more aggressive and independent, which is the opposite of how girls are encouraged to behave, which is to be submissive and more social. Malti et al. (2009) demonstrate that “younger aggressive children were more likely than the younger prosocial children to give sanction oriented reasons when evaluating the moral rule transgressions as wrong” (p.98). More aggressive children tend to be more self-centered whereas the prosocial child tended to be more self-conscious, and these differences had an effect on their moral reasoning. As it relates to gender, the study suggests also that boys are socialized to act more confidently than girls, and therefore out of this confidence, act in ways that show a certain lower level of moral reasoning. Much of this is in the belief that 1.) They are doing what they are socially supposed to do, and therefore 2.) They would not be punished harshly or punished at all for being who they are supposed to be. It is important to note that this judgment is not one based out of personal ego. Arsenio et al. (2006) show that “children’s moral judgments represent more a cognitive than a motivational aspect of children’s morality” (Arsenio et al, 2006 p. 608). This reinforces the idea that this is something children just perceive about themselves; this is a learned behavior throughout their development.

Environmental influences and gender in morality reasoning

Research has also shown that girls’ personality and development is more likely to be more tied to their social environment rather than boys. Eisenberg et al. (2006), purports that, “with regard to prosocial behaviors, gender differences in prosocial behaviors have generally been found in prior research with girls exhibiting more prosocial behaviors compared with boys” (Eisenberg et al., 2006, p. 259). This gives the impression that when it comes to moral reasoning among children and adolescents “it was expected that among the groups we were studying girls would score higher than boys on internalized levels of prosocial moral reasoning and for prosocial behaviors, whereas the converse would be true for approval-oriented, prosocial moral reasoning (Eisenberg et al., 2006, p. 259). Thus, girls would be expected to have a higher degree of morality concerning social behaviors and boys would have a higher developed approval-oriented morality.

However, more recently researchers have discovered that there is a deeper layer to this. Although girls are likely to have moral reasoning based on the societal whole, it is important to look at it from a cultural perspective. One study (Kumru et al., 2012) found that there are strong cultural group differences in the prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviors of adolescents and children of different cultural groups Kumru et al., 2012, p. 211). These cultural differences, although there were some similar developmental patterns, affected how and why children and adolescents reason morally. What children in the United States may see as morally tolerant may differ in different cultures across the world, and this is in spite of set gender groups.

Cultural influences and gender in morality reasoning

Another important theme found in the prevalent theories that focus on gender and moral reasoning in children and adolescents, delve into how young boys and girls have been acculturated to their respective gender practices and roles. The idea that culturally boys and girls should be different goes well beyond biological differences. Society mandates behavior for each gender, and gender is also expected to be how moral reasoning is researched. The Kohlberg (1969) study discussed stage 3 morality, which in short says that girls should avoid any trouble making, and leave that to the boys. The Ryan et al. (2004) study states that “gender differences are not pervasive in moral reasoning and occur only when gender is seen as a relevant social identity, the social reality is that gender, for most, is a ubiquitous category and is arguably the most salient of all social categories” (Ryan et al., 2004, p. 254). The study set out to show that gender is only important only because society promotes it when it comes to the moral reasoning of children and adolescents.

Inclusion, exclusion, and gender in morality reasoning

It is important to look at one more specific aspect of moral reasoning among children and adolescents. It is linked to culture, but it is also closely linked to the environment. It is an aspect that tends to cross gender lines. This is the aspect of how inclusion and exclusion affect moral reasoning among gender groups. This aspect also crosses other culturally and socially drawn lines as well. Part of the acculturation process is to see distinction culturally and socially. This is an area where boys and girls intersect, but the same inclusion and exclusion practices also can be divided along gender lines as well. The term for this is intergroup exclusion. According to Killen (2007), “what makes this form of exclusion a particularly compelling topic for investigation from a moral viewpoint is that it reflects, on the one hand, prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping, and bias about groups, and, on the other hand, judgments about fairness, equality, and rights” (Killen, 2007, p. 32). Even though it seems as though “these judgments are diametrically opposed; prejudice violates moral principles of fairness, discrimination violates equality, and stereotyping restricts individual rights”, these have an impact on the moral reasoning in children and adolescents (p.32). McGillicuddy-De Lisi (2003), points out that interpersonal relationships among children in some aspects are very important. The study found that in spite of gender, all children have an earnest desire to belong, and therefore many act out of being excluded.

Unfortunately, whether it is a girl or a boy, a child or adolescent’s moral reasoning is sometimes skewed by certain prejudicial judgments. According to Killen (2007), “Although stereotypes and conventions are powerful forces that legitimize exclusion, there is also extensive evidence of how adolescents explain the wrongfulness of discrimination in terms of social justice” (p. 35). In fact, girls are more likely than boys to have the moral reasoning of separating based on these judgments.

“Understanding when children resort to stereotypic expectations is crucial information for creating effective interventions. Developmental findings on social reasoning about exclusion provide a new approach for addressing these complex issues in childhood and for creating programs to reduce prejudice” (Killen, 2007, p.35).

Showing how complex morality reasoning is across the gender lines emphasizes that there is a lot of research that still needs to be done. Perhaps the best research would be to separate the different genders and study each as a unit within itself, to avoid over-complicated the research.

Conclusion

For many years gender has been the basis of psychological research on morality reasoning. For many years it was commonly believed that children and adolescents make moral decisions based on what gender group they belong to. Even in the 20th Century, the most widely utilized study the Kohlberg (1969), helped to expand this idea. It is evident that gender differences are at play in moral reasoning, but the reality is far more complex than that. Sometimes personality and emotions connected to gender have a direct impact on morality reasoning. Perhaps it is more along the lines of how boys and girls respond to the environmental and cultural influences that they have experienced in life. It could even be something deeper like acculturated ideas, prejudices and judgments that have been formed that help shape how boys and girls make moral reasoning. However popular culture still promotes the idea that much of what moral decisions are made relies on gender. As McGillicuddy-De Lisi (2003) puts it, “the degree to which moral decisions were supportive of an affected character revealed more support when story characters were female than when they were male. Results indicate that even in hypothetical situations, moral judgments vary with the gender of the person being judged and to some degree with the relationships among those involved in the dilemma” (McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 2003, p.657). This has been shifted into reality, because despite making similar moral reasoning children and adolescents are treated differently based on these preconceived ideas. Whatever the case, the evidence is clear that there is still a lot of research that needs to be done when studying gender in children and adolescent morality reasoning. There is still a lot of ground to cover on this topic because the present research has barely scratched the surface of this complex issue.

References

Agerström, J., Möller, K., & Archer, T. (2006). Moral reasoning: The influence of affective personality, dilemma content and gender. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 34(10), 1259-1276.

Arsenio W, Gold J, Adams E. 2006. Children’s conceptions and displays of moral emotions. In: Killen M, Smetana J (eds). Handbook of Moral Development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 581–610

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Shepard, S. A. (2005). Age changes in prosocial responding and moral reasoning in adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 235-260

Killen, M. (2007). Children's social and moral reasoning about exclusion. Current Directions In Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 16(1), 32-36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00470.x

Kumru, A., Carlo, G., Mestre, M. V., & Samper, P. (2012). Prosocial moral reasoning and prosocial behaviors among Turkish and Spanish adolescents. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 40(2), 205-214. doi:org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.2.205

Malti, T., Gasser, L., & Buchmann, M. (2009). Aggressive and prosocial children's emotion attributions and moral reasoning. Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), 90-102. doi:10.1002/ab.20289

McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., Sullivan, B., & Hughes, B. (2003). The effects of interpersonal relationship and character gender on adolescents’ resolutions of moral dilemmas. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 655-669.

Ryan, M. K., David, B., & Reynolds, K. J. (2004). Who Cares? : The effect of gender and context on the self and moral reasoning. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 246-255. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00142.x