MORAL & GENDER DEVELOPMENT
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
Kohlberg (1963) built on the work of Piaget and was interested in finding out
how our moral reasoning changes as we get older. He wanted to find out how people
decide what is right and what is wrong. Just as Piaget believed that children’s cognitive
development follows specific age-graded stages, Kohlberg (1984) argued that we
learn our moral values through active thinking and reasoning, and that moral
development follows a series of qualitatively different stages. Kohlberg’s six stages
are generally organized into three levels of moral reasons. To study moral
development, Kohlberg posed moral dilemmas to children, teenagers, and adults,
such as the following:
A man’s wife is dying of cancer and there is only one drug that can save her.
The only place to get the drug is at the store of a pharmacist who is known to
overcharge people for drugs. The man can only pay $1,000, but the pharmacist wants
$2,000, and refuses to sell it to him for less, or to let him pay later. Desperate,
the man later breaks into the pharmacy and steals the medicine. Should he have done
that? Was it right or wrong? Why? (Kohlberg, 1984)
Level 1. Preconventional Morality. Reasoning during Level one, which is broken
into two stages, is based on what would happen to the man as a result of the act, that
is, on the consequences of the act. In Stage 1, moral reasoning is based on concepts
of punishment. The child believes that if the consequence for an action is punishment,
then the action was wrong. For example, they might say the man should not break into
the pharmacy because the pharmacist might find him and beat him. In Stage 2, the
child bases his or her thinking on self-interest and reward. “You scratch my back, I’ll
scratch yours.” They might say that the man should break in and steal the drug and
his wife will give him a big kiss. Right or wrong, both decisions were based on what
would physically happen to the man as a result of the act. This is a self-centered
approach to moral decision-making. He called this most superficial understanding of
right and wrong preconventional morality. Preconventional morality focuses on self-
interest. Punishment is avoided, and rewards are sought. Adults can also fall into these
stages, particularly when they are under pressure.
Level 2. Conventional Morality. Those tested who based their answers on
authority, that is, based on what other people would think of the man as a result of his
act, were placed in Level Two. For instance, they might say he should break into the
store, and then everyone would think he was a good husband, or he should not
because it is against the law. In either case, right and wrong is determined by what
other people think. In Stage 3, the person reasons based on mutual expectations and
relationships. They want to please others. At Stage 4, the person acknowledges the
importance of social norms or laws and wants to be a good member of the group or
society. A good decision is one that gains the approval of others or one that complies
with the law. This he called conventional morality, people care about the effect of their
actions on others. Some older children, adolescents, and adults use this reasoning.
Level 3. Postconventional Morality. Right and wrong are based on social
contracts established for the good of everyone and that can transcend the self and
social convention. For example, the man should break into the store because, even if
it is against the law, the wife needs the drug and her life is more important than the
consequences the man might face for breaking the law. Alternatively, the man should
not violate the principle of the right of property because this rule is essential for social
order. In either case, the person’s judgment goes beyond what happens to the self. It
is based on a concern for others; for society as a whole, or for an ethical standard
rather than a legal standard. This level is called postconventional moral development
because it goes beyond convention or what other people think to a higher, universal
ethical principle of conduct that may or may not be reflected in the law. Notice that
such thinking is the kind Supreme Court justices do all day when deliberating whether
a law is moral or ethical, which requires being able to think abstractly. Often this is not
accomplished until a person reaches adolescence or adulthood. In the Stage 5, laws
are recognized as social contracts. The reasons for the laws, like justice, equality, and
dignity, are used to evaluate decisions and interpret laws. In the Stage 6, individually
determined universal ethical principles are weighed to make moral decisions. Kohlberg
said that few people ever reach this stage.
Influences on Moral Development
What influences moral development? Kohlberg argued that moral development
was not an automatic, maturational process, nor was it mechanistic, in that moral
development couldn’t simply be taught (Crain, 1985). Instead, he proposed that it
develops through repeated practice in situations where children must think together
with adults or peers about moral problems: where their viewpoints are challenged or
questioned; where they have to consider others’ perspectives and perhaps revise their
own; and where they must try to coordinate their own desires and those of others with
the help of moral rules. Moreover, it is our active engagement with these thought
processes that helps our development (Berkowitz & Gibbs, 1983). This engagement
can occur in many contexts; three notable ones are our caregivers, our schooling, and
our peers (Berk, 2014, p. 326).
Studies suggest that caregivers’ use of an authoritative parenting style helps
children reach higher stages of moral reasoning (Pratt, Skoe, & Arnold, 2010). This
style emphasizes care, consistent and fair expectations, and support for autonomy in
ways such as discussing the reasoning for rules and encouraging children’s own
perspectives. These aspects of parenting can help children practice their own moral
reasoning, allow them to internalize true moral principles, and over time to act on them
under conditions of greater difficulty (aka temptation). On the other hand, use of threats
and lectures do not help moral reasoning (Walker & Taylor, 1991). Studies suggest
that children remember the negative affect and exertion of force, which interferes with
the internalization of moral principles
Education is another important venue for practicing moral reasoning. In general,
the more years individuals dedicate to schooling, the higher their average level of
moral reasoning (Dawson, 2002). In particular, schools help promote moral reasoning
when they offer students exposure to diverse experiences and ways of being, role-
taking and perspective- taking opportunities, and chances to discuss and defend their
own viewpoints (Comunian & Gielen, 2006; Mason & Gibbs, 1993).
Within schools and outside of them, peers are important relational partners for
developing moral reasoning. As opposed to conversations with parents or teachers,
which are hierarchical, peers are on more-equal footing. With peers, individuals need
to practice communicating their own needs and considering the needs of their friends
to reach decisions and resolve conflicts (Killen & Nucci, 1995).
Critiques. Although research has supported Kohlberg’s idea that moral
reasoning changes from an early emphasis on punishment and social rules and
regulations to an emphasis on more general ethical principles, as with Piaget’s
approach, Kohlberg’s stage model is probably too simple. For one, people may use
higher levels of reasoning for some types of problems but revert to lower levels in
situations where doing so is more consistent with their goals or beliefs (Rest, 1979).
Second, it has been argued that the stage model is particularly appropriate for
Western, rather than non- Western, samples in which allegiance to social norms, such
as respect for authority, may be particularly important (Haidt, 2001). In addition, there
is frequently little correlation between how we score on the moral stages and how we
behave in real life.
Perhaps the most important critique of Kohlberg’s theory is that it emphasizes
justice without incorporating compassion and other moral considerations, and in doing
so might describe the moral development of males better than it describes that of
females (who were not represented in Kohlberg’s initial research). Gilligan (1982) has
argued that, because of differences in their socialization, males tend to value principles
of justice and rights, whereas females value caring for and helping others. She argued
for an “ethic of care,” emphasizing our human responsibilities to one another and
consideration for others. Although there is little evidence for a gender difference in
Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (Turiel, 1998), there is some evidence that
girls and women tend to focus more on issues of caring, helping, and connecting with
others than do boys and men (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000). Despite these trends in the
relative priorities of caring and justice, evidence suggests that people of all genders
consider both justice and caring to some extent in their moral decisions (Berk, 2014;
Walker, 1995).
Development of an internal moral compass as a prerequisite for social activism.
Researchers have become increasingly interested in the childhood antecedents of
adolescent and adult action on behalf of social and racial justice (Killen, Rutland, &
Yip, 2016). These are complex cognitive, social, and motivational processes, that likely
are shaped by a host of specific experiences, such as family participation in civil
engagement activities (e.g., volunteering and protest movements). However, an
important prerequisite would include the development of a strong moral compass
during early and middle childhood. Internalization of moral principles of honesty,
fairness, and accountability would be useful for helping adolescents and young adults
recognize inequities and feel morally responsible for doing their part to see justice
done. This will be an interesting area for further study (Killen et al., 2016).
GENDER DEVELOPMENT
The task of gender development is a complex biopsychosocial process that
takes place in concert with societal stereotypes and the local social contexts they
shape. The empirical picture is not complete, but it seems that gender identities are
complex internalized cognitive and emotional representations that children and youth
construct for themselves over time, based on the biological and temperamental givens
that each one comes with and their cumulative interactions with the social worlds of
family, school, peers, and society. Much of gender development seems to reflect
cognitive changes that allow children to successively realize and try to make sense of
different aspects of gender identity, but the whole kit-n-caboodle seems to be built on
a foundation created by biological or neurophysiological givens. We will trace the main
age-graded milestones that children experience in constructing their own gender
identities, in order to suggest ways in which parents (and other adults) can support
children’s and adolescents’ healthy development.
Gender development is a fascinating process because it is deeply rooted in
biology, profoundly shaped by societal expectations, and actively constructed by
individuals over and over again at different developmental levels. All theories of gender
identity posit that the processes shaping its development are both biological and
societal, so it is important to get straight on those biological and social processes
before we turn to development. This is also a fascinating historical moment to study
gender development because science is revealing more and more about its biological
and psychological complexity, just as society is undergoing a gender revolution in
which people are questioning, exploring, and recognizing a much broader spectrum of
gender and sexual identities.
Biopsychosocial Processes of Gender
The terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably, although they have
different meanings. In this context, sex refers to biological categories (traditionally,
either male or female) as defined by physical differences in genetic composition and
in reproductive anatomy and function. On the other hand, gender refers to the cultural,
social, and psychological meanings that are associated with particular biopsychosocial
categories, like masculinity and femininity (Wood & Eagly, 2002), which vary
depending on other intersectional factors, like race, ethnicity, and culture.
Historically, the terms gender and sex have been used interchangeably. Because of
this, gender is often viewed as a binary – a person is either male or female – and it is
assumed that a person’s gender matches their biological sex. However, recent
research challenges both of those assumptions. Although most people identify with
the gender that matches their natal sex (cisgender), some of the population (estimates
range from 0.6 to 3 percent) identify with a gender that does not match the sex they
were assigned at birth (transgender; Flores, Herman, Gates, & Brown, 2016; see box).
For example, an individual assigned as male based on biological characteristics may
identify as female, or vice versa. Researchers have also been increasingly examining
the long-held assumption that biological sex is binary (e.g., Carothers & Reis, 2013;
Hyde, Bigler, Joel, Tate, & van Anders, 2019). Although it has always been clear that
there are more than two biological sexes, for example individuals who are intersex
(see box), more recently scientists have identified dozens of markers of sexuality
outside of the reproductive system (e.g., genetic, epigenetic, hormonal, endocrine,
neurophysiological, psychological, social). People have a range of different
combinations of these characteristics, suggesting that biological sex is more complex
and multifaceted than a binary category. Research has also begun to conceptualize
gender in ways beyond the gender binary. Genderqueer or gender nonbinary are
umbrella terms used to describe a wide range of individuals who do not identify with
and/or conform to the gender binary. These terms encompass a variety of more
specific terms that individuals may use to describe themselves. Some common terms
are genderfluid, agender, and bigender. An individual who is genderfluid may identify
as male, female, both, or neither at different times and in different circumstances. An
individual who is agender may have no gender or describe themselves as having a
neutral gender, while bigender individuals identify as two genders.
It is important to remember that sex and gender do not always match and that
gender is not always binary; however, a large majority of prior research examining
gender has not made these distinctions. As such, many of the following sections will
discuss gender as a binary. Throughout, we will consider the development of “gender-
nonconforming” children. This is a broad and heterogeneous group of children and
adults whose gender development does not fit within societal dictates. Because
societal expectations are so narrow, there are many ways not to conform, and we
mention a few here, just to give a flavor of these alternative pathways. All of them are
healthy and positive, but children and adolescents who follow these pathways need
social validation and protection from gender discrimination and bullying. Activists are
leading global movements that will push society to reinvent its views of the wide variety
of sexualities and gender identities that have always been with us.
Societal Expectations about Gender: Gender Roles and Stereotypes
Children develop within cultures that have a “gender curriculum” that prescribes
what it means to be male and female. These include gender roles and gender
stereotypes. Gender roles are the expectations associated with being male or female.
Children learn at a young age that there are distinct behaviors and activities deemed
to be appropriate for boys and for girls. These roles are acquired through socialization,
a process through which children learn to behave in a particular way as dictated by
societal values, beliefs, and attitudes. Gender stereotyping goes one step further: it
involves overgeneralizing about the attitudes, traits, or behavior patterns of women or
men. For boys and men, expectations and stereotypes include characteristics like
“tough” or “brave” or “assertive”, and for girls and women characteristics like “nice” and
“nurturing” and “affectionate.” You might be saying to yourself, “but I can be most of
those things, sometimes”—and you are right. People of all genders frequently enact
roles that are stereotypically assigned to only men or women.
Psychological androgyny. One area of research on gender expectations has
examined differences between people who identify with typically masculine or feminine
gender roles. Researchers gave men and women lists of positive masculine traits
(emphasizing agency and assertiveness) and feminine traits (emphasizing
gentleness, compassion, and awareness of others’ feelings), and asked them to rate
the extent to which those traits applied to them. Some people reported identifying
highly with mostly masculine traits or identifying highly with mostly feminine traits, but
some people did not identify strongly with either (this group was called
“undifferentiated”), and a final group identified strongly with both masculine and
feminine traits; this last group was called “androgynous” (Bem, 1977). Psychological
androgyny is when people display both traditionally male and female gender role
characteristics – people who are both strong and emotionally expressive, both caring
and confident.
Which group reported the best psychological functioning? On the one hand,
those with more “masculine” traits (the masculine and androgynous groups) tend to
have higher self-esteem and lower internalizing symptoms (Boldizar, 1991; DiDonato
& Berenbaum 2011). (This may be because “masculine” traits like being self-reliant,
self-assured, and assertive are closely related to these outcomes.) On the other hand,
there is a cost to missing out on “feminine” traits as well, since things like relationships,
emotions, and communication are central to human well-being. In general, studies find
that psychologically androgynous people, who report high levels of both male and
female characteristics are more adaptable and flexible (Huyck, 1996; Taylor & Hall,
1982), and seem to fare better in general, when considering many areas of adjustment
(compared to those with masculine or feminine traits alone; Pauletti, et al. 2017). It
may be no surprise that, in general, it is most adaptive to be able to draw on the whole
spectrum of human traits (Berk, 2014).
Processes of Gender Development
Four major psychological theories highlight multiple explanatory processes
through which children develop gender identities. Most of these theories focus
ongender typing, which depicts the processes through which children become aware
of their gender, and adopt the values, attributes, objects, and activities of members of
the gender they identify as their own.
1. A primary perspective on gender development is provided by social
learning theory. Consistent with mechanistic meta-theories, this theory
argues that behavior is learned through observation, modeling,
reinforcement, and punishment (Bandura, 1997). Each society has its
own “gender curriculum,” which leads to differential expectations and
treatment starting at birth. Children are rewarded and reinforced for
behaving in concordance with gender roles and punished for breaking
gender roles. Social learning theory also posits that children learn many
of their gender roles by observing and modeling the behavior of older
children and adults, and in doing so, learn the behaviors that are
appropriate for each gender. In this process, fathers seem to play a
particularly important role.
2. A second perspective, consistent with maturational meta-theories,
focuses on biological and neurophysiological factors that are present at
birth. This theory underscores the idea, present in research on gender
expression, sexual orientation, and gender identity, that children come
with a firm biological foundation for their gender and sexual preferences;
these include genes, chromosomes, and hormones (Roselli, 2018). Like
temperament, infants seem to come with “gender stuff” that, depending
how well it matches current social categories, can influence how they
respond to expectations and pressures for conformity.
3. A third perspective, consistent with organismic meta-theories, focuses
on cognitive developmental theory. This approach holds that children’s
understanding about gender and its meaning depend completely on their
current stage of cognitive development. At birth, children have no idea
that gender as a category even exists or that they may belong to one of
them. As their developmental capacities grow, toddlers and then young
children can successively represent and understand more and more
complex aspects of gender-related identity. These cognitive stages
provide some of the clearest age-graded milestones in the development
of gender identity, such as the emergence of gender awareness (i.e., the
recognition of one’s own gender) and gender constancy (i.e., the belief
that gender is a fixed characteristic), which are described in more detail
below.
4. A fourth major theory, which emphasizes the active role of the child in
constructing a gender identity, is called gender schema theory.
Consistent with contextualist meta-theories, gender schema theory
argues that children are active learners who essentially socialize
themselves. In this case, children actively organize the behavior,
activities, and attributes they observe into gender categories, which are
known as schemas. These schemas then affect what children notice and
remember later. People of all ages are more likely to remember schema-
consistent behaviors and attributes than those that are schema-
inconsistent. So, when they think of firefighters, people are more likely
to remember men, and forget women. They also misremember schema-
inconsistent information. If research participants are shown pictures of
someone standing at the stove, they are more likely to remember the
person to be cooking if depicted as a woman, and the person to be
repairing the stove if depicted as a man. By remembering only schema-
consistent information, gender schemas are strengthened over time.
All four processes highlighted in these theories play a role in gender
development, which can be considered a biopsychosocial process: (1) as depicted by
social learning theory, it is shaped by the society’s gender curriculum, through
processes of observation, modeling, reinforcement, and punishment; (2) as depicted
by biological theories, it is built on a strong neurophysiological foundation of
preferences in gender expression, sexual orientation, and gender identity; (3) as
explained by cognitive developmental theory, children’s understanding of gender shifts
regularly as the complexity of their cognition grows; and (4) as explained by gender
schema theory, a child’s gender identity is a work in progress, actively constructed
through their own efforts and engagement with their social worlds.
Most recently, researchers have drawn on broader more integrative dynamic
systems approaches to understand the development of gender identity (e.g., Fausto-
Sterling, 2012; Martin & Ruble, 2010). These approaches attempt to explain how
complex patterns of gender-related thought, behavior, and experience undergo
qualitative shifts, including disruption, transformation, and reorganization, during
different developmental windows. Researchers argue that “children’s ongoing physical
interactions and psychological experiences with parents, peers, and culture
fundamentally shape and reshape their experience of gender developmentally, as
different brain and body systems couple and uncouple over time… In the end, gender
is not a stable achievement, but rather ‘a pattern in time’ (Fausto-Sterling, 2012, p.
405) continually building on prior dynamics and adapting to current environments”
(Diamond, p. 113).
