This link has been bookmarked by 10 people . It was first bookmarked on 18 Jan 2008, by Adrea Lawrence.
-
20 Jul 16
-
29 Jun 12
-
28 Feb 12
-
Instead, many developmental psychologists look carefully at how some particular skill (e.g. drawing, abstract thinking, thinking about other people, making excuses, helping others) develops over time.
-
Much of this research suggests that the stage theories are too simplistic in their picture of changes in skills, attributes, and competencies over time.
-
For us, Piaget's central claim was that increases in reasoning skill over time were punctuated by shifts in perspective that could only be called qualitative change from one stage (or "type," if you will) of thinking to another.
-
For Piaget, children start out as concrete and egocentric thinkers (infants even have to learn that objects persist when they are out of sight). As they gain more cognitive ability with age, they begin to be able to "decenter" and see things from another perspective. But they are still concrete in their approach to things. More experience and (here is a key) some cognitive reorganization eventually allow most people to become abstract thinkers.
-
Moral decisions are egocentric (based on me) and concrete. So you can see how reward and punishment are the typical bases of reasoning in this stage
-
The conventional stage is based on the children's ability to "decenter" their moral universe and take the moral perspective of their parents and other important members of society into account. The postconventional stage is based on the adult's ability to base morality on the logic of principled decision making based on standards that are thought to be universalizable and not dependent on culture.
-
From her careful interviews with women making momentous decisions in their lives, Gilligan concluded that these women were thinking more about the caring thing to do rather than the thing the rules allowed. So she thought Kohlberg was all wet, at least with regard to women's development in moral thinking.
-
Were women really moral midgets? Gilligan did not think so. In taking this stand, she was going against the current of a great deal of psychological opinion.
-
Gilligan's reply was to assert that women were not inferior in their personal or moral development, but that they were different. They developed in a way that focused on connections among people (rather than separation) and with an ethic of care for those people (rather than an ethic of justice). Gilligan lays out in this groundbreaking book this alternative theory.
-
But for Gilligan, the transitions between the stages are fueled by changes in the sense of self rather than in changes in cognitive capabilit
-
The momentous life decision that Gilligan looks at in her central study was that of whether or not to get an abortion. It seems clear from Gilligan's comments in her text that she is a supporter of a women's right to choose. Those of you who agree with her will have less trouble seeing the logic of her system. Those of you who disagree will have to get past the disagreement on this important ethical issue to see if there is anything interesting psychologically in what Gilligan has to say.
-
In addition, she has broken the idea that there is only one dimension of moral reasoning. If there can be two, why not three? Why not several? Finally, she has connected moral decision making back into concerns about both the self and the social environment in which the self lives.
-
Her basic claim is that women have no place in these earlier theories and that this is why women's development has been considered an aberration from the normal.
-
Images of relationship introduces us to a central claim that Gilligan wants to make: men and women view relationship differently
-
-
14 Apr 11
-
18 Jan 08
-
02 Jul 07
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.