6.3 Discussion of the findings
6.3.11 Social, moral and cognitive development of girls – the link to
6.3.11.1 Social perspective-taking levels
The girls in the current study showed a clear increase in Selman‟s (1980) level of social perspective-taking from the younger to the older age groups. According to Selman (1980), progression through the levels, whereby the child develops a greater social and moral understanding and the ability to utilize reciprocity (and prosocial behaviour) in relationships, is related to a growing cognitive capacity in the child.
These findings therefore suggest that the girls in this study were following the developmental patterns as would be expected of them, according to a wide variety of influential child development theorists (Piaget, 1929; Erikson, 1963; Kohlberg, 1981;
Selman, 1980). Since the older girls also show a clear increase in the use of more sophisticated relational aggression in this study, these findings support the claims made by Dodge (1986) and Vaillancourt et al., (2007), that enhanced social skills and understanding can be utilized for either aggressive or prosocial purposes.
6.3.11.2 Morality and moral reasoning
In comparison to the boys studied by Kohlberg (1981) girls could be regarded as deficient in moral development, says Gilligan (1982), since they seem stuck on his third stage, where morality is perceived in terms of helping and pleasing others.
Gilligan (ibid) calls this the principle of „care‟ and Hoffman (1970) refers to it as a
„humanistic‟ orientation to morality. Men, on the other hand, states Kohlberg (1981), progress to higher stages where relationships are subordinated to rules and eventually rules are subordinated to universal principles of fairness. Gilligan (1982) calls this the
principle of „justice‟ whilst Hoffman (1970) named it a „conventional‟ orientation to morality.
The current study showed a general developmental trend towards more consistent reasoning of a moral nature (as identified by Piaget, 1929) in the participants, suggesting that girls certainly do not fail to develop in this area. Although the majority suggested that loyalty is of utmost importance in the friendship-dilemna, slightly less than half the participants displayed a humanistic moral orientation (or ethic of „care‟) in their reasoning for their decision, whilst the rest utilized a
conventional moral orientation (or ethic of „justice‟) in their reasoning. Such evidence that these girls are equally capable of utilizing either approach to moral reasoning is contrary to Gilligan‟s (1982) theory. Although Gilligan (1982) concedes that both genders are capable of using the alternative perspective, she firmly believes that women tend to operate according to the ethic of care in moral decision-making.
Gilligan (1988) asserts that the ultimate moral maturity is the ability to see both perspectives – justice and care - and that the latter should not be seen as inferior as it has in the past. Such maturity is illustrated in the girls‟ responses below:
She has already made plans, she should not change them… (10 yrs)
You already had something planned so you must stick to your word (13 yrs) You can‟t betray your best friend…NO MATTER WHAT! (15 yrs)
Honesty is key in a successful friendship…it‟s important to keep promises…this would not hurt anyone‟s feelings (17 yrs)
She‟ll do this [be calm and kind when angry] because she is a nice person and cares for other people‟s feelings…no one has the right to hurt anyone…because no one gets hurt (15 yrs)
Gilligan (ibid) argues that the choice of perspective in moral decision-making is closely intertwined with an individual‟s definition of self. The girls in this sample therefore provide evidence for Gilligan‟s (1982) assertion that there is more than one kind of moral orientation, although they did not support her claim that women are more likely to utilize the moral orientation of care.
According to the responses given in this study, it would seem to be true that girls try to connect others to one another (i.e. maintain relationships) in their decisions on how
to handle conflict; they try not to hurt others, to be loyal and not to make others feel lonely. However, such an orientation may render them more vulnerable to potential abuse and mental health problems if the existing relationship is not a healthy one for them.
From this perspective, it seems incomprehensible that girls, who largely operate according to moral principles of „care‟ and „justice‟, should use relational aggression as their predominant weapon of attack, unless one considers the arguments put forward by feminist theorists such as Gilligan (1982), Brown (1992), Besag (2006), Miller and Stiver (1997) and Simmons (2002). As Hadley (2004) elaborates,
understanding this phenomenon requires intensive investigations:
Each of these acts has “eliciting factors” and “predisposing factors” that provide the context in which aggression can be understood. The social meanings of girls‟ aggression in contemporary cultural and interpersonal contexts requires access to interactions that can be understood in a particular, ongoing social process. The intrapsychic significance of girls‟ aggression requires access to their stories, fantasies and dreams, their music, heroines, and heroes (pp. 347-348).
It is logical to consider that, although girls develop in their cognitive, social and moral capabilities as they grow older, and although they consider relationship to be
fundamental to their existence, they are just as capable of feeling anger as are boys.
Since, in the sense of „natural selection‟ and „survival of the fittest‟, girls are likely to aim to maximize their competitive edge (particularly in the realm of relationship) in their race through life, even „ nice‟ girls will sometimes use their cognitive talents in ways that are less than sweet and kind (Cairns, 1986). And since outright physical aggression in girls is frowned upon by our society, the older, more cognitively sophisticated they are, the more likely it will be that they use methods that cannot be easily observed or recognized, attacking at the very core of their vulnerability - relationship. As Crothers, et al. (2005) state:
Traditional gender role stereotyping has created a narrow range of behavioral options that allow young women to be angry while remaining visibly “nice” in their overt behavior. Socialization and societal practices that foster freedom
from external validation will be helpful in placing the power to develop as unique individuals into the hands and hearts of young women (p. 353).
Relational aggression can therefore occur both amongst well-balanced girls and those who are experiencing emotional and psychological difficulties. As Bowie (2007) points out: “At least some form of relational aggression is a normal response by the majority of girls to social interactions where there is a degree of conflict. But at what level is relational aggression considered to be outside normally accepted parameters of social interactions or perhaps predictive of deviant behaviors?” (p. 113). At this stage there is no clear-cut answer in this regard, but it is very important that we begin to acknowledge the capacity of all girls to be aggressive, and their tendency to manifest this aggression in sometimes alternative, but equally destructive, ways to boys. Only then, will a movement be possible towards understanding what extent and features of girls‟ aggression might be utilized to predict their future psychopathology.