5.3 Inferential Statistics
5.3.11 Social, moral and cognitive development of girls in relation to
From the results obtained thus far in this study, it is obvious that certain types of bullying are significantly associated with certain age groups. Since bullying in girls might be linked to their cognitive sophistication, social perspective-taking abilities in friendships and what their moral beliefs are with respect to these relationships, an attempt was made to estimate the moral reasoning and perspective-taking levels in this sample of girls. The questionnaire included a dilemna wherein the respondent was asked to choose between possible actions a girl might take when faced with a
friendship problem, i.e., what should she do when she has a choice between a new budding friendship, versus spending time (long pre-arranged), with an existing childhood friend? She was then asked to give a reason for her choice, from which an indication of both moral reasoning and social perspective-taking could be gathered.
5.3.11.1 Selman‟s levels of social perspective-taking across the age groups
The girls‟ responses were coded using Selman‟s (1980) guidelines (inspecting aspects of friendship formation, closeness, trust and reciprocity, jealousy and conflict
resolution) for the four levels of interpersonal understanding relating to friendship (Appendix D, Table 21). The frequency results are depicted in Graph 3 below, and indicate a clear movement from Level One to Level Four with increasing age.
Age group in years
15-18 years 10-14 years
6-9 years
Count
50
40
30
20
10
0
43
5
0
32 33
0
3 24
3
1 6
19
Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1
Selman's level of perpective-
taking
Graph 5: Selman‟s level of perspective-taking per age group
A chi-square analysis of the association between Selman‟s level of perspective-taking and age group was conducted and the result was found to be significant (χ2 =
150.420, df = 6, p = .000). Adjusted residuals show that at the 1% level, six to nine year olds are significantly more likely than expected to be functioning on Level One, 10-14 year olds are significantly more likely to be at Level Two and 15-18 year olds are significantly more likely to be functioning on Level Four.
5.3.11.2 Loyalty, morality and moral reasoning
The girls‟ responses to the dilemma were also coded into the categories „loyalty to existing friend‟ versus „pursue new relationship‟ (Appendix D, Table 19). For the majority of girls in the sample, „loyalty to existing friend‟ was the first choice (54%, n
= 87) but a large number (45.9%, n = 71) felt that it would be better to „pursue the new relationship‟ (and either try to explain that she would like new friends, or lie about it to the existing friend). When the different age groups are examined, it would seem that the six to nine year olds were most inclined to choose „pursue new
relationship‟ (63.6%, n = 14). Within this age group none of the respondents indicated that it would be a good option to lie about it. The older two groups were more inclined to feel that „loyalty to the existing friend‟ is more important, with 59.4% (n = 38) of the 10 to 14 year olds choosing this option and 54.7% (n = 41) of
the 15 to 18 year olds doing so. Out of the few respondents that suggested „pursue the new relationship‟, several claimed that perhaps it would be best to lie about it to the existing friend in order to „keep the peace‟, or to „not hurt her feelings‟. These results seem to suggest that as girls grow older, peaking in the early adolescent/preadolescent phase, they tend to increasingly value the concept of loyalty (an aspect of morality) within social relationships, and the importance of keeping others happy, even if this necessitates deceit.
A chi-square test conducted on the association between age group and the choice between „loyalty‟ and „pursuing a new relationship‟ however, obtained a non-
significant result (χ2 = 3.513, df = 2, p = .173). Logistic regression conducted on the relationship between „loyalty‟ and age in years also failed to produce a significant result (Wald = 1.065, df = 1, p = .302).
The girls were then asked to explain their reasoning for their choice of action in the above-mentioned moral dilemma (Appendix D, Table 20). The responses were captured within two general themes: Firstly, „reasoning based on morality‟ with regards to a relationship, accounted for more than half (55.9%, n = 90) of the reasons given. Reasons given that were not related to moral reasoning amounted to 44.1% (n
= 71) of the sample. The majority of the explanations given by the six to nine year old group (66.7%, n = 17) fell within the category „reasoning not based on moral
grounds‟. On the other hand, the 10 to 14 year olds most frequently cited reasons based on „moral‟ grounds rather than non-moral grounds (59.4%, n = 38). The 15 to 18 year olds also primarily used moral reasoning (59.2%, n = 45).
It would seem that there is a general trend towards more consistent reasoning of a
„moral‟ nature as age increases, although this association was found to be statistically non-significant in a chi-square analysis of the overall sample data (χ2 = 4.990, df = 2, p = .083). Logistic regression on the relationship between „moral reasoning‟ and „age in years‟ also failed to produce a significant result (Wald = 3.584, df = 1, p = .058).
The researcher further analysed the category „moral reasoning‟ and coded the
responses therein in terms of the moral „ethic of justice‟ and the moral „ethic of care‟
proposed by Kohlberg (1981) and Gilligan (1982). Responses based on logical
reasoning and fairness were classified under the ethic of justice and those based on concerns around hurting others and the importance of relationship were classified under the ethic of care. The distribution was very evenly spread across these
categories for all three age groups, showing that the girls tended to use equal amounts of both forms of moral reasoning in their decisions regarding the friendship triangle vignette.