Care reasoning across justice stages

Care Levels 2.5 and 3 are defined as postconformist levels of care reasoning, whereas Stage 4/5 alone represents postconventional level of justice reasoning, because only one participant scored Stage 5 (Time 1). The 2 X 2 chi-square analyses (Conventionality X Moral Reasoning) were conducted for each Time and revealed significant associations, χ²(1, N = 59) = 5.98 (Time 1) and χ²(1, N

= 59) = 3.90 (Time 2), ps < .05. The proportion of subjects at Levels 2.5 and 3 as a function of justice stages is represented in Figure 3 (p. 160), pointing out a steep increase for Level 2.5 reasoning at Stage 4, as well for Level 3 reasoning at Stage 4/5.

Hence, Hypothesis 13 that participants at the postconventional level of justice reasoning are at the postconformist levels of care more often than those at the conventional and preconventional levels was supported.

Figure 3. Postconformist care reasoning across justice stages.

In order to examine relations between care and justice reasoning in detail, Table 13 (p. 162) presents cross-tables for care levels and justice stages, and Table 14 (p. 163) presents means for ECI scores according to justice global stages.

The general important observation is that there are many more subjects at the postconformist care levels than at the postconventional justice level. 41% was scored at the highest care levels, whereas 10% was scored at Stage 4/5 at the first round of interviews. Two years later, proportions of both had increased, but postconformist care reasoning was still much more common than postconventional justice reasoning: 68% were scored at the highest care levels and 25% were scored at Stage 4/5. This suggests that mature care levels are achieved prior to mature justice stages in the individuals’ developmental schedule.

Consequently, it is reasonable to examine the development of care from the perspective of justice development in this context. As Table 13 shows, the highest care levels emerge at Stage 3/4 which also covers almost full range of care levels, from Level 1.5 to

Time 1 Time 2

4/5 4

3/4 3

2/3 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

4/5 4

3/4 3

2/3 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

_ _ _ _ Level 2.5 ____ Level 3

Level 3. However, it is worth noting at this point that the complete Time 1 data (N = 66) included 3 participants who evidenced the highest level in care reasoning at Stage 3. Thus, the current data suggests that the highest levels of care development can be achieved even at Stage 3 at the earliest. Among the current participants, however, postconformist care transition was most powerfully associated with Stage 4. From the perspective of care development, means for justice scores at Level 2.5 were: M1 = 390.93, SD1 = 22.95; M2 = 399.75, SD2 = 35.75.

Consistent with Hypothesis 13, most participants at Stage 4/5 evidenced the highest level of care reasoning. Nevertheless, a considerable number of them (31%) were still at the 2.5 transition, and the minority (25% and 13%) was also scored at Level 2.

Percentages for Level 2 indicate two participants at both times (Another participant at Time 2 was a regression case discussed earlier). Those participants nevertheless evidenced 2.5 level care reasoning on some of the care dilemmas. Further scrutiny revealed that 50% of participants who entered Justice Stage 4/5 at Time 2 (having scored lower stages at Time 1) simultaneously reached care Level 3 (having scored lower levels at Time 1). 20% were continuing their transition at Level 2.5 across interviews, and 20%

were moving from Level 2 to Level 2.5, thus entering postconventional transition in both modes of moral thought simultaneously. Finally, 10% (1 participant) regressed in care reasoning. In other words, half of the participants reaching the transitional Stage 4/5 were consolidating their transition of postconformist care thought, whereas almost another half was undergoing both transitions simultaneously.

Table 13. Crosstables for care overall levels and justice global stages in the longitudinal data

2/3 3 3/4 4 4/5 Total

Table 14. ECI scores across justice global stages

Stage n Mean SD Range Confidence

interval of 95 % __________________________________________________________

Time 1

2/3 5 1.51 0.22 1.25-1.75 1.24-1.79

3 3 1.81 0.29 1.56-2.13 1.10-2.52

3/4 24 2.14 0.43 1.50-2.88 1.96-2.33

4 19 2.33 0.37 1.50-3.00 2.15-2.51

4/5 8 2.71 0.37 2.13-3.00 2.40-3.02

__________________________________________________________

Time 2

2/3 1 1.63 -- -- --

3 2 1.94 0.62 1.50-2.38 -3.62-7.50

3/4 16 2.12 0.45 1.89-3.00 1.88-2.36

4 24 2.43 0.36 1.50-2.88 2.28-2.58

4/5 16 2.65 0.34 1.88-3.00 2.47-2.83

__________________________________________________________

Note. Original ECI scores have been divided by four, in order to describe the range of care development from survival (1) to reflective care (3).

Interplay between lower levels is relevant with regard to the past theory building. Stage 3 morality is conceived as the morality of interpersonal relationships, with “having good motives, showing concern about others” (Colby & al., 1987, p. 18). The ethic of care, especially its conventional forms, has been widely equated with Stage 3 reasoning (Gilligan, 1982; Wark & Krebs, 1997). However, as Table 13 shows, participants at Levels 1.5 and 2 were most frequently scored Stage 3/4. Means of justice scores

at Level 1.5 exceeded Stage 3 (M1=316.36, SD1 = 55.52, M2 = 341.16, SD2 = 47.39). Skoe and Diessner (1994 p. 282) also reported a similar finding concerning self-oriented levels, with a larger sample (n = 29, M = 340.55, SD = 24.79, for self-oriented levels) (Differing from this study, their respondents at all care levels evidenced approximately Stage 3/4 justice reasoning). This indicates that self-oriented subjects are nevertheless capable of reasoning about justice concerns at the interpersonal level of morality.

To summarize these findings, care and justice tended to integrate in mature moral thought, and this integration was most likely to happen at Justice Stage 4/5 where the proportion of Level 3 reasoning sharply increased. Consequently, if a respondent showed capacity of postconventional justice reasoning, it could be that her/his capacity in care reasoning is beyond the conformist/conventional level as well. By contrast, one cannot predict the level of justice reasoning from the respondent’s level of care reasoning in a similar fashion. In this sample, 50% (Time 1) and 56% (Time 2) of the participants at Level 3 were postconventional justice reasoners, and at the highest Care Levels (2.5 & 3 combined) the proportion of postconventional reasoners was 24% (Time 1) and 35% (Time 2).

These results suggest that the postconformist are levels are likely to be achieved before postconventional justice stages, even though the reverse trend is possible but less probable. The highest care level can be attained even at Stage 3. This further indicates that care and justice represent differential paths of development, even though those paths tend to integrate at the postconventional level of justice reasoning, as claimed by Kohlberg et al. (1983).

Strikingly, Stages 3/4 and 4 covered the range of Care Levels from 1.5 to 3. Even though considerations of care, relationship, and interpersonal trust are represented as norms and elements at each stage in the MJI scoring scheme (Colby & Damon, 1983), the MJI and the ECI measure different aspects of interpersonal morality, corroborating Gilligan’s (1982) criticism that Kohlberg’s theory and measurement is insensitive to care reasoning.

On the other hand, these findings do not support Gilligan’s (1982) radical position that care and justice represent separate developments, so that some persons could end up with the high capacities in justice reasoning but being deficient in care reasoning

or vice versa. For example, this sample did not include any participants combining mature (Stage 4/5) justice reasoning with self-oriented care reasoning (Levels 1 and 1.5). The most extreme contrasts were two participants with the Stage 4 and Level 1.5 combination (the same participants across time) and three participants with the Level 3 and Stage 3 combination. Rather, these results fit well with Gilligan’s (1982) another point that progress toward the highest levels of care obviously requires grasping justice concepts. As the high correlations just reported between care and justice reasoning indicate they obviously share some underlying general development (Skoe & al., 1996; Skoe &

Lippe, 2002). To conclude, these results support the moderate interpretation that even though care and justice represent distinct developmental paths, they are interrelated.