CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9,127Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFeminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesGender and Feminist Studies

In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development

Open access
GILLIGAN, Carol·1993·Harvard University Press eBooks
DOI 10.4159/9780674037618
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract Over the past ten years, I have been listening to people talking about morality and about themselves. Halfway through that time, I began to hear a distinction in these voices. two ways of speaking about moral problems, two modes of describing the relationship between ocher and self. Differences repressed in the psychological literature as steps in a developmental progression suddenly appeared instead as a contrapuntal theme, women imp the cycle of life and recurring in varying forms in people’s judgments, fantasies, and thoughts. The occasion for this observation was the selection of a sample of women for a study of the relation between judgment and action in a situation of moral conflict and choice. Against the background of the psychological descriptions of identity and moral development which I had read and taught for a number of years, the women’s voices sounded distinct. It was then that I began to notice the recurrent problems in interpreting women’s development and to connect these problems to the repeated exclusion of women from the critical theory-building studies of Physiology research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4159/9780674037618

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • One prominent concern is whether women legislators behave differently than male legislators and whether they offer a fundamentally different form of representation by speaking in a different voice.

    “One of the more prominent is the concern over whether women legislators behave differently than male legislators and whether they offer a fundamentally different form of representation by speaking ''in a different voice'' (Gilligan 1993;Williams 1998;Diaz 2005).”

    From Fightin' Words: Lexical Feature Selection and Evaluation for Identifying the Content of Political Conflict (2008) · cites this paper as Gilligan 1993

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
GILLIGAN, C.
Affiliations
University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
GILLIGAN, Carol
ORCID
GILLIGAN, Carol
Venue
Harvard University Press eBooks
Publisher
Harvard University Press
Published
1993-12-31
Pages
146-151
DOI
10.4159/9780674037618
OpenAlex
W138047100
Cited by
9,127
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 154 · 2025: 148 · 2024: 117 · 2023: 126 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 145 · 2020: 166 · 2019: 171 · 2018: 214 · 2017: 224 · 2016: 269 · 2015: 287 · 2014: 324 · 2013: 280 · 2012: 329
FWCI
84.90
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Harvard University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Harvard University Press eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
moral judgment, moral conflict, gender differences in moral reasoning, ethical decision-making, women's voices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review