Sex Differences In Moral Judgements Research Articles

Sex differences in moral judgements across 67 countries.

Most of the empirical research on sex differences and cultural variations in morality has relied on within-culture analyses or small-scale cross-cultural data. To further broaden the scientific understanding of sex differences in morality, the current research relies on two international samples to provide the first large-scale examination of sex differences in moral judgements nested within cultures. Using a sample from 67 countries (Study 1; n = 336 691), we found culturally variable sex differences in moral judgements, as conceptualized by Moral Foundations Theory. Women consistently scored higher than men on Care, Fairness, and Purity. By contrast, sex differences in Loyalty and Authority were negligible and highly variable across cultures. Country-level sex differences in moral judgements were also examined in relation to cultural, socioeconomic, and gender-equality indicators revealing that sex differences in moral judgements are larger in individualist, Western, and gender-equal societies. In Study 2 (19 countries; n = 11 969), these results were largely replicated using Bayesian multi-level modelling in a distinct sample. The findings were robust when incorporating cultural non-independence of countries into the models. Specifically, women consistently showed higher concerns for Care, Fairness, and Purity in their moral judgements than did men. Sex differences in moral judgements were larger in individualist and gender-equal societies with more flexible social norms. We discuss the implications of these findings for the ongoing debate about the origin of sex differences and cultural variations in moral judgements as well as theoretical and pragmatic implications for moral and evolutionary psychology.

Sources of variation in moral judgment: Toward a model of real-life morality

To evaluate the extent to which the models of moral judgment advanced by Kohlberg (1984) and by Gilligan (1982, 1988) are able to account for real-life moral judgment, we investigated the relation of sex and type of moral dilemma to moral stage and moral orientation. Eighty young adult men and women made moral judgments about two hypothetical Kohlberg dilemmas, two real-life antisocial dilemmas, and two real-life prosocial dilemmas. We failed to find any sex differences in moral judgment. Moral stage and moral orientation varied across the three types of dilemma. Kohlberg's dilemmas pulled for justice-oriented Stage 4 moral judgments, real-life prosocial dilemmas pulled for care-oriented Stage 3 moral judgments, and real-life antisocial dilemmas pulled for justice-oriented Stage 2 moral judgments. The content of moral judgments was related to their structure. There was a positive relation between stage of moral judgment on Kohlberg dilemmas and on real-life dilemmas. The implications of these findings for a new, more interactional, model of real-life moral judgment are discussed.

Sex differences in the course of personality development: A meta-analysis.

Size and stability of sex differences in personality growth throughout adolescence and adulthood are examined. Studies using the Washington University Sentence Completion Test of ego development served as the primary source data. Sixty-five studies (encompassing more than 9,000 Ss) generated 113 independent effect sizes. Sex differences in ego development were moderately large among junior and senior high-school students (female advantage), declined significantly among college-age adults, and disappeared entirely among older men and women. Sex differences were relatively stable during early and middle adolescence. The greater maturity displayed by adolescent girls is not an artifact of superior verbal abilities. Sex differences in ego development were more than twice the magnitude of differences in vocabulary skills (Hyde & Linn, 1988). The present findings, together with findings from reviews of sex differences in moral judgment, aggression, and empathy, suggest that adolescent girls achieve developmental milestones earlier than boys, a difference that declines with age.

A longitudinal study of moral and ego development in young adults

The purpose of this study was to investigate the longitudinal changes in moral judgment and ego development in a young adult sample when a concurrent measure of verbal ability was used as a statistical control. Sixty-one late adolescents and young adults, representing three educational groups, were tested in 1977 and 1979 on the Defining Issues Tests, a measure of moral judgment (Rest), the Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development (Loevinger and Wessler) and Terman's Concept Mastery Test, a measure of verbal ability. No group or time differences were found in ego development. A significant increase was found between the 1977 and 1979 moral judgment scores,p<0.05, and between groups at both testing,p<0.001. Sex differences were found,p<0.01, with females scoring higher than males, which were statistically accounted for by verbal ability. These findings suggest that moral development continues into the young adult years and that verbal ability may moderate sex differences in moral judgment.

A Reply to Owen Flanagan and Some Comments on the Puka-Goodpaster Exchange

Previous articleNext article No AccessCognitive Development TheoryA Reply to Owen Flanagan and Some Comments on the Puka-Goodpaster ExchangeLawrence KohlbergLawrence Kohlberg Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 92, Number 3Apr., 1982Special Issue: Symposium on Moral Development Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/292359 Views: 15Total views on this site Citations: 29Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1982 University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Karun ÇEKEM ETİK İLE POLİTİKANIN KESİŞİMİNDE “İHTİMAM”, HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (Oct 2020): 66–86.https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.772821Yayo Okano Why Has the Ethics of Care Become an Issue of Global Concern?, International Journal of Japanese Sociology 25, no.11 (Mar 2016): 85–99.https://doi.org/10.1111/ijjs.12048Donna L. Goodwin, Øyvind F. Standal La recherche au service d'une éthique de la pratique des activités physiques adaptées, La nouvelle revue de l'adaptation et de la scolarisation 58, no.22 (Jan 2012): 27.https://doi.org/10.3917/nras.058.0027Joan Ballantine, Patricia Mccourt The Impact of Ethical Orientation and Gender on Final Year Undergraduate Auditing Students' Ethical Judgments, Accounting Education 20, no.22 (Apr 2011): 187–201.https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.557493Thomas F. Hawk An Ethic of Care: A Relational Ethic for the Relational Characteristics of Organizations, (Jul 2011): 3–34.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9307-3_1Bardo Herzig Medienhandeln und Verantwortung. Zur Förderung eines verantwortungsbewussten Umgangs mit (neuen) Medien, (Jan 2001): 197–220.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-09598-9_12Susan A. Newfield, Neal A. Newfield, Jeannie A. Sperry, Thomas Edward Smith Ethical Decision Making among Family Therapists and Individual Therapists*, Family Process 39, no.22 (Jun 2000): 177–188.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2000.39203.xM. S. Singer Paradigms Linked: A Normative-Empirical Dialogue about Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly 8, no.33 (Jan 2015): 481–496.https://doi.org/10.2307/3857433Julian Webb Inventing the good: A prospectus for clinical education and the teaching of legal ethics in England, The Law Teacher 30, no.33 (Jan 1996): 270–294.https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.1996.9992956Nathalie Savard Développement moral et jugement moral : réexamen de la controverse Kohlberg-Gilligan, Horizons philosophiques 7, no.11 (Jan 1996): 113.https://doi.org/10.7202/801033arAafke E. Komter Justice, Friendship and Care, European Journal of Women's Studies 2, no.22 (Jul 2016): 151–169.https://doi.org/10.1177/135050689500200202JOY KROEGER-MAPPES The Ethic of Care vis-â-vis the Ethic of Rights: A Problem for Contemporary Moral Theory, Hypatia 9, no.33 (Jan 2009): 108–131.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1994.tb00452.x RECENT WORKS IN CHRISTIAN SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, Religious Studies Review 20, no.11 (Jan 1994): 3–35.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0922.1994.tb00104.xSusan Hekman Moral voices, moral selves: About getting it right in moral theory, Human Studies 16, no.1-21-2 (Apr 1993): 143–162.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01318576Lawrence Blum Universality and particularity, New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 1990, no.4747 (Jan 1990): 59–69.https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219904707Donelson R. Forsyth, Judith L. Nye, Karl Kelley Idealism, Relativism, and the Ethic of Caring, The Journal of Psychology 122, no.33 (May 1988): 243–248.https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1988.9915511 Lawrence A. Blum Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for Moral Theory, Ethics 98, no.33 (Oct 2015): 472–491.https://doi.org/10.1086/292966 Owen Flanagan , and Kathryn Jackson Justice, Care, and Gender: The Kohlberg-Gilligan Debate Revisited, Ethics 97, no.33 (Oct 2015): 622–637.https://doi.org/10.1086/292870 Richard Brook Justice and the Golden Rule: A Commentary on Some Recent Work of Lawrence Kohlberg, Ethics 97, no.22 (Oct 2015): 363–373.https://doi.org/10.1086/292844 T. M. Reed Developmental Moral Theory, Ethics 97, no.22 (Oct 2015): 441–456.https://doi.org/10.1086/292850Marilyn Friedman Beyond Caring: The De-Moralization of Gender, Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume 13 (Jan 2020): 87–110.https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1987.10715931Stephen J Thoma Estimating gender differences in the comprehension and preference of moral issues, Developmental Review 6, no.22 (Jun 1986): 165–180.https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(86)90010-9Betty A. Sichel Women's Moral Development in Search of Philosophical Assumptions∗, Journal of Moral Education 14, no.33 (Jul 2006): 149–161.https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724850140301Ernest Wallwork Sentiment and Structure: A Durkheimian Critique of Kohlberg's Moral Theory, Journal of Moral Education 14, no.22 (Jul 2006): 87–101.https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724850140202Lawrence J. Walker Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Critical Review, Child Development 55, no.33 (Jun 1984): 677.https://doi.org/10.2307/1130121John C. Gibbs, Kevin D. Arnold, Jennifer E. Burkhart Sex Differences in the Expression of Moral Judgment, Child Development 55, no.33 (Jun 1984): 1040.https://doi.org/10.2307/1130155Mary Brabeck Moral judgment: Theory and research on differences between males and females, Developmental Review 3, no.33 (Sep 1983): 274–291.https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90016-3M.S. Singer Paradigms linked: a normative-empirical dialogue about business ethics, (): 125–141.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2096(01)03010-3Marilyn Friedman Beyond caring: The de-moralization of gender, (): 399–416.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-2096(01)03022-X

Moral judgment and parental identification among children.

The relationship of moral judgment and parental identification was studied in 50 boys and 50 girls, all of whom were white, lower-middle-class children, aged 9 1/2 to 11 1/2 years. Two hypotheses were proposed: (1) that within each sex group, children with a higher-level parental identification attain a higher stage of moral judgment than children with a lower level of parental identification; and (2) that there are no sex differences in the stage of moral judgment attained by Ss from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. Ss were screened for socioeconomic status and age. Moral judgment was defined in terms of Piaget's "two moralities" of the child and measured by a structured interview that consisted of five subtests taken from Piaget. Parental identification was measured by means of a semantic space and differential technique, and Ss were grouped on the basis of low, medium and high levels of paternal and maternal identification. Results indicate that there are no significant sex differences in moral judgment. Within each sex group there is a clear positive relationship between high-level identification and a higher stage of moral judgment.

Sex Differences in Moral Judgment

Sex Differences in Moral Judgment