Sex Biases in the Measurement of Moral Judgment

Orchowsky, Stan; Jenkins, Larry

doi:10.2466/pr0.1979.44.3c.1040

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These studies have addressed the possibility that women may score lower on Kohlberg's MJI (Colby et al, 1987) because they are unable to identify completely with the male protagonists of the dilemmas (Holstein, 1976; however, it is important to note that not all the MJI dilemmas feature male protagonists). Such studies have provided inconsistent evidence that gender of the protagonist has an effect on moral judgment level (Bussey & Maughan, 1982; Freeman & Giebink, 1979; Garwood, Levine, & Ewing, 1980; Krebs et al, 1994; Lonky, Roodin, & Rybash, 1988; Orchowsky & Jenkins, 1979; Turiel, 1976).…”

Section: Moderator Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…that not all the MJI dilemmas feature male protagonists). Such studies have provided inconsistent evidence that gender of the protagonist has an effect on moral judgment level (Bussey & Maughan, 1982;Freeman & Giebink, 1979;Garwood, Levine, & Ewing, 1980;Krebs et al, 1994;Lonky, Roodin, & Rybash, 1988;Orchowsky & Jenkins, 1979;Turiel, 1976).…”

Section: Gender Of the Dilemma's Protagonistmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis.

Jaffee¹,

Hyde²

2000

Psychological Bulletin

574

320

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

C. Gilligan's (1982) critique of L. Kohlberg's theory of moral reasoning and her assertion that two modes of moral reasoning (justice and care) exist have been the subject of debate within the field of psychology for more than 15 years. This meta-analysis was conducted to review quantitatively the work on gender differences in moral orientation. The meta-analysis revealed small differences in the care orientation favoring females (d = -.28) and small differences in the justice orientation favoring males (d = .19). Together, the moderator variables accounted for 16% of the variance in the effect sizes for care reasoning and 17% of the variance in the effect sizes for justice reasoning. These findings do not offer strong support for the claim that the care orientation is used predominantly by women and that the justice orientation is used predominantly by men.

show abstract

Section: Moderator Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Gender Of the Dilemma's Protagonistmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis.

Jaffee¹,

Hyde²

2000

Psychological Bulletin

574

320

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, several prior studies have shown that adolescents' and adults' reasoning on Kohlberg dilemmas varies with the gender of the characters (Freeman & Giebink, 1979;Orchowsky & Jenkins, 1979;Bussey & Maughan, 1982). Although the effects were somewhat inconsistent across studies, and not always observed (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Children's Moral Orientation: does the gender of dilemma character make a difference?

Beal

Garrod

Ruben

et al. 1997

Journal of Moral Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We found the existing evidence on this question to be quite unsatisfying -in comparison to the question whether gender differences are manifested in moral judgment, relatively few research has been done. A meta-analysis by Jaffee and Hyde (2000) found that the resulting evidence is at best inconsistent (Bussey & Maughan, 1982;Freeman & Giebink, 1979;Garwood, Levine, & Ewing, 1980;Krebs, 1 INTRODUCTION Vermeulen, Denton, & Carpendale, 1994;Lonky, Roodin, & Rybash, 1988;Orchowsky & Jenkins, 1979;Turiel, 1976): Discussing the role of the gender of the protagonist in a moral dilemma in terms of the justice-care dichotomy, Albrecht (1989) found that dilemmas with male protagonists lead to significantly more reasoning according to the justice-orientation than dilemmas with female protagonists. Bussey and Maughan (1982) found a significant difference in the evaluation of genderspecified moral agents by men (evaluating their actions according to the care-oriented morality in case the agent was specified as female and according to the justice-oriented morality otherwise)but not in the case of female subjects.…”

Section: Introduction Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences in moral judgment and the evaluation of gender-specified moral agents

Capraro

Sippel

2017

Cogn Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether, and if so, how exactly gender differences are manifested in moral judgment has recently been at the center of much research on moral decision making. Previous research suggests that women are more deontological than men in personal, but not impersonal, moral dilemmas. However, typical personal and impersonal moral dilemmas differ along two dimensions: Personal dilemmas are more emotionally salient than impersonal ones and involve a violation of Kant's practical imperative that humans must never be used as a mere means, but only as ends. Thus, it remains unclear whether the reported gender difference is due to emotional salience or to the violation of the practical imperative. To answer this question, we explore gender differences in three moral dilemmas: a typical personal dilemma, a typical impersonal dilemma, and an intermediate dilemma, which is not as emotionally salient as typical personal moral dilemmas, but contains an equally strong violation of Kant's practical imperative. While we replicate the result that women tend to embrace deontological ethics more than men in personal, but not impersonal, dilemmas, we find no gender differences in the intermediate situation. This suggests that gender differences in these type of dilemmas are driven by emotional salience, and not by the violation of the practical imperative. Additionally, we also explore whether people think that women should behave differently than men in these dilemmas. Across all three dilemmas, we find no statistically significant differences about how people think men and women should behave.

show abstract

Sex Biases in the Measurement of Moral Judgment

Cited by 12 publications

References 2 publications

Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis.

Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis.

Children's Moral Orientation: does the gender of dilemma character make a difference?

Gender differences in moral judgment and the evaluation of gender-specified moral agents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About