When rights and responsibilities don't mix: Sex and sex-role patterns in moral judgment orientation.
- 1 July 1982
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement
- Vol. 14 (3) , 190-204
- https://doi.org/10.1037/h0081258
Abstract
Two experiments with adolescents and adults investigated Gilligan''s hypotheses regarding differences in the orientation of focus of moral reasoning. Experiment 1, using modified versions of Rest''s Defining Issues Test preference technique, failed to support Gilligan''s hypothesis that a focus on responsibilities would be more typical of women''s moral thinking and a focus on rights more typical of men. Relative femininity of the ideal self concept was associated for the women with a responsibility focus as hypothesized. Experiment 2 again failed to show sex differences, but replicated the finding of an association between femininity of ideal (but not real) self-concept and responsibility orientation in women. Results were discussed in terms of the importance of considering nonstage related differences in the patterning of moral judgment.This publication has 3 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reasoning in the personal and moral domains: Adolescent and young adult women's decision-making regarding abortionJournal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 1981
- Moral Development in Late Adolescence and Adulthood: a Critique and Reconstruction of Kohlberg’s TheoryHuman Development, 1980
- Development of children's prosocial moral judgment.Developmental Psychology, 1979