Sex Roles

, Volume 15, Issue 11–12, pp 645–653 | Cite as

Gender differences in moral reasoning

  • Mary K. Rothbart
  • Dean Hanley
  • Marc Albert


This research tests Gilligan's hypothesis that men are more likely to consider moral dilemmas chiefly in terms of justice and individual rights, whereas women are more likely to be chiefly concerned with questions of care and relationships with others. In addition, we have investigated the effects of dilemma content upon orientation of moral judgment. Protocols from interviews with 50 college students, half women and half men, to three moral dilemmas were coded according to moral orientation. Results indicated that both moral orientations were widely used by both men and women, but that women were more likely to employ prodominantly care considerations. In a test of mean differences in proportion of justice responses, content of the specific moral dilemma showed a strong influence upon moral reasoning. Results suggest that both gender and situational factors need to be considered in our understanding of moral reasoning.


Gender Difference College Student Social Psychology Strong Influence Moral Judgment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baumrind, D. Sex differences in moral reasoning: Responses to Walker's (1984) conclusion that there are none. Child Development, 1986, 57, 511–521.Google Scholar
  2. Broughton, J. M. Women's rationality and men's virtues: A critique of gender dualism in Gilligan's theory of moral development. Social Research, 1983, 50, 597–642.Google Scholar
  3. Bussey, K., & Maughan, B. Gender differences in moral reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42, 701–706.Google Scholar
  4. Furby, L. Psychology and justice. In R. L. Cohen (Ed.), Justice: Views from the social sciences. New York: Plenum, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. Gilligan, C. In a different voice: Women's conception of the self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 1977, 47, 481–517.Google Scholar
  6. Gilligan, C. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. Haan, N., Block, J., & Smith, B. Moral reasoning of young adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 183–201.Google Scholar
  8. Holstein, C. B. Irreversible, stepwise sequences in the development of moral judgment: A longitudinal study of males and females. Child Development, 1976, 47, 51–61.Google Scholar
  9. Keniston, K. Young radicals. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968.Google Scholar
  10. Kohlberg, L. From is to ought. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology. New York: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  11. Kohlberg, L. Moral stages and moralization. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.Google Scholar
  12. Lyons, N. Two perspectives: On self, relationships, and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 1983, 53, 125–145.Google Scholar
  13. Milgram, S. Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.Google Scholar
  14. Murphy, J. M., & Gilligan, C. Moral development in late adolescence and adulthood: A critique and reconstruction of Kohlberg's theory. Human Development, 1980, 23, 77–104.Google Scholar
  15. Nails, D. Social-scientific sexism: Gilligan's mismeasure of man. Social Research, 1983, 50, 643–664.Google Scholar
  16. Nucci, L. P., & Nucci, M. S. Children's social interactions in the context of moral and conventional transgressions. Child Development, 1982, 53, 401–412.Google Scholar
  17. O'Malley, M. N., & Greenberg, J. Sex differences in restoring justice: The down payment effect. Journal of Research in Personality, 1983, 17, 174–185.Google Scholar
  18. Piaget, J. The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press, 1965. (Originally published in 1932)Google Scholar
  19. Simpson, E. Emile's moral development: A Rousseavian perspective on Kohlberg. Human Development, 1983, 26, 198–212.Google Scholar
  20. Walker, L. J. Sex differences in the development of moral reasoning: A critical review. Child Development, 1984, 55, 677–691.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary K. Rothbart
    • 1
  • Dean Hanley
    • 2
  • Marc Albert
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OregonEugene
  2. 2.University of California at BerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.University of OregonUSA

Personalised recommendations