Determinants of Moral Reasoning: Sex Role Orientation, Gender, and Academic Factors

Abstract

Mixed results regarding the role of gender in moral reasoning prompted an investigation of an alternative characteristic that may be more influential in the process: sex role orientation. We present an empirical assessment of the relationship between an individual's moral reasoning level and his/her sex role orientation, gender, and several academic factors. Our results indicate that sex role orientation is not related to moral reasoning level. Gender is related to moral reasoning in our study, women reasoning at higher levels than men. We found a positive relationship between education and moral reasoning level, and moral reasoning levels differed across academic institutions. Our results also show business students have lower moral reasoning levels than students in other fields, although this result did not reach statistical significance.

The Significance of Gender in Predicting the Cognitive Moral Development of Business Practitioners Using the Sociomoral Reflection Objective Measure

“…Our study extends the line of research that has exposed the previously described ambiguity in ''gender'' (Elm et al, 2001;Kracher et al, 2002;Lifton, 1985;Unger, 1979). Separating the terms ''sex,'' for the biological construct, and ''gender,'' for the psychosocial construct, we submit that the voices which may improve the ethical reasoning in corporate America could be either male or female; sex may not be the issue.…”

“…Several, some of which are meta-analyses, have not been able to identify gender differences in moral reasoning (Ford and Richardson, 1994;Fritzsche, 2000;Rest, 1975;Robin and Babin, 1997;Thoma, 1986;Walker, 1984;Weber and Wasieleski, 2001). In addition, a plethora of studies have indicated that women have higher Kohlbergian-type CMD scores than men (for example, Crow et al, 1991;Elm et al, 2001;Everett et al, 1996;Eynon et al, 1997;Forte, 2004;Goolsby and Hunt, 1992;Kracher et al, 2002;Loe and Weeks, 2000). The results of these two sets of studies may lead one to disbelieve the claim that KohlbergÕs theory is gender biased.…”

“…A simple arithmetic computation determines an individualÕs masculine and feminine scores. Then BemÕs median-split method is applied, which is recommended in the BSRI manual (1981) and confirmed by Schmitt and Millard (1988) and Elm et al (2001). It uses the individualÕs two scores to categorize the individual as masculine (high masculine and low feminine scores), feminine (high feminine score and low masculine score), androgynous (high masculine and high feminine scores), or undifferentiated (low masculine and low feminine scores).…”

Board Composition and Corporate Social Responsibility Performance: Evidence from Chinese Public Firms

“…Many studies have shown that the level of education is positively related to individuals' concerns about ethical issues [23]. It has been found that people with an advanced degree tend to be more concerned about CSR issues than those who are less educated [49]. This can be explained by the fact that board members with more education are likely to have broader views [23] and a more comprehensive understanding of the social responsibility of firms [50].…”

Gender and Perceived Fundamental Moral Orientations: An Empirical Study of the Turkish Hotel Industry

“…Some studies have detected no gender differences in ethical beliefs, perceptions, decisions, or actions (e.g., Cohen et al, 1998;McDonald and Pak, 1996;Robin and Babin, 1997;Sims, 1999). Other studies reporting significant gender differences have typically indicated that women are more likely than men to behave ethically, to identify questionable acts as being unethical, or to have stronger intentions to act ethically -particularly in the workplace (e.g., Beu et al, 2003;Collins, 2000;Dawson, 1997;Elm et al, 2001;Loe et al, 2000;Mason and Mudrack, 1996;Smith and Oakley, 1997). Some studies have found mixed results within the same database, with the existence of a gender effect depending on the ethical variables being investigated (e.g., Roxas and Stoneback, 2004;Valentine and Rittenberg, 2007).…”