Society For Research in Child Development, Wiley Child Development

Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Critical Review
Author(s): Lawrence J. Walker

Source: Child Development, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Jun., 1984), pp. 677-691
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130121
Accessed: 14-02-2017 21:04 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Society for Research in Child Development, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Child Development
This content downloaded from 75.102.135.163 on Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:04:32 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Review
Sex Differences in the Development of Moral

Reasoning: A Critical Review
Lawrence J. Walker
University of British Columbia
WALKER, LAWRENCE J. Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Critical

Review. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1984, 55, 677-691. In this article the bases for recent allegations
of sex bias in Kohlberg's theory of moral development are discussed. Studies comparing the
development of moral reasoning between the sexes are then reviewed. Only a few inconsistent
sex differences have been found in childhood and adolescence. Some studies indicate that, in
adulthood, males evidence higher moral development than females, but in these studies sex
differences are confounded with differences in level of education and occupation. A metaanalysis
(a statistical procedure for combining findings) supported the conclusion that the overall pattern
is one of nonsignificant sex differences in moral reasoning. Discussion focused on implications for
moral development theory and research.
Kohlberg's (1969, 1976, 1981) theory of regarded as morally inferior to men (e.g.,
moral reasoning development has been Freud, 1927).
criticized as being biased against women
The charge of sex bias might be war-
(e.g., Gilligan, 1977, 1982a; Haan, 1977; ranted for two reasons. First, a theorist could
Holstein, 1976). The allegation of sex bias is
explicitly advocate or popularize a poorly
a serious charge against any psychologicalfounded claim that the sexes are fundamen-
theory and is even more controversial when
tally different in rate and end point of moral
leveled against a theory of moral develop-
ment. The minimal foundation for such an
development. For example, Freud (1927) as-
serted that women lack moral maturity be-
interpretive claim against a theory would be
cause of deficiencies in same-sex parental
evidence indicating greater moral maturity
identification. Second, a theorist might offer
for males than for females. For this reason it
no such opinion, but define and/or measure
seems appropriate to review the existing re-
search literature to determine whether con-
moral maturity in ways that inadvertently
favor one sex or the other and thus create a
sistent sex differences in reasoning about
false impression of real differences in moral
moral dilemmas have been found and, if so,
maturity. The allegations of sex bias against
what explanations might account for these
Kohlberg's theory have been based primar-
differences. Such a review is necessary since
ily on the latter reason.
the assertions regarding sex bias and sex
differences in moral reasoning are becoming Gilligan (1977, 1979, 1982a, 1982b) has
bolder and more frequent and are found notbeen the most articulate critic alleging sex
only in scholarly writing but also in text- bias in Kohlberg's theory. She contends that
books and the popular press (e.g., Gilligan,Kohlberg's theory and scoring system are in-
1982c; Saxton, 1981). Although the current sensitive to characteristically feminine con-
controversy revolves around a contemporarycerns for welfare, caring, and responsibility,
and that Kohlberg, in failing to recognize the
theory of moral development, the issue is not
new; historically, women have often beenprincipled nature of these concerns, has de-
Portions of this paper were presented at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Associa-
tion, Montreal, June 1982. Many thanks to Sandra L. Bichard for her help in the preparation of this
paper, and to Michael Boyes, Merry Bullock, C. Ann Cameron, Michael Chandler, Brian de Vries,
Robert Leahy, Tannis MacBeth Williams, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-
ments. Requests for reprints should be sent to Lawrence J. Walker, Department of Psychology,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Y7.
[Child Development, 1984, 55, 677-691. @ 1984 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/84/5503-0001$01.00]
678 Child Development
nigrated such thought to lower stages. She In Kohlberg's approach, moral devel-
argues that Kohlberg's conception of moral- opment is assessed by responses to a number
of hypothetical moral dilemmas that cur-
ity is androcentric in that there is an empha-
rently entail the following issues: life, law,
sis (particularly at the higher stages) on tra-
ditionally masculine values such as ration-morality and conscience, punishment, con-
tract, and authority. Scoring of these re-
ality, individuality, abstraction, detachment,
and impersonality-an emphasis that is responses according to Kohlberg's manual
(Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs, Candee, Hewer,
flected by the assertion that justice is the
universal principle of morality. Kaufman, Lieberman, Power, & Speicher-
Dubin, in press) can yield two measures: a
Kohlberg's Theory global stage score and a moral maturity
score. The global stage score is determined
A brief description of Kohlberg's theory
by the modal stage of reasoning, with a
(1969, 1976, 1981) may be helpful at this
minor stage being included if the second
point. He has postulated six stages in the de-
most frequent stage has 25% or more of the
velopment of moral reasoning. The initial
scored responses. The moral maturity score
two stages form the preconventional level.
(MMS), a more quantitative measure, is
People at this level (primarily children) con-
given by the sum of the products of the per-
ceive of rules and social expectations as
centage of usage at each stage multiplied by
being external to the self. In Stage 1-
the number of that stage; it can range from
punishment and obedience-right is defined100 to 500.
by literal obedience to authority and the
avoidance of punishment and physical dam- Kohlberg (1976) claimed that the order
age. In Stage 2-individualism, instrumentalof the stages is invariant, but he predicted
purpose, and exchange-right is defined asvariability in rate and eventual end point of
serving one's own interests and desires anddevelopment. There are two main determi-
as letting others do likewise; cooperative nants of rate of moral development: (1) at-
interaction is based on terms of simple ex-tainment of appropriate levels of cognitive
change. The conventional level subsumes development, and (2) exposure to appropri-
Stages 3 and 4. People at this level (primarilyate sociomoral experiences. Kohlberg (1973,
late adolescents and adults) identify with, or1976) has hypothesized that cognitive de-
have internalized, the rules and social ex- velopment is a necessary but not sufficient
pectations of others, including authorities.condition (i.e., a prerequisite) for the de-
In Stage 3-mutual interpersonal expecta- velopment of moral reasoning. This claim
tions, relationships, and conformity-right ishas been supported by studies (e.g., Kuhn,
defined as concern for shared feelings, ex-Langer, Kohlberg, & Haan, 1977; Walker,
pectations, and agreements that take pri- 1980) that indicate that attainment of a moral
macy over individual interests. In Stage stage requires the prior or concomitant at-
4-social system and conscience main- tainment of the parallel cognitive stage.
tenance-focus is on the maintenance of the
social order and the welfare of society or the Level of moral development is in-
group by obeying the law and doing one's fluenced not only by cognitive prerequisites
duty. Stages 5 and 6 form the post- but also by exposure to sociomoral experi-
conventional and principled level. At this
ences (Kohlberg, 1969, 1973). The essential
level, people (a small minority of adults)
feature of these social experiences for moral
differentiate themselves from the rules and development is the provision of role-taking
expectations of others and think in terms of opportunities in conflict situations. These
self-chosen principles. Stage 5--prior rights experiences arise both through interpersonal
and social contract or utility-has utilitarian relationships with family and friends and
overtones in that right is defined by mutualthrough real participation in the economic,
standards that have been agreed upon by thepolitical, and legal institutions of society.
whole society and by basic rights and values.The effect of these experiences is thought to
In Stage 6--universal ethical principles- be a function not only of their quantity but of
right is defined as accordance with self- their quality in terms of the degree to which
chosen, logically consistent principles thatthey afford opportunities for leadership,
are abstract and ethical and that all humanitycommunication, decision making, and re-
should follow. It should be noted that Stage sponsibility. Both of these determinants of
6 has been dropped except as a theoreticalrate of moral development (cognitive pre-
construct because of its absence in Kohl- requisites and sociomoral experiences) may
berg's longitudinal data (Colby, Kohlberg,be useful in explaining variability in moral
Gibbs, & Lieberman, 1983). reasoning between groups (e.g., socio-
Lawrence J. Walker 679
economic classes, cultural groups, the sacrificial caring for others in order to gain
sexes). their acceptance. The second transitional
level represents an attempt to be responsible
The Issue of Sex Bias to self as well as to others and is based on
notions of honesty and fairness. In the third
Kohlberg's philosophical defense of his
level, the orientation is to a morality of non-
model of moral reasoning development (e.g., and caring is seen as a universal
violence,
Kohlberg, 1981) may seem to reinforce the Unfortunately, the only data that
obligation.
view expressed by Gilligan and others have that
been presented as yet to support this
he considers thinking at the higher proposed
stages tostage sequence have been anec-
be detached, disinterested, and unmindful
dotal (Gilligan, 1982a). None of the usual
of the concrete realities of interpersonal
types re-of evidence for a stage sequence (i.e.,
lationships. However, there are two prob-
longitudinal, cross-sectional, or experi-
lems with that conclusion. First, itmental)
fails has
to been reported. Nor has she pro-
recognize the self-limiting scope of vided an explanation as to why males and
Kohlberg's approach to moral development.
females may develop different orientations
His theory is a cognitive theory that deals
to moral judgment. Despite this lack of em-
with the adequacy of justifications for solu-
pirical support, her claim that the sexes fol-
tions to moral conflicts. It does not speak low
di- different developmental pathways is,
rectly to the issues of moral emotions and nevertheless, intended as a major challenge
behaviors, although Kohlberg (1978) has to the cognitive-developmental assumption
admitted the necessity and desirability of ofthe universality of stage sequences (Gilli-
going beyond "cognition." Second, this gan, 1982b).
criticism fails to recognize the contextual
basis of principled moral judgment in action If there is sex bias in Kohlberg's ap-
(vs. abstract descriptions). Kohlberg (1982) proach, how could it have arisen? A trite re-
argues that there is no conflict between sponse is that, because Kohlberg is a man, he
using moral principles and being con- has taken a masculine point of view in
textually relative in moral judgment. Princi- theorizing about moral development. An
pled moral reasoning is contextually relative equally trite rejoinder would be to point out
since it can be sensitive to aspects of a given that Kohlberg has had a number of female
situation in ways that rule-bound moral rea- colleagues, including the senior author of
soning cannot. Boyd's (1979) interpretationthe recent editions of the scoring manual
of principled moral reasoning in terms of its(Colby et al., in press). A second and much
accompanying "psychological postures" more serious possible source of bias is that
demonstrates the concrete aspects underly- the stage sequence has been constructed
ing such reasoning. For example, central to from the longitudinal data provided by an
Kohlberg's conception of mature moral rea- exclusively male sample (Colby et al., 1983).
soning is the attitude of mutual "respect for This lack of representativeness is a real
persons" as ends, not means (Boyd, 1983). It threat to the generalizability of the model
should be remembered in this context that and could easily be a source of sex bias, but
principled moral thinking is not the exclu-to date, no data have been presented to show
sive domain of moral philosophers but hasthat females do not follow Kohlberg's se-
also been used by activists such as Martinquence of stages. Nonetheless, it is im-
Luther King and Mother Teresa of Calcuttapossible to determine whether the same
(Kohlberg, 1981). stages and sequence would have been de-
rived if females had been studied originally.
Gilligan's (1977) response to the bias A third potential source of bias is the pre-
she saw inherent in Kohlberg's theory was todominance of male protagonists in the moral
postulate an alternative stage sequence fordilemmas used as stimulus materials in
the development of women's moral reason-eliciting reasoning. Females may have dif-
ing. These stages were derived from inter-ficulty relating to these male protagonists
views with 29 women who were considering and thus exhibit artifactually lower levels of
having an abortion. In the first level that moral reasoning. The effect of protagonists'
Gilligan described, the orientation is to in-sex on moral reasoning has been examined
dividual survival in that the self is the sole in a number of studies. Bussey and Maughan
object of concern. The following transitional (1982) found more advanced reasoning with
level represents a movement from this self- same-sex protagonists (for male subjects
centered orientation toward responsibility only). Freeman and Giebink (1979) also
that entails an attachment to others. In the
found more advanced reasoning with same-
second level, goodness is seen as self- sex protagonists (for female subjects only).
On the other hand, Orchowsky and Jenkins Since the concerns regarding sex bias in
(1979) found more advanced reasoning with
Kohlberg's theory have focused primarily on
opposite-sex protagonists, and Garwood,the conventional and principled stages (e.g.,
Levine, and Ewing (1980) found no evi- Gilligan, 1977), it is possible that sex dif-
dence of differential responding when pro- ferences would only become apparent in
tagonist sex was varied. Thus, the data are adulthood, when such moral reasoning is
equivocal regarding this potential source ofpredominant. To clarify this issue, a de-
bias. velopmental analysis of sex differences in
moral reasoning seems appropriate. There-
To summarize, it is possible that sex bias
exists in Kohlberg's theory, in particular be-
fore, the studies to be reviewed are pre-
sented in three tables that divide the life
cause of his reliance on a male sample, but
this remains to be determined. This review span into the somewhat arbitrary periods: (a)
childhood and early adolescence, (b) late
was undertaken to examine the consistency
adolescence and youth, and (c) adulthood. A
of sex differences in moral reasoning.
finding for each sample within a study is
provided if there were separate analyses or a
Sex Differences in Moral Reasoning
nonsignificant interaction between sample
This review of the literature covered all
and sex. Unless otherwise noted, a non-
studies using Kohlberg's measure in which
significant finding indicates that both the
sex differences in development of moral rea-
main effect of sex and any interactions with
soning were examined. A study was ex- sex were not significant; that includes
cluded (a) if only one sex was assessed, (b) if studies involving repeated measures, which
there was no report or analysis of sex dif- are designated "experimental design" or
ferences, (c) if age and sex were confounded "longitudinal design," as appropriate. A
(e.g., comparing mothers and their sons), (d) number of researchers who did not analyze
if subjects were selected according to stage, sex differences did present enough data
(e) if the data had been reported previously(e.g., the number of males and females at
in another study (e.g., Kuhn et al. [1977] and each moral stage) to allow me to do such an
Haan, Weiss, & Johnson [1982] both re- analysis (typically conducting a Kolmogorov-
ported data that had been previously re- Smirnov test for ordinal data; Siegel, 1956),
ported by Haan, Langer, & Kohlberg [1976]), and that is noted.
or (f) if some objective measure of moral
reasoning (such as the Defining Issues Test Childhood and early adolescence.-The
[DIT]) was used instead of Kohlberg's inter- results of research in which sex differences
view measure. There were several reasons in moral reasoning in childhood and early
for excluding studies using the DIT and adolescence were examined are summarized
similar measures: It is not appropriate in Table 1. There were 31 such studies, in-
for
children and early adolescents; it does volving
not a total of 2,879 subjects who ranged
stage-type (instead it yields continuousin age from about 5 years to 17 years. The
in-
dexes, the "P" or "D" scores); it relies on pattern revealed is that sex differences in
moral reasoning in childhood and early
stage definitions that differ somewhat from
Kohlberg's (cf. Kohlberg, 1981; Rest, 1979); adolescence are infrequent; for the 41 sam-
and Rest (1979) has already provided a brief ples, only six significant differences were
review of DIT research on sex differences. reported.
He found that DIT studies were fairly con-
sistent in failing to reveal significant sex One of these differences (White, 1975)
differences. cannot be taken at face value since the re-
ported statistical analysis is actually not
It is important to note that the exclusion
significant, contrary to the author's conclu-
from this review of studies that did not sion. This leaves five significant findings.
examine sex differences implies that the re- Biaggio (1976) found that girls in her Brazil-
view probably overestimates the incidence ian sample of 10-, 13-, and 16-year-olds were
of sex differences in research on moral de- more advanced in moral reasoning than the
velopment. It is reasonable to assume that boys (MMS = 275 vs. 235). Blatt and
most of the researchers who did not report aKohlberg (1975, Study 2) found pretest dif-
sex difference found the sexes to be similar. ferences among their 15-16-year-olds that
The fact that differences are more likely to favored girls (316 vs. 275). Krebs and
get published exacerbates the problem and Gillmore (1982) found that the girls in their
makes Type I error more likely (what Ro- sample of 5-14-year-olds evidenced slightly
senthal [1979] labeled the "file-drawer more advanced moral reasoning than the
problem"). boys. Turiel (1976) found differences favor-
ing girls for 10-11-year-olds (268 vs. 254)versity

and sample evidenced more advanced
moral reasoning than men (by about one-
12-14-year-olds (308 vs. 279). Finally,
third of a stage). Bar-Yam, Kohlberg, and
Saltzstein, Diamond, and Belenky (1972)
Naame
found that girls tended to be classified at (1980) reported two significant dif-
ferences in a study of Israeli high school stu-
Stage 3, whereas boys tended to be classified
primarily at Stages 1-2, but also at Stagesdents.
4-5 In both the Moslem-Arab and Youth-
Aliyah
(these stages were collapsed for analyses). It samples, boys had higher levels of
moral reasoning than girls (296 vs. 249, and
should be noted that one-third of this sample
376 vs. 350, respectively). Both samples
was classified at Stages 4-5. Such high scor-
ing for young subjects seems anomalous, were
es- drawn from ethnic groups where the
pecially according to current scoring proce- status of women has traditionally been low,
dures. (Revisions in scoring and stage with few opportunities for decision making
definitions will be discussed in a later sec- within the family and society and with typi-
tion.) cally low levels of education. It is interesting
to note that no differences were found in the
To summarize, sex differences in moral
kibbutz and Christian samples, in which at-
reasoning apparently are rare early in the life
titudes could be expected to be more egalita-
span and, when they occur, indicate more rian.
mature development for females, although
even these infrequent differences are rela- Bussey and Maughan (1982) found that
tively small. men in their university sample evidenced
Late adolescence and youth.-The re- more advanced moral reasoning than
sults of research in which sex differences in women. My analysis of data presented by
moral reasoning in late adolescence and Haan, Smith, and Block (1968) for their study
of university students indicated that women
youth were examined are summarized in
Table 2. There were 35 such studies, in- were overrepresented at Stage 3. This study
volving a total of 3,901 subjects who were may involve some misscoring of stage of
mostly high school and university students. moral development (a possibility that Haan
As was found earlier in the life span, sex [1971] has noted). There are two bases for
differences in moral reasoning in late this suggestion. First, subjects responded to
the dilemmas in questionnaire format rather
adolescence and youth are infrequent: onlythan the recommended interview format
10 of the 46 samples yielded significant sex
differences. (Colby et al., in press), which would result in
more ambiguous responses and hence less
Three of these sex differences are of reliable scoring. Second, moral stage defini-
dubious relevance, as the researchers either tions have been significantly altered since
failed to provide appropriate statistics thattostudy was conducted, in part because of
substantiate their claims (Alker & Poppen, the anomalous scoring of many subjects in
1973; Fishkin, Keniston, & MacKinnon, 1973) their university sample as being precon-
or conducted highly questionable analyses ventional.
(Lockwood [1975] used incorrect error terms
To summarize, sex differences in moral
in his analysis of variance).
reasoning in late adolescence and youth are
Two other researchers found that, rare, as was the case earlier in development.
although there were no overall sex dif- In contrast to the data from childhood and
ferences, sex did interact with other vari-early adolescence, however, most studies in
ables. Arbuthnot (1975) found an interaction which sex differences were obtained in-
between sex and sex role identity that indicate more mature development for males,
dicated that both women and men with non- although the differences, once again, were
traditional sex role identities had higher small (i.e., less than half a stage).
moral reasoning. Levine (1976) found that
Adulthood.-The results of research in
women used more Stage 3 reasoning than
men did on the standard dilemmas involving which sex differences in moral reasoning in
adulthood were examined are summarized
fictitious characters, whereas there were no
sex differences on modified dilemmas in- in Table 3. There were 13 such studies, in-
volving primary others (i.e., one's own volving a total of 1,223 subjects who ranged
mother or best friend). in age from 21 years to over 65 years. Sex
differences in moral reasoning in adulthood
Five additional findings indicating are slightly more frequent than earlier in the
significant sex differences in late adoles- life span; or, alternately, sex differences are
cence and youth remain to be discussed. Ar- more frequent in this generation than in later
buthnot (1983) found that women in his uni-generations. (It is impossible to separate de-
TABLE 1
STUDIES EXAMINING SEX DIFFERENCES IN MORAL REASONING IN CHILDHOOD AND EARLY ADOLESCENCE
Study Sample Findings Comments
Baumrind, Note 1 .......... 9 years (N= 164) N.S. finding based on data
obtained from author
& calculated by me
via the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test; for a
description of this
study see Baumrind
(1982)
Bear & Richards, 1981 ...... 11-13 years (N=60) N.S.
Biaggio, 1976 .............. 10 years (N=30); girls > boys Brazilian sample
13 years (N= 30);
16 years (N=30)
Bielby & Papalia, 1975 ..... 10-14 years (N= 12) N.S.
Blatt & Kohlberg, 1975
(Study 2) ................ 11-12 years (N= 66); apparently N.S. for the experimental design;
15-16 years (N= 66) younger group; girls an age x sex interac-
> boys for the older tion was found, but
group no analysis of the
simple main effects
was reported
Davidson, 1976 ............ 7-13 years (N= 176) N.S.
Gibbs, Widaman, & Colby,
1982 ..................... 4th grade=10 years N.S.
(N= 26)
5th grade= 10 years N.S.
(N= 30)
7th grade=12 years N.S.
(N = 23)
(N = 35)
(N= 18)
Gilligan, Langdale, Lyons,
& Murphy, Note 2........ 8 years (N= 16) N.S.
12 years (N= 16) N.S.
15 years (N= 16) N.S.
Haan, 1978 ................ 13-17 years (N=56) N.S.
Haan, Langer, & Kohlberg,
1976 ..................... 10-15 years (N=42) N.S.
Holstein, 1976 ............. initially 13 years N.S. 3-year longitudinal
(N= 53) design
Kavanagh, 1977 ............ 14-15 years (N=48) N.S. experimental design
Keasey, 1972............... 6th grade=12 years N.S.
(N= 155)
Krebs, 1967 ............... 6th grade=12 years N.S. no analysis by author;
(N = 123) finding based on data
from his Table 3 and
calculated by me via
the Kolmogorov-Smir-
nov test
Krebs & Gillmore, 1982 .... 5-14 years (N=51) girls > boys
Kuhn, Note 3 .............. K-2d grade=5-7 N.S.
years (N = 68)
Leming, 1978 .............. 7th grade=13 years N.S.
(N= 30)
Parikh, 1980 ............... 12-13 years (N=20); N.S. Indian sample;
15-16 years (N= 19) age x sex interaction
not examined
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Saltzstein, Diamond, & Be-

lenky, 1972 .............. 7th grade-13 years girls tended to be at
(N= 63) Stage 3, while boys
tended to cluster at
lower stages
Selman, 1971 (Study 1) ..... 8-10 years (N=60) N.S.
Simon & Ward, 1973 ....... 11-12 years (N=60) N.S. British sample
Sullivan, McCullough, &
Stager, 1970.............. 12 years (N=40) N.S.
14 years (N= 40) N.S.
Taylor & Achenbach, 1975.. K-2d grade-5-7 N.S.
years (N= 30); retar-
dates matched for MA
(N= 30)
Timm, 1980. ............... 5th grade= 11 years N.S.
(N= 80)
Turiel, 1976. ............... 10-11 years (N= 63); girls > boys for the an age x sex interac-
12-14 years (N= 62); two younger groups; tion was found, but
15-17 years (N= 85) girls=-boys for the no analysis of the
older group simple main effects
was reported
Walker, 1980 ............... 9-13 years (N= 101) N.S. experimental design;
no relevant analysis
by author; finding
based on data of ini-
tial sample and calcu-
lated by me via the t
test
Walker, 1982 ............... 10-13 years (N= 50) N.S. experimental design
Walker, 1983 ............... 10-12 years (N=60) N.S. experimental design
Walker, de Vries, & Bi-
chard, in press ........... 13-14 years (N= 16? N.S.
White, 1975 ............... 7-8 years (N= 15) N.S. Bahamian samples
9-10 years (N=42) N.S.
11-12 years (N= 54) N.S.
13-14 years (N= 23) claims boys > girls the validity of the
analysis is suspect
since the t value re-
ported is actually n.s.
White, Bushnell, & Regne-
mer, 1978. ............... 8-17 years (N =426) N.S. (except for data Bahamian samples;
previously reported cross-sectional, longi-
by White [1975]) tudinal, and sequen-
tial designs
velopmental and cohort differences with 30-year-old sample and their 47-50-year-old
these data.) For the 21 samples considered,sample (parents of the younger group). Ac-
four significant differences were reported, cording to Haan (1977), the older women in
all favoring men. this study were mostly housewives. The oc-
Unlike previously discussed studies that cupational status of the younger women was
not described.
involved rather homogeneous samples of
school and university students, in the In the two remaining studies that re-
studies of adults that revealed differences invealed differences, sex was similarly con-
moral reasoning, sex was often confoundedfounded with occupational differences.
with educational and/or occupational dif-Holstein (1976) found differences favoring
ferences. Haan et al. (1976) found that men
men (409 vs. 366) on her first test but not on
scored higher than women in both their 21- the retest. Nearly all the men in her sample
TABLE 2
STUDIES EXAMINING SEX DIFFERENCES IN MORAL REASONING IN LATE ADOLESCENCE AND YOUTH

Alker & Poppen, 1973 ...... undergraduates men were more likely no descriptive statis-
(N = 192) to be at the precon- tics and no statistical
ventional or princi- analyses provided
pled levels
Arbuthnot, 1975............. undergraduates N.S. main effect of nontraditional sex
(N = 78) sex, but interaction role identities were
with sex role identity associated with
higher moral reason-
ing for both sexes
Arbuthnot, 1983............ undergraduates women > men
(N= 207)
Bar-Yam, Kohlberg, &
Naame, 1980............. kibbutz-born 15-17 N.S. Israeli samples
years (N= 19)
Christian-Arab 15-17 N.S.
years (N = 37)
Moslem-Arab 15-17 boys > girls
years (N = 25)
Youth-Aliyah 15-17 boys > girls Youth-Aliyah were
years (N = 12?) disadvantaged immi-
grants who were s
to kibbutzim
Berkowitz, Gibbs, &
Broughton, 1980 ......... undergraduates N.S. experimental design
(N= 82)
Bielby & Papalia, 1975 ..... 15-19 years (N= 12) N.S.
20-34 years (N= 12) N.S.
Bush & Balik, 1977......... undergraduates N.S. experimental design
(N= 40)
Bussey & Maughan, 1982... undergraduates men > women, also Australian sample
(N = 40) interaction with sex
of protagonists in
dilemmas
D'Augelli & Cross, 1975.... undergraduates N.S. no analysis by au-
(N= 133) thors; finding based
on data from their Ta-
ble 4 and calculated
by me via the Kolmo-
gorov-Smirnov test
Edwards, 1978............. 16-21 years (N=40) N.S. Kenyan samples
undergraduates N.S.
(N = 52)
Evans, 1982.................
(N= 81)
high school students N.S. experim
Fishkin, Keniston, & Mac-
Kinnon, 1973 ............ undergraduates women tended to be no descriptive statis-
(N = 75) Stage 3; men tended tics and no statistical
to be Stage 4 analyses provided
Froming, 1978 ............. undergraduates N.S.
(N = 200)
Gibbs, Arnold, Ahlborn, &
Cheesman, in press ...... 14-18 years (N= 60) N.S. experimental design;
sample composed of
delinquents
Gibbs, Arnold, & Buckhart,
in this issue.............. 11-21 years (N= 177) N.S.
Gibbs, Widaman, & Colby,
1982..................... 14-17 years (N= 165) N.S. experimental design
10th grade-16 years N.S.
(N= 34)
684
TABLE 2 (Continued)

10th and 11th N.S.
grades-=15 years
(N = 23)
undergraduates= 19 N.S.
years (N= 51)
undergraduates= 19 N.S.
years (N= 38)
Gilligan, Kohlberg, Lerner,
& Belenky, 1971 ......... high school=15-17 N.S.? boys and girls dif-
years (N = 50) fered by only 11
MMS points, but
analysis was repo
Gilligan, Langdale, Lyons,
& Murphy, Note 2........ 19 years (N= 16) N.S.
Haan, 1975 ................ undergraduates N.S.
(N= 310)
Haan, Langer, & Kohlberg,
1976 ..................... 16-20 years (N= 78) N.S.
Haan, Smith, & Block, 1968 university students more women than no analysis by au-
and Peace Corps vol- men were at Stage 3 thors; finding based
unteers (N=510) (41% vs. 23%); no ap- on data from their Ta-
parent differences at ble 2 and calculated
other stages by me via the Kolmo-
gorov-Smirnov test
Haan, Stroud, & Holstein,
1973 ..................... 16-35 years (N=58) N.S. sample composed of
"hippies"
Haier, 1977 ................ undergraduates N.S.? men and women dif-
(N= 112) fered by only 7 MMS
points, but no a
sis was reported
Kahn, 1982 ................ 12-19 years (N=30) N.S. Irish sample; finding
based on analysis
provided by Kahn
(Note 4)
Kavanagh, 1977 ............ 17-18 years (N=48) N.S. experimental design
Leming, 1978 .............. 11th grade=17 years N.S.
(N= 30)
Levine, 1976............... undergraduates N.S. main effect of
(N = 300) sex, but interaction
with content of
dilemma
Lockwood, 1975............ 8th grade=14 years claims boys > girls the validity of the
(N= 30); 11th analysis is suspect
grade= 17 years since incorrect error
(N= 28) terms were used (see
his Table 3)
Maqsud, 1980a............. 16-19 years (N=57) N.S. Nigerian samples
17-19 years (N= 56) N.S.
Maqsud, 1980b............. 14-17 years (N=97) N.S. Nigerian sample
Murphy & Gilligan, 1980... initially undergradu- N.S. longitudinal design
ates (N = 26)
Simon & Ward, 1973 ....... 14-16 years (N=60) N.S. British sample
Small, 1974 ................ undergraduates N.S. experimental design
(N= 48)
Sullivan, McCullough, &
Stager, 1970.............. 17 years (N=40) N.S.
Walker, de Vries, & Bichard,
in press ................. 15-17 years (N= 16) N.S.
undergraduates 17-24 N.S.
years (N = 16)
685
TABLE 3
STUDIES EXAMINING SEX DIFFERENCES IN MORAL REASONING IN ADULTHOOD
Baumrind, Note la ...... parents of 9-year-olds, N.S. finding based on data obtained
ages not provided from author and calculated by
(N = 284) me via the Kolmogorov-Smir-
nov test; for a descriptio
this study, see Baumrind
(1982); sample composed
married couples
Bielby & Papalia, 1975 .. 35-49 years (N= 12) N.S.
50-64 years (N= 12) N.S.
65 years + (N= 12) N.S.
Buck, Walsh, & Roth-
man, 1981 ............ parents of preadoles- N.S. sample composed of married
cents, ages not pro- couples; no analysis by au-
vided (N=60) thors; finding based on data
from their Table 1 and calcu-
lated by me via the Kolmogo-
rov-Smirnov test
Gibbs, Widaman, &
Colby, 1982........... mostly parents of un- N.S.
dergraduates, mean
age was 38 years
(N= 30)
Gilligan, Langdale,
Lyons, & Murphy,
Note 2b............... 22 years (N= 16) N.S.
27 years (N= 16) N.S.
36 years (N= 16) N.S.
46 years (N= 16) N.S.
Haan, 1974 ............. Peace Corps volun- N.S. for both 1st longitudinal design; no analy-
teers, initially mean and 2d test sis by author; finding based on
age was 23 years data from her Table 4 and cal-
(N = 70) culated by me via the Kolmo-
gorov-Smirnov test
Haan, Langer, & Kohl-
berg, 1976 ............ 21-30 years (N= 83). men > women
47-50 years (N = 179) men > women sample composed of married
couples
Holstein, 1976 .......... initially mean age men > women 3-year longitudinal design;
was early 40s on 1st test; N.S. sample composed of married
(N = 106) on 2d test couples
Nassi, 1981 ............. former Free Speech N.S. no direct analysis by author;
Movement arrestees finding based on data from her
(N = 26) Table 2 and calculated by me
former student gov- N.S. via Fisher's test for each sam-
ernment leaders ple of subjects; average age of
(N = 28) all three samples is 34 years
random sample of for- N.S.
mer students (N = 23)
Parikh, 1980 ............ parents of teenagers, men > women Indian sample; sample com-
ages not provided posed of married couples
(N= 78)
Walker, Note 5 .......... 23-84 years (N=62) N.S. sample composed of university
employees
Walker, de Vries, & Bi-
chard, in press ........ graduate students 21- N.S.
52 years (N= 16)
Weisbroth, 1970 ......... 21-39 years (N= 78) N.S.
a It should be noted that, although my analysis revealed no significant difference between men and
Baumrind (1982) did report a difference favoring men. Her finding was not included in this table because it
on a subsample of the data provided by Baumrind (Note 1).
b Although Gilligan et al. (Note 2) found no differences in their analysis of MMSs, they did report a s
analysis that indicated that more men than women displayed at least one instance of postconventional
However, the relevant data as presented in their Figure 2 indicates the opposite pattern. Thus, the app
interpretation of this analysis remains unclear.
ble to biases and ignoring valuable informa-

had careers in business, management, or the
tion available in research reports. Meta-
professions, whereas only 6% of the women
were employed. Similarly, Parikh (1980) analytic procedures that enable reviewers to
found that men in her Indian sample scored
combine statistically the results of a series of
studies are viewed as a more powerful and
higher than women (326 vs. 280). The men
were all self-employed professionals, objective method than summary impression
whereas most of the women were house- (Cooper & Rosenthal, 1980) and therefore
wives. All of the remaining studies were
sum-used as an adjunct to the traditional
marized in Table 3 seem to have entailed review described above.
more homogeneous samples and have not
Rosenthal (1978) has provided a com-
yielded significant sex differences. The
prehensive discussion of metaanalytic pro-
Weisbroth (1970) study, for example, in-
cedures, which need not be duplicated here.
volved doctoral students and professional or
One of the more powerful, yet simple and
semiprofessional employees in universities
routinely applicable, methods is the Stouffer
or teaching hospitals and revealed no dif-
method. Briefly, the steps in this method are
ferences. The men and women in the Buck,
(a) compute the exact one-tailed p of the test
Walsh, and Rothman (1981) study, Gilligan,
statistic reported, (b) compute the Z score
Langdale, Lyons, and Murphy (Note 2)
(the standard normal deviate) associated
study, and Walker (Note 5) study were com-
with each p) value, (c) sum these Z scores and
parable in education and occupational lev-
divide by the square root of the number of
els, and no differences in moral reasoning
findings being combined, and (d) compute
were found. Several other studies (Bielby &
the appropriate p value for this overall Z
Papalia, 1975; Buck et al., 1981; Haan et al.,
score, which indicates the probability level
1968; Holstein, 1972; Keasey, 1971; Parikh,
for the observed pattern of findings. Step a
1980) have provided direct evidence re-
requires that a test statistic with degrees of
garding the relation between moral de-
freedom be provided. However, since sex
velopment and a variety of social experi-
differences were often of secondary interest
ences (e.g., family discussions, education,
to researchers, many failed to report the
occupation, political and social activity).
statistics on which they made inferences of
A widely shared assumption (initially no differences or reported statistics without
stated by Kohlberg & Kramer, 1969) is that indicating direction. The solution adopted
women fixate at Stage 3, whereas men pro- for this review, but one that may increase
gress to Stage 4, or, as alleged by Gilligan distortion, was to assume an exact finding of
(1982a, p. 70), "the thinking of women is no difference and use p = .50.
often classified with that of children." Even
This metaanalysis of the studies re-
among the studies that yielded some evi-
dence of sex differences, there is no evi- ported earlier in this paper tested the
hypothesis that males are more advanced
dence, in adulthood, for such a claim. The
modal stage for both men and women in the
than females in moral reasoning develop-
ment, and, although the trend was in the
Holstein (1976) study and Haan et al. (1976)
predicted direction, this pattern was not
study (as reported by Haan et al. [1982] for a
significant, Z = +.73, p = .23, one-tailed.
large subsample of their 47-50-year-old
Even this finding probably overestimates
subjects) was Stage 4, and the modal stage
the incidence of sex differences, given the
for both sexes in the Parikh (1980) study was
reporting and publishing biases discussed
Stage 3. Thus, although sex differences may
be reported in some studies, they tend not to
earlier. Thus, the conclusion yielded by the
metaanalysis is consistent with that of the
be of the magnitude that has been suggested.traditional review.
To summarize, it is apparent that sex
It is also important to note that Kohlberg
differences in moral reasoning in adulthood
are revealed only in a minority of studies,has introduced both conceptual and pro-
and even in those studies the differences cedural revisions to his theory in an attempt
tend to be small. to account more adequately for his lon-
gitudinal data (Colby et al., 1983). The pre-
Metaanalysis conventional stages have undergone little
revision, but the more advanced con-
The conclusion indicated by this review ventional and principled stages-the level of
is that the moral reasoning of males and moral reasoning common to adulthood-
females is more similar than different. How-
have been significantly redefined. The ex-
ever, this traditional method of literature re- tent of these changes is reflected in the low
view has been criticized as being suscepti- correlation (.39) between the scores yielded
eral of these studies yielding sex differences
by the original and current scoring manuals
(Carroll & Rest, 1982). Revisions in scoring
favoring men were methodologically flawed,
procedures (Colby, 1978; Kohlberg, 1976) primarily because sex and occupational/
have been twofold: (1) in the definition educational
of differences were confounded.
the unit of analysis, and (2) in better dif-
In addition, most studies reporting sex dif-
ferences relied on early stage definitions and
ferentiation of content from structure. Colby
(1978) claimed that these revisions should scoring procedures.
eliminate the tendency to underestimate the Support for the null hypothesis (i.e., that
reasoning of females because of particularthere are no sex differences in stage of moral
content (e.g., focus on relationships, love, reasoning), such has been amassed here, is
and caring). usually not of any particular significance; but
Earlier studies, in particular, may havegiven the persistent belief that there are sex
involved considerable misscoring (as was differences, this review may provide a
previously argued for the Haan et al. [1968] heuristic perspective on a difficult issue. At
and Saltzstein et al. [1972] studies) that may the same time it is important to realize, as
account for some of the reported sex dif-Kohlberg (1982) has noted, that the lack of
ferences. Thus, it is interesting to note that stage disparity in moral reasoning between
all but two (Arbuthnot, 1983; Bussey &males and females does not preclude the
Maughan, 1982) of the research teams thatpossibility of sex differences in content
found significant sex differences used early within a stage (e.g., reliance on particular
versions of Kohlberg's scoring manual: thenorms) or in the preferential use of various
1958 version (Turiel, 1976), the 1963 version orientations in the making of moral judg-
(Saltzstein et al., 1972), the 1968 version ments.
(Haan et al., 1976), the 1971 version (Bar- Rather than arguing over the extent to
Yam et al., 1980; Biaggio, 1976), and the which sex bias is inherent in Kohlberg's
1972 version (Blatt & Kohlberg, 1975; Hol-theory of moral development, it might be
stein, 1976; Parikh, 1980). The version usedmore appropriate to ask why the myth that
by Haan et al. (1968) was not reported. It ismales are more advanced in moral reasoning
unlikely that this pattern is coincidental, butthan females persists in light of so little evi-
fortunately there is more direct evidence re-dence. This review of the literature should
garding the effects of changes in scoring.make it clear that the moral reasoning of men
Holstein (1976) rescored data previouslyand women is remarkably similar, especially
presented in a preliminary report (Holstein, given publication and reporting biases that
1972). The modal stage for men according to make differences more likely to be reported.
both scoring methods was Stage 4, but thePerhaps it is time to focus our attention on
modal stage for women changed from Stage other concerns, such as the questions of the
3 with the older scoring method to Stage 4role of cognitive prerequisites and socio-
with the newer scoring method. Thus, some moral experiences in facilitating moral de-
of the reported sex differences in early velopment and of the relationship of moral
studies may, in fact, represent measurementreasoning to moral emotions and behaviors.
artifacts.
Reference Notes
Conclusions
1. Baumrind, D. Personal communication,
The allegation that Kohlberg's theoryMarchis 3, 1982.
biased against the moral reasoning of2.women
Gilligan, C., Langdale, S., Lyons, N., & Mur-
has become more vehement and more phy, J. M. The contribution of women's
frequently expressed. The primary basis forthought to developmental theory: The elimi-
this claim is that Kohlberg relied solely on
nation of sex bias in moral development re-
the data from his longitudinal sample of search and education. Unpublished manu-
males to derive and validate his description
script, 1982. (Available from the Center for
of moral development. This review and Moral Education, Harvard University, Cam-
metaanalysis of the research literature in- bridge, Massachusetts 02138.)
dicates that, contrary to the prevailing 3. Kuhn, D. Role-taking abilities underlying the
stereotype, very few sex differences in moral development of moral judgment. Un-
development have been found. Of the 108 published manuscript, 1972. (Available from
samples summarized in Tables 1-3, only D. Kuhn, Graduate School of Education, Har-
eight clearly indicated significant dif- vard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ferences favoring males. Furthermore, sev- 02138.)
4. Kahn, J. V. Personal communication, moral stage change in adolescence and adult-
November 22, 1982. hood: Presenting and discussion of moral di-
5. Walker, L. J. Social experiences and moral lemmas. Social Science Forum: An Inter-
development in adulthood. Paper presented disciplinary Journal, 1977, 1, 14-24.
at the biennial meeting of the Society for Re-
Bussey, K., & Maughan, B. Gender differences in
search in Child Development, Detroit, April moral reasoning. Journal of Personality and
1983. Social Psychology, 1982, 42, 701-706.
Carroll, J., & Rest, J. Moral development. In B.
References
Wolman & G. Stricker (Eds.), Handbook of
Alker, H. A., & Poppen, P. J. Personality and developmental psychology. Englewood
ideology in university students. Journal Cliffs,
of N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1982.
Personality, 1973, 41, 653-671. Colby, A. Evolution of a moral-developmental
Arbuthnot, J. Level of moral judgment as a func- theory. In W. Damon (Ed.)., New directions
tion of sex and sex role identity. Journalfor of child development: Moral development
Social Psychology, 1975, 97, 297-298. (No. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.
Arbuthnot, J. Attributions of responsibility Colby,by A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J. C., Candee, D.,
simulated jurors: Stage of moral reasoning Hewer, R., Kaufman, K., Lieberman, M.,
and guilt by association. Psychological Re- Power, C., & Speicher-Dubin, B. Assessing
ports, 1983, 52, 287-298. moral stages: A manual. New York: Cam-
Bar-Yam, M., Kohlberg, L., & Naame, A. Moral bridge University Press, in press.
reasoning of students in different cultural, Colby,
so-A., Kohlberg, L., Gibbs, J., & Lieberman,
cial, and educational settings. American Jour- M. A longitudinal study of moral judgment.
nal of Education, 1980, 88, 345-362. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Baumrind, D. Are androgynous individuals more Child Development, 1983, 48(1-2, Serial No.
effective persons and parents? Child De- 200).
velopment, 1982, 53, 44-75. Cooper, H. M., & Rosenthal, R. Statistical versus
Bear, G. G., & Richards, H. C. Moral reasoning traditional procedures for summarizing re-
and conduct problems in the classroom. Jour- search findings. Psychological Bulletin, 1980,
nal of Educational Psychology, 1981, 73, 87, 442-449.
664-670. D'Augelli, J. F., & Cross, H. J. Relationship of sex
Berkowitz, M. W., Gibbs, J. C., & Broughton, J. M.guilt and moral reasoning to premarital sex in
The relation of moral judgment stage dispar- college women and in couples. Journal of
ity to developmental effects of peer dialogues. Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975,
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1980, 26,341-357. 43, 40-47.
Biaggio, A. M. B. A developmental study of moralDavidson, F. H. Ability. to respect persons com-
judgment of Brazilian children and adoles- pared to ethnic prejudice in childhood. Jour-
cents. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, nal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1976, 10, 71-78. 1976, 34, 1256-1267.
Edwards, C. P. Social experience and moral
Bielby, D. D., & Papalia, D. E. Moral develop-
ment and perceptual role-taking egocentrism: judgment in East African young adults. Jour-
Their development and interrelationship nal of Genetic Psychology, 1978, 133, 19-29.
across the life-span. International JournalEvans,
of C. S. Moral stage development and knowl-
Aging and Human Development, 1975, 6, edge of Kohlberg's theory. Journal of Experi-
293-308. mental Education, 1982, 51, 14-17.
Blatt, M. M., & Kohlberg, L. The effects of Fishkin,
class- J., Keniston, K., & MacKinnon, C. Moral
room moral discussion upon children's level reasoning and political ideology. Journal of
of moral judgment. Journal of Moral Educa- Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 27,
tion, 1975, 4, 129-161. 109-119.
Boyd, D. R. An interpretation of principled
Freeman, S. J. M., & Giebink, J. W. Moral judg-
morality. Journal of Moral Education, 1979,ment as a function of age, sex, and stimulus.
8, 110-123. Journal of Psychology, 1979, 102, 43-47.
Boyd, D. R. Careful justice or just caring: A re- Freud, S. Some psychological consequences of
sponse to Gilligan. Proceedings of the Philos- the anatomical distinction between the sexes.
ophy of Education Society, 1983, 38, 63-69. International Journal of Psycho-analysis,
Buck, L. Z., Walsh, W. F., & Rothman, G. Re- 1927, 8, 133-142.
lationship between parental moral judgment Froming, W. J. The relationship of moral judg-
and socialization. Youth and Society, 1981, ment, self-awareness, and sex to compliance
13, 91-116. behavior. Journal of Research in Personality,
Bush, D. F., & Balik, B. Factors contributing to 1978, 12, 396-409.
Garwood, S. G., Levine, D. W., & Ewing, L. Effect
Haan, N., Smith, M. B., & Block, J. Moral reason-
of protagonist's sex on assessing gender dif- ing of young adults: Political-social behavior,
ferences in moral reasoning. Developmental family background, and personality corre-
Psychology, 1980, 16, 677-678. lates. Journal of Personality and Social
Gibbs, J. C., Arnold, K. D., Ahlborn, H. H., & Psychology, 1968, 10, 183-201.
Cheesman, F. L. Facilitation of sociomoralHaan, N., Stroud, J., & Holstein, C. Moral and ego
reasoning in delinquents. Journal of Con- stages in relationship to ego processes: A
sulting and Clinical Psychology, in press. study of "hippies." Journal of Personality,
Gibbs, J. C., Arnold, K. D., & Burkhart, J. E. Sex 1973, 41, 596-612.
differences in the expression of moral judg- Haan, N., Weiss, R., & Johnson, V. The role of
ment. Child Development, in this issue. logic in moral reasoning and development.
Gibbs, J. C., Widaman, K. F., & Colby, A. Con- Developmental Psychology, 1982, 18, 245-
struction and validation of a simplified, 256.
group-administerable equivalent to the moral
Haier, R. J. Moral reasoning and moral character:
judgment interview. Child Development, Relationships between the Kohlberg and the
1982, 53, 895-910. Hogan models. Psychological Reports, 1977,
Gilligan, C. In a different voice: Women's con- 40, 215-226.
ception of the self and of morality. HarvardHolstein, C. B. The relation of children's moral
Educational Review, 1977, 47, 481-517. judgment level to that of their parents and to
Gilligan, C. Woman's place in man's life cycle. communication patterns in the family. In
Harvard Educational Review, 1979, 49, R. C. Smart & M. S. Smart (Eds.), Readings in
431-446. child development and relationships. New
Gilligan, C. In a different voice: Psychological York: Macmillan, 1972.
theory and women's development. Cam- Holstein, C. B. Irreversible, stepwise sequence in
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,the development of moral judgment: A lon-
1982. (a) gitudinal study of males and females. Child
Gilligan, C. New maps of development: New vi- Development, 1976, 47, 51-61.
sions of maturity. American Journal of Ortho- Kahn, J. V. Moral reasoning in Irish children and
psychiatry, 1982, 52, 199-212. (b) adolescents as measured by the Defining Is-
Gilligan, C. Why should a woman be more like a sues Test. Irish Journal of Psychology, 1982,
man? Psychology Today, June 1982, pp. 5, 96-108.
68-77. (c) Kavanagh, H. B. Moral education: Relevance,
Gilligan, C., Kohlberg, L., Lerner, J., & Belenky, goals and strategies., Journal of Moral Educa-
M. Moral reasoning about sexual dilemmas: tion, 1977, 6, 121-130.
The development of an interview and scoring Keasey, C. B. Social participation as a factor in the
system. Technical report of the commission moral development of preadolescents. De-
on obscenity and pornography (Vol. 1). velopmental Psychology, 1971, 5, 216-220.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Keasey, C. B. The lack of sex differences in the
Office, 1971. moral judgment of preadolescents. Journal of
Haan, N. Moral redefinition in families as the Social Psychology, 1972, 86, 157-158.
critical aspect of the generational gap. Youth Kohlberg, L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-
and Society, 1971, 2, 259-283. developmental approach to socialization. In
Haan, N. Changes in young adults after Peace D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization
Corps experiences: Political-social views, theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally,
moral reasoning, and perceptions of self and 1969.
parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Kohlberg, L. Continuities in childhood and adult
1974, 3, 177-194. moral development revisited. in P. B. Baltes
Haan, N. Hypothetical and actual moral reasoning & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Life-span develop-
in a situation of civil disobedience. Journal of mental psychology: Personality and social-
Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, ization. New York: Academic, 1973.
255-270. Kohlberg, L. Moral stages and moralization: The
Haan, N. Coping and defending: Processes of cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lic-
self-environment organization. New York:kona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior:
Academic Press, 1977. Theory, research, and social issues. New
Haan, N. Two moralities in action contexts: Re- York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976.
lationships to thought, ego regulation, and Kohlberg, L. Moral education reappraised.
development. Journal of Personality and So- Humanist, 1978, 38(6), 13-15.
cial Psychology, 1978, 36, 286-305. Kohlberg, L. Essays on moral development: The
Haan, N., Langer, J., & Kohlberg, L. Family pat- philosophy of moral development (Vol. 1).
terns of moral reasoning. Child Development, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981.
1976, 47, 1204-1206. Kohlberg, L. A reply to Owen Flanagan and some
comments on the Puka-Goodpaster exchange. Saltzstein, H. D., Diamond, R. M., & Belenky, M.
Ethics, 1982, 92, 513-528. Moral judgment level and conformity behav-
Kohlberg, L., & Kramer, R. Continuities and dis- ior. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 7,
continuities in childhood and adult moral de- 327-336.
velopment. Human Development, 1969, 12, Saxton, M. Are women more moral than men? An
93-120. interview with psychologist Carol Gilligan.
Krebs, D., & Gillmore, J. The relationship among Ms., December 1981, pp. 63-66.
the first stages of cognitive development,Selman, R. The relation of role taking to the de-
role-taking abilities, and moral development. velopment of moral judgment in children.
Child Development, 1982, 53, 877-886. Child Development, 1971, 42, 79-91.
Krebs, R. L. Some relationships between moral Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the be-
judgment, attention, and resistance to temp- havioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill,
tation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1956.
University of Chicago, 1967. Simon, A., & Ward, L. 0. Variables influencing
Kuhn, D., Langer, J., Kohlberg, L., & Haan, N. S. pupils' responses on the Kohlberg schema of
The development of formal operations in moral development. Journal of Moral Educa-
logical and moral judgment. Genetic Psychol- tion, 1973, 2, 283-286.
ogy Monographs, 1977, 95, 97-188. Small, L. Effects of discrimination training on
Leming, J. S. Intrapersonal variations in stage of stage of moral judgment. Personality and So-
moral reasoning among adolescents as a func- cial Psychology Bulletin, 1974, 1, 423-425.
tion of situational context. Journal of YouthSullivan, E. V., McCullough, G., & Stager, M. A
and Adolescence, 1978, 7, 405-416. developmental study of the relationship be-
Levine, C. Role-taking standpoint and adolescent tween conceptual, ego, and moral develop-
usage of Kohlberg's conventional stages of ment Child Development, 1970, 41,399-411.
moral reasoning. Journal of Personality and Taylor, J. J., & Achenbach, T. M. Moral and cog-
Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 41-46. nitive development in retarded and non-
Lockwood, A. L. Stage of moral development and retarded children. American Journal of
students' reasoning on public policy issues. Mental Deficiency, 1975, 80, 43-50.
Journal of Moral Education, 1975, 5, 51-61. Timm, J. T. Group care of children and the de-
Maqsud, M. Locus of control and stages of moral velopment of moral judgment Child Welfare,
reasoning. Psychological Reports, 1980, 46, 1980, 59, 323-333.
1243-1248. (a) Turiel, E. A comparative analysis of moral knowl-
Maqsud, M. Relationships between personal con- edge and moral judgment in males and
trol, moral reasoning, and socioeconomic females. Journal of Personality, 1976, 44,
status of Nigerian Hausa adolescents.Journal 195-208.
of Youth and Adolescence, 1980, 9, 281-288. Walker, L. J. Cognitive and perspective-taking
(b) prerequisites for moral development. Child
Murphy, J. M., & Gilligan, C. Moral development Development, 1980, 51, 131-139.
in late adolescence and adulthood: A critique Walker, L. J. The sequentiality of Kohlberg's
and reconstruction of Kohlberg's theory, stages of moral development. Child De-
Human Development, 1980, 23, 77-104. velopment, 1982, 53, 1330-1336.
Nassi, A. J. Survivors of the sixties: Comparative Walker, L. J. Sources of cognitive conflict for stage
psychosocial and political development of transition in moral development. Develop-
former Berkeley student activists. American mental Psychology, 1983, 19, 103-110.
Psychologist, 1981, 36, 753-761. Walker, L. J., de Vries, B., & Bichard, S. L. The
Orchowsky, S. J., & Jenkins, L. R. Sex biases in hierarchical nature of stages of moral de-
the measurement of moral judgment. velopment. Developmental Psychology, in
Psychological Reports, 1979, 44, 1040. press.
Parikh, B. Development of moral judgment and its Weisbroth, S. Moral judgment, sex, and parental
relation to family environmental factors in In- identification in adults. Developmental
dian and American families. Child Develop- Psychology, 1970, 2, 396-402.
ment, 1980, 51, 1030-1039. White, C. B. Moral development in Bahamian
Rest, J. R. Development in judging moral issues. school children: A cross-cultural examination
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, of Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. De-
1979.
velopmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 535-536.
Rosenthal, R. Combining results of independent White, C. B., Bushnell, N., & Regnemer, J. L.
studies. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85, Moral development in Bahamian school chil-
185-193.
dren: A 3-year examination of Kohlberg's
Rosenthal, R. The "file-drawer problem" and tol- stages of moral development. Developmental
erance for null results. Psychological Bulle- Psychology, 1978, 14, 58-65.
tin, 1979, 86, 638-641.

Society For Research in Child Development, Wiley Child Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Society For Research in Child Development, Wiley Child Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Society For Research in Child Development, Wiley Child Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Critical Review

Author(s): Lawrence J. Walker

Sex Differences in the Development of Moral

WALKER, LAWRENCE J. Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Critical

ing girls for 10-11-year-olds (268 vs. 254)versity

Study Sample Findings Comments

Study Sample Findings Comments

Saltzstein, Diamond, & Be-

Study Sample Findings Comments

Study Sample Findings Comments

STUDIES EXAMINING SEX DIFFERENCES IN MORAL REASONING IN ADULTHOOD

Study Sample Findings Comments

ble to biases and ignoring valuable informa-

You might also like