The Spectrum of Gender Based Patterns of Relationship Moral Judgment

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD student, Psychology, Faculty of psychology and education, Alzahra university

2 Professor of psychology, Faculty of psychology and education, Alzahra university

3 Professor of Social and philosophical foundations of education, University of Tehran

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to clarify the effect of the pattern of close relationships in moral judgement and to recognize gender based components. A qualitative approach based on the constructivist grounded theory model was used, which explored relationship-dependent judgments. The population of the study included young and middle-aged men and women of Tehran, and the sampling was purposeful. The moral dilemmas were presented to participants, and information was collected with semi-structured interviews. The results of the study showed that people are willing to violate the principles of justice for the sake of their relatives, friends, colleagues, compatriots, religion and ethnicity  in both genders. The impact of personal relationships (relatives, friends, and colleagues) is related to human evolutionary characteristics, and the impact of the social relationships in terms of country, religion and ethnicity is related to common goals within the group and loyalty to the group. In their decisions, both men and women recognize relationships evenly in different situations, but their involvement is different on the basis of the severity of the situation. The difference depends on their evolutionary characteristics, rather than on their ability to understand and observe equality.

Keywords

References

Aldrich, D., & Kage, R. (2003). Mars and Venus at twilight: A critical investigation of moralism, age effects, and sex differences. Political Psychology, 24(1), 23-40.
Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded Theory : A Practical Guide. Sage.
Bleske-Rechek, A., Nelson, L. A., Baker, J. P., Remiker, M. W., & Brandt, S. J. (2010). Evolution and the trolley problem: People save five over one unless the one is young, genetically related, or a romantic partner. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4(3), 115.
Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 773.
Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2006). The evolution of aggression. Evolution and social psychology, 263-286.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory . Sage.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene New York: Oxford University Press. DawkinsThe Selfish Gene1976.
Dubljević, V., & Racine, E. (2014). The ADC of moral judgment: Opening the black box of moral intuitions with heuristics about agents, deeds, and consequences. AJOB Neuroscience, 5(4), 3-20.
Farajzadeh Dehkordi, H. (2019). How personality and gender relate to ethical judgment of accountants: Evidence based on discipline. Iranian journal of value & behavioral accounting, 4(7), 181-208. [Text in Persian]
Fitzgerald, C. J., & Colarelli, S. M. (2009). Altruism and reproductive limitations. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 147470490900700207.
Fitzgerald, C. J., Thompson, M. C., and Whitaker, M. B. (2010). Altruism among romantic partners: Biological offspring as a genetic bridge between altruist and recipient. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 462-476.
Fitzgerald, C. J., & Whitaker, M. B. (2009). Sex differences in violent versus non-violent life-threatening altruism. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(3), 467-476.
Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications Limited.
Freud, S. (1927). Some psychological consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 8, 133-142.
Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400.
Gump, L. S., Baker, R. C., & Roll, S. (2000). Cultural and gender differences in moral judgment: A study of Mexican Americans and Anglo-Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(1), 78-93.
Hildreth, J. A. D., & Anderson, C. (2018). Does loyalty trump honesty? Moral judgments of loyalty-driven deceit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 87-94.
Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 126(5), 703-726.
Keshvari, F., Pouretemad, H. R., & Ekhtiari, H. (2013). The effect of gender on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex transcranial DC stimulation-induced disruption of moral judgment. Advances in Cognitive, 14(4), 1-12. [Text in Persian]
Khosravi, Z., & Abbaszadeh, S. (2015). The evaluation of gender based semantic and construal processes in selecting moral action. Quarterly Journal of Women’s studies Sociological and Psychological, 13(1), 7-32. [Text In Persian]
Kruger, D. J. (2001). Psychological aspects of adaptations for kin directed altruistic helping behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 29(4), 323-330.
Lajčiaková, P. (2013). Social Work Students’ Moral Judgement Competence. Special English Issue, 5(13), 51-56.
Lay, C., Allen, M., & Kassirer, A. (1974). The responsive bystander in emergencies: Some preliminary data. Canadian Psychologist/Psychologie canadienne, 15(3), 220.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (vol. 75).
Ma, H. K. (1992). The relation of altruistic orientation to human relationships and moral judgment in Chinese people. International Journal of Psychology, 27(6), 377-400.
McGraw, K. M., & Bloomfield, J. (1987). Social influence on group moral decisions: The interactive effects of moral reasoning and sex role orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1080.
Mills, R. S., Pedersen, J., & Grusec, J. E. (1989). Sex differences in reasoning and emotion about altruism. Sex Roles, 20(11-12), 603-621.
Monin, B., Pizarro, D. A., & Beer, J. S. (2007). Deciding versus reacting: Conceptions of moral judgment and the reason-affect debate. Review of general psychology, 11(2), 99-111.
Nedayi, A., Bahrami, F., Jazayeri, R. S., & Fatehizadeh, M. S. (2014). Investigating gender differences in coping strategies in marital adaptation and comparing it in couples in Isfahan. Quarterly Journal of Women’s studies Sociological and Psychological, 40(3), 141-176. [Text In Persian]
Petrinovich, L., O'Neill, P., & Jorgensen, M. (1993). An empirical study of moral intuitions: Toward an evolutionary ethics. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(3), 467.
Sepasi, S., & Abdoli, L. (2016). Effect of managers’ gender on conditional conservatism. Quarterly Journal of Women’s studies Sociological and Psychological, 46(1), 129-154. [Text In Persian]
Serajzadeh, S. H., & Pouyafar, M. R. (2007). Experimental comparison of religiosity metrics: Methodological implications of using three metrics in a population. Sociology of Iran, 4(8), 37-71. [Text In Persian]
Slováčková, B., & Slováček, L. (2007). Moral judgement competence and moral attitudes of medical students. Nursing ethics, 14(3), 320-328.
Stewart-Williams, S. (2008). Human beings as evolved nepotisms: Exceptions to the rule and effects of the cost of help. Human Nature, 19, 414-425.
Stewart-Williams, S. (2007). Altruism among kin vs. non-kin: Effects of cost of help and reciprocal exchange. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 193-198.
Tinghög, G., Andersson, D., Bonn, C., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Koppel, L., & Västfjäll, D. (2016). Intuition and moral decision-making–the effect of time pressure and cognitive load on moral judgment and altruistic behavior. PloS one, 11(10).
Zalta, E. N. (2014). The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Spring 2014 edition. URL: https://plato. stanford. edu/. APPENDICES.
Women's Studies Sociological and Psychological
Volume 17, Issue 4 - Serial Number 61
January 2020
Pages 109-130

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics