A more recent version of this article was published on [04-17-2015]

Gender Differences in Responses to Moral Dilemmas

A Process Dissociation Analysis

  1. Rebecca Friesdorf1
  2. Paul Conway2
  3. Bertram Gawronski3
  1. 1Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
  3. 3University of Texas at Austin, USA
  1. Rebecca Friesdorf, Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue W, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3C5. Email: frie3750@mylaurier.ca

Abstract

The principle of deontology states that the morality of an action depends on its consistency with moral norms; the principle of utilitarianism implies that the morality of an action depends on its consequences. Previous research suggests that deontological judgments are shaped by affective processes, whereas utilitarian judgments are guided by cognitive processes. The current research used process dissociation (PD) to independently assess deontological and utilitarian inclinations in women and men. A meta-analytic re-analysis of 40 studies with 6,100 participants indicated that men showed a stronger preference for utilitarian over deontological judgments than women when the two principles implied conflicting decisions (d = 0.52). PD further revealed that women exhibited stronger deontological inclinations than men (d = 0.57), while men exhibited only slightly stronger utilitarian inclinations than women (d = 0.10). The findings suggest that gender differences in moral dilemma judgments are due to differences in affective responses to harm rather than cognitive evaluations of outcomes.

Article Notes

  • Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

  • Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a doctoral fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) to the second author (767-2008-1666), and by a grant from the Canada Research Chairs (CRC) Program to the third author (215983).

  • Supplemental Material The online supplemental material is available at http://pspb.sagepub.com/supplemental.

  • Received May 13, 2014.
  • Accepted February 9, 2015.
  1. Published online before print April 3, 2015, doi: 10.1177/0146167215575731 Pers Soc Psychol Bull 0146167215575731
  1. » AbstractFree
  2. Full Text
  3. Full Text (PDF)
  4. Online Appendix
    5. All Versions of this Article:
    1. Version of Record - Apr 17, 2015
    2. current version image indicatorOnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 3, 2015
    What's this?