Skip to main content

Gender Differences in Solving Moral Dilemmas: Emotional Engagement, Care and Utilitarian Orientation

Psychological Studies volume 65, pages 360–369 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Moral sense is important for determining human behaviour. Moral sense becomes crucial in operational environments in which choices must be made that have complex moral implications in highly stressful situations. Behavioural and neuroimaging findings have shown the existence of gender-related differences in moral reasoning. The present study aimed to investigate whether gender affects moral reasoning and emotional state. We also investigated whether empathy, decision-making and emotional regulation strategies had a role in determining gender differences in solving moral dilemmas. We found that moral judgements and emotional engagement were significantly different. Women were less prone than men to accept a moral violation, such as killing someone to save their own lives and the lives of others. Furthermore, women were more emotionally involved and experienced dysphoric emotions more often than men. Our results shed light upon the mechanisms that affect moral reasoning and determine gender differences in solving moral dilemmas.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Data Availability Material

Generated statement: The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author, and Material are included in the manuscript/supplementary files.

References

  • Agerström, J., Björklund, F., & Carlsson, R. (2011). Gender differences in implicit moral orientation associations: The justice and care debate revisited. Current Research in Social Psychology, 17, 10–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, D. P., & Kage, R. (2003). Mars and Venus at twilight: A critical investigation of moralism, age effects, and sex differences. Political Psychology, 24, 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleman, A., & Swart, M. (2008). Sex differences in neural activation to facial expressions denoting contempt and disgust. PLoS ONE, 3(11), e3622. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003622.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism Developmental Disorders, 34, 163–175.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, C. W., McGraw, A. P., Bartels, D. M., & Warren, C. (2014). Revisiting external validity: Concerns about trolley problems and other sacrificial dilemmas in moral psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(9), 536–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, C. L., Garrod, A., Ruben, K., & Stewart, T. L. (1997). Children’s moral orientations: Does the gender of dilemma character make a difference? Journal of Moral Education, 26, 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betsch, C., & Iannello, P. (2010). Measuring individual differences in intuitive and deliberate decision making styles: A comparison of different measures. In A. Glockner & C. Witteman (Eds.), Tracing intuition: recent methods in measuring intuitive and deliberate processes in decision making (pp. 251–267). London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betsch, C., & Kunz, J. J. (2008). Individual strategy preferences and decisional fit. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 21, 532–555. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, F. (2003). Differences in the justification of choices in moral dilemmas: Effects of gender time pressure and dilemma seriousness. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 44, 459–466.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boccia, M., Cordellieri, P., Piccardi, L., Ferlazzo, F., Guariglia, C., & Giannini, A. M. (2014). Gender differences in solving moral dilemma: Are there any implications for experts in aerospace flight? Italian Journal of Aerospace Medicine, 10, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0739-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boccia, N., Verde, P., Angelino, G., Carrozzo, P., Vecchi, D., Piccardi, L., et al. (2017a). Effect of professional expertise and exposure to everyday life decision-making on moral choices. Neuroscience Letters, 654, 80–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boccia, M., Dacquino, C., Piccardi, L., Cordellieri, P., Guariglia, C., Ferlazzo, F., et al. (2017b). Neural foundation of human moral reasoning: an ALE meta-analysis about the role of personal perspective. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 11(1), 278–292.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinik, M., Jha, A. P., Bylsma, L. M., Fabian, S. A., Solomon, P. E., & Prkachin, K. M. (2005). Viewing facial expression of pain engages cortical areas involved in the direct experience of pain. Neuroimage, 25, 312–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brabeck, M., & Shore, E. (2003). Gender differences in intellectual and moral development? The evidence that refutes the claim. In J. Demick & C. Andreoletti (Eds.), Handbook of adult development (pp. 351–368). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment (Vol. 1). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Mark H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Journal Supplemental Abstract Service Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, W. J., Robinson, A. B., & Friedman, B. L. (1981). Sex differences in moral judgments? A test of Gilligan’s theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fumagalli, M., Ferrucci, R., Mameli, F., Marceglia, S., Mrakic-Sposta, S., Zago, S., et al. (2010). Gender-related differences in moral judgements. Cognitive Process, 11, 219–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garmon, L. C., Basinger, K. S., Gregg, V. R., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Gender differences in stage and expression of moral judgment. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 42(3), 418–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. C., Arnold, K. D., & Burkhart, J. E. (1984). Sex differences in the expression of moral judgment. Child Development, 55, 1040–1043.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations: Gelnder differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34(3), 223–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. D. (2009). Dual-process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart and Mackenzie. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 581–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgement work? Trend in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 389–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). And fMRI investigation of emotional engagement. Moral Judgment Science, 293, 2105–2108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 340–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hareli, S., Shomrat, N., & Hess, U. (2009). Emotional versus neutral expressions and perceptions of social dominance and submissiveness. Emotion, 9, 378–384.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harenski, C. L., Antonenko, O., Shane, M. S., & Kiehl, K. A. (2008). Gender differences in neural mechanism underlying moral sensitivity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(4), 13–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harenski, C. L., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural correlates of regulating negative emotions related to moral violations. Neuroimage, 30, 313–324.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Indick, W., Kim, J., Oelberg, B., & Semino, L. (2000). Gender differences in moral judgment: Is non-consequential reasoning a factor? Current Research in Social Psychology, 5(20), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 703–726.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1964a). Development of moral character and moral ideology. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research (pp. 383–430). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1964b). Development of moral character and moral ideology. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research (pp. 381–431). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205–218.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. Y., Keller, P., & Sternthal, B. (2010). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 735–747.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J., Langdon, R., Coltheart, M., & Mackenzie, C. (2009). A reanalysis of the personal/impersonal distinction in moral psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 577–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikhail, J. (2007). Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trend in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 143–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moll, J. R., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2005). The neural basis of human moral cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 799–809.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. (2003). Caring. A feminist approach to ethics and moral education. California: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D., Snarey, J., & Ousley, O. (2007). The neural processing of moral sensitivity to issues of justice and care. Neuropsychologia, 45, 755–766.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., & Frirth, C. D. (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439, 466–469.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Verde, P., Piccardi, L., Bianchini, F., Trivelloni, P., Guariglia, C., & Tomao, E. (2013). Gender effects on mental rotation in pilots vs nonpilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 84, 726–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L. J., de Vries, B., & Trevethan, S. D. (1987). Moral stages and moral orientations in real-life and hypotethical dilemmas. Child Development, 58, 842–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wark, G. R., & Krebs, D. L. (1966). Gender and dilemma differences in real-life moral judgment. Developmental Psychology, 32, 220–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U., Blais, A. R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). Group embedded figures test manual. Palo Alto: Counsulting Psychologist Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yacker, N., & Weinberg, S. L. (1990). Care and justice moral orientations: A scale for assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    P. Cordellieri, M. Boccia, L. Piccardi, D. Kormakova, L. V. Stoica, F. Ferlazzo, C. Guariglia & A. M. Giannini

  2. Neuropsychology Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy

    M. Boccia, L. Piccardi & C. Guariglia

Authors
  1. P. Cordellieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Boccia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Piccardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Kormakova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. V. Stoica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. F. Ferlazzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. Guariglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. M. Giannini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Cordellieri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Human and animal Rights Statement

Studies involving animal subjects. Generated statement: No animal studies are presented in this manuscript. Studies involving human subjects. Generated statement: The study was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the Department of Psychology, “La Sapienza” University of Rome. Inclusion of identifiable human data. Generated statement: No potentially identifiable human images or data is presented in this study.

Consent to participate

Participants were informed of the aims and purpose of the study, as well as their participation rights (e.g. confidentiality of responses, allowance to leave the study at any point without any consequences), in advance of data collection. Thus, written informed consent was obtained by all the participants. None of the participants had serious accidents with traumatic consequences.

Consent for Publication

All authors who have contributed to the submitted manuscript confirm that they have read and agreed to the conditions of this submission statement, including that:

  • They agree to publication of this manuscript;

  • the submission is original and has not been published previously;

  • all permissions have been obtained;

  • the manuscript includes all the relevant statements and acknowledgements.

Code Availability

The authors declare that for the analysis they used IBM SPSS Statistics software, licensed by the Department of Psychology of the Sapienza University of Rome.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cordellieri, P., Boccia, M., Piccardi, L. et al. Gender Differences in Solving Moral Dilemmas: Emotional Engagement, Care and Utilitarian Orientation. Psychol Stud 65, 360–369 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-020-00573-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-020-00573-9

Keywords

  • Gender moral difference
  • Moral judgment
  • Moral dilemmas
  • Moral justice