The significance of gender in predicting the cognitive moral development of business practitioners using the sociomoral reflection objective measure
Journal of Business Ethics 78 (4):503 - 526 (2008)
|Abstract||This study constitutes a contribution to the discussion about moral reasoning in business. Kohlberg’s (1971, in Cognitive Development and Epistemology (Academic Press, New York), 1976, in Moral Development and Behavior: Theory and Research and Social Issues (Holt, Rienhart and Winston, New York)) cognitive moral development (CMD) theory is one explanation of moral reasoning. One unresolved debate on the topic of CMD is the charge that Kohlbergian-type CMD theory is gender biased. This research puts forth the proposal that the issue may be elucidated by exposing an ambiguity in “gender” (Borna and White: 2003, Journal of Business Ethics 47, 89–99; Gentile: 1993, Psychological Science 4(2), 120–122; Unger: 1979, American Psychologist 34(11), 1085–1094). We use the Sociomoral Reflective Objective Measure (SROM) to measure CMD and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to measure gender as a psychosocial concept, rather than as a biological classification. The results of our study indicate that high femininity, measured as a psychosocial attribute, is associated with significantly lower Kohlbergian-type CMD scores among business practitioners. Sex moderates the effect of gender on CMD, but only indirectly. Our research also reveals that education plays a significant moderating role in the relationship between gender and moral reasoning. In addition, age has a significant direct effect on CMD scores of business practitioners.|
|Keywords||Bem Sex Role Inventory business ethics education business practitioners cognitive moral development gender Gibbs Kohlberg sex Sociomoral Reflection Objective Measure|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Muriel J. Bebeau & Mary M. Brabeck (1987). Integrating Care and Justice Issues in Professional Moral Education: A Gender Perspective. Journal of Moral Education 16 (3):189-203.
Chenting Su, M. Joseph Sirgy & James E. Littlefield (2003). Is Guanxi Orientation Bad, Ethically Speaking? A Study of Chinese Enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics 44 (4):303 - 312.
George Izzo (2000). Compulsory Ethics Education and the Cognitive Moral Development of Salespeople: A Quasi-Experimental Assessment. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 28 (3):223 - 241.
Beverly Kracher, Abha Chatterjee & Arlene R. Lundquist (2002). Factors Related to the Cognitive Moral Development of Business Students and Business Professionals in India and the United States: Nationality, Education, Sex and Gender. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 35 (4):255 - 268.
Jerry Paul Sheppard & Marnie Young (2007). The Routes of Moral Development and the Impact of Exposure to the Milgram Obedience Study. Journal of Business Ethics 75 (4):315 - 333.
R. Eric Reidenbach (1996). The Empirical Performance of Cognitive Moral Development in Predicting Behavioral Intent. Business Ethics Quarterly 6 (4):493-516.
Chiharu Ishida (2006). How Do Scores of DIT and MJT Differ? A Critical Assessment of the Use of Alternative Moral Development Scales in Studies of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 67 (1):63 - 74.
John Fraedrich, Debbie M. Thorne & O. C. Ferrell (1994). Assessing the Application of Cognitive Moral Development Theory to Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 13 (10):829 - 838.
Linda Klebe Trevino (1992). Moral Reasoning and Business Ethics: Implications for Research, Education, and Management. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 11 (5-6):445 - 459.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #213,130 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,745 )
How can I increase my downloads?