PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Moral Development”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMed1988

Carol Gilligan's theory of sex differences in the development of moral reasoning during adolescence.

Gilligan's work, which focuses on sex differences in moral reasoning, the perception of violence, the resolution of sexual dilemmas and abortion decisions, poses a major challenge to Kohlberg's theory by introducing a feminist perspective of moral development. Kohlberg had shown that the average female attained a moral judgment rating of stage three (good boy-nice girl), while adolescent males score at level four (law and order) and are more likely to move on to postconventional levels. Gilligan suggests that these findings reveal a gender bias, not that females are less mature than boys. Men and women follow different voices. Men tend to organize social relationships in a hierarchical order and subscribe to a morality of rights. Females value interpersonal connectedness, care, sensitivity, and responsibility to people. Kohlberg's scoring criteria give the interpersonal care orientations of females lower ratings than the principled justice orientation. Hence, Gilligan identifies different developmental stages for females. However, she does not claim that one system is better; both are equally valid. Only by integrating these complementary male (justice) and female (care) orientations will we be able to realize our full human potential in moral development.

Abortion, Induced↗
PubMed1999

Generativity and moral development as predictors of value-socialization narratives for young persons across the adult life span: from lessons learned to stories shared.

Little research so far has examined storytelling as a channel of value socialization. In the present study, 129 adults from 3 age groups (18-26, 28-50, 60-75) were asked to tell stories for adolescents about 2 of their past value-learning experiences. Generative concern (D. P. McAdams & E. de St. Aubin, 1992) and moral reasoning stage level were also assessed. Stronger generative concern was predictive of a greater sense of having learned important lessons from these past events, of stronger adult value socialization investment, and of more engaging narratives for adolescents as judged by a panel of uninstructed raters. Higher levels of moral reasoning were positively related to generative concern and to a stronger sense of past lessons learned. Generativity appears important to the project of value socialization across the adult life span.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Moral development.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Critical thinking, educational preparation, and development of moral judgment among selected groups of practicing nurses.

The focus of this descriptive study was the relationship between critical thinking, educational preparation, and level of moral judgment in 79 practicing nurses. The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Test was used to measure critical thinking; information on the participating nurses' educational preparation was obtained from a personal information sheet. Moral judgment was measured by Rest's Defining Issues Test. The hypothesis that critical thinking would be positively related to moral judgment was tested by Pearson product moment correlation; the obtained coefficient of .5326 was significant at the .001 level. The hypothesis that there would be a difference between professional and technical nurses' moral judgments was tested through a one-way analysis of variance. The F ratio (F [1,77] = 9.6) was significant beyond the .01 level. Data also supported the hypothesis that critical thinking and educational preparation would predict greater variance in moral judgment than either variable alone, which was tested through multiple regression analysis (F [2,75] = 18.3, p = .01). Critical thinking and education together accounted for 32.9 percent of the variance in moral judgment. Implications of the findings are discussed for nursing research, practice, and education.

Adult↗