Abstract

Two studies examined gender diffrences in moral reasoning and judgements about competitive athletic encounters. In Study 1, subjects read an open-ended script regarding a competitive athletic encounter between friends which required a decision with achievement related or affiliation related outcomes. The made a decision and reasoned aloud about it in a structured interview. Contrary to Gilligans (1982) model, men and women were equally likely to use justice and care considerations in their reasoning, and there were no gender differences in their final decisions. In Study 2, subjects considered the same situation, though the protagonist had already decided between pursuing both achievement, pursuing both achievement and affiliation, or pursuing affiliation. Significant effects were found for athletes gender, as well as for interactions of athletes gender and decision conditions in subjects ratings for the correctness of the decision and the consequences it would have for the athletes relationships. Women regarded the decision as entailing moral considerations whereas men did not. Verf.-Referat