Personality, Gender, and the Ways People Perceive Moral Dilemmas in Everyday Life
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relations among personality, gender, and the ways people perceive moral dilemmas in their everyday lives. Participants were 117 young women and men who responded to Gibbs, Basinger, and Fuller’s (1992) Sociomoral Reflection Measure and to antisocial, prosocial, and social pressure types of real-life moral dilemma. Participants completed measures assessing shame and guilt (Harder, 1987; Tangney, 1990) and identity (Bennion & Adams, 1986). The female participants reported feeling more guilt about the prosocial dilemma and viewed the social pressure dilemma as more care-oriented than males did. Scores on the shame and guilt measures were not related to guilt associated with the real-life dilemmas. Identity-achieved scores were negatively related to feeling guilty about social pressure dilemmas involving parents. Discussion focuses on the relevance of personality, gender, and family influences for a model of real-life moral reasoning, with implications for development and education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it