Gender Differences in Making Moral Decisions: The Ethics of Care Perspective in Pakistan
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 research explored how an ethics of care is practised in a communitarian society in Karachi, Pakistan. To this end 24 participants were interviewed, 12 males and 12 females aged between 19 and 32 years. We used a culturally adapted version of The Ethics of Care Interview (ECI). This adapted measure focused on lived experiences of participants resulting in an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) of interview transcripts to explore ethics of care among study participants. The themes that emerged during IPA included the negotiation between norms related to religion and culture, familism, and gender differences. These analyses confirm the link between gender and the ethics of care indicating that women share higher concerns for care, often demonstrating empathy and sacrifice. The results also show that men expect women to care for others and behave in self-sacrificial ways. The intersectional nature of our study shows that culture and not gender may ultimately explain the ethical considerations of men and women. This means that both men and women justified their ethical choices of care because they believed they had a responsibility to do so. This shows that care ethics are more strongly dictated by societal norms of collectivism.
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 | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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