CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 102

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gender Differences in Moral Sensitivity: A Meta-Analysis

You, Di, Maeda, Yukiko, Bebeau, Muriel J.·2011·Ethics & Behavior
DOI 10.1080/10508422.2011.585591
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This meta-analysis synthesizes quantitative findings of the gender differences in moral sensitivity retrieved from 19 primary studies. We found the average effect size of 0.25, favoring women, with a standard deviation of 0.14. The variation in the observed effect sizes could not be attributed to differences in participants' educational level, the utilized measure of moral sensitivity, or the publication format in which the study was reported. This suggests that gender differences in moral sensitivity are consistent across different levels of participants' education regardless of the instrument used to assess moral sensitivity or the format in which the research was reported.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10508422.2011.585591

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Aadland E., 1993, Sosiaali- ja terveydenhoitoalan etiikka [Social- and Health Care Ethics]
  2. 10.1080/0305724022000008115 · DOI
  3. 10.1080/0305724870160304 · DOI
  4. Blasi A., 1994, Fundamental research in moral development, 168
  5. Brabeck M. M., 1989, Who cares? Theory, research and educational implications of the ethic of care
  6. 10.1080/0305724022000029662 · DOI
  7. Cohen J., 1977, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.)
  8. *Fedeles M., 2004, Dissertation Abstracts International, 65
  9. *Flower J. T., 1992, Dissertation Abstracts International, 53
  10. Gilligan C., 1982, In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development
  11. *Harding S. S., 1993, Dissertation Abstracts International, 54
  12. Hedges L. V., 1985, Statistical model of meta-analysis
  13. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · DOI · Paper page
  14. *Hunter R. A., 1997, Dissertation Abstracts International, 58
  15. 10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.703 · DOI
  16. *Keenan M. J., 2000, Dissertation Abstracts International, 61
  17. Kohlberg L., 1969, Handbook of socialization theory and research, 347
  18. *Lindsey R. T., 1986, Differences in moral sensitivity based on varying levels of counseling training and experience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
  19. Lipsey M. W., 2009, The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 147
  20. Longenecker J. G., 1989, Journal of Small Business Management, 27, 27
  21. *Lutzen K., 1997, Nursing Ethics, 4, 472, 10.1177/096973309700400604 · DOI
  22. 10.1177/096973300000700607 · DOI
  23. *Maher M. J., 2004, Dissertation Abstracts International, 66
  24. *McNeel S. P., 1999, Understanding difficult situations: The College Moral Sensitivity Test (CMoST)
  25. 10.1080/03057240120111427 · DOI
  26. *Owhoso V., 2002, Journal of Managerial Issues, 14, 360
  27. 10.1300/J066v19n01_05 · DOI
  28. 10.1023/A:1006350614527 · DOI
  29. Rest J. R., 1979, Defining Issues Test
  30. Rest J. R., 1982, Carmichael's manual of child psychology, fourth edition, Volume on cognitive development, 556
  31. 10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.400 · DOI
  32. *Savickas P. R., 1987, Measure of moral sensitivity: Construction of an objective measure of moral development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
  33. *Shaub M. K., 1989, An empirical examination of the determinants of auditor's ethical sensitivity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
  34. 10.1016/0273-2297(86)90010-9 · DOI
  35. Thoma S. J., 1994, Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics, 199
  36. 10.1080/13803610701786053 · DOI
  37. Ural T., 2001, Journal of Faculty of Business, 2, 75
  38. Waithe M. E., 1989, Who cares? Theory, research and educational implications of the ethic of care, 3
  39. 10.2307/1130121 · DOI
  40. Walker L. J., 2006, Handbook of moral psychology, 93
  41. Wilson D. B., 2009, The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 159
  42. *You D., 2007, Dissertation Abstracts International, 68
  43. You, D. and Bebeau, M. J. Moral sensitivity: A review. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the Association of Moral Education. Cambridge, MA. November.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
You, D., Maeda, Y., & Bebeau, M. J.
Venue
Ethics & Behavior
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-07
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
263-282
ISSN
  • 1050-8422
  • 1532-7019
DOI
10.1080/10508422.2011.585591
Cited by
102
References
2
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review