Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2740 2746

WCES 2014

University Students' Moral Judgment and Emotional Intelligence

Level: A model Testing
Eren Can Aybeka*, Duygu avdara, Tansu Mutlu Nilfer zabaca
a
Eskiehir Osmangazi University, Education Faculty, Eskiehir and 26480, Turkey

Abstract

In a society, people interconnect with values of their society. The social values have influence on moral judgment of individuals
as well. The moral judgments of individuals represent their characteristics of the social system. Moral judgment levels of
university students take shape by their quantity and quality of interactions with peers, family and instructors who live in social
system. However, to being shaped of university students moral judgment level according to quantity and quality of interactions,
high level of university students emotional intelligence including self-awareness, understanding the people and showing
empathy towards is required. Reviewing the literature, this research is required because there is no research study related to
model testing including moral judgment and emotional intelligence. In current study, the moral judgment of university students
and their emotional intelligence levels were examined and it conducted by correlational research model. The study group consists
of 243 university students who are student at various faculties and colleges at Eskisehir Osmangazi University. Defining Issues
Test-DIT (Rest, 1979) was used to determine scores of university students moral judgment and Emotional Intelligence Scale
(Ergin, men and zabac, 1999) was used to determine emotional intelligence levels of university students and personal
information form prepared by researchers was used to obtain personal and demographic information about participants. The data
is analyzed with Path Model. Then, the findings were discussed evaluated in the light of literature.
2015
2014TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014
Keywords: Moral Judgment, Emotional Intelligence, Path Analysis

1. Introduction

Individuals and society affect each other in many ways. Society-specific values shape individuals life style and
their way of communication. Individuals interconnect with values of their society. In the same time, individuals
constitute small subcultural groups based on feedback obtained as a result of their behavior and communication

* Eren Can Aybek. Tel.:.3-234-34-43.

E-mail address: ecaybek@gmail.com

1877-0428 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.666
 Eren Can Aybek et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2740 2746 2741

way. Increasing of this interaction between individuals and society is required for the development of societies and
individuals. For the sustainability development of societies and individuals, morality is considered on a preferential
basis in literature (Changeux, 2002; ifti, 2001). Morality is related to differentiation between good (may be
right) or bad (may be wrong). It usually includes a range of rules that individuals what they should do or should
not in their society (Hinde, 2002; Kohlberg, 1976; Kulakszolu, 1995). Morality is a kind of specific cognitive
concept that involves conscious judgment and making decision on issues related to rightfulness injustice, right-
wrong, good- bad and behave in parallel with these decision and judgment (Kohlberg, 1976). Morality involves
society-specific values that shape individual how they should behave by taking into consideration of moral values
which are evaluated good value (wright thing) (Hinde, 2002). Another determinant factor on human behavior is
human needs. According to ifti (2003); while individuals take notice of moral values and social rules, individuals
feel the need to satisfy their needs such as loving, being loved, and belonging to groups, being successful. To satisfy
these needs, individuals interact with each other. Individuals sometimes have difficulties in satisfying their needs
because their needs are out of harmony with moral values and society values. In the event of conflict situation,
individual differences and individuals moral come to the fore. ifti (2001) emphasized individuals freewill,
consciousness and she added that individuals make decision which rule they will obey according to their moral
judgment. Moral judgment is considered as one of four component of moral development and sign of morality by
Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau and Thoma (1999). Kohlberg (1964) defined that moral judgment is capacity and this
capacity serve to make decisions and judgments which are moral and to act in accordance with such judgments. This
capacity is related to behaviors seen as morally relevant by some people and not others (Haidt, Koller, & Dias,
1993). Keskin (2013) defined moral judgment as degree of moral principles that ones acceptance or moral
anxieties. Moral judgment involves two different but complimentary dimensions as emotional dimension and
cognitive dimension (Keskin, 2013). While emotional dimension is related to values on which is focused when
judgment of moral issues (Lind, 2008); cognitive dimension is pertinent to focusing on moral dimension of decision,
confrontation with cognitive moral conflict and focusing on justice (ifti, 2001). Some researchers, for instance
Fernandez-Berrocal and Extremera (2005) and Rietti (2009), emphasized emotion dimension of moral judgment
more than cognitive dimension. According to Fernandez-Berrocal and Extremera (2005), emotions affect often
individuals moral decisions. Moreover, Piechowski (1979) highlight relationship between emotional development
and moral development. According to Piechowski (1979), moral development is closely related to emotional
sensitivity, compassion, and also moral beliefs. This emphasis associated with morality and emotions bring to mind
definition and content of emotional intelligence. Moreover, Goleman (1996) asserted that emotional intelligence has
a moral dimension. Goleman (1998) clarify concept of emotional intelligence, he underline emotions role on human
behavior and their close relationships. According to Goleman (2000), emotional intelligence is the ability to identify,
assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups. Salovey and Pizarro (2003) defined emotional
intelligence as a kind of ability. In the light of this definition, it can be stated that they can be aware of their emotion,
express these emotions accurately, understand their emotional meaning, regulate emotion in oneself and use
emotions to facilitate own thoughts through emotional reactions if someone has this ability. Emotional intelligence
includes ones self-awareness, self-regulation, social consciousness and relationship management. Emotional
intelligence is determinant factor that helpful to know ones emotions, drives, goals, recognize the role of these on
their decision, control ones disruptive emotions, manage close relationship, consider other peoples feelings and
motivate ones to achieve their goals (Goleman, 1998). In other words, emotional intelligence play role on ones
process of being individual and coping skills related to problems in society and their relationship (Gngr, 2003).
Literature asserted that emotional intelligence and moral judgment of individuals is related to each other. However,
research studies are carried out to examine relationships between moral development and emotional intelligence
although they are limited. Avramova and Inbar (2013) outlined the role of emotion in moral judgment. Generally,
research studies focus on understanding which factors fundamental contributors to ones moral judgment
development (Derrberry, Wilson, Snyder, Norman, & Barger, 2005). For example, formal education is found as
contributors to ones moral judgment by Rest, Deemer, Barnett, Spickelmier, and Volker (1986) and Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991). Also, personality traits, especially openness to experience, are found as relative factor with moral
judgment (Dollinger, & LaMartina, 1998). Athota, Connor and Jackson (2009) found that emotional intelligence
was found to be a significant predictor of moral reasoning. This research is required because there is no research
study related to model testing including moral judgment and emotional intelligence of university students.
2742 Eren Can Aybek et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2740 2746

2. Method

2.1 Research Group

The study group consists of 183 (131 female, 52 male) university students who are studying at several faculties
and colleges at Eskisehir Osmangazi University.

2.2 Instruments

Defining Issues Test-DIT (Rest, 1979) is used to evaluate the moral reasoning of students. Different kind of
scores could be calculated according to DIT data. We used P score, which includes level 5A, 5B and 6 scores to
determine the students moral reasoning level and M score for determining the students who give irrelevant
responses to the test. Emotional Intelligence Scale EQ-NED (zabac, men ve Ergin, 1999) is used to assess the
emotional intelligence level of students. This scale has three factors which called 1. Understanding Self Feelings, 2.
Understanding Others Feelings and 3. Manupilation of the Feelings. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient is found.81
for whole scale. Personal information form is used for collecting demographic data from students.

2.3 Data Collection

DIT, EQ-NED and personal information form is administered concurrently. Administration duration is
approximately 60 minutes. The data has been collected from 246 students. Then 57 students removed from dataset
according to their poor M scores.

2.4 Data Analysis

To find out the tendency and distribution of variables, descriptive statistics are applied. Because of the normal
distribution of the P scores, independent samples t test is applied for comparisons of P scores by gender. P scores by
parents educational levels are not distributed as a normal distribution, a non-parametric, Kruskal Wallis H, test is
used for comparison of P scores whom come from parents with different educational level.
The model that is depicted in Figure 1 has been tested with path analysis.
2
EQ1

1 3
P Scores EQ2

4
EQ3

1.PSCORE: P scores of participants. 2. EQ1: Understanding Self Feelings scores of participants. 3. EQ2: Understanding Others
Feelings scores of participants. 4. EQ3: Manupilation of the Feelings scores of participants.
Figure 1. Test Model
3. Results

The participants P and M scores are computed first. The M score stands for controlling score and it shouldnt be
greater than 5.00 . Fifty-three participants have M scores greater than 5.00, so they removed from data sets and data
analyzed according to 186 participants.
 Eren Can Aybek et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2740 2746 2743

3.1 Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics for the study variables for the sample are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the study variables

N S
Understanding Self Feelings 186 24.95 12.82 .94
Understanding Others Feelings 186 104.96 9.04 .66
Manupilation of the Feelings 186 97.12 8.57 .63
P Score 186 94.81 9.24 .68

P scores studied by demographics. For this purpose, independent samples t test and Kruskal Wallis H tests have
been applied. Comparing results of P scores by gender is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Independent Samples t Test Results of P Scores by Gender

Gender N Mean Std. Dev. df t P
Male 52 25.82 14.24 181 .557 .578
Female 131 24.63 12.37

Table 2 shows that P scores dont differ by gender (t =.557, p >.05). P scores are analyzed according to mothers
and fathers education level, and Kruskal Wallis test is utilized for this purpose. The reason of choosing the Kruskal
Wallis test is non-normal distribution of data. The Mann Whitney U test is used for comparisons of each two sub-
groups. The results of this comparison are given in
Table 3 below.

Table 3. Kruskal Wallis Test Results of P Scores by Parents Educational Level

Educational Level N Mean Ranks df 2
Mother
Under elementary 17 132.74
Elementary 104 91.78 3 10.659*
High School 36 83.19
University 29 89.45
Father
Under elementary 6 124.67
Elementary 82 99.48 3 9.054*
High School 50 97.75
University 48 74.97
*p<.05
Table 3 shows that participants P scores significantly differ from the mothers
(2 = 10.659, p <.05) and fathers (2 = 9.054, p <.05) educational level. To find out the differences between groups,
Mann-Whitney U test is applied. Bonferonni adjustment is applied and p level selected as .05 / 4 = .012. According
to Mann-Whitney U test; participants, who holds a mothers educational level is under elementary school, P score
ranks are significantly higher than other participants (p <.05). Despite that, there is no significant difference found
between elementary high school and university levels. Similarly, participants, who has fathers educational level
is elementary school and high school, P score ranks are significantly higher than participants who has fathers
educational level is university (p < .05).

3.2 SEM Analysis

Hoyle (1995) and Hu and Bentler (1999) recommend that the goodness-of-fit of these models was assessed using
chi-squared and several other indices of fit such as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the
normed fit index (NFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness of fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness of fit
index (GFI) and the non-normed fit index (NNFI). Normed Fit Index (NFI) is =.05 , Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI)
is = -.94, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is =.03, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) is =.68 and Adjusted Goodness of Fit
2744 Eren Can Aybek et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2740 2746

Index (AGFI) ) is =-.08. Among the fit indexes, the fact that values of GFI, AGFI, NNFI, NFI and CFI are bigger
than .90 shows that the model fits. In addition to this fit indexes, modification indices and standardized residuals did
not suggest any path additions. The fit indices showed that the hypothesized model had not an acceptable fit to the
data as it can be seen in Table 4 below.

Table 4. The Goodness of Fit Statistics

Statistics Value
Chi-Square 173.65
Df 3
RMSEA 0.56
SRMR 0.31
AGFI -0.08
CFI 0.03
NFI .05
NNFI -.94

4. Discussion

In the present study, we investigated a significant difference between the level of moral judgment. Our findings
suggest that a significant difference between the level of moral judgment and gender was not found.. This finding
was consistent with the previous research results both in Turkey and abroad (Al-Ansari, 2002; Aydn, 2011; ileli
1981; Koyuncu 1983; Kurt, 1996; Seydooullar, 2008). In contrast to the studies finding, no significant between the
level of moral judgment and gender, some studies found significant differences between these variables (iftci,
2001; Kaya, 1993; White and Richard, 1999). These different results could stem from measure of the quality of
Defining Issues Test (DIT) and same scales. The Defining Issues Test was developed based on Kohlberg's theory.
This theory is criticized by some other researchers, because Kohlberg often conducted his study sample of males and
ignored females moral development. Therefore, a significant difference between gender and moral judgment may
not find like this study that used The Defining Issues Test and same scales. Gilligan, who brings important
contributions to the theory of moral development, criticized Kohlbergs theory. She indicates that on moral issues
females are in tendency to consider the care and protection of others compared to males in her theory. In the
literature, theoretical approaches in the context of the traditional Kohlberg, conducted among females and male very
small number of studies showed that moral judgment pointed to the difference in gender (am, avdar,
Seydooullar and ok, 2012). The results of this study indicated that a significant difference was found between
moral judgment and level of parent education. According to this result, students who their mothers have under
elementary education, the level of moral judgment of these students is higher than others. Also, students, whom their
fathers have elementary and high school educations have higher level of moral judgment of these students than
others who have fathers graduate from university, When the literature is examined, level of moral judgment is
differentiated according to the level of education of the mother and father in many studies (Seydooullar, 2008;
Walker 1986). However, these studies indicate that students who their parents have higher education, the level of
moral judgment of these students is higher than others who have level of low education. In many other studies, the
level of moral judgment there is no significant relation between the levels of higher education (engn, 2003; White
and Richard, 1999). These different conclusions may be reached due to the moral judgment is affected by many
variables regarding parents like education statute. Therefore, different variables related to mothers and fathers
should also be considered in other studies. Foremost among these, level of mother and father's moral judgment is the
most significant variable. Because, mothers and fathers, who have a high level of moral judgment, take
responsibility for their children and show better parenting to them (Richardson, Faster and McAdams, 1998).
Besides, adherence, compliance and communication which in family process have been predicted the adolescents
external morality significantly in another study (White and Matawie, 2004). As for that White (2000) indicated a
strong bond between family of socialization processes and the content of adolescent moral considerations. Likewise,
the adolescents levels of moral judgment are differentiated with the attitudes of their parents in other research
findings (Minner, 2000). According to the literature, environment, family, school, peers, religion, mass media,
economy, culture and many other factors are also effective for moral judgment. So, social and cultural foundations
 Eren Can Aybek et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2740 2746 2745

are very important for moral development. For these reasons, many other variables should be used regarding parents
in other studies for understanding the impact of level of parents education on moral judgment. The finding of this
study is a model of moral judgment and emotional intelligence has not been achieved. Different models can make
with other variables. In other studies, a significant relationship could not found between moral judgment and
emotional empathy which related to emotional intelligence (Akkoyun 1987). Aydn (2011) and Self,
Gopalakrishnan, Kiser and Olivarez (1996) did not find a relationship between moral judgment and subscales of
empathy consistently. These results stem from limitedness of scales, sample size and requires of the scale of the self-
reporting for individuals. Further studies, therefore, should include more moral judgment and emotional intelligence
variables, different scales and samples.

References

Akkoyun, F. (1987). Empatik Eilim ve Ahlaki Yarg. Psikoloji Dergisi, 6, ( 21). 91-98.
Al-Ansari & Eissa, M. (2002). Effects of Gender Education on the Moral Reasoning of Kuwait University Students. Social Behavior and
Personality: An Internationel Journal, 30 (1), 75-82.
Athota, V. S., OConnor, P. J., & Jackson, C. (2009). The Role of Emotional Intelligence and Personality in Moral Reasoning. In R. E. Hicks
(ed.),Personality and individual differences: Current directions. Bowen Hills, QLD, Australian Academic Press.
Avramova, Y., R. & Inbar,Y. (2013). Emotion and Moral Judgment. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4 (3), 169-178.
Aydn, Z. (2011). niversite rencilerinin Empati Becerileri, Kiilik zellikleri ve Anneden Algiladiklari ocuk Yetitirme Stilleri le Ahlaki
Muhakeme Dzeyleri Arasindaki likilerin ncelenmesi. Masters thesis, Istanbul University, Institution of Social Sciences, stanbul.
am, Z., avdar, D., Seydooullar, S. & ok, F. (2012). Classical and Contemporary Approaches for Moral Development. Kuram ve
Uygulamada Eitim Bilimleri 12 (2), 1211-1225.
Changeux,J. P. (2002). Etiin Doal Temelleri (vr. N. Acar). Istanbul: Dotuk Yay
ifti (2003). Kohlbergin Bilisel Ahlak Geliimi Teorisi: Ahlak ve Demokrasi Eitimi [Kohlberg's Cognitive Moral Development Theory:
Ethics and Democracy Education]. Deerler Eitimi Dergisi,1(1), 43-73.
ifti N. (2001). Ahlaki Yarg Testi Mutun Teorisi ve Trke Versiyonunun Geerlii [The Moral Judgement Test: Theory and Validation of the
Turkish Version (MUT-TR)]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eitim Bilimleri, 1(2), s.295-321.
ileli, M. (1981). 14-18 yalar Arasndaki rencilerde Ahlaki Yargnn Zihinsel Geliim Psikolojisi Yaklam ile Deerlendirilmesi. Masters
thesis, Ankara University, Institution of Social Sciences, Ankara.
Derryberry, W. P., Wilson, T., Snyder, H., Norman, A., & Barger, B. (2005). Moral Judgment Developmental Differences Between Gifted
Youth and College Students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 6-19.
Dollinger, S. J., & LaMartina, A. K. (1998). A Note on Moral Reasoning and The five-Factor Model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
13, 349358.
Ergin, D.Y., man, E. & zabac, N. (1999). EQ of gifted youths: A comparative study. 13. Biennial World Conference, World Council For
Gifted and Talented Children, stanbul.
Fernandez-Berrocal, P. & Extremera, N. (2005). About Emotional Intelligence and Moral Decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 548-
549.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. London: Bloomsbury.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books
Gngr, A. (2003). Geliim ve renme. 2. Bask, Ankara: An Yaynclk.
Haidt, J., Koller, S. & Dias, M. (1993). Affect, Culture, and Morality,or is t Wrong to Eat Your Dog? Journal of Personality and Socioal
Psychology, 65, 613628.
Hnde, R. A. (2002). Why Good s Good: The Source Of Morality. Routledge, USA.
Kaya, M. (1993) Baz Kiisel Deikenlere Gre niversite rencilerinin Ahlaki Yarglar. Doctorate thesis, Samsun Ondokuz Mays
University, Institution of Social Sciences
Keskin, Y. (2013). Ortaretim rencilerinin Ahlki Yarg Yeterlilikleri:Trkiye-Samsun ve ngiltere-Lancashire Karlatrlmas [Secondary
School Students Moral Judgment Competence: A Comparson Between Turkey-Samsun and Lancashre-England. Ondokuz Mays
niversitesi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi, 32(1), 217-249
Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of Moral Character and Moral Ideology. In: M. L. Hoffman & L.W. Hoffman, Eds., Review of Child
Development Research, Vol. I,, pp. 381-431 New York Russel Sage Foundation.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral Stages And Moralization. The CognitiveDevelopmental Appoach In Moral Development and Behavior,
Theory.Research And Social Issues (Ed: T. Lickona), Newyork: Holt Rinehart And Winston. 33-47.
Koyuncu N. (1983). Cinsiyet Rol Kimlii ile Ahlak Geliimi Evrelerinin Karlatrlmas. Doktora Tezi, Ankara niversitesi,
Kulaksizolu A. (1995). retmenlik Mesleinin Ahlk lkeleri Konusunda Bir Deneme [Secondary School Studedents Moral Judgment
Competence: A Comparison between Samsun-Turkey and Lancashire-England], Marmara niversitesi A.E.F. Eitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7,
185-188.
Kurt, Y. (1996). Rehber retmenler ve retmenlerin Ahlak Geliim Dzeyleri ve Denetim Oda Alglamalar. Masters thesis, Ankara
University, Institution of Social Sciences, Ankara.
2746 Eren Can Aybek et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 (2015) 2740 2746

Lind G., (2008). The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Judgment Competence A Dual-Aspect Model, Fasko, Daniel, Jr. & Willis, Wayne,
(Eds.), Contemporary Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives on Moral Development and Education, 185- 220, Creskill: Hampton
Press.
Miners, R. (2001) Parenting style, moral development and friendship: (How) do we choose friends?,Yksek Lisans Tezi, Concordia University.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Piechowski, M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. Colangelo & R.T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp.25-57).
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Rest, J. (1979). Revised Manual For The Difining Issues Test. Minneapolis: Mimeosta Moral Resarch Projests.
Rest, J., Deemer, D., Barnett, R., Spickelmier, J., & Volker, J. (1986). Life experiences and developmental path- ways. In J. Rest (Ed.), Moral
development: Advances in research and theory (pp. 2858). New York: Praeger.
Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo- Kohlbergian approach. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Richardson, B., Foster, V. & Mcadams, C. R. (1998). Parenting Attitudes and Moral Development of Treatment Foster Parents: Implications for
Training and Supervision. Child and Youth Care Forum, 27 (6), 409-431.
Rietti, S. (2009) Emotional Intelligence and Moral Agency: Some worries and a Suggestion. Philosophical Psychology, 22 (2), 143-165.
Salovey, P., & Pizarro, D.A., (2003). The Value of Emotional Intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, & T. Lubart (Eds.), Models of
Intelligence: International Perspectives (pp.263-278). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Self, D. J., Gopalakrishnan, G., Kiser, W. R. & Olivarez, M.(1996). The Relationship of Empathy to Moral Reasoning in First-Year Medical
Students. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 4, 448-453.
engn, M. (2003). Ahlaki Dnce ve Yarglar Etkileyen Baz Faktrlerin Incelenemesi. Masters thesis, Samsun Ondokuz Mays University,
Institution of Social Sciences, Samsun.
Seydooullar, S. (2008). Demokratik ve Otoriter Ana Baba Tutumlarnn Lisede renim Gren rencilerin Ahlaki Yarg Yeteneine Etkisi.
Masters thesis, Sakarya University, Institution of Social Sciences, Sakarya.
Sosyal Bilimler Enstits, Ankara.
Walker, L. J. (1986). Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Rejoinder to Baumrind.. Child Development, 57, 522-526.
White, F. A. (2000). Relationship of Family Socialization Processes to Adolescent Moral Thought, The Journal of Social Psychology, 140 (1),
75-91.
White, F. A., & Matawie, K. M.(2004). Parental Morality and Family Processes as Predictors of Adolescent Morality. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 13(2), 219-233.
White, J. & Richard, D. (1999). Are Woman More Ethical? Recent Findings on the Effects of Gender Upon Moral Development. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 9 (3), 459-472.