The study of college students’ moral judgment on care v. justice dilemmas and its correlates

• Main Authors: Huang, Chung En, 黃崇恩
• Other Authors: Chen, Huan Wen
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2015
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/78417642312982224464

碩士 === 國立臺南大學 === 教育學系測驗統計碩博士班 === 103 === The purpose of this study is to research the psychometric characteristics of the care v. justice scale, and assess the moral reasoning of students on dilemmas between care for one’s own ingroup member and justice of fairness on resource distibution. The results show that in general the students obtained an above-average score on the scale indicating the general tendancy to make more care-oriented judgment. Two factors are extracted from the data matrix including the positive favoring of resource distribution and partiality toward negative harming acts. The interaction between different situations with different lengths of intimacy distance (or distinctive love) is statistically significant. The descending rank orderings of the mean scores obtained for each category of distinctive love are parents, siblings, close friends, and normal friends. Compared to other situations of resource distribution, the differences in care scores between parents and siblings are larger when the resource is concerned with medical care. When educational resource or opportunity is at stake, no difference in scores between parents and siblings, but close friends’ care scores are found to be significantly lower than those of siblings’. With the exception of organ transplantation which has extremely high stakes, the care score obtained by close friends is significantly higher that that obtained by normal friends across other situations. In addition, care scores on “positive favoring of resource distribution” tend to be higher than those on “partiality towards acts of negative harming”. Significant background variables for the explanation of the variance of the care scores are listed in the following. These important variables include (1)gender, (2) regular reading of political, international and business news, (3) experience of taking sociology, (4) the freedom and liberty in campus, (5) working experience.