Unpackaging gender differences in justifying morally debatable behaviors around the world: The role of personal religiosity and society’s socialization priorities for its children

Abstract

Women generally report greater religiosity and justify morally debatable behaviors less than men. This study examined if personal religiosity mediates the relationship of gender and justification of different types of morally debatable behaviors across societies with diverse religious heritages. We also explored how a society’s endorsement of preferred qualities in the socialization of children would moderate the links between personal religiosity and justification of morally debatable types of behavior. Using the World Values Survey Wave 7 data (47 societies; 66,992 respondents), we identified three types of justifiable behaviors, namely, behaviors threatening human life and family values, dishonest-illegal, and interpersonally violent behaviors. Controlling for age and education, women scored higher in personal religiosity and justified dishonest-illegal and interpersonally violent behaviors less than men, but behaviors threatening human life and family values more than men. Personal religiosity only partially mediated the link between gender and the justification of behaviors threatening human life and family values, indicating that factors other than personal religiosity account for gender differences in justifying types of morally defensible behavior. The linkage strengths of personal religiosity to behaviors threatening human life and family values and dishonest-illegal behaviors were moderated by societal endorsement of preferred qualities in the socialization of children. Thus, both gender and the socialization of a society’s human capital impact on how different types of morally debatable behaviors are justified around the world. Possible explanations for these results are offered and future research directions suggested.

Keywords

Gender morally debatable behaviors religiosity societal endorsement of preferred qualities in the socialization of children

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Almakaeva

Welzel

Ponarin

. (2018). Human empowerment and trust in strangers: The multilevel evidence. Social Indicators Research, 139, 923–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1724-z

Atari

Lai

M. H.

Dehghani

. (2020). Sex differences in moral judgements across 67 countries. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 287(1937), Article 20201201. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1201

Beaumont

. (2007). Moral dilemmas and women’s rights: The attitude of the Mothers’ Union and Catholic Women’s League to divorce, birth control and abortion in England, 1928 - 1939. Women’s History Review, 16(4), 463–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/09612020701445677

Beit-Hallahmi

. (2004). Religion, religiosity, and gender. In Ember

C. R.

Ember

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of sex and gender: Men and women in the world’s cultures (pp. 117–127). Springer.

Berry

J. W

. (2017). Theories and models of acculturation. In Schwartz

S. J.

Unger

J. B.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of acculturation and health (pp. 15–28). Oxford University Press.

Best

D. L.

Puzio

A. R

. (2019). Gender and culture. In Matsumoto

Hwang

H. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 235–291). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190679743.003.0009

Bond

M. H.

Lun

M.-C

. (2014). Citizen-making: The role of national goals for socializing children. Social Science Research, 44, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.11.002

Bronfenbrenner

Ceci

S. J

. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.568

Cohen

A. B.

Hill

P. C

. (2007). Religion as culture: Religious individualism and collectivism among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants. Journal of Personality, 75, 709–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00454.x

10.

Dunn

E. C.

Masyn

K. E.

Johnston

W. R.

Subramanian

S. V

. (2015). Modeling contextual effects using individual-level data and without aggregation: An illustration of multilevel factor analysis (MLFA) with collective efficacy. Population Health Metrics, 13(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-015-0045-1

11.

Georgas

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Berry

J. W

. (2004). The ecocultural framework, ecosocial indices, and psychological variables in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103260459

12.

Graham

Haidt

Koleva

Motyl

Iyer

Wojcik

S. P.

Ditto

P. H

. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4

13.

Haerpfer

Inglehart

Moreno

Welzel

Kizilova

Diez-Medrano

Lagos

Norris

Ponarin

Puranen

, et al. (2020). World Values Survey: Round seven—country-pooled datafile. JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.1

14.

Harding

Phillips

. (1986). Contrasting values in Western Europe: Unity, diversity, and change. Macmillan.

15.

Hayes

A. F.

Rockwood

N. J

. (2020). Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(1), 19–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219859633

16.

Jing

Bond

M. H

. (2015). Sources for trusting most people: How national goals for socializing children promote the contributions made by trust of the in-group and the out-group to non-specific trust. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(2), 191–210.

17.

Lippa

R. A

. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 631–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9242-8

18.

McCrae

R. R

. (2009). The five-factor model of personality traits: Consensus and controversy. In Corr

P. J.

Matthews

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 148–161). Cambridge University Press.

19.

Miller

J. G.

Wice

Goyal

. (2019). Culture and moral development. In Matsumoto

Hwang

H. C.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (2nd ed., pp. 318–360). Oxford University Press.

20.

Saroglou

. (2010). Religiousness as a cultural adaptation of basic traits: A five-factor model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352322

21.

Saroglou

. (2019). Religion and related morality across cultures. In Matsumoto

Hwang

H. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of culture and psychology (2nd ed., pp. 732–793). Oxford University Press.

22.

Schmitt

D. P.

Long

A. E.

McPhearson

O’Brien

Remmert

Shah

S. H

. (2017). Personality and gender differences in global perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 52(S1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12265

23.

Smith

P. B.

Bond

M. H

. (2019). Cultures and persons: Characterizing national and other types of cultural difference can also aid our understanding and prediction of individual variability. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02689

24.

Vauclair

C. M.

Fischer

. (2011). Do cultural values predict individual’s moral attitudes? A cross-cultural multilevel approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 645–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.794

25.

Wilkinson

R. G.

Kawachi

Kennedy

B. P

. (1998). Mortality, the social environment, crime and violence. Sociology of Health & Illness, 20(5), 578–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00120

26.

Zhang

Zyphur

M. J.

Preacher

K. J

. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 695–719.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB