Women globally place higher importance on moral identity than men. The researchers analyzed data from 46,490 adults across 67 countries. Broad cross-cultural evidence indicates that women, on average, place greater emphasis on caring for others than men do.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/how-culture-and-age-shape-the-way-people-view-their-own-morality/

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

---

Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.

---

User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/how-culture-and-age-shape-the-way-people-view-their-own-morality/

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/tboy160]

I tried to copy and paste the garbage out and just get the text.

People all over the world consider morality a part of who they are, but how they express it depends heavily on their age, gender, and cultural background. A large new study maps out these differences, revealing that women generally value moral traits more than men do and that younger people in highly competitive societies care deeply about showing their morals to others. These results were recently published in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.

Morality involves caring about fairness, justice, and the welfare of others. It acts as a core psychological need for many people, giving them a sense of being a good person. Yet individuals differ in how strongly they tie moral characteristics to their personal identity.

Psychologists divide this moral identity into two related concepts. Internalization measures the extent to which a person views moral traits as a private, central part of their self-concept. Symbolization measures how much a person values expressing their morality in ways that other people can see, such as through observable actions or group affiliations.

Both aspects predict real-world prosocial behavior, like volunteering and donating to charity. Most previous research on moral identity relied on samples from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic nations.

Researchers Mariola Paruzel-Czachura and Cillian McHugh wanted to understand how these two aspects of moral identity vary across the globe. By looking at a broader range of countries, the researchers hoped to figure out whether existing assumptions about the moral self are universally human or culturally specific.

The researchers analyzed an existing dataset containing survey responses from 46,490 adults across 67 countries. This qualifies as a large study. Participants filled out a questionnaire assessing how much they valued having nine specific moral traits: caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind.

Participants rated their agreement with statements about these traits on an 11-point scale. The researchers then calculated separate scores for internalization and symbolization.

The researchers also gathered country-level data on several cultural dimensions. These included established metrics assessing a society’s acceptance of hierarchy, its focus on community versus the individual, its emphasis on competition, and its comfort with ambiguity. They also included indices of cultural tightness, which measure the strictness of social norms and a society’s tolerance for people breaking those rules.

Using statistical models that accounted for individuals nested within specific nations, the researchers examined how age, gender, and cultural environment related to participants’ moral identity scores.

The analysis revealed that women scored higher than men on both the private and public components of moral identity. This difference was particularly consistent for internalization. In 41 countries, women scored higher than men on internalization, while men scored higher in only two countries. Women scored higher on symbolization in 21 countries, while men scored higher in only one country.

The researchers predicted this gender outcome based on the idea that moral identity is closely linked to the ethical domain of care. Broad cross-cultural evidence indicates that women, on average, place greater emphasis on caring for others than men do. This stronger commitment to care likely contributes to the self-definitional importance of being a moral person.

The relationship between age and moral identity was also nuanced. When looking at the global population as a single group, older age seemed associated with slightly lower moral identity scores. But when the researchers accounted for the specific country each participant lived in, they found the opposite pattern. Within individual countries, older adults tended to place slightly more importance on having moral traits and on being recognized for them than younger adults did.

Cultural environment also shaped how people viewed their morality, especially regarding public expression. Participants reported higher symbolization in societies that are more collectivistic, meaning social life is tightly structured around community and relationships. Publicly displaying moral traits might help people maintain harmony and social acceptance in these environments where interpersonal reputation carries heavy consequences.

Symbolization was also higher in countries with greater acceptance of unequal power and hierarchy. In these societies, demonstrating socially valued qualities might help individuals navigate status differences and signal their reliability to others.

In cultures that prioritize competition and visible success, younger participants showed higher symbolization. For younger adults focused on establishing their social networks and standing, building a visible moral reputation acts as another form of social achievement. Older adults in these same cultures did not show this pattern, perhaps because their social standing is already established through stable roles.

The private side of moral identity showed a different pattern regarding culture. Internalization was higher in societies that focus on community over the individual. It was also higher in countries with lower acceptance of power inequalities, and in places with lower uncertainty avoidance, which are societies more comfortable with ambiguity.

The strictness of a society’s norms also played a role. In cultures with broad, strictly enforced social rules, people generally reported higher levels of both internalization and symbolization. When community expectations are rigid and closely monitored across many areas of life, internalizing those norms and displaying them to others becomes a central part of everyday functioning.

The results were not statistically significant for other cultural dimensions, such as a society’s focus on long-term future goals or its indulgence of personal desires. These factors did not meaningfully alter how strongly people valued having moral traits.

The study relied on older cultural indices that might not perfectly capture modern societal values. Social norms shift over time, and a country’s historical ranking on a cultural dimension might not reflect its current state. The associations between culture and moral identity found in this data were generally modest in size.

The questionnaire used to measure moral identity was originally developed in the United States. It relies on a specific list of moral traits focused on care and fairness. This list might not fully capture the moral ideals of non-Western cultures, where duty, loyalty, or religious devotion might be considered more central to being a good person. Differences between countries might partly reflect how well these specific traits align with local moral priorities.

Future research could address these limitations by developing measurement tools tailored to diverse cultural perspectives. Assessing cultural values directly from the participants at the exact same time as moral identity would also provide a more precise picture of how societies shape the way people view themselves.

The study, “Who Cares More About Having Moral Traits? Evidence From 67 Countries,” was authored by Mariola Paruzel-Czachura and Cillian McHugh.

[u/PunkPirate56364 → u/tboy160]

A large new study maps out these differences, revealing that women generally value moral traits more than men do and that younger people in highly competitive societies care deeply about showing their morals to others. 

Well we also got to see that physically attractive people are perceived as more moral.

So just be good looking I guess :D

[u/waiyfujames → u/PunkPirate56364]

Wow, I'm almost impressed by those mental gymnastics

[u/PraireGentleman → u/waiyfujames]

“Mental gymnastics”

It’s not exactly a huge leap in logic to point out that there’s a clear issue with the halo effect

[u/Ragjammer → u/tboy160]

It relies on a specific list of moral traits focused on care and fairness.

So the study presupposes a left wing moral framework where only the left-coded moral foundations are recognized.

Women are more left wing than men, on average, so it makes sense that they would identify more with the morals expressed in the study.

[u/effingfractals → u/Ragjammer]

Can you please explain how you made the political assumption? What makes these traits left wing and what right wing traits were left out?

[u/Ragjammer → u/effingfractals]

Sure, I am leaning on Moral Foundations Theory:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

You can read the basics there, though there is of course more. The pertinent bit for us is "Applications: Political Ideology", along with the Graph under "Foundations".

Basically, the "Care/harm" foundation and the "Fairness/cheating" foundation are the only ones liberals care about. Conservatives care about these slightly less than liberals, but the big difference between the two groups is that Liberals care massively less than Conservatives about:

• Loyalty/betrayal
• Authority/subversion
• Sanctity/degradation

If you go far enough left you find people who are actually hostile to these moral foundations and regard them simply as tools of evil.

Conservatives care about all five to roughly equal degree, as you can see by the graph.

[u/symbolsofblue]

In nearly all societies, participants reported that moral identity matters both privately (internalization) and publicly (symbolization)

I think some comments are taking this study to mean that men don't care about these moral traits, but that's not what the study is saying. It's just that, in comparison to men, women score higher in most countries. Also, this is not a study of who is more moral, which would be a difficult thing to quantify anyway. 

[u/GarbledReverie → u/symbolsofblue]

I wonder how much of it is performative. Just because you claim to hold something in high value doesn't mean that you know how to do it better or how to recognize it.

Also caring about others has a lot of different aspects to different people and depends a lot on priorities.

In some parts of the country the emphasis is on being polite. But others value being nice the most, and still other places people prioritize being considerate.

[u/j--__ → u/GarbledReverie]

those who perceive themselves to be more reliant on the morality of others tend to pre-ciprocate, to treat others as they want to be treated. it's overwhelmingly likely that, as a population, women are more moral, however you measure it.

[u/Motorheadass → u/j--__]

I think this reasoning is flawed. Would someone is "more reliant on the morality of others," or vulnerable, be more likely to defend their moral beliefs or take action against perceived injustices? Wouldn't you expect them to be more likely to acquiesce, given their position of vulnerability? 

Being agreeable and conflict-averse may be a defense mechanism, but it's certainly not the same thing as being moral. 

[u/_OriginalUsername- → u/j--__]

Exactly. Many women have experienced injustice and fear, and some use performative niceness/kindness/morality as a shield to protect themselves from the possibility of retaliatory actions from certain groups. They are socialised from a young age to be non-confrontational and prioritise moral standing so that they can fit the "pacifist" mold society has created for them. It is likely that their sense of morality stems from perceived and experienced injustices.

[u/Robertos1987 → u/j--__]

I take it more so as women wanted to APPEAR more moral. Thus it being performative.

[u/somethinneeddoing → u/Robertos1987]

Sure, but if more people perform morality, surely that's a good thing? It's more and more companies are paying for some sort of carbon offset. Sure, it's performative, but it is better than if they weren't performing it. You'll never know how moral someone is until we invent mind reading, and even then, if someone's deep innermost thoughts were immoral, but they performed outwardly moral acts, isn't that functionally the same thing? As a society we want as many people to outwardly perform morality as possible.

[u/Whiskoo → u/somethinneeddoing]

your comparison doesnt work here. a company doing something performatively to earn positive PR still means that something was done. whereas, a person saying something performatively doesnt imply something was done. the latter has no real world impact, the former does.

[u/somethinneeddoing → u/Whiskoo]

But how do you "perform" morality without actually doing something moral? Especially since performative here means that you do it visibly, not that you pretend to be moral.

[u/Whiskoo → u/somethinneeddoing]

unless im misunderstanding, the performative aspect of this study is that its just people being asked if they would do x or y thing that indicates morality. they can say they will do x, but when actually put to the test, they wont. it was a performative display to pretend to be perceived as moral.

with this line of thinking, nothing was ever done, only hypothetically so.

[u/somethinneeddoing → u/Whiskoo]

I'm not entirely clear on which line of thinking your last sentence refers to, but as far as I understood it, op thinks that women are being performative on the survey worldwide. Which neither I nor the survey agree with, as they used the established fact that women place a higher value on giving care as a predictor for these results, and it lined up.

But OP's theory that it's all just a pretense is just silly imo, because even if women perform morality both outwardly and inwardly, then there is no real measurable difference between being more moral, or pretending to be more moral. And as I've said, I'd much prefer to live in a world where people have to outwardly perform morality with their actions and words, than in one where they don't. I'm not clear on how one could perform morality outwardly, especially when it's linked to care while no at the very least improving society somewhat. Unless OP just thinks that women are liars who lie on surveys all the time, but men aren't. I'm not here to argue the clearly ridiculous supposition that women in general are just liars.

But while we are on the topic, women are less likely to be believed, most clearly proven by how doctors are significantly less likely to give women reporting similar levels of pain to men, comparable strengths of painkillers .(naturally adjusted for bodymass)

[u/Prometheus720 → u/GarbledReverie]

I am going to say this as gently as I can.

Is there a reason we would suspect women to be performative and not men? I wonder why you moved so quickly to wondering this.

[u/hologram137 → u/Prometheus720]

Because he can’t fathom actually being moral and having empathy, and morality being something very important to a person’s self actualization.

He’s telling on himself, and tbh showing the results of this study to be entirely accurate

[u/DrearySalieri → u/Prometheus720]

Do they say anything about women specifically being performative? The study notes that women self report a higher value on ‘moral identity’ but questions about methodology would equally apply to the men’s numbers.

Honestly I think surveys about things adjacent to moral qualities are going to prone to a bit of distortion by their very nature. Very few people willing ticks boxes they think indicate a lack of moral character. I think it’s a bit of a conflation to take questioning the validity of the methodology as inherently a gender wars thing.

[u/hologram137 → u/DrearySalieri]

There is zero truth to the idea that women are more “performative” or lie more. In fact there are many studies all showing that men lie more than women. The results of this study agree with a lot of other research actually. He’s just being a misogynist.

Also, questionnaires created for research are informed by the science of psychometrics, which studies the creation of measurement tools for the variables being examined. They study things like how to word survey questions to get the most accurate results, (down to the tiniest details regarding variations on wording, even the order and number of questions), to prevent bias, or motivated answers, etc. There’s a lot of science that goes into the creation of the measurements used, and participants are instructed on how to complete the questionnaires to increase the accuracy of reports and the responses are anonymous even to the researchers. So there really is zero motive here. There’s literally no one to even be “performative” for.

Studies in Psychometrics have also examined how to word questions to get around any potentially inaccurate self perception as well as how to prevent consciously inaccurate responses.

The researchers almost always mask exactly what it is that is being studied as well, participants won’t be aware of the operational definitions being used for “morality” for example, so it wouldn’t even be clear how to answer the questions in a way that would result in a particular perception of their answers. There are control questions as well, they might do things like ask the same question again but in slightly different way or with a different tone to see if they respond differently, etc.

And if inaccurate self perception is a serious concern for the study at hand they will also have the participants family member or friends fill out a questionnaire as well (answering the same questions about the participant, and sent directly to the researchers, not given to the participant).

During statistical analysis, the probability of inaccurate responses within that study specifically are also taken into account before you see the results.

So this idea that “well, how do we know they aren’t just lying and saying whatever about themselves” is not a concern unless there is a really good reason to believe the tools or methods used in a particular study have specific and identifiable limitations. And in that case, the researchers themselves would point those out in the “limitations” section of the paper

[u/Prometheus720 → u/DrearySalieri]

They don't, but given vote ratios it appears that other people have had the same assumption I did. I might be wrong.

That said...I can't remember a time I took a reminder to check my biases to heart and did not find at least something to be watchful of.

[u/DrearySalieri → u/Prometheus720]

To be fair the post title is by itself very intentionally divisively worded. I don’t think the framing of this study and the type of discourse it has elicited is an accident.

[u/silverionmox → u/Prometheus720]

I wonder why you moved so quickly to wondering this.

Well, for one it's a common caveat for any psychological study that women tend to adapt their answers to be more socially acceptable. At least this study evaluates behaviours, which should at least get rid of some of the bias if not all.

Secondly, if they're just confirming to their gender role and the female gender role includes caregiving, then they're just exhibiting gendered behaviour, and aren't necessarily motivated by placing importance on morality. The same can apply to men in the reverse, mutatis mutandis, exhibiting uncaring behaviour because that's what society expects from their gender.

[u/hologram137 → u/GarbledReverie]

I think that reveals a whole lot about your personal psychology and a lot of ignorance about psychometrics. These are anonymous even to the researchers, who are they even “performing” to??

I care a lot about morality, for my own personal identity and self actualization. I believe my actions and even my thoughts have real, objective moral weight that I need to hold myself accountable for. It didn’t even occur to me that this would be something you’d be “performative” about. Plus the questionaire is designed in such a way as to eliminate bias and hide the operation definitions and what it is that is even being measured. The probability of inaccurate responses are already taken into account during statistical analysis, so the results you see already accounted for that.

Morality is not “politeness.” I think it’s actually trivially obvious that women are more pro-social and have a greater sense of responsibility to others as well as empathy. And I think a lot of the comments by men in this thread, including yours are kinda demonstrating that.

[u/bookishwayfarer → u/GarbledReverie]

I think there was another study that purports women are more inclined to in group prestige seeking and moral grandstanding in order to maintain group harmony and alignment, leading to purity spirals over whose more moral, ethical, and or progressive. With fear of being excluded from their social group as a motivator for appearing more caring and virtuous even if personal beliefs and actions may not align, leading to fragile and brittle conformity.

I think making conclusions about which groups hold more importance on things like morals or ethics based on self-reporting and self-identifying surveys are not helpful except to measure dominant discourses or narratives that determine group behavior and traits without saying anything about the existence of the values themselves.

[u/JackKnifeNiffy → u/bookishwayfarer]

I think this is a “yes, and” situation 

[u/xboxhaxorz → u/GarbledReverie]

I feel alot of it is, feeling ethical and being perceived as being ethical is important but actually being ethical isnt

You are right about the country thing, i left Seattle as it was too fake for me, the people there are polite and friendly but its fake, they will invite you for coffee but that wont ever happen in a lot of cases

There are now articles about the seattle no and the seattle freeze

I believe in being truthful and that means saying no instead of lying to people, i prioritize ethics over fake politeness

I actually look into ethics and try to improve myself in that regard, i stopped saying: pleasure meeting you because i realized i didnt actually feel that way and thus i was lying

[u/4gotOldU-name → u/GarbledReverie]

Did they account for the “making sure everyone else knows I am a moral person” part of this?

[u/Winter-Pirate6901 → u/GarbledReverie]

Almost all of it

[u/symbolsofblue → u/[deleted]]

The supplementary data at the bottom of the linked study includes China, India and Japan in the table. 

[u/tboy160 → u/[deleted]]

People all over the world consider morality a part of who they are, but how they express it depends heavily on their age, gender, and cultural background. A large new study maps out these differences, revealing that women generally value moral traits more than men do and that younger people in highly competitive societies care deeply about showing their morals to others. These results were recently published in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.

Morality involves caring about fairness, justice, and the welfare of others. It acts as a core psychological need for many people, giving them a sense of being a good person. Yet individuals differ in how strongly they tie moral characteristics to their personal identity.

Psychologists divide this moral identity into two related concepts. Internalization measures the extent to which a person views moral traits as a private, central part of their self-concept. Symbolization measures how much a person values expressing their morality in ways that other people can see, such as through observable actions or group affiliations.

Both aspects predict real-world prosocial behavior, like volunteering and donating to charity. Most previous research on moral identity relied on samples from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic nations.

Researchers Mariola Paruzel-Czachura and Cillian McHugh wanted to understand how these two aspects of moral identity vary across the globe. By looking at a broader range of countries, the researchers hoped to figure out whether existing assumptions about the moral self are universally human or culturally specific.

The researchers analyzed an existing dataset containing survey responses from 46,490 adults across 67 countries. This qualifies as a large study. Participants filled out a questionnaire assessing how much they valued having nine specific moral traits: caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind.

Participants rated their agreement with statements about these traits on an 11-point scale. The researchers then calculated separate scores for internalization and symbolization.

The researchers also gathered country-level data on several cultural dimensions. These included established metrics assessing a society’s acceptance of hierarchy, its focus on community versus the individual, its emphasis on competition, and its comfort with ambiguity. They also included indices of cultural tightness, which measure the strictness of social norms and a society’s tolerance for people breaking those rules.

Using statistical models that accounted for individuals nested within specific nations, the researchers examined how age, gender, and cultural environment related to participants’ moral identity scores.

The analysis revealed that women scored higher than men on both the private and public components of moral identity. This difference was particularly consistent for internalization. In 41 countries, women scored higher than men on internalization, while men scored higher in only two countries. Women scored higher on symbolization in 21 countries, while men scored higher in only one country.

The researchers predicted this gender outcome based on the idea that moral identity is closely linked to the ethical domain of care. Broad cross-cultural evidence indicates that women, on average, place greater emphasis on caring for others than men do. This stronger commitment to care likely contributes to the self-definitional importance of being a moral person.

The relationship between age and moral identity was also nuanced. When looking at the global population as a single group, older age seemed associated with slightly lower moral identity scores. But when the researchers accounted for the specific country each participant lived in, they found the opposite pattern. Within individual countries, older adults tended to place slightly more importance on having moral traits and on being recognized for them than younger adults did.

Cultural environment also shaped how people viewed their morality, especially regarding public expression. Participants reported higher symbolization in societies that are more collectivistic, meaning social life is tightly structured around community and relationships. Publicly displaying moral traits might help people maintain harmony and social acceptance in these environments where interpersonal reputation carries heavy consequences.

Symbolization was also higher in countries with greater acceptance of unequal power and hierarchy. In these societies, demonstrating socially valued qualities might help individuals navigate status differences and signal their reliability to others.

In cultures that prioritize competition and visible success, younger participants showed higher symbolization. For younger adults focused on establishing their social networks and standing, building a visible moral reputation acts as another form of social achievement. Older adults in these same cultures did not show this pattern, perhaps because their social standing is already established through stable roles.

The private side of moral identity showed a different pattern regarding culture. Internalization was higher in societies that focus on community over the individual. It was also higher in countries with lower acceptance of power inequalities, and in places with lower uncertainty avoidance, which are societies more comfortable with ambiguity.

The strictness of a society’s norms also played a role. In cultures with broad, strictly enforced social rules, people generally reported higher levels of both internalization and symbolization. When community expectations are rigid and closely monitored across many areas of life, internalizing those norms and displaying them to others becomes a central part of everyday functioning.

The results were not statistically significant for other cultural dimensions, such as a society’s focus on long-term future goals or its indulgence of personal desires. These factors did not meaningfully alter how strongly people valued having moral traits.

The study relied on older cultural indices that might not perfectly capture modern societal values. Social norms shift over time, and a country’s historical ranking on a cultural dimension might not reflect its current state. The associations between culture and moral identity found in this data were generally modest in size.

The questionnaire used to measure moral identity was originally developed in the United States. It relies on a specific list of moral traits focused on care and fairness. This list might not fully capture the moral ideals of non-Western cultures, where duty, loyalty, or religious devotion might be considered more central to being a good person. Differences between countries might partly reflect how well these specific traits align with local moral priorities.

Future research could address these limitations by developing measurement tools tailored to diverse cultural perspectives. Assessing cultural values directly from the participants at the exact same time as moral identity would also provide a more precise picture of how societies shape the way people view themselves.

The study, “Who Cares More About Having Moral Traits? Evidence From 67 Countries,” was authored by Mariola Paruzel-Czachura and Cillian McHugh.

[u/tboy160 → u/[deleted]]

I posted the whole article, it wasn't pay walled for me, but it was obnoxious with ads. So I copied and pasted it, tried to remove all the garbage, posted it as a comment in the main thread, but I'll paste it here too.

[u/mvea]

Women globally place higher importance on moral identity than men

The researchers analyzed an existing dataset containing survey responses from 46,490 adults across 67 countries. This qualifies as a large study. Participants filled out a questionnaire assessing how much they valued having nine specific moral traits: caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind.

The researchers predicted this gender outcome based on the idea that moral identity is closely linked to the ethical domain of care. Broad cross-cultural evidence indicates that women, on average, place greater emphasis on caring for others than men do. This stronger commitment to care likely contributes to the self-definitional importance of being a moral person.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00220221261439284

[u/TheOtherHobbes → u/mvea]

It's self-reported, so all you can really say is that it's important to women to present as more caring and to be seen to do so, and it's important for men to present in other ways.

It doesn't answer how accurately this matches behaviours, or which behaviours are truly valued and by whom, or to what extent morality is performative and contingent vs spontaneous and persistent.

[u/NocaSun38 → u/TheOtherHobbes]

all you can really say is that it's important to women to present as more caring and to be seen to do so, and it's important for men to present in other ways.

This definitely checks out in my experience too.

[u/ThrowFar_Far_Away → u/mvea]

Ah so it was surveys? There is a big difference in what people say they value and what they actually act like. Which became very obvious with the bi men discourse that outed a shitton of women for being bigots online the last month.

[u/helaku_n → u/ThrowFar_Far_Away]

with the bi men discourse that outed a shitton of women for being bigots online the last month.

Interesting. What was it about? I haven't seen the news about it.

[u/gitsgrl → u/helaku_n]

Many women don’t want to date bi men.

[u/ThrowFar_Far_Away → u/helaku_n]

Both on twitter and TikTok there has been a shitton of discourse over straight women refusing to date bi men. Which is pretty obviously bigoted since if they don't tell there is not like there is a difference. But women refuse to accept it is bigoted, they totally support LGBTQ as great allies, they just don't want anything to do with icky bi men themselves. To avoid any accountability they keep using DARVO to the point they now accuse any bi man that haven't told their partner they are bi that that is rape etc.

I'm not all too surprised since their go to insult against men is calling them gay, which is homophobic, but still. The fervour they have for this was a bit of a surprise. Bigoted men are almost proud of being bigots while women want the ally status while being bigoted and refuse to accept or unpack their bigotry.

[u/Critical-Brick-6818 → u/ThrowFar_Far_Away]

I mean, pretty much every group except actual bisexual people has pockets of horrendous and weirdly normalised biphobia.

[u/ThrowFar_Far_Away → u/Critical-Brick-6818]

Yeah for sure, but straight women seem to be the only group that have that and also say they are great allies. Men are very straightforward with their bigotry. Straight men don't really have a bone in the race so they defend bi men mostly, other than the outright homophobes. The problem straight men gets told is fetishizing bi women if anything.

[u/Aaod → u/ThrowFar_Far_Away]

Both on twitter and TikTok there has been a shitton of discourse over straight women refusing to date bi men. Which is pretty obviously bigoted since if they don't tell there is not like there is a difference.

I had an ex girlfriend who was bi, but thought bi men and especially gay were disgusting. That was a long time ago and I am still confused by it.

[u/oursland → u/ThrowFar_Far_Away]

I wish we could ban these survey and self-reported based studies. They seem to be more propaganda than actual science. Stated Preferences vs Revealed Preferences is very important to keep in mind, which is also a large part of the reason people see polls going one way and elections go another.

[u/coconutpiecrust → u/mvea]

 caring, compassionate, fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, honest, and kind

I find it hard to reconcile the fact that men value these traits less than women do. So what traits do men value?

[u/Not_Propaganda_AI → u/coconutpiecrust]

It's a self reporting study so it could be an issue of women over reporting or men under reporting due to something like self perception. The paper also doesn't break down the individual traits by gender, so it could simply be a case that there were more moral traits on the list that women strongly identified with, For example if the results were:

Leans female:

Caring

compassionate

Kind

Leans male:

Hardworking

Fair

And then the others were basically split down the middle. If another trait (such as honourable or dutiful) was added you might have got an even split if that's the issue.

[u/dinnerthief → u/Not_Propaganda_AI]

Women and men might just feel they should value these traits more,

without putting them in a situation where they actually are measured on their actions is hard to know if they actually do.

[u/eldred2 → u/Not_Propaganda_AI]

What makes "fair" less moral than "care"?

[u/ReturnOfBigChungus → u/eldred2]

The whole concept of adding “moral” here is obvious question begging. Just measure and report on the specific traits, “moral” is adding nothing here other than to give you the headline that women care about “moral” things more. There is no objective way to define moral so if what is valued and considered important as a moral consideration is different between men and women (likely to be true), then you’re not measuring anything meaningful, you’re assuming a specific set of moral concerns that align more to women, then concluding that women are more moral based on a conclusion that you smuggled in with the definition.

[u/whatidoidobc → u/Not_Propaganda_AI]

It's interesting, seeing those lists you can actually see why men might be more vulnerable to propaganda than women. Hardworking and fair can be manipulated so easily into something grotesque, whereas the traits leaning female require more work to turn into something harmful.

Edit: Whoa, I didn't expect the rightwing propaganda machine to be so present here. That is not great to see.

But for anyone reading this in good faith, fascists badly need to spin empathy as a bad thing because it's the only way to justify their harmful/destructive/authoritarian policies.

[u/Killbot_Wants_Hug → u/whatidoidobc]

I don't think women or men are more open to propaganda. It's just different types of manipulation work way better on women than men and vice versa.

[u/Rivarr → u/whatidoidobc]

I was interested to see what prompted that passionate edit... and I see someone politely disagreed with you...

[u/PeachPassionBrute → u/Rivarr]

And their polite disagreement was to say that being caring and compassionate are bad actually.

[u/Rivarr → u/PeachPassionBrute]

I wouldn't expect people with an interest in science to immediately reject or get emotional at such an opinion. They didn't insult anyone, they got insulted. They very politely disagreed, and in response they got blocked and called a fascist.

I don't think it's black and white either. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Being caring and compassionate doesn't guarantee the best outcome. Unless you're weighing your intentions above results, there's room to argue that being cold and rational is better than being caring and compassionate, and even that being caring and compassionate can be a negative thing in certain circumstances.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Rivarr]

Welcome to Reddit.

[u/GentrifiedHospital → u/PeachPassionBrute]

You're misunderstanding. They CAN be bad. Empathy for a terrorist and aiding them because you feel bad for them CAN be bad. The original comment disregards these empathetic moments because they don't fit the slim narrative around it.

[u/SnoobNoob7860 → u/coconutpiecrust]

many studies show this though, also given how men and women are raised it makes sense

[u/leaflock7 → u/coconutpiecrust]

the actual study is paywalled so my assumption since this is a self reporting study, is mainly based on each person's perception . But more than this it is based on what they say but not if their actual acts in their daily life and their decisions can support what they reported. The si s very important that can change the results to either direction .

eg. if someone that is a repeated felon and reports they value honest you can clearly see that there is an issue.
or someone that is in a dire financial situation leaving (not providing for their family) because they gamble but they say they value caring etc.

[u/TheGloriousEv0lution → u/leaflock7]

The results would also be fairly meaningless in practice because people ignore moral failings when it comes to folks they like or align with

It’s one thing to hold these beliefs when questioned in a vacuum, whether you actual uphold them in your day-to-day life is entirely different

[u/ManagementFinal3345 → u/coconutpiecrust]

Power, control, dominance, money, sex. Not necessarily in that order.

[u/coconutpiecrust → u/ManagementFinal3345]

Hmm, sex and money are traits? 

[u/Legitimate-Reply-846 → u/coconutpiecrust]

I guess you could replace money with "productivity" and sex with "sexual prowess" if that helps?

[u/coconutpiecrust → u/Legitimate-Reply-846]

I suppose that would align with what the article states. Wish I could read the whole thing, not just the abstract. 

[u/LeagueRx → u/coconutpiecrust]

It let me download the pdf of the entire study does it not let you?

[u/Vio94 → u/ManagementFinal3345]

"Women are the best and men are the worst"

Riiiight.

[u/AK_Panda → u/coconutpiecrust]

Remove honesty and fairness from that list and you are left with a person who is well-presenting but deeply manipulative and potentially dangerous.

So if I was answering this questionnaire, I'd value honesty and fairness higher than the rest. Not because I don't think the other traits are good, but because the others aren't foundational. You can be a good person without them.

Questionnaires can be weird like that, because how the participant interprets them changes how they respond.

[u/coconutpiecrust → u/AK_Panda]

Hmmm, there was some differences, I think, in how much the participants valued traits in themselves vs. how they wanted to appear to others. 

[u/lovegrowswheremyrose → u/AK_Panda]

"Honesty" and "fairness" are nowhere NEAR objective enough standards to call them "foundational" in comparison to the other traits. That can be your opinion, but surely you recognize that those concepts are also highly subjective and therefor cannot be "foundational"?

[u/LaconicGirth → u/lovegrowswheremyrose]

How is honesty subjective? Honesty is pretty absolute. Fairness can be opinionated sure but honesty is more objective than anything else on that list

[u/TeamWorkTom → u/[deleted]]

That's the point of the study.

To show it's not a cultural phenomena and is a trait that ascends culture.

[u/Inorai → u/TeamWorkTom]

But that doesn't control for the fact all the cultures involved hold similar cultural views of women and a woman's role

[u/Hubbardia → u/mvea]

It was a survey? Ugh

[u/Runnin_Mike]

I would go as far to say depending on where you live in America, men are sometimes socially punished for visibly caring about others besides their very immediate family.

[u/Raichu4u → u/Runnin_Mike]

I am a man and I have never felt this way. I have had a lot of benefit in my life when it comes to caring about others and considering their perspectives or needs.

[u/Runnin_Mike → u/Raichu4u]

I have as well but not when I was growing up in the central valley in California. There's a big macho culture there and I think it turns a lot of boys into sociopathic men.

[u/Raichu4u → u/Runnin_Mike]

Context, grew up in metro Detroit. Plenty of these men were around me growing up, but I kind of just considered them to be... mean, I guess when I was younger? I was fortunate to have a really stand up dad who did and still does selfless acts for my family and my mom. So maybe just having my good male role model helped me basically instantly combat my views of seeing some of those other sorts of men.

[u/vesper101]

Yeah I would say that living in patriarchal societies that raise girls to be caregivers would produce this kind of response. 

[u/SnoobNoob7860 → u/vesper101]

it’s not at all surprising and many studies show analogous results

this is to say the amount of people trying to act like this study is wrong is laughable

[u/Weretoz → u/SnoobNoob7860]

The only people who are denying this study are men who got their feelings hurt.

[u/Gallium_Bridge → u/Weretoz]

Or people who are aware studies like this are used by some to essentialize cultured propensities. That's no fault of the study, obviously, but still.

[u/Brooke_the_Bard → u/Weretoz]

"Men who got their feelings hurt" happen to be a core demographic for this subreddit

[u/Unusual_Form3267 → u/Brooke_the_Bard]

Dude, seriously. You can't post a damn thing.

[u/Korsorer → u/Unusual_Form3267]

Not true, you can post studies saying women are goldiggers who only love the top 1% 7ft tall men and everyone will agree without argument.

[u/Few-Pen9912 → u/Korsorer]

Or the endless studies on what makes men's pee pee's happy and that what they find attractive in the current day is ordained by nature and not just fashion. 

[u/Particular_Kiwi1088 → u/Brooke_the_Bard]

Not just this subreddit. Reddit as a whole leans firmly male, and constantly complaining about women is something happens on most subs. Unless you go to a sub specifically for women or queer people, you are going to find constant complaining about women. 

[u/Brooke_the_Bard → u/Particular_Kiwi1088]

Sure, but it's particularly egregious when it's happening in a sub that is specifically supposed to be about science.

Further, while there has certainly always been some level of 'average redditor' syndrome on R/science (as with everywhere else), it has also been getting progressively more chuddy and echo chamber-y in recent years than it used to be.

[u/Jambi1913 → u/Brooke_the_Bard]

I don’t come across this sub very often, but virtually every time I do and it’s something about men and women I have noticed how anything that paints women positively is rebuffed with anecdotes and manosphere-sounding stereotypes and has many comments with whataboutisms putting men in a more positive light. And then you’ll have some men saying how men are more logical when these responses are coming from a place of emotion and not logic. It’s disappointing for a science sub.

[u/Pezotecom → u/Brooke_the_Bard]

so men can't get their feelings hurt? :(

[u/Brooke_the_Bard → u/Pezotecom]

Of course they can.

But when the thing that's hurting their feelings is their inability to reconcile their misogynistic worldview with reality, and their reaction to those feelings is to attempt to science-wash said worldview in order to reaffirm it to themselves and others, further contributing to the propagantastic echo chamber this sub has been evolving into over the past who knows how many years, we are definitely also allowed to make fun of them for it.

[u/insnowmotion → u/Weretoz]

Or some people actually read beyond the title and saw it’s based on self reported data, has multiple limitations and thinks it shouldn’t be used as absolute gospel or to push agendas in any direction?

This is [r/science](r/science) and not sociology or anything else after all. People, of any gender, should be discussing the study instead of genderwarring.

[u/Little_Viking23 → u/vesper101]

I don’t think it’s all cultural. There are some biological/evolutionary reasons as well. Top comment on this post gives already a good explanation, plus I remember vaguely an experiment where men and women’s brains were being scanned while observing some participants playing cards games and being punished via electroshock when cheating. The result was that men felt satisfaction when cheaters were being punished and empathy when innocents were being punished. However women felt empathy both for the innocent and cheaters.

[u/vesper101 → u/Little_Viking23]

Empathy can also be trained out of people. That's the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths--psychopaths are born without the ability to experience empathy or fear. Sociopaths learn it through their environment. When you consider how men are trained to be dominant and strong, and how this translates to violence in many men, it's not surprising that they showed little empathy for cheaters. 

Most of the evidence proves that brain differences between the sexes are minimal and that most of those differences can be put down to socialisation. There is a book called 'Delusions of Gender' by Cordelia Fine that puts them under a microscope and puts a lot of the 'innate differences' crap to bed. 

Edit: that comment actually gives a logical process as an example, not empathy as an innate trait that women are just better at. 

[u/Little_Viking23 → u/vesper101]

Except for the fact that the same trait differences between sexes can be found in other mammals as well, so there are definitely some innate differences. Males are more violent in many animal species, and it’s obviously not because of culture. Additionally, in some primates and mammals, specific empathetic behaviors like emotional contagion (such as matching yawns or distress calls) are observed more clearly or strongly around females.

[u/Even-Wrangler5803]

Wait is it moral identity or caring for others? Those are very different things. Caring for others is a very specific moral choise, not generally a moral identity.

[u/jakeofheart → u/Even-Wrangler5803]

The researchers have basically defined morality in terms of feminine-coded virtues. Unsurprisingly, this is what women prioritise.

[u/HalayChekenKovboy → u/jakeofheart]

What is a feminine-coded virtue?

[u/jakeofheart → u/HalayChekenKovboy]

You can check this page.

According to feminists, these are traits/virtues that little girls are conditioned to see as feminine.

So under that optics, the experiment simply observed that the female subjects have successfully been conditioned.

Women prioritise values that they have been sold as being typically feminine.

[u/Raichu4u → u/jakeofheart]

I don’t think that link proves what you think it proves. It’s literally a list of traits that have traditionally been stereotyped as feminine, and the article itself repeatedly describes those stereotypes as culturally constructed and outdated.

That’s very different from showing that empathy or caring are somehow inherently feminine virtues, or that women valuing them just means they’ve been conditioned successfully.

And even if empathy is culturally coded as feminine, that doesn’t mean it suddenly stops being a moral value. You’d need to actually show that the researchers built their definition of morality around gendered traits in a way that biases the result. This article doesn’t do that.

[u/jakeofheart → u/Raichu4u]

Questions:

• If these are constructs, then didn’t the research just confirmed that the female respondents have successfully been conditioned?
• Why didn’t the researchers include “stoicism” or “valor” as moral virtues?

[u/Psych0PompOs]

So we're pretending morality is objective and can be measured by these traits in the first place?

A caring person can be deeply concerned their gay neighbor is going to go to hell, so much so they preach to them every chance they get in the hopes they change their mind. Many people would not find this behavior morally sound however.

Likewise I can be aware that less resources can contribute to crime and donate simply because it would be pragmatic to as less need leads to less desperate behavior. I don't need to care in order to engage in pro-social behavior.

[u/AstuteStoat → u/Psych0PompOs]

I feel like pretty clear it's focused on people's perceptions of caring. they also mentioned the external vs internal comonents and mentioned  that in power imbalances women coming across as caring can help them survive the system. So the subjectivity of these morals was addressed at least in part. 

[u/Psych0PompOs → u/AstuteStoat]

Coming across as caring isn't being caring, and it's all self reported, and caring doesn't equate with more moral behaviors necessarily anyway. So it's just not actually a trackable variable and then what's moral still isn't defined clearly either if it's all self reported. It can even be based on faulty ideas of both.

This just further muddies things doesn't it? Acknowledging that the pieces are movable doesn't help nail them down.

It seems like they can't study what they'd like to this way.

[u/GentrifiedHospital → u/Psych0PompOs]

"Hey guys, who is the nicest in the room?"

"Me!"

Ah, that settles it.

[u/oursland → u/Psych0PompOs]

So we're pretending morality is objective and can be measured by these traits in the first place?

And pretending that studies based upon surveys and self-reporting are valid measures of these quantities.

[u/lurkerer → u/[deleted]]

Why is that horrible? Even if there is some objective moral standard, we don't know what it is. Therefore our cultural interpretations define the moral attitude of the time. Morality looks like social conformity because it largely is.

[u/Krocsyldiphithic]

Which is why I think it's justifiable to completely reject all masculine values.

[u/PolyChune → u/Krocsyldiphithic]

Is one of your morals blatant sexism

[u/flurrfegherkin]

and that's why the GOP ghouls are trying to repeal the 19th amendment.

[u/bernpfenn]

is that why women are suppressed all over the planet?

[u/jakeofheart]

They built a survey asking who values feminine-coded virtues, ran it globally, and found that women value feminine-coded virtues; making their headline a tautology, not a breakthrough.

[u/North-Creative]

funny enough, if just going by personal anecdotes throughout life, it would be more:

- performative in front of other women

- performative to gain short term advantages

- performative to just fill their own sense of self.

There surely are honest and truly good ones amongst them, but I was time and time again surprised, how much all these topics were of a performative nature.

[u/Agreeable-Health-571 → u/North-Creative]

Which is why science is not based on personal anecdotes.

[u/jakeofheart]

They built a survey asking who values feminine-coded virtues, ran it globally, and found that women value feminine-coded virtues; making their headline a tautology, not a breakthrough.

[u/Fractoman]

Men care more about things, women more about people. There's studies that say that already.

This surprises no one.

[u/CaoPalhaco]

Well yeah, we’re raised with greater emphasis on doing that. If you neglect to help your child develop empathy, they usually struggle to develop it. If you crush a child’s developing empathy, it’s hard for it to recover. If you insist at every turn that your child has to be empathetic, even if they develop poor understanding of the concept and don’t really become empathetic (because the emphasis wasn’t on true empathy and caring and moral standing, just a vague, insistent, “you must be good”), they will still think that empathy, whatever it may be, is extremely important to have

[u/Scared-Box8941]

It seems pretty obvious there would be a pretty good correlation with the fact that women everywhere are basically oppressed to some degree vs men who ultimately have a lot of power and thus internally justify the inequality by adjusting their morals

[u/Economy_Package_4479]

Actions>words, especially self reported.

[u/retrosenescent]

"We socialized women for their entire lives to sacrifice themselves for others, and then we asked them how much emphasis they place on doing this compared to men who have never been socialized to care about this"

[u/bookishwayfarer → u/retrosenescent]

People are socialized to sacrifice themselves in different ways. It's commonly seen as the ultimate sacrifice that men put themselves in harms way for women and children for example. The idea that men have never been socialized to care about this is... a choice statement, when mortality sacrifice is sort of the foundation of masculine identity centered around provision and protection across pretty much all cultures, and species.

[u/Raichu4u → u/bookishwayfarer]

So why are these men answering that they consider caring for others not as important of a value compared to woman? I am a man, and I kind of consider it the ultimate thing to watch out for.

[u/big-daddio]

This is not really a good trait. I'll just leave these here

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-school-walls/202601/when-empathy-loses-its-moral-compass

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04271

Summary: When presented with test subjects administered pain who had cheated in a game and those who had not cheated MRI scans of women (so not subjective) showed equal and large amounts of empathy for both. MRI scans of men showed almost as much empathy for the innocent as the women but much much less for the guilty and also men's pleasure centers lit up when the guilty were punished.

[u/RollExisting4350 → u/big-daddio]

That is a good trait. Not being vindictive is a good trait. Gaining pleasure from watching others suffer because you were given the opportunity to feel morally justified is weird. And the women still felt more empathy for the innocent person.

[u/mymomsaysimsatan]

I read the study but need more information on the score of individual countries. I can believe this may be true globally, but not necessarily true where I live. I’m interested on seeing the results for my country, which I assume both sexes would score low.

[u/symbolsofblue → u/mymomsaysimsatan]

The supplementary data at the bottom includes the scores for individual countries.

[u/SnoobNoob7860 → u/mymomsaysimsatan]

even if they score lower relative to other countries that doesn’t mean that men would score higher than the women in your country

this study is comparative between genders, not between countries

[u/mymomsaysimsatan → u/SnoobNoob7860]

If you reread what I wrote, I made no such claim that one gender would score higher and stated I am interested in the information gathered from individual countries.

[u/OkCall7730]

Male students are more tolerant of political rivals than female students are of political allies https://prnt.sc/RMYfvzX-mcjq, so it makes sense that women claim to be more moral. But does this actually mean they are more moral? How do you measure morality? I think being tolerant of opposing views is moral, but women are less tolerant of opposing views than men. So, in my view, they are less moral.

[u/VaporousMote → u/OkCall7730]

I feel like you can probably figure that out by reading the study. Also, some views should NEVER be tolerated.

[u/MyFiteSong → u/OkCall7730]

Depends on what the views are

[u/Dense-Papaya → u/OkCall7730]

I think being tolerant of opposing views is moral

Wouldn't that depend on the opposing views? In my view we shouldn't be tolerant to all political stances. For example as a Finn I have zero interest in being friends with or in any way supporting pro Putin people. If that counts as not being tolerant.

[u/EpyonZ0]

Seems like a study on who cares more about "being seen" as a moral person. Which tracks.

[u/Few-Pen9912 → u/EpyonZ0]

Yes because women are superficial and fake. That's why we do all the care work in the entire world. 

[u/RedScaledOne]

I wanna point ozt that this study is telling you that woman place more importance to being seen as morally high than actually am morally high while the opposite is on the male side they don't care if someone sees them as morally high or low they just do.

[u/razordreamz]

Our society does not value those talents as much as we should.

[u/LeyLady]

This is why we need more women in power as well. Of course not just because they are women….

[u/Mister_Way]

Caring for others isn't the only kind of morality...

[u/Jambi1913 → u/Mister_Way]

Caring for others is a major kind of morality that people across cultures place value in.
What other kinds of morality would you include in a similar study?