the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

ather seem like superfluous solutions for problems neither foreseen nor recognized” (Rest &
Narvaez, 1994, p. 214). If athletes are not at a level of moral reasoning to understand or
internalize the rules set by athletic governing bodies they will have no motivation to choose a
moral action rather than one based on social or personal desires.
Moral Reasoning and Gender
Questions have surfaced concerning the measurement of moral reasoning and moral
development relative to gender (Gilligan, 1977; Rest & Narvaez, 1994). These researchers have
argued that females score significantly lower compared to males on cognitive “justice defined”
instruments such as Rest’s (1973) Defining Issues Test. Gilligan argued against Kohlberg’s
(1981) moral development theory because Kohlberg based his theory on a large study of men
with little to no examination of women. In her work “In a Different Voice” (Gilligan, 1977) she
argued that women come from a very different perspective of caregiving and nurturing as
opposed to a Kohlberg’s justice perspective. However, her argument may be criticized as she
only studied a small sample of women who were contemplating a highly emotional issue of
abortion (Beller, 1990).
While some researchers have found that women score significantly lower than men in
moral reasoning (Gilligan, 1977; Rest, 1984; Rest & Narvaez, 1994), studies with interscholastic
and intercollegiate athletes have not found the same. In studies using the Hahm-Beller Values
Choice Inventory (Hahm, Beller, & Stoll, 1989) female athletes and non athletes as well have
scored significantly higher than males (Beller, 1990; Beller & Stoll, 1995; Beller, Stoll, Burwell,
& Cole, 1996; Beller, Stoll, & Hansen, 2004). Moreover, in preliminary studies of athletic
trainers and athletic training students, females have scored significantly higher compared to
males (Beller, Stoll, Refvem, Williams, & Taylor-Hanson, in review; Beller, Stoll, Williams, &
32