the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

against doping can become more effective and efficient in the future. Thus, the importance of the
EAMCI.
Ergogenic Aids Moral Competence Inventory (EAMCI)
The possible range of scores for the EAMCI is 5-10. Responses of take the drug or can’t
decide suggest a reasoning process based on something other than a consistent set of moral
principles and were, therefore, given a score of 1. Responses of don’t take the drug were given a
score of 2. In addition to the analysis of variance for the main effects of the EAMCI, frequencies
were run on both the decisions made for each scenario as well as the reasons respondents ranked
from most important to least important for each decision made.
Differences by gender on EAMCI scores
As is consistent with the results of most studies using the HBVCI, a significant difference
was found by gender on EAMCI (Beller, 1990; Beller & Stoll, 1995; Beller, Stoll, Burwell, &
Cole, 1996; Beller, Stoll, & Hansen, 2004). Of 415 decisions total made by male respondents
only 215 were don’t take the drug. This 52% can be compared to the 71% of total decisions
made by female respondents not to take the drug. The frequency of decisions to take the drug or
can’t decide were particularly high for scenarios two and five for all respondents.
One possible explanation for why females consistently score higher than males may be
consistent with a theory put forth by Gilligan (1977) suggesting that females have an innate caregiving
nature. Moral reasoning and behavior are directly related to making decisions about
interactions with people outside one’s self. Perhaps the nature of a care-giver to consider the
welfare of others has a positive impact on moral reasoning and behavior. While the differences
between males and females and the ability of each to reason morally may be best discussed in
72