A study examined Carol Gilligan's theory of moral reasoning, seeking evidence to either support or deny the claim that individuals primarily use one of two different sets of sex-related constructs to arrive at decisions when faced with moral dilemmas. Subjects, 20 young lawyers and psychologists (equally divided as to men and women), were interviewed about how decisions were made in their workplace and then asked to describe a moral dilemma (defined as a situation in which they were not sure what was the right thing to do) that arose in the course of their work. The interviews were transcribed without any reference to the subject's sex and received a preliminary testing in sex identification. Interviews were then stratified by sex and occupation, distributed randomly and rated by three separate groups of raters with experience in questions of moral development. Findings suggest that the women subjects were seen as placing far more emphasis on an ethic of care rather than of justice. However, comparing the pattern of male mean scores with the pattern of female mean scores does not lead to the conclusion that Gilligan's theory has been supported by the data. Neither this study nor earlier studies have provided rigorous examination of the cognitive developmental aspects of the ethic of care within Gilligan's theory. (Tables of data and references are attached.) (NKA)