prof. dr. georg lind department of psychology university ...€¦ · 2 basque prof. santiago...

© 2005 by Georg Lind | http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/

Prof. Dr. Georg LindDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Konstanz78462 KonstanzGermany

[email protected]

View of Konstanz across the Lake of Konstanz


30 Years of Moral-Judgment-Test:

Support for the Cognitive-Developmental Theoryof Moral Development and Education

Georg LindUniversity of Konstanz


Contents

1 Going Between Theory and Measurement

2 The Moral Judgment Test (MJT)

3 The Four Theoretical Criteria for Empirical Validation3.1 Competence Nature of Morality, Non-simulation3.2 Developmental Order, Simplex (Kohlberg)3.3 Preference Hierarchy of Moral Orientations (Rest)3.4 Affective-Cognitive Parallelism (Piaget)

4 Conclusions: Implications for theory developmentand educational practice

5 New Directions: Learning Ability, MoralSegmentation and Religiosity


Going Between Theoryand Measurement


Going Between Theory, Measurement and Education

O Bootstrapping: The advancement of our knowledge onmorality depends on the advancement of measurement,and vice versa.

O We need adequate tests in order to validate our theories sowe can consider them reliable knowledge.

O We need tested theories about the nature of morality in orderto design adequate tests.

O Moral Education: Better theories of morality help to designbetter programs of moral education, and better tests help tomore adequately evaluate these programs.


Moral Competencies: Bridging Ideals and Behavior

Competencies Ideals ??? Behavior

The Dual-Aspect Theory of moral behavior


A Working Definition:Moral Judgment Competence...

is "the capacity to make decisions andjudgments which are moral (i.e., based oninternal principles) and to act in accordancewith such judgments."

(Lawrence Kohlberg, 1964, p. 425)


Clinical or Experimental Principlesof Cognitive- Developmental Test-Construction

O A Moral Task: Responding to Counter-suggestions< "Piaget ... used judgments plus explanations (instead of judgments only) as

criteria for operational competence, and considered counter-suggestionsessential to the clinical method." (Lourenco et al., 1996, p.146)

O Competence Revealed in Form or Organization of Responses< "The structures we seek to tap in test construction and arrive at in test scoring

are abstractable from responses as their form or quality." (Kohlberg, 1984, p.402)

< "[Structure] is a construct rather than an inference, and is warranted only onthe grounds of 'intelligible' ordering of the manifest items.” (p. 408)

O Structure Must be Built Into Observation< “If a test is to yield stage structure, a concept of that structure must be built into

the initial act of observation, test construction, and scoring; it will not emergethrough pure factor-analytic responses classified by content." (p. 401-402)

Lourenço, Orlando & Machado, A. (1996). In defense of Piaget's theory: a reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review, 103,143-164.Kohlberg, L. (1984). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment. L. Kohlberg, Essays on moral development, Vol. II, Thepsychology of moral development, pp. 395-425. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row (Original 1981).


The Moral Judgment Test


The Moral Judgment Test (MJT)

O Purpose: Instrument for research and for the evaluation ofeducational methods and programs

O Restriction: Not allowed for high-stakes testing & selection

O Theory: The MJT is based on the Dual Aspect Theory of moraljudgment behavior by Lind (1978; 1985; 2002)

O Special Feature: Simultaneous measurement of moralorientations and moral judgment competence

O Standard version: Two dilemmas (workers-dilemma; doctor-dilemma); more dilemmas available, e.g., P. Bataglia

O Age-range: from 10 years (may need special assistence)

O Cross-cultural validation: Certified versions in 27 languages(German, English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arab etc.)

O More information: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/


Language, (Co-)Authors1 Deutsch Dr. Georg Lind; Item-Reviewers: T. Bargel, R. Döbert, T. Krämer-Badoni, G. Nunner-

Winkler, R. Wakenhut et al. (1977-2002)2 Basque Prof. Santiago Palacios Navarro (1982)3 Czechian Dr. Birgita Slovácková (1999) 4 Chinese Zhao Zhanqiang M.A. (2004). 5 Chinese (Taiwan) Dr. Chi-Ming Lee (2004) 6 English Dr. Georg Lind (reviewer: Michael Gross, Helen Haste, Michael Hauan, Tom Wren)7 Finnish Prof. Matti Ýlen (1999)8 Flemish (Belgium) Dr. Bart Duriez & Pieter-Jan De Marez, Catholic University Leuven, Belgium

Flemisch (NL) Dr. Michael Gross (1992) 9 French Dr. Michael Gross (1992)10 Greek Dr. Katerina Mouratidou (2002) (provisionally certified)11 Hebrew Dr. Michael Gross (1992) 12 Hungarian Dr. Varine Szilagyi Ibolya (1994) 13 Iranian Soudabeh Saeidi-Parvaneh, M.A. (2003) 14 Italian Dr. Anna Laura (1995) 15 Latvia Gints Malzubris, M.A. (2002)16 Macedonian Marijana Handziska, M.A. (2001) 17 Moroccan Dr. Ahmed Aghbal (2003) (provisionally certified) 18 Philippine Jasmine Tuboro, M.A. (2001)19 Polish Aleksandra Cislak, M.A. (2005)20 Portuguese (Brazil) Dr. Patricia Bataglia (1998)21 Romanian Tatiana Chicu, M.A., Beatrice Popescu, M.A. & Stefania Puschila, M.A. (2004)

(provisionally certified)22 Russian Ilya Krumer, M.A. (2000) 23 Sinhala Sanjee Perera, M.A. (2002) 24 Spanish Dr. José Luis Trechera (1996), revision:Cristina Moreno, Roberto Hernández (1999) 25 Tamil Sanjee Perera, M.A. (2002) 26 Thai Prof. Sanguan Lerkiatbundit (2003) 27 Turkish Dr. Nermin Ciftci (1996)


Experimental, 6 x 2 x 2 Multivariate Design

The Moral Judgment Test as a N=1 Experiment

O Moral Task< Rating Supportive and Counter-Arguments in Regard to

Their Moral QualityO 6 x 2 x 2 Experimental Design

< a. Moral Quality of Argument (6 Stage Orientations)< b. Opinion-Agreement of Argument (Pro and Contra)< c. Dilemma-Context of Argument (Two Dilemmas)

O Structural Scoring (organization of manifest items)< Multivariate Analysis of Variance< Index of Moral Judgment Competence: C-score

Lind, G. (1982). Experimental Questionnaires: A new approach to personality research. In: A. Kossakowski & K.Obuchowski, Eds., Progress in psychology of personality, pp. 132-144. Amsterdam, NL: North-Holland.


-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

W

W

W

WW

W

W

WW

WWW

Person A“The decision was right”

Contra Pro

C-score: 0.4Low judgment competence

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

Person B“The decision was right”

Contra Pro

C-score: 92.2High judgment competence

Person:Opinion:

Arguments onStage 1Stage 2Stage 3Stage 4Stage 5Stage 6

The Response Pattern of Two ParticipantsWith Different Competence-scores


Validation Criteria: Four Universal Characteristics of Moral Judgment Behavior

1. The Competence Aspect (Cognition) of moral behavior anddevelopment

! A moral competence cannot be simulated upward (Emler et al., 1983)

2. Simplex Structure of Stage-Correlations! Preferences for adjacent Kohlbergian stages of moral reasoning are correlated

more highly with another than more distant stages (Kohlberg, 1958)

3. Hierarchical Preference Order! The six Kohlbergian stages are preferred in the very order in which the normative

theory ranks them (Rest, 1969)

4. Affective-Cognitive Parallelism: Moral Orientations & Competence! "Affective and cognitive mechanisms are inseparable, although distinct: the

former depend on energy, and the latter depend on structure." (Piaget, 1983, p.71)


The Theory-grounded Validation Process

Of the Moral Judgment TestO First version: 1975

< Theory-based item construction; items reviewing by Experts (e.g.,Bargel, Döbert, Wakenhut, Nunner-Winkler, Krämer-Badoni)

< Securing the task nature of dilemma confrontation and counter-suggestions in the laboratory: emotional arousal and expert judgment

< Checking on validation criteria #2 to #4< Revising some items

O The current version: 1977< International longitudinal study of university students in five nations< Laboratory experiments on the competence criterion (#1) using the

Emler-paradigm< Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention studies in many

countries, 27 languages, comprising over 300,000 participants < Minor revisions: e.g., labels of the response scales (now: agree,

reject instead of: agreeable, disagreeable)


â Morality as aCompetence


The Cognitive Aspect:Moral Judgment Competence

Moral Judgement Test

O Clinical test of moral competence as exhibitedin manifest response pattern

O The moral task of the MJT: Deal witharguments, especially with opposingarguments, and sense their moral quality

O Demarcation: Measures of moral competencecannot be simulated upward, as can measuresof moral preferences


Moral Competencies Cannot be Simulated Upward, whileMoral Preferences Can

The Emler-Experiment (DIT) The Lind-Experiment (MJT)

30,4

11,6

18,6

31,6

Own . . . Opposite Perspective0

10,0

20,0

30,0

38,6

10,5

25,5

8,8

Own Perspective Opposite Perspective0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

Emler, N., Renwick, S. & Malone, B. (1983). The relationship between moral reasoning and political orientation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 45, 1073-80.Lind, G. (2002). Ist Moral lehrbar? Ergebnisse der modernen moralpsychologischen Forschung. [Can morality be taught?Research findings from modern moral psychology.] Berlin: Logos.


ã Simplex-Structure of Stage-Correlations


Simplex

L. Kohlberg (1958)

O"The relevant rationale seemed to be suggested by thethinking of L. Guttman. [...] If certain tests or items ordimensions stand in a developmental sequence, withregard to one another, then a certain pattern ofassociations should hold between them." (p. 82-83)

O"If the matrix of these correlations were arranged in thisdevelopmental order, the correlations would decrease inany direction moving away from the main diagonal." (p.84)


St1 St2 St3 St4 St5 St6

St1St2St3St4St5St6

0

s

- .55 --.41 -.19 --.52 -.41 .18 --.52 -.58 .09 .00 --.37 -.43 -.29 -.07 .23 -

17.2 15.6 20.8 19.0 10.5 4.316.8 12.6 10.5 12.6 11.6 11.0

Correlation Matrix (Kohlberg, 1958)

N = 83 boys, age 10 to 16

Correlations between the %-Usage of each Orientation-Stage

Kohlberg, L. (1958),S. 101 & 104


Ideal Structure (Fictitious Data)Principle Components; Varimax (standardized) Rotation

Factor 1

Fact

or 2

STAGE_1

STAGE_2

STAGE_3

STAGE_4

STAGE_5STAGE_6

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Moral Judgment Interview (MJI)Kohlberg 1958 Study; Boys age 10 to 16; N= 83

Principle Component; Varimax Rotation (standardized)

Factor 1Fa

ctor

2

1

2

34

5

6

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

-1.0 -0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0

Simplex-StructureIdeal Pattern Real Pattern

Moral Judgment Interview Kohlberg, 1958;secondary analysis by G. Lind


Moral Judgment Test (MJT, German)German University Students, 1st Semester, N=746

Principle Components; Varimax Rotation

Factor 1

Fact

or 2

12

3

4

56

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Simplex

Moral Judgment Test; Source: Lind (1977)


ä Stage PreferenceHierarchy


Normative Stage Preference HierarchyL. Kohlberg (1984)

"I include in my approach a normativecomponent. [...] That is, I assumed the need todefine philosophically the entity we study, moraljudgment, and to give a philosophic rationale forwhy a higher stage is a better stage." (p. 400).

â Kohlberg, L. (1984). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment. L. Kohlberg, Essays on moral development,Vol. II, The psychology of moral development, pp. 395-425. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row (Original 1981).


Moral Ideals are Universally Acclaimed

1st Semester University Students; only Doctor Dilemma

CountryGermany (West)AustriaNetherlandsPolandYugoslavia

Kohlberg-Stage of Reasoning1 2 3 4 5 6

-2

-1

0

1

SourceLind (1986). Cultural diffe-rences in moral judgmentcompetence? A study of Westand East European universitystudents. Be-havior ScienceResearch, 20, 208-225.


Preference HierarchySource: Ahmed Aghbal, Marocco

F(5,1830)=8,39; p<,0000

Stage

Acc

epta

bilit

y

-0,2

-0,1

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1 2 3 4 5 6

Preference HierarchyChina, 2003, N = 141 (Source: Bill Zhao)

F(5,700)=71,55; p<0,000

StageA

ccep

abili

ty

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

1 2 3 4 5 6

Preference Hierarchy

Morocco (Aghbal, 2003) China (Zhao, 2003)


Moral Ideals and (Immoral) Behavior

1 2 3 4 5 6Kohlbergian Stages:

Sources: Univ.Stud, Lind, 2002;â Wischka, 1982 ã Scheurer, 1993


å Affective-CognitiveParallelism


Affective-Cognitive Parallelism

Jean Piaget

O"Affective and cognitive mechanisms are inseparable, althoughdistinct: the former depend on energy, and the latter depend onstructure." â

O“The two aspects, affective and cognitive, are at the same timeinseparable and irreducible." ä

O"[...] even though intelligence and affectivity are not separable inconcrete conduct, they are different in nature." ã

O"... correlations between cognitive and affective stages." â

â Piaget, J. (1976). The affective unconscious and the cognitive unconscious. In: B. Inhelder & H.H.Chipman, Eds., Piaget and his school, pp. 63-71. New York: Springer, p. 71ã Piaget, J. (1981). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relation during child development. Palo Alto, CA:Annual Reviews (Originally published 1954).ä Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. Basic Books (Original 1966).


Sources: Lind (1977),Wischka (1982), Gross (1997)Stage of Moral Orientation

1 2 3 4 5 6-0,75

-0,5

-0,25

0

0,25

0,5

0,75

GroupsUS Pro Choice, N=157US Pro Life, N=154D 1st Sem Univ, N=1288D 5th Sem Univ, N=812CH Voc Students, N=579D Prisoners, N=58

Moral Competence and Moral PreferencesParallelism: Correlations between


Conclusions I: Theory Development

1 The MJT has been used for 30 years of research andeducational evaluation with over 300.000 research participants,aging 10 years upward

2 Rigorous validation studies have shown that the MJT is atheoretically valid measure of moral judgment competence

3 All findings unanimously support four core assumptions ofcognitive-developmental theory:3.1 Morality is not only a matter of attitudes and value preferences but also of

cognitive competence 3.2 The six types of moral orientations defined by Kohlberg form a universally

accepted preference hierarchy3.3 These moral orientations are developmentally ordered as shown by the

simplex-structure3.4 Moral orientations (or preferences) and moral judgment competence are

parallel, that is, they correlate in a predictable manner


Conclusion II: Practical Implications

MJT-Research1.The Moral Judgment Test is a highly valid instrument for

evaluation the effects of methods and programs of moral andcharacter education• With the MJT, the outcomes of education programs can be clearly

interpreted in the light of psychological knowledge about the natureof moral behavior and development.

2.Methods and programs of moral education can presupposemoral ideals and values, and do not need to impose them onstudents.• Principled moral orientations of justice and mutual respect. Are

universally preferred. • Yet, people more or less lack the ability to apply their moral ideals in

every-day life.


Thank you


Moral Competence &Learning

New Directions


Moral Judgment Competence and Learning"How Often Have You Used Cooperative Learning in Class?"

Teachers (N=15)C

-Sco

re (M

JT)

27,1

42,545,5

60,3

15

25

35

45

55

65

Never Sometimes Often Very OftenQuestion 1.30

Moral Competencies & Learning

Teachers, N = 15

Lind, G.,Unpublished data


MathGerman

Moral Judgment Competence and Grades in Math and GermanDrug Consumption Study, N = 139

7th and 9th Graders

Grade

C-S

core

10

15

20

25

30

35

A B C D F

Moral Competence and Academic Abilities

German Middle School Students

Lenz, B. (2005),unpublished data


Moral Segmentation

New Directions


Moral Segmentation

O Definition: When moral judgment competence islower when applied to a dogma-related dilemma thanto an unrelated dilemma, we call this phenomenon‘moral segmentation’

O Moral segmentation has been observed, for example,in regard to religious institutions and militaryinstitutions


-17

8,5

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

MexicoGermany

C-Score Difference Doctor/Workers Dilemma; University StudentsSegmentation by Culture: Germany and Mexico


Germany, N=20191st Sem. (Lind)Italy, N=928(Comunian)Mexico, N=99(Moreno)Mexico, N=66(Quiroga)

Pronunciation and Segmentation: Moral Judgment Competence by Dilemma and Culture

University Students

(Arbitrary Law) (Mercy Killing)

C-s

core

(for

eac

h di

lem

ma)

51.8

60.3

39

4542

25

36

31

20253035404550556065

Workers Doctor

Moral Segmentation


-15,11-13,94

-19,908

0,541,555

7,465

6th Grade 10th Grade University-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

WorkDil - DocDilWorkDil - JudgeDil

BrazilSegmentation by Level of Education

Sources: Bataglia, Schillinger &Lind (2003)


-4

-9,5

8th Graders 11th Graders-15

-10

-5

0

5

Doctor - Workers

Colombia, March 2003, N = 3922Segmentation by Level of Education

Secretario de Educación de Bogotá,2003; analysis by Lind


TheftMercy-Killing

Moral Judgment Competence by Education (Segmentation)USA, Students, College (Source: Colesante, 1997)

F(3,90)=.76; p<.5179

Years in College

C-S

core

(one

dile

mm

a)

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3 4


Segmentation by Opinion on Doctor's DecisionBogota Study, March 2003; N = 3922

F(6,3045)=15,33; p<,0000

Wrong Right

C-S

core

(DIF

F_D

_W)

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

High segmentation goes withrejection of mercy killing

! High moral judgmentcompetence facilitatesa moderate opinion onan moral issue.

! Low moral judgmentcompetence leadseither to extremepositions or no positionon a moral issue.

The Dove-Curve


Moral Competence and Religiosity


40,3

31,3

16,514,5

Non-Religious Religious

0

10

20

30

40

50

Workers Dilemma

Doctor Dilemma

Moral Judgment Competence by ReligiosityBrazil (Bataglia, Schillinger, 2003)


-0,35

Moral Judgment Competence and Religiosity

Medical Personnel in Saudi-Arabia & Austria

0,0“I believe in the teaching ofmy confession”

DuBois, J. (1997). The moral judgment of medical personnel. A cross-cultural study about braindeath and organ explanation. Unpublished dissertation, University of Vienna, Austria.


26 25

11,5

25

Religious Non-Religious0

5

10

15

20

25

30

AustriaSaudi-Arabia

Moral Judgment Competence and Religiosity

Medical Personnel, Austria and Saudi-Arabia

DuBois, J. (1997). The moral judgment of medicalpersonnel. A cross-cultural study about brain deathand organ explanation. Unpublished dissertation,University of Vienna, Austria.

prof. dr. georg lind department of psychology university ...€¦ · 2 basque prof. santiago...

Documents