Volume 24, Issue 1 (Spring 2018)                   IJPCP 2018, 24(1): 30-43 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Hooshyari Z, Delavar A, Minaee A, Eskandari H. Comparison of Two Approaches for Measuring Moral Development: Neo-Kohlbergian Approach and Moral Study Challenges. IJPCP. 2018; 24 (1) :30-43
URL: http://ijpcp.iums.ac.ir/article-1-2740-en.html
1- PhD in Measurement and Assessment Department of Evaluation and Measurement, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University
2- . PhD in Measurement and Assessment Full Professor, Department of Evaluation and Measurement, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University , Email: delavarali@yahoo.com
3- PhD in Methodology and Statistics, Assistant Professor Department of Evaluation and Measurement, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University
4- PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
Full-Text [PDF 5257 kb]   (145 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (251 Views)
Full-Text:   (133 Views)
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction

Psychological constructs have various implications that may or may not be appropriate for measurement [1], and hence, morality is extremely controversial [2]. Although Kohlberg changed the morality into a measurable subject [6], it yet faces several challenges. Kohlberg demonstrated subjects with nine dilemmas and want them to make decision for story hero and explain how to obtain the solution. The subjects’ reasoning  is criteria for their moral development [11, 12, 14]. Herein, it is presumed that a person is aware of his mind’s inner processes and can express them [15]. Despite the establishment of the validity and reliability of Kohlberg method, it was severely criticized [12, 14, 17], Due to the lack of evidence for the post-conventional stage [16], this method exhibits limitations in self-reporting of cognitive processes and access to underlying information [18]. Since the mental operation is elusive from cognitive assessment [19, 20] and since the interview depends on the conscious understanding, people are unaware of the content of their minds [15, 18]. Thus, the two Neo-Kohlbergian approaches, led by James Rest and John Gibbs, overcame these criticisms.
Moreover, people know more than they say and weakness in verbal ability should not limit them from expressing their reasoning. They may not remember their knowledge, but if encountered with the same reasoning, they can identify and score them [16, 19, 26]. Thus, after the participants encounter dilemma, instead of putting forth their reasoning, they receive a questionnaire that includes the reasoning item that should be rated for the importance of its role in dilemma solving. The participants give a high score to items that match to their dominant moral schema unconsciously. The moral development level of the participant is defined by the maximum scores for reasoning [8, 16, 19, 20, 21]. Gibbs  did not encounter people with a dilemma, rather asked them to explain how much and why some of the ethics such as devotion, honesty, affection, and justice were a necessity. The individual’s answers formed the basis for the determination of the stage of moral development, and Gibbs expressed the reasons stated by the subjects according to Kohlberg [23].
The remaining participants presented  evidence for post-conventional moral stage and eliminated the impact of verbal skills in moral development measured as a strong point of the approach. However, this method was criticized by one participant who did not make reasoning by their-self fragment [16]. For Gibbs, the cognitive maturation allowed the processing of information, analysis, and conclusion; if a person could not reason for a high stage, it indicated that the higher stage was not consensual  [7, 12, 14, 17, 23]. However, if the two methods measured the unit construct, a consensus was essential [33]. Thus, the present study compared the two methods with each other and with the external criteria (interviews based on hypothetical riddles and real-life conflicts in individuals). 
2. Method
The present study is based on the mixed method models [34]. The research sample comprised of 40 respondents to Behavioral and Mental Health Assessment Center in December 2016, who were selected through purposeful sampling. The tools used included Defining Issue Test (DIT), Sociomoral Reflection Measurement-Short Form (SRM-SF), moral interviews based on the hypothetical dilemma, and in-depth interviews based on real life. Data were analyzed using Kendall’s method, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, analysis of variance, and independent t-test.
3. Results
The correlation between P of Defining Issue Test (DIT)and SRM is 0.62, while that between subjects’ moral development in SRM-SF and DIT is 0.54. All individuals that are labeled as morally mature persons by SRM-SF have a normative or post-conventional moral schema in DIT. However, of the 12 individuals that SRM-SF identified as morally immature, only 5 in the DIT received an interested personal schema. The participants in 3 moral schemas were compared via SRM scores, and the results showed the difference between PISs with NMSs and PCSs. The results also confirmed the difference between individuals with and without moral maturity (based on SRM) with respect to P derived from DIT. The correlations between the results of hypothesis-based interviews and the results of DIT and SRM-SF were significant and 0.46 and 0.62, respectively. The correlations between the results of the in-depth interview based on personal real-life events and the results of DIT and SRM-SF were significant and 0.48 and 0.53, respectively. Thus, a significant difference between DIT results and interview results of real-life events.
4. Discussion 
The correlation coefficient observed between the two tools is an index of their coherence in unit construct measurement [43]. It was also observed that in SRM, PIS had a significantly lower score than NMS and PCS. Although the PIS person wanted the world according to his desire, an attitude towards partnership and adherence to rules and principles was lacking. On the other hand, NMS prefers adherence to rules, order, and equality in law for all due to the moral maturity and avoid tribalism and self-orientation. The PCS individuals wanted welfare beyond the rules for all humans and exhibited a high moral maturation in SRM score. The SRM identifications were also confirmed by DIT; those with moral maturation earned a P  as an indicator of post-conventional thinking and cannot be observed those without moral maturation. 
The correlation coefficient confirmed using two tools with external criteria that served as the best indicators of the reliability of the results. Moreover, we observed that all the participants in DIT with a high score in NMS or PCS did not necessarily display the same in real-life; this result was not observed for SRM-SF. There is no hero in SRM, and therefore, no third person, voice of judger, and subject in one. Also, in personal life, the story's hero and the one who is reasoning are the same individuals. Furthermore, the emotions [33, 44, 45], sense of duty [46], thought of the outcome, and the fate of the closest people [32] affects the individual's decision and maybe a moral act independent of moral judgment in reality [49].
This paper was extracted from the first author's PhD dissertation in the Department of Evaluation and Measurement, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Allameh Tabataba'i University of Tehran.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

  1. Messick S. Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. ETS Research Report Series. 1988; 1988(2):i–28. doi: 10.1002/j.2330-8516.1988.tb00303.x
  2. Haidt J. Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2008; 3(1):65–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00063.x
  3. McFerran B, Aquino K, Duffy M. How Personality and Moral Identity Relate to Individuals’ Ethical Ideology. Business Ethics Quarterly. 2010; 20(01):35–56. doi: 10.5840/beq20102014
  4. Christensen JF, Gomila A. Moral dilemmas in cognitive neuroscience of moral decision-making: A principled review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2012; 36(4):1249–64. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.008
  5. Pittel SM, Mendelsohn GA. Measurement of moral values: A review and critique. Psychological Bulletin. 1966; 66(1):22–35. doi: 10.1037/h0023425
  6. Lind G. The cross-cultural validity of the Moral Judgment Test: Findings from 29 cross-cultural studies. Paper Presented at The Conference of the American Psychological Association; 2005; Massachusetts, USA.
  7. Gibbs JC. Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. doi: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199976171.001.0001
  8. Rest JR, editor. Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. New York: Psychology Press; 1994.
  9. Haidt J, Graham J. When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize. Social Justice Research. 2007; 20(1):98–116. doi: 10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
  10. Lapsley DK. Moral stage theory. In Killen M, Smetana J, editors. Handbook of moral development. New York: Psychology Press; Psychology Press; 2006.
  11. Colby A, Kohlberg L, Gibbs J, Lieberman M, Fischer K, Saltzstein HD. A longitudinal study of moral judgment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1983; 48(1-2):1. doi: 10.2307/1165935
  12. Kohlberg L. Stages of moral development. Moral Education. 1971; 1:23-92.
  13. Boom J, Brugman D. Measuring moral development in adolescents. In: A. Wouter Haaften editor. Moral Sensibilities and Education; Volume 3: The adolescent. Dublin: Concorde Pub. 2005.
  14. Colby A, Kohlberg L. The measurement of moral judgement: Volume 2, Standard Issue Scoring Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987.
  15. Boom J, Brugman D, van der Heijden PGM. Hierarchical Structure of Moral Stages Assessed by a Sorting Task. Child Development. 2001 Mar; 72(2):535–48. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00295
  16. Rest JR, Narvaez D, Thoma SJ, Bebeau MJ. DIT2: Devising and testing a revised instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1999; 91(4):644–59. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.644
  17. Kohlberg L, Hersh RH. Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into Practice. 1977; 16(2):53–9. doi: 10.1080/00405847709542675
  18. Thoma SJ, Dong Y. The Defining Issues Test of moral judgment development. Behavioral Development Bulletin. 2014; 19(3):55–61. doi: 10.1037/h0100590
  19. Rest JR, Narvaez D, Thoma SJ, Bebeau MJ. A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach to Morality Research. Journal of Moral Education. 2000; 29(4):381–95. doi: 10.1080/713679390
  20. Narvaez D, Bock T. Moral Schemas and Tacit Judgement or How the Defining Issues Test is Supported by Cognitive Science. Journal of Moral Education. 2002; 31(3):297–314. doi: 10.1080/0305724022000008124
  21. Rest J, Thoma SJ, Narvaez D, Bebeau MJ. Alchemy and beyond: Indexing the Defining Issues Test. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1997; 89(3):498–507. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.498
  22. Bebeau MJ. The Defining Issues Test and the Four Component Model: Contributions to professional education. Journal of Moral Education. 2002; 31(3):271–95. doi: 10.1080/0305724022000008115
  23. Gibbs JC, Basinger KS, Fuller D, Fuller RL. Moral maturity: Measuring the development of sociomoral reflection. Abingdon: Routledge; 2013.
  24. Emler N, Tarry H, James AS. Post-conventional moral reasoning and reputation. Journal of Research in Personality. 2007; 41(1):76–89. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.003
  25. Loftus GR. Comparison of recognition and recall in a continuous memory task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1971; 91(2):220–6. doi: 10.1037/h0031841
  26. Xu Y, Iran-Nejad A, Thoma SJ. Administering defining issues test online: Do response modes matter. Journal of Interactive Online Learning. 2007; 6(1):10-27.
  27. Moon YL. A Review of Cross-Cultural Studies on Moral Judgment Development Using the Defining Issues Test. Behavior Science Research. 1986; 20(1-4):147–77. doi: 10.1177/106939718602000107
  28. Page R, Bode J. Comparison of Measures of Moral Reasoning and Development of a New Objective Measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1980; 40(2):317–29. doi: 10.1177/001316448004000206
  29. Davison ML, Robbins S. The Reliability and Validity of Objective Indices of Moral Development. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1978; 2(3):391–403. doi: 10.1177/014662167800200314
  30. Dawson TL. A comparison of three developmental stage scoring systems. Journal of applied measurement. 2002; 3(2):146-89. PMID: 12011499
  31. Gibbs JC, Basinger KS, Grime RL, Snarey JR. Moral judgment development across cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s universality claims. Developmental Review. 2007; 27(4):443–500. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2007.04.001
  32. Krebs DL, Denton K. Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: A critical evaluation of Kohlberg's model. Psychological review. 2005; 112(3):629-49. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.112.3.629
  33. Sharifi HP, Sharifi N. [Principles of Psychometrics and Psychosis (Persian)]. Tehran: Roshd Publications; 2015.
  34. Creswell JW, Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research [AR. Kiamanesh, J. Saraei, Persian trans]. Tehran: Aish Publication; 2007. 
  35. Delavar A. [Research methods in psychology (Persian)]. Tehran: Virayesh Publications; 2006.
  36. Ghiasizadeh M. [Relationship between mental health and academic performance with moral judgment development in female secondary school students (Persian)]. Woman and Culture. 2012; 3(10):111-122.
  37. Kadivar P. [Moral psychology (Persian)]. Tehran: Agah Publication; 2004 .
  38. Delavar A., Minaei A, Eskandari H, Hooshyari Z. [Developed and standardize of the measurement tools for moral schemas and that’s structural model based on personality factors, empathy and moral atmosphere [PhD Dissertation] (Persian)]. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba'i University; 2017.
  39. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  40. Hooshyari Z, Delavar A, Minaei A, Eskandari H. [Extraction of moral schemas in managers in face of moral dilemma (Persian)]. Ethics in science and Technology. 2017; 12 (3) :25-33.
  41. Boyce C, Neale P. Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. Watertown: Pathfinder International; 2006.
  42. Eisenberg N. Empathy-related responding: Links with self-regulation, moral judgment, and moral behavior. In M. Mikulincer,  P. R. Shaver editors. Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior: The Better Angels of Our Nature. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association; 2010. doi: 10.1037/12061-007
  43. Berenguer J. The Effect of Empathy in Environmental Moral Reasoning. Environment and Behavior. 2008; 42(1):110–34. doi: 10.1177/0013916508325892
  44. Bretz S, Sun R. Two Models of Moral Judgment. Cognitive Science. 2017; doi: 10.1111/cogs.12517
  45. Aquino K, Freeman D, Reed A, Lim VKG, Felps W. Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97(1):123–41. doi: 10.1037/a0015406
  46. Høst K, Brugman D, Tavecchio L, Beem L. Students’ Perception of the Moral Atmosphere in Secondary School and the Relationship Between Moral Competence and Moral Atmosphere. Journal of Moral Education. 1998; 27(1):47–70. doi: 10.1080/0305724980270104
  47. Reynolds SJ, Ceranic TL. The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 92(6):1610–24. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1610
  48. Bartels DM, Bauman CW, Cushman FA, Pizarro DA, McGraw AP. Moral Judgment and Decision Making. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making . 2015; 478–515. doi: 10.1002/9781118468333.ch17
  49. Francis KB, Howard C, Howard IS, Gummerum M, Ganis G, Anderson G, et al. Correction: Virtual Morality: Transitioning from Moral Judgment to Moral Action? Plos One. 2017; 12(1):e0170133. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170133
Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: General
Received: 2017/08/19 | Accepted: 2017/11/1

Send email to the article author

© 2015 All Rights Reserved | Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb