Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

  • Upload
    salome

  • View
    235

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    1/129

     Society for Research in Child Development and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

    Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

    http://www.jstor.org

    A Longitudinal Study of Moral Judgment

    Author(s): Anne Colby, Lawrence Kohlberg, John Gibbs, Marcus Lieberman, Kurt Fischer andHerbert D. SaltzsteinSource: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 48, No. 1/2, ALongitudinal Study of Moral Judgment (1983), pp. 1-124Published by: on behalf of theWiley Society for Research in Child DevelopmentStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1165935Accessed: 21-01-2016 10:48 UTC

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/  info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/publisher/blackhttp://www.jstor.org/publisher/srcdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1165935http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1165935http://www.jstor.org/publisher/srcdhttp://www.jstor.org/publisher/blackhttp://www.jstor.org/

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    2/129

    MONOGRAPHS

    OF

    THE

    SOCIETY FOR

    RESEARCH

    N

    CHILD

    DEVELOPMENT

    SERIAL NO. 200, VOL.

    48,

    NOS. 1-2

    A

    LONGITUDINAL

    TUDY

    OF MORALJUDGMENT

    ANNE

    COLBY

    RADCLIFFE

    COLLEGE

    LAWRENCE

    KOHLBERG

    HARVARD

    UNIVERSITY

    JOHNGIBBS

    OHIO

    STATE

    UNIVERSITY

    MARCUS

    LIEBERMAN

    HARVARD

    UNIVERSITY

    WITH

    COMMENTARIESY

    KURT

    ISCHER

    HERBERT. SALTZSTEIN

    AND

    REPLY Y

    LAWRENCE

    OHLBERG

    AND

    ANNE

    COLBY

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    3/129

    MONOGRAPHS OF THE

    SOCIETY FOR

    RESEARCH

    IN

    CHILD

    DEVELOPMENT,

    SERIAL

    NO.

    200,

    VOL.

    48,

    NOS. 1-2

    CONTENTS

    I. INTRODUCTION

    1

    II. METHOD

    14

    III. RELIABILITY

    AND

    VALIDITY

    OF STANDARD ISSUE SCORING

    19

    IV.

    RESULTS

    28

    V.

    DISCUSSION

    57

    APPENDIX

    A

    77

    APPENDIX

    B

    85

    APPENDIX

    C

    87

    APPENDIX

    D

    90

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    3

    REFERENCES

    94

    ILLUMINATING

    THE

    PROCESSES OF

    MORAL

    DEVELOPMENT:

    COMMENTARY

    BY

    KURT W. FISCHER

    97

    CRITICAL ISSUES IN KOHLBERG'S THEORY OF

    MORAL

    REASONING:

    COMMENTARY

    BY

    HERBERT D. SALTZSTEIN

    108

    REPLY

    BY

    LAWRENCE

    KOHLBERG AND

    ANNE COLBY

    120

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    4/129

    ABSTRACT

    COLBY,

    ANNE; KOHLBERG,

    LAWRENCE;

    GIBBS,

    JOHN;

    and

    LIEBERMAN,

    MARCUS.

    A

    Longitudinal

    tudy f

    Moral

    Judgment.

    ith

    Commentaries

    by

    KURT

    FISCHER

    nd

    HERBERTD.

    SALTZSTEIN;

    with

    eplyby

    AWRENCE

    KOHLBERG and

    ANNE COLBY.

    Monographs

    f

    the

    ocietyor

    Research

    in Child

    Development,

    983,

    48(1,

    Serial No.

    200).

    This

    paper

    presents

    he results fa

    20-year ongitudinal

    tudy

    fmoral

    judgment

    development.

    he

    study

    epresents

    n

    attempt

    o

    document he

    basic

    assumptions

    f

    Kohlberg's cognitive-developmental

    heory

    f

    moral

    judgment.

    Subjects

    were 58

    boys

    aged

    10,

    13,

    and 16

    at time 1

    and were

    approximately

    qually

    divided at each

    age

    by

    social class

    and sociometric

    status. ociometric

    nd socioeconomic

    roups

    were

    qualized

    for

    ntelligence.

    The

    study

    ncluded

    ix

    testing

    imes-the

    original

    nterview

    nd

    five

    ollow-

    up

    interviewsdministeredt

    3-4-year

    ntervals.At

    each

    testing

    ime

    sub-

    jects were individuallynterviewed n theirudgments bout nine hypo-

    thetical

    moral dilemmas. nterviews

    were

    stage

    scored

    according

    o

    Forms

    A,

    B,

    and C

    of

    the Standard

    ssue

    Scoring

    Manual. All

    scoring

    was

    done

    blind

    by

    individualdilemma. Data

    are

    presented

    n

    test-retest,

    lternate

    form,

    nd

    interrater

    eliability

    or

    Standard ssue

    Scoring.

    Validity

    of the

    instrument

    s

    discussed.

    It was

    found hat

    ubjects

    proceeded

    hrough

    he

    developmental

    tages

    in

    the

    hypothesized equence.

    No

    subject

    kipped

    stage

    n

    the

    sequence

    and

    only

    4%

    (6)

    of

    the

    adjacent

    testing

    imes

    showed

    downward

    stage

    change.Thispercentagewaslessthandownward hangeontest-retestata.

    Moral

    udgment

    nterviewslso showed

    high

    degree

    f

    nternal

    onsistency

    in

    stage

    scores

    ssigned

    with

    the

    great

    majority

    f

    the

    interviews

    eceiving

    all

    their

    scores at

    two

    adjacent

    stages.

    Factor

    analyses

    by

    dilemma

    and

    moral

    ssue

    showed

    single

    general

    moral

    tage

    factor.

    Moral

    judgment

    was

    found o

    be

    positively

    orrelated

    with

    ge,

    socio-

    economic

    tatus,

    Q,

    and

    education.

    Stage

    scores

    n

    childhood

    were

    signifi-

    cantly

    orrelatedwith

    dulthood

    cores.

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    5/129

    COLBY ET AL.

    The results

    f this

    study

    were

    interpreted

    s

    being

    consistent ith

    a

    cognitive-developmental

    tage

    model.

    Subjects

    seemed

    to

    use

    a

    coherent

    structuralrientationn thinkingbout a variety fmoraldilemmas. heir

    thinking

    eveloped

    n a

    regular

    equence

    of

    tages,

    neither

    kipping

    stage

    nor

    reverting

    o use of

    prior

    tage.

    The

    Standard ssue

    Scoring

    ystem

    was

    found

    o

    be

    reliable,

    nd it was

    concluded hat t

    provides

    valid

    measure

    of

    Kohlberg's

    moral

    udgment

    tages.

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    6/129

    I.

    INTRODUCTION

    This

    Monograph resents

    the results of a

    20-year

    longitudinal

    study

    of

    moral

    development.

    The

    study

    represents

    n

    attempt

    to document the

    basic

    assumptions

    of

    Kohlberg's cognitive-developmental

    account

    of

    moral

    judg-

    ment.

    According

    to this

    account,

    moral

    judgment

    is said

    to

    develop

    through

    a

    sequence

    of

    six

    stages.

    Kohlberg

    (1969, 1976)

    followed

    Piaget

    (1965)

    in

    defining tages

    according

    to the

    following

    criteria:

    1.

    Stages

    imply

    distinct or

    qualitative

    differences n

    children's

    modes ofthinkingor ofsolving the same problem at differentges.

    2.

    These

    different

    modes of

    thought

    form an

    invariant

    sequence,

    order,

    or succession

    in

    individual

    development.

    3. Each of

    these different nd

    sequential

    modes of

    thought

    forms

    a "structured whole."

    A

    given stage

    response

    ...

    represents

    n

    under-

    lying thought

    organization

    which

    determines

    responses

    to tasks which

    are

    not

    manifestly

    imilar.

    4.

    Cognitive stages

    are

    hierarchical

    integrations. Stages

    form an

    order of

    increasingly

    differentiated nd

    integrated

    structuresto fulfill

    a

    common function.

    [Kohlberg

    1969,

    pp.

    352-53]

    In

    line with this

    notion of

    stages,

    the

    cognitive-developmentalapproach

    to moral

    judgment

    focuses

    on the

    qualitative

    form of the

    child's moral

    reasoning

    and on

    developmental

    changes

    in

    that

    reasoning. Kohlberg

    has

    attempted

    to

    describe

    general

    organizational

    or

    structural

    features

    of

    moral

    judgment

    that

    can

    be shown to

    develop

    in

    a

    regular

    sequence

    of

    stages.

    The

    concept

    of

    structure

    mplies

    that

    a

    consistent

    ogic

    or formof

    reasoning

    can

    be

    abstracted from the

    content

    of

    an

    individual's

    responses

    to a

    variety

    of

    situations.

    It

    implies

    that

    moral

    development

    may

    be defined

    in

    terms

    of

    the

    qualitive reorganization of the individual's pattern of thoughtrather than

    the

    learning

    of new

    content. Each

    new

    reorganization

    integrates

    within a

    broader

    perspective

    the

    insights

    that

    were achieved

    at lower

    stages.

    The

    developing

    child

    becomes

    better

    able to

    understand and

    integrate

    diverse

    points

    of

    view on a

    moral

    conflict

    ituation and

    to

    take more of

    the

    relevant

    1

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    7/129

    MONOGRAPHS

    situationalfactors

    nto account.

    In

    this

    sense,

    each

    stage

    presupposes

    he

    understanding ained

    at

    previous

    tages.

    As a

    result,

    ach

    stage

    provides

    moreadequate wayofmaking nd justifyingmoral udgments.The order

    in

    which

    the

    stages

    develop

    is said

    to

    be

    the

    same

    in

    each

    individual,

    not

    because the

    stages

    are

    innate,

    but because of the

    underlying

    ogic

    of

    the

    sequence.

    (See

    table

    1

    for

    summary

    f

    the

    stages.)

    Kohlberg

    has

    hypothesized

    hat

    the

    developmental

    evels

    that he

    has

    described are

    stages

    in

    a strict

    Piagetian

    sense. To test this

    hypothesis,

    longitudinal

    ata are

    required

    ollowing

    ubjects

    ver a

    relativelyong

    span

    of time.

    First,

    he

    stage

    concept mplies

    hat under normal

    environmental

    conditions hedirection f moralchangewillalwaysbe upward.Second,it

    implies

    that there will

    be no

    stage skipping.

    The individual

    must

    pass

    through

    ach

    stage

    n order o reach

    the next

    tage

    n the

    sequence.

    Third,

    the

    stage concept

    mplies

    hat an

    individual's

    hinking

    will be

    at

    a

    single

    dominant

    tage

    cross

    varying

    ontent,

    hough

    se ofthe

    adjacent

    tage

    may

    also be

    expected.

    Previous

    esearch

    has

    supported

    he

    general

    notion

    of an

    age

    developmental

    rder of

    qualitative

    responses

    nd a

    hierarchy

    f

    pref-

    erence

    and

    comprehension

    n

    these evels.Such an

    orderhas

    been shown

    by

    cross-sectional

    ge

    studies

    n

    a

    variety

    f

    cultures

    see

    Edwards

    1981).

    It

    has

    also been shownbya number ftrainingtudieswhich upport heassump-

    tionthat

    change

    after

    xposure

    o

    moral

    udgments

    t

    other

    tages

    s

    always

    to

    the

    next

    stage

    up.

    For

    example,

    Blatt and

    Kohlberg

    (1975),

    Colby,

    Kohlberg,

    et al.

    (1977),

    and

    Lockwood

    (1977)

    found

    that

    exposure

    to

    group

    moraldiscussionsn which

    range

    of

    tages

    was

    presented

    n

    general

    led

    to movement

    o the next

    stage

    up.

    Rest

    (1973)

    found

    hat there

    was a

    Guttman cale

    hierarchy

    n

    comprehension

    f

    the

    stages,

    hat

    s,

    ndividuals

    comprehended

    ll

    stages

    ower than theirown

    dominant

    tage,

    they

    com-

    prehended he nextstageup ifthey xhibited n thepretest ome (15%)

    usage

    of

    that

    stage,

    but

    they

    did

    not

    comprehend

    tages

    more

    than one

    above their wn

    dominant

    tage.

    In

    addition to

    data

    supporting

    he

    general

    dea

    of a

    developmental

    hierarchy

    n

    Kohlberg's

    evels,

    large

    number f

    studies

    eviewed

    by

    Blasi

    (1980)

    have

    generally

    ound

    significant

    ssociations

    between moral

    udg-

    ment

    evel

    and moral

    onduct.

    Reviewsofthe

    extant

    published

    iterature n

    research

    n

    the

    development

    f

    moral

    udgment

    based

    on

    the

    Kohlberg

    levels

    generallyupport

    he

    cognitive-developmentalssumptions

    bout

    the

    antecedents nd

    correlates

    f

    moral

    udgment

    evelopmentsee

    Rest

    1983).

    The

    data

    we have

    just

    cited as

    supporting

    he

    developmental

    evel

    hypothesis

    ave

    usually ompared

    group

    means.

    The

    results

    f

    these

    tudies

    have

    not

    directly

    upported

    he

    strong

    tage

    claim,

    as

    critics

    ike

    Kurtines

    and

    Greif

    1974)

    have

    pointed

    out. In

    part,

    the

    ambiguity

    n

    some of

    these

    2

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    8/129

    COLBY ET AL.

    S.

    H

    r

    .-4>

    ? -w

    l

    l)

    4)

    -

    eel

    Ic:~

    0~

    r

    Otnt n

    ne c

    4J

    ?4

    J

    ,

    '

    .o-

    -

    0;

    :

    .o>t

    t

    4

    4)

    0

    0

    4J

    -4

    -

    P-400r

    c

    ,Kr

    >- n

    0

    to0-o

    ,

    4

    4

    o

    -4oQ

    >

    d

    0"0

    L)

    I

    n

    cd

    0

    0

    0

    ~ 0C

    O

    4J

    tn

    4-)

    >

    4

    cd

    d

    C

    ~ ~

    b

    cnccO

    ~

    c

    -7.o9o4-4

    s.-

    VoL-

    oZ

    -) "

    4

    0-0

    C%

    0

    4J

    4u

    0

    4-1

    ?

    ac

    ~hc

    oe

    Cl o C:'-

    4J

    "g

    -o

    .-

    dCd

    4J

    .(

    t

    n

    x

    ,E

    4-)

    0

    W

    >

    nn

    Cn

    cd

    "o-

    +00

    C

    4J4Q

    "

    I

    cd

    +J)+

    ob

    0

    o4n

    4J>0f

    4

    Olt

    0

    0

    0,0

    tn

    U

    0

    tn

    k

    4-1

    rn , h

    Qrn

    4

    tn

    0rd

    t

    ?

    r

    i

    -

    )

    c-,-

    0

    ya :

    0l

    u

    C)

    0(n

    ?o o

    ' o 0

    4-

    o4

    7-

    r

    ,,w-

    Slo

    0

    4

    -

    1-.4

    d

    13 r

    4,4

    .

    0

    1.4

    4-) 0

    ?~

    0.4rc

    ce

    .4

    -)

    ot

    Cc AQ o,

    ~C

    a1-4

    4-c,

    )

    0

    C

    4-)E

    0

    d

    -)

    0

    tn

    Q

    1.4

    -)

    4)

    0

    -)

    4-)

    0"0

    E

    .,

    U

    >

    -4

    E

    0

    n

    4-.4

    4-)

    e

    I

    r= C1 f ~ 0

    1.4

    1.4M

    rf

    .4

    tn

    w

    r

    c r c 7 0 bC;c

    -,)

    >

    0 4-)

    4-)

    dC:

    c

    tn

    rn

    04,1 -4

    0n

    0

    d0 01..

    I=Cd

    db oCd

    c~

    "0

    Cd

    CdC

    e

    C~

    (rgcd

    0

    0

    $cd~j~

    , ra

    0f

    oc

    cd 0 d

    p

    "'C

    cdw -

    cd

    Cd

    l

    1.

    -4

    cl."

    w

    -t

    0-

    Eo

    +,

    in

    Ics

    41

    0

    Cd

    0

    0

    C

    dr

    O e

    X

    d

    w

    Cd

    b

    1.4

    0c

    ,i

    E

    17

    ,c

    --,

    (1

    1-

    1.4

    0-

    cd

    C

    14

    c

    4-)

    cn

    D

    -

    0

    yo

    d

    boo

    d

    0

    bo

    d

    Ic$

    d

    0

    Q

    Cd

    cd

    4

    d

    tw

    0

    d

    Cl.

    C's

    'ci

    I.,

    ci

    dIc$

    0

    0

    Cd

    0

    M4.-

    .4

    >

    0

    1-4

    1.4

    -)

    d

    0lc

    d

    )

    4

    0

    4

    W4

    O

    1.oo rfdM4 'ofetn-) 0

    d 0 laoM4-44 0Cl, o

    M00- 0>-

    l.0 0-4,4blo 's

    d

    01

    ?:m

    w

    4-)R

    -.

    C%

    0

    %-44

    'n

    4-)

    4

    or.

    4)

    1

    Cr Cd-

    lo(

    Cdl?

    "C/)

    blco

    d

    >1E

    0-

    cd

    cn

    tn

    U

    )

    E

    ?

    >C) Cd Q Q

    0

    a4

    ~

    C

    d C

    r

    Cd

    3

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    9/129

    MONOGRAPHS

    C,

    _

    Cl)

    _ ,

    ..

    Q

    -#.-4

    -

    00

    ~

    04-4

    0

    C/)

    >

    0C

    w

    Cd

    c~Q

    -4

    Q 4-

    U0)

    -d-

    0

    ,o$

    r-

    4-)I) 4

    0

    0,

    H

    0

    0 0-4Uw0,)

    ?

    Cd

    $4

    Co

    >r?.4

    r

    ---bO

    -

    ,_

    rn

    ,.c:

    oo

    C)

    c

    d

    0

    -A

    V,

    +3

    H

    g

    ~o

    cn

    ..4

    U044

    0

    nc

    rn

    0

    Eo,

    W

    ,

    4

    C

    %400

    4-)--

    4-

    C

    4-)

    4-)

    -

    .-4

    r

    t

    0

    w

    ~~P-4

    ~ ~

    0

    ,

    -.4

    4-)

    4-

    bo

    C

    I:

    -

    o-

    n

    -

    -4

    .-4u

    d

    -)0

    4

    J

    0

    0

    -

    0

    C

    O

    4

    -

    0

    d

    A

    -

    .

    44

    0

    ^0

    n00,

    -

    0

    "4

    bo

    r

    n

    '*-

    :0

    -

    _

    .4=

    C4r

    k4

    *,4

    J

    0

    -)

    C

    4-)

    (U

    C

    4,

    Cd d 0

    4

    Cbo

    cd

    d

    >C's(.

    Cd

    rn

    _I

    $,

    0

    rn

    - = 4) M >17 C

    0l)

    4

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    10/129

    COLBY ET

    AL.

    findings

    as been

    due to the imited

    eliability

    f

    Kohlberg's

    1958

    method

    of

    interviewing

    nd

    scoring

    moral

    stage.

    The

    longitudinal

    ata

    published

    byHolstein 1976),Kuhn (1976), and White tal. (1978) have shown ome

    anomalies

    n

    stage sequence.

    t

    has not

    been

    clear whether

    hese

    nomalies

    represent

    failure

    f

    fit f he

    strict

    tage

    modelto moral

    udgment

    evelop-

    ment

    or whether

    hey

    have

    represented

    onfusions

    n

    the

    conceptual

    defini-

    tionsof the

    stages

    or

    problems

    n

    the

    reliability

    r

    validity

    f

    the measure.

    In an

    early

    report

    f

    his own

    longitudinal

    ata

    over

    10

    years,

    Kohlberg

    (Kohlberg

    & Kramer

    1969),

    while

    reporting

    ome

    measurement

    roblems

    leading

    to

    anomalies,

    tressed

    genuine

    failure f

    the

    stage sequence

    hy-

    pothesisn thecollegeyears eadingtoso-called ophomore etrogressionn

    development.

    n

    1973,

    Kohlberg

    reinterpreted

    he

    anomalies

    as

    resulting

    not from

    retrogression

    ut from

    ncorrect

    onceptualization

    f

    stages

    as

    they

    appear

    in

    development

    fter

    high

    school.

    He

    reported

    ome

    clinical

    analyses

    fcases

    suggesting

    hat

    ollegeretrogressors

    ere

    xhibiting

    stage

    "41"

    (having

    movedout

    of onventional

    morality

    ut not

    yet

    nto

    principled

    moral

    udgment)

    and

    proposed

    revised

    onceptual

    definitionsf the

    fourth

    and

    fifth

    tages.

    n

    fact,

    uch

    revision

    ccountedfor

    nly

    few

    fthe anom-

    alies

    reported

    by Kohlberg

    and

    Kramer.

    This

    implied

    that there

    were

    generalproblems n the reliabilitynd validityofthe stage criteria nd

    scoring

    method.

    The

    present

    Monographttempts

    o

    address

    the

    validity

    of the

    stage

    model as

    applied

    to

    longitudinal

    ata and

    the

    associated

    problems

    f

    stage

    definition

    nd

    measurement

    hich

    his

    ask

    has

    required.

    It

    reports

    reanalysis

    f

    1956-68

    ongitudinal

    ata

    along

    with

    nalysis

    of

    the

    subsequent

    ata collectedfrom

    he same

    subjects

    rom 968

    through

    1976. The

    current

    nalysis

    nvolved he

    pplication

    f

    new

    scoring

    method,

    Standard ssue Scoring Colby, Kolhberg,Gibbs, t al., in press),based on

    a

    substantially

    evised

    ccount of

    the

    stages.

    One

    particularly oteworthy

    change

    n

    moral

    udgment

    tage

    scoring

    s

    the

    omission f

    stage

    6 from

    he

    current

    manual.

    Stage

    6 was

    omitted

    artly

    ecause none

    of the

    nterviews

    in the

    ongitudinal

    ample

    seemed

    ntuitively

    o be

    stage

    6,

    partly

    because

    the standard

    ilemmas

    re not

    deal for

    ifferentiating

    etween

    tages

    and

    6.

    The

    question

    f

    whether

    tage

    6

    should

    be

    included s

    a

    natural

    psycho-

    logical

    stage

    in

    the

    moral

    development

    equence

    will

    remain

    unresolved

    until

    research

    using

    more

    appropriatemoral dilemmas nd interviewing

    techniques)

    s

    conducted

    with a

    special

    sample

    of

    people

    likely

    to

    have

    developed

    beyond

    tage

    5.

    Because the

    scoring

    method s

    critical o

    the

    validity

    f

    our

    study,

    we

    will

    include a

    fairly

    xtensive

    escription

    f

    Standard

    ssue

    Scoring

    before

    proceeding

    o the

    Methods

    chapter.

    5

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    11/129

    MONOGRAPHS

    DEVELOPMENT

    F

    THE

    STANDARD

    SSUE MORAL

    JUDGMENT

    INTERVIEW

    ND SCORINGSYSTEM'

    In

    the

    early

    1970s

    Kohlberg

    and his

    colleagues

    began

    to redefine

    he

    central

    features

    f

    the

    moral

    udgment

    stages

    and

    to construct

    more

    adequate

    assessment nstrument. even of

    Kohlberg's

    longitudinal

    ases

    were

    used as

    the data

    base

    for this

    endeavor.

    It

    was

    expected

    that

    this

    process

    would

    yield

    a

    more

    precise

    nd accurate

    picture

    f

    moral

    udgment

    development.

    or

    example,

    t

    was

    expected

    hatwhen

    Kohlberg's

    emaining

    longitudinal

    ases

    were

    analyzed using

    the

    revised

    tage

    criteria,

    he

    data

    would fit

    the

    core

    assumptions

    f

    cognitive-developmental

    heory

    more

    closelythan theydid in Kramer's originalanalysis.Because the longi-

    tudinal

    interviews sed

    to validate

    the reformulations

    ere

    kept

    entirely

    separate

    from

    hose

    used to

    generate

    them,

    this

    revision

    process

    avoids

    circularity y allowing

    test

    of

    prediction

    o

    data other

    han those

    used

    to

    generate

    he

    scoring

    ystem.2

    The

    early (Kohlberg

    1958)

    scoring

    systems,

    entence

    Rating

    and

    Global

    Story

    Rating,

    were

    based

    on

    what

    was

    essentially

    content

    nalysis.

    That

    is,

    both

    systems

    ocused

    n

    what

    concerns

    subject

    brought

    o

    bear

    in

    resolving

    dilemma

    (e.g.,

    a

    concern for ove

    betweena

    husband and

    wife,

    he

    mportance

    f

    obeying

    he

    aw,

    a fearof

    punishment)

    nd

    treated

    those

    concerns s

    indicators f

    developmental

    tage.

    These

    scoring

    ystems

    yieldedenough

    equence

    anomalies n

    the

    1968

    analysis

    f

    the

    ongitudinal

    data to

    warrant

    ubstantial

    evision f

    the

    stage

    definitions.

    his

    revision

    process

    resulted n a

    clearer

    differentiation

    f

    moral

    udgment

    structure

    from

    ontent.

    That

    is,

    moreformal

    r

    abstract

    eatures

    f

    moral

    udgment

    were

    dentified

    nd

    formed he

    core of

    the

    new

    stage

    conceptions.

    The

    basic

    developmental

    oncept

    underlying

    he

    revised

    tage

    equence

    is levelof ociomoral erspective,hecharacteristicoint fviewfromwhich

    the ndividual

    ormulates oral

    udgments.

    n

    discussing

    evel

    of

    ociomoral

    perspective,

    et us

    begin

    by

    saying

    that

    we

    believe the

    perspective

    aking

    underlying

    he moral

    stages

    s

    intrinsically

    oral

    n

    nature

    rather

    han

    a

    logical

    or

    social-cognitive

    tructure

    pplied

    to

    the moral

    domain. In

    this

    interpretation

    e

    follow

    Damon

    (1983)

    and

    Turiel

    (1979)

    in

    their

    onten-

    tion

    that

    here

    re

    many

    ypes

    f

    perspective

    aking,

    ach of

    which

    develops

    separately

    s

    a

    resultof

    experience

    n

    a

    particular

    domain.

    In

    this

    view,

    spatial, social,

    and

    moral

    perspective

    aking

    are

    fundamentally

    ifferent

    processes ather hanapplications fa

    singlegeneral

    tructureo different

    content

    reas.

    That

    is,

    the

    form f

    spatial

    perspective

    aking

    s

    intrinsically

    '

    The

    research

    reported

    here

    was

    supported

    by

    National

    Institute

    of

    Child

    Health

    and

    Human

    Development

    grants

    HD02469-01

    and

    5R01HDO4128-09.

    2

    We will

    briefly

    ddress the

    ssue of

    circularity

    ater n

    this

    paper.

    For a

    fuller

    iscus-

    sion

    of

    that

    issue

    and of

    the

    theoretical and

    methodological

    changes

    referred o

    here,

    see

    Colby

    (1978).

    6

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    12/129

    COLBY

    ET

    AL.

    spatial,

    not

    moral or

    social,

    and

    the

    form f moral

    perspective

    aking

    s

    intrinsically

    oral,

    not

    spatial

    or

    social.

    According o Kohlberg(1976), stagesof social perspectiveaking, s

    portrayed

    y

    Selman

    (1980)

    both

    generally

    nd

    specifically

    n

    descriptive

    concepts

    of

    friendship,

    eer

    group,

    nd

    parent-child

    elations,

    re

    parallel

    to

    stages

    of moral

    perspective

    aking.

    As distinct

    from

    descriptive

    nd

    strategic

    ocial

    perspective

    aking,

    Kohlberg

    1976,

    1981)

    defines

    moral

    perspective

    aking

    s

    being

    a deontic

    or

    prescriptive

    udgment

    f

    obligations

    nd

    correspondingights.

    e defines

    the

    domain

    ofmoral

    udgment

    tages

    s the

    domain

    of

    usticereasoning

    nd

    describes hefollowing ourmoral orientations sed byrespondentso his

    dilemmas

    of

    conflicting ights:

    1)

    general

    or

    impartial

    following

    f

    rules

    and

    normative

    oles;

    (2)

    utilitarian

    maximizing

    of the welfare

    of each

    person;

    3)

    perfectionistic

    eeking

    of

    harmony

    r

    integrity

    f

    the self

    and

    the

    social

    group;

    and

    (4)

    fairness,

    alancing

    of

    perspectives,

    maintaining

    equity,

    nd social contract.

    While

    an

    emphasis

    n

    ustice

    s

    most

    bvious

    n

    the

    fairness

    rientation,

    "just,"

    impartial,

    r consistent

    nd

    general

    rule

    maintenance

    s

    also central

    to

    the normative rder

    orientation. he

    utilitarian

    rientation onsiders

    justiceas the operation fquantitativelymaximizingocialwelfare onse-

    quences.

    n

    the

    perfectionist

    rientation,

    he

    central

    lement

    s

    treating

    he

    self,

    he

    other,

    nd

    the self'srelations

    o

    others

    s

    ends,

    not as means.

    m-

    plicit

    n

    this orientation

    s

    fairness

    r avoidance

    of

    exploitation

    f

    others

    and the need to

    benefit

    hem.

    Kohlberg

    (1981)

    claims that

    ustice

    is

    the

    most structural"

    r

    "operational"

    domain of

    moral or evaluative

    hought.

    For

    Kohlberg,

    s

    for

    Piaget, ustice

    structuresre

    operations

    f

    ocial inter-

    action

    parallel

    to the

    operations

    f

    logico-mathematicalhought.

    Justice

    "operations"ofreciprocitynd equalityparallel operations

    f

    reciprocity

    and

    equality

    n

    the

    ogico-mathematical

    omain.

    These

    operations

    re basic

    to the idea

    of

    fairness s

    a

    balancing

    or

    weighing

    of

    conflicting

    laims

    through

    perations

    f

    reciprocity,

    quity,

    esert,

    nd

    prescriptive

    ole

    taking

    (putting

    neself

    n

    the

    place

    of

    the

    other,

    r

    the Golden

    Rule).

    Each

    stage

    uses these

    operations

    t its own

    level of

    moral

    perspective.

    or

    example,

    at

    stage

    2

    the Golden

    Rule

    is

    integrated

    s

    concrete

    eciprocity,

    return avor

    for

    favor nd

    blow

    for

    blow." At

    stage

    3,

    the Golden Rule is

    interpreted

    s

    imagining

    ow

    the selfwould feel

    n

    the other's

    place

    before

    eciding

    how

    to act.

    The

    stage

    3

    moral

    perspective,

    hen,

    differs

    rom

    he

    stage

    2

    moral

    perspective

    n

    engaging

    n

    ideal role

    taking

    n

    dyadic

    or

    group

    relations.

    Comparable

    differentiations

    etween

    any

    two of the

    five

    stages

    can

    be

    made

    using

    the

    five

    evels

    of

    moral

    perspective.

    These levels of

    moral

    perspective,

    briefly

    described

    in

    table

    1, provide

    a

    general

    organization

    of

    moral

    judgment

    and

    serve to inform

    and

    unite

    7

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    13/129

    MONOGRAPHS

    other

    more

    pecific

    moral

    oncepts

    moral

    norms

    nd

    elements

    o be defined

    later)

    such as

    the natureof the

    morally ight

    r

    good,

    the

    natureof moral

    reciprocityr moralrules,ofrights, fobligationor duty,offairness, f

    welfare

    onsequences,

    nd

    of moral

    values

    such as obedience

    to

    authority,

    preservation

    f human

    life,

    and maintenance

    f contracts nd affectional

    relations.

    Within

    ach

    of

    hese

    pecific

    moral

    oncepts norms

    nd

    elements),

    the

    form f

    developmental

    hange

    is

    to some

    extent

    pecific

    o

    the nature

    of

    the

    particular

    oncept

    n

    question.

    However,

    he

    general

    moral

    perspec-

    tive

    can be

    seen to

    underlie

    ts more

    pecific

    manifestations.

    The

    change

    n

    stage

    conceptions

    meantthatthe

    moralconcerns

    which

    had been consideredndicative f tage ntheearly ystemsecamecontent

    in

    relation

    to the

    newly

    dentified tructures. his reformulation

    f

    core

    structure

    mplied

    need

    to

    redefine

    he

    unitof

    analysis

    n

    scoring

    uch

    that

    the

    concerns

    hatwere confused

    with

    tage

    n

    the 1958

    systems

    ecame the

    units

    f ontent or

    tage nalysis

    nthe1971

    Structuralssue

    Scoring ystem

    (Kohlberg

    1971).

    In

    the

    atter

    ystem,

    tage

    was

    assigned

    o material

    within

    each

    content nit

    on the basis

    of

    evel

    of

    perspective.

    Structuralssue

    Scoring

    proved

    o be a

    substantial

    dvance over arlier

    systems.

    he

    new

    stage

    definitions

    ocusing

    n

    evel

    of ociomoral

    erspective

    not onlyyieldedmoreorderly ata, theyalso made possible more con-

    vincing

    ationale or he

    nternal

    ogic

    of

    hemoral

    udgment tage equence.

    There

    were

    a number

    of

    problems

    with

    this

    approach,

    however.

    The

    need

    to

    determine

    evel

    of

    perspective

    n

    stagescoring

    n

    interview

    mplied

    that the

    scoring

    nit must

    be

    large

    and

    that

    scoring

    riteriamustbe

    very

    general

    nd abstract. his

    meantthat

    coring

    ecisionswere

    ubjective

    nd

    oftenunreliable.

    Moreover,

    the reliance

    of

    this

    scoring ystem

    n

    very

    general

    features

    f

    stage

    structuremeantthat

    findings

    f

    nvariant

    ongitu-

    dinal

    sequence

    and

    stage consistency

    cross ssues could

    be

    attributed o

    consistency

    n

    or

    a universal

    equence

    of

    the

    general

    features ather han

    providing

    vidence

    or

    onsistency

    r

    sequentiality

    f he

    detailed

    onceptual

    differentiationsncluded

    n

    more

    pecific

    moral

    tage

    definitions.

    The aim ofStandard

    ssue

    Scoring

    was to

    overcome hese imitations

    f

    Structural ssue

    Scoring-to

    achieve

    greater

    bjectivity

    nd

    reliability

    n

    scoring

    by

    specifying

    lear and

    concrete

    tage

    criteria

    and

    to define

    he

    developmental equences

    of

    the

    specific

    moral

    concepts"

    within ach

    stage

    as well

    as

    the

    sequence

    of

    the

    global

    or

    general tage

    tructures.he

    redefi-

    nitionofthe scoringunit was thekeyto achieving heseaims. An under-

    standing

    of

    the

    general

    framework f

    the

    Standard

    Issue

    Scoring System

    and of

    the

    procedures

    sed to

    constructt

    s

    essential o

    an

    explanation

    f

    ts

    validity.

    et us

    turn,

    herefore,

    o a

    description

    f Standard

    ssue

    Scoring.

    The

    procedure

    or

    onstruction f the Standard

    ssue

    Scoring

    System

    was

    designed

    o

    avoid the

    problem

    f

    circularitytheoretical

    erification

    s

    a

    self-fulfilling

    rophecy).

    With this

    in

    mind,

    seven

    cases

    were

    selected

    from

    8

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    14/129

    COLBY

    ET AL.

    Kohlberg's

    longitudinal

    ample.3

    These

    "construction

    ases,"

    chosen

    at

    random

    from

    mong

    those ested

    t

    all

    six

    times,

    were

    assignedglobal stage

    scoresbased on intensive iscussionnd analysis sing oncepts rom truc-

    tural

    ssue

    Scoring.

    The

    responses

    o

    each

    dilemma

    were

    then

    lassified

    nto

    clearly

    defined

    scoring

    units,

    or "interview

    udgments."

    Each of

    these

    interview

    udgments

    formed he

    basis for

    a

    "criterion

    udgment"

    to be

    entered

    n the

    scoring

    manual. The

    stage

    scoreof each criterion

    udgment

    was

    assigned

    on

    the

    basis of the

    global

    score

    of the nterview

    romwhich

    t

    was derived

    nd

    a

    conceptual

    nalysis

    fthe

    dea

    it

    embodied.

    The criterion

    judgments

    generated

    by

    these seven

    construction

    ases were

    ater used to

    score theremainingnterviewsn the ongitudinal tudy hrough process

    of

    matching

    nterview

    material

    to criterion

    udgments

    n

    the

    manual.

    Those

    cases not

    n

    the construction

    ample comprised

    blind

    ample

    which

    was

    not

    used at

    all until he

    scoring

    manual

    had been

    completed.

    MORAL

    JUDGMENTNTERVIEW

    Three

    forms f moral

    udgment

    nterview

    ereconstructed. ach

    form

    consists

    f hree

    hypothetical

    oral

    dilemmas,

    nd

    each dilemma

    s

    followed

    by 9-12 standardizedprobe questions designed to elicit justifications,

    elaborations,

    nd clarificationsf the

    subject's

    moral

    udgments.

    For

    each

    dilemma

    these

    questions

    ocus

    n

    the two

    moral ssues hat were chosen

    to

    represent

    he central

    value

    conflict

    n

    that dilemma.

    For

    example,

    the

    familiar Heinz dilemma"

    (Should

    Heinz steal

    a

    drug

    to save his

    dying

    wife

    f

    the

    only

    druggist

    ble

    to

    provide

    he

    drug

    nsists n

    a

    high

    price

    that

    Heinz cannot afford

    o

    pay?)

    is

    represented

    n

    Standard

    Scoring

    s

    a

    con-

    flict

    etween

    he value of

    preserving

    ife

    nd

    the

    value

    of

    upholding

    he aw.

    Life and law are the two standard ssues

    for

    his

    dilemma,

    nd

    the

    probing

    questions

    re designed o elicit nformationn thesubjects' onceptions f

    these two ssues.Of

    course,

    he

    dilemma

    can also be seen

    to

    involve

    other

    value

    conflicts,

    or

    xample,

    between

    he husband's ove forhis wife

    affilia-

    tion)

    and the

    druggist's

    roperty

    ights property).

    n

    order

    o

    standardize

    the

    set of

    ssues cored

    or

    ach

    interview,

    hecentral ssues

    or

    ach

    dilemma

    were

    predefined.

    his

    preidentification

    f

    standard ssues not

    only

    allows

    the

    sampling

    f moral

    udgments

    bout the same six issues

    per

    interview)

    for ach

    subject,

    t also

    allowed the constructionf

    three

    parallel

    forms

    f

    the moral udgment nterview. hus, the first ilemma n interview orms

    A

    and B

    focuses

    n

    the

    same

    two

    ssues,

    ife nd

    law. The

    second

    dilemmas

    ofthe

    two

    forms oncern

    he conflict etween

    morality/conscience

    whether

    to be lenient

    oward

    omeonewho

    has

    broken he

    aw

    out

    of

    onscience)

    nd

    punishment whether

    o

    punish

    someone who

    has brokenthe

    law).

    The

    3

    Each

    case included

    four

    to

    six interviewswith the

    same

    subject

    collected at

    4-year

    intervals.

    9

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    15/129

    MONOGRAPHS

    third dilemmas

    nvolve a conflict etween

    authority

    e.g.,

    obeying

    one's

    parent)

    and contract

    abiding by

    or

    holding

    someone

    to an

    agreement).

    FormC involves hesame

    six

    issuesbut nsomewhat ifferentairsthan n

    forms and

    B.

    (See

    App.

    A for

    nterview

    orms.)

    The

    first

    tep

    in Standard

    Issue

    Scoring

    nvolves he classificationf

    the

    subject's

    responses

    o

    a

    dilemma

    nto the two standard ssue

    categories.

    This

    is a

    fairly

    imple

    procedure.

    n

    the Heinz

    dilemma,

    for

    xample,

    all

    responses rguing

    or stealing

    he

    drug

    are

    classified s

    upholding

    he

    life

    issue;

    all those

    arguing

    gainst

    tealing

    he

    drug

    are

    classified s

    upholding

    the law

    issue.

    In

    the

    follow-up

    ilemma

    Should

    Heinz be

    punished

    f

    he

    does steal the

    drug?)

    all

    responses

    rguing

    for

    eniency

    re

    classified

    s

    morality/conscience;

    ll those

    arguing

    forpunishment re classified s

    punishment.

    The

    first

    tep

    in

    scoring

    esponses

    o a

    dilemma,

    then,

    s

    to

    separate

    material

    nto the two issue

    categories.

    ince the issue units

    re

    large

    and

    often

    ontaina

    great

    deal of

    material,

    tandard ssue

    Scoring

    nvolves wo

    further

    ubdivisions

    by

    norm

    and

    by

    element,

    ee

    table

    2)

    before

    tage

    TABLE

    2

    CATEGORIES OF MORAL CONTENT

    A.

    THE

    ELEMENTS

    Upholding

    normative rder:

    1.

    Obeying/consulting

    ersons

    or

    deity.

    Should

    obey,

    get

    consent

    should

    consult,per

    suade).

    2.

    Blaming/approving.

    hould

    be

    blamed

    for,

    isapproved

    should

    be

    approved).

    3.

    Retributing/exonerating.

    hould

    retribute

    gainst

    (should

    exonerate).

    4.

    Having

    a

    right/having

    o

    right.

    5.

    Having

    a

    duty/having

    o

    duty.

    Egoistic

    consequences:

    6. Good

    reputation/bad eputation.

    7. Seekingreward/avoidingunishment.Utilitarian

    onsequences:

    8. Good

    individual

    onsequences/bad

    ndividual

    onsequences.

    9. Good

    group

    consequences/bad

    roupconsequences.

    Ideal or

    harmony-servingonsequences:

    10.

    Upholding

    haracter.

    11.

    Upholding elf-respect.

    12.

    Serving

    ocial

    ideal or

    harmony.

    13.

    Serving

    human

    dignity

    nd

    autonomy.

    Fairness:

    14.

    Balancing

    perspectives

    r

    role

    taking.

    15.

    Reciprocity

    r

    positive

    desert.

    16.

    Maintaining

    quity

    and

    procedural

    airness.

    17. Maintaining ocial contract rfreelygreeing.

    B.

    THE

    NORMS

    1. Life

    4. Affiliation

    (

    9.

    Civil

    rights)

    a)

    Preservation

    (5.

    Erotic

    ove

    and

    sex)

    (10.

    Religion)

    b)

    Quality/quantity

    6.

    Authority

    11.

    Conscience

    2.

    Property

    7. Law

    12.

    Punishment

    3.

    Truth

    8.

    Contract

    10

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    16/129

    COLBYET

    AL.

    scoring begins.

    This results

    n

    a

    fairly

    mall

    unit

    of

    analysis.

    The

    Standard

    Scoring

    unit,

    the

    criterion

    judgment,

    is

    defined

    by

    the intersection

    of

    dilemma X issue X norm X element. Classificationofresponses

    by

    issue in-

    volves

    determining

    which

    choice

    in

    the

    dilemma

    is

    being

    supported

    or

    which

    of

    the

    two

    conflicting

    ssues

    is

    being

    upheld.

    Classification

    by

    norm

    is

    a

    further ubdivision

    of

    the interview material

    by

    its value content.

    The

    norm

    represents

    the moral value

    or

    object

    of

    concern

    that is used

    by

    the

    individual to

    justify

    his or her choice

    in

    the dilemma. For

    example,

    one

    might

    argue

    that

    Heinz

    should

    steal the

    drug

    to save

    his

    wife's life

    (life

    issue)

    because

    of the

    importance

    of their

    loving relationship

    (affiliation

    norm). The elements representthe differentways in which the significance

    of

    a

    norm

    may

    be construed.

    They

    are the reasons

    for

    endowing

    the

    norms

    with

    value. To

    continue the above

    example,

    Heinz's love forhis

    wife

    (affili-

    ation

    norm)

    might

    be considered an

    important

    reason to

    save her

    (life

    issue)

    because that

    is

    a husband's

    proper

    role

    (duty

    element)

    because of

    his

    gratitude

    toward her

    (reciprocity

    lement),

    or for

    number

    of

    other reasons.

    Each of these

    is

    treated

    by

    Standard Issue

    Scoring

    as

    a

    discrete moral

    idea,

    and

    each

    represents

    a

    separate

    unit of material. The

    procedural

    compli-

    cations of

    subdivision

    by

    norm and

    element were

    found

    to be

    necessary

    in

    order to define a unit that was narrow enough to be homogeneous, to cap-

    ture what seems to be

    a

    single,

    discrete

    moral

    concept

    or

    idea,

    yet

    broad

    enough

    to

    represent

    the idea's full

    conceptual

    or

    structural

    significance

    for

    the

    subject.

    That

    is,

    the

    system

    provides

    a

    way

    for

    the scorer

    to

    categorize

    interview material

    in

    a

    nonarbitrary

    way

    into

    manageable,

    conceptually

    coherent units

    (interview

    judgments)

    which can

    then be

    stage

    scored

    by

    matching

    them

    to

    very

    specific

    and

    concrete criteria

    in

    the

    scoring

    manual

    (criterion

    udgments).

    (See

    App.

    B for

    illustration

    of norms and

    elements.)

    This systemofcontentclassificationprovidesfor meaningfuldefinition

    of

    the

    scoring

    unit

    which,

    in

    addition

    to

    being

    essential

    to

    those

    preparing

    the

    scoring

    manual,

    is

    also

    necessary

    for

    each

    scorer

    in

    the

    process

    of

    analyz-

    ing

    an

    interview.

    In

    effect,

    material

    in

    the interview

    transcript

    s

    classified

    according

    to

    three

    types

    of

    content

    category

    before

    it is

    classified

    by stage

    or

    structure.

    In

    addition to

    resolving

    the

    unit

    problem,

    this

    approach

    is

    useful in

    preventing

    some

    of

    the

    content-structure

    onfusions

    which

    have been

    prob-

    lems

    for

    earlier

    moral

    judgment scoring

    systems.

    For

    example,

    stage

    3

    reasoning oftenfocuseson love or the affiliative elationshipas a reason for

    Heinz

    to

    steal

    the

    drug

    in

    Dilemma

    III.

    That

    is,

    the

    content

    of

    affiliation s

    likely

    to

    occur in

    the

    context of a

    stage

    3

    (interpersonal

    concordance)

    struc-

    ture. Earlier

    scoring

    systems,

    which

    failed

    to

    clearly

    differentiate

    ontent

    and

    structure,

    tended to

    misscore

    as

    stage

    3

    reasoning

    that

    was

    in

    fact

    structurally

    more

    advanced but

    that

    focused

    on

    affiliative content.

    (For

    example,

    "Heinz

    should

    steal

    the

    drug

    for

    his

    wife

    because

    of

    his

    deep

    com-

    11

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    17/129

    MONOGRAPHS

    mitment o her

    and

    to

    the

    marriage

    nd

    the

    responsibility

    hat

    results rom

    that

    commitment.")

    By

    first

    ategorizing

    ccording

    to

    content

    nd

    then

    addressinghequestions fstructurerstage,StandardScoringprocedures

    involve

    explicit

    differentiation

    f

    form

    nd

    content

    nd,

    in

    effect,

    emind

    the rater that identification

    f a

    particular

    ontenthas not answered

    he

    stage scoring

    uestion.

    THE EXPLICATED

    RITERION UDGMENT

    A

    structural

    r

    theoretical

    xplication

    has

    been

    provided

    for

    each

    criterion

    udgment

    n

    the manual.

    Each

    explication

    ncludes statement f

    the underlying tage structure eflectedn the criterionudgment Stage

    Structure),

    etailed criteria

    or

    defining

    match o

    the

    criterion

    udgment

    (Critical

    ndicators),

    xplanations

    f

    distinctions

    mong

    criterion

    udgments

    a

    scorer

    s

    likely

    to

    confuse,

    nd

    several

    examples

    of

    interview

    material

    whichcan

    be considered o match he criterion

    udgment.

    See

    App.

    C for

    illustration

    f

    explicated

    riterion

    udgment.)

    This criterion

    udgment

    ormatwas

    an

    important

    dvance over

    earlier

    scoring

    ystems.

    he

    subjectivity

    f

    scoring

    decisions

    s minimized

    y

    the

    concrete nd explicit pecificationfexactlywhatconstitutes matchbe-

    tween nterviewmaterial nd

    a

    criterion

    udgment

    n

    the

    scoring

    manual.

    STANDARD

    SSUE

    SCORING

    RULES

    As

    we have

    said,

    Standard Issue

    Scoring

    nvolves

    irst

    lassifying

    he

    responses

    o each dilemma nto two broad

    categories-the

    standard

    moral

    issues

    for

    hat

    dilemma.Within

    ach

    issue a

    stage

    score

    s

    entered

    or

    ach

    match

    between criterion

    udgment

    n

    the manual and a

    moral

    udgment

    in the interview. sually,somewhere etweenone and five uchmatches

    are

    assigned

    or

    he ssue.

    Although

    n

    practice

    hese

    matches end

    to cluster

    at

    a

    single

    tage

    or at two

    djacent tages,

    here

    s

    no

    restrictionn

    the

    coring

    rules

    hat

    requires

    uch

    consistency.

    he

    rules

    llow

    scores

    o

    be

    assigned

    t

    all

    five

    tages

    f

    matches

    re

    found

    t those

    tages.

    In

    calculating

    n

    overall

    core

    for

    three-dilemma

    nterview

    orm,

    ne

    assigns

    summary

    core for

    ach of

    the

    six

    issues.

    As

    many

    as

    three

    tages

    may

    be

    represented

    n

    the

    ssue

    ummary

    core.The six

    ssue

    cores

    re

    then

    combined

    o

    yield

    a

    global

    interview core and

    a

    continuous moral

    matu-

    rity"score (weighted verage) forthe interview.See App. D forfurther

    discussion

    f

    scoring

    ules.)

    SUMMARY

    In

    summary,

    ohlberg

    has

    postulated

    ix

    stages

    n

    the

    development

    f

    moral

    judgment

    and has

    described

    these

    stages

    as

    characterized

    by

    holistic

    12

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    18/129

    COLBY

    ET AL.

    internal

    organization

    r internal

    onsistency

    f

    structure cross

    differing

    content nd

    by

    the invariant

    equence through

    which

    ndividuals

    roceed

    through he stages. In Kohlberg's earlyworkthesestageswere assessed

    using

    n

    interview ased

    on

    hypothetical

    moral dilemmas nd

    two

    systems

    for

    coring esponses

    o

    those nterviews:

    entence

    Rating

    and Global

    Story

    Rating.

    Some

    12

    years

    ater,

    new

    scoring ystem,

    tructural

    ssue

    Scoring,

    was

    introduced.

    From a

    psychometric

    oint

    of

    view,

    there were

    serious

    problems

    with

    these

    scoring ystems.

    he

    early

    systems

    acked

    validity

    s

    measures f

    structural-developmental

    tages

    since

    they

    nvolvedwhat was

    essentially

    content

    analysis

    of

    interview

    esponses.

    The

    later

    system

    achieved ncreasedvaliditywhen used byvery xperienced atersbut was

    subjective,

    ifficulto

    use,

    and

    unreliable,

    articularly

    hen

    used

    by

    those

    who

    had

    not

    had

    extensive

    raining

    nd

    who had

    not tudiedwith

    Kohlberg.

    Data will

    be

    presented

    ereto

    show

    that

    he

    current

    ystem,

    tandard

    ssue

    Scoring, rovides

    or

    eliable

    nd valid

    assessment

    f

    moral

    udgment tage.

    This

    was

    achieved

    through edefining

    he

    unit

    of

    analysis

    nd

    the

    relation

    between moral

    udgment

    content

    and

    structure

    nd

    through

    pecifying

    more

    precisely

    he

    process

    of

    inference

    rom

    nterviewmaterial to

    stage

    scores. We will also

    argue

    that this

    improved

    method

    of

    analysis,

    when

    appliedto Kohlberg's ongitudinal ata, provides moreadequate testof

    the

    stage

    hypothesis

    n

    moral

    udgment

    evelopment

    han has

    been

    possible

    to

    date.

    13

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    19/129

    II.

    METHOD

    DESIGN

    The

    design

    f

    he

    original

    ross-sectional

    tudy,

    whichwas ater

    followed

    up

    longitudinally,

    as determined

    y

    a

    numberof

    theoretical oncerns.

    Three variables

    were ncluded

    n

    the

    design: ge,

    socioeconomic

    tatus,

    nd

    sociometric tatus.

    ocioeconomic

    tatus

    was

    expected

    o

    be

    positively

    sso-

    ciated withmoral

    udgment

    development

    n

    part

    because it

    was

    assumed o

    be

    an

    indicator

    f

    sense

    of

    participation

    n

    the

    ociety

    s a

    whole.

    Kohlberg,

    drawing

    n

    G. H.

    Mead

    (1934),

    considered

    his

    enseof

    participation

    o be

    an important eterminantfmoraldevelopment. ociometric tatuswas

    intended

    o

    be

    an

    indicator f

    peer

    groupparticipation,

    hich

    Piaget 1965)

    argued

    was

    crucial

    to

    moral

    development.

    he

    age

    variablewas

    intended o

    establish

    he

    age developmental

    haracteristics

    f

    types

    of

    response

    o

    the

    moral

    dilemmas.

    These

    originally

    ross-sectional

    ubjects,

    tratified

    y

    three

    levels

    of

    age

    and

    two

    levels

    of

    social

    class

    and

    sociometric

    tatus,

    were

    followed

    ongitudinally

    t

    regular

    -4-year

    ntervals or

    0

    years.

    At each

    testing

    ime

    ubjects

    were

    nterviewed

    n

    the

    nine

    hypothetical

    moral

    dilemmas

    making

    up

    the

    threeforms

    f

    Kohlberg's

    moral

    udgment

    interview: ormsA, B, and C. At some

    testings

    ubjects

    lso

    responded

    o

    additional

    nstruments

    ot

    reported

    n

    this

    Monograph,

    ncluding

    nterviews

    concerning

    ttitudes oward

    social

    and

    occupational

    roles

    and

    attitudes

    toward

    ex,

    the

    Thematic

    Apperception

    est,

    Loevinger's

    entence Com-

    pletionTest,

    Piagetian

    cognitivemeasures,

    nd

    Selman's

    role-taking

    nter-

    view.4

    SUBJECTS

    The basic sampleconsisted riginally f84 boysfilling hefollowing

    2

    X

    2

    X

    3

    factorial

    esign

    see

    table

    3).5

    4All

    of the

    data from

    ohlberg's

    ongitudinal

    tudy

    re

    archived t

    the

    Henry

    A.

    Murray

    Research

    Center

    f

    Radcliffe

    ollege

    where

    hey

    re

    available

    to

    interested

    researchers

    or

    urther

    nalysis.

    6

    Girls

    werenot

    ncluded

    n

    Kohlberg's

    riginal ample

    because

    dding

    ender

    s

    a

    fourth

    ariable

    would

    have

    required

    oubling

    he

    ample.

    Given

    he

    aboriousness

    f

    the

    14

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    20/129

    COLBY

    ET

    AL.

    TABLE

    3

    DESIGN OF

    STUDY

    LOWER

    ES

    HIGHER

    ES

    Integrates

    Isolates

    Integrates

    Isolates TOTALS

    10

    years....

    6

    (6)

    4

    (6)

    6

    6)

    5

    6)

    21

    13

    years....

    4

    (6)

    3

    (6)

    5

    (6)

    5

    (6)

    17

    16

    years....

    6

    (6)

    2

    6)

    3

    (6)

    4

    (6)

    14

    Totals.... 16

    9

    14 14

    25

    28

    53

    NOTE.-Figuresnot nparenthesesndicate umber fcross-sectionalubjectswho were ollowedp longi-

    tudinally.

    igures

    n

    parentheses

    ndicate umberf

    subjects

    n the

    original

    ross-sectional

    ample.

    Asnoted n

    text,

    ive dditional

    working-classubjects,

    ge

    19 at

    time

    ,

    were

    dded n

    1964,

    t time

    .

    The

    population

    had

    the

    following

    characteristics:

    (a)

    Age.-Subjects

    were

    10, 13,

    and

    16

    years

    old

    at time

    1.

    (b)

    Class.-To

    facilitate

    filling

    he

    design,

    two suburban

    Chicago

    school

    systems

    were

    selected,

    one

    predominantly

    upper

    middle

    class,

    the

    other

    pre-

    dominantly

    lower middle

    and

    working

    class.

    Fourth-,

    seventh-,

    and tenth-

    grade

    classes

    formed the basis

    for

    selection.

    A

    dichotomous

    judgment

    of

    a

    boy's socioeconomic status was based on his parents' occupation and edu-

    cation,

    as

    reported

    in

    the

    school folder.

    In

    spite

    of efforts o

    obtain

    discrete

    groups,

    it was

    necessary

    to

    take children

    along

    a

    fairly

    broad

    continuum

    with a

    rather

    arbitrary, though

    conventional,

    dividing point.

    The

    fathers

    of

    boys

    in

    the

    lower- and

    lower-middle-class

    group

    included

    unskilled,

    semiskilled,

    and

    skilled laborers

    and

    white-collar

    workers without

    a

    college

    education.

    The

    fathers

    of

    boys

    in

    the

    upper-middle-class

    group

    included

    small

    businessmen, accountants,

    and

    salesmen with

    a

    college

    education,

    semiprofessionals,

    xecutives,

    and

    professionals.

    (c)

    Sociometric

    tatus.-When

    entering

    a

    given

    classroom the

    investigator

    described

    the

    procedures

    to

    be

    followed,

    including

    a

    "revealed

    differences"

    discussion

    among

    three

    boys.

    The

    boys

    were

    then asked to

    write the

    names

    of

    three

    other

    boys

    with

    whom

    they

    would like

    to have the

    discussion.

    The

    sociometric test was

    informally

    discussed

    with the teacher

    and

    compared

    with

    notes

    in

    the

    school folder

    before

    a

    final

    selection was

    made,

    in

    order

    to

    somewhat

    reduce

    determinants

    of

    school

    and

    athletic

    achievement

    and

    temporary

    fluctuations

    of

    popularity.

    The

    teachers were

    asked to

    comment

    on the boys' social connectedness, not on their moral characters or repu-

    tations.

    As

    in

    the

    case

    of

    socioeconomic

    status,

    there

    were not

    enough

    subjects

    available

    to obtain

    only

    extreme

    groups,

    so

    that the

    dichotomy

    tends to

    divide a

    continuum.

    Boys

    who

    were

    never

    chosen

    or

    who

    were

    chosen

    once

    interviewing

    nd

    scoring

    procedures,

    uch a

    large sample

    was not

    feasible.

    n

    retrospect,

    however,

    the

    omission

    of

    girls

    s

    regrettable.

    15

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    21/129

    MONOGRAPHS

    or twicebut never

    by

    someone

    hey

    had

    themselves

    hosenwere

    designated

    sociometricsolates.

    Boys

    with

    at least two

    reciprocal

    hoices or who

    were

    chosenat least threetimes, t least once reciprocally, eredesignated s

    integrates.

    (d)

    Intelligence.-IQ

    coreswere

    takenfrom choolrecords t time

    1

    and

    were based

    on various

    group

    tests

    routinely

    dministered

    n

    the

    various

    schools

    e.g.,

    the Otis

    and

    the Thurstone

    MA).

    An

    attempt

    was

    made to

    equalize

    intelligence

    or

    the

    social class

    and

    sociometric

    roups.

    Those

    whose

    IQs

    were above

    120

    or

    below 100 were excluded

    from

    he

    study.

    Although

    omplete

    qualization

    was not

    achieved,

    he

    IQ

    differences

    ere

    small

    and

    nonsignificant.

    ean

    IQ

    for middle-class

    oys

    was

    109.7;

    for

    lower-class

    oys

    t was 105.9.

    Mean

    IQ

    for

    ntegrates

    as

    111.2,

    for

    solates

    104.4.

    (e)

    Religion

    nd

    ethnic.-The ethnic

    and

    religious

    omposition

    f our

    sample

    s

    presented

    n

    table

    4.

    LONGITUDINALOLLOW-UP

    ND SAMPLE

    ATTRITION

    The

    study

    ncluded

    six

    testing

    imes-the

    original

    nterview

    nd

    five

    follow-upnterviews. ecause notevery ubjectcould be reachedat each

    time,

    the number

    of

    interviews

    er

    subjectranged

    from

    ne to

    six.

    Only

    those

    subjects

    with

    at least two interviewswere

    included

    n our

    current

    analysis.

    This conditionwas

    met

    by

    58 of

    the

    subjects.

    As

    shown

    n

    table

    5,

    the most

    typical

    number

    of

    interviews

    ompleted

    fora

    single ubject

    was

    four.

    All

    but

    three

    subjects

    were interviewed t

    least three times.

    Age,

    sociometric

    tatus,

    nd

    socioeconomic tatus

    f

    origin

    f

    hese

    58

    ongitudinal

    subjects

    re

    presented

    n

    table

    3.

    There

    was no

    attempt

    o locate for ater

    ongitudinal

    ollow-up

    hose

    boyswhowere unavailablefor ollow-upt time2. As shown ntable3,the

    initial

    dropout

    from

    he

    cross-sectional

    ample

    was not

    evenly

    divided

    by

    age

    and

    social class.

    Whereas

    12

    working-class

    oys

    dropped

    out,

    only

    8

    upper-middle-class

    oys

    did

    so.

    Ten

    of

    the time

    1

    6-year-olds

    ropped

    out,

    while

    only

    3

    of

    the

    10-year-olds

    id

    so. To

    compensate

    or he

    attrition f

    TABLE 4

    RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION OF

    CROSS-SECTIONAL

    SAMPLE

    Group N

    Working-class

    roup:

    C

    atholic....

    .........................................................

    14

    Protestant...

    ........................................................

    22

    Upper-middle-class

    roup:

    C atholic.......

    ...................................................... 3

    Jew

    sh

    ..............................................................

    2

    Protestant...

    ........................................................ 31

    16

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    22/129

    COLBY ET AL.

    working-class

    ubjects,

    n

    1964

    (testing

    ime

    3)

    we added 5

    working-class

    19-year-olds

    o the

    sample.

    Because

    IQ

    and sociometric

    tatus

    data

    are

    missing orthesesubjects subjects91-96), theyare not includedin our

    analyses

    of

    social

    class,

    education,

    Q,

    and sociometric

    tatus

    n

    relation

    to

    moral

    udgment.

    However,

    because

    they

    were each

    interviewedhree

    r

    four

    imes,

    hey

    were

    ncluded

    n

    our

    analyses

    f

    ongitudinal

    equence

    and

    internal

    onsistency

    f

    moral

    udgment.

    Thus the

    final

    ongitudinal

    ample

    was

    skewed

    somewhat

    toward the

    younger

    ohort but was balanced in

    terms

    f

    socioeconomic

    tatus.The cohortbias should not affect he

    basic

    findings

    f the

    study,

    owever,

    ecause orderliness

    f

    ongitudinal equence

    and internal onsistencyfresponses o the interviewwerenot relatedto

    age

    cohort.

    To

    determine

    whether he

    subset of

    subjects

    who

    dropped

    out after

    time 3

    were

    higher

    or

    lower

    n theirmoral

    udgment

    han

    the

    sample

    as

    a

    whole,

    we

    compared

    time

    1

    moral

    maturity

    coresof

    the whole

    sample,

    subdivided

    by

    age

    group,

    with

    time

    1

    moral

    maturity

    coresof the

    drop-

    outs,

    again

    subdivided

    by

    age group.

    As

    shown

    n

    table

    6,

    the

    dropout

    means

    were

    almost

    dentical o the

    total

    sample

    means,

    and

    there

    was

    no

    tendency

    or

    ubjects

    who

    dropped

    out

    earlier

    n

    the

    study

    o show ower

    TABLE

    5

    FREQUENCY

    OF

    LONGITUDINAL

    FOLLOW-UP

    Number

    of

    nterviews

    Completed

    nd

    Scored

    N

    2

    ...................................................................

    3

    3...................

    .......

    ..........................................

    .

    8

    4

    ..................... .

    ..........

    ..................

    ..................

    25

    5.......................

    ...............................................

    12

    6.

    ...............................................................

    ........

    10

    Total............................................................ 58

    NOTE.-Because

    interviewsrom

    even of

    these

    ubjects

    were

    used to

    constructhe

    scoring

    manual,

    he

    blind

    ample

    usedfor

    ata

    analysis

    ncluded

    nly

    1

    subjects.

    TABLE

    6

    TIME

    1

    MORAL

    MATURITY

    SCORES

    FOR

    DROPOUTS

    FROM

    SAMPLE

    AGE AT

    TIME

    1

    (Years)

    10 13 16

    Mean

    MMS

    at

    time

    1

    of

    subjects:

    Dropping

    out after

    ime

    2............... 203

    (2)

    Dropping

    out after ime

    3...............

    Dropping

    out after

    ime

    4...............

    176

    4)

    Dropping

    out

    after

    ime

    5...............

    191

    5)

    Mean

    MMS

    at time 1

    of

    dropouts..........

    190(11)

    Mean

    MMS

    at

    time

    1

    of

    total

    sample.......

    189

    21)

    240

    2)

    227

    (2)

    234

    4)

    236(17)

    260

    5)

    249

    5)

    255

    10)

    262

    14)

    17

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    23/129

    MONOGRAPHS

    scores t

    time 1

    than thosewho

    dropped

    out

    later.

    Thus,

    mean increase n

    moral

    maturity

    coresover time cannot

    be

    attributed o lower

    stage

    sub-

    jectsdropping ut ofthe ongitudinalample.

    MORAL

    JUDGMENT

    NTERVIEWS

    Subjects

    were interviewed irst

    n

    1955-56

    and at

    3-4-year

    ntervals

    thereafter.

    he

    last

    set

    of

    nterviews

    including

    5

    subjects)

    was

    completed

    in

    1976-77.

    Although

    he

    probe

    questions

    iffered

    lightly

    rom

    ne

    testing

    time to

    another,

    the

    same

    nine

    dilemmas

    were

    used each time. These

    dilemmas were

    later

    used

    in

    constructing

    he

    Standard

    Issue Interviews

    and

    represent

    n effectheuse of all threeStandard Forms

    A,

    B, and

    C)

    at

    each

    testing

    ime

    for ach

    subject.

    All

    interviews ere

    conducted

    ndi-

    vidually

    nd

    were

    tape

    recorded

    nd transcribed.

    MORAL

    JUDGMENT CORING

    Interviewswere

    scored

    according

    to

    the Standard

    Issue

    Scoring

    Manual

    (in

    press)

    forms,A, B,

    and C.

    (See

    App.

    D

    for a

    discussion f

    scoring

    rules.)

    Because the

    number

    of

    interviews o be scored

    was

    very

    large,

    differentater cored ach ofthe three orms

    , B,

    and C. Allthree

    raters

    were

    highly

    xperienced,

    nd

    reliability

    mong

    themfell

    within

    he

    limits

    iscussed

    n

    the

    reliability

    ection

    Chap.

    III

    below)

    ofthis

    Monograph.

    None of the

    interviewers

    articipated

    n

    coding

    the

    interviews.

    coring

    of

    all

    interviews as

    done blind.

    That

    is,

    raters

    oded

    the

    responses

    o

    each

    dilemma t

    each time

    without

    nowing

    he

    subject's ge,

    identity,

    esponses

    to

    (or

    scores

    on)

    other

    dilemmas t

    the

    same

    testing

    ime,

    or

    responses

    o

    (or

    scores

    n)

    any

    of the

    dilemmas

    t

    other

    esting

    imes.

    18

    This content downloaded from 202.38.182.7 on Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:48:37 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

  • 8/19/2019 Monogrph longitudnal study.pdf

    24/129

    III.

    RELIABILITY ND

    VALIDITY

    OF

    STANDARD

    ISSUE

    SCORING

    RELIABILITY

    Reliability

    ata

    of several

    types

    were

    compiled

    for he

    Standard

    ssue

    instrument.

    s

    the

    following

    esults

    ndicate,

    he

    instrument

    as

    proven

    o

    be

    highly

    eliable.

    Test-retest

    eliability.-Test-retest

    oral

    udgment

    nterviews ere con-

    ducted

    with 43

    subjects

    using

    form

    A,

    31

    subjects

    using

    form

    B,

    and

    10

    subjectsusingbothA and B. No test-retestata have been collectedfor

    form

    C

    as

    yet.

    The same forms

    were

    used

    at

    times

    1

    and

    2

    with

    onditions

    of

    testing

    eld constant

    nd

    intervals

    etween

    ime

    1

    and

    time

    2

    ranging

    from to 6

    weeks.

    Subjects

    were

    chosen

    from

    mong

    volunteers

    n

    several

    Boston

    area

    elementary

    nd

    high

    schools,

    olleges,

    nd

    graduate

    schools.

    The

    college

    and

    graduate

    chool

    tudents

    ere

    paid

    for

    heir

    ime.

    Subjects

    ranged

    in

    age

    from

    to 28

    years

    and

    approximately

    alf

    were

    male and

    half

    female.

    Interviews

    were

    scored blind

    by

    two

    raters

    using

    the

    Standard

    Issue

    ScoringManual (in press).

    Test-retest

    eliability igures

    re

    summarized n

    table

    7.

    As

    shown n

    that

    table,

    correlations

    etween

    ime

    1

    and

    time

    2

    for

    forms

    A

    and

    B

    are

    both n

    the

    high

    nineties.

    ince

    the

    correlations

    ould be

    veryhigh

    without

    much

    absolute

    agreement

    etween

    coresat

    time

    1

    and

    time

    2,

    we

    have

    also

    presented

    ercent

    greement

    igures.

    or

    almost

    ll

    subjects,

    he

    scores

    on

    times

    1

    and

    2

    were

    within

    /3

    stage

    of

    each

    other

    one

    step-from

    1

    to

    1[2]

    or