This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire] On: 10 February 2015, At: 23:21 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Error in Self-Assessment of Moral Judgment Stages Jack Arbuthnot
a
a
Ohio University , USA Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Jack Arbuthnot (1979) Error in Self-Assessment of Moral Judgment Stages, The Journal of Social Psychology, 107:2, 289-290, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1979.9922714 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1979.9922714
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:21 10 February 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
CURRENT PROBLEMS AND RESOLUTIONS
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:21 10 February 2015
Under this heading appear summaries of data which, in 500 words or less, would increase our comprehension of socially compelling problems, hopefully move us somewhat closer to a solution, and clearly show promise of transcending their own origin in the Zeitgeist; additional details concerning the results can be obtained by communicating directly with the investigator or, when indicated, by requesting supplementary maten'alfiom Microfiche Publications. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1979, 107, 289-290.
ERROR IN SELF-ASSESSMENT O F MORAL JUDGMENT STAGES*' Ohio University
JACK
ARBUTHNOT
For moral education programs based in the cognitive-developmental approach, a critical requirement is the ability of the moral educator to assess moral reasoning stages accurately in order to create an appropriate amount of disequilibrium to stimulate advance. Educators who either overor underestimate their own stage will not be able to make the appropriate discriminations needed for effective interventions. Given the value-laden nature of Kohlberg's stages, it is likely that educators with minimal training in moral theory will overestimate their own stage. The present study examined the magnitude of this phenomenon. A total of 110 college students (5 1 males and 59 females) from upper level psychology classes served as voluntary Ss. They ranged in age from 18 to 32 (@ = 22.3, u = 3.5) and in social class from 1 to 5 on Hollingshead's five-point scale (@ = 3.1, u = 1.2). The Ss can be considered comparable to typical primary and secondary teachers in ability level and psychological training.
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on November 8, 1977. Copyright, 1979, by The Journal Press. Reprints and an extended report may be obtained without charge from the author at the address shown at the end of this article. 289
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:21 10 February 2015
2 90
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
All Ss were administered Form A of Kohlberg’s moral judgment survey.2 Protocols were scored by the author (interrater reliability coefficient of .90), using Kohlberg’s revised scoring procedures. The Ss were subsequently given formal classroom training in moral judgment theories (with emphasis on Kohlberg) consisting of 4-6 hours of lectures and discussions, extensive textbook and journal readings, and interpretive handouts of sample responses by stages with explanations of underlying structures of reasoning. This amount of training is probably typical of (or exceeds) that of many primary and secondary teachers who are currently utilizing some form of moral education procedure in their classrooms. Participants subsequently scored their own previously submitted protocols and gave confidential ratings of their own moral reasoning stages. The distributions of stage scores were as follows: Ss’ assessments, Stage 1(0%), 2(0%), 3(6.4%), 4(11.8%), 5(62.7%), 6(19.1%); researcher‘s assessments, Stage 1(0%), 2(14.5%), 3(40.9%), 4(34.5%), 5(10.0%), 6(0%). The two distributions differ significantly (x2= 95.05, df = 5 ; p < .001). Only 17.3% of the Ss correctly assessed their stage scores. The distribution of errors (subjective minus objective) was as follows: + 1(30.9%), +2(36.4%), +3(10.9%), +4(4.6%). S s at the higher stages made increasingly more accurate assessments. This may indicate that higher stage reasoners were more accurate assessors, that a ceiling effect on error was operative, or that higher stage reasoners were more often accidentally correct, since the most common error was assignment of Stage 5 to the self. The drastic overestimations of stage scores was most likely due to one of two factors: ( a ) a social desirability effect from the higher valuation of the higher stages, a n d o r ( b ) an inability of lower stage reasoners to comprehend higher stage reasoning, with an attendant tendency to reinterpret the higher stages into one’s own dominant stage. These findings imply that moral educators need extensive training in moral development theory and assessment, including objective assessment feedback. Further, greater emphasis needs to be placed on the nonevaluative aspects of the moral stages to minimize distortions in stage assessments. Department of Psychology Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 The Kohlberg survey and most recent scoring manual are available from the Center for Moral Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02 138.
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Error in Self-Assessment of Moral Judgment Stages Jack Arbuthnot
a
a
Ohio University , USA Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Jack Arbuthnot (1979) Error in Self-Assessment of Moral Judgment Stages, The Journal of Social Psychology, 107:2, 289-290, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1979.9922714 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1979.9922714
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:21 10 February 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
CURRENT PROBLEMS AND RESOLUTIONS
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:21 10 February 2015
Under this heading appear summaries of data which, in 500 words or less, would increase our comprehension of socially compelling problems, hopefully move us somewhat closer to a solution, and clearly show promise of transcending their own origin in the Zeitgeist; additional details concerning the results can be obtained by communicating directly with the investigator or, when indicated, by requesting supplementary maten'alfiom Microfiche Publications. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1979, 107, 289-290.
ERROR IN SELF-ASSESSMENT O F MORAL JUDGMENT STAGES*' Ohio University
JACK
ARBUTHNOT
For moral education programs based in the cognitive-developmental approach, a critical requirement is the ability of the moral educator to assess moral reasoning stages accurately in order to create an appropriate amount of disequilibrium to stimulate advance. Educators who either overor underestimate their own stage will not be able to make the appropriate discriminations needed for effective interventions. Given the value-laden nature of Kohlberg's stages, it is likely that educators with minimal training in moral theory will overestimate their own stage. The present study examined the magnitude of this phenomenon. A total of 110 college students (5 1 males and 59 females) from upper level psychology classes served as voluntary Ss. They ranged in age from 18 to 32 (@ = 22.3, u = 3.5) and in social class from 1 to 5 on Hollingshead's five-point scale (@ = 3.1, u = 1.2). The Ss can be considered comparable to typical primary and secondary teachers in ability level and psychological training.
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on November 8, 1977. Copyright, 1979, by The Journal Press. Reprints and an extended report may be obtained without charge from the author at the address shown at the end of this article. 289
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:21 10 February 2015
2 90
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
All Ss were administered Form A of Kohlberg’s moral judgment survey.2 Protocols were scored by the author (interrater reliability coefficient of .90), using Kohlberg’s revised scoring procedures. The Ss were subsequently given formal classroom training in moral judgment theories (with emphasis on Kohlberg) consisting of 4-6 hours of lectures and discussions, extensive textbook and journal readings, and interpretive handouts of sample responses by stages with explanations of underlying structures of reasoning. This amount of training is probably typical of (or exceeds) that of many primary and secondary teachers who are currently utilizing some form of moral education procedure in their classrooms. Participants subsequently scored their own previously submitted protocols and gave confidential ratings of their own moral reasoning stages. The distributions of stage scores were as follows: Ss’ assessments, Stage 1(0%), 2(0%), 3(6.4%), 4(11.8%), 5(62.7%), 6(19.1%); researcher‘s assessments, Stage 1(0%), 2(14.5%), 3(40.9%), 4(34.5%), 5(10.0%), 6(0%). The two distributions differ significantly (x2= 95.05, df = 5 ; p < .001). Only 17.3% of the Ss correctly assessed their stage scores. The distribution of errors (subjective minus objective) was as follows: + 1(30.9%), +2(36.4%), +3(10.9%), +4(4.6%). S s at the higher stages made increasingly more accurate assessments. This may indicate that higher stage reasoners were more accurate assessors, that a ceiling effect on error was operative, or that higher stage reasoners were more often accidentally correct, since the most common error was assignment of Stage 5 to the self. The drastic overestimations of stage scores was most likely due to one of two factors: ( a ) a social desirability effect from the higher valuation of the higher stages, a n d o r ( b ) an inability of lower stage reasoners to comprehend higher stage reasoning, with an attendant tendency to reinterpret the higher stages into one’s own dominant stage. These findings imply that moral educators need extensive training in moral development theory and assessment, including objective assessment feedback. Further, greater emphasis needs to be placed on the nonevaluative aspects of the moral stages to minimize distortions in stage assessments. Department of Psychology Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 The Kohlberg survey and most recent scoring manual are available from the Center for Moral Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02 138.
