kohlberg’s dilemmas - uni konstanz · pdf filekohlberg’s dilemmas ... theory,...

© Copyright by Georg Lind, 2014

Kohlberg’s Dilemmas

How to Allign the Internal-Structural Definition of MoralCompetence with Measurement

Georg Lind

www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/


Internal External

Structural Definition

Atomistic Measurement


Internal Definition External Measurement“Morality ... defined as 'having moral principles' ...includes [aspects like] selection and ordering of therules, intelligent interpretation of them, and innerconformity to them in difficult situations rather thanouter conformity in routine situations.” (Kohlberg 1958,p. 3; emphasis added)

“Proponents of behavioristic conceptions of moralconduct typically define conduct as moral if it con-forms to a socially or culturally accepted norm. Allof us recognize this is intuitively incorrect..."(Kohlberg 194, p. 392)

“Right action is defined by valid universalizablemoral principles ... defined by, and justified byphilosophers.”(Kohlberg 1984, p. 393)

“I include in my approach a normative component.[...] I assumed the need ... to give a philosophicrationale for why a higher stage is a better stage.” (p. 400)

“Moral rightness [cannot be] judged by an opinionpoll of high stage subjects.” (p. 393)


Structural Definition Atomistic Measurement*“Cognitive structures are always structures (schema-ta) of action.” (Kohlberg 1958, p. 8)

“Our stages of moral judgment are defined by theform of moral judgment, not its content.”(Kohlberg1984, p. 524)

“The responses of subjects to the dilemmas and theirsubsequent responses to clinical probing are taken toreflect, exhibit, or manifest the structure.” (p. 407)

Structure “is a construct rather than a inference, andis warranted only on the grounds of intelligible orde-ring of the manifest items.” (p. 408)

“If a test is to yield stage structure, a concept of thatstructure must be built into the initial act of observati-on, test construction, and scoring.” (pp. 401-402)

“The structures themselves can never be observ-ed...” (Kohlberg 1984, p. 242)

“My colleague and I ... have required each item inthe manual to clearly reflect the structure of thestage to which it is keyed.” (p. 403; emphasis added)

“Test reliability and test construct validity are oneand the same thing.” (p. 424)

*That is, classical test theory, and item-response theory (Rasch-scaling).*That is, classical test theory, and item-response theory (Rasch-


Aligning Definition and Measurement:The Moral Competence Test (MCT)*

P Experimental Design: The standard MCT consists of pro & contra argu-ments, two dilemma stories (workers, doctor), representing six moralorientations, forming a 2 x 2 x 6 orthogonal design.

P Moral Task: The MCT confronts the participants with a difficult moraltask, namely to judge agreeing and opposing arguments by their moralquality rather then their opinion-agreement.

P Behavioral Data: Participants’ ratings of arguments for and against agiven decision on a 9-point scale (reject – accept).

P Scoring the two aspects of moral behavior: < Moral competence: C-score, by multivariate analysis of variance components

of individual response pattern (moral competence score)< Moral orientation: Summated ratings of six moral orientations (Kohlberg).

* Formerly called “Moral Judgment Test” (MJT)


MCT


Excerpt from the Moral Competence Test (MCT); Lind (2008). Contact: [email protected]


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

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

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

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

WWWW

WW

WWWWWW

Person A“The decision was right”

Contra Pro

C-score: 0.4Low moral competence

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

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

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

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

W

WWW

WW

WWW

W

W

W

Person B“The decision was right”

Contra Pro

C-score: 92.2High moral competence

Person:Opinion:

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

Structural

The moral competence score [C] is based on the individual pattern of responses to a multi-variate test situation.

Fictitious example: Two participants with different competence-scores

See Lind, G. (1982; 2008), also: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/


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

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

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

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

Person C“The decision was right”

Contra Pro

C-score: 92.2High moral competenceModal moral orientation: Stage 1

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

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

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

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

WWW

WW

WWWW

W

W

Person B“The decision was right”

Contra Pro

C-score: 92.2High moal competenceModal moral orientation: Stage 6

W

W

W

WW

WWW

W

W

W

W

Person:Opinion:

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

Internal

The moral competence score [C] is tied to the participant’s internal orientations, not to external norms

Example: Two persons with same moral competence, but different moral orientations


P Hemmerling, K. (2014). Morality behind bars – An intervention study on fostering moral competence of prisoners as a newapproach to social rehabilitation. Frankfurt & New York: Peter Lang.

P Kohlberg, L (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10 to 16. University of Chicago.Unpubl. doctoral dissertation.

P Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of moral character and moral ideology. In: M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman, eds., Reviewof Child Development Research, Vol. I, pp. 381-431. New York: Russel Sage Foundation

P Kohlberg, L. (1976), Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In: T. Lickona, ed., Moraldevelopment and behavior: Theory, research and social issues, pp. 31-53. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

P Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development, Vol. II, The psychology of moral development. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

P Lind, G. (1982). Experimental Questionnaires: A New Approach to Personality Research. In A. Kossakowski & K.Obuchowski, eds., Progress in Psychology of Personality. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 132 - 144.

P Lind, G. (2008). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment competence revisited - A dual-aspect model. In: D.Fasko & W. Willis, eds., Contemporary philosophical and psychological perspectives on moral development and education,pp. 185 - 220. Cresskill. NJ: Hampton Press.

P Lind, G. & Nowak, E. (2014, in press). Kohlberg’s unnoticed dilemma The external assessment of internal moralcompetence? In: Zizek, B., Garz, D., & Nowak, eds., Kohlberg revisited. Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.

P Nowak, E., Schrader, D. & Zizek, B., eds. (2013), Educating competencies for democracy. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangVerlag.

P Piaget, J. (1981). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relation during child development. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews(Originally published 1954).

P Rest, J. (1969). Hierarchies of comprehension and preference in a developmental-stage model of moral thinking.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

P For more references see: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/

kohlberg’s dilemmas - uni konstanz · pdf filekohlberg’s dilemmas ... theory,...

Documents