Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 1

What is Cognitive Moral Development?

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 2

Moral Development Research Characterized by Two Models:Model Theory Moral Perspective

Internalization Psychoanalytic (Freud);Social Learning Theory(Bandura...)

Social enviroment setstandards, modelng ofvirtuous behaviors.

Constructivist Cognitive MoralDevelopment (Piaget,Kohlberg, Lickona,Haan, Gilligan...)

Reflects the extent towhich individuals useprinciples. Moralunderstandingslogically structured,developed throughstages of growth,reasoning thefoundation.

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 3

Cognitive MD based on:

What is considered right and fair? What are the reasons for doing the

right? What are the underlying social-moral

perspectives?

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 4

Cognitive Developmentalists

Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, Lickona...

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 5

Piaget’s Theory Stage Perspective

Heteronomous: Morality ofConstraint/Coercive Rules

Universal obedience to authority& established rules; right &wrong seen as black & white

Autonomous: Morality ofCooperation Rational Rules

Individual deelops amoresubjective sense of autonomy &reciprocity; Right & wrong notabsolute; respect & cooperationwith peers

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 6

Kohlberg’s Stage Theory

Level 1 = Preconventional Level 2 = Conventional Level 3 = Postconventional

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 7

Kohlberg…the man

A Ph.D. From Yale in Psychology. As a youth spent time in a Kibbutz and

changed his perspective about moral education and the importance of it.

Established a center for moral development at Harvard…which folded after his death. See Prologue on Kohlberg, Handbook or Moral Behavior and Development/ Vol 1: Theory by Kurtines and Gewirtz...

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 8

Kolhberg’s Work

Was highly criticized for his theory of moral development.

Called too limited, non-theoretical, and male centric.

Some Feminists…especially Carol Gilligan…called work unfair because of justice orientation.

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 9

Carol Gilligan

“In a Different Voice” “Mapping the Moral Domain” “Between Voice and Silence: Women

and Girls, Race and Relationships” by Jill McLean Taylor, Carol Gilligan and Amy M.Sullivan

Her argument and the difference she made...

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 10

Preconventional Level

Stage What isRight

Reasons fordoing right

SocialPerspective

One Punishment/obedience

AvoidancePunishment

EgocentricView

Two Follow rulesfor owninterests and letothers do thesame

To serve ownneeds

ConcreteIndividualistic:Right is relative

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 11

Conventional LevelStage What is

Right?Reasons forDoing Right

SocialPerspective

Stage Three Good Boy -Nice Girl

Reacts toexpectaions ofparents, peers,authorities

The GoldenRule (nogeneralizedsystemperspective).

Stage Four Social Systemandconscious-maintenance

Duty to socialOrder, society

Respectauthority,follow rules,maintainsocial order.Considersindividualsplace in thesystem.

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 12

Post Conventional or Principled Level

Stage What is Right Reasons forDoing Right

SocialPerspective

Five Contract &Individual Rights

Personal Values& Opinions witha view forconstitutional &democraticprocesses

Obey laws forgood of society;preserve therights of one’sself & others

Six Universal EthicalPrinciples

Based onconsistent,universal ethicalprinciples

Individualsaccept principlesas their own

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 13

What does Research Tell Us About Moral Education in

Athlete Populations?

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 14

The Effect of Competition and Educational Moral Reasoning Methodologies on Competitive

Populations

Research gleaned from 25+ studies with over 40,000 subjects in North America. The information presented here is representative only. For referred publications to support, contact: jbeller@uidaho.edu

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 15

Cognitive Development Instruments for Measuring Moral Development

and Moral Reasoning

The Defining Issues Test (DIT) General Social Perspective, Rest (1981).

The Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory (HBVCI), Hahm, Beller, & Stoll (1989).

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 16

Normative Ranges for DIT Scores*

20-29 Junior High School30-39 Senior High School40-49 College/University50-59 Graduate Students60-Above Graduate/Doctoral

Students in MoralPhilosophy/Theology

P Index Score Grade Norms

*Rest, 1986

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 17

Effect of Athletic Competition on Moral Development (LSM on DIT) of

University Age Students

24.9739.4

20

40

60

80

100

Non - AthletesAthletes

Non-Athletes Significantly Higher than Athletesp<.05.

SEM = 7.64 SEM = 10.85

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 18

Effect of Athletic Competition by Type of Sport (LSM of HBVCI)

59.12

66.01

69.46

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

Team Sport

Individual Sport

Nonathlet

Nonathlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport Athlete p <.05Individual Sport Athlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport p <.05

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 19

The Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition (LSM of HBVCI)

63 62.83

61.0761.33

59.84

58

59

60

61

62

63

Ninth

Tenth

Eleventh

Twelfth

University

Trend = A steady decline in moral reasoning scores.

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 20

The Longitudinal Norms of Non-Athletic Groups

66.63 67.83 69.23 69.2766.37

4954596469747984899499

104

Ninth

Tenth

Eleventh

Twelfth

University

Trend = Moral reasoning remains relatively stable.

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 21

The Effect of Competition on Elite Students

65.91

62.26

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

Comparison Mean HBVCI Entrance and Exit, Scores for USMA Class of 93

Plebes, 89

First Class, 93

n = 638 matched pairsSignificant decline in scores from Plebe years to First Class year p<.05

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 22

A Comparison of HBVCI Scores for Elite Freshman College

Students to General University Students

66.52

67.02

66.37

66

66.2

66.4

66.6

66.8

67

USMA 1989

USAFA 1993

General Univ.

USMA “N” = 1044USAFA “N” = 1140No Significant difference between groups

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 23

Division I HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes

63.9769.24

42

49

56

63

70

77

84

91

98

105

Athletes

Nonathletes

Note: Athletes are significantly different than nonathletes at the p <.0001 level.

SD + 11.08 SD + 10.81

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 24

Division III HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes

68.6873.96

42

49

56

63

70

77

84

91

98

105

Athletes

Nonathletes

Note: Athletes are significantly different than nonathletes at the p <.0001 level.

SD + 10.45 SD + 10.58

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 25

Effect of Intervention and Competition on University Age

Athletes

4954596469747984899499

104

Pretest Posttest

Course Control

Significant difference pretest to posttest p<.05

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 26

Longitudinal Effect of Intervention & Competition on

University Age Athletes

4954596469747984899499

104

Pretest Posttest PostPosttest

Course

Control

Significant Difference from Pretest to Posttest and Post Posttest p<.05.

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 27

A Comparison of Intervention Teaching Methodology on

Moral Reasoning

49

54

59

64

69

74

79

84

89

94

99

104

Pretest Postest

Model A

Model B

Model C

Model D

Model E

Model A & B Significant Increase from Pre to Posttest, p<.05.

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 28

Successful Moral Reasoning Methodologies

72.09

82.09

54.61

69.56

4954596469747984899499

104

Pretest Postest

Model A

Model B

Significant Difference Pre to Posttest p<.05.

Center for ETHICS* 04/19/23 29

Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies

70.7365.93

70.65

64.86

69.44

63.11

4954596469747984899499

104

Pretest Postest

Model C

Model D

Model E

Model E, Significant Decline Pre to Postest, p<.05.