What is Cognitive Moral Development?
Moral Development Research Characterized by Two Models:
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?
Cognitive Developmentalists Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, Lickona...
Piaget’s Theory
Kohlberg’s Stage Theory Level 1 = Preconventional Level 2 = Conventional Level 3 = Postconventional
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...
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.
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...
Preconventional Level
Conventional Level
Post Conventional or Principled Level
What does Research Tell Us About Moral Education in Athlete Populations?
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
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).
Normative Ranges for DIT Scores* *Rest, 1986
Effect of Athletic Competition on Moral Development (LSM on DIT) of University Age Students SEM = 7.64 SEM = 10.85 Non-Athletes Significantly Higher than Athletes p<.05.
Effect of Athletic Competition by Type of Sport (LSM of HBVCI) Nonathlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport Athlete p <.05 Individual Sport Athlete Significantly Higher than Team Sport p <.05
The Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition (LSM of HBVCI) Trend = A steady decline in moral reasoning scores.
The Longitudinal Norms of Non-Athletic Groups Trend = Moral reasoning remains relatively stable.
The Effect of Competition on Elite Students n = 638 matched pairs Significant decline in scores from Plebe years to First Class year p<.05
A Comparison of HBVCI Scores for Elite Freshman College Students to General University Students USMA “N” = 1044 USAFA “N” = 1140 No Significant difference between groups
Division I HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes SD + 11.08 SD + 10.81 Note: Athletes are significantly different than nonathletes at the p <.0001 level.
Division III HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes SD + 10.45 SD + 10.58 Note: Athletes are significantly different than nonathletes at the p <.0001 level.
Effect of Intervention and Competition on University Age Athletes Significant difference pretest to posttest p<.05
Longitudinal Effect of Intervention & Competition on University Age Athletes Course Control Significant Difference from Pretest to Posttest and Post Posttest p<.05.
A Comparison of Intervention Teaching Methodology on Moral Reasoning Model A & B Significant Increase from Pre to Posttest, p<.05.
Successful Moral Reasoning Methodologies Significant Difference Pre to Posttest p<.05.
Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies Model E, Significant Decline Pre to Postest, p<.05.