1. What is Cognitive Moral Development?

2. Moral Development Research Characterized by Two Models:

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?

4. Cognitive Developmentalists
Piaget, Kohlberg, Gilligan, Lickona...

5. Piaget’s Theory

6. Kohlberg’s Stage Theory
Level 1 = Preconventional
Level 2 = Conventional
Level 3 = Postconventional

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...

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.

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...

10. Preconventional Level

11. Conventional Level

12. Post Conventional or Principled Level

13. What does Research Tell Us About Moral Education in Athlete Populations?

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:

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).

16. Normative Ranges for DIT Scores*
*Rest, 1986

17. 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.

18. 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

19. The Longitudinal Effect of Athletic Competition (LSM of HBVCI)
Trend = A steady decline in moral reasoning scores.

20. The Longitudinal Norms of Non-Athletic Groups
Trend = Moral reasoning remains relatively stable.

21. The Effect of Competition on Elite Students
n = 638 matched pairs
Significant decline in scores from Plebe years to First Class year p<.05

22. 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

23. Division I HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes
SD SD
Note: Athletes are significantly different than nonathletes at the p <.0001 level.

24. Division III HBVCI Moral Reasoning Scores: Athletes versus Nonathletes
SD SD
Note: Athletes are significantly different than nonathletes at the p <.0001 level.

25. Effect of Intervention and Competition on University Age Athletes
Significant difference pretest to posttest p<.05

26. Longitudinal Effect of Intervention & Competition on University Age Athletes
Course
Control
Significant Difference from Pretest to Posttest and Post Posttest p<.05.

27. A Comparison of Intervention Teaching Methodology on Moral Reasoning
Model A & B Significant Increase from Pre to Posttest, p<.05.

28. Successful Moral Reasoning Methodologies
Significant Difference Pre to Posttest p<.05.

29. Unsuccessful Moral Reasoning Methodologies
Model E, Significant Decline Pre to Postest, p<.05.