UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An assessment of Hogan’s model of moral development Adams, Douglas Ronald 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 A33.pdf [ 3.99MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094414.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094414-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094414-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094414-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094414-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094414-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094414-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094414-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094414.ris

Full Text

AN ASSESSMENT OF HOGAN'S MODEL OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT by DOUGLAS RONALD ADAMS B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972 A-THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES in the department of EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1978 © Douglas Ronald Adams, 1978 In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of this thesis for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten pe rm i ss ion . Department of Educational Psychology The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5 ABSTRACT Two studies were carr ied out to evaluate a model developed by Hogan (1973) which categorizes level of moral maturity by degrees of s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy. The model appeared to be useful for predict ive and prescr ipt ive guidance for education and psychology. The measures used for th i s purpose were: Gough's (Gough and Peterson, 1952) Soc ia l i zat ion scale, Hogan's (1969) Empathy scale, Rest 's (1974) Defining Issues Test (DIT), and, in a small subsample of the second study, Hogan's (Hogan and Dickste in, 1972) Measure of Moral Values (MMV). Study one subjects (N = 186, grades 11, and 12) received a revised edit ion of the s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy scales. The s pec i f i c hypotheses of the study were: (1) that empathy i s a stronger predictor of moral judgement (DIT P scores) than i s s o c i a l i z a t i on , and (2) that there would be a s i gn i f i cant increase in moral judgement scores from the low s o c i a l i -zation-low empathy category (delinquent), through high soc ia l i zat ion- low empathy (moral r e a l i s t ) , to low soc ia l i zat ion-h igh empathy (le ch i c ) , and high soc ia l i zat ion-h igh empathy (morally mature). The f i r s t hypo-thesis was s i g n i f i c an t l y upheld. The second hypothesis was not upheld to s t a t i s t i c a l s i gn i f i cance, however. I t was decided to rep l icate the study using the complete s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy scales in order to obtain a higher internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y of these measures. A higher r e l i a b i l i t y of the s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy scales was found in the second study (N = 66, grades 10, 11, and 12). Again the - i i -f i r s t hypothesis was upheld while the second was not. A subsample (n = 23, grades 11, and 12) was given the MMV in order to explore (1) whether the DIT P score and the MMV quantify the same factor , moral judgement, and (2) whether Hogan's model f i t s equally well with the DIT P score and the MMV. It was found that the DIT P scores and the MMV were es sent ia l l y unrelated. Soc ia l i za t ion was a stronger predictor of the DIT P score while empathy was a stronger predictor of the MMV resu l t s . While the DIT P score accounted for more variance of the soc i a l i z a t i on and empathy scales th i s was because of a negative correlat ion between soc i a l i z a t i on and DIT P scores, contrary to theoret ical predict ion. The u t i l i t y of Hogan's model for education and psychology was questioned since the breakdown of categories hypothesized by Hogan was not s i g n i f i c an t l y evident in these studies. Suggestions as to possible sources of problems in the studies, methods of correcting these problems, and future direct ions were made. Dr. S. F. Foster Thesis Committee Chairman - i i i -TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACTS i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES i v LIST OF FIGURES v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4 (A) Soc ia l i za t ion 4 (B) Empathy 11 (C) Moral Development 17 (D) Purpose of th i s Study .34 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 36 (A) Study 1 1. Methods 36 2. Procedures 38 3. Results 38 •(B) Study 2(A) 1. Hypotheses 40 2. Methods 40 3. Procedure 43 4. Results 43 (C) Study 2(B) 1. Hypotheses 47 2. Methods 47 3. Procedure 48 4. Results 48 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY 60 APPENDICES 65 - 1 v -LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Correlations between Soc i a l i z a t i on , Empathy, and DIT P Scores. 41 TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Moral Judge-ment (P) Scores, Study 1. 42 TABLE 3 Correlations Between Soc i a l i z a t i on , Empathy, and DIT P Scores, Study 2. 45 TABLE 4 Means and Standard Deviations of Moral Judge-ment (P) Scores, Study 2. 46 TABLE 5 Correlations Between Soc i a l i z a t i on , Empathy, DIT P Scores and Hogan's MMV P Scores. 50 TABLE 6A Beta Values for the Mult ip le Regression Equation Predict ing the Values of the DIT P Scores. 52 TABLE 6B Beta Values for the Mult ip le Regression Equation Predict ing the Values of the MMV (Rates 2). 52 TABLE 6C R Values and % of Variance Accounted for (R ) By Soc ia l i za t ion and Empathy, Studies 1, 2(A), and 2(B). 53 - v -LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Character i s t ic Combinations Suggested By the 3 Interaction Between Soc ia l i za t ion and Empathy - vi -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to extend sincere appreciation for the assistance and guidance of the members of my thesis committee: Dr. Stephen Foster, Dr. Gordon Nelson, and Dr. David Will iams. The patience and support of my wi fe, Joan, was invaluable in the completion of the thes is . - v i i -CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The interest of educators and psychologists in the development of moral values has been the source of recent research emphasis (e.g., T u r i e l , 1973). In education the focus has been toward guiding students to moral maturity. Within th is perspective two questions become sa l ient and may be addressed: (1) how can moral development be f a c i l i t a t e d , and (2) how can morality be measured? The theoret ica l model which best provides an account of the ex i s t ing data and accurate predict ion and measurement w i l l also c l a r i f y the components which must be manipulated to e f fect pos i t ive change in ind iv idua l s . This study was designed as a test of one model which a search of recent l i t e r a tu re i den t i f i ed as promising. Hogan (1973) proposed a f i ve dimension model of moral character. Two of these dimensions, s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy, were u t i l i z e d to c l a s s i f y indiv iduals into one of four categories of moral or ientat ion. The culmination of these categories of moral character or moral devel-opment i s moral maturity. In moral maturity the variables of s o c i a l i -zation and emapthy are both optimally powerful, that i s they are s i gn i f i can t yet neither extreme nor obsessive facets of an i nd i v i dua l ' s personal ity. Hogan has used the term " s o c i a l i z a t i o n " to mean "regarding the ru les , values, and prohibit ions of ... society as personally mandatory" - 2 -(Hogan, 1973, p. 221). "Empathy" refers to "the i n te l l e c tua l or imag-inat ive apprehension of another's condition or state of mind" (Hogan, 1969, p. 307). The description of indiv iduals by level of s oc i a l i z a t i on and level of empathy results in four broad character types (see Figure 1). These personality types would tend to d i f f e r from one another in moral behavior in the fol lowing ways: " S p e c i f i c a l l y , other things being equal, persons scoring low on both scales (measures of s oc i a l i za t i on and empathy) tend to be delinquent. Those receiving low scores for empathy but high scores for s oc i a l i za t i on tend to be r i g i d rule followers - P iaget ' s moral r e a l i s t s . Persons with low scores for soc i a l i za t i on but high scores for empathy tend to be cava l ie r about the conventional rules of soc iety; they are 'emancipated', mi ldly sociopathic members of normal soc iety, that i s , persons who double park in parking l o t s , do not return borrowed books, and smoke marijuana - Piaget refers to them as ' ch i c types ' . Persons with high scores for s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy tend to be morally mature; the i r compliance with social rules is e f fo r t l e s s but t he i r att itudes are tempered by a sympathy for the moral f r a i l t i e s of others". (Hogan, 1973, p. 223) This model appears to be well suited to the educators needs; i t offers a f a i r l y simple method of detecting both moral character and the direct ions necessary to f a c i l i t a t e the development of moral maturity. If the model i s found to be a va l i d representation of moral development then programs designed to enhance soc i a l i z a t i on and empathy could e f fec t movement toward moral maturity. This study was designed to test th i s model of moral development. - 3 -FIGURE 1 CHARACTERISTIC COMBINATIONS SUGGESTED BY THE INTERACTION BETWEEN SOCIALIZATION AND EMPATHY SOCIALIZATION EMPATHY LOW HIGH HIGH "LE CHIC TYPE" MORALLY MATURE LOW DELINQUENT "MORAL REALIST" (reproduced from Hogan, 1973) - 4 -CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW The published research and psychological theory relevant to the constructs of s o c i a l i z a t i on , empathy, and moral development as they r e f l e c t concern for moral education are reviewed below. SOCIALIZATION Soc ia l i za t ion has been of considerable interest since ancient times (e.g., A r i s t o t l e , 1953; P lato, 1952). Theoretical developments within th i s century have added much greater conceptual depth to the term. The e a r l i e r de f i n i t i on was an observational description of sociav l i z a t i o n as simply compliance to the rules and prohib i t ion of one's cu l ture. The modern expansion of the idea, due in large part to the work of Freud, includes a motivational component which indicates that th is submission to rules i s , at least in part, of a voluntary nature. Maintaining obedience without voluntary cooperation requires coercion and constant supervision of each i nd i v idua l . When a person accepts certa in rules as r ight and good, and i s po s i t i ve l y disposed toward upholding these ru les , interpersonal and socia l threats are no longer necessary. One has, according to Freud (1952), in terna l i zed the ru les . Otherwise one complies only in fear of the consequences and thus the rules are functional for the indiv idual through external pressures only. - 5 -Freud dealt with the issue of i n te rna l i za t ion in his accounts of the development of the superego (Freud 1952, 1961). The young c h i l d is motivated to accept the rule system of his parents by the fear that he may lose the i r a f fect ion and nurturance and by the fear of punishment. The mechanism by which this acceptance of rules evolves i s by i d e n t i f i -cation with the parents. In t ry ing to incorporate an image of his parents into himself he becomes able to nurture himself when comparing his behavior to an ego-ideal modelled upon parental behavior and dictums, and to punish himself when f a l l i n g short of t h i s - i d e a l . Freud's theory has i n i t i a t e d a large body of research. Among the key findings in th i s l i t e r a tu re have been that a moral or ientat ion based on i n te rna l i za t ion is best brought about by affect ionate parents using inductive d i s c ip l i ne techniques emphasizing reasoning and se l f - co r rec t i ve behavior, whereas the use of coercive punishment from power-assertive parents creates a moral or ientat ion based upon fear of authority (Berelson and Steiner, 1964; Hoffman, 1968; Sears et a l . , 1957). Contrasting viewponts have questioned the importance and necessity of i n te rna l i za t ion to the de f in i t i on of s o c i a l i z a t i on . Reiss (Reiss, 1966; c i ted in Hoffman, 1970) has argued that socia l supervision or coercion in the form of legal or social consequences are with us almost constantly. Evidence has been found that when this supervision i s absent or weak such as in bystander intervention studies (Brown, 1965) or obedience studies (Milgram, 1963) that adherence to commonly stated socia l rules i s inadequate. - 6 -The argument has been advanced that the idea of i n te rna l i za t ion is not necessary because s oc i a l i z a t i on can be explained by an exter-na l ly oriented operant conditioning model such as that used by Skinner (1968). The central concept of th i s model of s oc i a l i za t i on i s that rules are learned and obeyed because they are rewarded or because punishment is withheld. Removal of th is contingency w i l l cause ext inct ion of the learning; the rules w i l l be transgressed with increasing frequency as time passes (Skinner, 1968). The power of reward and punishment in manipulating behavior i s well established and is the basis of a successful therapeutic technique known as behavior modification (e.g. Tharp & Wetzel, 1969; U l r i c h , Stachnik, and Mabry, 1970). The socia l learning concept of im i ta t ion , which accounts for the learning of complex repertoires of behavior through observation (Mussen, Conger, and Kagan, 1969), resembles the Freudian concept of i d e n t i f i -cat ion. Some major differences are that imitat ion i s considered to be an ongoing process rather than one which i s complete early in l i f e and that imitat ion can be oriented to spec i f i c behaviors of any indiv idual rather than to the overal l personality of the parent. Imitation has been extensively studied (e.g., Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1961; Bandura & McDonald, 1963; Bandura, 1969) and i t has been found that models who are in some way s im i l a r or a t t rac t i ve to the observer can profoundly influence that person's behavior. Internal izat ion has been used in the sense of learning a habit form. In th is usage a rule is in terna l i zed when an indiv idual habitu-- 7 -a l l y agress with and complies with i t . This has been c r i t i c i z e d by Wrong (1961) as ignoring the inner c o n f l i c t between impulse and conscience which renders the outcome as de novo with each new dilemma and as not simply the expression of a well established habitual response. The invest igat ion of s oc i a l i z a t i on has presented problems to each of the above theories. A b r ie f summary of some of these d i f f i c u l t i e s fol lows. The concepts of psychoanalytic theory have proven to be extremely res i stent to t rans lat ion into observable and manipulable variables in s t r i c t l y control led experimental sett ings. Many psychoanalytic c l i n i -cians (e.g., Fine, 1971) have continued to re ly upon the case study method as did Freud (1952)... As a result of the d i f f i c u l t i e s of trans-la t ing conceptual variables into testable form, s t a t i s t i c a l methodology and controls have often been minimal or absent. Generalizations from studies using s t r i c t controls in laboratory settings can also be c r i t i c i z e d however. In many cases there appears to be progressively less re la t ion to real l i f e as experimental controls are exerted. A graphic example of the discont inuity between laboratory behavior and actions in the day to day world i s that supplied by the Mil gram (1963) study. The majority of his subjects did attempt to shock a confederate of the experimenter and seemed to exh ib i t cruel (a lbe i t extremely agitated) behavior, however th i s i s l i k e l y not related to the i r normal everyday behavior since such cruelty simply is not in common evidence. - 8 -Another concern i s that while many operational concepts seem to be va l i d , they are also r e s t r i c t i v e in that they are l im i ted to a very spec i f i c experimental paradigm. Because of th i s these concepts are not amendable to more general test ing by which one could assess the v a l i d i t y of the concept and allow comparisons between disparate aspects of theories of s o c i a l i z a t i on . Social learning theory in part grew out of an e f f o r t to render testable the conceptualizations of Freud. In many cases th i s has been quite successful (e.g., Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1961; Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957). The measurement of s oc i a l i za t i on as a whole has not been a p r i o r i t y of socia l learning theor i s t s , however. Attention has instead been directed to variables believed to be the components or contributors to soc i a l i za t i on development according to one or another theoret ical posit ion such as g u i l t , resistance to transgression (e.g., Aronfreed & Reber, 1965) and modelling (e.g., Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1963). A measure of s oc i a l i za t i on which would sa t i s f y the fol lowing c r i t e r i a would be a pos i t ive addit ion to th i s research f i e l d . I t should be a general measure of s oc i a l i za t i on and thus usable in a wide variety of experimental paradigms and allowing the accumulation of va l idat ion and r e l i a b i l i t y data. It should be comparable to an external c r i t e r i on measure which i s d i r ec t l y related to s oc i a l i z a t i on as a construct v a l i d i t y contro l . For convenience and to encourage wide acceptance and use a prospective measure should be simple to apply and to score. - 9 -Such a measure has been in existence for some time. The scale of s oc i a l i z a t i on developed by Gough (Gough, 1948; Gough & Peterson, 1952; Gough, 1960) has i t s conceptual basis in the socia l s e l f theory of Mead (1913, 1922, 1934). Mead hypothesized that the major factor in the soc i a l i za t i on of the indiv idual was the development of an a b i l i t y to mentally take the ro le of another and to regard oneself from that view-point. In th i s way, from many role taking experiences, indiv iduals gradually accumulate a concept of a generalized other which comprises the demands and expectations of society (Mead, 1913, 1922). The qua l i ty of these role taking experiences determines the degree to which a person int ro jects or interna l i zes socia l standards (Gough, 1960). Gough developed a 64 item empir ica l ly keyed measure with which he proposed to d i f f e ren t i a te between soc ia l i zed and unsocial ized ind iv iduals (Gough & Peterson, 1952). He reasoned that delinquent populations would contain a higher proportion (than non-delinquent populations) of people with a low capacity to take the role of another or to benefit from the experience. This became his external c r i t e r i on and his operational de f in i t i on of s oc i a l i za t i on for his measure: that delinquent populations tend to include a higher proportion of unsocial ized indiv iduals than do non-delinquent populations. Theoret ical ly the low soc i a l i za t i on i n d i v i -dual would be t y p i f i e d by a r e l a t i ve i n a b i l i t y to regard the s e l f as a socia l object and would thus exh ib i t a minimal degree of i n te rna l i za t ion of social standards. The Gough measure of s oc i a l i z a t i on has been applied in eight languages in ten countries to over f i ve thousand delinquents and twenty-- 10 -one thousand non-delinquents. Every comparison between delinquents and non-delinquents was s i gn i f i can t and comparisons between various levels of s oc i a l i z a t i on appear to work equally well (Hogan 1973). The scale seems to be a highly va l id empirical measure of s o c i a l i z a t i on . Gough and Peterson (1952) found four d i s t i n c t c lusters of items within the soc i a l i za t i on measure. These were: (1) role taking d e f i -c ienc ies , (2) resentment against family, (3) feel ings of despondency and a l i en ta t i on , and (4) poor scholast ic adjustment or rebell iousness. Using factor analysis methods (N = 189) Rosen and Schal l ing (1974) found the fol lowing general factors of the scale: (1) a factor of general adjustment or s o c i a l i z a t i on , (2) other aspects of s oc i a l i za t i on and postulated differences in role taking, (3) a factor of low s e l f regard which was uncorrelated to the overa l l s oc i a l i z a t i on score and negatively related to the f i r s t factor . Thus i t appears that the general concept of s oc i a l i z a t i on as measured by the soc i a l i za t i on scale may be a complex rather than a unidimensional factor. Overall i t appears that the Gough scale of s oc i a l i za t i on i s a useful addit ion to research in s oc i a l i z a t i on and should continue to f r u i t f u l l y add to the accumulation of knowledge on soc i a l i z a t i on and related concepts. It was decided to use the scale as a measure of s oc i a l i za t i on in the present study. - 11 -EMPATHY I t can be asserted that knowledge of a culture and commitment to i t s ways i s a necessary but not s u f f i c i en t prerequis i te for f u l l y p a r t i -c ipat ing in the socia l fabr ic of l i f e therein. Add i t iona l l y there must be a shared respect and awareness of one another's unique being. The study of empathy has been conducted i n order to describe and explain th i s deeper level of communication between people. Several media of human communication ex i s t such as, for example, language, touch (Frank, 1966), bodily expression (Lowen 1975), and personal distance (Ha l l , 1959, 1966). One component underlying these is a common assumption of mutual understanding which greatly adds to socia l interact ions. This i s a sense that one may grasp another's experience such that one can deeply compre-hend the other ' s thoughts, fee l ings , and motivations. This state can be termed empathy. An early concept of empathy was introduced by Lipps in 1909 (c i ted in Deutsch & Madle, 1975) as "einfuhlung". Lipps thought empathy to be possible by projection and imi tat ion. Etymologically both empathy and einfuhlung mean " i n - f e e l i n g " and can be more simply stated as " fee l ing together w i th " . Not long a f te r Lipps ' i n i t i a l work, in 1920, Thorndike (cited in Walker & Foley, 1973) proposed the existence of an aspect of i n t e l l e c tua l a b i l i t y ca l led socia l i n te l l i gence which was composed of two components, the f i r s t of which appears to be the cognitive equivalent of empathy. The components are: (1) the a b i l i t y to understand others, and (2) the a b i l i t y to act wisely in the socia l environment. - 12 -Piaget (1965) in 1932 described and demonstrated the existence of a cognit ive a b i l i t y that he referred to as decentering. A ch i l d was required to indicate the pos it ioning of the objects in a three-dimensional array from a point of view d i f fe rent from his own. Piaget saw th i s as the a b i l i t y which allows us to look at the world from the subjective viewpoint of others around us. While he proposed decentering as depen-dant upon a cognit ive a b i l i t y developing with age he also noted the social factors thought to motivate i t s use (Piaget, 1968). As the ch i l d becomes older interact ion with peers increases in comparison to that with parents. The rules learned as a young ch i l d and which have an i m p l i c i t absolute rightness to them are challenged by other chi ldren who have learned d i f fe rent ru les. The ch i l d i s motivated to s e t t l e these con f l i c t s by communication and in so doing must endeavor to understand the other ' s point of view. Thus he begins to give up egocentrism. Another cause of th i s change i s the experience by the c h i l d of a real or imagined in ju s t i ce by the parent which causes the absoluteness of the parental admonitions to waver and be questioned by the c h i l d . The progressive abandonment of egocentr ic i ty i s termed decentering. It seems to be a developmental precursor to empathy. Mead (1934) proposed that communication, s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and the very existence of mind are the resu l t of an a b i l i t y to understand the other ' s view. He referred to . th i s a b i l i t y as role taking which he thought of as a facet of general i n t e l l e c tua l capacity. The ch i l d i n i t i a l l y learns to take the other ' s role in order to ant ic ipate the behavior expected of him, and thus to maintain af fect ion from the parents. - 13 -In taking another's role the ch i l d begins to understand the various forces impinging upon the other, and how he himself appears through the other ' s eyes. This conscious awareness of the s e l f and the other pro-foundly af fects the c h i l d ' s reasoning. The i nd i v i dua l ' s awareness, which i n i t i a l l y involves only his own needs and desires, now extends to the r e a l i t y of the other and to his own r e a l i t y through the other ' s view so that the motivations and background of both parties and the interact ion i t s e l f are taken into account. Bronfenbrenner, et al.(1968) theorized that there are two indepen-dent types of empathy: (1) s e n s i t i v i t y to the t r a i t s of general groups of people, and (2) s e n s i t i v i t y to indiv idual d i f ferences. They c i ted some evidence for th is in a study in which lower predict ive accuracy was found a f te r judges met members of a group than before (Gage, 1952). Sen s i t i v i t y to general groups indicates an a b i l i t y to predict behavior of members of i den t i f i ab l e groups, th i s has also be referred to as stereo-type perception. Sen s i t i v i t y to indiv idual differences refers to the a b i l i t y to predict indiv idual behavior. The two a b i l i t i e s seem to be substant ia l ly independent even though each acts as a source of understanding. Empathy consists of (or requires) taking the ro le of an i nd i v idua l , while stereotypic understanding requires reca l l i ng past knowledge of the character i s t i c s of a pa r t i cu l a r group. Thus stereotypic understanding a b i l i t y may be related to factors of in te l l i gence regarding accurate observation and categor izat ion, while empathy i s thought to re late more to spat ia l i n te l l i gence or an a b i l i t y which allows the indiv idual to imaginatively take on the viewpoint of another. - 14 -Perhaps the most elaborate conceptualization of empathy has been made by Selman (1973, 1974) in his description of successively more adequate stages of role taking a b i l i t y corresponding to Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Selman (1971, 1973) has reported some supporting evidence such as the f inding of a pos i t ive re lat ionship between role taking a b i l i t y and moral stage l e v e l . I n i t i a l evidence i s pos i t ive for his overall model of role taking development. Taking another's point of view allows the observer to understand the other ' s thoughts and fee l ings . Most role taking theories imply that the observer maintains a poignant sense of his s e l f and his actual separateness from the other (Deutsch & Madle, 1975). To f u l l y immerse oneself in the role of another would bring about ident i ty d i f fus ion and an overconcern with the expectations of o ther ' s , postulates Hogan (1973). Several theoret ical positions ex i s t , however, in which the de f in i t i on of empathy does not require a c lear d i f f e ren t i a t i on between the s e l f and the other. Empathy is considered by some theor ists to be the sharing of feel ings by which the observer feels the same emotion as the observed (Shantz, 1974). There is some evidence that indicates that understanding another's feelings does not prec ip i tate the experience of the same feel ings in the observer. Mood, Johnson, and Shantz (1973, c i ted in Shantz, 1974) found with preschoolers that forty per cent indicated accurate under-standing of an observed emotion but f e l t a d i f ferent emotion themselves. Only seventeen per cent of the chi ldren both correct ly understood the other ' s emotions and shared the same emotion. It i s possible that under-- 15 -standing of others ' thoughts and feel ings and sharing emotions may be two r e l a t i v e l y independent a b i l i t i e s . Thus understanding may be related to cognitive and ro le taking factors while sharing emotions may be related to im i ta t ion , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and project ion. During the past f i f t y years several measures of empathy have appeared in the l i t e r a t u r e . P iaget ' s use of a three dimensional array can be c r i t i c i z e d as not d i r e c t l y test ing understanding of other ' s soc ia l ro les. The task i s a mechanical one, not a socia l one, and empathy i s defined as a soc ia l a b i l i t y . Dymond (1949) proposed a scale to measure empathy in c l i n i c a l sett ings. This has also been c r i t i c i z e d on several grounds (Bronfen-brenner et a l . , 1968). Among c r i t i c i sms of Dymond's scale is that i t may tap simple project ion. The judges may be s imi la r to the observed and at t r ibute the i r feel ings to them. Recently, Smith (1973) has also constructed an empathy measure designed to assess ju s t th i s factor: judged s i m i l a r i t y to the s e l f . Another objection to the Dymond scale of empathy i s that the empathy score does not d i f fe rent i a te between stereo-type perception ( i . e . , a large class or socia l sub-group) and i n t e r -personal s e n s i t i v i t y . Some evidence has been found (Lindgren & Robinson, 1953) that stereotypic perception was a strong component of the empathy scores as measures of the two were highly intercorre lated (r = .74). The problem that th i s f inding presents i s that: (1) stereotypic perception i s l i k e l y an independent a b i l i t y from role taking, and (2) stereotypes are l im i ted by the accuracy of previous information and - 16 -f a m i l i a r i t y whereas a general empathy or role taking a b i l i t y should not be. F lave l l et a l . (1968) have used the Role Taking Test devised by Feffer (1959). This consists of forming a story involving several p ictures, then removing some, and predict ing the story that would be formed by an indiv idual who now saw the pictures for the f i r s t time. The measure was the lack of inc lus ion of the missing pictures of the f i r s t story in the second story. While th i s i s an ingenious technique i t confuses two very l i k e l y independent a b i l i t i e s , empathy and a cogni-t i ve sort ing a b i l i t y (Hoffman, 1976). As a result the scale suffers from questionable v a l i d i t y . A promising measure of empathy has been recently developed by Hogan (1969, Gr ief and Hogan, 1973) and has since begun to come into general use (e.g., Deardorff, eta;Ti., 1975; Tracy & Cross, 1973, Weckowicz & Janssen, 1973). Since the measure is not based on responses to a described s i tuat ion confusion of empathy a b i l i t y with stereotypic perception or judged s i m i l a r i t y to the se l f was decreased. Further evidence that the measure re f lec t s empathy a b i l i t y was sought by empir i -c a l l y corre lat ing the measure with an external c r i t e r i o n . The Hogan measure was formed by comparing Q-sort descriptions (Nunnally, 1970) of each ind iv idual with a previously devised general Q-sort of character i s -t i c s of an empathic person developed by 7 experts. Hogan found an overal l corre lat ion of .71 between empathy scale scores and empathy rat ing in the or ig ina l samples (N = 211). The resu l t ing 64 item measure had an acceptable r e l i a b i l i t y of .84. - 17 -Greif and Hogan (1973) factor analyzed responses to the scale (N = 359). They found three main factors: (1) tolerance and even temperedness, (2) self-possess ion, gregariousness, and social ascen-dency, and (3) a factor ind icat ing that humanism and tolerant socio-p o l i t i c a l att itudes were related to empathy. These factors suggest that empathy, defined by Hogan (1969, p. 307) as, "the i n te l l e c tua l or imagi-native apprehension of another's condition or state of mind", i s a complex concept. Theoret ical ly th i s f inding supports Piaget ' s (1968) notion that role taking tends to prec ip i tate respect for others. The Hogan measure of empathy appears to be a useful methodological tool for use in a wide range of experimental theoret ica l paradigms and thus was selected for use in the present study. MORAL DEVELOPMENT Studies in the area of moral development are more numerous in recent years than previously. As a resu l t of the increased interest in the f i e l d ava i lable theories are more sophist icated now than in the past. The cognitive developmental theory of moral development, introduced by Piaget (1965, 1968) in 1932, u t i l i z e d a two stage concept of devel-opment. A basic feature of th is model is that moral reasoning at e i ther stage is qua l i t a t i ve l y d i f ferent from the other stage. Within a stage reasoning forms a consistent who l i s t i c pattern of thought instead of being considered as simply a sum of learned behavior repertoires. Growth between stages i s motivated by the c h i l d ' s increasing awareness - 18 -of the inadequacy of the underlying pr inc ip les by which he conducts his moral judgements. This awareness i s due to both (1) b io log ica l cogni-t i ve growth, and (2) socia l interact ion as learning experiences. The process of sort ing out values and be l ie f s creates a major reorganization of the i nd i v i dua l ' s moral values and reasoning which, while incorporating past values and reasoning as experience, is wholely new and independent of previous stage reasoning in that the new stage forms an i n te rna l l y consistent whole. Piaget suggests that stage growth is i r reve r s ib le and occurs in an invariant sequence because of the progressively more adequate repertoires afforded by each stage and the dependence of each upon i t s predecessor for development in the f i r s t place. The f i r s t stage of moral development Piaget ca l led the stage of moral realism or heteronomous moral ity. The c h i l d ' s perception in th i s stage is egocentric and absolute. He i s not aware of the differences of viewpoint between himself and others and assumes that everyone else shares his sense of the world, and that experiences ex i s t ing only within his mind, such as dreams, have an external r e a l i t y as w e l l . Because of his pos it ion of i n f e r i o r i t y and dependence to his parents and the demand by parents for obedience, he feels that the i r rules have an obl igatory component. Transgression of these rules are viewed more in terms of the consequences of these actions than the i r intent. In l i ne with the sense that obedience i s more important than comprehension of ru les, the ch i l d believes that rules ex i s t with an omniscient punishment component; transgression i s followed by punishment on a cause-effect basis as i f socia l behavior followed the laws of physics. - 19 -The second stage described by Piaget i s the morality of rec ip ro -c i t y or autonomous moral ity. As the ch i l d grows older he develops b io-l o g i c a l l y , cogn i t i ve ly , and s oc i a l l y . B i o l og i ca l l y he becomes able to better adapt to change in his environment. Cognit ively, the environment becomes more thoroughly and adequately understandable and understood. Soc i a l l y , he begins to learn to interact more and more with peers. Through the l a t t e r factor he gains experience in sharing in making decisions rather than being manipulated by the decisions of others, and in taking the role of others. He learns that others are s im i l a r but not equivalent to himself and thus gives up his egocentrism. In addition the c h i l d begins to understand that rules are not absolute but are conveniences arr ived at by mutual consent for the attainment of common goals and are thus ult imately maleable. By learning to take the role of others he comes to see the i r viewpoint in moral s i tuat ions such as dilemmas and to judge the i r actions to be r ight or wrong with more regard to intent than to consequences. Role taking generates, as a r e su l t , sympathy, mutual respect, and concern for the welfare of others. This i s expressed in the growth of such ethics as egal i ter ianism and rec ipro-c i t y at the higher stage. The earmarks of th i s stage, then, are the awareness of the a r t i -f i c i a l and negotiable nature of social rules and the growth of the a b i l i t y to mentally take another's r o le , accompanied by the decline of egocentrism. While considerable evidence supporting Piaget 1 s theory has been found (for review see Hoffman, 1970) some contradictory and compellingly - 20 -negative evidence has also been uncovered. Regarding the issue of i r r e v e r s i b i l i t y and invariance of stage sequence, Havighurst and Neugarten (1955) found contrasting evidence to Piaget ' s model in an extensive study of ten American Indian groups. Piaget (1968) suggests that be l i e f in imminent ju s t i ce and the unchangeabi1ity of rules decreases as the ch i l d advances in stage l e v e l . In several t r i be s , however, the investigators found that the chi ldren exhibited an increased be l i e f in imminent ju s t i ce with age and in some tr ibes the chi ldren f e l t rules to be more r i g i d and unchangeable with age. This could, however, contrary to the b io log ica l growth of a b i l i t i e s , have been at t r ibutab le to the effects of powerful and ever-present cu l tura l pressure preventing stage growth. Bandura and McDonald (1963) addressed th i s problem from a social learning experimental mode.and successful ly manipulated stage growth both upward and downward by the use of a model. Cowan, et al (1969), and Lefurgy and Woloshin (1969) repl icated this f inding with prolonged a f t e r effects of two weeks and three months respect ively. The c r i t i c i s m usually l eve l led at these studies is that the posttest task was very s im i l a r to the pretest and what may have occurred was a super-f i c i a l learning of a response to a stimulus without a great deal of cognit ive mediation as in true moral development. Thus any apparent stage movement was s imp l i s t i c (false accommodation in Piaget ' s terms) and the resu l t ing behaviors were based not so much on pr inc ip les of judgement which would be generalizeable to new s ituat ions as upon a learned pattern of response. - 21 -In his research Piaget developed and used a c l i n i c a l method of inquiry. This involves lengthy interact ions using non-predetermined open-ended interview questions directed at examining the reasons for a c h i l d ' s moral judgements in considering a dilemma. This method seems to be a useful exploratory tool but time consuming as an experimental, device and extremely d i f f i c u l t to quantify for s t a t i s t i c a l analys is . Kohl berg (1963) developed an a l ternat ive theory of cognit ive development through expanding and a l te r i ng Piaget ' s concepts. Kohlberg describes his theory as having three broad levels of moral development: preconventional, conventional, and autonomous moral ity, with two stages of development composing each l e v e l . A b r ie f summary follows (from Kohlberg, 1963, 1971): 1. Pre-conventional l e v e l . The ch i l d is aware of cu l tu ra l norms but judges moral actions by reference to the i r physical or personal consequences, or the power over him of the spec i f i c rule giver. - Stage One - Punishment and Obedience or ientat ion. Moral actions are judged by the i r physical re su l t s . Rules are seen as external ly imposed and are followed to avoid punishment or to curry favour of a powerful person. - Stage Two - Instrumental R e l a t i v i s t o r ientat ion. Moral actions are seen in hedonistic terms, good i f they benefit the se l f . Reciprocity i s of a bartering "market place" nature. 2. Conventional l e v e l . The values of one's group are adhered to in sp i te of some adverse consequences in order to f u l f i l l s i gn i f i c an t others ' expectations. Individuals feel a need to act i ve ly uphold and j u s t i f y the ex i s t ing norms. - 22 -- Stage Three - Interpersonal Concordance or "Good Boy-Nice G i r l " o r ientat ion. Behavioral guides are external in that the approval of others i s the guiding p r i n c i p l e . Egocentrism recedes and a morality based on intent begins. - Stage Four - "Law and Order" o r ientat ion. A sense of duty, submission to authority and maintaining the socia l order are the most important concepts of th is stage. Rules are now f u l l y i n t e r -na l ized. The indiv idual takes on the role of persons with l e g i t i -mate r ights and expectations only. 3. Autonomous or Post-conventional l e v e l . The indiv idual begins to extract moral pr inc ip les and to judge behavior by these rather than by spec i f i c rules derived from spec i f i c authority. - Stage Five - Socia l -contract Lega l i s t i c o r ientat ion. Right behavior i s that which has been agreed to by a society, usually in terms of i t s formal pronouncements and laws and usually an expression of u t i l i t a r i a n i s m . These can be a l tered by rat ional c r i t i c i s m and concensus and are r e l a t i v i s t i c for each social or cu l tura l group. - Stage Six - Universal Ethical P r inc ip le or ientat ion. While socia l rules are taken into account, r ight moral action according to eth ica l pr inc ip les may demand transcending the commonly accepted social norms. These abstract moral pr inc ip les involve the concepts of j u s t i c e , the rec ipoc i ty and equal ity of human r i gh t s , and the respect for indiv idual human dignity. Soc ia l i zat ion follows a pattern of increment as well as apparent decrease with development. In the early stages rules are learned although - 23 -they are seen as external ly enforced. By stage four socia l rules are thoroughly interna l i zed and obedience i s seen as a duty. However by stage s i x behavior contrary to soc ia l guidelines i s once again acceptable. But th is i s true only i f the behavior i s carr ied out with reference to and because of higher, more abstract moral p r i nc ip le s . Thus th i s can s t i l l be described as soc ia l i zaton but the act ive referents are a step removed from the socia l rules with which soc i a l i za t i on i s usually asso-c ia ted. Empathy plays a s i gn i f i can t part in Kohlberg's theory, beginning with an awareness of differences between indiv idual needs and perspectives by stage two to f u l l ro le taking by stage four. Kohlberg d i f f e r s from Piaget in that he considers a l l social interact ions f r u i t f u l ground for role taking and not ju s t peer in teract ion. Role taking has been out l ined i n some deta i l by one of Kohlberg's colleagues, Selman (1973). Selman's model of ro le taking development begins with se l f -other d i f f e ren t i a t i on of an objective sort, that i s not including awareness of difference of social perspective. By Kohlberg's stage one, Selman states, the ch i l d i s aware of differences of social perspective, although this i s l im i ted by cognit ive immaturity. By moral development stage two the ch i l d is able to take the roles of others and i s aware of the same a c t i v i t y of ro le taking in the other. In stage three the indiv idual i s aware of the above role taking and the a b i l i t y to mentally step outside the dyad to observe the interact ion as a th i rd person. Stage four sees the awareness that mutual role taking does not lead necessari ly to complete understanding. - 24 -At th is level social conventions are valued as a commonly understood or shared means of communication. As reported above Selman (1973) has found a s i gn i f i c an t corre lat ion between moral stage and role taking a b i l i t y . Tur ie l (1966) and Rest, T u r i e l , and Kohlberg (1969) found that chi ldren were more attracted to use higher stage reasoning than moral reasoning at a stage lower than the i r own, contrary to indicat ions from the series of studies i n i t i a t e d by Bandura and McDonald (1963). This f inding lends some support to the i r r e v e r s i b i l i t y and s e q u e n t i a l l y notion of stage growth by explaining the motivation toward development as a t t ract ion to an obviously more adequate level of reasoning and reject ion of one that is less adequate. However a closer look at the data of the Tur ie l (1966) study reveals that the mean stage score of the control group decreased between pretest and posttest, a r t i f i c i a l l y creating a s i gn i f i c an t difference between i t and the experimental group in the posttest. Addit ional supportive evidence was found by Beck, Su l l i van , and Taylor (1972). They did not detect s i gn i f i can t stage movement in the posttest immediately after treatment but they did f ind a s i g n i f i c an t l y greater stage movement in the experimental group in one year. Kohl berg's theory implies that stage movement should occur only a f te r much analy-t i c a l reasoning, perhaps encouraged by the treatment. This appears to be what has happened in this study. The measure employed by Kohlberg to detect moral development was an extensive interview or open ended question form using s ix moral - 25 -dilemmas. In the interest of speed, s imp l i f i c a t i on , and quant i f icat ion Rest (1974) has successful ly adapted these dilemmas into a complex check - l i s t questionnaire. The new measure, the Defining Issues Test (DIT), has been used with some success although several researchers, including Kohl berg, believe that an objective test format i s not as useful as the interview in moral development research (Rest, 1975). Social learning theor ists regard moral development and the place of emotions and reasons in moral decision making as an extension of an S-R learning framework. Typ ica l l y , a f fec t i ve involvement i s regarded as reinforcement and cognit ive factors are seen as rehearsal mechanisms in the study of moral behaviors. Instead of development of judgement or reasoning i t i s postulated that a c h i l d learns spec i f i c s t imul i based on modelling, contiguity and pos i t ive or negative reinforcement. These may then be generalized somewhat to other s i tuat ions which are s im i l a r to the or ig ina l learning s i tua t i on . Moral development then i s the gradual accumulation of a learned s o c i a l l y approved repertoire of behavior. The main focus of research, as a resu l t , turns from the indiv idual to the processes by which learning takes place. Proponents of th i s theory tend to regard moral development in terms of s oc i a l i z a t i on alone. One of the most outstanding spokesmen of this school of thought in the area of moral development i s Bandura (e.g., Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1961, 1963) who has amassed an impressive array of evidence supporting his pos it ion in contrast with the positions of others, most notably with those of Piaget and Kohl berg. While the evidence presented by social learning theor ists i s compelling, i t s l imi ted conception of - 26 -emotion and cognition which appear to be so much apart of human decisions and l i f e has prevented wider acceptance of the theory than now ex i s t s . Adherents of the social learning approach suggest that virtues should be selected and taught by pos i t ive and negative reinforcement and modelling (Bandura, 1969). Reinforcement has become the basis of a recognized mode of therapy, as mentioned above. This perspective has been c r i t i c i z e d from a variety of viewpoints, however. Among these c r i t i c i sms i s that th i s approach offers no indicat ions of what should be taught (Kohlberg, 1963) or who should decide on the teachings and what the method of decision should be. An a l ternat ive to both social learning and cognitive developmental viewpoints has been recently proposed. Hogan (1973) has suggested a t r a i t view of moral development and moral o r ientat ion. While l i t t l e research has, as yet, been addressed to this theory i t appears worthy of c loser invest igat ion. His model of moral development encompasses f i ve independent t r a i t s or personality dimensions. These are: moral knowledge, s o c i a l i z a t i on , empathy, autonomy, and a predisposit ion to value or to devalue ex i s t ing rules and conventions. The f i r s t factor i s the awareness of rules and socia l norms which take the forms of injunct ions, moral p r i n c i p l e s , or comparisons to an ideal form of moral conduct. Hogan (1973) postulates that moral knowledge is c losely related to i n te l l i gence . Soc ia l i za t ion was defined by Hogan as the sense of personal obl igat ion to monitor and r e s t r i c t one's behavior to that which i s - 27 -s o c i a l l y acceptable. This i s related pos i t i ve l y with warmth, nurturance, and consistent restrict!"veness from parents as a ch i l d (Hogan, 1973). Optimal s oc i a l i za t i on level in an indiv idual i s to be moderately high but not so high as to be neurotic as Freud (1952) has pointed out. Empathy, the th i rd dimension, i s defined by Hogan (1969) as "the in te l lec tua l ' o r : imag inat i ve apprehension of another's condition or state or mind". Empathy i s an a b i l i t y related to in te l l i gence and i t s devel-opment i s encouraged by opportunities and motivations in the environment and pos i t ive predisposit ions to role taking in the indiv idual (Hogan, 1973). As with s oc i a l i z a t i on ideal placement on th i s dimension i s to be moderately high but not extremely high. Hogan states that indiv iduals who are overly empathic are "too concerned with the expectations of others, they excessively i n h i b i t h o s t i l i t y and aggression, and they suffer from ident i ty d i f f u s i on " . (Hogan, 1973, p. 224). Autonomy i s used by Hogan (1974) to mean the independence of one's moral judgements, and behavior from the influence of one's peers and the rel iance instead upon commitment to other rules or pr inc ip les held by the indiv idual as being correct. Hogan (1973) sees the function of autonomy as insulat ing the indiv idual "from the potential immorality of the community". (Hogan, 1973, p. 226) Again only a moderately high degree of autonomy i s des irable. Extreme autonomy may be re lated to ant i - soc ia l behavior while low autonomy results in behavior which i s commonly accepted but which may contradict one's moral rules or p r inc ip le s . Hogan's f i n a l dimension, predisposit ion to value or devalue ex i s t ing rules and conventions has been d i s t i l l e d from two contrasting schools of - 28 -philosophy. U t i l i t a r i a n s and social contract theor i s t s , on the one hand, stress the eth ica l posit ion of 'the greatest good for the greatest number' and regard the laws and conventions as expressions of th i s p r inc ip le which may only be changed, i f found wanting, by common and rat ional consent. On the other hand diverse schools of humanistic philosophy have asserted that correct behavior can only be judged with reference to higher p r i nc ip le s , which may or may not be formally acknow-ledged by laws or author it ies (Wheelwright, 1959). While many facets of th is model may seem to eas i l y f i t into the Piagetian or Kohlbergian schools two major differences between the cognitive developmentalists and Hogan stand out. F i r s t l y Piaget and Kohlberg place great importance in l og i c and reason, Hogan does not. Hogan disagrees with the cognitive developmentalists 1 concept that moral judgements are matters of reasoning. Instead, he asserts that "moral conduct is fundamentally ' i r r a t i o n a l ' , that differences in even such obviously cognitive phenomena as moral judgements derive from more basic personological s t ructures " . (Hogan, 1973, p. 225). A second difference in or ientat ion i s in reference to the t rea t -ment of stages. Looking at each dimension Hogan (1973) postulates that probably soc i a l i za t i on would develop f i r s t , followed by empathy, and f i n a l l y by the growth of autonomy and the attainment of moral maturity, defined by optimal placement on the f i ve dimensions. However he states that th is i s not a necessary order and may d i f f e r between ind iv idua l s . Thus his dimensions do not form sequential, invar iant stages. This may - 29 -not be in d i rect contradict ion to the cognitive developmentalists since they use the dimensions in a d i f fe rent fashion: they postulate stage grwoth wi th in , for example, s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy rather than treat ing each as a stage. Hogan describes a model within his larger theory, using two of the f i ve personal ity dimensions; s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy. By compar-ing development on these two independent t r a i t s he proposes that i t should be possible to categorize indiv iduals into one of four general moral or ientat ions. The delinquent indiv idual i s t yp i f i ed by low scores on scales of both soc i a l i z a t i on and empathy. Thus he feels no obl igat ion to obey social guidelines and he tends to behave egocentr ica l ly , that i s without taking into account the views, needs and desires of others. He has a tendency to contravene legal codes of any sort. As a re su l t , incar -cerated populations include many of these ind iv idua l s . Rec id iv i s t s are even more representative of th is type (Hogan, 1973, Deardorff et al ., 1975). Moral r ea l i s t s score high on soc i a l i za t i on but low on empathy. Individuals of th is sort are r i g i d rules followers who accept l i t t l e compromise for indiv iduals or s i tuat ions since they feel no need to view a problem from the perspective of others. Hogan describes them as "wel1-socia l ized rule fol lowers, but somewhat def i c ient in char i table or benevolent tendencies" (Hogan et a.!.-, 1970, p. 62). "Le ch ic " type i s a person who scores low on soc i a l i za t i on while scoring high on empathy. Typ ica l ly he disregards socia l rules and - 30 -conventions but he also considers the consequences of his behavior for others. This tends to deter the indiv idual from law-breaking behavior which harms others and thus his behavior i s more s oc i a l l y acceptable although eccent r i c . Morally mature persons should score high on both soc i a l i z a t i on and empathy scales. While these indiv iduals tend to be rule followers the i r judgements and behaviors are more f l e x i b l e and understanding since they also take into account the perspectives of others. Several s pec i f i c t r a i t s characterize morally mature people: respect for others, adherence to the pr inc ip les behind legal codes, concern for society as a whole, and the a b i l i t y to see more than one viewpoint in an issue. How c lose ly i s th is concept of moral maturity in agreement with that of other theor i sts such as Kohlberg? Hogan and Dickstein (1972) c i t e reference for the aspects of moral maturity used in Hogan's model to Kohlberg (1963) among others and, in fac t , designed a measure of moral values (reviewed below) to pa ra l l e l that of Kohlberg. The scales that Hogan has used in his research on s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy are: Gough's Soc ia l i zat ion scale (1952) of his Ca l i f o rn i a Psychological Inventory and Hogan's Empathy scale (Hogan, 1969). Hogan (1969, 1973) stresses that the two scales and the underlying constructs are, for a l l intents, en t i r e l y independent of each other. Hogan (1969) reported a comparison of low soc ia l i zat ion- low empathy scorers with a group of low soc ia l i zat ion-h igh empathy scorers (N = 124) using the Ca l i f o rn i a Psychological Inventory (CPI). The groups d i f fe red - 31 -s i g n i f i c an t l y (p < .01) from each other on 12 of the 17 CPI subscales, the low soc ia l i zat ion- low empathy scorers showing a p r o f i l e of being marginally adjusted and prone to ant i soc ia l behavior. A group of prison inmates (n = 92) was compared by Hogan in the above study to a sample of m i l i t a r y o f f i ce r s (n = 100) on the empathy scale of the CPI. The differences between these extreme groups was highly s i gn i f i can t (p < .001) with the prison inmates scoring much lower. No measure of s oc i a l i za t i on was given for th i s comparison. Kurtines and Hogan (1972) measured the levels of empathy in a sample of 130 male undergraduates whose scores on the CPI s oc i a l i z a t i on scale were r e l a t i v e l y low. They found that the mean sample score on empathy was s i g n i f i c an t l y higher (p < .01) than a sample of delinquents (n = 119) matched for low soc i a l i z a t i on scores. They postulated that the undergraduate subjects ' predisposit ion to consider the needs and desires of others might tend to counteract the ant i soc ia l ef fects of low s oc i a l i z a t i on . Deardorff, et a l . (1975) compared the s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy scores of non-offenders, f i r s t offenders, and repeat offenders (N = 45) matched for age, education, and race. They found that non-offenders and f i r s t offenders did not s i g n i f i c an t l y d i f f e r from one another on e i ther scale. Both of these groups d i f fered s i g n i f i c an t l y from repeat offenders on both soc i a l i za t i on (p < .005) and empathy (p < .05) scale scores, however. This provides a f i ne r d i f f e ren t i a t i on between " d e l i n -quent types" as conceptualized by Hogan (low soc ia l i zat ion- low empathy) and his other character types. - 32 -In another study, Hogan et al.(1970) found that male undergraduate marijuana use was related to both soc i a l i z a t i on and empathy (N = 148). Frequent users scored low on soc i a l i z a t i on but high on empathy, the p r o f i l e of Hogan's " l e ch ic " type, while non-users who said that they would never smoke marijuana (pr inc ip led non-users) scored high on soc ia -l i z a t i o n and low on empathy, the character i s t i c s of the "moral r e a l i s t s " of Hogan's typology. No group could be said to be "morally mature" from the soc i a l i za t i on and empathy results using high scores on both scales as the c r i t e r i a of maturity. The authors found, using the CPI, that users were sociable, concerned with the feel ings of others, and less r i g i d , as well as being impulsive, pleasure-seeking, and rebe l l ious . Non-users, on the other hand, were responsible, and rule-abiding but i n f l e x i b l e , conventional, and narrow in the i r in terest s . In addit ion to the predict ion of moral maturity by soc i a l i za t i on and empathy d i r ec t l y in th is study, Gough's measure of Social Maturity was applied to the subjects. This measure y ie lded soc ia l maturity scores ranging from pr inc ip led non-users as the most s o c i a l l y mature, through non-users, occasional users, and then frequent users as the lowest scorers (difference signficance to p < .05). Social maturity as a concept may be considered to be more concerned with s oc i a l i z a t i on than with empathy. Hogan and Dickstein (1972) developed a measure of moral values or moral maturity (MMV). Referring to the interview technique for measuring moral values developed by Kohlberg, they considered Kohlberg's method to - 33 -be too time-consuing and d i f f i c u l t to score. The motivation for design-ing the new scale was summarized in th is statement. "A b r ie fe r and more scorable test which nonetheless e l i c i t s a f u l l range of moral responses would be a useful c on t r i -bution to values research both as an a l ternat ive to the Kohlberg procedure and as a pa ra l l e l technique for e s t i -mating method variance". (Hogan and Dickste in, 1972, p. 210). In comparisons to external c r i t e r i a the MMV was po s i t i ve l y corre-lated (r = .37, p < .01) with a measure of s e n s i t i v i t y to i n ju s t i ce and with a measure of autonomy (r = .36, p < .01). The correlat ions between scores on the moral values scale and soc i a l i za t i on and empathy were .32 (p < .05, one-tai led) and .48 (p < .01, one-tai led) respectively in a sample of forty-one undergraduates. This offers some support to Hogan's model and indicates that s o c i a l i z a t i on may be a less powerful predictor or component of moral maturity than i s empathy. The de f i n i t i on of moral maturity used to score the subjects ' responses to each of the f i f t een statements of the MMV was as fol lows: "(a) concern for the sanct i ty of the i nd i v i dua l ; (b) judgements based on the s p i r i t rather than the l e t t e r of the Taw; (c) concern for the welfare of society as a whole; and (d) capacity to see both sides of an i ssue". (Hogan and Dickste in, 1972, p. 211) A response was given 2 points i f any of the above dimensions were e x p l i c i t , 1 point i f any were i m p l i c i t in the one-sentence response, and 0 points otherwise. The i n te r - r a te r r e l i a b i l i t y of the measure was .88 while the lowest reported r e l i a b i l i t y was .82 on a sample of 92 under-graduates. - 34 -The MMV requires more va l idat ion data before i t can be accepted into general use. Two factors which may retard acceptance are the d i f f i c u l t y with quantifying written responses and the fact that a person who exhibits only one of the four described c r i t e r i a of moral maturity would score highly on moral maturity as a whole, a p o s s i b i l i t y within the context of Hogan's (1973) f i ve dimension model of moral development but contrary to the purpose of th i s scale. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY The model of moral character and development proposed by Hogan has received some support but the re lat ionship between s o c i a l i z a t i o n , empathy, and moral maturation i s yet to be d i r ec t l y evaluated. The purpose of th i s study was to test the ef f i cacy of the model by comparing high and low levels of both soc i a l i za t i on and empathy with a measure of moral maturity. The re l a t i ve influence of each of s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy upon moral judgement within the context of Hogan's (1973) model was also examined. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the fol lowing predict ive hypotheses were made: 1. Between the measures of s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy, the strongest predictor of moral judgement would be empathy (as indicated by a higher pos i t ive corre lat ion between a measure of empathy and moral development than with a measure of s oc i a l i za t i on and moral develop-ment, and as indicated by a multiple regression equation constructed to predict moral development scores by scores on the soc i a l i za t i on and empathy measures). - 35 -2. There would be s i gn i f i can t increases in moral judgement scores respectively across the fol lowing types (lowest to highest d i rect ion) according to Hogan's model: delinquency, moral real ism, le ch ic , and moral maturity. - 36 -CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS Study 1 Methods Subjects Two hundred and s i x students in grades eleven and twelve in an urban high school took part in th is study. After deleting subjects who missed more than two item responses for any measure the number remaining was one hundred eighty s i x (N = 186; 86 males, 100 females, mean age = 16.79, age range = 16 to 20 years, 161 grade elevens, 26 grade twelves). Measures 1. Soc i a l i za t i on . The soc i a l i z a t i on scale from Gough's Ca l i f o rn i a Psychological Inventory (1969) was applied to a l l subjects. The theoret ical conceptualization underlying the soc i a l i z a t i on scale was based on how much the indiv idual has interna l i zed the values, ru les, and conventions of his society. The scale was designed to pos it ion indiv iduals or groups on a soc i a l i za t i on continuum with a range from soc ia l to asocial and i s a f i f t y item t rue- fa l se question-naire responded to by marking computer answer forms. Administrative - 37 -o f f i c i a l s required that items 1, 3, 8, 15, 23, 37, 42 and 49 be deleted from the measure. The r e l i a b i l i t y c oe f f i c i en t , perhaps as a re su l t , was only of marginal magnitude .61 (Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y ) . 2. Empathy. The scal.e of empathy devised by Hogan (1969) was used in th is study and scored by computer procedures. The measure consists of s i x ty four t rue- fa l se items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Ca l i f o rn ia Psychological Inven-tory (CPI) plus a number of items written s p e c i f i c a l l y for th i s scale. It i s empir ica l ly val idated to measure variat ions in empathy - the i n t e l l e c tua l or imaginative apprehension of another's condition or state of mind (Hogan, 1969). Local school author i t ies required that here, as w e l l , several items be omitted. These were: items 19, 21, 42, and 48. The subsequent r e l i a b i l i t y estimate was disappointingly low, .48 (Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y ) . 3. Moral Development. The scale used was the Defining Issues Test (DIT) (Rest, 1974) designed to assess the developmental aspects of moral judgements based on Kohlberg's (1963) stage theory. A pos i t ive co re r la t ion , r = .68, has been reported between the DIT and the Kohlberg measure of moral development (Rest, 1974). Various scoring systems can be applied to th i s test (e.g., stages of moral develop-ment as proposed by Kohlberg) however, th i s study used the pr inc ip led (P) score because i t was found to be "the most useful and re l i ab le ... This score i s interpreted as the re la t i ve importance a subject gives to pr inc ip led moral considerations in making a decision about (s ix) - 38 -moral dilemmas". (Rest, 1974, p. 3, 4) P scores are derived by summing the weighted ranks given to stages 5 and 6, the "p r i nc ip led l e v e l " of moral judgement. The shorter version (three dilemmas) was used which consisted of the Heinz, Prisoner, and Newspaper dilemmas. This shorter version i s reported to correlate po s i t i ve l y , r = .93, with the longer s i x story tes t (Rest, 1974). Procedure The measures were administered in one s i t t i n g per c lass , during class time in the fol lowing order: (1) Soc ia l i zat ion sca le, (2) Empathy scale, and (3) Defining Issues Test (DIT). After the students were given the booklets and computer scorable answer forms, they were instructed on the proper use of the answer forms (optical scan "mark sense" cards) unt i l the experimenter was s a t i s f i ed that everyone under-stood the correct procedure. The format of the soc i a l i z a t i on and empathy scales was described and the instruct ions for the DIT were read verbatim. Results As indicated above, the r e l i a b i l i t y coef f i c ient s of .61 for the soc i a l i za t i on scale and .48 for the empathy measure were not high enough to be considered sat i s factory . Overall the mean score on the 42 item revised s oc i a l i z a t i on scale was 27.09 and the standard deviation was 4.58. The mean empathy scale - 39 -score on the revised 60 item scale was 30.04 with a standard deviation of 5.02. The mean P score on the DIT was 7.10 with a standard deviation of 4.61 (N = 186). I t was found that soc i a l i za t i on was correlated s i g n i f i c an t l y with sex (r = .217, p < .05, two-tai led tes t , d.f. = 185). Thus i t appears that females are somewhat more highly soc ia l i zed in th i s sample than males. Soc ia l i zat ion and empathy, as Hogan (1973) has suggested, were found not to be s i g n i f i c an t l y correlated (r = .047, n.s.). While soc i a l i za t i on was correlated only neg l i g ib ly with P scores on the DIT (r = .013, n.s.), empathy was correlated pos i t i ve l y and s i g n i f i c an t l y with DIT scores (r = .189, p < .05, one-ta i led, d.f. = 185) supporting the f i r s t hypothesis of th is study (see table 1). A 2 x 2 analysis of variance was used to test the second hypo-thesis of th i s study. The dependent measure was moral judgement. The independent measures, s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy, were d i f fe rent ia ted into low and high categories by median s p l i t s . In test ing the 2 x 2 model, hypothesis 2, no s i gn i f i can t mean differences were found (see Table 2). Visual inspection of the data ( c f . Appendix E) revealed that a median s p l i t i s j u s t i f i e d based upon no obvious non-l inear relat ionships among the data. No s i gn i f i can t e f fect was found, F = 2.51, p.= .115, d.f. = 185 (F required for s igni f icance was 3.84). There were indicat ions that the hypotheses would possibly have been supported i f more r e l i a b l e test measures had been obtained. As predicted the low-soc ia l izat ion- low empathy (delinquent) c e l l had the lowest P value on the DIT. However - 40 -the low soc ia l i zat ion-h igh empathy ( " le ch ic " ) c e l l had the highest P score re f l ec t i ng the greater power of empathy in predict ing moral maturity. The order of increment of P scores was: delinquent, moral r e a l i s t , morally mature, and le chic (Hogan's categories from lowest to highest P score). A multiple regression equation was calculated predict ing moral judgement scores (DIT) by scores on the soc i a l i z a t i on and empathy scales. The more powerful var iab le, empathy was found to account for 3.59% of the variance on the dependent var iable, moral judgement scores, while soc i a l i za t i on did not add appreciably to p r ed i c t ab i l i t y at a l l (0.1%) (R = .189, d.f. = 185). On the basis of these tentat ive findings i t was decided to r e p l i -cate the study with the f u l l form soc i a l i za t i on and empathy scales and the DIT measure. Study 2(A) Hypotheses - Same as those for Study 1. Methods Subjects Seventy s ix students in grades ten, eleven, and twelve in another urban high school were used. After el iminat ing from analysis data from subjects with two or more responses missing on any measure, s i x t y - s i x subjects remained (N = 66; 26 males, 40lfemal.es., mean age = 16.97, age range = 15 to 20 years, 2 grade tens, 41 grade elevens, 23 grade twelves). - 41 -TABLE 1 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIALIZATION, EMPATHY, AND DIT P SCORE STUDY 1 Soc ia l i za t ion Empathy DIT Soc ia l i za t ion 1.00 0.047 .013 Empathy 1.00 .189* DIT 1.00 * S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i gn i f i can t to p < .05, one-ta i led, d.f. = 185. - 42 -TABLE 2 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF MORAL JUDGEMENT (P) SCORES STUDY 1 Empathy Soc ia l i zat ion low high high 7.93 7.36 (4.48) (4.81) low 6.18 6.88 (4.51) (4.61) Note: A l l main effects and interact ion effects were non-s i gn i f i can t (N = 186). - 43 -Measures The complete f u l l form measures of s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy were applied i n th i s sample. The same DIT measure was used as in Study 1. Procedure The procedure used was the same as in Study 1. Results The r e l i a b i l i t y coe f f i c i en t computed on data from the soc i a l i z a t i on scale was found to be .68 (Hoyt estimate) in th i s study and the corres-ponding r e l i a b i l i t y coe f f i c i en t of the empathy scale was .63, both of which represent improvement over the results of Study 1. Though a des i -rable lower l i m i t for research purposes might be .70, these were considered to j u s t i f y further analys i s . A r e l i a b i l i t y index was also computed for the DIT which y ie lded a r e l i a b i l i t y coe f f i c i en t of .63. This i s an indicator of the internal consistency of the overal l DIT, not merely the P items, and thus can only be used here as a general ind icator . The mean scores and standard deviations for the sample (N = 66) were as fol lows: soc i a l i za t i on 31.12 (5.40), empathy 34.68 (6.03), DIT P score 8.24 (4.46). Soc ia l i zat ion and empathy scores were found to increase with grade in th i s sample (r = .244, n.s., r = .157, n.s., d.f. = 65) at a level approaching s igni f icance on s o c i a l i z a t i on . Females tended to be more soc ia l i zed than males but, again, th is was not a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i gn i f i can t re lat ionsh ip. Soc ia l i za t ion and empathy were found to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y independent (r = .034, n.s., d.f. = 65). - 44 -Empathy was s i gn i f i c an t l y correlated with P scores from Rest 's DIT (r = .236, p < .05, one-ta i led, d.f. = 65) supporting hypothesis one of th is study. Soc ia l i za t ion scores were negatively but nonsignif icant!y correlated with DIT socres (see Table 3). A 2 x 2 analysis of variance was computed to test hypothesis two of th i s study using moral judgement (P score) as the dependent measure and soc i a l i z a t i on and empathy as the independent measures. No s i g n i f i -cant mean differences were found (see Table 4). However the same general trends as in Study 1 were noted. The low soc ia l i zat ion- low empathy (delinquent) c e l l contained the indiv iduals scoring lowest on the DIT while the low soc ia l i zat ion-h igh empathy ( " le ch ic " ) c e l l subjects obtained the highest P scores followed c losely by the high s o c i a l i z a t i o n -high empathy (Hogan's proposed morally mature) c e l l . A mult iple regression equation revealed that empathy accounted for 5.5% of the variance on moral maturity while s oc i a l i z a t i on accounted for only an addit ional .02% of the variance (R = .2359, d.f. =65). These results bring to the fore a question of the comparability of Hogan's model with Kohlberg's (1963) model of moral development used in forming the DIT. Is the DIT P score a misleading measure in th i s pa r t i cu la r paradigm, perhaps masking effects within Hogan's model which might be better revealed by using Hogan's measure of moral values (MMV)? A subsample of the Study 2 subjects (N = 25) were also given Hogan's measure of moral values (Hogan & Dickstein, 1972). The results of comparisons employing data from th is scale compromised Study 2(B). - 45 -TABLE 3 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIALIZATION, EMPATHY, AND DIT P SCORES STUDY 2 Soc ia l i za t ion Empathy DIT Soc ia l i zat ion 1.00 -.034 -.022 Empathy 1.00 .236* DIT 1.00 * S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i gn i f i can t at p < .05, one-ta i led, d.f. = 65. - 46 -TABLE 4 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF MORAL JUDGEMENT (P) SCORES STUDY 2 Empathy Soc ia l i za t ion low hi gh high 9.00 (6.80) 8.85 (3.21) low 7.40 (3.48) 7.39 (2.89) Note: A l l main effects and interact ion effects were non-s i gn i f i can t (N = 65). - 47 -Study 2(B) Hypotheses: It was hypothesized that: (1) DIT P scores and MMV scores would be pos i t i ve l y and s i g n i f i c an t l y corre lated, and (2) that variance on Hogan's model would be equally well accounted for by DIT P scores and MMV scores. A subsample of twenty-five of the Study 2(A) subjects, members of one randomly selected c lass , was given Hogan's (Hogan & Dicste in, 1972) measure of moral values in addit ion to the other measures used. Twenty-three subjects remained a f te r deletion for more than two responses missing on any measure (N = 23; 9 males, 14 females, mean age = 17.56, age range = 16 to 20 years, 5 grade elevens, 18 grade twelves). Measures Hogan's measure of moral values i s a questionnaire with f i f teen items, each of which requests the subject to respond with short answers. These are scored by comparison to the fol lowing c r i t e r i a of moral maturity (Hogan & Dickstein, 1972): (a) concern for the sanct ity of the i n d i v i -dual, (b) judgement based on the s p i r i t rather than the l e t t e r of the law, (c) concern for the welfare of society as a whole, and (d) capacity to see both sides of an issue. I f any of these issues was e x p l i c i t in the response the subject was given 2 points, i f the issue was i m p l i c i t 1 point was given, otherwise no score for that item. I n i t i a l va l idat ion - 48 -has been carr ied out (Hogan & Dickste in, 1972) ind icat ing that the scale measures moral maturity. Procedure The same procedure was used as in Studies 1 and 2(A) for the s o c i a l i z a t i on , empathy, and the DIT scales. The instruct ions for the Hogan MMV were read verbatim and the scale was placed a f te r the others in presentation. Results Two independent raters scored the measure of moral values (MMV) and were substant ia l ly in agreement (r = .92, p < .005, one-ta i led, d.f. = 22). Internal r e l i a b i l i t y coef f i c ient s were calculated for each of the ratings and they were .61 and .80 (Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y ) . The l a t t e r rat ing was used in a l l subsequent ca lcu lat ions . The means and standard deviations in th i s sample (N = 23) were: s oc i a l i z a t i on 31.26 (6.00), empathy 36.13 (6.30), DIT 10.04 (5.25), MMV 26.60 (5.82). Scores on the MMV were related almost to s ign i f icance to grade in an unexpected d i rec t ion . The grade eleven students were more morally mature than grade twelves (r = -.385, n.s., d.f. = 22, r required for s ign i f icance = .404). Soc ia l i za t ion and scores on the DIT were negatively related in th i s sample (r = -.349, n.s.) barely f a i l i n g s t a t i s t i c a l s ign i f i cance. Empathy exhibited the same pos i t ive d i rect ion of re lat ion to the DIT as in Studies 1 and 2(A) but i s nonsignif icant (r = .298, d.f. = 22). Both soc i a l i z a t i on and empathy scores showed pos i t ive but nonsignif icant - 49 -relat ionships to scores on Hogan's MMV (r = .115, d.f. = 22, r = .336, d.f. = 22, respect ive ly ) . DIT P scores and scores on Hogan's MMV appear, on the basis of th i s small sample exploratory study to be quite indepen-dent (r = -.059, n.s.). This f inding contrasts with Hogan's (1972) assertion that th i s scale (as with Rest ' s ) could be used as a pa ra l l e l scale to Kohlberg's method (see Table 5). Thus the f i r s t hypothesis of th i s Study 2(B) i s not supported. The two scales appear to each measure a concept that is independent and unrelated to the other. A mult iple regression equation was ca lcu lated, using the DIT scale P score as the dependent var iable. Soc ia l i zat ion accounted for 12.2% of the variance on moral judgement while empathy increased the predict ion by 5.31% to account for 17.51% of the variance. Adding the two ratings of the Hogan MMV increased the variance accounted for to 23.07% (R = .4804, d.f. = 22). When the Hogan MMV is placed as the dependent var iab le, empathy i s the best predictor, accounting for 10.31% of the variance, while s oc i a l i z a t i on increased the p r ed i c t ab i l i t y to 10.90% (R = .3301, d.f. = 22). The DIT P score was not powerful enough to enter into the regression equation (see Table 6). Soc ia l i za t ion and empathy account for s i x ty per cent more variance on the DIT P scores than on the MMV. However the actual difference between the p r ed i c t ab i l i t y of the DIT P score and the MMV score i s R = .0884 or s ix per cent. The amount of variance of e i ther measure accounted for was thus rather low. In add i t ion, as Hogan and Dickstein (1972) suggested, empathy was the more powerful variable in predict ing the MMV scores. This was not true of DIT P scores. The most e f f i c i e n t - 50 -TABLE 5 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SOCIALIZATION, EMPATHY, DIT P SCORES, AND HOGAN'S MMV STUDY 2(B) Soc ia l i zat ion Empathy DIT (P) MMV Soc ia l i za t ion 1.000 -.208 —. 349 .115 Empathy 1.000 .298 .336 DIT P SCORE 1.000 -.059 MMV 1 .000 No corre lat ion here is s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f fe rent from zero (at d.f. = 22, r = .344, one-ta i led, i s required for s ign i f icance to p = .05). - 51 -predict ive variable of DIT P scores in th is sample was s o c i a l i z a t i o n , however th i s was a negative corre lat ion (see Table 5), contrary to Hogan's (1973) model. Therefore the second hypothesis of th is Study 2(B) is not supported: that the DIT P scores and MMV scores would serve equally wel l as measures to evaluate Hogan's model. Several problems with this sample were apparent which indicate that i t may not be representative of a more general population. F i r s t , the negative re lat ionship between soc i a l i z a t i on and the DIT ex ists only neg l i g ib ly in the larger sample. Secondly the mean DIT score (10.04) i s considerably higher than that of the larger sample (8.24) or with the Study 1 sample (7.10). Thirdly i t was found i n th i s sample that the grade twelve subjects scored less on the MMV than the grade elevens, an unexpected resu l t in the l i g h t of most developmental hypotheses. Fourthly th i s sample may not be d i r e c t l y comparable to the previous two samples since the age level of the present sample was noticeably higher (age means: Study 1 =16.79, Study 2(A) = 16.93, Study 2(B) = 17.56). F ina l l y the degree of variance accounted fo r by both s oc i a l i z a t i on and empathy among the 23 subjects of Study 2(B) on e i ther the DIT P score or the MMV was much larger than that of Studies 1 and 2(A). This was contrary to expectations in view of the smaller sample s ize (see Table 6(C)). - 52 -TABLE 6(A) BETA VALUES FOR THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION EQUATION PREDICTING THE VALUES OF THE DIT P SCORES COEFFICIENT CONSTANT b Q 4.97567 SOCIALIZATION b ] -.19393 EMPATHY b 2 .24150 MMV(l) b 3 .63577 MMV(2) b 4 -.54243 TABLE 6(B) BETA VALUES FOR THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION EQUATION PREDICTING THE VALUES OF THE MMV (RATER 2) COEFFICIENT CONSTANT b Q 16.06752 SOCIALIZATION b ] .02912 EMPATHY b 2 .15293 - 53 -TABLE 6(C) R VALUES AND % OF VARIANCE ACCOUNTED FOR (R 2) BY SOCIALIZATION AND EMPATHY, STUDIES 1, 2(A), & 2(B) R % Study 1 Predict ing DIT P score Empathy .1893 3.58 Soc ia l i zat ion .1894 3.59 Study 2 Predict ing DIT P score Empathy .2355 5.55 Soc ia l i zat ion .2359 5.57 Study 2(A) Predict ing DIT P score Soc ia l i za t ion .3493 12.20 Empathy .4185 17.51 Study 2(B) Predict ing DIT P score Empathy .3211 10.31 Soc ia l i zat ion .3301 10.90 Note: The total variance accounted for by both variables i s the figure on the second l i ne of each comparison. - 54 -CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Evidence (see corre lat ion Tables 1, 3, and 5, see R values, Table 6) tends to support the f i r s t hypothesis of th i s study: that empathy accounts for a greater degree of variance on moral maturity than does s o c i a l i z a t i on . This i s in accordance with previous i n v e s t i -gations (Hogan & Dickste in, 1972; Selman, 1971). The present inquiry found, however, that the amount of variance in no comparison exceeded the Study 2(B) f inding of 17.5% (R = .4185) for both variables and in Studies 1 and 2(A) was 3.59% (R = .1894) and 5.57% (R = .2359) respec-t i v e l y . Empathy was more highly po s i t i ve l y correlated with moral devel-opment than soc i a l i z a t i on in Studies 1 and 2(A) (Empathy: r = .189, p < .05, d.f. = 185; r = .236, p < .05, d.f. = 65. Soc i a l i z a t i on : r = .013, n.s.; r = -.022, n.s.). Study 2(B) moral development DIT P scores were more highly correlated with soc i a l i za t i on scores than to empathy scores but in a negative d i rect ion (Empathy: r = .298, n.s., Soc i a l i za t i on : r = -.349, n.s.). This l a t t e r negative corre lat ion might be at t r ibutab le to non-normal d i s t r ibut ion of the small sample used in Study 2(B). Correlations of the Study 2(B) s oc i a l i za t i on and empathy scores with the Hogan MMV were in the d i rect ion hypothesized with empathy as the more strongly related although neither or s oc i a l i z a t i on nor empathy were of s i gn i f i c an t magnitude (Empathy: r = .336, n.s., Soc ia l i za t i on : r = .115, n.s.). - 55 -The data did not support the second hypothesis of th i s study: that moral judgement scores s i g n i f i c an t l y increase across the four categories of Hogan's model from delinquent, moral r e a l i s t , le ch ic , and morally mature. This resu l t i s not conclusive, however, as the predicted effects were evidenced, to some degree, as non-s igni f icant tendencies (see Table 2 and Table 4). In Study 1 the mean values of the DIT P score increased as fol lows: delinquent 6.18, moral r e a l i s t 6.88, le chic type 7.93, and morally mature 7.36. The mean values of the DIT P score found in Study 2(A) were: delinquent 7.40, moral r e a l i s t 7.39, le chic type 9.00, and morally mature 8.85. Thus the d i rect ion of the predict ion was generally correct except for the reversal of the chic and morally mature categories. I t i s possible that several uncontrolled effects may have been operating in these studies and thus masked differences in the variables measured. These are out l ine below. The r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the independent measures were more s a t i s f a c -tory in Study 2(A) than in Study 1 but there was s t i l l considerable error of test ing present in Study 2(A) ( internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t i e s of .68 for s oc i a l i za t i on and .63 for empathy). A larger sample s ize might have had some strengthening e f fect on the measures. One source of problems may l i e in the test ing s i tuat ion i t s e l f . 9.71% (n = 20) of the or ig ina l 206 Study 1 subjects and 13.16% (n = 10) or the or ig ina l 76 Study 2(A) subjects were discarded for 2 or more item responses missing in one or more of the scales. While a str ingent requirement for data acceptab i l i t y was applied the above proportions may indicate d i f f i c u l t i e s in obtaining f u l l cooperation from the samples, perhaps because of the - 56 -number of measures applied in one s i t t i n g . Another aspect of the sample may also contribute to the lack of r e l i a b i l i t y . Hogan's (1969) empathy measure was developed and has been u t i l i z e d with univers i ty and adult subjects. Perhaps th is measure is not as eas i l y understood or responded to by high school age students. Further test ing with an older sample or modification of the instrument for use with secondary students might r e c t i f y th i s problem. Hogan (1973) advances his model of moral development in a devel-opmental framework, but uses only univers ity age and adult subjects when attempting to val idate i t . The model i t s e l f thus may be most appl icable to older subjects in providing a personal ity typology and may not r e f l e c t l i f e span developmental patterns of childhood through adulthood as suggested by Hogan. The almost tota l lack of corre lat ion between the DIT P scores and Hogan's MMV (r = -.059, n.s.) i s puzzl ing. It casts doubt upon the test results and/or d irects attention to the degree of difference between Rest 's and Hogan's concepts of moral maturity. One purpose for which both measures were developed was that each might be useful as p a r a l l e l measures to Kohlberg's lengthy interview technique. Rest (1974) supplies some evidence that his scale i s so re lated; Hogan does not pursue the matter. A further rep l i ca t i on study should be undertaken to test the independence of these two measures. The resu l t found with the Study 2(A) subsample, owing to i t s small s ize and low r e l i a b i l i t i e s (N = 23) renders present results inconclusive. - 57 -It should be noted that the P scores for the present studies were lower than those of some other samples reported by Rest (1974) (35 to 38.7 for the f u l l six-dilemma questionnaire (21 P items) compared to 7.10 to 10.04 i n the samples studied here (9 P items i n the three item DIT)). The reason for th i s i s uncertain but may indicate sample d i f f e -rences or test ing d i f f i c u l t i e s in the use of the DIT. In the l i g h t of these possible sources of error variance any conclusions made from this study must be tentat ive. However, with regard to the spec i f i c hypotheses stated, and the overal l purpose of th i s inves-t igat ion several statements can be made. The f i r s t hypothesis was that, of soc i a l i za t i on and empathy, the variable more strongly re lated to moral development and thus the most useful as a predictor of moral development would be empathy. As postulated, empathy was s i g n i f i c an t l y and pos i t i ve l y related to moral development while s oc i a l i z a t i on was not in the two overa l l samples reported (although in a small subsample of the second study th i s hypothesis was not supported). Thus i t may be concluded that empathy i s the stronger predictor of moral development. The second hypothesis was that moral development scores would increases in a l i nea r d i rect ion from delinquent, to moral r e a l i s t , le ch ic , and morally mature categories of Hogan's model. General tenden-cies in th i s d i rect ion were noted but no s i gn i f i can t trend was found. Therefore i t i s concluded that moral development scores do not increase in the manner described in the hypothesis. The overal l purpose of th i s research has been to assess the u t i l i t y of Hogan's model of moral development, s p e c i f i c a l l y the typology - 58 -involving the t r a i t s of s o c i a l i z a t i o n , empathy, and moral development, for psychology and education. The model is appealing because i t offers c lear guidelines for both measuring moral development and for enhancing or correcting this development. However the breakdown of the model described by Hogan (1973) was not found in th i s inquiry: no s i gn i f i can t differences in moral devel-opment with d i f f e ren t levels of s oc i a l i z a t i on or empathy were detected. The amount of variance on moral development accounted for by the two variables of soc i a l i za t i on and empathy ranged from 3.59% to 17.5% of the t o t a l , indicat ing that they account for l i t t l e difference in moral development. A useful model would necessari ly account for much greater variance. Thus i t appears, for these samples at l ea s t , that the model of moral development proposed by Hogan i s not a powerful enough predictor to be useful for education and psychology. The e f fec t of both s o c i a l i -zation and empathy on moral development appears to be less than Hogan has suggested. As indicated above, uncertainty about the intrus ion of error variance into these studies causes any conclusion to be qua l i f i ed or l im i ted . Therefore i t i s suggested that further studies, including a complete r ep l i c a t i on , be undertaken with the fol lowing suggestions modif ications, and d i rect ions . Of the measures used here, the s o c i a l i z a t i on , empathy, and DIT P score scales must be addressed in terms of r e l i a b i l i t y . The s o c i a l i -zation scale may render more acceptable internal consistency estimates - 59 -with a larger sample. The empathy scale may have to be modified to be more useful with senior high school age subjects. A r e l i a b i l i t y e s t i -mate of the DIT should be constructed based on using a modified scoring system that includes a l l of the DIT items, perhaps weighting each by stage, rather than jus t the P score. The nine P items only comprise too small of a scale to y i e l d a useful internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y estimate. An addit ional c r i t i c i s m of the DIT P score i s that i t discards much useful information, in the form of the other DIT stage scores, pa r t i cu l a r l y with a sample of school age chi ldren whose moral development may not have reached the P or pr inc ip led level yet. The Hogan MMV should be used in any rep l i ca t ion to test i f Hogan's model of moral development i s s pec i f i c to pa r t i cu l a r measures. Factor analysis of the MMV would be a useful study in i t s e l f to determine the major components in the l i gh t of Hogan's model of moral development, his de f in i t i on of moral maturity, and the stages of the Rest DIT measure. A corre lat ion of the DIT to the MMV using a larger sample would be adviseable to determine the re lat ionship of the two measures. The measures should be applied over several s i t t i n g in a r e p l i -cation thus reducing the effects of fat ique, haste, and annoyance at the magnitude of the task presented to the subjects. Dual rep l icat ions of high school age and univers ity age subjects could shed l i g h t on whether the Hogan model i s indeed developmental or a simple four category typology useful only for descriptions of univer-s i t y age and adult subjects. If the l a t t e r i s the case then thoughts of using the model as a guide to enhance or correct moral growth may be misplaced. - 60 -BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. A r i s t o t l e . Ethics. Middlesex: Penguin, 1953. 2. Aronfreed, J . , and Reber, A., Internal ized Behavior Suppresion and the Timing of Social Punishment. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 1965, 1_, 3-17. 3. Bandura, A., Social Learning of Moral Judgements. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 1J_, 275-279. 4. Bandura, A., and McDonald, F., The Influence of Social Reinforcement and the Behavior of Models in Shaping Chi ldren ' s Moral Judgements. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 274-281. 5. Bandura, A., Ross, D., and Ross, S., Transmission of Agression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and  Social Psychology, 1961, 6_3, 575-582. 6. Bandura, A., Ross, D., and Ross, S. A Comparative Test of Status Envy, Social Power, and Secondary Reinforcement Theories of Ident i -f i catory Learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 1963, 67, 527-534. 7. Beck, C , Su l l i van , E., and Taylor, N., Stimulating Transit ion to Postconventional Moral ity: The Pickering High School Study. Inter- change, 1972, 3> 28-37. 8. Berelson, B., and Steiner, G., Human Behavior: An Inventory of  S c i e n t i f i c Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1964. 9. Bronfenbrenner, U., Harding, J . , and Gallwey, M., A Review and Theoretical Framework for the Study of Interpersonal Perception. In L. Wrightsman (ed.), Contemporary Issues in Social Psychology. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, 1968. 10. Cowan, P., Langer, J . , Heavenrich, J . , and Nathanson, M., Social Learning and Piaget ' s Theory of Moral Development. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11_, 261-274. 1.1. Deardorff, P., Finch, J . , Kendall, P., L i r a , F., and Indrisano, V., Empathy and Soc ia l i za t ion in Repeat Offenders, F i r s t Offenders, and Normals. Journal, of Counselling Psychology, 1975, 22, 453-455. 12. Deutsch, F., and Madle, R., Empathy: H i s to r i c and Current Concep-tua l i za t i on s , Measurement, and a Cognitive Theoretical Perspective. Human Development, 1975, 1_8, 267-287. - 61 -13. Dymond, R., A Scale for the Measurement of Empathic A b i l i t y . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1949, 1_3, 127-133. 14. Feffer, M., The Cognitive Implications of Role-taking Behavior. Journal of Personal i ty, 1959, 27, 152-168. 15. Fine, R., The Healing of the Mind: The Technique of Psycho- ana lyt ic Psychotherapy. New York: David McKay, 1971. 16. F l a v e l l , J . , Botkin, B., Fry, C , J r . , Wright, J . , and Ja rv i s , P., The Development of Role-taking and Communication S k i l l s in Ch i ld - ren. New York: Wiley, 1968. 17. Frank, L., Tac t i l e Communication. In A. Smith (ed.), Communication  and Culture. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966. 18. Freud, S., C i v i l i z a t i o n and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton, 1961. 19. Freud, S., A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New York: Washington Square, 1952. 20. Gage, N., Judging Interests from Expressive Behavior. Psychological  Monographs, 1952, 66, (18, Whole No. 350). 21. Gough, H., A Sociological Theory of Psychopathy. American Journal  of Sociology, 1948, 53, 359-366. 22. Gough, H., Theory and Measurement of Soc i a l i z a t i on . Journal of  Consulting Psychology, 1960, 2_4, 23-30. 23. Gough, H., Manual for the Ca l i f o rn ia Psychological Inventory. (Revised ed i t i on ) . Palo A l to : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1969. 24. Gough, J . , and Peterson, D., The Ident i f i cat ion and Measurement of Predisposit ional factors in Crime and Delinquency. Journal of  Consulting Psychology, 1952, 1_6, 207-212. 25. Gre i f , E., and Hogan, R., The Theory and Measurement of Empathy. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 1973, 20, 280-284. 26. H a l l , E., The S i lent Language. Greenwich: Fawcett, 1959. 27. H a l l , E., The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday-Anchor, 1966. 28. Havighurst, R., and Neugarten, B., American Indian and White Ch i l d - ren. Chicago: Univers ity of Chicago Press, 1955. - 62 -29. Hoffman, M., Chi ldrearing Practices and Moral Development: General i -zations from Empirical Research. In L. Wrightsman (ed.) Contem- porary Issues in Social Psychology. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, 1968. 30. Hoffman, M., Moral Development. IN P. Mussen (ed.) Carmichael's  Manual of Child Psychology (3rd ed.). New York: J . Wiley, 1970. 31. Hoffman, M., Empathy, Role-taking, Gu i l t and Development of A l t r u -i s t i c Motives. In T. Likona (ed.) Moral Development and Behavior, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976. 32. Hogan, R., Development of an Empathy Scale. Journal of Consulting  and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1969, 33, 307-316. 33. Hogan, R., Moral Conduct and Moral Character: A Psychological Perspective. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1973, 79, 217-232. 34. Hogan, R., D ia lec t i ca l Aspects of Moral Development. Human Devel- opment, 1974, 17_, 107-117. 35. Hogan, R., Mankin, D., Conway, J . , and Fox, S., Personality Corre-lates of Undergraduate Marijuana Use. Journal of Consulting and  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1970, 35, 58-63. 36. Hogan, R., and Dickstein, E., A Measure of Moral Values. Journal  of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1972, 39, 210-214. 37. Kohlberg, L., The Development of Chi ldren 's Orientations Toward a Moral Order: 1. Sequence in the Development of Moral Thought. V ita Humana, 1963, 6, 11-33. 38. Kohlberg, L., From Is to Ought: How to Avoid the Natu ra l i s t i c Fallacy and Get Away With i t in the Study of Moral Development. In T. Mischel (ed.) Cognitive Development and Epistemology. New York: Academic Press, 1971. 39. Kurtines, W., and Hogan, R., Sources of Conformity i n Unsocial ized College Students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1972, 80, 49-51. 40. Le Furgy, W., and Woloshin, G., Immediate and Long Term Effects of Experimentally Induced Social Influence in the Modif ication of Adolescents' Moral Judgements. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 1969, J_2, 104-110. 41. Lindgren, H., and Robinson, J . , The Evaluation of Dymond's Test of Social Insight and Empathy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1953, JJ7, 172-176. 42. Lowen, A., Bioenergetics. New York: Penquin, 1975. - 63 -43. Mead, G., The Social Self . Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and  S c i e n t i f i c Methods, 1913, 10, 374-380. 44. Mead, G., A Behavior i st ic Account of the S ign i f i cant Symbol. Journal of Philosophy, 1922, 19_, 157-163. 45. Mead, G., Mind, Self.j.and Society. Chicago: Univers ity of Chicago Press, 1934. 46. Milgram, S., Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal  and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 371-378. 47. Mussen, P., Conger, J . , and Kagan, J . , Chi ld Development and  Personality (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row, 1969. 48. Nunnally, J . , Introduction to Psychological Measurement, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. 49. Piaget, J . , The Moral Development of the Ch i ld . New York: Free Press, 1965. 50. Piaget, J . , Six Psychological Studies (D. E lk ind, ed.). New York: Vintage Books, 1968. 51. Plato. Gorgias. New York: Bobbs-Merri11, 1952. 52. Rest, J . , Manual for the Defining Issues Test: An Objective Test  of Moral Judgement Development. Minneapolis: Univers ity of Minne-sota, 1974. 53. Rest, J . , Current Research on the DIT and the Kohl berg Moral Judge- ment Interview. Symposium presentation at the Conference on Moral Development. Oakv i l le , Ontario, 1975. 54. Rest, J . , Tu r i e l , E., and Kohl berg, L., Level of Moral Development as a Determinant of Preference and Comprehension of Moral Judgements Made by Others. Journal of Personal i ty, 1969, 37, 225-252. 55. Rosen, A., and Scha l l ing, D., On the Va l i d i t y of the Ca l i fo rn ia Psychological Inventory Soc ia l i za t ion Scale: A Mult ivar iate Approach. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1974, 42, 757-765. — 56. Sears, R., Maccoby, E., and Levin, H., Patterns of Chi ld Rearing. New;-York: Harper and Row, 1957. 57. Selman, R., The Relation of Role-taking to the Development of Moral Judgement in Children. Chi ld Development, 1971 , 42^ , 79-91. - '64 -59. Selman, R., A Developmental Approach to Interpersonal and Moral  Awareness of Young Children: Some Theoretical and Educational  Perspectives. Harvard Univers i ty, 1974. (ERIC Document Repro-ductive Service No. ED 097-959) 60. Shantz, C , Empathy in Relation to Social Cognitive Development. Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Convention of the American Psycho-log ica l Associat ion, 1974. 61. Skinner, B., The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton Century Crofts , 1968. 62. Smith, H., Sens i t i v i t y Training: The S c i e n t i f i c Understanding of  Individuals. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. 63. Tharp, P., and Wetzel, R., Behavior modification in the Natural  Environment. New York: Academic Press, 1969. 64. Tracy, J . , and Cross, H., Antecedents of Sh i f t in Moral Judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 2 i 6 , 238-244. 65. T u r i e l , E., An Experimental Test of the Sequential i ty of Develop-mental Stages in the Ch i l d ' s Moral Judgements. Journal of Person- a l i t y and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 611-618. 66. T u r i e l , E., Stage Transit ion in Moral Development. In R. Travers (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973. 67. U l r i ch , R., Stachnik, T., and Mabry, J . , (eds), Volume Two: Control  of Human Behavior: From Cure to Prevention. Glenview: Scott, Foresman, 1970. 68. Walker, R., and Foley, J . , Social Intel l igence: Its History and Measurement. Psychological Reports, 1973, 3*3, 839-864. (Monograph) 69. Weckowicz, T., and Janssen, D., Cognitive Functions, Personality T ra i t s , and Social Values in Heavy Marijuana Smokers and Nonsmoker Controls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 81_, 264-269. 70. Wheelwright, P., A C r i t i c a l Introduction to Ethics. ( 3 rded . ) . New York: Odyssey, 1959. 71. Wrong, D., The Oversocialized Conception of Man. American Sociolo- g ical Review, 1961, 26, 183-193. - 65 -APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE MEASURE OF SOCIALIZATION 66 APPENDIX B THE MEASURE OF EMPATHY 67 APPENDIX C THE DEFINING ISSUES TEST 71 APPENDIX D THE MEASURE OF MORAL VALUES 84 APPENDIX E RAW DATA FROM STUDIES 1, 2(A), and 2(B) 89 - 66 -APPENDIX A THE MEASURE OF SOCIALIZATION The measure of s oc i a l i z a t i on used in th i s study i s copyrighted and avai lable through the Ca l i f o rn ia Psychological Inventory (Gough 1969), - 67 -APPENDIX B THE MEASURE OF EMPATHY (HOGAN 1969) USED IN THIS STUDY Please mark true (T) or fa l se (F) to the fol lowing questions. T F 1. A person needs to "show o f f " a l i t t l e now and then. T F 2. I l i ked " A l i ce in Wonderland" by Lewis C a r r o l l . T F 3. Clever, sarcast ic people make me feel very uncomfortable. T F 4. I usually take an act ive part in the entertainment at part ies. T F 5. I feel sure that there i s only one true r e l i g i o n . T F 6. I am a f ra id of deep water. T F 7. I must admit I often t ry to get my own way regardless of what others may want. T F 8. I have at one time or another in my l i f e t r i ed my hand at wr i t ing poetry. T F 9. Most of the arguments or quarrels I get into are over matters of p r i nc i p l e . T F 10. I would l i k e the job of a foreign correspondent of a news-paper. T F 11. People today have forgotten how to feel properly ashamed of themselves. T F 12. I prefer a shower to a bathtub. T F 13. I always t ry to consider the other f e l l ow ' s feel ings before I do something. - 68 -T F 14. I usually don 't l i k e to ta lk much unless I am with people I know very w e l l . T F 15. I can remember "playing s ick" to get out of something. T F 16. I l i k e to keep people guessing what I'm going to do next. T F 17. Before I do something I t ry to consider how my friends w i l l react to i t . T F 18. I l i k e to ta lk before groups of people. T F 19. When a man is with a woman he i s usually thinking about things related to her sex. T F 20. Only a fool would try to change our Canadian way of l i f e . T F 21. My parents were always very s t r i c t and stern with me. T F 22. Sometimes I rather enjoy going against the rules and doing things I'm not supposed to. T F 23. I think I would l i k e to belong to a singing club. T F 24. I think I am.usually a leader in my group. T F 25. I l i k e to have a place for everything and everying in i t s place. T F 26. I don't l i k e to work on a problem unless there i s the poss i -b i l i t y of coming out with a c lear-cut and unambiguous answer. T F 27. It bothers me when something unexpected interrupts my da i l y routine. T F 28. I have a natural ta lent for inf luencing people. T F 29. I don 't r ea l l y care whether people l i k e me or d i s l i k e me. T F 30. The trouble with many people i s that they don 't take things ser iously enough. - 69 -T F 31. It i s hard for me jus t to s i t s t i l l and re lax. T F 32. Once i n a while I think of things too bad to ta l k about. T F 33. I feel that i t i s cer ta in ly best to keep my mouth shut when I'm in trouble. T F 34. I am a good mixer. T F 35. I am an important person. T F 36. I l i k e poetry. . T F 37. My feel ings are not ea s i l y hurt. T F 38. I have met problems so f u l l of p o s s i b i l i t i e s that I have been unable to make up my mind about them. T F 39. Often I can ' t understand why I have been so cross and grouchy. T F 40. What others think of me does not bother me. T F 41. I would l i k e to be a j ou rna l i s t . T F 42. I l i k e to ta lk about sex. T F 43. My way of doing things i s apt to be misunderstood by others. T F 44. Sometimes without any reason or even when things are going wrong I feel exc i tedly happy, "on top of the wor ld" . T F 45. I l i k e to be with a crowd who play jokes on one another. T F 46. My mother or father often made me obey even when I thought that i t was unreasonable. T F 47. I eas i l y become impatient with people. T F 48. Sometimes I enjoy hurting persons I love. T F 49. I tend to be interested in several d i f f e ren t hobbies rather than to s t i ck to one of them for a long time. - 70 -I am not eas i ly angered. People have often misunderstood my intentions when I was t ry ing to put them r ight and be he lp fu l . I am usually calm and not ea s i l y upset. I would cer ta in ly enjoy beating a crook at his own game. I am often so annoyed when someone t r i e s to get ahead of me in a l i ne of people that I speak to him about i t . I used to l i k e hopscotch. I have never been made espec ia l ly nervous over trouble that any members of my family have gotten into. As a ru le I have l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y in "putt ing myself into other people's shoes". I have seen some things so sad that I almost f e l t l i k e cry ing. Disobedience to the government i s never j u s t i f i e d . I t i s the duty of a c i t i z en to support his country, r i ght or wrong. I am usually rather short-tempered with people who come around and bother me with foo l i sh questions. I have a pretty c lear idea of what I would t ry to impart to my students i f I were a teacher. I enjoy the company of strong-wi l led people. I frequently undertake more than I can accomplish. - 71 -APPENDIX C The Defining Issues Test (short form) (Rest 1974). - 72 -OPINIONS ABOUT SOCIAL PROBLEMS This questionnaire i s aimed at understanding how people think about soc ia l problems. D i f ferent people often have d i f fe rent opinions about questions of r i ght and wrong. There are no " r i gh t " answers in the way that there are r i ght answers to match problems. We would l i k e you to t e l l us what you think about several problem s to r ie s . The papers w i l l be fed to a computer to f i nd the average for the whole group, and no one w i l l see your indiv idual answers. Please give us the fol lowing information: NAME FEMALE AGE CLASS AND PERIOD MALE SCHOOL * * * * * * In th i s questionnaire you w i l l be asked to give your opinions about several s to r ie s . Here is a story as an example. Read i t , then turn to the next page. Frank Jones has been thinking about buying a car. He i s married, has two small chi ldren and earns an average income. The car he buys w i l l - 73 -be his fami ly ' s only car. I t w i l l be used mostly to get to work and drive around town, but sometimes for vacation t r i p s a l so. In t ry ing to decide what car to buy, Frank Jones rea l i zed that there were a l o t of questions to consider. On the next page there i s a l i s t of some of these questions. I f you were Frank Jones, how important would each of these ques-tions be in deciding what car to buy? PART A. (SAMPLE) On the l e f t hand side of the page check one of the spaces by each ques-t ion that could be considered. cu cu u o CU cu c c O o ca fO c -t-j CU +-> (0 03 s- o s- 4-> o o S- i- Q. ra CL o O E +-> E CL CL 'r— s-_E E o * i — U J CL 1— _ l E <C in U J I— •1— U J C J s: r -Q£ ZD o t—i o CT5 oo _J / 1. Whether the car dealer was in the same block as where Frank l i v e s . _/ 2. Would a used car be more economical i n the long run than a new car. _/_ 3. Whether the color was green, Frank's favor i te co lor . J _ 4. Whether the cubic inch displacement was at least 200. _/ 5. Would a large, roomy car be better than a compact car. / 6. Whether the front connib i l ies were d i f f e r e n t i a l . - 74 -PART B. (SAMPLE) From the l i s t of questions above, se lect the most important one of the whole group. Put the number of the most, important question on the top l i ne below. Do l ikewise for your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th most important choices. Most important 5 Second most important 2 Third most important 3 Fourth most important 1 - 75 -HEINZ AND THE DRUG In Europe a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. I t was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a small dose of the drug. The s ick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1000, which i s ha l f of what i t cost. He to ld the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to s e l l i t cheaper or l e t him pay l a t e r . But the druggist sa id, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from i t " . So Heinz got desperate and began to think about breaking into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz,.steal the drug? (Check one) Should steal i t Can't decide Should not steal i t - 76 -HEINZ STORY On the l e f t hand side of the page check one of the spaces by each question to indicate i t s importance. 1. Whether a community's laws are going to be upheld. 2. I sn ' t i t only natural for a loving husband to care so much for his wife that he'd steal? 3. Is Heinz w i l l i n g to r i sk getting shot as a bur-glar or going to j a i l for the chance that s tea l ing the drug might help? 4. Whether Heinz i s a professional wrest ler , or has considerable influence with professional wrest lers. 5. Whether Heinz i s s tea l ing for himself or doing th i s so le ly to help someone e l se. 6. Whether the druggist ' s r ights to his invention have to be respected. 7. Whether the essence of l i v i n g is more encompassing than the termination of dying, s o c i a l l y and ind i -v idua l ly . 8. What values are going to be the basis for gover-ning how people act towards each other. 9. Whether the druggist i s going to be allowed to hide behind a worthless law which only protects the r i ch anyhow. - 77 -10. Whether the law in th i s case is getting in the way of the most basic claim of any member of society. 11. Whether the druggist deserves to be robbed for being so greedy and crue l . 12. Would s tea l ing in such a case bring about more tota l good for the whole society or not. From the l i s t of questions above, se lect the four most important: Most important Second most important Third most important Fourth most important - 78 -ESCAPED PRISONER A man had been sentenced to prison for 10 years. Af ter one year, however, he escaped from prison, moved to a new area of the country, and took on the name of Thompson. For 8 years he worked hard, and gradually he saved enough money to buy his own business. He was f a i r to his customers, gave his employees top wages, and gave most of his own pro f i t s to char i ty . Then one day Mrs. Jones, an old neighbor, recog-nized him as the man who had escaped from prison 8 years before, and whom the pol ice had been looking for . Should Mrs. Jones report Mr. Thompson to the pol ice and have him sent back to prison? (Check one) Should report him Can't decide Should not report him - 79 -ESCAPED PRISONER CU cu o o CU cu c O o 03 to c +-> CU +-> 03 n3 s- o s- +J +-> o o S- S- CL 03 Q . o o E +-> E CL CL •i— S_ •r— E E o • r— LU CL i — _J E EA on LU TT • 1 _ Di ro O i—i o 00 _ l 1. Hasn't Mr. Thompson been good enough for such a long time to prove he i s n ' t a bad person? 2. Everytime someone escapes punishment for a crime, doesn't that ju s t encourage more crime? 3. Wouldn't we be better o f f without prisons and the oppression of our legal system? 4. Has Mr. Thompson rea l l y paid his debt to society? 5. Would society be f a i l i n g what Mr. Thompson should f a i r l y expect? 6. What benefits would prisons be apart from society, espec ia l l y for a char itable man? 7. How could anyone be so cruel and heartless as to send Mr. Thompson to prison? 8. Would i t be f a i r to a l l the prisoners who had to serve out the i r f u l l sentences i f Mr. Thompson was l e t off? 9. Was Mrs. Jones a good f r iend of Mr. Thompson? 10. Wouldn't i t be a c i t i z e n ' s duty to report an escaped c r im ina l , regardless of the circumstances? - 80 -11. How would the w i l l of the people and the publ ic good best be served? 12. Would going to prison do any good for Mr. Thomp-son or protect anybody? From the l i s t of questions above, se lect the four most important: Most important Second most important Third most important Fourth most important - 81 -NEWSPAPER Fred, a senior in high school, wanted to publish a mimeographed newspaper for students so that he could express many of his opinions. He wanted to speak out against the war in V iet Nam and to speak out against some of the school 's ru les , l i k e the rule forbidding boys to wear long hair. When Fred was s ta r t ing his newspaper, he asked his pr inc ipa l for permission. The pr inc ipa l said i t would be a l l r ight i f before every publ ication Fred would turn in a l l his a r t i c l e s for the p r i n c i p a l ' s approval. Fred agreed and turned in several a r t i c l e s for approval. The pr inc ipa l approved a l l of them and Fred published two issues of the paper in the next two weeks. But the pr inc ipa l had not expected that Fred's newspaper would receive so much attent ion. Students were so excited by the paper that they began to organize protests against the hair regulation and other school ru les. Angry parents objected to Fred's opinions. They phoned the pr inc ipa l t e l l i n g him that the newspaper was unpatr iot ic and should not be published. As a resu l t of the r i s i n g excitement, the pr inc ipal ordered Fred to stop publ ishing. He gave as a reason that Fred's a c t i -v i t i e s were disruptive to the operation of the school. Should the pr inc ipa l stop the newspaper? (Check one) Should stop i t Can't decide Should not stop i t - 82 -NEWSPAPER Is the pr inc ipa l more responsible to students or to parents? Did the pr inc ipa l give his word that the news-paper could be published for a long time, or did he j u s t promise to approve the newspaper one issue at a time? Would the students s ta r t protesting even more i f the pr inc ipa l stopped the newspaper? When the welfare of the school i s threatened, does the pr inc ipa l have the r ight to give order to students? Does the pr inc ipa l have the freedom of speech to say "no" in th is case? If the pr inc ipa l stopped the newspaper would he be preventing f u l l discussion of important problems? Whether the p r i n c i p a l ' s order would make Fred lose f a i t h in the p r i n c i pa l . Whether Fred was r ea l l y loyal to his school and pa t r i o t i c to his country. - 83 -9. What e f fect would stopping the paper have on the students' education in c r i t i c a l thinking and j udgement? 10 . Whether Fred was in any way v io la t ing the r ights of others in publishing his own opinions. 11. Whether the pr inc ipal should be influenced by some angry parents when i t i s the pr inc ipa l that knows best what i s going on in the school. 12. Whether Fred was using the newspaper to s t i r up hatred and discontent. From the l i s t of questions above, se lect the four most important: Most important Second most important Third most important Fourth most important - 84 -APPENDIX D The Measure of Moral Values (Hogan and Dickste in, 1972) - 85 -HOGAN'S ISSUES SCALE NAME AGE GRADE SEX: MALE FEMALE THE FOLLOWING THREE PAGES CONTAIN 15 SENTENCES. READ EACH STATEMENT AND ASSUME THAT IT HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON WITH WHOM YOU ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION. THEN, ON THE LINE BELOW EACH STATEMENT, INDICATE WHAT YOUR REACTION WOULD MOST LIKELY BE. - 86 -(Black speaker) "Even af ter graduating from high school I can ' t f ind work. Yet I know many white drop-outs who have good jobs " . "The FBI has i t s hands t i ed in many cases because of the unreasonable opposition of some people to wire tapping". "The c i t y i s going to repeat what has been done in many other c i t i e s by bui lding a super-highway r ight through the slum d i s t r i c t . Many apartments w i l l be torn down and the people w i l l be forced out" . "Some boys have i t so easy. They go to college and get out of the draf t , and we get sent to V iet Nam". "I to ld Jack my ideas for the new project. He took them to the boss and got the c r e d i t " . "The new housing law i s unfair . Why should I be forced to take in tenants that I f ind undesirable?" - 87 -7. "In many medical laboratories experiments are performed on l i v e animals and very l i t t l e care i s taken to minimize pa in " . 8. "I read another story today about a g i r l who was refused an abortion in a hosp i ta l . An incompetent doctor gave her an i l l e g a l abortion and she d ied " . 9. "I think i t i s unnecessarily cruel to keep condemned prisoners on death row for so long, and to make the execution such an elaborate r i t u a l " . 10. "The pol ice should be encouraged in the i r e f for t s to apprehend and prosecute homosexuals. Homosexualism threatens the foundations of our soc iety " . 11. "A powerful group representing hunters and gun manufactorers i s hold-ing up a gun control law that the majority of the people in th i s country want". - 88 -12. "The government shouldn 't have passed the medicare b i l l . Why should we pay other people's doctor b i l l s ? " 13. "Several policement were ca l led into a slum area to break up a street f i ght but when they arr ived the local residents threw bricks at them from the windows". 14. "During l a s t year ' s ghetto r i o t s a shopowner saw a boy jump out of the broken window of his store with a te lev i s ion set. The man shot the boy, who i s now cr ippled as a r e su l t " . 15. "The pol ice were rough when they broke up that crowd of students, even though the students were parading without a permit". - 89 -APPENDIX E RAW DATA Study 1 Subjects Subject Soc ia l i za t ion Empathy DIT Subject Soc ia l i zation Empathy DIT 1 24 24 7 20 35 34 10 2 27 30 0 21 28 33 6 3 19 32 11 22 22 25 17 4 28 21 3 23 32 33 8 5 22 23 8 24 21 25 5 6 30 27 7 25 27 29 3 7 26 24 15 26 26 25 2 8 29 30 6 27 22 34 5 9 30 29 5 28 30 30 5 10 25 33 8 29 23 30 8 11 32 39 12 30 22 30 5 12 23 26 10 31 26 29 0 13 29 34 5 32 26 26 2 14 28 38 6 33 28 27 9 15 30 33 15 34 26 25 4 16 28 22 3 35 26 34 2 17 26 33 15 36 . 23 26 3 18 31 42 3 37 26 29 2 19 25 31 4 38 32 20 5 - 90 Subject Soc ia l i za t ion Empathy, DIT 39 23 32 3 40 28 38 5 41 33 29 5 42 32 25 6 43 34 32 4 44 33 25 9 45 27 28 12 46 23 21 4 47 26 29 2 48 32 31 5 49 32 32 1 50 26 35 0 51 24 30 3 52 23 29 2 53 30 29 3 54 30 35 5 55 27 31 5 56 28 29 4 57 36 35 8 58 23 34 4 59 34 32 14 60 19 38 19 61 34 29 6 62 38 22 13 Subject Soc ia l i za t ion Empathy DIT 63 31 24 9 64 22 37 16 65 32 37 15 66 30 22 7 67 23 28 3 68 16 27 11 69 23 22 9 70 29 24 6 71 27 20 1 72 24 34 6 73 26 25 3 74 28 37 12 75 18 25 7 76 22 31 12 77 34 22 3 78 20 28 17 79 34 27 9 80 24 34 13 81 29 30 5 82 27 33 10 83 32 34 4 84 26 25 6 85 35 33 9 86 18 26 6 - 91 Subject Soc ia l i za t ion Empathy DIT 87 21 36 10 88 32 34 8 89 27 32 6 90 27 41 10 91 22 33 3 92 22 26 4 93 27 24 1 94 18 29 2 95 28 30 3 96 27 21 9 97 35 33 9 98 21 24 4 99 37 28 4 100 30 34 10 101 26 24 9 102 26 29 8 103 27 24 5 104 25 39 10 105 24 33 :4 106 28 23 10 107 27 34 a 108 19 26 5 109 30 31 12 n o 34 35 18 Subject Soc ia l i zat ion Empathy DIT 111 24 43 :3 112 26 37 9 113 22 23 4 114 29 34 3 115 24 25 11 116 24 25 :o 117 30 39 4 118 26 30 9 119 30 . 30 5 120 23 28 2 121 21 41 10 122 32 34 ^0 123 18 30 4 124 20 29 9 125 29 29 6 126 34 29 2 127 19 40 12 128 20 33 .7 129 30 31 4 130 31 34 1 131 30 31 2 132 31 29 2 133 27 25 3 134 22 16 3 - 92 -Subject Soc ia l i za t ion Empathy DIT 135 23 27 2 136 25 34 12 137 31 28 14 138 29 27 21 139 23 33 1 140 26 26 3 141 35 37 19 142 34 28 5 143 27 25 12 144 27 28 19 145 20 36 5 146 20 21 4 147 26 27 6 148 26 22 1 149 23 28 9 150 29 31 9 151 26 29 12 152 32 31 4 153 32 24 4 154 22 31 8 155 33 31 4 156 30 32 7 157 21 33 5 158 26 27 7 159 24 35 10 Subject Soc ia l i za t ion Empathy DIT 160 30 36 6 161 26 32 6 162 29 27 8 163 26 34 1.3 164 32 23 4 165 32 31 0 166 29 32 8 167 29 35 7 168 26 32 15 169 26 28 15 170 32 32 8 171 28 33 21 172 30 32 11 173 33 39 7 174 31 33 6 175 37 30 3 176 15 35 7 177 25 28 13 178 34 27 16 179 33 20 8 180 28 39 7 181 28 36 18 182 24 31 6 183 34 29 7 184 24 33 12 - 93 -Subject Soc ia l i zat ion Empathy DIT Subject Soc ia l i zat ion Empathy DIT 185 26 37 11 186 25 35 4 - 94 -Study 2(A) Subjects Subjects Soc ia l i zat ion Empathy DIT 1 37 36 9 2 30 27 10 3 26 43 2 4 35 29 3 5 28 28 11 6 29 35 8 7 40 40 3 8 38 34 6 9 26 51 14 10 40 34 7 11 34 27 12 12 29 36 1 13 27 36 10 14 35 29 7 15 30 30 13 16 35 34 3 17 32 33 7 18 30 28 8 19 39 47 13 20 30 36 3 21 22 38 1 22 36 32 7 23 28 34 2 Subjects Soc ia l i za t ion Empathy DIT 24 22 33 7 25 36 37 6 26 22 38 6 27 32 27 8 28 26 29 5 29 31 26 9 30 32 35 11 31 25 38 3 32 33 36 11 33 35 37 14 34 27 26 6 35 37 33 11 36 32 31 6 37 30 34 6 38 22 30 2 39 38 40 8 40 23 31 6 41 34 30 7 42 32 45 7 43 30 36 14 * Note Study 2(A) includes 2(A) and 2(B) subjects - 9 5 -Study 2(A) and 2(B) Subjects ibjects Soc ia l i zat ion Empathy DIT MMV 1 31 3 9 5 4 0 2 2 2 3 6 7 2 2 3 2 9 2 7 9 2 7 4 2 7 3 2 4 3 0 5 3 3 3 9 11 3 6 6 2 2 2 8 1 3 2 4 7 2 7 4 4 2 0 2 6 8 3 8 3 7 5 3 0 9 3 5 3 0 7 2 3 1 0 2 4 3 8 1 4 2 2 11 2 8 4 0 2 0 3 2 1 2 32 5 0 9 3 6 1 3 2 5 4 8 1 7 2 0 1 4 3 5 3 2 11 3 2 1 5 3 8 2 6 4 1 9 1 6 31 3 5 2 0 2 2 1 7 2 8 41 4 2 3 1 8 4 6 32 5 1.9 D9 3 4 3 0 1 3 21 2 0 41 3 8 1 0 3 4 21 3 3 41 7 2 7 2 2 3 3 3 3 9 2 7 2 3 2 7 3 5 7 21 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094414/manifest

Comment

Related Items