Journal of Family Psychology1992, Vol. 6, No. 2, 128-138

Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0893-32O0/92/i3.OO

Adolescent Moral Judgment and Perceptions of FamilyInteraction

Betsy SpeicherGraduate School of Education

Harvard University

Oakland Growth Study (Jones, 1939) subjects and 98 adolescent offspring, ages 10 to 18years, responded to Kohlberg Moral Judgment Interviews (Colby et al., 1987) andreported their perceptions of family interaction during 2 waves of longitudinal follow-upat the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley. Relation-ships between adolescent moral judgment and parent and adolescent perceptions offamily structure, decision making, value orientation, moral transmission, and interper-sonal relationships were assessed, with age, sex, IQ, and parent moral judgment con-trolled. Adolescent moral judgment was most consistently related to reports of positiveintrafamilial relationships and cognitive stimulation of moral reasoning. Sex differencesin relationships between family interaction and moral judgment were also found.

The purpose of the research reported here wasto examine relationships between adolescentmoral judgment and adolescent and parent per-ceptions of family interaction. The present studyis part of a growing body of empirical evidencethat challenges the biases against parents andfamilies in cognitive-developmental theory.

Kohlberg's (1969) cognitive-developmentalaccount of moral development focused on therole of cognitive processes in the developmentof moral reasoning. According to this view,moral development is an increasing ability todifferentiate and integrate perspectives of selfand other in resolving moral conflicts and is theproduct of an interaction between the child'sinternal cognitive structures and the structuralfeatures of the social environment. It is pro-

This article is a partial report of Betsy Speicher's1982 doctoral dissertation for the Harvard GraduateSchool of Education and was presented at the biennialmeeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop-ment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, April 1985.

I gratefully thank the Institute of Human Develop-ment, University of California, Berkeley, for provid-ing access to the data from the Oakland Growth Study(OGS), and I acknowledge the assistance of MarkWelge and Barbara Burek in the acquisition of OGSdata.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Betsy Speicher, who is now at the De-partment of Developmental Studies and CounselingPsychology, Boston University, 605 CommonwealthAvenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215.

moted by social experiences that produce cogni-tive conflict and that provide the child with theopportunity to take the perspective of others.

In his theoretical writing, Kohlberg (1969) ex-plicitly de-emphasized the importance of thefamily in the development of moral judgmentand, like Piaget (1932/1965), focused on the peergroup and schools. For example, he held thatfamily participation, identification with specificparent figures, and parental warmth are not crit-ically necessary for moral development; thefamily is merely one of several social institu-tions that promote moral development throughthe creation of role-taking opportunities and ex-posure to cognitive conflict. As in other socialinstitutions, role-taking opportunities in thefamily are created by shared decision making,responsibility taking, communication, and par-ticipation in moral discussions.

Perhaps as a result of Kohlberg's de-emphasison the importance of the family, research ex-ploring the contribution of family factors to thedevelopment of moral judgment has been ratherlimited. There is, however, increasing empiricalevidence that indicates that Kohlberg may haveunderestimated the importance of parental in-fluence, parental warmth and affection, and pos-itive family relationships in promoting child-ren's moral development.

Cognitive-developmental studies that exam-ined the contribution of the family to children's

128

ADOLESCENT MORAL JUDGMENT 129

moral judgment generally used Kohlberg'smoral stages as the measure of moral develop-ment (Buck, Walsh, & Rothman, 1981; Dunton,1989; Haan, Langer, & Kohlberg, 1976; Hoff-man & Saltzstein, 1967; Holstein, 1969, 1972,1975; Jurkovic & Prentice, 1974; Parikh, 1980;Powers, 1983; Shoffeitt, 1971; Speicher, 1985;Walker & Taylor, 1991). Indexes of family socialenvironment have included parent and child re-ports of parental discipline techniques, parentmoral judgment, parent and child reports of par-ent affectional warmth or affectional involve-ment, and observed interaction styles. Results ofthese studies are summarized next.

Discipline Techniques

Studies that examined relationships betweenparents' discipline techniques and children'smoral judgment generally support Kohlberg's(1969) cognitive-developmental view thatmoral reasoning is promoted by providing socialperspective-taking opportunities (Buck et al.,1981; Holstein, 1972; Parikh, 1980; Shoffeitt,1971). That is, in two studies children's moralreasoning was positively related to reported pa-rental use of inductive discipline techniques thatemphasize reasoning, encourage the child totake the perspectives of others, and rationallyteach the child to understand the consequencesof actions to the self and others (Parikh, 1980;Shoffeitt, 1971). Conversely, all studies foundthat power-assertive and love-withdrawal disci-pline techniques were either unrelated or nega-tively related to children's moral judgment.

Parent Moral Judgment

Many of the studies that investigated parentand offspring moral judgment found some sig-nificantly positive relationships between thetwo, although results varied depending on theage of the children and sex of the parents andchildren (Buck et al., 1981; Dunton, 1989; Haanetal., 1976; Holstein, 1969, 1975; Parikh, 1980;Powers, 1983; Shoffeitt, 1971; Speicher, 1985;Walker & Taylor, 1991). One study (Speicher,1985) that compared preadolescent to adultparent-child moral judgment correlations intwo samples (one cross-sectional and one longi-tudinal) found that correlations between the two

increased during late adolescence and adult-hood, challenging Kohlberg's view of the familyas one institution among many whose influenceshould decrease as the influence of other insti-tutions increases.

Reported Affectional Warmth andInvolvement

A third group of studies examined relation-ships between moral reasoning and self-reportmeasures of parental affectional warmth and in-volvement. These studies also challenge Kohl-berg's minimization of the importance of paren-tal affection in the development of moraljudgment (Fodor, 1973; Hart, 1988; Hoffman &Saltzstein, 1967; Holstein, 1969; Parikh, 1980;Shoffeitt, 1971). The combined results consis-tently indicate positive relationships betweenpaternal warmth or affectional involvement andadvanced moral development in children. Al-though reported differences in mothers' affec-tion was consistently unrelated to differences inmoral reasoning, two studies (Holstein, 1969;Shoffeitt, 1971) found that the strength of cor-relations between parent and child moral judg-ment was related to the amount of parents'affectionate involvement.

Observed Family Interaction

Finally, observational studies examined thequality of family interaction patterns in relationto adolescent moral judgment. The results ofthese studies again support the importance ofpositive interpersonal parent-child relation-ships in the moral development process. Theyalso support Kohlberg's view that moral devel-opment is promoted by cognitive stimulation ofmoral reasoning (Buck et al., 1981; Holstein,1969; Jurkovic & Prentice, 1974; Parikh, 1980;Powers, 1983; Walker & Taylor, 1991). The in-teractional variables that were most strongly re-lated to advanced moral reasoning were parentalencouragement of the adolescents' participationin family discussions (Holstein, 1969; Parikh,1980); parental use of reasoning and parentalwarmth (Buck et al., 1981); low maternal dom-inance and hostility (Jurkovic & Prentice, 1974);maternal affective support (Powers, 1983); andparental discussion styles with high supportive

130 BETSY SPEICHER

interactions and that elicit or re-present the rea-soning of others (Walker & Taylor, 1991).

In summary, there is increasing empirical ev-idence that parental influence on their children'smoral judgment development is probablygreater than Kohlberg had originally assumedand that positive affectional relations betweenparent and child may promote moral develop-ment. There are, however, unresolved issuesand questions to be explored. For instance, ifpatterns of parent-offspring moral judgmentcorrelations differ depending on the age of theoffspring and sex of the parent and child, arethere differences in family environmental fac-tors that stimulate moral reasoning in boys andgirls and at different points in development?

The present study, which includes both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of relation-ships between moral judgment and parent andadolescent perceptions of family structure andinteraction, represents an initial exploration ofsome of the unresolved issues. It is one of thefew studies of family interaction and moraljudgment in which Kohlberg Moral JudgmentInterviews were scored using the final publishedColby et al. (1987) moral judgment scoringsystem and in which background variables(age, parent moral judgment, IQ, sex of parent,and sex of child) were controlled in the dataanalyses.

The research questions of particular interestwere as follows: (a) Is there a relationship be-tween adolescent moral judgment and parentand adolescent reports of role-taking opportuni-ties in the family social environment? (b) Is thereported quality of parent-adolescent and fam-ily relationships related to adolescent moraljudgment? (c) Are there sex differences in pat-terns of relationships between adolescent moraljudgment and perceptions of family interaction?(d) Are there longitudinal differences in patternsof family environmental factors that are relatedto moral judgment during adolescence and earlyadulthood?

Method

Subjects

The subjects in the present study included 50 moth-ers, 48 fathers, 48 sons, and 44 daughters who partic-ipated in two follow-up assessments of Oakland

Growth Study (OGS; Jones, 1939) subjects and theirfamilies by the Institute of Human Development,University of California, Berkeley in 1969/1970 and1975. At the first follow-up wave, the OGS parentsranged in age from 45 to 50 years; offspring ranged inage from 10 to 18 years.

In this study, the total sample consisted of 51 fam-ilies, of which 47 were intact or reconstituted. Bothparents were interviewed in intact families. In cases ofdivorce, the parent interviewed was the parent or par-ent figure who lived with the child during all or part ofadolescence. In 22 of the 51 families, there was 1 ad-olescent subject; in 21 families there were 2 adolescentsubjects; in 4 families there were 3 adolescent subjects;and in 4 families there were 4 adolescent subjects.

All of the subjects were White; most were natives ofCalifornia; and few were employed in low-status oc-cupations. In 1969/1970, the majority of the house-holds were in the top three social classes (Hollingshead&Redlich, 1958).

Measures

During the 1969/1970 follow-up wave, KohlbergMoral Judgment Interviews were administered to allof the adolescent subjects and their parents; 21 of theadolescents were reinterviewed in 1975. In 1969/1970,individual parent and adolescent interviews, assessingperceptions of family interaction, were also adminis-tered to all parents and a subset of 60 adolescents.Fifty-one of the adolescents (19 boys and 32 girls)responded to a questionnaire, and 42 adolescents (18boys and 24 girls) were individually interviewed. Thir-ty-four adolescent subjects (10 boys and 24 girls) re-sponded to both the questionnaire and interview.

Moral judgment. Moral judgment was measuredfrom responses to Kohlberg Moral Judgment Inter-views (Colby et al., 1987), which were individuallyadministered to OGS offspring and their parents byresearchers at the University of California, Berkeley.There are three parallel forms (Forms A, B, and C) ofthe Kohlberg Moral Judgment Interview, each con-sisting of three hypothetical moral dilemmas and aseries of probing questions designed to elicit thestructure of the individual's moral reasoning and so-ciomoral perspective. Subjects interviewed in 1969/1970 responded to four dilemmas—two from FormA and two from Form C—whereas those interviewedin 1975 responded to three dilemmas—two fromForm A and one from Form C.

All moral judgment interviews were anonymouslyscored by the investigator according to the StandardIssue Scoring System (Colby et al., 1987). StandardIssue Scoring is both a reliable and valid psychomet-ric measure of moral judgment (Colby & Kohlberg,1987), and, contrary to claims of gender bias in theKohlberg stages and scoring system (Gilligan. 1982),there is no evidence of gender bias in Standard IssueScoring. As noted by Thoma (1989, p. 534) in a re-view of this scoring system, "Women do not scorelower than men, nor do they evidence more sequenceviolations in the longitudinal samples. Data pre-

ADOLESCENT MORAL JUDGMENT 131

sented by Colby and Kohlberg are convincing andhave been supported elsewhere (see Walker, 1984)."

Interrater reliability was obtained from a subset of30 parent and adolescent interviews, which were in-dependently scored according to the Colby et al.(1987) system. Sixty-three percent of the interviewsreceived identical scores based on the 9-point scaledevised by Colby and Kohlberg (1987). Eighty-sevenpercent of the interviews received scores within onethird of a stage. The Pearson product-moment corre-lation coefficient, based on continuous weighted av-erage scores, was .92 and comparable to that reportedby Colby and Kohlberg (1987).

Background variables. Intelligence was mea-sured by Wechsler intelligence (IQ) tests, whichwere individually administered during the 1969/1970follow-up study. Socioeconomic status was measuredby the Hollingshead Index of Social Position (Holl-ingshead & Redlich, 1958).

Family structure and interaction. Family struc-ture and interaction were measured from lengthy,tape-recorded interviews administered to OGS par-ents and a subset of adolescent offspring during the1969/1970 follow-up study. A subset of adolescentsalso responded to a questionnaire.

In the adult interview, parents were asked (a) howthey would describe each child as a person, includingthe child's temperament, similarity to the self, per-sonal satisfaction with each child, concerns, and wor-ries; (b) how disagreements are handled in the family;(c) to whom the child is likely to turn if troubled;(d) whether husband and wife had different ap-proaches to child rearing; (e) what the basic goals areas a parent; (f) how the parent conveyed ideas aboutright and wrong; (g) whether children asked questionsabout right and wrong; (h) whether children chal-lenged parental ideas of right and wrong; (i) how theindividual has changed as a result of being a parent;and (j) how they would evaluate themselves overallas a parent, including strengths and weaknesses.

In the children's interview, adolescents were asked(a) how they will describe each parent as a person, in-cluding temperament, interests, shared activities,similarity to the self, and understanding of the ado-lescent; (b) what their personal reactions were to eachparent, including satisfaction, irritation, concerns,worries, and disappointments; (c) how each parenthas influenced the adolescent as a person; (d) howfamily disagreements are resolved; (e) how much thefamily talks together, including the parent to whichthe adolescent is more likely to turn with troubles;(f) how parents convey ideas of right and wrong; and(g) who makes rules and how are they enforced.

The children's questionnaire asked (a) who had in-fluenced the adolescent's political and social views;(b) whose opinions had influenced the adolescent themost; (c) whether the adolescent felt free to discusspolitics and controversial issues at home; (d) howmuch the adolescent actually discussed politics withhis or her parents; and (e) how did their own parents'strictness compare with that of friends' parents.

All variables from the children's questionnairewere quantitative, Likert-type scale variables that

were coded on the basis of the subjects' responses toquestionnaire items. The variables from the adultand children's interviews were coded by Institute ofHuman Development researchers from transcribedinterviews. Some of the interview variables werequalitative, nominal variables. Most, however, werequantitative, ordinal variables.1

Interrater reliability was assessed for 10 raters onindividual interview codes and varied according tothe subjectivity of the codes. Reliability ranged from-.09 to .82 for children's interview variables andfrom -.52 to 1.00 for adult interview variables.

Variables coded from the interviews and question-naires were grouped into two main categories: familymoral atmosphere and parent-adolescent and familyrelationships. The family moral atmosphere variablesmeasured perceptions of family structure, decisionmaking, value orientation, extent of political/moraldiscussion, and "methods of moral transmission."Variables that measured parent-adolescent and fam-ily relationships focused primarily on perceptions ofrelationships between the adolescent and each parent.

Family interaction variables that are consistentwith Kohlberg's conception of role-taking opportuni-ties and that should theoretically be related to moreadvanced moral judgment are (a) freedom to discusspolitics and controversial issues at home; (b) extentof political discussion in the home; (c) methodsof arriving at rules that include the child in therule-making process; (d) resolution of family dis-agreements by argument, discussion, and negotiatedcompromise or by formal discussion and mutual de-cisions; (e) family moral transmission by drawing outthe child's thoughts about wrongdoing, by encourag-ing the child to analyze moral positions, or by expos-ing* the child to philosophical, humanitarian, andmoral ideas; (f) the extent to which the child asksquestions about or challenges the parents' moral posi-tions; (g) the extent to which the family talks to-gether; (h) deliberateness of communication; (i) open-ness of relationship; and (j) e a s e of communicationwith parents.

Results

To reduce the family interaction data to man-ageable form, several exploratory factor analyseswere performed. However, methodological dif-ficulties with the factor-analytic approach to thisdata became apparent with further analysis.When age and IQ were controlled in multipleregression equations, none of the factors re-mained significant predictors of adolescentmoral judgment. In view of these results, which

1 Information on the list of family interaction vari-ables and variable codes, measured from the adult andadolescent interviews and adolescent questionnaire,may be obtained from Betsy Speicher.

132 BETSY SPEICHER

suggested that adolescents' perceptions of familyinteraction were related to age and IQ as well asto moral judgment, all variables were individu-ally analyzed. This procedure permitted statisti-cal control of background variables (age, IQ, so-cial class, and parent moral judgment) whenthese variables were also significantly related tooffspring moral judgment. Serious misinterpre-tation of the data could have occurred if back-ground variables had not been controlled.

Relationships between family interactionvariables and adolescent moral judgment wereanalyzed first in the combined sample and thenin each sex group. Each family member's reportof family interaction was analyzed separately.For nominal variables, the statistic used to testthe significance of the relationships was analysisof covariance, with age as the covariate; themeasure of association was the beta statistic.The significance of category differences wastested by the Scheffe method of pairwise com-parisons. For ordinal variables, partial correla-tions, with age controlled, were used to test thesignificance of the relationships.

Family Interaction and Adolescent MoralJudgment

Moral atmosphere. Analyses of relation-ships between offspring moral judgment and

parent and adolescent perceptions of the familymoral atmosphere indicated that, with age con-trolled, only 6 of 92 variables included in thiscategory were significantly related to adolescentmoral judgment. Although the number of sig-nificant family moral atmosphere variables wasalmost what would be expected by chance, 2of these variables were theoretically meaning-ful, supporting the expectations of cognitive-developmental theory. Mothers of higher stageadolescents reported that their children weremore likely to ask questions about their par-ents' morals (r = .26, n = 78, />< .05) and thatthey more frequently exposed their children tophilosophical, humanitarian, and moral ideasas a means of moral transmission (r = .21, n =81, p < .01) than mothers of lower stage adoles-cents. Both variables remained significant pre-dictors of adolescent moral judgment after age,IQ, and parent moral judgment were con-trolled, F(6, 61) = 4.60, p < .01, and F{6, 67) =3.25, p < .025, respectively.

Parent-adolescent and family relationships.In comparison to the moral atmosphere vari-ables, there were notably more significant cor-relations between adolescent moral reasoningand variables measuring quality of the parent-adolescent and family relationships (Table 1).It is important to note, however, that these sig-nificant variables were measured almost exclu-

Table 1Relationship Between Adolescent Interview Variables and Adolescent Moral Judgment WithAge Controlled

Parent-adolescentrelationship variable

Extent family talks togetherDeliberateness of communicationOpenness of relationshipEase of communication with parentsPersonal satisfaction with parentsDisappointment in parentsParents' evaluation of adolescentEvaluative description of parentsParents' understandingParents' supportParents' trustAffectionate quality of relationshipInterpersonal relations in the family

Adolescent

Mothervariable

nsnsns

.44** (41)nsnsnsns

.48** (36)ns

.64*** (27)

moral judgment

Fathervariable

nsnsnsnsnsnsnsns

36*(33)nsns

Familyvariable

.32* (39)

.42* (34)Note. Sample sizes are indicated in parentheses.*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. ***p < .001, two-tailed.

ADOLESCENT MORAL JUDGMENT 133

sively from the adolescents' perspective. Higherstage adolescents reported more family com-munication, more maternal warmth and affec-tion, more positive feelings of satisfaction withtheir mothers, more parental support, and bet-ter interpersonal relationships within the fam-ily than did lower stage adolescents. Better in-terpersonal relationships in the family, avariable reflecting a greater propensity of fam-ily members to serve each others' needs, werealso reported by mothers of higher stage adoles-cents (r = .33, n = 84, p < .001).

The only correlation that supported the ex-pectations of cognitive-developmental theorywas a relationship between higher stage reason-ing and adolescent reports of greater familycommunication. However, this relationship didnot remain significant after IQ and parentmoral judgment were controlled. Variables thatdid remain significantly related to moral judg-ment after the background variables were con-trolled included (a) personal satisfaction withmother (r = .37, p < .05); (b) mothers' support(r = .45; p < .05); (c) affectionate quality of re-lationship with mother (r = .59, p < .01); and(d) interpersonal relations in the family. Ado-lescents who reported that family membersserved each others' needs when they appearedwere over half a stage higher in moral judgmentthan those who reported that family membersserved each others' needs only when pressed todo so, and the differences remained significantafter controlling for IQ and parent moral judg-ment, F(5, 80) = 3.52, p < .01. Mothers' per-ceptions of interpersonal relations in the familyalso remained significantly related to adoles-cent moral judgment after background vari-ables had been controlled, F(6, 61) = 6.55,p<.0\.

An examination of intercorrelations amongthe parent-adolescent and family relationshipvariables from the adolescent interview indi-cates that these variables were, in general,highly intercorrelated. For example, adoles-cents who perceived positive interpersonal rela-tions in the family were also significantly morelikely to report positive evaluations of, and sat-isfaction with, their mothers; a greater degree ofmaternal influence and communication; a moreopen relationship and deliberateness of com-munication with both parents; more family

communication; more parental understandingand trust; and more maternal support and af-fection. The moderate to strong intercorrela-tions among variables measuring adolescentperceptions of their relationships with theirfamilies and parents suggest that a more gener-alized quality of interpersonal relationships isbeing measured rather than isolated aspects offamily relationships.

Finally, variables from the children's ques-tionnaire that were significantly related toadolescent moral judgment reflect cognitivestimulation. Higher stage adolescents were sig-nificantly more likely to report that books(r = .42, n = 47, p < .01) and statements of po-litical figures (r = .40, n = 48, p < .01) had in-fluenced their political and social views andthat teachers (r = .36, n = 45, p < .025) had in-fluenced them at present.

Sex differences. Although the small numberof subjects in each sample precluded analysis ofa number of variables, relationships betweenfamily interaction and offspring moral judg-ment were further analyzed by sex. There weredifferences in the patterns of variables thatwere related to male and female moral judg-ment in spite of the fact that / tests for signifi-cant differences between variable means indi-cated that boys and girls did not differentiallyendorse the family and parent-adolescent rela-tionship variables.

First, in the male sample, moral judgmentwas related almost exclusively to variablesfrom the adolescent interview (Table 2) thatmeasured positive dynamics in parent-ado-lescent and family relationships. Most of thesevariables remained significant predictors ofsons' moral judgment after age, IQ, and parentmoral judgment were controlled, including (a)the extent to which the family talks together (r= .66, p < .05); (b) deliberateness of communi-cation with mother (r = .66, p < .05); (c) ease ofcommunication with father (r = .58, p < .05);(d) evaluative description of father (r = .86, p <.01); (e) fathers' understanding (r = .78, p <.01); (f) mothers' support (r = .83, p < .01); and(g) fathers' support (r = .80, p < .01).

In the female sample (Table 3), affectionatequality of relationship with mother was theonly variable from the adolescent interviewmeasuring positive dynamics in the parent-

134 BETSY SPEICHER

Table 2Relationship Between Adolescent Interview Variables and Adolescent Male Moral JudgmentWith Age Controlled

Parent-adolescentrelationship variable

Adolescent moral judgment

Mothervariable

Fathervariable

Familyvariable

Extent family talks togetherDeliberateness of communicationOpenness of relationshipEase of communication with parentsPersonal satisfaction with parentsDisappointment in parentsParents' evaluation of adolescentEvaluative description of parentsParents' understandingParents' supportParents' trustAffectionate quality of relationship

.64** (16)ns

.52* (19)nsnsnsns

.57* (15).76** (15)

nsns

.57* (16)ns

.62** (18).56* (17)

nsns

.85*** (17)

.77*** (15).72** (15)

nsns

.68* (17)

Note. Sample sizes are indicated in parentheses.*p< .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. ***p < .001, two-tailed.

adolescent relationship that remained signifi-cantly related to moral judgment after age, IQ,and parent moral judgment were controlled(r = .72, n = 15, p < .01). This variable was notsignificantly related to moral judgment of maleadolescents.

Second, among boys, the variables fromthe adolescent interview that were signifi-cantly related to moral judgment, as predictedby cognitive-developmental theory, measuredextent of parent-adolescent and family com-

munication. In addition, after age andmothers' moral judgment were controlled,sons whose mothers reported more opennessin the mother-son relationship were signifi-cantly higher in moral judgment than sonswhose mothers reported less openness (r = .48,n = 21,p<.05).

Among girls, the variables that were relatedto moral judgment, as predicted by cognitive-developmental theory, reflected maternal use ofcognitive moral transmission. After age, IQ,

Table 3Relationship Between Adolescent Interview Variables and Adolescent Female Moral JudgmentWith Age Controlled

Parent-adolescentrelationship variable

Adolescent moral judgment

Mothervariable

Fathervariable

Familyvariable

Extent family talks togetherDeliberateness of communicationOpenness of relationshipEase of communication with parentsPersonal satisfaction with parentsDisappointment in parentsParents' evaluation of adolescentEvaluative description of parentsParents' understandingParents' supportParents' trustAffectionate quality of relationship

nsnsns

.50* (24)nsnsnsnsnsns

7 1 " (17)

nsnsnsnsnsns

-.47* (24)nsnsnsns

Note. Sample sizes are indicated in parentheses.*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.

ADOLESCENT MORAL JUDGMENT 135

and parent moral judgment were controlled,the moral reasoning of daughters whose moth-ers reported using exposure to philosophical,humanitarian, and moral ideas as a means ofmoral transmission was significantly more ma-ture than the reasoning of daughters whosemothers did not report using this method,i=X5, 30) = 4.81, /? < .01.

Although the pattern of significant relation-ships differed in the male and female samples,there were two consistent findings. First, inboth samples, there was no relationship be-tween moral judgment and variables that mea-sured role-taking opportunities in family deci-sion making or family structure. The secondconsistent finding was a relationship betweenmoral judgment and mothers' reports of in-terpersonal relations in the family, a variablethat remained a significant correlate of ado-lescent moral reasoning after controlling forage and parent moral judgment in the malesample, F(4, 38) = 4.92, p < .01, and for ageand IQ in the female sample, F(3, 32) = 4.40,p<.0L

Five-Year Follow-Up Study

Approximately 5 years after the major fol-low-up wave in 1969/1970, 21 OGS offspringwere reassessed with the Kohlberg Moral Judg-ment Interview. The average age of the subjectsat the time of the reinterview was 20 years. Onlyfour variables that originally had been measuredfrom the adolescent questionnaire were signifi-cantly predictive of moral reasoning 5 years lat-er. Most of these variables reflected cognitivestimulation of moral reasoning. For example,adolescents who reported that books and polit-ical figures had influenced their political andsocial views were significantly more advanced inmoral reasoning 5 years later. With respect tothe family measures, all of the variables thatpredicted advanced moral judgment in later ad-olescence and young adulthood were moral at-mosphere variables. Less parental strictness (r =-.49, N = 21, p < .025), more freedom to discusspolitics and controversial issues at home (r =.47, N=2\,p< .05), and more political discus-sion at home (r = .54, N = 21, p < .01) reportedduring early and middle adolescence predictedmore mature moral judgment in later adoles-cence and young adulthood.

Discussion

Contrary to the expectations of cognitive-developmental theory (Kohlberg, 1969), therewere very few significant relationships betweenmoral judgment and role-taking dimensionsin the family moral atmosphere during earlyto middle adolescence. More mature moraljudgment was unrelated to reports of demo-cratic, child-participatory family structures anddecision making. However, it was related to ad-olescent perceptions of qualities in the parent-adolescent relationship that democratic struc-tures are assumed to promote: positive affectiverelationships, parent-child and family commu-nication, and parental understanding and sup-port. These results suggest that structural familycharacteristics, such as methods of decisionmaking and rule enforcement, may be far lessimportant than the quality of family relation-ships in the development of adolescent moralreasoning.

The importance of interpersonal family rela-tionships in promoting development during ad-olescence is supported empirically by both thepreviously cited moral development studiesand research on developmental outcomes dur-ing adolescence. Reviewers have consistentlyfound associations between harmonious parent-adolescent relationships (adolescent perceptionsof parents' emotional warmth, support, and ex-tent of intrafamilial communication) and gen-eral psychological adjustment, ego identity, self-esteem, and nondelinquency (Conger, 1977;Gold & Petronio, 1980; Thomas, Gecas,Weigert, & Rooney, 1974; Weiner, 1970).

Two studies of adulthood adaptive function-ing provide empirical support for the proposi-tion that loving and supportive family relation-ships may be more important than structuralfeatures of the family environment in adapta-tion, growth, and well-being at older ages as well.In a follow-up study of subjects from Sears,Maccoby, and Levin's (1957) Patterns of Child-Rearing sample, Franz, McClelland, and Wein-berger (1991) found that both maternal andpaternal warmth, measured at age 5 years, sig-nificantly predicted adult social accomplish-ment 36 years later. In addition, in a study of2,440 men ranging in age from 17 to 68 years,Green, Harris, Forte, and Robinson (1991)found that individual and marital well-being

136 BETSY SPEICHER

was linearly related to family cohesion but notto family structural adaptability.

A conceptual argument for the importance ofpositive interpersonal family relationships inthe development of adolescent moral judgmentis the emergence of Stage 3 conventional reason-ing during early and middle adolescence. Stage 3moral judgments evidence concern with havinggood motives, showing concern for others, fol-lowing the golden rule, and maintaining inter-personal relationships through trust, loyalty,and mutual respect. It makes conceptual sensethat positive parent-adolescent relationshipswould foster, or at least support, the develop-ment of Stage 3 reasoning.

In the present sample, Stage 4 moral reason-ing began to develop only in later adolescence(16-18 years). At Stage 4, moral judgments aremade from a societal (rather than interpersonal)perspective with a focus on generalized moraland social laws and the effects of actions on thewelfare of society as a whole. During earlier ad-olescence, when Stage 3 was developing andconsolidating, moral judgment was related topositive parent-adolescent and family relation-ships and to role-taking dimensions within theserelationships.

During later adolescence and young adult-hood (when Stages 4 and 5 were developing andconsolidating), moral judgment was predictedby reported comfort with, and frequency of,family moral and political discussions. Thesefindings suggest that the role of family environ-mental factors in the development of moral rea-soning may change depending on the develop-mental maturity and stage of the adolescent.Interpersonal family relationships may be moreimportant during earlier adolescence, whereasmore cognitive and perspective-taking dimen-sions in the family moral atmosphere may bemore important during later adolescence andearly adulthood.

In both the present study and an interventionstudy cited in Sullivan, Beck, Joy, and Pagliuso(1975), moral discussion during adolescence hada "sleeper effect"; greater participation in moraldiscussions in school and at home was unrelatedto moral reasoning during adolescence but didpredict moral judgment maturity several yearslater. Moral and political discussion during ad-olescence may have fostered an interest in moral

dialogue and contributed to the capacity formoral reflection and responsiveness to changeduring late adolescence and early adulthood.

Finally, differential identification with, andrelative importance of, the same-sex parent inthe moral judgment development of adolescentswas suggested by the greater son-father anddaughter-mother orientation in the variablesthat were correlated with moral reasoning. Inthe male sample, particularly with backgroundvariables controlled, there were a greater num-ber of significant relationships between moraljudgment and father-son relationship variablesthan between moral judgment and mother-son relationship variables. Conversely, in the fe-male sample, there were no significant relation-ships between moral judgment and variablesthat measured positive father-daughter relation-ships. However, moral reasoning of girls wasstrongly related to perceptions of mothers' affec-tional warmth.

This interpretation is consistent with the find-ings of Hart (1988), who studied socializationand identification as predictors of adult moraljudgment development in the Kohlberg's (1958)original sample. Paternal affection, involve-ment, and identification, measured duringadolescence, were predictive of sons' moraljudgment during childhood, adolescence, andadulthood. Maternal identification and involve-ment were unrelated to sons' moral judgment atany age.

The sex differences also suggest that boys maybe more influenced by cognitively mediated as-pects of the parent-adolescent relationship andgirls more by direct affectional relationships. Anequally plausible, but counterintuitive, argu-ment from these data is that family relationshipsare more important in the moral reasoning ofboys than girls. Given the small number of sub-jects, however, any interpretation regarding sexdifferences must be made cautiously and consid-ered as hypotheses for further research.

Interpretation of the results of this study mustalso include an awareness of additional method-ological limitations. First, interrater reliabilitycoefficients of some of the more subjectivefamily interaction variables were sometimeslow. It is, therefore, important to interpret con-sistencies in the patterns of results rather thanindividual variables. Second, multiple relation-

ADOLESCENT MORAL JUDGMENT 137

ships within a family were included in the dataanalyses so that the observations were not sta-tistically independent. Finally, the research iscorrelational, and a direct linear relationship be-tween perceptions of family interaction and ad-olescent moral judgment cannot be assumed. Asargued by proponents of contextualism, there is,in all likelihood, a mutually influential relation-ship between the adolescent and the family so-cial environment, with each acting on the otherin a dynamic interaction.

There are, however, reasonable grounds formaking some tentative causal inferences. First,data analyses were performed after controllingfor the effects of potentially confounding vari-ables. Second, separate analyses of parent andadolescent reports of family interaction permit-ted the exploration of consistent patterns of re-sults. Finally, strong convergent validity is sug-gested by the consistency of patterns of resultsfound in the present study with findings fromother moral and adolescent development re-search. The confluence of results strongly sug-gests the importance of family relationships inthe moral, social, and emotional development ofadolescents.

References

Buck, L. Z., Walsh, W. F., & Rothman, G. (1981).Relationship between parental moral judgment andsocialization. Youth and Society, 13, 91-116.

Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement ofmoral judgment (Vol. 1). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., Speicher, B., Hewer, A.,Gibbs, J., Candee, D., & Power, C. (1987). The mea-surement of moral judgment (Vol. 2). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Conger, J. J. (1977). Adolescence and youth. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Dunton, K. J. (1989). Parental practices associatedwith their children's moral reasoning development(Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 1988).Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 3306A.(University Microfilms No. 88-26, 133)

Fodor, E. M. (1973). Moral development and parentbehavior antecedents in adolescent psychopaths.The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 122, 37-43.

Franz, C. E., McClelland, D. C, & Weinberger, J.(1991). Child antecedents of social accomplishmentin midlife adults: A 36-year prospective study. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 586-595.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychologicaltheory and women's development. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Gold, M., & Petronio, R. J. (1980). Delinquent behav-ior in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook ofadolescent psychology (pp. 495-535). New York:Wiley.

Green, R. G., Harris, R. N., Forte, J. A., & Robinson,M. (1991). Evaluating FACES III and the Circum-plex Model: 2,440 Families. Family Process, 30, 55-73.

Haan, N., Langer, J., & Kohlberg, L. (1976). Familypatterns of moral reasoning. Child Development, 47,1204-1206.

Hart, D. (1988). A longitudinal study of adolescents'socialization and identification as predictors ofadult moral judgment development. Merrill-PalmerQuarterly, 34, 245-260.

Hoffman, M. L., & Saltzstein, H. D. (1967). Parentdiscipline and the child's moral development. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 45-57.

Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. (1958). Socialclass and mental illness. New York: Wiley.

Holstein, C. B. (1969). Parental consensus and inter-action in relation to the child's moral judgment. Un-published doctoral dissertation, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley.

Holstein, C. B. (1972). The relation of children's moraljudgment level to that of their parents and to com-munication patterns in the family. In R. C. Smart &M. S. Smart (Eds.), Readings in child developmentand relationships (pp. 484-494). New York: Mac-millan.

Holstein, C. B. (1975, April). A longitudinal study offamily influence on adolescent moral judgmentdevelopment. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe Society for Research in Child Development,Denver.

Jones, H. E. (1939). The adolescent growth study: I.Principles and methods: II. Procedures. Journal ofConsulting Psychology, 3, 157-159, 177-180.

Jurkovic, G. J., & Prentice, N. M. (1974). Dimensionsof moral interaction and moral judgment in delin-quent and nondelinquent families. Journal of Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 256-262.

Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes ofmoral thinking and choice in the years 10 to 16.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofChicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cogni-tive-developmental approach to socialization. InD. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socializationtheory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago: RandMcNally.

Parikh, B. (1980). Development of moral judgmentand its relation to family environmental factors inIndian and American families. Child Development,51, 1030-1039.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. NewYork: Free Press. (Original work published 1932)

Powers, S. I. (1983). Family interaction and parentalmoral judgment as a context for adolescent moraldevelopment: A study of patient and non-patientadolescents (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Uni-versity, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International,43, 3753B. (University Microfilms No. 83-08, 501)

138 BETSY SPEICHER

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. (1957). Pat-terns of child-rearing. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Shoffeitt, P. G. (1971). The moral development ofchildren as a function of parental moral judgmentsand child-rearing practices (Doctoral dissertation,George Peabody College for Teachers). DissertationAbstracts International, 32, 2427B-2428B. (Univer-sity Microfilms No. 71-26, 218)

Speicher, B. (1985, April). Relationships between par-ent and offspring moral judgment: Longitudinal andcross-sectional age patterns. Paper presented at themeeting of the Society for Research in Child Devel-opment, Toronto.

Sullivan, E., Beck, C, Joy, M., & Pagliuso, S. (1975).Moral learning: Some findings, issues and questions.New York: Paulist. (1974). Family socialization andthe adolescent. Lexington, MA: Heath.

Thoma, S. J. (1989). Standardizing the measurementof moral judgment. Contemporary Psychology, 34,533-535.

Thomas, D. L., Gecas, V., Weigert, A., & Rooney, E.Walker, L. (1984). Sex differences in the development

of moral reasoning: A critical review. Child Devel-opment, 55, 667-691.

Walker, L. J., & Taylor, J. H. (1991). Family interac-tions and the development of moral reasoning.Child Development, 62, 264-283.

Weiner, I. B. (1970). Psychological disturbance in ad-olescence. New York: Wiley.

Received November 5, 1991Revision received April 14, 1992

Accepted April 16, 1992 •

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

SUBSCRIPTION CLAIMS INFORMATION Today's Date:_

We provide this form to assist members, institutions, and nonmember individuals with any subscription problems. With theappropriate information we can begin a resolution. If you use the services of an agent, please doNOT duplicate claims throughthem and directly to us. PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY AND IN INK IF POSSIBLE.

PRINT FULL NAME OR KEY NAME OF INSTITUTION

STATBCOUNTRY

MEMBERORCUSTOMERNUMBER(MAYBEFOUNDONANYPASTISSUE LABEL)

DATE YOUR ORDER WAS MAILED <OR PHONED):

P.O. NUMBER:

_ P R E P A T D _ CHECK ___CHARGECHECK/CARD CLEARED DATE:.

YOUR NAME AND PHONE NUMBER

TITLE

(If possible, send a copy, front and hack, of your cancelled check to help us In ourresearch ofyour claim.)

ISSUES: MISSING DAMAGED

VOLUME OR YEAR NUMBER OR MONTH

Thank you. Once a claim is received and resolved, delivery of replacement issues routinely takes 4-6 weeks.

DATE RECEIVED:ACTION TAKEN:STAFF NAME:

DATE OF ACTION:LNV. NO. & DATE:LABEL NO. & DATE:

SEND THIS FORM TO: APA Subscription Oaten, 750 Fir* Street, N.E, Washington, DC 20002

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE. A PHOTOCOPY MAY BE USED.