a q-sort assessment of the moral self dan lapsley, patrick l. hill, laura nowrocki and paul stey...

A Q-Sort Assessment of the Moral Self

Dan Lapsley, Patrick L. Hill, Laura Nowrocki and Paul Stey

University of Notre Dame, USA

Association for Moral Education, July 4,2009, Utrecht

www.nd.edu/~dlapsle1

“classic””defies definitive interpretation

Overview

• Reprise of the Self-Model Propositions– Recover several key insights

• Four Issues– How much inarticulacy?– Metaphors of depth and centrality?– What is the developmental story?– What about assessment?

• Q-method Assessment– 2 studies

Reasons-as-Motives

“…rational beliefs can become reasons for actions precisely because they are considered true by the agent”

“Morally-relevant behavior is that behavior that is preceded by a moral judgment”

“Morally-positive behavior is that behavior that corresponds to the agent’s moral judgment and is performed because the agent understands it to be morally good”

Proposition 1:

Moral actions are responses to situations defined and interpreted according to

structures of moral reasoning--to a set of criteria determining the moral good

“It is necessary…that the class of moral behaviors as defined here can be discriminated reliably and empirically from other behaviors which may also be labeled ‘moral’ but which are not influenced by moral judgments” (p. 196).

What kinds of behaviors are those---that are moral but not influenced by moral judgment?

Application of moral cognitive structures to a situation:– Not a “syllogistic deduction”– Nor take place through deliberation– Or in full consciousness

“One’s moral understanding may become a lived, nature-like part of one’s personality, affecting action, especially in more common situations, directly and habitually”

Proposition 2Moral action depends not so much on

“abstract understanding of certain moral criteria” but on concrete choice

Proposition 3Moral judgments “at times” (before leading

to action) are processed in terms of responsibility judgments

“It should be repeated that a judgment of responsibility is not seen as necessary in

every case and, even less, always explicit”

Proposition 4

The general criteria used to arrive at responsibility judgments differ from person to person, and are related to one’s self-definition

“deep” “central” “essential”

• Proposition 5– Unpacks the notion of self-consistency as a

motivational dynamic linking judgment-action

• Proposition 6– Notes that self-consistent moral action must often

fend off competing motives & needs

• Proposition 7– Reminds us that guilt is an outcome of moral self-

inconsistency

Four Issues

1. How much inarticulacy is the Self Model able to accommodate?

2. What does it mean for self-characteristics to be ‘deep, central and essential’?

3. What is the developmental story?

4. What about assessment?

First Issue

How much inarticulacy can be tolerated by the Self Model?

O. Flanagan on “strong evaluation”

Second Issue

What does it mean for self-characteristics to be deep, central and essential?

A. Rorty & D. Wong (1990)

At least 7 ways for a trait to be considered central to a person’s personality

7 Ways for a Trait to be Central to the Personality Rorty & Wong (1990)

1 Objective Ramification Extent to which other traits are dependent on it 2 Contextual Ramification Extent to which a trait is exemplified across domains 3 Capacity for Change Degree to which it is difficult to change 4 Social Ramification Extent to which the trait affects the way one is categorized by others 5 Coping Dominance Extent to which it is dominant in situations that require coping with

stress or conflict 6 Conflict Dominance Extent to which it is dominant when it conflicts with other traits 7 Self-Appropriation Degree to which it is appropriated as importance in that person is

changed if trait is lost (such appropriation need not be explicitly articulated

Dimensions of centrality can be correlated, but there is no necessary connection– A trait can be highly ramified without being considered

important;– It can be a dominant coping strategy without being

central to one’s self-evaluation;– A person need not be aware of its role in forming her

actions;– And she can be mistaken about the extent to which it

does

Third Issue

How do children develop wholehearted commitment to moral integrity envisioned by the Self Model?

• A challenge for all theories of “moral self”

• Blasi’s(2005) 7-step sequence

• Kochanska on the “moral self”?

• “early socio-personality” development

Fourth Issue

What about assessment?

Q-Sort.1

• 52 trait adjectives

• Forced-sorted into 5 categories according to how well the traits described the self– 6 traits “Never”– 6 traits “Always”– 12 traits “Almost Never”– 12 traits “Almost Always”– 16 traits “Sometimes”

Words Used for Moral Q-Sort Positive Moral Negative Moral Positive Amoral Negative Amoral caring careless curious anti-social compassionate deceitful disciplined anxious dependable inconsiderate lucky argumentative kind indifferent emotionally stable close minded fair dishonest energetic depressed forgiving dishonorable goal-oriented lazy genuine disloyal happy moody hardworking rude open obnoxious honest selfish organized greedy positive shameful studious hostile reliable unfaithful talkative opinionated trusting unloving upbeat shy understanding unsupportive well-liked stressed

Other Measures.1• Integrity Scale (Schlenker, 2007)

– “steadfast commitment to ethical principles”

• Prosocial Tendencies Measure– Empathy for the Emotional Distress of Others– Acting for Personal Gain or Self-Interest

Other Measures.2

• Social Well-Being (Keyes, 1998)– “perception of belonging to group/community”– Social Integration– Social Contribution

• Volunteer Behavior– Number of hours per month (excluding “mandated”)– Rate influence of work on community– Rate level of personal involvement

Prediction

Ss with high Q-sort moral identity:

Higher integrity scoresOther-focused prosocial tendencies

(empathy for distress of others)Greater social well-being

Less tendency to act prosocially for self-interest

Q-Sort Integrity Social Well-Being Social Integration .45 .30 Social Contribution .47 .49 Prosocial Tendencies Empathy for Distress .23 .19 (ns) Personal Gain -.27 -.29 Integrity .52 --

Regression Analysis:

Predicting Volunteer Behavior with the Moral Q-Sort(Controlling for Gender)

Volunteer Hours: t(62) = 2.40, p <.01Volunteer Influence: t(68)= 2.22, p <.05Volunteer Involvement: t(68) = 2.33, p <.05

Mediational Model

• Self Model:– Ss with a more central moral self should feel

more responsible to act in accordance with these values in order to maintain integrity

• Approximate with mediational strategy– Influence of Q-sort moral identity on moral

behavior mediated by integrity

Moral IdentityVolunteer

Hours

Integrity

B = .28* / B = .21 (ns)

B = .53** B = .25*

Study 2

• Q-sort moral identity and moral reasoning

• Relation to negative behavior (“cheating”)

Moral Q-Sort Integrity Scale Cheating .03 (ns) -.31

Volunteer Activity .17 (p = .05) -.12 (ns) DIT-N2 .15 (ns) -.09 (ns)

CheatingMoralQ-Sort

Integrity

ß = .23* ß = -.31*

Sobel’s z = 2.09, p < .05

Thanks, Gus!