moral judgment and student discipline: what are ......moral judgment and student discipline: what...

Moral Judgment and Student Discipline: What Are Institutions Teaching? WhatAre Students Learning?

Merryl Cooper, Robert Schwartz

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 48, Number 5, September/October2007, pp. 595-607 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University PressDOI:

For additional information about this article

Access provided by University of Alabama @ Tuscaloosa (19 Jan 2017 20:01 GMT)

https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0049

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/221310

https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0049

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/221310

September/OctOber 2007 ◆ vOl 48 nO 5 595

ResearchinBrief

Moral Judgment and Student Discipline: What Are Institutions Teaching? What Are Students Learning?Merryl Cooper Robert Schwartz

College students find themselves in conflictwith their college or university when theymakechoicescounter to theexpectationsofthe institution.Typically, these expectationsforconductareoutlinedinapublishedcodeofconduct,whichis,inasense,amoralcodeforstudentbehavior.“Thespecialfunctionoftheconstructofmoraljudgmentistoprovideconceptual guidance for action choice insituationswheremoralclaimsconflict,”(Rest,Narvaez,Bebeau,&Thoma,1999,p.499).This statement highlights the essence of aquestionoftenraisedincollegeanduniversityjudicialaffairsofficesacrossthecountry—dostudentswhoviolateconductcodesoperateata lower level of moral judgment than thosewhodonot?

Purpose of the StudyToinvestigatethemoraljudgmentofcollegestudentswhoviolatecampusjudicialcodes,agroupofstudentswhohadbeenreferredforajudicial hearing and sanction process werestudiedtodeterminetherelationshipbetweenlevels of moral judgment, type of disciplinecode violation, and selected demographicvariables,e.g.,age,gender,Greekaffiliation,gradepointaverage(GPA),andyearinschool.A second group of students who were notinvolvedinthejudicialprocesswereexaminedfor comparison purposes. Moral judgmentscoresweregatheredfromviolatorsandnon-violatorsviatheDefiningIssuesTest2(DIT2;Rest,Narvaez,Thoma,etal.,1999). The primary research question in this

studywas:Whatdifferencesinmoraljudgment,ifany,existbetweenthosestudentswhohaveviolatedauniversityconductcodeandthosewho have not? Specific research questionsincluded:

1. Aretheredifferencesinmoraljudgmentamongstudentswhocommitdifferenttypesofconductcodeviolations?

2. Arethedifferencesinjudgmentaffectedbyage,classlevel,gender,GPA,oraffiliationwithaGreek-letterfraternityorsorority?

3. Aretheredifferencesinmoraljudgmentbetweenstudentswhoviolatealcoholregulationsversusstudentswhohaveothertypesofviolations?

ReVIew of RelATeD lITERATuRECurrentresearchonmoralactionbreakstheprocess of moral decision-making into fourparts:(a)theabilitytorecognizeasituationashavingamoraldimension,(b)theabilitytodiscern right and wrong, (c) the ability tochooseacourseofactionamongcompetingvalues,and(d)theabilitytoimplementthatchoice(Rest,1986).Thesefourdimensions,which Rest (1986) described asThe FourComponent Model, represent a synthesis ofprocesses that individuals use for moral be-havior.Thesecondcomponent,howapersondecidessomethingismorallyrightorwrong,ismoraljudgmentandistheinterpretivelensfor this study. Current literature identifies

Merryl Cooper was a doctoral student of Higher Education at Florida State University. Robert Schwartz is Associate

Professor of Higher Education at Florida State University.

596 Journal of College Student Development

ResearchinBrief

several key factors that appear to influencemoraljudgmentamongcollegestudents.Thesefactors include age, level of education, aca-demic performance, Greek affiliation, andalcohol use. Each factor is discussed brieflybelow.

AgeThoma (1986) found that although genderdifferences accounted for only 0.2% of thevariance in the Defining IssuesTest (DIT)scores,ageandeducationlevelswere250timesmorepowerfulinpredictingmoraljudgmentabilities(r=.52).Thoma’sresearchcorroboratesandsupportsmanyresearchstudieswhereageand education level are the most powerfulcorrelatestomoralreasoningasmeasuredbytheDIT(Rest,1979).

EducationRest(1986)reportedthatdespitethestrongcorrelationbetweenmoraljudgmentandage,years of formal education had the strongestinfluence on moral judgment developmentovertime.However,itisunclearwhatpiecesof a formal educationexperience, e.g., chal-lenging one’s views, role-taking, out-of-classroomexperiencesthatpromotereflection,andthelike,mostinfluenceaperson’smoraljudgment. Rest(1979)reportedthatageandeduca-tionaccountedfor38–49%ofthevarianceinmoral judgment scores. Rest andThoma(1985)usedtheDITwith39subjectsinhighschoolandthenevery2yearsaftergraduationovera6-yearperiod.Twogroupswerecreated:a“low”groupofstudentswithnomorethan2yearsofformaleducationbeyondhighschoolanda“high”groupwith3yearsormoreofformaleducation.SeveralscoresaregeneratedfromtheDIT.Themost-usedscore is thePindex, a measure of the degree to which aparticipantattributesimportancetoprincipledor post-conventional moral thinking; the

higherthePscore,thehighertheutilizationofpost-conventionalthinking.Athighschoolgraduation,differencesinPscoresrepresentingpost-conventionalmoralthinkingbetweenthetwogroupswereminimal(low=Pscoreof33,high=Pscoreof37).Sixyearslater,thelow-educationgroupPscorewas34.5,andthehigh-ereducationgrouprosetoaPscoreof51.

Academic PerformancePascarellaandTerenzini(1991)assertedthatgrades are the single best indicator ofadjustment to college. Although grades arelimitedasreliableindicatorsofwhatislearnedin college, they do represent skills refinedduringcollege.GPAsofstudentswhotaketheDIThavebeenpositivelycorrelatedwithmoraljudgment (r=.20 to .50; Rest & Narvaez,1998). Studentsinvolvedindisciplineincidentsoften have lower academic performance.Janosik,Dunn,andSpencer(1985)foundthatmale offenders had lower GPAs than non-offenders.Their6-yearstudyfoundthatmenwho were repeat offenders of a universityconductcodeviolationhadanaverageGPAof 2.25, significantly lower than the 6-yearnormof2.6.

Greek AffiliationCohen(1982)foundthatGreekstudentsdidnot differ significantly on moral judgmentscoresbasedongender,levelofmembership,or year in school from their non-Greekcounterparts.Sanders(1990)administeredtheDITto195malefreshmenatthebeginningoftheacademicyear.Ofthe195,103joinedaGreekorganizationand92remainednon-affiliated.AsecondDITwasgiventothesamestudents9weekslater.Non-affiliatedmenhadhigherprincipledmoraljudgment(Pscores)thandidtheGreekaffiliates. MarloweandAuvenshine(1982)admini-stered the DIT to Greek and non-Greek


ResearchinBrief

studentsatamid-sizedinstitutionandretestedthemattheendoftheirsophomoreyear.NodifferenceswerefoundbetweenstudentswhobecameGreekaffiliatedandnon-Greeksinthefirst administration. As sophomores, inde-pendentwomenshowed thehighest levelofmoral reasoning (P score=43.4). Greekwomen were next highest (P score=40.6),then independentmen (P score=40.2) andGreekmen(Pscore=38.7).

AlcoholAlcoholuseoncollegecampuseshasbeenariteofpassageforstudentsforyears(Jones&Kern, 1999). Recent studies on alcoholconsumptioncitetheconsequencesofdrinkingbehaviors on academic performance, e.g.,missingclass,performingpoorlyonatestorproject, and even memory loss, which cannegativelyaffectone’sacademicperformance(Presley,Meilman,&Cashin,1996;Presley,Meilman,&Padget,1994;Wechsler,Kuh,&Davenport,1996;Wechsler,Lee,Kuo,&Lee,2000). Nationally, students under the legaldrinkingageof21consumeanaverageof4.9drinksperweek,slightlymorethanstudentsover 21 who drink 4.1 alcoholic beveragesweekly(Presleyetal.,1996).In1992–1994,atotalof45,632studentsacross89institutionsweresurveyedontheprevalenceandfrequencyof their alcohol and drug use.The surveyfound underage students who used alcoholwere almost twice as likely to be in troublewithauthorities,15.4%ofstudentsunder21compared to 8.2% of students of legal age(Presleyetal.,1996).

Student development and Judicial OffendersFew studies have focused on outcomes ofstudent judicial sanctions. Chassey (1999)comparedlevelsofmoraljudgmentforrepeatbehavioral offenders with non-offenders in

residence halls using the DIT (Rest, 1979).TheDITwasadministeredto16femalesand13malesandyieldedastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenstudentoffendersandnon-offenders(p<.025)inscores.TheaveragePscorefornon-offenders,indicatingprincipledmoral reasoning, was 46.50, whereas repeatoffendersaveraged33.07,indicatingthattherepeatoffenderswereoperatingatalowerlevelofmoralreasoning.Chasseynotedthateffortstoeducatesomerepeatoffendersmaybefutile.AP scoreof33on theDITcorresponds toKohlberg’s(1970)Pre-Conventionalstageinwhichstudentsegocentricallyperceivemoralityasactionsthatbenefitonlythemselves.Becausesuch a student is operating at an egocentriccognitive level, “the only thing a student-offendermaybe learning in this situation isnottogetcaughtagain”(Chassey,p.10). Smith (1978, cited in Chassey, 1999)administeredtheDITalongwitha“disciplineinterviewquestionnaire”to55collegestudentswhoadmittedtoviolatingthecodeofconduct.Students with lower moral judgment scoreswere concerned primarily with the negativeconsequencestheymightexperienceasaresultof their violations. Students with higher Pscoreswereable to reflectonwhatcouldbelearned from the incident. “The disciplineexperience is perceived quite differently bythoseatdifferentdevelopmentallevelsofmoralthinking—an important distinction [for]handlingcampusdiscipline”(Smith,1978,p.292).

RESEARCh METhOdS

The studywas conductedat a large,public,research institution in the Southeast with astudentpopulationof34,000atthetimeofthestudy.Themajorityofthestudentsliveincloseproximitytocampusbutnotinresidencehalls;however,theuniversityexercisesjudicialactionforconductcodeviolationsbothonand


ResearchinBrief

off campus. Non-residence hall cases ofmisconduct are referred to the Office ofStudent Rights and Responsibilities (SRR).ResidencehallstudentsareinitiallyreferredtoaresidencehalljudicialprocessbutmayalsobesenttotheOfficeofSRRforviolationsinacademicbuildingsorinoff-campussettings. Twogroupsofstudentswerestudied.Onegroupcomprisedstudentswhowerefoundtobe responsible for violating the universityconductcodebytheOfficeofSRRduringa12-weekperiodduringthefallsemester,2002.Acomparisongroupofstudentswhohadnotviolated the conduct code was randomlyselectedfromalistofresidencehallstudents.

ParticipantsStudentsallegedtohaveviolatedtheconductcodearereferredtotheOfficeofSRRthroughpolice/faculty/staff/student conduct reports.OfficeofSRRstaffreviewthedocumentationtodetermineifanyviolationsoftheconductcodeoccurred.Ifastudent’sbehaviorappearsto be in violation, a letter outlining thecharge(s)issenttothestudent,requiringthestudenttomakeanappointmentforahearingwiththeOfficeofSRR.Ifthestudentisfound“responsible for a violation,” sanctions areassignedandmustbecompletedinaprescribedperiod of time, e.g., violators of alcoholpolicies are referred to an alcohol educationseminar. Twelve charge categories areoutlined inthe university conduct code.They include:sexual misconduct, endangerment of self orothers,harassment,hazing,weapons,fireandsafety, illegal drugs, alcohol, disruption,identification,property,andcomputerviola-tions. BasedontheannualreportscompiledbytheOfficeofSRRforthepast2years,thefive most frequently violated categories arealcohol,endangermentofothers,illegaldrugs,property damage, and disruption (Brown,2001,2002).

Studentsmaybechargedwithoneviola-tion or a combination of violations. Forexample, a 20-year-old student, arrested fordrivingundertheinfluenceofalcoholandinpossession of drug paraphernalia may bechargedwithalcoholuse,endangerment,anddrugviolations.Theleadordominantviola-tion,asdeterminedbytheOfficeofSRR,wastheviolationtyperecordedinthestudy.Inthiscase,endangermentofselfandotherswouldlikelybethedominantviolation.

InstrumentationTheDIT,publishedbyJamesRest in1974,wasthefirstpaperandpencilassessmenttooldesignedtomeasuremoraljudgmentstagesasdefinedbyLawrenceKohlberg(1970).Priorto 1974, Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Inter-view,orMJI,wastheprimaryassessmenttoolformoral judgment.NormativedatafortheDIT has been generated from 45,856 DITsscoredduringa4-yearperiod.Referredtoasthe“mega-sample,”itwascompiledbyEvensin 1995.The mean P score for the mega-samplewas39.1withastandarddeviationof14.84.This benchmark score indicated thatpost-conventional thinking was abundantacross the sample (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau,etal.,1999). JamesRest’s(1970)initialintroductiontomoralreasoningtheorywasbasedonKohlberg’swork. But Rest wanted to develop a betterinstrumentformeasuringmoraldevelopmentthantheextensiveinterviewprocessusedbyKohlberg.After25yearsofmoralityresearchusingtheDIT,Rest,Narvaez,Thoma,etal.(1999)proposedanewapproachtoassessingmoraldevelopment.Their approachbecamethebasisforthereformulationofthe DITintoanewversion,theDIT2. Distinctions between Kohlberg’s (1970)theoryandtheneo-KohlbergianschemausedbyRest,Narvaez,Thoma,etal.(1999)centeraroundRest’sargumentthatmoraldevelopment


ResearchinBrief

occursinaseamlessprogressiontowardshigherthinking.(Restusesthetermschematoavoidconfusion with Kohlberg’s stages.) In short,onemayhavetheabilitytofunctionathighlevels of moral thinking, but people oftenchoosetofunctionatalowerlevel. Theschemaisdividedunderthreehead-ings: personal interest, maintaining norms,andpost-conventional(Rest,Narvaez,Thoma,etal.,1999).TheseheadingsresembleKohlberg’s(1970) three groupings of stages. However,Restarguedthattheinterpretationofover400studiesofmoraljudgmentresearchcallsforaslightlydifferentinterpretationthanKohlberg.Personalinterest(Kohlberg’sstages2-3)refersto decisions based on outcomes directlyaffecting the person or those loved by theperson.Maintainingnorms(Kohlbergp:’sstage4) refers to the need for decisions to createsocialorderandtherebyjustifycodesandlaws.Post-conventional (Kohlberg’s stage 5-6)decisionsarejustifiedbytheirbenefittosocialvaluesandideals.TheseheadingsarethemaincategoriesforscoringontheDIT2. Like theDIT, theDIT2consistsoffivedilemmas.Participantsareaskedtoranktheimportance of 12 issue statements for eachdilemma.The five dilemmas in the DIT2consistof:“(a)afathercontemplatesstealingfoodforhisstarvingfamilyfromthewarehouseofarichmanhoardingfood;(b)anewspaperreporter must decide whether to report adamaging story about a political candidate;(c)aschoolboardchairmustdecidewhetherto hold a contentious and dangerous openmeeting;(d)adoctormustdecidewhethertogiveanoverdoseofpain-killertoasufferingandfrailpatient;(e)collegestudentsdemon-strateagainstU.S.foreignpolicy”(Centerforthe Study of Ethical Development, 2004,¶2). AllcompletedinstrumentsarescoredbytheCenterfortheStudyofEthicalDevelop-mentattheUniversityofMinnesota.Scoring

of the DIT2 classifies responses into threeneo-Kohlbergian schemas: Personal Interest(Stages2+3),MaintainingNorms (Stage4),andPost-ConventionalSchema(Stage5+6).TheschemasarecloselyrelatedtoKohlberg’sstagesbutareslightlydifferentsoastomeasurehowpeopleassignrightsandresponsibilitiesthroughmoraljudgment. N2 Index. The primary score obtainedfrom the DIT2 to assess moral judgment isthe N2 index (Rest,Thoma, Narvaez, &Bebeau,1997).TheN2indexisanewindexderivedfromthere-formulationoftheDIT2and indicates thedegree towhichaperson’smoral judgment reaches principled or post-conventionalthinking.N2scoresdifferfromPscoresinthattheyutilizebothrankingdataandweightedratingdatatoproducetheindex.Five reliability checks, RtXRk (rank con-sistency),M(missingitems),MISRT(missingrates), MISRK (missing ranks), and NoDif(non-differentiationofrankorrate),indicatewhether a participant has provided reliableresponses.Ifaparticipantdoesnotpassallfivereliability checks, the subject’s responses arepurgedfromthedata. Validity and Reliability. Rest, Narvaez,Thoma, et al. (1999) discussed validity andreliabilityoftheDITandDIT2extensively.In a mega-sample comprising 45,856 DITsscoredfrom1989through1993,validityandreliability are consistent across age, culturalbackground,andregion.Inaddition,theDITsignificantlypredictedreal-lifemoralbehavior,acriticalmeasureforthisstudy(Rest,Narvaez,Thoma,etal.,1999). CronbachalphasfortheDIT are in the upper .70s to low .80s andtest/re-test reliability is commensurate (Rest& Narvaez, 1998). The DIT2 correlatespositively with the original DIT (r=.79).Withthenewscoringindexes(N2)andsubjectreliabilitychecks,theDIT2demonstratesthesamevalidityastheoriginalDIT.


ResearchinBrief

data Collection

DatawerecollectedinFall2002fromrecordsof students found to be responsible for aviolation by the Office of SRR using thefollowing procedure. Each student chargedwithanallegedviolationwasgivenaconsentletterwhen theyarrived for theirhearing intheOfficeofSRR.Theletteroutlinedthegoaloftheresearchproject,indicatingapprovalandsupport fromtheDeanofStudents and theInstitutional Research Board and asked thestudenttoparticipate.Atthesametime,datawere also collected for the independentvariables,typeofcharge(s),age,classification,gender,GPA,andGreekaffiliation,allderivedwithpermissionfromuniversityrecords. Each individual student record wasassignedauniquecodenumber.Thisnumberwas written on the DIT2 scoring sheet tomatch the DIT2 scores with the studentrecord.Oncethecodenumberwasassigned,the participant’s name was no longer used.Other identifying informationwasshreddedattheconclusionofthestudy. Students willing to participate signed aconsentformandweregiveninstructionsoncompletingtheDIT2.StudentswereinformedbyOfficeofSRRstaffthatparticipationinthestudywasaseparateactivityfromthejudicialhearingprocessandwouldnotinfluencetheout-comeoftheirhearing.Studentswhochosenottoparticipateweredroppedfromthestudy. CompletedDIT2surveysweredepositedalongwiththesignedconsentforminasecurecollection bin. Files for any students whodeclined to participate were removed. Noindication of participation (or non-partici-pation)waskeptinthestudent’sOfficeofSRRfile.Attheconclusionofthedatacollection,student records forany students later foundtobenotresponsibleforaviolationwerealsoremovedfromthestudy.

Comparison Group

For this study, a comparison group of non-violatorstudentswasrandomlyselectedfromthe 7,000 students living in the campusresidencehallsystem.Severalassumptionsweremadeaboutcomparisongroupmembers,e.g.,differencesbetweenstudentswholiveintheresidencehallsandthosewholiveoffcampusare minimal. Research does indicate thatstudentswholiveinresidencehallsmayhavemoreopportunitiestointeractinintellectual,social, and academic activities that fosterprincipled moral judgment directly, such assocializing with older peers and frequentconversations with faculty (Pascarella &Terenzini,1991). Studentslivingintheresidencehallsystemrepresented20.8%ofthestudentpopulationatthetimeofthestudy.Astratifiedrandomsamplingmethodwasusedtocreatesubgroupscomparable to thesampleof studentsunderjudicial review collected previously in theOfficeofSRR.Theresidencehallsamplewasbasedonclasslevel,e.g.,freshman,sophomore,junior, or senior, because years of formaleducationisthestrongestpredictorforDIT2scores(Rest,Narvaez,Thoma,etal.,1999b).Carewas taken to insure that the sampleofresidencehallstudentswasascloseaspossibletothesampleof studentsgatheredfromtheOfficeofSRRjudicialhearings.Forexample,if40freshmenwereincludedintheOfficeofSRRsample,thesamplefromresidencehallsshouldhaveincluded40freshmenaswell. Studentswererandomlyselectedusingarandom numbers table and placed into theappropriate subgroup. Random selectioncontinueduntilallsubgroupswerefilledwiththe desired number of participants. Therecords of all residence hall participantsselected were checked to see if they wereinvolvedinthejudicialprocessattheuniver-sity.Thosefoundtobeunderjudicialreview


ResearchinBrief

were eliminated from the sample and areplacementwasrandomlyselected.Informa-tionforeachselectedparticipantsuchasage,class rank, and GPA was obtained fromuniversityrecords.AuniquecodewasassignedtoeachparticipanttomatchthedatafromtheDIT2withtheindependentvariabledata.

data AnalysisScoring of the DIT2 was completed by theCenterfortheStudyofEthicalDevelopmentat the University of Minnesota. Raw scoreswerereturnedondiscandinpaperformat.N2scores were matched with the independentvariabledatatocompleteadatasetforeachparticipant.Descriptivestatisticsandmeasuresofcentraltendency(e.g.,mean,median,mode,frequencies)werecomputedforbothgroups.Analysisofvariancewasutilizedtocomparethe mean scores of groups. The level ofsignificancechosenwas.05

descriptive dataOfthe181charged(SRR)studentswhowereaskedtoparticipate,141agreedtocompletetheDIT2,areturnrateof77.9%.Atotalof18participantswereremovedfromthestudyas5were later foundnot responsible foranallegedcodeviolation,10werepurgedduringtheDIT2scoringprocessastheydidnotmeetreliability criteria, and 3 cases were missingleaving a total of 123 cases in the SRRgroup. TheSRRgroupwasmadeupof28.5%were freshmen, 35.8% sophomores, 25.2%juniors,and10.6%seniors(Table1).Approxi-mately81%wereundertheageof21.Ofthosewho violated the conduct code, 75% weremale,35%werefemale.Twenty-sixpercentofthegroupwereaffiliatedwithaGreekfraternityor sorority. GPAs under 3.00 were reportedfor58.5%;thosewithGPAsof3.00orhigheraccountedfor41.5%. Seven typesof violationsof auniversity

conductcodewererepresentedinthesample.Alcohol violations dominated with 90 casesoutofthe123.Theothertypesofviolationswere illegal drugs (11), endangerment (7),property(7),harassment(3),disruption(3),andidentification(2). Thecomparisongroupofstudentsfromtheresidencehallsinitiallyconsistedofatotalof176students.Ofthese,18eitherfailedtorespondorwerenolongerlivinginthehalls.Ninestudentswereunderjudicialreviewandweredeletedfromthesample.Oftheremain-ing 149 students, 120 completed the DIT2forareturnrateof80.5%.Sevencompletedsurveys were later purged due to reliabilityconcerns leavingafinal totalof113useableresponses. AfactorialANOVAwasusedtoexaminethevarianceinthedependentvariable,moraljudgmentscores,bycontrollingfortheeffectsofindependentvariables.A2(age)×4(classlevel) × 2 (gender) × 2 (GPA) × 2 (Greekaffiliation) × 2 (control/comparison group)factorialANOVAwasconducted.Theadvan-tagetousingafactorialANOVAwasthatitexamined the effect of one independentvariable on the dependent variable (a maineffect) and also examined the effects ofmultiple independent variables together(interactioneffects;Urdan,2001). A two-tailed independent samples t testwasusedtoassessanystatistical significance

TAble 1.

Class levels by Group

SRR Residence Hall

Class Level n % n %

freshman 35 28.5 29 25.7

Sophomore 44 35.8 46 40.7

Junior 31 25.2 27 23.9

Senior 13 10.6 11 9.7


ResearchinBrief

betweenthemeanmoraljudgment(N2scores)fortheSRRandresidencehallgroups.Ran-dom assignment to groups was not possiblefor the SRR group because participantsconsistedof thosewhoviolatedtheconductcode,soaparametrictestwasusedtoanalyzethedata.Becausetheassumptionofrandomselectioncouldnotbeusedforbothgroups,thechancesofperformingaTypeIorTypeIIerrorincreased.

RESulTSClassyearsforthebothgroupsareshowninTable1. Just over 91%of all SRRviolatorswereundertheageof21.Femalesrepresented68.1%ofthegroup;malesmadeup31.9%ofthegroup.Justunder9%oftheSRRgroupweremembersofaGreekfraternityorsorority.GPAsforthecomparisongroupshowedthat29.2%under3.00,and70.8%over3.00. Thecomparisongroupof residencehall(non-offender) students had a higher DIT2N2meanscoreof31.58.TheSRRgrouphad

alowermeanof26.13(Table2).Bothgroupshadlargestandarddeviationsindicatingawiderangeofscores.ThelowstandarderrorfromthemeansforeachgroupindicatedthatsomeerrormayhaveoccurredwhenestimatingthesamplemeanbutLevene’stestforequalityofvarianceswasnotviolated.BecausetheFratiowasnotsignificant, theassumptionofequalvarianceswasused.Thetforequalvariancesis significant (p<.001) at –3.423, which isgreaterinsizethanthea=0.01levelminimumof2.576(seeTable3)andexceedsthealphalevel (a=.05). Calculated effect size was0.442.Table 3 presents the independentsamplesttestresults. Moral judgment stage scoremeanswereexploredbecauseofthestatisticallysignificantfindings for the principled judgment N2means.Themeans foreachgroup (Table4)onPersonalInterestscores(KolhbergStages2and3)werecomparedusinganindependentsamplesttestwithanalphalevelsetat0.05.Although the means indicate that thosestudentswhoviolatedtheconductcodereasonat a higher rate from the Personal Interestperspective,thedifferencebetweenthegroupmeans was not statistically significant ata=0.05(Table5).AnindependentsamplesttestwasusedtocomparethemeansbetweengroupsfortheMaintainingNormsscores.Themeans indicate that both groups reasonedsimilarlyinthisrangeanddifferedbyonlyonepoint (Table 6). Group means were not

TAblE 2.

n2 Score Group Means

N2 Score

Group n Mean SD

SRR 123 26.1295 12.30987

Residence Hall 113 31.5763 12.10633

TAblE 3.

Independent Samples t Test between Groups for n2 Score (D = .442)

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances t Test for Equality of Means

p M SE Equal Variances F p t df (2 tailed) Difference Difference

Assumed .020 .887 –3.423 234.000 .001 –5.4468 1.59141

Not Assumed –3.425 232.907 .001 –5.4468 1.59028


ResearchinBrief

TAblE 4.

Group Means—Personal Interest (Stage 2/3)

Group n Mean SD

SRR 123 30.9065 11.88941

Residence Hall 113 27.9889 11.79032

statisticallysignificant(seeTable7). Aretheredifferences inmoral judgmentamongstudentswhocommitdifferenttypesof conduct code violations?The number ofcasesforeachviolationtypevariedfromsmallto large (Table 8). In all but two of theviolationsrepresented,thenumberofcasesineachcellwasfewerthan10.It iscommonlyacceptedthatforanANOVAtobemeaningful,nocellshouldhavefewerthan10cases(Urdan,2001). So the approach to analyzing thisresearch question was re-evaluated and theoriginalquestionbecame:Isthereadifferencein moral judgment scores between studentswhocommitanalcoholviolationandstudentswhocommitallotherviolations? Toanswerthequestion,a ttestbetweengroups was performed.The means betweeneach group differed by one point with themeanN2scoreforalcoholviolatorsbeing26.4andthemeanN2scoreforallotherviolationsotherthanalcoholbeing25.4(Table9).Nostatisticallysignificantdifferenceswerefound(seeTable10).

The third research question was:Whatdifferences in moral judgment, if any, existbetweenstudentswhohaveviolatedauniver-sity conduct code and those who have notbased on age, class level, gender, GPA, andaffiliation with a Greek-letter fraternity orsorority?Table 11 shows the results of afactorialANOVAwith thealpha level setat0.050. The overall corrected model wasstatistically significant at 0.035.This resultindicatesthatoneormoremainorinteractioneffects accounted forpartof thevariance inmoraljudgmentscores. Theonlyeffecttobestatisticallysignificantat the 0.050 level was the interaction effectbetweenageandgroup(0.035).However,theeffectsize(partialetasquared)wasonly0.025.Generalinterpretationsofeffectsizeslessthan0.200aretobeconsideredsmall,thoseinthe0.250and0.750rangemoderate,andthoseat0.80andhigher large (Urdan,2001).Aneffectsizeof0.025fortheinteractionbetweengroupandclassyearaccountsforonly2.5%ofthevariance.Thesmalleffectsizesuggests

TAble 6.

Group Means—Maintaining norms (Stage 4)

Group n Mean SD

SRR 123 34.2846 12.55856

Residence Hall 113 33.2454 12.87148

TAblE 5.

Independent Samples t Test for n2 Score—Personal Interest



Assumed .018 .892 1.891 234 .060 2.9176 1.54309

Not Assumed 1.891 232.627 .060 2.9176 1.54254


ResearchinBrief

that the variancemaybedue to the samplesize. Although statistically significant, thepracticalsignificancewasnegligible. Threeadditionaleffectswerenotstatisti-callysignificant:amaineffectof“group”andinteraction effects between “age × gender ×GPA”and“class×gender×GPA.”Effectsizesweretoosmalltointerprettheinteractionsaspractically significant. Although the overallmodelwasstatisticallysignificantwithamod-erateeffectsizeof0.335,theinterpretationoftheresultsmustbescrutinizedcarefully.Duetothesmalleffectsizes,theoverallmodelmustbeviewedwithcaution.

SuMMARyStudents who violated the conduct code

reasonedata lowerpost-conventionalmoraljudgment level than students who did notviolate the conduct code based on DIT2scores.Cellsizesforsomecodeviolationsweretoosmallforstatisticalanalysis,soviolationswereregroupedfromsevenviolationsintotwogroups: alcohol and non-alcohol violations.Nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenthetwogroupsofviolators. AfactorialANOVAwasusedtoexaminethe independentvariablesof age, class level,gender,GPA,andGreekaffiliationformainand interaction effects on moral judgmentscores. Two significant differences wereobserved.Theoverallmodelandaninteractioneffect between group and class year werestatistically significant, a finding consistentwithmoraljudgmentresearchregardingyearsofformaleducation. Students were similar in their moralreasoning abilities on the moral judgmentschemasofPersonalInterestandMaintainingNorms.However, studentswhoviolated theconductcodeweredistinctlydifferentinthe

TAble 8.

frequencies of Violation Type

Valid Cumu- Code Violation n % % lative %

endangerment 7 5.7 5.7 5.7

Harassment 3 2.4 2.4 8.1

Illegal drugs 11 8.9 8.9 17.1

Alcohol 90 73.2 73.2 90.2

Disruption 3 2.4 2.4 92.7

Identification 2 1.6 1.6 94.3

Property 7 5.7 5.7 100.0

Total 123 100.0 100.0

TAblE 9.

Group Means of n2 Score between Alcohol and Non-Alcohol Violations

Violation N Mean SD

Alcohol 90 26.3974 12.24766

Non-Alcohol 33 25.3988 12.63979

TAble 7.

Independent Samples t Test for n2 Score—Maintaining norms



Assumed .067 .796 .627 234 .531 1.0392 1.65610

Not Assumed .627 231.215 .531 1.0392 1.65783


ResearchinBrief

principle-based moral judgment Post-Con-ventionalSchema.Theirlowermeanscoreforpost-conventional moral judgment indicatesthatthesestudentsutilizedprincipledreasoninglessoftenthanotherstudents.

COnCluSIOnS

Studentswhoviolatedtheuniversityconductcodewerereasoningatalowerlevelofmoraljudgmentthanstudentswhodidnotviolatethecode.Variablesofage,classlevel,gender,GPA, and Greek affiliation may have influ-encedthisoutcomebutwerenotstatisticallysignificant for either group of students. Nodistinctioncouldbemadebetween the typeof violation (alcoholvs. allotherviolations)forthestudentoffendergroup.

Threeconclusionsmaybedrawnfromthisresult: (a) the difference in sample size (90alcoholviolationsversus33otherviolations)was sufficient to provide reliable results,(b)therewasnotenoughvariation inDIT2scores to significantly distinguish betweenmoral reasoning abilities of students whocommitted one violation over another, and(c)contextualmoralitymay exert a strongergreater influence than accounted for in thisstudy.

IMPlICATIOnS And RECOMMEndATIOnS

It was the intent of this study to providebaseline information regarding the moraljudgment of student offenders. Armed with

TAble 11.

factorial ANoVA—Tests of between-Subjects effects Dependent Variable: N2 Score

Type III Sum Source of Squares df Mean Square F p

Corrected Model 12291.089 61 201.493 1.439 .035

Group 547.449 1 547.449 3.911 .050

Age × Gender × GPA 401.887 1 401.887 2.871 .092

Class × Gender × GPA 1057.677 3 352.559 2.518 .060

Age × Group 633.661 1 633.661 4.526 .035

Note. R2 = .335 (Adjusted R2 = .102).

TAble 10.

Independent Samples t Test for NZ Scores—Alcohol and Non-Alcohol Violations



Assumed .305 .582 .397 121 .692 .9987 2.51381

Not Assumed .391 55.462 .697 .9987 2.55109


ResearchinBrief

suchinformation,judicialaffairsprofessionalsmightincorporatetheconceptsofdevelopingmoral judgment among the students withwhomtheywork.Rest,Narvaez,Bebeau,etal.(1999) concluded that “the critical charac-teristic of a college for promoting moraljudgmentseemstobeacommitmenttocriticalreflection”(p.73).Itisclearthatstudentsinthisstudywhoviolatedtheconductcodewerenot functioning at the same level of moraljudgmentasthosestudentswhodidnotviolatethe code.Finding activities thatwouldhelpstudentsunderstandtheirresponsibilitiesforlivinginanacademiccommunity,e.g.,criticalreflection,maybebeneficial.

lIMITATIOnS

Replicationofthestudywithalargersampleandfollowingstudentsforalongerperiodoftime would be helpful. Further research onviolationtypeandmoraljudgmentshouldalsoproveinteresting.Itwasanearlyassumptionthat there would be variations based onviolationtypewithmoraljudgment;however,

therewerenotsufficientnumbersofvariousviolations to populate the study enough tomakevalidcomparisons.Alongitudinalstudyover several semesters or even a few yearswouldremedythisproblem.Additionalstudieswouldprovideamuchclearerpictureofmoraljudgment levels and the status of themoraldevelopment of student offenders. As thisstudyprovidedonlywhatmightbe called a“snapshot”ofanon-goingphenomenon,theresults were limited by an examination ofconductcodeoffenderswhoweredrawnfromonlyone term.More comparisonsmightbemadewith a study that extendedovermorecasesforalongertimeandmightalsodiscoversome trendsacross thedifferentvariables. Itwouldbeinterestingtoseeifupperclassmenaredifferentthanfreshmenintermsoftypeofviolationand/orlevelofmoralreasoning,forexample.

Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Robert Schwartz, 113 Stone MC 4452,

FSU, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4452.


ResearchinBrief

Rest, J. (1974). Developmentalpsychologyasaguidetovalueeducation:Areviewof“Kohlbergian”programs.Review of Educational Research,44(2),241-259.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Rest,J.R.(1986).Moral development: Advances in research and theory.NewYork:Praeger.

Rest,J.R.,&Narvaez,D.(1998).Guide for DIT-2.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Center for the Study of EthicalDevelopment.

Rest,J.R.,&Thoma,S.(1985).Therelationofmoraljudgmentto formal education. Developmental Psychology, 21(4),709-714.

Rest,J.R.,Thoma,S.J.,Narvaez,D.,&Bebeau,M.J.(1997).Alchemy and beyond: Indexing the Defining IssuesTest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3),498-507.

Rest,J.R.,Narvaez,D.,Bebeau,M.J.,&Thoma,S.J.(1999a).Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Rest,J.R.,Narvaez,D.,Thoma,S.J.,&Bebeau,M.J.(1999b).DIT2:Devisingandtestingarevisedinstrumentofmoraljudgment.Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,644-659.

Sanders, C. E. (1990). Moral reasoning of male freshmen.Journal of College Student Development, 31,5-8.

Smith, A. F. (1978). Developmental issues and themes in the discipline setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, OhioStateUniversity,Columbus,OH.

Thoma, S. (1986). Estimating gender differences in thecomprehensionandpreferenceofmoralissues.Developmental Review, 6,165-180.

Urdan,T.C.(1991).Statistics in plain English.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Wechsler,H.,Kuh,G.,&Davenport,A.,(1996).Fraternities,sororities,andbingedrinking:ResultsofanationalstudyofAmericancolleges.NASPA Journal, 33(4),260-279.

Wechsler,H.,Lee,J.E.,Kuo,M,&Lee,H.(2000).Collegebingedrinkinginthe1990s:Acontinuingproblem.Journal of American College Health, 48,199-209.

REFEREnCESBrown,C.L.(2001).Annual report.Tallahassee,FL:FloridaState

University,OfficeofStudentRightsandResponsibilities.Brown,C.L.(2002).Draft of annual report.Tallahassee,FL:

Florida State University, Office of Student Rights andResponsibilities.

CenterfortheStudyofEthicalDevelopment.(2004). DIT-2.Minneapolis: Author. May, 14, 2004 from http://www.centerforthestudyofethicaldevelopment.net/DIT2.htm

Chassey,R.A.(1999).A comparison of moral development of college student behavioral offenders and non-offenders.EastLansing,MI: National Center for Research onTeacher Learning.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED435943)

Cohen,E.R.(1982)UsingtheDefiningIssuesTesttoassessstage of moral development among sorority and fraternitymembers.Journal of College Student Personnel, 23,324-328.

Evens,J.(1995).Indexing moral judgment using multidimensional scaling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofMinnesota.

Janosik,S.,Dunn,P.,&Spencer,E.(1985).Characteristicsofrepeatoffenders:Asixyearstudy.Journal of College Student Personnel, 26,410-419.

Jones,S.K.,&Kern,C.W.Kelpe(1999).Substanceuseandabuseonthecollegecampus:Problemsandsolutions.College Student Affairs Journal, 18,227-34.

Kohlberg, L. (1970). Stage and sequence:The cognitivedevelopmentalapproachtosocialization.InD.Goslin(Ed.),Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 22-45. Chicago:RandMcNally.

Marlowe,A.F.,&Auvenshine,C.D.(1982).Greekmembership:Itsimpactonthemoraldevelopmentofcollegefreshmen.Journal of College Student Personnel, 23,53-57.

Pascarella,E.,&Terenzini,P.(1991).How college affects students.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Presley,C.A.,Meilman,P.W.,&Cashin,J.R.(1996).Alcohol and drugs on American college campuses: Use, consequences, and perceptions of the campus environment, Volume IV: 1992-1994.Carbondale:SouthernIllinoisUniversity.

Presley,C.A.,Meilman,P.W.,&Padget,J.(1994).Myths and facts. New directions for student services, 67,15-27.

moral judgment and student discipline: what are ......moral judgment and student discipline: what...

Documents