Moral judgment maturity: From clinical to standard measures.

Abstract

Moral maturity is an integral aspect of positive individual and collective human life. In human development, the morally mature person evidences not only the courage to do what is right (see chapter 12, this volume) and an empathic "connection" with others (see chapters 15-19, this volume), but also a clear grasp of the bases for interpersonal and societal norms of life, affiliation, contract or truth, property, law, and legal justice. "Clarity" can be interpreted as a profound discernment of that which is intrinsically moral, unconfounded with extraneous considerations. Furthermore, most researchers posit that moral judgment maturity is "constructed," a cognitive process of mental coordination that is distinguishable from traditional identification or internalization notions of moral development (see Gibbs, in press; cf. Schulman, in press). This chapter focuses on the history and construct validity pertaining to instruments measuring moral judgment maturity. History: From Clinical to Standard MeasuresMeasures of moral judgment maturity generally have derived from cognitive developmental theory, and have evolved from clinical interviews into more standard measures of production and evaluation. Researchers who have developed measures of moral judgment maturity using the cognitive developmental approach have conceptualized moral judgment in terms of a basic, crossculturally discernible sequence of stages (Gibbs, 1995, in press).

The dimensions of successful young adult development: A conceptual and measurement framework

“…By this we mean not that they selfishly put themselves first or ignore social obligations, but that they do not blame others or make excuses for their own decisions or behavior—rather they own their decisions and the consequences their choices bring (P. L. Benson et al, 2012 ; Keyes, 2003 ; Peterson, 2006 ). Other indicators reflecting honesty and integrity include telling the truth, keeping promises, giving correct information on applications and tax forms, and calling in sick to school or work only when really sick (Gibbs, Basinger, & Grime, 2003 ; Kosterman et al, 2005 ).…”

Should Kohlberg's cognitive developmental approach to morality be replaced with a more pragmatic approach? Comment on Krebs and Denton (2005).

“…Furthermore, as noted, equating Kohlberg's specific model with the entire cognitive developmental approach is problematic. For neo-Kohlbergians such as Gibbs, a valid representation of mature moral judgment stages almost certainly does not entail moral philosophy (Gibbs, 1977, 1995, 2003; Gibbs, Basinger, & Grime, 2003; cf. Edwards, 1975, 1982).…”

The Unique Value of Humanitarian Engineering

“…Further, he developed, for the first time, an empirical means of assessing individual levels of moral development. This theory has inspired the most widely used and researched assessment tools for moral reasoning [19] , such as the Defining Issues Test (DIT) by James Rest [20] . However, Kohlberg's theory has been criticized on several accounts, most notably by Carol Gilligan in the 1980's as containing an implicit gender bias [21] .…”