A Q-Sort Assessment of the Moral Self

1
A Q-Sort Assessment of the Moral Self

• Dan Lapsley, Patrick L. Hill, Laura Nowrocki and
  Paul Stey
• University of Notre Dame, USA

www.nd.edu/dlapsle1
Association for Moral Education, July 4,2009,
Utrecht
2
classicdefies definitive interpretation
3
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

4
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 agents moral judgment and is
  performed because the agent understands it to be
  morally good

5
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

6

• It is necessarythat 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?

7

• Application of moral cognitive structures to a
  situation
• Not a syllogistic deduction
• Nor take place through deliberation
• Or in full consciousness
• Ones moral understanding may become a lived,
  nature-like part of ones personality, affecting
  action, especially in more common situations,
  directly and habitually

8

• Proposition 2
• Moral action depends not so much on abstract
  understanding of certain moral criteria but on
  concrete choice
• Proposition 3
• Moral judgments at times (before leading to
  action) are processed in terms of responsibility
  judgments

9

• It should be repeated that a judgment of
  responsibility is not seen as necessary in every
  case and, even less, always explicit

10

• Proposition 4
• The general criteria used to arrive at
  responsibility judgments differ from person to
  person, and are related to ones self-definition
• deep central essential

11

• 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

12
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?

13
First Issue

• How much inarticulacy can be tolerated by the
  Self Model?
• O. Flanagan on strong evaluation

14
Second Issue

• What does it mean for self-characteristics to be
  deep, central and essential?
• Rorty D. Wong (1990)
• At least 7 ways for a trait to be considered
  central to a persons personality

15
(No Transcript)
16

• 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 ones 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

17
Third Issue

• How do children develop wholehearted commitment
  to moral integrity envisioned by the Self Model?
• A challenge for all theories of moral self
• Blasis(2005) 7-step sequence
• Kochanska on the moral self?
• early socio-personality development

18
Fourth Issue

• What about assessment?

19
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

20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
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

23
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

24
Prediction

• Ss with high Q-sort moral identity
• Higher integrity scores
• Other-focused prosocial tendencies
• (empathy for distress of others)
• Greater social well-being
• Less tendency to act prosocially for
  self-interest

25
(No Transcript)
26
Regression Analysis Predicting Volunteer
Behavior with the Moral Q-Sort (Controlling for
Gender) Volunteer Hours t(62)
2.40, p lt.01 Volunteer Influence t(68)
2.22, p lt.05 Volunteer Involvement t(68)
2.33, p lt.05
27
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

28
(No Transcript)
29
Study 2

• Q-sort moral identity and moral reasoning
• Relation to negative behavior (cheating)

30
(No Transcript)
31
Cheating
Moral Q-Sort
ß .23
ß -.31
Integrity
Sobels z 2.09, p lt .05
32
Thanks, Gus!