A Q-Sort Assessment of the Moral Self

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

“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 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

“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 • How much inarticulacy is the Self Model able to accommodate? • What does it mean for self-characteristics to be ‘deep, central and essential’? • What is the developmental story? • 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? • Rorty & D. Wong (1990) At least 7 ways for a trait to be considered central to a person’s personality

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”

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 scores Other-focused prosocial tendencies (empathy for distress of others) Greater social well-being Less tendency to act prosocially for self-interest

Regression Analysis: Predicting Volunteer Behavior with the Moral Q-Sort (Controlling for Gender) Volunteer Hours: t(62) = 2.40, p <.01 Volunteer Influence: t(68)= 2.22, p <.05 Volunteer 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

Integrity B = .53** B = .25* Moral Identity Volunteer Hours B = .28* / B = .21 (ns)

Study 2 • Q-sort moral identity and moral reasoning • Relation to negative behavior (“cheating”)

Moral Q-Sort Cheating ß = .23* ß = -.31* Integrity Sobel’s z = 2.09, p < .05

Thanks, Gus!

A Q-Sort Assessment of the Moral Self