Contact:

Dr. Georg Lind

E-mail: georg.lind@uni-konstanz.deInternet: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/

Moral Competence Test (MCT)

APA, AERA (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC American Psychological Association.

P Theory: The Dual-Layer Dual-Aspect model of the

moral self

P Meaning and measurement of moral competence

P Exercise: Calculating the C-score

P Four rigorous theoretical criteria for test validation

Overview

Lind, G. (2015). Moral ist lehrbar. Wie man moralisch-demokratische Kompetenz fördern und damit Gewalt,

Betrug und Macht verringern kann. [Morality can be taught: Fostering moral competence, lowering volence,

deceit, and power.] Berlin: Logos.

Lind, G. (2008). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment competence revisited – A dual-aspect model.In: D. Fasko & W. Willis, eds., Contemporary philosophical and psychological perspectives on moral

development and education, pp. 185-220. Cresskill. NJ: Hampton Press.

Specific definition:

Moral competence is the ability to judge arguments by their

moral quality rather than other attributes (e.g., opinion

agreement).

General definition:

Moral competence is the ability to solve problems and

conflicts on the basis of moral principles through thinking

and discussion rather than violence, deceit and power.

P “For the relations that exist between the practice of rules

and the consciousness of rules are those which will best

enable us to define the psychological nature of moral

realities.” (p. 15)

P It “is the moral judgment that we propose to investigate, not

moral behavior or sentiment.” (S. 7)

P “Great danger, especially in matters of morality, is that of

making the child say whatever one wants him to say.” (S. 8)

Piaget’s Dual-Layer Model of Cognition: Practice versus Consciousness of Rules

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child (Original 1932). New York: The Free Press.

Affective Aspect Cognitive Aspect

Layer of consciousreasoning or judgment:Ethics

Layer of unconsciousbehavior or sentiments:Morality

Ethical principles,e.g., the CategoricalImperative

Ethical judgmentand reasoning

Moral orientationsas shown in patternof behavior

Moral competenceas shown in patternof behavior

* Adapted from: Lind, G. (2015). Moral ist lehrbar. [Morality can be taught.] Berlin: Logos.

The Moral Competence Test (MCT)

Excerpt from the

MCTSix Pro-Arguments

X Response: +4

See Lind, G., 1978, 1982, and 2008.

P A competence test requires a moral task

< Rating supportive and counter-arguments in regard to their

moral quality instead their opinion-agreement

P 6 x 2 x 2 multivariate, experimental design

< a. The moral quality of arguments (6 types of orientations)

< b. The opinion-agreement of arguments (pro and contra)

< c. The dilemma-context of argument (two dilemma stories)

P Structural scoring (structure of manifest items)

< Multivariate Analysis of Variance; Index = C-score

< Seven sources of variance: Many more scores are possible

P Internal standards of scoring (own moral orientations)

The Moral Competence Test as a multi-variate N=1 experiment

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

WWWW

WW

WWWWWW

Judgment:

“The decision was right”

Contra Pro

C-score: 0.4Moral competence: lowOpinion Agreement: high

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

W

WWW

WW

WWW

W

W

W

“The decision was right”

Contra Pro

C-score: 92.2Moral competence: highOpinion Agreement: low

Opinion-agreement:

Arguments ofType 1Type 2Type 3Type 4Type 5Type 6

Two Response Patterns Manifesting Different Degrees of Moral Competence

(one story only)

Lind, G. (1982). Experimental Questionnaires: A new approach to personality research. In: A. Kossakowski & K.Obuchowski, eds., Progress in psychology of personality, pp. 132-144. Amsterdam, NL: North-Holland.

Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. PsychologicalReview, 62, 193-217. [contains Brunswik’s ‘diacritical method’, the core idea of ‘experimental questionnaires´.

Structural information can be discerned only from a patternof responses: Experimental Questionnaire

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

Person C

“Do you accept or reject...”Contra Pro

C-score: 92.2Range: 0 to 100Modal moral orientation: Type 1

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4W

WWW

WW

WWW

W

W

W

Person B

“Do you accept or reject...””Contra Pro

C-score: 92.2Range: 0 to 100Modal moral orientation: Type 6

W

W

W

WW

WWW

W

W

W

W

Arguments ofType 1Type 2Type 3Type 4Type 5Type 6

Internal StandardsThe moral competence score [C] is scored in accordance with

the participant’s own orientations, not with external norms

Example: Different moral orientations, but same moral competence

Note: The “Types” correspond to the six Kohlbergian Stage-Orientations

Lind, G. & Nowak, E. (2015). Kohlberg’s unnoticed dilemma – The external assessment of internal moralcompetence? In: B. Zizek, D. Garz & E. Nowak, eds., Kohlberg revisited, pp 139 - 154. Rotterdam:Sense Publisher.

W_P_3-1 1

11

16

Example:

121/24

4

O Purpose: Instrument for research and for the evaluation ofeducational methods and programs

O Restriction: Not allowed for high-stakes testing & selection

O Theory: The MCT is based on the Dual Aspect Theory of moraljudgment behavior by Lind (1978; 1985; 2002)

O Special Feature: Simultaneous measurement of moralorientations and moral competence

O Standard version: Two stories (workers story, doctor story)

O Age-range: from 8 years onward (young may need assistence)

O Cross-cultural validation: Certified versions in 39 languages(German, English, Spanish, Turkish, Russian, Chinese, Arab etc.)

O More information: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/

P Lind, G. (1981). Experimental Questionnaires: A new approach to personality research. In: A.Kossakowski & K. Obuchowski,, eds., Progress in psychology of personality, pp. 132-144. Amsterdam,NL: North-Holland.

P Lind, G. (2002). Ist Moral lehrbar? Ergebnisse der modernen moralpsychologischen Forschung [Canethics be taught? Research findings from modern moral psychology] 2nd edition. Berlin: Logos-Verlag.

P Lind, G. (2008). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment competence revisited - A dual-aspectmodel. In: D. Fasko & W. Willis, eds., Contemporary philosophical and psychological perspectives onmoral development and education, pp. 185-220. Cresskill. NJ: Hampton Press.

P Lind, G. (2010. Attitude change or cognitive-moral development? How to conceive of socialization at theuniversity. In G. Lind, H. A. Hartmann, & R. Wakenhut, eds., Moral judgment and social education, pp. 173-192. Rutgers, NJ: Transaction Books, 2nd edition

P Lind, G. & Nowak, E. (2015). Kohlberg’s unnoticed dilemma – The external assessment of internal moralcompetence? In: B. Zizek, D. Garz & E. Nowak, eds., Kohlberg Revisited, pp 139-154. Rotterdam: SensePublisher.

P Piaget, J. (1981). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relation during child development. Palo Alto, CA:Annual Reviews (Originally published 1954).

P Prehn, K. (2013). Moral judgment competence: A re-evaluation of the dual-Aspect Theory based onrecent neuroscientific research. In: E. Nowak, D. Schrader & B. Zizek., eds., Educating competencies fordemocracy, pp. 9-22. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.

P Schillinger, M. (2013). Verifying the dual-Aspect Theory: A cross-cultural study on learning environmentand moral judgment competence. In: E. Nowak, D. Schrader & B. Zizek., eds. Educating competenciesfor democracy, pp. 23-46. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

References