ERIC Number: ED393595
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1996-Apr
Reference Count: N/A
Separating Judicial and Legislative Reasoning in Studies of the Development of Moral Reasoning Using Dilemma Interviews.
Langford, Peter E.
Failure to separate judicial reasoning (the application of rules) from legislative reasoning (the justification of rules) in earlier studies is claimed to invalidate most previous developmental research using moral dilemma interviews. Two studies used a novel method of scoring moral dilemma interviews that separates judicial from legislative reasoning. Two conceptually defined categories were identified: one that used authority in legislative reasoning (Piaget's heteronomous reasoning); and another that used group interests, harmony, and reciprocity (Piaget's autonomous reasoning). In the first experiment, subjects--ages 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 19-21--in the "middle range of ability," were interviewed using Kohlberg's short form interview. The second experiment was a non-Kohlbergian moral dilemma interview which was scored using weakly interpretive methods. The second experiment involved subjects and procedures similar to experiment one and was conducted in order to confirm the main findings from the first study. It was found that the Murphy adaptations (1937, 1947, 1972) of Piaget, based on progress from sociocentrism to autonomy, gave a more adequate interpretation of developmental findings from this and other studies than either Piaget or Kohlberg. (Contains approximately 40 references.) (AJH)
Publication Type: Reports - Research; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Judicial Reasoning; Kohlberg (Lawrence); Kohlberg Moral Dilemmas; Kohlberg Moral Judgment Interview; Legislative Reasoning; Piaget (Jean)
Note: Paper presented at the Australian Human Development Association Conference (Perth, Western Australia, Australia, April 8-12, 1996).