Moral reasoning about real-life dilemmas: paradox in research using the Defining Issue Test.

Three experiments were conducted to examine whether cognitive-structural models of moral reasoning overlook contextual determinants of moral reasoning and, hence, do not improve knowledge about real-life moral reasoning. In the first experiment, subjects completed the Defining Issues Test (DIT) and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin Vol. 23; pp. 1022 - 1034
Autor principal: Wygant, Steven A.
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Sage Publications Inc. October 1997
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=507592421&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 507592421
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01461672
        PAS
      jtl: Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin
      issn: 01461672
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: October 1997
      vid: 23
      pid: 344
      pub: Sage Publications Inc.
    artinfo:
      ui:
        507592421
        10.1177/01461672972310003
      ppf: 1022
      ppct: 12
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Moral reasoning about real-life dilemmas: paradox in research using the Defining Issue Test.
      aug:
        au: Wygant, Steven A.
      su:
        Defining Issues Test
        Test validity
        Ethical problems
      sug:
        subj:
          Defining Issues Test
          Test validity
          Ethical problems
      ab: Three experiments were conducted to examine whether cognitive-structural models of moral reasoning overlook contextual determinants of moral reasoning and, hence, do not improve knowledge about real-life moral reasoning. In the first experiment, subjects completed the Defining Issues Test (DIT) and the Personal Moral Dilemma Inventory (PMDI); in the second, moral role-plays were employed to fill the DIT and PMDI; and in the third, subjects detailed the response sets developing from these role-plays. Findings revealed that high- and low-principled reasoners' replies to real-life problems were not significantly different. In addition, it was more difficult to differentiate from moral to immoral responses to DIT dilemmas than similar reactions to real-life problems. It is concluded that the findings support the assertion that cognitive-structural models of moral reasoning do not deal with everyday moral issues.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N