Results. Analyses of covariance revealed that male delinquents had significantly poorer moral reasoning than the male non-delinquents across 10 of the 11.
Ugal and Criminological Psycholog) (1998), 3, 225-235
Printed in Great Britain
115
© 1998 The British Psychological Society
A comparison of patterns of moral development in young offenders and non-offenders Emma J. Palmer* and Clive R. Hollin Centre for Applied Psycholog)', University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
Purpose. This study investigates the patterns of moral reasoning among male delinquents, and male and female non-delinquents. It is hypothesized that the delinquents' moral reasoning will be particularly delayed on questions related to offending behaviour. Methods. The moral reasoning of 210 female non-offenders, 122 male nonoffenders, and 126 convicted offenders between 13 and 22 years of age was assessed using the Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form. A self-reported delinquency checklist was also administered to allow for investigation of the delinquency/moral reasoning relationship within the officially delinquent and non-delinquent groups. Results. Analyses of covariance revealed that male delinquents had significantly poorer moral reasoning than the male non-delinquents across 10 of the 11 questions on the measure and all five moral values assessed. Female nondelinquents showed significantly higher moral judgment than male nondelinquents on seven of the questions and four moral values. Within each sample, moral reasoning was poorer on the moral values pertaining to offending behaviour, and among the male delinquents the score on the life value item was significantly higher than the other values. Conclusions. The findings suggest that delinquents have both value-specific, and global deficits in their moral reasoning, with less mature reasoning exhibited in those value areas relating to delinquent behaviour. This suggests that interventions aimed at changing moral reasoning should be directed at raising levels of moral reasoning in these areas.
Research has established that delinquents' moral reasoning is less mature than that of non-delinquents. Generally, it has been found that delinquents' reason using Kohlberg's (1969) immature stages (stages 1 and 2) where morality is perceived in terms of power and hedonistic concerns. In contrast, mature reasoning (stages 3 and 4) considers moral issues in terms of interpersonal relationships and the maintenance of social contracts. Blasi (1980) reviewed 15 studies investigating the •Requests for reprints.
226
Emma J. Palmer and Clive R. Hollin
relationship between moral reasoning and delinquency, using official criminal measures, and concluded that the literature offered support for an association between the two. However, Blasi (1980) offered two reservations: the relationship was most often found in those studies using Kohlberg's own measure (the Moral Judgment Interview, MJI; Colby & Kohlberg, 1987) to assess moral reasoning; and there was some variability in the moral stage, although on average it tended to be immature in nature. Due to the MJI's length and complexity, more recent research on delinquency has tended to use an alternative measure of moral reasoning which is shorter, but still retains the 'production' element, in the form of the Sociomoral Reflection Measure (SRM: Gibbs & Widaman, 1982; Gibbs, Widaman & Colby, 1982). A study in the original validation of the SRM (Gibbs et al, 1982) found that convicted delinquents scored significantly lower than a non-delinquent sample, even when age and socioeconomic status were controlled. They also found that the delinquent sample reasoned at either stages 2 or 3, while the majority of the non-delinquents were using either stages 3 or 4. A more recent meta-analysis of studies examining the relationship between moral reasoning and delinquency was reported by Nelson, Smith & Dodd (1990). They took 15 studies which compared the moral judgment of delinquents and nondelinquents, and found strong support for the hypothesis that dehnquents reason at lower moral stages than non-delinquents. They also argued that their results suggest that the different methodologies used do not influence the results of the studies, in contrast to Blasi (1980) and Jurkovic (1980) who posit that this factor limits the comparability of many studies. Although this difference between delinquents and non-delinquents is generally accepted, further work is beginning to explore the question of whether this moral immaturity holds for all moral judgment values, or whether it is more specific to values relating to offending behaviour. Gregg, Gibbs & Basinger (1994) found that both male and female delinquents showed particularly poor moral reasoning on the law value using a shortened version of the SRM. A further issue lies in differences between the moral reasoning of males and females. Holstein (1976), with a sample of non-delinquents, found that females reasoned at lower stages than males. She suggested that this could be due to females' greater use of stage 3 reasoning, as this stage emphasizes those traits which are generally perceived as 'female'. GiUigan (1982) agreed with this, arguing that there appears to be a sex bias favouring males in Kohlberg's stage theory. In contrast, Gregg et al (1994), using a shortened version of the SRM, found that both delinquent and non-delinquent females showed more advanced moral reasoning than their male counterparts when controlling for age and verbal intelligence quotient (IQ). However, comprehensive literature reviews have concluded that most studies do not show a significant sex difference in levels of moral judgment (Friedman, Robinson & Friedman, 1987; Rest, 1979; Walker, 1984). The present study investigates the patterns of moral development across different moral values in male delinquents, and between male and female nondelinquents. From previous work, it is predicted that moral reasoning will be delayed on the questions and values particularly related to offending behaviour.
Moral development
227
even among the non-delinquent samples. Male dehnquents are predicted to have significandy poorer moral judgment than the male non-delinquents, while it is hypothesized that any differences found between the male and female nondelinquents will show more mature moral reasoning among the females, when controlling for age. Method Participants The participants were 332 young non-offenders aged between 13 and 22 years, 210 females (mean - 17.86 years, SD = 2.78), and 122 males (mean = 17.64, SD = 3.49) and 126 convicted male, young offenders, aged between 13 and 21 years (mean = 17.39 years, SD = 1.97). Access to the non-offender sample was obtained through schools in the West Midlands and a university. Access to the offender sample was obtained through a Young Offender Institution, and at Magistrates' Courts. The offences committed by the offender sample were mainly property offences, including burglary and car theft.
Measures Sociomoral reasoning. The Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form (SRM-SF; Gibbs, Basinger & FuUer, 1992) is a production, rather than recognition, measure of moral reasoning. It involves 11 questions probing respondents' reasoning values pertaining to the importance of five norms: contract and truth, affiUation, Ufe, property and law, and legal justice. The SRM-SF was designed as a shorter, more practical and efficient alternative to the SRM (Gibbs & Widaman, 1982), and is therefore comparable to the Moral Judgment Inventory (MJI; Colby & Kohlberg, 1987). In an extensive discussion of the SRM-SF Basinger, Gibbs & FuUer (1995) reported acceptable levels of reUabiUty (inter-rater, test—retest, and internal consistency). Good levels of concurrent vaUdity with the MJI were also demonstrated, with the correlation between the SRM-SF and MJI reaching significance {r= 0.69, jö
Vi
0
z
'>^ qj
_D
gcrii
Ç a
c c
(U c/)
Moral development
231
-if -KNO (N CN r o CN ' CN p 00 .^ ^ ^ CN 11 II M 11 11 11 II II 11 II
*
V-i "^ OJ - ^
''"^
"-^
•^ 2 -o C c ^'—
^5 ^^ o a1 o
ri?' CN ro_^
O
00 CN * 00 NO O
CN -^
(N ,_^
Z
II o "^
00 t ^ ^ CN rO (M CN r-H
¿o te S
N
N
N
N
ZO
o m m LO p
p-l
I~-;
m NO c
