In order to better understand contributing factors of moral judgment development, gifted youth and college students were compared. Moral judgment development, ACT scores, attributional complexity, and descriptors of personality were assessed among 140 college students and 97 gifted youth. Important distinctions favoring the gifted sample were seen among aspects of all considered variables. Stepwise hierarchical regression models noted that there was variability in how these variables accounted for the moral judgment developmental variance of each group. Discussed are explanations for the differences seen in the gifted sample relative to the college sample. Efforts to understand populations prone to early advancement, such as the gifted, are recommended in the hopes of transferring gained knowledge to other populations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ColbyA.KohlbergL. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
2.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
3.
DerryberryW. P.ThomaS. J. (2000). The friendship effect: It's role in the development of moral thinking in students. About Campus, 5(2), 13–18.
4.
DerryberryW. P.ThomaS. J.NarvaezD.RestJ. (2000, August). Verbal ability and the Defining Issues Test: Some recent findings. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
5.
DollingerS. J.LaMartinaA. K. (1998). A note on moral reasoning and the five-factor model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 349–358.
6.
FletcherG. J. O.DanilovicsP.FernandezG.PetersonD.ReederG. D. (1986). Attributional complexity: An individual differences measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 875–884.
7.
FletcherG. J. O.RoederG. D.BullV. (1990). Bias and accuracy in attitude attribution: The role of attributional complexity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 275–288.
8.
GilliganC. (1977). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of the self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 481–517.
9.
Howard-HamiltonM. (1994). An assessment of moral development in gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 17, 57–59.
10.
KohlbergL. (1987). Theoretical introduction to the measurement of moral judgment. In ColbyA.KohlbergL. (Eds.), The measurement of moral judgment (Vol. 1, pp. 1–61). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
McCraeR. R. (1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of Factor V. European Journal of Personality, 8, 251–272.
12.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Jr. (1999). A Five-factor theory of personality. In PervinL. A. (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139–153). New York: Guilford Press.
13.
NarvaezD. (1993). High achieving students and moral judgment. Journal for the Study of the Gifted, 16, 268–279.
14.
NormanA. (1997). Moral reasoning, attributional complexity, and social status of gifted children. Unpublished manuscript.
15.
PascarellaE. T.TerenziniP. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
PeeversB. H.SecordB. F. (1973). Developmental changes in attribution of descriptive concepts to persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 120–128.
17.
RestJ. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
18.
RestJ.DeemerD.BarnettR.SpickelmierJ.VolkerJ. (1986). Life experiences and developmental pathways. In RestJ. (Ed.), Moral development: Advances in research and theory (pp. 28–58). New York: Praeger.
19.
RestJ.NarvaezD.BebeauM. J.ThomaS. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
SandersC. E.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (1995). Does the Defining Issues Test measure psychological phenomena distinct from verbal ability?: An examination of Lykken's query. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 498–504.
21.
ThomaS. J. (1986). Estimating gender differences in the comprehension and reference of moral issues. Developmental Review, 6, 165–180.
22.
ThomaS. JDerryberryW. P.NarvaezD. (2000, April). Does the Defining Issues Test measure psychological phenomena distinct from verbal ability? Some relevant data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
23.
ThomaS. J.NarvaezD.RestJ.DerryberryP. (1999). Does moral judgment development reduce to political attitudes or verbal ability?Educational Psychology Review, 11, 325–342.
24.
TirriK.PehkonenL. (2002). The moral reasoning and scientific argumentation of gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13, 120–129.
25.
TurielE. (2003). Resistance and subversion in everyday life. Journal of Moral Education, 32, 115–130.
26.
WalkerL. J. (1980). Cognitive and perspective-taking prerequisites for moral development. Child Development, 51, 131–139.
27.
WalkerL. (1995). Sexism in Kohlberg's moral psychology? In KurtinesW. M.GewirtzJ. L. (Eds.), Moral development: An introduction (pp. 83–107). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
28.
WalkerL. J. (1999). The perceived personality of moral exemplars. Journal of Moral Education, 28, 145–163.
