Loading...
Publication
É o último sistema de avaliacão moral de Kohlberg realmente estrutural?
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 582.8 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A tese Kohlbergiana de que os estádios morais
formam um todo estruturado levou Kohlberg a
sucessivas reformulações da definição dos estádios
de juízo moral e da metodologia para os avaliar. Com
efeito, Kohlberg sustentou que os sistemas de
avaliação iniciais não distinguiam claramente
((estrutura)) e «conteúdo», mas que tal distinção
estava presente no seu último sistema de avaliação.
A finalidade principal deste estudo é examinar em
que grau a estrutura de estádio moral é realmente
independente do seu conteúdo na Última e definitiva
versão da metodologia Kohlbergiana (i.e., no
«Standard Issue Scoring Manual», Colby & Kohlberg,
1987, 1987a). Partimos da hipótese de que se a
estrutura do estádio moral pode ser realmente
dissociada do seu conteúdo, então cada um dos 9
estádios estruturais pode ser definido
independentemente das diversas categorias de
conteúdo moral (i.e., valores, normas e elementos
morais) e, acima de tudo, independentemente da
categoria de conteúdo moral que Kohlberg considerou
como a mais importante (i.e., elementos morais). Os
708 Juízos-Critério contidos no «Standard Issue
Scoring Manual)) foram distribuídos pelos 9 est&dios
estruturais, pelos 2 valores que podem ser escolhidos
em qualquer dilema moral de Kohlberg, pelas 8
normas morais que os sujeitos podem invocar para
a escolha de determinado valor, e pelos 4 tipos de
elementos morais que os indivíduos podem referir
como justificação final para a escolha de determinado
valor e norma. Os dados deste estudo mostram que
o último sistema de avaliação moral de Kohlberg não
é verdadeiramente estrutural e, portanto, não
confirmam a tese Kohlbergiana da completa
independência entre estrutura e conteúdo. São
finalmente discutidas as implicações teóricas e
metodológicas destes dados.
ABSTRACT: Kohlberg’s claim that moral stages form a cstructured wholeness)) has led him to a continuing evolution in the proposed defhitions of moral judgment stages and in the accompanying assessment methodology. In effect. Kohlberg argued that early scoring systems did not make a rigorous enough distinction between «content» and «structure», and that new scoring methods yield an explicit differentiation of content and structure. The main goal of this study was to examine the degree to which stage structure is really distinguishable from content in Colby and Kohiberg’s (1987) Standard Issue Scoring Manual. This study hypothesized that if stage structure can really be dissociated from content, then each moral stage (1, 1/2, 2, 2/3, 3, 3/4, 4, 4/5 and 5) can be defined independently from the moral categories judged to be the most important Kohlbergian content moral categories (i.e, moral elements). All of the 708 criterion-judgments listed in the Standard Issue Scoring Manual were distributed into nine structural stages, two moral issues, eight moral norms, and four types of moral elements (i.e., normative, utilitarian, perfectionist and fairness elements). Data show that Kohlberg’s new scoring independent from moral content. Theoretical and system is not truly structural and, thus, do not methodological implications of these data are support Kohiberg’s claim that moral structure is really discussed
ABSTRACT: Kohlberg’s claim that moral stages form a cstructured wholeness)) has led him to a continuing evolution in the proposed defhitions of moral judgment stages and in the accompanying assessment methodology. In effect. Kohlberg argued that early scoring systems did not make a rigorous enough distinction between «content» and «structure», and that new scoring methods yield an explicit differentiation of content and structure. The main goal of this study was to examine the degree to which stage structure is really distinguishable from content in Colby and Kohiberg’s (1987) Standard Issue Scoring Manual. This study hypothesized that if stage structure can really be dissociated from content, then each moral stage (1, 1/2, 2, 2/3, 3, 3/4, 4, 4/5 and 5) can be defined independently from the moral categories judged to be the most important Kohlbergian content moral categories (i.e, moral elements). All of the 708 criterion-judgments listed in the Standard Issue Scoring Manual were distributed into nine structural stages, two moral issues, eight moral norms, and four types of moral elements (i.e., normative, utilitarian, perfectionist and fairness elements). Data show that Kohlberg’s new scoring independent from moral content. Theoretical and system is not truly structural and, thus, do not methodological implications of these data are support Kohiberg’s claim that moral structure is really discussed
Description
Keywords
Citation
Análise Psicológica, 8, 311-318
Publisher
Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada