|
The
RSBH Value Judgment Inventory, the Center's most
used instrument for secondary school populations, measures
principled thinking in conjunction with the Principled
Thinking Curriculum (Rudd, Stoll, Beller, 1998). The
RSBH Value Judgment Inventory is a two-part instrument
measuring: 1) Moral Reasoning and 2) Social Reasoning.
Statistical Note: The instrument is both valid and the data is
reliable. Chronbach Alphas range from 0.82 - 0.88 for the moral
reasoning side and 0.65 - 0.73 for the social reasoning side.
Students are asked to respond to 20 questions on a 5 point Likert
Scale of Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.oral Reasoning:
The moral side of the instrument is based on the ideal
notion that universal values of honesty, justice, respect, and responsibility
exist in competition and that it is possible to participate and be successful by
following those values. Below are two moral reasoning examples and a discussion
about how principled thinking can be used to resolve certain issues.
Examples
A. During the double play in baseball, players
must tag second base before throwing to first. However, some players
deliberately fake the tag, thus delivering a quicker throw to first base.
Pretending to tag second base is justified because it is good strategy. Besides,
the umpire's job is to call an illegal play.
SA A N
D SD
The statement, "Besides, the umpire's job is to call an
illegal play" is irrelevant. The umpire's job has nothing to do with deciding
the issue of good strategy. A principled thinker would instantly dismiss this
statement and resolve the greater question of justice. A principled thinker
would never accept that this action is justified. Cheating in the name of good
strategy is never fair or just. Fair play is playing by the rules, both by the
letter and intent. Abridging the rules to gain an advantage and calling it
strategy is never justified. A principled thinker therefore would mark SD
(strongly disagree).
B. During a volleyball game player A hit the ball
over the net. The ball barely grazed off player B's fingers and landed out of
bounds. However, the referee did not see player B touch the ball. Because the
referee is responsible for calling rule violations, Player B is not obligated to
report the violation.
SA A N
D SD
Based on principled thinking, this scenario concerns a
direct action by the participant. In this case, the participant acted and then
passed her obligation of honesty to an authority and then lied by omission about
the act. An individual using principled thinking would say that she is being
dishonest in her act of omission and irresponsible by passing her responsibility
to another. A true principled thinker would tell the referee that she touched
the ball with the hand and accept the consequences. As scored on the HBVCI, a
principled player would mark this question SD (strongly disagree).
The social character side of the Rudd-Stoll-Beller-Hahm
Value Judgment Inventory (RSBHV Judgment Inventory) is about weighing a social
value against a moral value, which is the more important. The social side is
about the real world and how society views the importance of, for lack of a
better term, social character. Thus, we must understand that an individual who
has great social character may have no moral character what-so-ever. They are
two completely different aspects of character. That is why principled thinkers
would argue that an individual who has social character without moral character
is dishonorable. In other words, one could be highly loyal to an immoral
practice. One could be highly dedicated to an immoral organization.
RSBH Social
Examples
A.
Three basketball players have an
algebra class together. The instructor of the class has a reputation
for giving tough exams and limited office hours. Lisa and Shirley,
two f the star players, have studied hard all semester, but are
fighting to pass the class, whereas Tara is doing well. If Lisa and
Shirley do not pass the course, they will be ineligible for the
coming season. For the final exam, Lisa and Shirley position
themselves next to Tara. Tara should help Lisa and Shirley by making
sure they can see her exam.
SA A N
D SD
This question has to do with the issue of loyalty to a
group which is in conflict with cheating. Which is more important: To help a
teammate or to be honest? The principled thinker would argue that even though
loyalty is a necessary value in any competitive environment, loyalty itself
without being framed by honesty is to be dishonorable. The best practice for
Tara, as a teammate, is to give Lisa and Shirley support in learning how to
study and to be responsible for their learning. A true teammate worries about
the end result, not the short term of getting a good grade. The principled
thinker would mark SD (strongly disagree).
B.
Jeremiah, the pitcher from Team A
throws a 90 mile per hour fastball that hits Marvin, the batter from
Team B in the elbow. Marvin falls to the ground in enormous pain and
consequently, must leave the game for X-rays. The following inning,
Marvin's teammates urge Alex, the pitcher from Team B, to throw at
Team A's batter. Alex should take care of his teammates and throw at
the batter.
SA A N
D SD
This issue has again a mixture of both a social issue,
loyalty and retribution, and a moral issue: intentional harm to another person.
Even though, it may be common practice in sport to practice retribution: an eye
for an eye; a bean-ball for a bean-ball. The principled thinker would argue that
the honorable action in not to "Play paybacks", but to stick to the purpose of
the game. That is, the purpose is to play the game by the rules, the spirit of
the rules, and to honor the opponent. The principled thinker would argue that
the opponent must be respected, for without the opponent, what would be the
purpose of the game. The principled thinker would mark SD (strongly disagree).
For more information or to order CEP,
contact:
Dr. Sharon Kay Stoll
For information on Research/Measurement
Contact: Dr. Jennifer M. Beller
|
