Moral Competence Test

(MCT)

Contact:
Dr. Georg Lind
E-mail: georg.lind@uni-konstanz.de
Internet: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/
APA, AERA (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC
American Psychological Association.
 Overview
P Theory: The Dual-Layer Dual-Aspect model of the
moral self

P Meaning and measurement of moral competence

P Exercise: Calculating the C-score

P Four rigorous theoretical criteria for test validation

General definition:
Moral competence is the ability to solve problems and
conflicts on the basis of moral principles through thinking
and discussion rather than violence, deceit and power.

Specific definition:
Moral competence is the ability to judge arguments by their
moral quality rather than other attributes (e.g., opinion
agreement).

Lind, G. (2015). Moral ist lehrbar. Wie man moralisch-demokratische Kompetenz fördern und damit Gewalt,
Betrug und Macht verringern kann. [Morality can be taught: Fostering moral competence, lowering volence,
deceit, and power.] Berlin: Logos.
Lind, G. (2008). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment competence revisited – A dual-aspect model.
In: D. Fasko & W. Willis, eds., Contemporary philosophical and psychological perspectives on moral
development and education, pp. 185-220. Cresskill. NJ: Hampton Press.
 Piaget’s Dual-Layer Model of Cognition:
Practice versus Consciousness of Rules

P “For the relations that exist between the practice of rules

and the consciousness of rules are those which will best
enable us to define the psychological nature of moral
realities.” (p. 15)

P It “is the moral judgment that we propose to investigate, not

moral behavior or sentiment.” (S. 7)

P “Great danger, especially in matters of morality, is that of

making the child say whatever one wants him to say.” (S. 8)

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child (Original 1932). New York: The Free Press.
 Affective Aspect Cognitive Aspect

Layer of conscious Ethical principles, Ethical judgment

reasoning or judgment: e.g., the Categorical and reasoning
Ethics Imperative
Layer of unconscious Moral orientations Moral competence
behavior or sentiments: as shown in pattern as shown in pattern
Morality of behavior of behavior

The Moral Competence Test (MCT)

* Adapted from: Lind, G. (2015). Moral ist lehrbar. [Morality can be taught.] Berlin: Logos.
Excerpt from the
MCT
Six Pro-Arguments
X Response: +4
See Lind, G., 1978, 1982, and 2008.
 The Moral Competence Test as a multi-variate
N=1 experiment

P A competence test requires a moral task

< Rating supportive and counter-arguments in regard to their
moral quality instead their opinion-agreement

P 6 x 2 x 2 multivariate, experimental design

< a. The moral quality of arguments (6 types of orientations)
< b. The opinion-agreement of arguments (pro and contra)
< c. The dilemma-context of argument (two dilemma stories)

P Structural scoring (structure of manifest items)

< Multivariate Analysis of Variance; Index = C-score
< Seven sources of variance: Many more scores are possible

P Internal standards of scoring (own moral orientations)

Structural information can be discerned only from a pattern
of responses: Experimental Questionnaire
Two Response Patterns Manifesting Different Degrees of Moral Competence
(one story only)

Judgment:
Opinion- “The decision was right” “The decision was right”
agreement: Contra Pro
Contra Pro
Arguments of
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 1 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W-4-4 -3-3 -2-2 -1-1 00 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
Type 2 W W W +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
Type 3 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W
Type 4 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W
Type 5 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W
Type 6 W W -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W W
C-score: 0.4 C-score: 92.2
Moral competence: low Moral competence: high
Opinion Agreement: high Opinion Agreement: low

Lind, G. (1982). Experimental Questionnaires: A new approach to personality research. In: A. Kossakowski & K.
Obuchowski, eds., Progress in psychology of personality, pp. 132-144. Amsterdam, NL: North-Holland.

Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological
Review, 62, 193-217. [contains Brunswik’s ‘diacritical method’, the core idea of ‘experimental questionnaires´.
 Internal Standards
The moral competence score [C] is scored in accordance with
the participant’s own orientations, not with external norms
Example: Different moral orientations, but same moral competence

Person C Person B
“Do you accept or reject...” “Do you accept or reject...””
Arguments of Contra Pro Contra Pro
Type 1 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W
W -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 2 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 W
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 3 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 W
W -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 4 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3W
W +1 +2 +3 +4
-2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 5 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0W
W +3 +4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
Type 6 W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
W
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 W
C-score: 92.2 C-score: 92.2
Range: 0 to 100 Range: 0 to 100
Modal moral orientation: Type 1 Modal moral orientation: Type 6
Note: The “Types” correspond to the six Kohlbergian Stage-Orientations

Lind, G. & Nowak, E. (2015). Kohlberg’s unnoticed dilemma – The external assessment of internal moral
competence? In: B. Zizek, D. Garz & E. Nowak, eds., Kohlberg revisited, pp 139 - 154. Rotterdam:
Sense Publisher.
W_P_3 Example:
-1 1 4 16

11

121/24
O Purpose: Instrument for research and for the evaluation of
educational methods and programs
O Restriction: Not allowed for high-stakes testing & selection
O Theory: The MCT is based on the Dual Aspect Theory of moral
judgment behavior by Lind (1978; 1985; 2002)
O Special Feature: Simultaneous measurement of moral
orientations and moral competence
O Standard version: Two stories (workers story, doctor story)
O Age-range: from 8 years onward (young may need assistence)
O Cross-cultural validation: Certified versions in 39 languages
(German, English, Spanish, Turkish, Russian, Chinese, Arab etc.)
O More information: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/
 References
P Lind, G. (1981). Experimental Questionnaires: A new approach to personality research. In: A.
Kossakowski & K. Obuchowski,, eds., Progress in psychology of personality, pp. 132-144. Amsterdam,
NL: North-Holland.
P Lind, G. (2002). Ist Moral lehrbar? Ergebnisse der modernen moralpsychologischen Forschung [Can
ethics be taught? Research findings from modern moral psychology] 2nd edition. Berlin: Logos-Verlag.
P Lind, G. (2008). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment competence revisited - A dual-aspect
model. In: D. Fasko & W. Willis, eds., Contemporary philosophical and psychological perspectives on
moral development and education, pp. 185-220. Cresskill. NJ: Hampton Press.
P Lind, G. (2010. Attitude change or cognitive-moral development? How to conceive of socialization at the
university. In G. Lind, H. A. Hartmann, & R. Wakenhut, eds., Moral judgment and social education, pp.
173-192. Rutgers, NJ: Transaction Books, 2nd edition
P Lind, G. & Nowak, E. (2015). Kohlberg’s unnoticed dilemma – The external assessment of internal moral
competence? In: B. Zizek, D. Garz & E. Nowak, eds., Kohlberg Revisited, pp 139-154. Rotterdam: Sense
Publisher.
P Piaget, J. (1981). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relation during child development. Palo Alto, CA:
Annual Reviews (Originally published 1954).
P Prehn, K. (2013). Moral judgment competence: A re-evaluation of the dual-Aspect Theory based on
recent neuroscientific research. In: E. Nowak, D. Schrader & B. Zizek., eds., Educating competencies for
democracy, pp. 9-22. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
P Schillinger, M. (2013). Verifying the dual-Aspect Theory: A cross-cultural study on learning environment
and moral judgment competence. In: E. Nowak, D. Schrader & B. Zizek., eds. Educating competencies
for democracy, pp. 23-46. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.