PROSOCIAL MORAL REASONING, EMPATHY, PERSPECTIVE-TAKING, AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DELINQUENT AND NONDELIQUENT YOUTH by CORY L. ELASCHUK B.A., University of Calgary, 1993 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1998 © Cory L. Elaschuk, 1998 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. 1 further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2788)' il ABSTRACT This research study was guided by four purposes. First, to compare the prosocial moral reasoning of juvenile delinquents with that of their nondelinquent peers. Second, to compare both empathy and perspective-taking between these two groups. Next, to explore and elucidate the relationships among prosocial moral reasoning, empathy, and perspective-taking; and to examine the relationship of these constructs to dimensions of social behavior and aggression in delinquent and nondelinquent youth. And finally, to explore prosocial moral reasoning, empathy, and perspective-taking within the delinquent sample. Forty juvenile delinquent males and 40 of their nondelinquent peers were matched in terms of age and ethnicity. All participants were individually administered measures designed to assess prosocial moral reasoning, empathy, perspective-taking, and positive and negative social behaviors (via teacher and self-reports) in one 50-minute session. Dehnquent participants were classified into one of three subgroups on the basis of their scores on a self-report measure of aggression against persons and property; (a) low aggression-against- persons and low aggression-against-property, (b) high aggression-against-persons and low aggression-against-property, and (c) high aggression-against-persons and high aggression-against- property. The results generally revealed that dehnquent participants were lower in prosocial moral reasoning, empathy, and perspective-taking than their nondelinquent peers. Further, significant relationships were found among the variables of prosocial moral reasoning, empathy, perspective- taking, positive and negative indices of social behavior, and type of aggression. Finally, dehnquent adolescents classified into the subgroup scoring high on both aggression-against- persons and aggression-against-property were found to score significantly lower on both empathy and perspective-taking than delinquents classified as scoring low on both types of aggression. No significant differences were found among any of the three dehnquent subgroups on prosocial moral reasoning. Theoretical and practical imphcations of these findings are discussed in terms of the strengths and limitations of the present study and suggestions for future research. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables v Acknowledgment vi CHAPTER I Introduction 1 Piaget's Moral Development Theory 3 Kohlberg's Moral Stage Theory 5 Eisenberg's Theory of Prosocial Moral Reasoning 9 CHAPTER H Review of the Literature 18 The Development Of Prosocial Moral Reasoning 18 Moral Reasoning in Atypical Populations 25 Empathy and Perspective-Taking in Atypical Populations 33 The Relationship Between Moral Reasoning and Indices of Social Role- Taking in Typical and Atypical Populations 40 Moral Reasoning and Social Behavior 49 Rationale and Significance of the Study 55 CHAPTER IE Methodology 58 Participants 58 Measures 62 Procedures 71 CHAPTER IV Results 72 Group Differences in Prosocial Moral Reasoning 72 Group Differences in Empathy and Perspective-Taking 74 Correlations of Prosocial Moral Reasoning, Empathy, Perspective- Taking, and Indices of Social Behavior Between Delinquents and Nondelinquents 74 Differences in Prosocial Moral Reasoning, Empathy, and Perspective- Taking within Delinquents Subgroups 80 Summary of Findings 83 CHAPTER V Discussion 84 Prosocial Moral Reasoning, Empathy, and Perspective-Taking in Atypical Populations 84 Relations among Prosocial Moral Reasoning, Empathy, Perspective- Taking and Social Behavior in Typical and Atypical Populations 93 iv Prosocial Moral Reasoning, Empathy, and Perspective-Taking within Delinquent Subgroups 102 Strengths and Limitations of the Study 104 Implications for Future Research 106 References 108 Appendix A Nondelinquent Adolescent Recruitment Form 120 Appendix B Delinquent Adolescent Recruitment Form 122 Appendix C Parental Permission Slip 124 Appendix D Student Consent Form 127 Appendix E Teacher Consent Form 129 Appendix F Demographic Questionnaire 132 Appendix G Quick Word Test (QWT) 135 Appendix H Prosocial Moral Reasoning Objective Measure (PROM) 137 Appendix I Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) - Empathy and Perspective-Taking Subscales 143 Appendix J Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) - Student Form 146 Appendix K Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) - Teacher Form 149 Appendix L Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (SRDS-A) 153 V LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Kohlberg's Six Stages of Moral Judgment 6 Table 2 Eisenberg's Levels of Prosocial Moral Reasoning 13 Table 3 Sample Description 62 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Delinquent and Nondelinquent Groups on PROM Subscales 73 Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Delinquent and Nondelinquent Groups on Empathy and Perspective-Taking 74 Table 6 Correlations Among PROM, Empathy, Perspective-Taking, SSRS, and SRDS-A Subscales for the Delinquent Sample 77 Table 7 Correlations Among PROM, Empathy, Perspective-Taking, SSRS, and SRDS-A Subscales for the Nondelinquent Sample 79 Table 8 Descriptive Statistics for Delinquent Subgroups on PROM Subscales 81 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Delinquent Subgroups on PWAS, Empathy, and Perspective-Taking Subscales 82 ACKNOWLEDGMENT There are a number of people who helped and inspired me throughout this project and the completion of my degree. I am truly grateful for all the wonderful suggestions, assistance, and support I received from many of my colleagues, friends, and family members. First, I would like to extend special thanks to each of my committee members for their much appreciated contributions - Arleigh Reichl, for being an invaluable source of information and support regarding my analyses and measures; and Larry Walker, for his encouragement and patience in my efforts to finalize this project and for his wonderfully challenging questions and suggestions for improvement. And especially, to my advisor, Kim Schonert-Reichl, for being more than a masters thesis advisor to me. Without your guidance and support as an advisor, your faith and trust in me as a competent student, and your concern and care as a true friend, I never would have completed this project or my degree so successfully. Thank you for all that you have done. I would also like to thank the members of my lab group; Lisa Robinson, Gail Krivel- Zacks, Kyle Matsuba, and Helen Novak, for listening time and again as I practiced, for providing me with suggestions for improvement, and for supporting me all the while. Special thanks to Shannon Poole, Sandra Jarvis, and Demetra Kostaras for their enthusiastic assistance in data collection and for being helpful and concerned friends. In addition, I am deeply grateful for the love and faith I received from my parents throughout this degree and my entire university career. I am glad to have made you proud. Finally, to my husband, Mike. No one could have been as encouraging, as helpful, or as patient as you have been. Your loving support and belief in my abilities constandy give me strength, even when I am at my lowest. I am grateful to know someone like you, whose very nature demonstrates a highly moral and empathic character that proves the value in this research. Prosocial Moral Reasoning 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Over the past several decades, a plethora of researchers have examined moral reasoning as conceptualized by Kohlberg (1958, 1969, 1976; for reviews see Rest, 1983, 1986b; Turiel, 1997). One focus of this research has been to identify an association between moral reasoning and moral behavior. In some of these studies, researchers have examined this link by comparing the moral reasoning of typical and atypical populations, such as juvenile delinquents. Delinquency offers a natural ground for testing the relations between moral reasoning and moral behavior, presumably because the moral reasoning of delinquents should be delayed in light of their behaviors (Blasi, 1980; Jurkovic, 1980). Generally, the findings have provided theoretical support for the claim that atypical or deviant youth exhibit more immature forms of moral reasoning than do typical youth (e.g., Campagna & Harter, 1975; Chandler & Moran, 1990; Fodor, 1973; Jurkovic & Prentice, 1977; Lee & Prentice, 1988; McColgan, Rest, & Pruitt, 1983; Trevethan& Walker, 1989). Nevertheless, recent years have seen the emergence of research on other domains of moral reasoning besides that identified by Kohlberg (e.g., Damon, 1977; Eisenberg-Berg,