Do not place someone at a stage from one conversation or one moment
Before you judge where a colleague, partner or child sits in a stage model, collect more than one sample and keep what you observed separate from the label you are tempted to attach.
Pourquoi ça marche
In the Moral Judgment Interview (MJI), a conversation about three moral dilemmas, Bataglia, Morais and Lepre (2010) describe the predominant stage as proposed from the answers to the follow-up questions after the dilemmas. Loevinger (1979) judged the test unsuitable for individual diagnosis without other data. The distance between one observation and a stage label is where a model that is reasonable for research can turn into a way of sorting people. Several observations, kept apart from the label, keep the claim no wider than the evidence.
Comment faire
- Write down exactly what you saw or heard, in a sentence, without a stage word in it.
- List one or two other occasions that bear on the same question, and note whether they agree.
- Ask what else could explain the moment: a bad day, an unfamiliar question, a constraint you did not know about.
- Write the label you were tempted to use, and decide whether the observations support it or only support a narrower claim about that moment.
Données probantes
Bataglia, Morais and Lepre (2010), in a full-text review of the Moral Judgment Interview and related instruments, describe the predominant stage as proposed from analysis of the answers to follow-up questions after the three dilemmas of the interview. Loevinger (1979) concluded the test is not adequate for individual diagnosis unsupported by other data. The practice applies that logic to everyday judgments and has not been tested. (mechanistic)
Bataglia et al. describe the Moral Judgment Interview as a semi-structured interview, and its evaluation as quite complex. A conversation or a single incident does not reproduce that process. Nothing here says who is at which stage.
Sources
- Bataglia, P. U. R., Morais, A. de, & Lepre, R. M. (2010). A teoria de Kohlberg sobre o desenvolvimento do raciocínio moral e os instrumentos de avaliação de juízo e competência moral em uso no Brasil. Estudos de Psicologia, 15(1), 25–32.
- Loevinger, J. (1979). Construct Validity of the Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3(3), 281–311.
Erreur fréquente
Deciding from one heated meeting that someone reasons at a lower stage, and then reading every later action through that label. One moment can be a bad day, a poor question or a real limit, and the label hides which.
Pratiquez cela avec IX Coach
Plus de pratiques pour The Critiques of Adult Development Stage Theories, Fairly Stated
- Close the reading and come back to the room
Put the stage reading down, feel your feet and breath, and let the shame loosen before you decide anything about where you stand.
- Reach a person if the shame is more than a reading can carry
If the shame about where you stand starts to feel like not wanting to be here, reach a trusted person and a clinician now.
- Check who validated a stage model before you repeat its claims
When a stage model is described as scientifically proven, find out who ran the validation, whether the report is public, and whether anyone outside its developers has checked it.
- Prefer a scored assessment to reading yourself into a stage
Do not pick the stage description that sounds most like you; if you want a level, use a scored instrument, and treat your own sense of your stage as a guess to test.
- Check whether the people in a stage study resemble the people you are describing
Before you apply a stage description to people in another culture, class or community, find out who the original samples were and what they had in common.
- Read a gender gap against the schooling and jobs of the people measured
When a study reports that men or women score higher on a developmental measure, check whether education and occupation explain the gap before you conclude anything about sex.
- Ask whether a moral scoring scheme counts care and emotion as reasons
When a framework ranks how mature a person’s moral reasons are, check whether reasons grounded in relationships, feeling and loyalty were scored at all.
- Hold a critique next to the support the reviewers still found
When you read a critique of a stage theory, also write down what the reviewers concluded the evidence still supports, and keep both halves of the verdict in view.
- Check whether a stage claim’s evidence came from children or from adults
Before you apply a stage claim to adult life, find out how old the people were in the studies that produced it, and whether those studies tested adults at all.
Concepts associés
- Terri O’Fallon’s STAGES Model, Made Practical
Twelve stages built from three repeating questions, and how to work with the one you are in
- Ego Development Theory: What It Is and How It Is Measured
The frame you make meaning through, how researchers measure it, and how to work with it without ranking anyone
- Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, Made Practical
Six stages of moral reasoning, how they are scored, and how to work with the reasons you give
- Carol Gilligan’s Ethics of Care, Explained
Two ways of reasoning about moral problems, what the research shows, and how to use both lenses
- The Construct-Aware and Unitive Stages of Adult Development
Seeing the self and its stories as constructions — what it looks like, how rare it is, and what it does not promise
- The Model of Hierarchical Complexity, Explained
How tasks are ranked by coordination, what the 14 orders are, and how to use the idea on a hard problem
- Torbert’s Seven Action Logics of Leadership
Seven ways leaders make sense of pressure, how common each is, and how to work with your own
- La théorie sujet-objet de Kegan, en pratique
Passer d'être mené par ses présupposés à pouvoir les examiner