University Students’ Moral Judgment and Emotional Intelligence Level: A Model Testing

(1)

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 191 ( 2015 ) 2740 – 2746

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014 doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.666

ScienceDirect

WCES 2014

University Students' Moral Judgment and Emotional Intelligence

Level: A model Testing

Eren Can Aybek

a*

, Duygu Çavdar

a

, Tansu Mutlu

Nilüfer Özabac

ı

a a_Eski_ş_{ehir Osmangazi University, Education Faculty, Eski}_ş_{ehir a}_{nd 26480, Turkey}

Abstract

In a society, people interconnect with values of their society. The social values have influence on moral judgment of individuals as well. The moral judgments of individuals represent their characteristics of the social system. Moral judgment levels of university students take shape by their quantity and quality of interactions with peers, family and instructors who live in social

system. However, to being shaped of university students’ moral judgment level according to quantity and quality of interactions,

high level of university students’ emotional intelligence including self-awareness, understanding the people and showing empathy towards is required. Reviewing the literature, this research is required because there is no research study related to model testing including moral judgment and emotional intelligence. In current study, the moral judgment of university students and their emotional intelligence levels were examined and it conducted by correlational research model. The study group consists of 243 university students who are student at various faculties and colleges at Eskisehir Osmangazi University. Defining Issues Test-DIT (Rest, 1979) was used to determine scores of university students’ moral judgment and Emotional Intelligence Scale

(Ergin, İşmen and Özabacı, 1999) was used to determine emotional intelligence levels of university students and personal information form prepared by researchers was used to obtain personal and demographic information about participants. The data is analyzed with Path Model. Then, the findings were discussed evaluated in the light of literature.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCES 2014. Keywords: Moral Judgment, Emotional Intelligence, Path Analysis

1. Introduction

Individuals and society affect each other in many ways. Society-specific values shape individuals’ life style and their way of communication. Individuals interconnect with values of their society. In the same time, individuals constitute small subcultural groups based on feedback obtained as a result of their behavior and communication

* Eren Can Aybek. Tel.:.3-234-34-43. E-mail address: ecaybek@gmail.com

(2)

way. Increasing of this interaction between individuals and society is required for the development of societies and individuals. For the sustainability development of societies and individuals, morality is considered on a preferential basis in literature (Changeux, 2002; Çiftçi, 2001). Morality is related to differentiation between “good (may be right)” or “bad (may be wrong)”. It usually includes a range of rules that individuals what they should do or should not in their society (Hinde, 2002; Kohlberg, 1976; Kulaksızoğlu, 1995). Morality is a kind of specific cognitive concept that involves conscious judgment and making decision on issues related to rightfulness – injustice, right- wrong, good- bad and behave in parallel with these decision and judgment (Kohlberg, 1976). Morality involves society-specific values that shape individual how they should behave by taking into consideration of moral values which are evaluated “good value (wright thing)” (Hinde, 2002). Another determinant factor on human behavior is human needs. According to Çiftçi (2003); while individuals take notice of moral values and social rules, individuals feel the need to satisfy their needs such as loving, being loved, and belonging to groups, being successful. To satisfy these needs, individuals interact with each other. Individuals sometimes have difficulties in satisfying their needs because their needs are out of harmony with moral values and society values. In the event of conflict situation, individual differences and individuals’ moral come to the fore. Çiftçi (2001) emphasized individuals’ freewill, consciousness and she added that individuals make decision which rule they will obey according to their moral judgment. Moral judgment is considered as one of four component of moral development and sign of morality by Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau and Thoma (1999). Kohlberg (1964) defined that moral judgment is capacity and this capacity serve to make decisions and judgments which are moral and to act in accordance with such judgments. This capacity is related to behaviors seen as morally relevant by some people and not others (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993). Keskin (2013) defined moral judgment as degree of moral principles that one’s acceptance or moral anxieties. Moral judgment involves two different but complimentary dimensions as emotional dimension and cognitive dimension (Keskin, 2013). While emotional dimension is related to values on which is focused when judgment of moral issues (Lind, 2008); cognitive dimension is pertinent to focusing on moral dimension of decision, confrontation with cognitive moral conflict and focusing on justice (Çiftçi, 2001). Some researchers, for instance Fernandez-Berrocal and Extremera (2005) andRietti (2009), emphasized emotion dimension of moral judgment more than cognitive dimension. According to Fernandez-Berrocal and Extremera (2005), emotions affect often individuals’ moral decisions. Moreover, Piechowski (1979) highlight relationship between emotional development and moral development. According to Piechowski (1979), moral development is closely related to emotional sensitivity, compassion, and also moral beliefs. This emphasis associated with morality and emotions bring to mind definition and content of emotional intelligence. Moreover, Goleman (1996) asserted that emotional intelligence has a moral dimension. Goleman (1998) clarify concept of emotional intelligence, he underline emotions’ role on human behavior and their close relationships. According to Goleman (2000), emotional intelligence is the ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups. Salovey and Pizarro (2003) defined emotional intelligence as a kind of ability. In the light of this definition, it can be stated that they can be aware of their emotion, express these emotions accurately, understand their emotional meaning, regulate emotion in oneself and use emotions to facilitate own thoughts through emotional reactions if someone has this ability. Emotional intelligence includes one’s self-awareness, self-regulation, social consciousness and relationship management. Emotional intelligence is determinant factor that helpful to know one’s emotions, drives, goals, recognize the role of these on their decision, control one’s disruptive emotions, manage close relationship, consider other people’s feelings and motivate one’s to achieve their goals (Goleman, 1998). In other words, emotional intelligence play role on one’s process of being individual and coping skills related to problems in society and their relationship (Güngör, 2003). Literature asserted that emotional intelligence and moral judgment of individuals is related to each other. However, research studies are carried out to examine relationships between moral development and emotional intelligence although they are limited. Avramova and Inbar (2013) outlined the role of emotion in moral judgment. Generally, research studies focus on understanding which factors fundamental contributors to one’s moral judgment development (Derrberry, Wilson, Snyder, Norman, & Barger, 2005). For example, formal education is found as contributors to one’s moral judgment byRest, Deemer, Barnett, Spickelmier, and Volker (1986) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991). Also, personality traits, especially openness to experience, are found as relative factor with moral judgment (Dollinger, & LaMartina, 1998). Athota, Connor and Jackson (2009) found that emotional intelligence was found to be a significant predictor of moral reasoning. This research is required because there is no research study related to model testing including moral judgment and emotional intelligence of university students.

(3)

2. Method

2.1 Research Group

The study group consists of 183 (131 female, 52 male) university students who are studying at several faculties and colleges at Eskisehir Osmangazi University.

2.2 Instruments

Defining Issues Test-DIT (Rest, 1979) is used to evaluate the moral reasoning of students. Different kind of scores could be calculated according to DIT data. We used P score, which includes level 5A, 5B and 6 scores to determine the students’ moral reasoning level and M score for determining the students who give irrelevant responses to the test. Emotional Intelligence Scale – EQ-NED (Özabacı, İşmen ve Ergin, 1999) is used to assess the emotional intelligence level of students. This scale has three factors which called 1. Understanding Self Feelings, 2. Understanding Others’ Feelings and 3. Manupilation of the Feelings. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient is found.81 for whole scale. Personal information form is used for collecting demographic data from students.

2.3 Data Collection

DIT, EQ-NED and personal information form is administered concurrently. Administration duration is approximately 60 minutes. The data has been collected from 246 students. Then 57 students removed from dataset according to their poor M scores.

2.4 Data Analysis

To find out the tendency and distribution of variables, descriptive statistics are applied. Because of the normal distribution of the P scores, independent samples t test is applied for comparisons of P scores by gender. P scores by parents’ educational levels are not distributed as a normal distribution, a non-parametric, Kruskal Wallis H, test is used for comparison of P scores whom come from parents’ with different educational level.

The model that is depicted in Figure 1 has been tested with path analysis.

1.PSCORE: P scores of participants. 2. EQ1: Understanding Self Feelings scores of participants. 3.EQ2: Understanding Others’

Feelings scores of participants. 4. EQ3: Manupilation of the Feelings scores of participants. Figure 1. Test Model

3. Results

The participants’ P and M scores are computed first. The M score stands for controlling score and it shouldn’t be greater than 5.00 . Fifty-three participants have M scores greater than 5.00, so they removed from data sets and data analyzed according to 186 participants.

1 2 3 4 P Scores EQ1 EQ2 EQ3

(4)

3.1 Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics for the study variables for the sample are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the study variables

N S

Understanding Self Feelings 186 24.95 12.82 .94

Understanding Others’ Feelings 186 104.96 9.04 .66

Manupilation of the Feelings 186 97.12 8.57 .63

P Score 186 94.81 9.24 .68

P scores studied by demographics. For this purpose, independent samples t test and Kruskal Wallis H tests have been applied. Comparing results of P scores by gender is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Independent Samples t Test Results of P Scores by Gender

Gender N Mean Std. Dev. df t P

Male 52 25.82 14.24 181 .557 .578

Female 131 24.63 12.37

Table 2 shows that P scores don’t differ by gender (t =.557, p >.05). P scores are analyzed according to mothers and father’s education level, and Kruskal Wallis test is utilized for this purpose. The reason of choosing the Kruskal Wallis test is non-normal distribution of data. The Mann Whitney U test is used for comparisons of each two

sub-groups. The results of this comparison are given in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Kruskal Wallis Test Results of P Scores by Parents’ Educational Level

Educational Level N Mean Ranks df χ2

Mother Under elementary 17 132.74 3 10.659* Elementary 104 91.78 High School 36 83.19 University 29 89.45 Father Under elementary 6 124.67 Elementary 82 99.48 3 9.054* High School 50 97.75 University 48 74.97 *p<.05

Table 3 shows that participants P scores significantly differ from the mother’s

(χ2 _{= 10.659, p <.05) and father’s (}_χ2 _{= 9.054, p <.05) educational level. To find out the differences between groups,}

Mann-Whitney U test is applied. Bonferonni adjustment is applied and p level selected as .05 / 4 = .012. According to Mann-Whitney U test; participants’, who holds a mother’s educational level is under elementary school, P score ranks are significantly higher than other participants (p <.05). Despite that, there is no significant difference found between elementary – high school and university levels. Similarly, participants’, who has father’s educational level is elementary school and high school, P score ranks are significantly higher than participants who has father’s educational level is university (p < .05).

3.2 SEM Analysis

Hoyle (1995) and Hu and Bentler (1999) recommend that the goodness-of-fit of these models was assessed using chi-squared and several other indices of fit such as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the normed fit index (NFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness of fit index (GFI), the adjusted goodness of fit index (GFI) and the non-normed fit index (NNFI). Normed Fit Index (NFI) is =.05 , Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) is = -.94, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is =.03, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) is =.68 and Adjusted Goodness of Fit

(5)

Index (AGFI) ) is =-.08. Among the fit indexes, the fact that values of GFI, AGFI, NNFI, NFI and CFI are bigger than .90 shows that the model fits. In addition to this fit indexes, modification indices and standardized residuals did not suggest any path additions. The fit indices showed that the hypothesized model had not an acceptable fit to the data as it can be seen in Table 4 below.

Table 4. The Goodness of Fit Statistics

Statistics Value Chi-Square 173.65 Df 3 RMSEA 0.56 SRMR 0.31 AGFI -0.08 CFI 0.03 NFI .05 NNFI -.94 4. Discussion

In the present study, we investigated a significant difference between the level of moral judgment. Our findings suggest that a significant difference between the level of moral judgment and gender was not found.. This finding was consistent with the previous research results both in Turkey and abroad (Al-Ansari, 2002; Aydın, 2011; Çileli 1981; Koyuncu 1983; Kurt, 1996; Seydooğulları, 2008). In contrast to the studies finding, no significant between the level of moral judgment and gender, some studies found significant differences between these variables (Çiftci, 2001; Kaya, 1993; White and Richard, 1999). These different results could stem from measure of the quality of Defining Issues Test (DIT) and same scales. The Defining Issues Test was developed based on Kohlberg's theory. This theory is criticized by some other researchers, because Kohlberg often conducted his study sample of males and ignored females’ moral development. Therefore, a significant difference between gender and moral judgment may not find like this study that used The Defining Issues Test and same scales. Gilligan, who brings important contributions to the theory of moral development, criticized Kohlberg’s theory. She indicates that on moral issues females are in tendency to consider the care and protection of others compared to males in her theory. In the literature, theoretical approaches in the context of the traditional Kohlberg, conducted among females and male very small number of studies showed that moral judgment pointed to the difference in gender (Çam, Çavdar, Seydooğulları and Çok, 2012). The results of this study indicated that a significant difference was found between moral judgment and level of parent education. According to this result, students who their mothers have under elementary education, the level of moral judgment of these students is higher than others. Also, students, whom their fathers have elementary and high school educations have higher level of moral judgment of these students than others who have fathers graduate from university, When the literature is examined, level of moral judgment is differentiated according to the level of education of the mother and father in many studies (Seydooğulları, 2008; Walker 1986). However, these studies indicate that students who their parents have higher education, the level of moral judgment of these students is higher than others who have level of low education. In many other studies, the level of moral judgment there is no significant relation between the levels of higher education (Şengün, 2003; White and Richard, 1999). These different conclusions may be reached due to the moral judgment is affected by many variables regarding parents like education statute. Therefore, different variables related to mothers and fathers should also be considered in other studies. Foremost among these, level of mother and father's moral judgment is the most significant variable. Because, mothers and fathers, who have a high level of moral judgment, take responsibility for their children and show better parenting to them (Richardson, Faster and McAdams, 1998). Besides, adherence, compliance and communication which in family process have been predicted the adolescents’ external morality significantly in another study (White and Matawie, 2004). As for that White (2000) indicated a strong bond between family of socialization processes and the content of adolescent moral considerations. Likewise, the adolescents’ levels of moral judgment are differentiated with the attitudes of their parents in other research findings (Minner, 2000). According to the literature, environment, family, school, peers, religion, mass media, economy, culture and many other factors are also effective for moral judgment. So, social and cultural foundations

(6)

are very important for moral development. For these reasons, many other variables should be used regarding parents in other studies for understanding the impact of level of parent’s education on moral judgment. The finding of this study is a model of moral judgment and emotional intelligence has not been achieved. Different models can make with other variables. In other studies, a significant relationship could not found between moral judgment and emotional empathy which related to emotional intelligence (Akkoyun 1987). Aydın (2011) and Self, Gopalakrishnan, Kiser and Olivarez (1996) did not find a relationship between moral judgment and subscales of empathy consistently. These results stem from limitedness of scales, sample size and requires of the scale of the self-reporting for individuals. Further studies, therefore, should include more moral judgment and emotional intelligence variables, different scales and samples.

References

Akkoyun, F. (1987). Empatik Eğilim ve Ahlaki Yargı. Psikoloji Dergisi, 6, ( 21). 91-98.

Al-Ansari & Eissa, M. (2002). Effects of Gender Education on the Moral Reasoning of Kuwait University Students. Social Behavior and Personality: An Internationel Journal, 30 (1), 75-82.

Athota, V. S., O’Connor, P. J., & Jackson, C. (2009). The Role of Emotional Intelligence and Personality in Moral Reasoning. In R. E. Hicks (ed.),Personality and individual differences: Current directions. Bowen Hills, QLD, Australian Academic Press.

Avramova, Y., R. & Inbar,Y. (2013). Emotion and Moral Judgment. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4 (3), 169-178.

Aydın, Z. (2011). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Empati Becerileri, Kişilik Özellikleri ve Anneden Algiladiklari Çocuk Yetiştirme Stilleri İle Ahlaki Muhakeme Düzeyleri Arasindaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi. Master’s thesis, Istanbul University, Institution of Social Sciences, İstanbul.

Çam, Z., Çavdar, D., Seydooğulları, S. & Çok, F. (2012). Classical and Contemporary Approaches for Moral Development. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri 12 (2), 1211-1225.

Changeux,J. P. (2002). Etiğin Doğal Temelleri(çvr. N. Acar). Istanbul: Dotuk Yay

Çiftçi (2003). Kohlberg’in Bilişsel Ahlak Gelişimi Teorisi: Ahlak ve Demokrasi Eğitimi [Kohlberg's Cognitive Moral Development Theory: Ethics and Democracy Education]. Değerler Eğitimi Dergisi,1(1), 43-73.

Çiftçi N. (2001). Ahlaki Yargı Testi Mut’un Teorisi ve Türkçe Versiyonunun Geçerliği [The Moral Judgement Test: Theory and Validation of the Turkish Version (MUT-TR)]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 1(2), s.295-321.

Çileli, M. (1981). 14-18 yaşları Arasındaki Öğrencilerde Ahlaki Yargının Zihinsel Gelişim Psikolojisi Yaklaşımı ile Değerlendirilmesi. Master’s

thesis, Ankara University, Institution of Social Sciences, Ankara.

Derryberry, W. P., Wilson, T., Snyder, H., Norman, A., & Barger, B. (2005). Moral Judgment Developmental Differences Between Gifted Youth and College Students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(1), 6-19.

Dollinger, S. J., & LaMartina, A. K. (1998). A Note on Moral Reasoning and The five-Factor Model. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 349–358.

Ergin, D.Y., İşman, E. & Özabacı, N. (1999). EQ of gifted youths: A comparative study. 13. Biennial World Conference, World Council For

Gifted and Talented Children, İstanbul.

Fernandez-Berrocal, P. & Extremera, N. (2005). About Emotional Intelligence and Moral Decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 548-549.

Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. London: Bloomsbury. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books

Güngör, A. (2003). Gelişim ve Öğrenme. 2. Baskı, Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

Haidt, J., Koller, S. & Dias, M. (1993). Affect, Culture, and Morality,or is İt Wrong to Eat Your Dog? Journal of Personality and Socioal Psychology, 65, 613–628.

Hınde, R. A. (2002). Why Good İs Good: The Source Of Morality. Routledge, USA.

Kaya, M. (1993) Bazı Kişisel Değişkenlere Göre Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Ahlaki Yargıları. Doctorate thesis, Samsun Ondokuz Mayıs

University, Institution of Social Sciences

Keskin, Y. (2013). Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Ahlâki Yargı Yeterlilikleri:Türkiye-Samsun ve İngiltere-Lancashire Karşılaştırılması [Secondary

School Students’ Moral Judgment Competence: A Comparıson Between Turkey-Samsun and Lancashıre-England. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(1), 217-249

Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of Moral Character and Moral Ideology. In: M. L. Hoffman & L.W. Hoffman, Eds., Review of Child Development Research, Vol. I,, pp. 381-431 New York Russel Sage Foundation.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). “Moral Stages And Moralization. The CognitiveDevelopmental Appoach In Moral Development and Behavior,

Theory.”Research And Social Issues (Ed: T. Lickona), Newyork: Holt Rinehart And Winston. 33-47.

Koyuncu N. (1983). Cinsiyet Rolü Kimliği ile Ahlak Gelişimi Evrelerinin Karşılaştırılması. Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi,

Kulaksizoğlu A. (1995). Öğretmenlik Mesleğinin Ahlâk İlkeleri Konusunda Bir Deneme [Secondary School Studedents’ Moral Judgment Competence: A Comparison between Samsun-Turkey and Lancashire-England], Marmara Üniversitesi A.E.F. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 7, 185-188.

Kurt, Y. (1996). Rehber Öğretmenler ve Öğretmenlerin Ahlak Gelişim Düzeyleri ve Denetim Odağı Algılamaları.Master’s thesis, Ankara

(7)

Lind G., (2008). The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Judgment Competence A Dual-Aspect Model”, Fasko, Daniel, Jr. & Willis, Wayne,

(Eds.), Contemporary Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives on Moral Development and Education, 185- 220, Creskill: Hampton Press.

Miners, R. (2001) Parenting style, moral development and friendship: (How) do we choose friends?,Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Concordia University.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Piechowski, M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. Colangelo & R.T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp.25-57). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Rest, J. (1979). Revised Manual For The Difining Issues Test. Minneapolis: Mimeosta Moral Resarch Projests.

Rest, J., Deemer, D., Barnett, R., Spickelmier, J., & Volker, J. (1986). Life experiences and developmental path- ways. In J. Rest (Ed.), Moral development: Advances in research and theory (pp. 28–58). New York: Praeger.

Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo- Kohlbergian approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Richardson, B., Foster, V. & Mcadams, C. R. (1998). Parenting Attitudes and Moral Development of Treatment Foster Parents: Implications for Training and Supervision. Child and Youth Care Forum, 27 (6), 409-431.

Rietti, S. (2009) Emotional Intelligence and Moral Agency: Some worries and a Suggestion. Philosophical Psychology, 22 (2), 143-165. Salovey, P., & Pizarro, D.A., (2003). The Value of Emotional Intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautrey, & T. Lubart (Eds.), Models of

Intelligence: International Perspectives (pp.263-278). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Self, D. J., Gopalakrishnan, G., Kiser, W. R. & Olivarez, M.(1996). The Relationship of Empathy to Moral Reasoning in First-Year Medical Students. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 4, 448-453.

Şengün, M. (2003). Ahlaki Düşünce ve Yargıları Etkileyen Bazı Faktörlerin Incelenemesi. Master’s thesis, Samsun Ondokuz Mayıs University,

Institution of Social Sciences, Samsun.

Seydooğullar, S. (2008). Demokratik ve Otoriter Ana Baba Tutumlarının LisedeÖğrenim Gören Öğrencilerin Ahlaki Yargı Yeteneğine Etkisi.

Master’s thesis, Sakarya University, Institution of Social Sciences, Sakarya.

Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.

Walker, L. J. (1986). Sex Differences in the Development of Moral Reasoning: A Rejoinder to Baumrind.. Child Development, 57, 522-526. White, F. A. (2000). Relationship of Family Socialization Processes to Adolescent Moral Thought, The Journal of Social Psychology, 140 (1),

75-91.

White, F. A., & Matawie, K. M.(2004). Parental Morality and Family Processes as Predictors of Adolescent Morality. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(2), 219-233.

White, J. & Richard, D. (1999). Are Woman More Ethical? Recent Findings on the Effects of Gender Upon Moral Development. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9 (3), 459-472.