moral reasoning and political beliefs of dutch adolescents and young adults

Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 54, No. 3, 1998, pp. 531-546

Moral Reasoning and Political Beliefs of Dutch Adolescents and Young Adults

Quinten A. W. Raaijmakers", Tom F. M. A. Verbogt, and Wilma A. M. Vollebergh University of Utrecht, the Netherlands

The relation between moral reasoning and political beliefs is studied by distin- guishing between two different domains of political beliefs. These domains were related to the level of moral reasoning in adolescents and young adults. A sample of 1,968 Dutch adolescents and young adults responded in 1991 to the Defining Issues Test (J . R. Rest, 1979a) and seven political attitude scales. This procedure was repeated in 1994 for 1,498 Dutch adolescents and young adults, of whom 91 1 individuals had also participated in the 1991 survey. Thus, longitudinal data were available for this latter group. Results showed,$rst, that a distinction between economic and cultural dimensions of political beliefs is useful. Second, the level of moral reasoning related to political beliefs, but only in the cultural domain. Third, during adolescence, this correlation increased with age and educational level. The relation between moral reasoning and political beliefs is discussed in terms of simi- larities in content versus cognitive determinants.

The relation between moral development and political beliefs has become a major research topic since Lawrence Kohlberg's pioneering work in this field (Kohlberg, 1958, 1976). Kohlberg described moral development through six stages ordered into three levels of moral orientations that reflect the individual's growing competence in taking a sociomoral perspective: from a premoral, primarily egocen- tric orientation through a conventional, primarily rule-conforming orientation to a self-accepted, principled orientation. Many studies of the development of the

This research was supported by a grant from the Dutch Organization for Scientific Research

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Quinten A. W. Raaijmakers, De- partment of Youth, Family and Life Course, Utrecht University, Postbox 80140, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands; e-mail: [email protected]

531

(NWO).

0 1998 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

532 Raaijmakers, Verbogt, and Vollebergh

individual’s political beliefs similarly focus on the growth of the individual’s con- ceptual understanding of social, political, and economic institutions (Weinreich- Haste, 1986). Most of these studies describe the development of political thinking as a movement from a personal, individualistic, and authoritarian point of view toward an ultimate comprehension of social structures and an ability to deal with general principles. In fact, research on the development of political thinking over- laps considerably with studies of moral development (Gallatin, 1980).

Almost every empirical study of both phenomena reports a correlation between moral reasoning and political beliefs (Gross, 1996). These studies show that individuals who have reached the stage of conventional moral reasoning tend to hold rather conservative ideas whereas individuals who have achieved the stage of postconventional moral reasoning appear to be more progressive in their political beliefs (e.g., Emler, Renwick, & Malone, 1983; Weinreich-Haste, 1986). Pre- conventional reasoners are in general less conservative than subjects at the stage of conventional reasoning and in most cases less progressive than postconventional- ists. In addition, preconventionalists are characterized as politically undefined and as rebellious (Fishkin, Keniston, & MacKinnon, 1973; Fontana & Noel, 1973; Gielen, 1986; Haan, Smith, & Block, 1968; G. J. Rest, 1977; Van IJzendoorn, 1980; Weinreich-Haste, 1986). A similar relation exists for voting behavior and political party preference: Individuals whose moral development has reached the stage of conventional reasoning tend to prefer conservative (or right-wing) parties, whereas postconventional reasoners prefer progressive (or left-wing) parties (Emler et al.; G. J. Rest; Thoma, 1993; Weinreich-Haste, 1986). In most studies, the voting behavior of preconventionalists is not considered, probably because most of them are not yet entitled to vote.

Over the past decade, social scientists have turned increasingly to the question of why there should be this relationship between moral reasoning and political beliefs. In general, their explanations fall into two classes. In the first, which is strictly based on Kohlberg’s theory, it is claimed that progressive political ideas require a higher level of sociomoral perspective taking than conservative ideas (J. R. Rest, 1994; Thoma, 1993). In the second class of explanations, differences in cognitive and sociomoral development are discounted, and instead it is argued that the correlation between level of moral reasoning and political beliefs is the result of related contents; in this view the moral and political domain are considered as over- lapping domains (Candee, 1974; Emler, 1987; Emler et al., 1983; Markoulis, 1989; Reicher & Emler, 1984; Weinreich-Haste, 1986). These two explanations have made the relation between moral reasoning and political beliefs a controversial sub- ject of research (Sparks & Durkin, 1987). Without any doubt this relation exists, but its exact nature remains unclear.

Dilemmas, often even the same dilemmas (those of Kohlberg), are mostly used to assess moral development, whereas the measures used in the area of political beliefs differ. Beside their preference for particular political parties, subjects are

Moral Reasoning and Political Beliefs 533

questioned on their attitudes towards a range of political issues. In spite of the variety of these issues, unanimity of response is usually demonstrated afterward by interpreting the data as a reflection of one dimension of political beliefs: conservative (or right wing) versus progressiveAibera1 (or left wing).

One might, of course, question whether it is a valid assumption that the various political beliefs are covered by merely one dimension of political ideology. In several national surveys among Dutch (young) adults over 18 years of age, Middendorp (1979, 1991) repeatedly demonstrated that two dimensions underlie a broad variety of political ideas, dealing with issues such as differences in income, freedom of speech, rights of immigrants, distribution of welfare, women’s rights. Felling and Peters (1984) found the same two-dimensional structure organizing people’s political beliefs. They identified these dimensions as economic conservatisdprogressiveness and cultural conservatisdprogressiveness. According to Middendorp (1991), referring to the work of Rokeach (1973), both dimensions are based on two central values underlying political ideology: freedom and equality. The economic dimension concerns issues of economic equality and freedom of enterprise, including the property and distribution of economic output and its control by the state. The cultural dimension refers to the individual’s freedom of choice to control his own life, and the equal subjection of all individuals to social rules, standards, values and norms, including attitudes toward authority and cultural traditions.

These same dimensions have been identified in the study of political beliefs in previous national surveys conducted in the Netherlands among adolescents of twelve years and older (Meeus, 1988; Raaijmakers, 1993; Vollebergh, Raaijmakers, & Meeus, 1995).

The study presented in this article addresses three main questions. The first question we ask in this study is whether political beliefs do, in fact, cluster on one progressive-conservative dimension, as is usually implied in research on the relation between political beliefs and moral reasoning.

The second question, then, arises directly from the first: In what way is the level of moral reasoning connected to political beliefs and, in particular, how does it relate to the dimensions of political beliefs? Do individuals with a higher level of moral reasoning have more progressive ideas than subjects who have attained only a moderate or low level of moral reasoning? If so, do they also hold more progressive economic views, more progressive cultural views, or both? Looking at Kohlberg’s moral dilemmas, one sees at once that these refer to the cultural domain, because they concern the freedom of the individual to make his own choices in noneconomic matters, whether or not in accordance with societal or legal norms. We might, there- fore, expect to find a correlation between moral reasoning and the cultural dimension of political beliefs. This does not imply, however, that there exists no relation between moral reasoning and the economic domain. Indeed, on several occasions a relation has been reported between level of moral reasoning and voting behavior or political preference (G. J. Rest, 1977; Thoma, 1993; Weinreich-Haste, 1984; in the


Netherlands: Van IJzendoorn, 1989); at the same time, political parties differ from each other in economic attitudes of their voters (in the Netherlands: Middendorp, 1991). This mutual correlation with party preference could reflect a correlation between moral reasoning and the economic dimension of political beliefs.

Adolescence is generally considered to be an important period in cognitive development, because the cognitive system becomes increasingly integrated and stable. It is of interest to study the relation between the development of moral reason and political beliefs from a developmental point of view for two reasons: first, because moral development depends on cognitive development (Hart & Killen, 1995; Kohlberg, 1976); second, because adolescents demonstrate age- and education-specific ways of structuring political beliefs. For instance, the discrimination between the different dimensions of political attitudes appears to be less articulated in young and low-education adolescents (Raaijmakers, 1993). In addition, young and low-education adolescents show less homogeneity in political attitudes (Raaijmakers, Meeus, & Vollebergh, 1986); they also respond significantly less extremely to survey items, namely with more “neutral” midpoint responses (Raaijmakers, van Hoof, ‘t Hart, Verbogt, & Vollebergh, 1998).

Whereas most studies are limited to cross-sectional analyses, the panel design of this study enables us to examine the correlation between moral reasoning and political beliefs over time within the same individuals. The third question addressed in this study, then, is how the relationship between moral reasoning and political beliefs may change over a period of three years in adolescents and young adults.

Method

Sample

The present study is part of the Utrecht Study of Adolescent Development (USAD), a longitudinal panel survey on a sample of adolescents and young adults drawn from an existing representative panel of 10,000 Dutch households (Meeus & ‘t Hart, 1993). In the USAD project, subjects were surveyed two times (in 1991 and in 1994) on a wide range of phenomena assumed to be relevant to adolescent psychosocial development. In the current study, data from both the first (1991) and the second (1994) survey were analyzed, enabling us to compare the results from the first survey with those from the second.

The 199 1 sample consisted of 1,968 adolescents and young adults, 45% males and 55% females, varying in age (range 15 to 24 years, M = 20.0, SD = 2.65), social class background (5 categories, Mdn = 3.00) and educational level (4 categories, Mdn = 2.00). The 1994 sample consisted of 1,498 adolescents and young adults. Added to the sample of 1994 were 315 new individuals (aged 12 to 14 years in 1991); the remaining 1,183 respondents had also participated in the 1991 sample. Complete data in both surveys were available from 91 1 adolescents and young


adults, allowing longitudinal analyses. Missing data were primarily caused by individuals whose responses on the measure of moral reasoning were not classifiable.

Measures

Moral reasoning. To assess the respondents’ level of moral reasoning, a revised short version of the Defining Issues Test (DIT) was applied. The DIT, originally developed by James Rest (1979a), is based on Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. It contains dilemmas, originally from Kohlberg’s moral interview, but it is administered as a multiple choice questionnaire. In this study subjects were asked about two moral dilemmas: “Heinz and the Drug” and “The Prisoner.” The DIT delivers two indices of the level of moral reasoning: the Principled Thinking score (P-score) and the Davison Index (D-score). The P-score consists of the relative importance given by the respondent to items that reflect principled moral reasoning, namely Kohlberg’s stage 5 or stage 6 moral reasoning (J. R. Rest, 1979b, p. 100). The D-score is a weighted sum of the double-standardized responses of individuals on all items (standardized on sample mean per item and on the individual’s relative position in the sample for all items); it is a composite score that reflects the individual’s relatively high or low moral stage of reasoning (Davison, 1979, pp. 237-238). Neither index classifies respondents into one of the six moral stages described by Kohlberg; they rather order all respondents from a relatively low to a relatively high level of moral reasoning. Many studies have upheld the construct validity of the DIT (e.g., J. R. Rest, 1979b, 1986), and high internal consistency reli- abilities have also been reported (Davison & Robbins, 1978).

The choice of the DIT as a measure of the level of moral reasoning is based on three grounds. First, it is an efficient paper-and-pencil measure that can be readily used in surveys with many respondents, which is not the case for measures based on interviews, like those of Kohlberg (see Colby & Kohlberg, 1987) or Gilligan (1982). Moreover, the DIT performs well in longitudinal designs with repeated measures (Davison, 1979). Second, the moral dilemmas in the DIT accurately represent the kind of dilemmas used in research on moral reasoning as they are derived from the original Moral Judgment Interview. And third, no gender differences have been established in research with the DIT (Archer & Waterman, 1988; J. R. Rest, 1979b; Walker, 1984).

Political beliefs. Attitudes toward different political, economic and cultural issues were measured using a set of seven scales, each consisting of several 5-point Likert items (“completely agree,” “agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “disagree,” “completely disagree”). All scales were used in previous research with adolescents (Raaijmakers, 1993) and adapted for this survey. Despite the small number of items, the reliability of the scales was sufficient: Cronbach’s alphas for all scales were above .77 (1991 sample) and .70 (1994 sample), respectively. The


product-moment correlations between the scale scores of the first and the second survey ( N = 9 11) ranged between S O and .74, which indicates sufficient longitudinal stability of the scale scores, given the age of the respondents and the time span between the two surveys.

On the economic dimension, political beliefs were assessed by two scales:

Equality of income and property (5 items): This scale, originally developed by Middendorp (1979), measures the belief that differences in income, socioeconomic status, and material possessions should be smaller than they are. An example of an item of this scale: “The differences between high and low levels of income should be smaller than they are now.” Socioeconomic radicalism (3 items): Adapted from Felling, Peters, and Schreuder (1983), this scale measures the striving for socioeconomic equality between people. An example: “There should be more equality in society.”

For the cultural dimension, five political attitudes scales were administered:

Tolerance of alternative lifestyles ( 8 items): This was measured by a scale, originally developed by Van der Avort (1988), consisting of eight items, each describing a way of life that is different from the traditional family. An example: “It is acceptable for a homosexual to live together with a steady partner.” Freedom to express one’s opinion (4 items): This scale, adapted from Middendorp (1979), measures the belief that people should have the right to express their opinion publicly. An example: “Everybody should be free to demonstrate for or against something.” Acceptance ofabortion and euthanasia (2 items): This measures the right of self- determination in matters of one’s own life or death. An example: “People should have the right to end their lives with the help of a physician, if they so wish.”

0 Authoritarianism (5 items): This was a shortened form consisting of the five highest-loading items adopted from the Dutch version of the original F-scale (Hagendoorn & Janssen, 1983). An example: “Agita- tors and hooligans should be punished severely.” Ethnocentrism (4 items): This scale was originally designed in a study of political attitudes among adolescents by Hagendoorn and Janssen (1983). For the present study we used the four highest-loading items of this scale as demonstrated in previous research. An example: “Ethnic minorities are a threat to our culture.”


The Authoritarianism and Ethnocentrism scales were scored in the direction of tolerance, in which a low score represents an intolerant or conservative attitude; all the other scales were scored in the direction of conservatism, in which a high score represents a conservative attitude. We deliberately administered more attitude scales in the cultural domain because this domain includes a broader spectrum of political issues.

Results

The Structure of Political Beliefs

The first question concerns the way adolescents and young adults organize their political beliefs. Factor analysis was used to clarify this organization of beliefs, and the results are presented in Table 1. To test the interdependence of the factors, the scale scores were analyzed using obliquely rotated principal axis factor analysis. In both surveys two factors were extracted on the basis of the scree criterion and the best interpretable and most parsimonious solution. These two factors can be clearly interpreted as the economic and the cultural dimensions, respectively. The low correlation between factors indicates that the two dimensions of political beliefs may be considered almost completely independent. Some attitudes toward particular political issues were situated on the economic dimension only, whereas other political attitudes were primarily associated with the cultural dimension.

The Relation Between Moral Reasoning and Political Beliefs

The second question deals with the relation between the level of moral reasoning and political beliefs, especially with reference to the economic and the cultural dimension. Table 2 shows the correlations of the two indices of moral reasoning derived from the DIT (the P-score and the D-score) with the political attitude scale scores. Both indices of moral reasoning correlated only with political beliefs in the cultural domain, and not with those in the economic domain. In terms of effect sizes, these differences between the correlation coefficients of the cultural versus the economic domain could be characterized from small to medium (i.e., Cohen’s q from .11 to .35).

How is the level of moral reasoning related to political beliefs? The mean scores on the political attitude scales of individuals with arelatively low, mediate, or high level of moral reasoning were compared. The classification of respondents into one of the three moral reasoning categories is based on the deviation of the individual D- (or P-) score from the grand mean of this score. A D- (or P-) score of more than one standard deviation below the grand mean reflects a relatively low level of moral reasoning, whereas a D- (or P-) score of more than one standard deviation above the grand mean corresponds with arelatively high level of moral reasoning.

Table 1. Principal Axis Factor Loadings of the Political Attitude Scale Scores After Oblique Rotation

1991 ( N = 1,968) 1994 ( N = 1,498) Attitude scales Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2

Economic domain ErP -.o 1 .74 .01 .69 SER .oo .95 .oo .9 1

Cultural domain TAL .79 .08 .71 .06 FEO .41 .14 .5 1 .09 AAE .54 .02 .58 .07 AUT -.45 .ll -.49 . l l ETH -.41 .07 -.44 .05

Explained variance 34% 22% 35% 21%

Note: EIP = Equality of Income and Property; SER = Socioeconomic Radicalism; TAL = Tolerance of Alternative Lifestyles; FEO = Freedom to Express One’s Opinion; AAE = Acceptance of Abortion and Euthanasia; AUT = Authoritarianism; ETH = Ethnocentrism. Correlation between the factors: .OO in 1991 and.08in 1994.Thedeclineineigenvaluesoffactors 1 to5,in 1991: 2.15,1.76,1.11,0.70,0.56,respectively; in 1994: 2.30, 1.64, 1.07,0.68,0.55, respectively.

Table 2. Correlations Between Scores on the Political Attitude Scales and Indices of Moral Reasoning

Attitude scales

Economic domain EIP SER

-

Cultural domain TAL FEO AAE AUT ETH

1991 ( N = 1968) P-score D-score

1994 ( N = 1498) P-score D-score

-.03 (-.06) -.01 (-.06) -.03 (-.07) -.02 (-.06)

-.22* (-.20*) -.26* (-.26*) -.21* (-.19*) -.24* (-.21*) -.17* (-.15*) -.20* (-.17*) .13* (.12*) .20* (.19*) .14* (.12*) .14* (.12*)

.oo (-.02) .01 (.03)

.03 (-.Ol) .06 (.OO)

-.17* (-.14*) -.21* (-.20*) -.14* (-.ll*) -.22* (-.18*) -.15* (-.14*) -.19* (-.17*) .14* (.lo*) .19* (.17*) .13* (.08*) .15* (.ll*)

Note. EIP = Equality of Income and Property; SER = Socioeconomic Radicalism; TAL = Tolerance of Alternative Lifestyles; FEO = Freedom to Express One’s Opinion; AAE = Acceptance of Abortion and Euthanasia; AUT = Authoritarianism; ETH = Ethnocentrism. Numbers in parentheses represent partial correlations, after correction for social class, gender, age and education. * p < ,001.


Statistically significant differences between low, mediate, and high moral reasoners in their mean political attitude scale scores appeared only in the cultural domain, with effect sizes varying from small to medium (q2s varying from .01 to .06), whereas these differences were absent in the economic domain (all q2s < .01). In the cultural domain, individuals with a low level of moral reasoning responded significantly more conservatively than individuals with a mediate or high level of moral reasoning. In addition, the high-level reasoners scored significantly more progressive than the mediate group. This was the case for all five political attitude scale scores on the cultural dimension, both in 1991 and in 1994.

Thus, moral reasoning seems to be correlated with political beliefs in the cultural domain only. Even when corrected for the influence of social background variables, such as social class, gender, age and education, both indices of moral reasoning correlated substantially and systematically with political attitudes in the cultural domain only (see also Table 2).

The Structure of Political Beliefs From a Developmental Point of View

Developmental analyses were carried out on the data of the 91 1 respondents who participated in the 1991 survey as well as the 1994 survey. Two groups of approximately the same size were distinguished: adolescents between the ages of 15 to 19 years ( n = 441) and young adults of 20 years and older ( n = 470). The distinction between the age groups was based on earlier research findings that demonstrated that the development and cognitive organization of political attitudes were directly related to voting age and actual voting behavior (Raaijmakers, 1993; Raaijmakers, Verbogt & van Hoof, 1998). Of the latter group of young adults, analyses were repeated for the respondents with a high educational level ( n = 209), because these respondents most closely resemble the subjects who usually participate in moral reasoning research. Before examining the relation between the indices of moral reasoning and the dimensions of political beliefs, the specific structuring of political beliefs is first analyzed for each group separately (adolescents, young adults, and high-education young adults, respectively) by means of factor analysis of the political attitude scale scores. To include the possi- bility of correlations between the factor dimensions, we again performed principal axis factor analyses with oblique rotation. For all groups we examined possible solutions with three factors, two factors or one factor. The decision as to which solution produced the best fit was based on the following criteria (in order of importance): (1) the possible scree(s) in the decline of the eigenvalues above 1 ; (2) the amount of factor loadings of more than .45; (3) the interpretability of the resulting factors; (4) the most parsimonious solution; and (5) the reliability of the resulting factors.

The first group of adolescents between the ages of 15 and 19 years showed a rather unclear picture in the 199 1 survey. According to the scree criterion, no real


articulated structure was observed. A three-factor solution seemed to give the best solution. It produced not only the highest factor loadings, with only one scale score beneath .45, but also a well-interpretable structure. In this structure, the beliefs in the cultural domain were organized in two factors, instead of one. The first, called the “cultural restraint” factor, deals with the freedom of individuals to arrange their lives in their own way; the second, identified as the “political tolerance” factor, deals with the freedom of cultural minorities to behave in a different way. In the 1994 survey, the picture was much clearer. A plain three-factor structure was established, with all scales scores loading above .45 on one of the dimensions identified as the economic, the cultural restraint, and the political tolerance factor.

The group of young adults (above 20 years) showed a stable structure of two independent factors in both surveys, identifiable as economic and cultural dimensions of political beliefs. On all the above-mentioned criteria, the two-factor solution performed best. The two-factor solution is directly comparable to the two-factor model that Middendorp (1991) found in the adult Dutch population.

Within the latter group of young adults, the more highly educated respondents gave rather different results. Here, all the political attitude scale scores could be located on one overall factor of conservatisdprogressiveness. In the 1994 survey, this one factor structure was even more highly articulated, with all scale scores loading above .45.

These results indicate that young people-like adults-demonstrate a clear two-dimensional structure of political beliefs, once they have reached the age at which they become qualified to vote. Up to this age, their political beliefs are less integrated. Only the highly educated young adults establish a one-dimensional structure of conservatism into which all political beliefs are integrated.

The Relation Between Moral Reasoning and Political Beliefs From a Developmental Point of View

In a previous section we showed that both indices of moral reasoning correlated only with the cultural dimension of political beliefs. This correlation will now be further explored as we account for the differences in the structure of political beliefs among the three groups of respondents differing in age and education. Such an analysis is interesting because it may specify the conditions that determine the so- called political bias of measures of moral reasoning (Emler et al., 1983), that is, the direct association of high levels of moral reasoning with politically progressive and leftist positions.

For each of the three groups distinguished above, the correlations were com- puted of both indices of moral reasoning with those factor scores that derive from the principal axis factor analysis of the political attitude scale scores. The results are presented in Table 3.


Table 3. Correlations of the Indices of Moral Reasoning With the Factor Scores of the Political Attitude Scales for Three Categories of Respondents

1991 1994 Factors per category of respondents P-score D-score P-score D-score

Age < 20 years Economic conservatism -.oo .oo .01 .06 Cultural restraint -.IS* -. 16** -.12* -.14* Political tolerance .23** .18** .15* .18**

Age 2 20 years Economic conservatism .03 .06 .06 .os Cultural conservatism -.28** -.33** -.21** -.29**

Age t 20 years and high education level Conservatism -.I6 -.19* -.2s** -.33**

* p < .01. ** p < ,001,

Whenever an independent economic dimension could be distinguished from one or more dimensions in the cultural domain, the indices of moral reasoning appeared to be related to the cultural dimensions only; correlations with the economic dimension were without exception very low and statistically insignificant. However, in the case of the group of more highly educated young adults, something else happened. Not only did these young adults integrate economic and cultural political beliefs into one cognitive dimension of conservatism, but this one dimension also correlated with the indices of moral reasoning. These correlations were significantly stronger than the correlations of the economic dimension with the indices of moral reasoning in both other groups of adolescents and young adults. After three years, the correlation of this one dimension appeared to be at least as strong as the correlation with the cultural dimension for the other groups, even when economic views were included.

The political bias of measures of moral reasoning, in the sense of a one-to-one relation of the level of moral reasoning with politically progressive and leftist positions, seems to be limited to the group of highly educated young adults. In general, however, such a relation of moral reasoning with progressive positions depends on the issues at stake: whether economic or cultural. In the latter case, only politically progressive positions are associated with high levels of moral reasoning. The assumption of a general political bias of measures of moral reasoning could well have been an effect of sampling bias of research into the field of moral reasoning and political attitudes, that is, the participation of-almost exclusively-highly educated students.


Conclusions and Discussion

The first question of this study concerned the structure of political beliefs. Although the bulk of research distinguishes only between conservative versus progressive (or right-wing versus left-wing) ideas, this study demonstrates that at least in the Dutch political situation, there are, in general, two independent dimensions on which conservatism can be expressed. Following Middendorp (1979, 1991) we distinguish between a dimension concerning economic issues (called economic conservatism), and a dimension containing beliefs regarding sociocultural issues (called cultural conservatism). When studying political beliefs or the relationship of other variables with these beliefs, it seems important to make a distinction between these two dimensions: first because each dimension has its own influence on political behavior, such as voting behavior (for example, Middendorp, 1991), and second because the long-term development of political beliefs seems to be different for each of the dimensions. Within the Dutch population, for instance, there appears to have been a general shift toward economic conservatism since the 1980s, whereas in cultural respects a continuing development away from conservative ideas has been evident since the 1960s (Middendorp, 1991).

Secondly the correlation of level of moral reasoning with political beliefs was questioned with special reference to both dimensions of political beliefs. In the present study we demonstrated that the level of moral reasoning does not correlate with all political beliefs. Factor analyses and analyses of variance showed that there was a correlation between moral reasoning and political beliefs in the cultural domain only; in the economic domain there was no such relation. On the one hand this restriction to the cultural domain is a novel result. On the other hand it is not a surprising one, because the moral dilemmas in the DIT-as well as the moral dilemmas in studies using other measures of moral reasoning-mainly refer to cultural issues. With regard to the cultural domain, the results of this study accord with the results of other studies in one respect: They show that individuals with a high level of moral reasoning express more progressive ideas than subjects with a mediate or low level of moral reasoning. However, in contrast to other studies, it is demonstrated here that-n the cultural dimension-the low moral reasoners express the most conservative cultural ideas, and not the mediate (or conventional) reasoners.

Thirdly, the relation between moral reasoning and political beliefs was explored from a developmental point of view in three different ways: by comparing the results of the respondents who participated in the 199 1 survey as well as the 1994 survey, by analyzing the structuring of political beliefs within groups of different age and educational level, and by relating the indices of moral reasoning to the specific structures of political beliefs within these groups. Although respondents in general differentiated between an economic and a cultural dimension of political beliefs, two exceptions should be noted, one for the young and one for the highly educated. First, the political beliefs of adolescents between fifteen and nineteen


years of age appeared to be less coherently integrated. In the cultural domain, an extra dimension appeared: political tolerance. Nevertheless, the indices of moral reasoning correlated significantly with both dimensions of the cultural domain. Second, the older and more highly educated respondents showed a far more integrated set of political beliefs. These respondents, in contrast to the others, organized their political beliefs on one dimension of general conservatisndprogressiveness. Moral reasoning did not correlate significantly with this dimension in the first survey, but in the second survey three years later, a firm correlation was established, indicating a further integration of moral and political concepts. Apparently, increasing age during the period of adolescence and a higher educational level coincide with a more integrated system of political and moral beliefs. This integration might be an accompanying effect of a wider knowledge of politics and ethics andor a greater capacity for complex cognitive functioning, that is, the integration into one concept of political conservatism of political beliefs formerly differentiated in two independent dimensions. Middendorp (1991, pp. 235-257), for instance, demonstrated that Dutch members of parliament showed an even more pronounced unidi- mensional structure of political and ethical beliefs.

With the results of this study in mind, the previous explanations of the relation between higher levels of moral reasoning and progressive political beliefs must be reconsidered. First of all, this study confirms Emler’s claim (1987) that moral reasoning and political beliefs cover the same domain with respect to their mental rep- resentation in individuals. As adolescents organize their political ideas into two separate dimensions, an economic and a cultural dimension, the level of moral reasoning is related to the latter only, suggesting a content resemblance of the moral and the political cultural domain. At the same time, our results show that only the more highly educated young adults apply their moral principles to cultural as well as economic ideas. If one assumes that the cognitive reasoning of these subjects is more complex, these results can be interpreted as showing a particular effect of the level of cognitive functioning on the relation between moral reasoning and political beliefs. This is not to demonstrate that a high level of cognitive functioning is directly related to progressive political ideas, but that moral principles are general- ized to the whole domain of political beliefs. Within the group of highly educated young adults, a relatively high level of moral reasoning is again related to more progressive political ideas. Whether this relation should be attributed to content generalization, more specifically the generalization of progressive or conservative points of view to the economic domain, or to structural integration, in other words the cognitive integration of economic beliefs into one structure of political beliefs, remains unclear. However, a simple one-to-one relationship between high levels of sociomoral functioning and progressive political beliefs-as Rest maintains- would seem highly unlikely.

This study shows that with increasing age and educational level, moral reasoning becomes more and more integrated in the political-cultural domain. To what


extent this process influences the individual’s actual political commitments as yet remains unclear. Recent research shows that about 50% of Dutch adolescents’ and young adults’ political party preference is explained by their political views and background characteristics (Raaijmakers, Verbogt, & van Hoof, 1998). Consider- ing the modest but systematic relationship between moral reasoning and political views in the cultural domain, it is to be expected that-at least in a plural party system in which political party preference is partly determined by political beliefs in the cultural domain-individuals’ abstract moral thoughts may affect their political commitments. Currently further research is being conducted into this specific relationship.

Finally, we would like to stress the need for alternative measures of moral reasoning, such as measures that include moral dilemmas in the economic domain, dealing with problems of freedom, equality, justice, and responsibility with respect to economic issues. If research into moral development is to contribute to the insight into the political development of individuals, measures of moral reasoning should contain the economic issues that are of major importance to the political socialization of the citizens of the 21st century, such as the responsibility for the poor, the relation between the first and third world, and environmental pollution in relation to economic growth.

References

Archer, S. L., & Waterman, A. S. (1988). Psychological individualism: Gender differences or gender neutrality? Human Development, 31,65-8 1.

Candee, D. ( 1974). Ego developmental aspects of new left ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30,620-630.

Colby, A,, & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgment (Vol. 2). Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press.

Davison, M. L. (1979). The internal structure and the psychometric properties of the Defining issues Test. In J. R. Rest (Ed.), Development in Judging Moral Issues (pp. 223-245). Minneapolis: Uni- versity of Minnesota Press.

Davison, M. L., & Robbins, S. (1978). The reliability and validity of objective indices of moral development. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2,39 1 4 0 3 .

Emler, N. P. ( 1987). Socio-moral development from the perspective of social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 1 7 3 7 1-388.

Emler, N. P., Renwick, S., & Malone, B. (1983). The relationship between moral reasoning and political orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1073-1080.

Felling, A., &Peters, J . (1984). Consematisme in Nederland nader bekeken [A closer view on conservatism in The Netherlands]. Mens en Maatschappij [Man and Society], 59, 339-362.

Felling, A,, Peters, J., & Schreuder, 0. (1983). Burgerlijk en onburgelijk Nederland: een nationaal on- derzoek naar waardenorientaties op de drempel van de jaren tachrig [The conventional and un- conventional Netherlands: A national survey on value orientations at the beginning of the eighties]. Deventer, the Netherlands: van Loghum Slaterus.

Fishkin J., Keniston, K., & MacKinnon, C. (1973). Moral reasoning and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 109-1 19.

Fontana, A. F., & Noel, B. (1973). Moral reasoning in the university. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27,419429,


Gallatin, J. (1980). Political thinking in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescentpsy-

Gielen, U. P. ( I 986). Moral reasoning in radical and non-radical German students. Behavior Science Re-

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a diferent voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gross, M. L. (1996). Moral reasoning and ideological affiliation: A cross-national study. Political Psy-

Haan, N., Smith, B. M., &Block, J. (1968). Moral reasoning of young adults: Political-social behavior, family background, and personality correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,

chology (pp. 344-382). New York: Wiley.

search, 20,71-109.

chology, 17,317-338.

10, 183-201. Hagendoom, L., & Janssen, J. (1983). Rechtsomkeer [Turn right]. B a r n , the Netherlands: Ambo. Hart, D., & Killen, M. (1995). Introduction: Morality in everyday life. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.),

Morality in everyday life (pp. 1-20). Cambridge: University Press. Kohlberg, L. ( 1 958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10 to 16. Un-

published doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach. In T.

Lickona (Ed.). Moral development and behavior (pp. 3 1-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Markoulis, D. (1989). Political involvement and socio-moral reasoning: Testing Emler’s interpretation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28,203-21 2.

Meeus, W. (1988). Adolescent conservatism: A two-dimensional concept. In J. Hazekamp, W. Meeus, & Y. te Poel (Eds.), European contributions to youth research (pp. 102-1 17). Amsterdam: Free University Press.

Meeus, W., & ‘t Hart, H.(1993). Jongeren in Nederland [Youth in the Netherlands]. Amersfoort, the Netherlands: Acco.

Middendorp, C . P. (1979). Ontzuiling, politisering en restauratie in Nederland: de jaren 60 en 70 [De- confessionalization, politization and restauration in The Netherlands: The Sixties and the Seven- ties]. Meppel, the Netherlands: Boom.

Middendorp, C. P. (1 99 1). Ideology in Dutchpolitics: The democratic system reconsidered, 197e1985. Assen, the Netherlands: van Gorcum.

Raaijmakers, Q. (1993). Opvattingen over politiek en maatschappij [Beliefs on politics and society]. In W. Meeus, & H. ‘t Hart (Eds.), Jongeren in Nederland [Youth in the Netherlands] (pp. 106-132). Amersfoort, the Netherlands: Acco.

Raaijmakers, Q., Meeus, W., & Vollebergh, W. (1986). Politieke opvattingen bij LBO- en MAVO- scholieren [Political attitudes of low-educated adolescents]. In H. Dekker, S . A. Rozemond, & Th. J. IJzerman (Eds.), Politieke Socialisatie [Political socialization] (pp. 83-102). Culemborg, the Netherlands: Educaboek.

Raaijmakers, Q., van Hoof, J., ‘t Hart, H., Verbogt, T., & Vollebergh, W. (1998). Adolescents’midpoint responses: Neutral or missing values? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Raaijmakers, Q., Verbogt, T., & van Hoof, A. (1998, June). Detenninantsofpoliticalparrypreference in adolescence. Paper presented at the biannual conference of the European Association of Re- search on Adolescence, Budapest, Hungary.

Reicher, S., & Emler, N. P. (1984). Moral orientations as acue to political identity. Political Psychology, 5,543-551.

Rest, G. J. (1977). Votingpreference in the 1976presidential election and the influence ofmoral reason - ing. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Rest, J. R. (l979a). Revisedmanualfor the Defining Issues Test. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Rest, J. R. (1979b). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress. Rest, J. R. (1 986). Manual for the Dejning Issues Test. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center

for the Study of Ethical Development. Rest, J. R. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral develop-

ment in thepmfessions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 1-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values, New York: The Free Press.


Sparks, P., & Durkin, K. (1987). Moral reasoning and political orientation: The context sensitivity of individual rights and democratic principles. Journal of Personaliry and Social Psychology, 52, 931-936.

Thoma, S. J. (1993). The relationship between political preference and moral judgment development in late adolescence. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 39, 359-374.

Van der Avort, A. ( 1 988). Vrijzinnigheid in relaries, hedendaagse attitudes in de primaire levenssfeer [Freedom in relations, recent attitudes on primary relationships]. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: ITS.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1980). Morulitdr und politisches Bewusstsein [Morality and political conscience]. Weinheim, Basel, Germany: Beltz.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1989). Moral judgment, authoritarianism, and ethnocentrism. Journal of Social Psychology, 129,3745.

Vollebergh, W., Raaijmakers, Q., & Meeus. W. (1995). Traditionele opvattingen en rechtsextremisme [Traditional beliefs and extremism of the Right]. Jeugd en Sumenleving [Youth and Society], 25,

Walker, L. J. (1984). Sex differences in the development of moral reasoning: Acritical review. ChildDe- veloprnent, 55,677-69 1.

Weinreich-Haste, H. ( I 984). Politische. moralische und soziale Urteilsbildung [Political, moral and social reasoning]. In A. Regenhogen (Ed.), Moral und Politik - soziales Bewusstsein uls Lernpro - zess [Morality and Politics-Social conscience as learning process] (pp. 77-96). Cologne, Germany: Pahl-Rugenstein Verlag.

Weinreich-Haste, H. (1986). Kohlberg’s contribution to political psychology: A positive view. In S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg; Consensus and controversy (pp. 337-361). Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

( V2), 3-2 1.

QUINTEN RAAIJMAKERS completed his Ph.D. at Utrecht University, the Neth- erlands, where he is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Child and Adolescent Studies. His research interests are cognitive, moral, and political development of adolescents and young adults.

TOM VERBOGT studied at Catholic University of Nijmegen, and is completing his Ph.D. at Utrecht University. His research interests are moral and political development.

WILMA VOLLEBERGH completed her Ph.D. at Utrecht University. She is currently the coordinator of a research program on education and the development of adolescents in different ethnic groups. Her research interests include the etiology of psychopathology, cultural orientations, identity development, and psychosocial problems in adolescents.

moral reasoning and political beliefs of dutch adolescents and young adults

Documents