Coordinated Reasoning and the “Written Response Effect”

Abstract
Social Domain Theory posits that individuals engage with distinct modes of thought when reasoning through issues involving harm, rights, justice and equality (Moral), issues involving societal obligations and social norms (Social Conventional), and issues that individuals feel are not legitimately restricted by others (Personal). Coordinated Reasoning is a central process in Social Domain Theory (Turiel, 2008) that individuals employ in order to resolve conflicting judgments across various domains of thought. In order to asses this, interview and free form written responses were collected from 170 individuals ranging from 1st grade to Freshman year of college to a set of questions that posed a conflict between judgments in different domains. Participant abilities and item difficulties were estimated using Partial Credit Modeling across both modes of assessment through linking cases that completed both assessments. Comparisons between the item difficulties across written and interview responses reveal a highly significant increased difficulty on all paper-based items, .733 logits per item, dubbed “The Written Response Effect”. The implication of these findings is the potential systematic underestimation of participant abilities due to mode of assessment.

Michael Creane is originally from Connecticut where he earned a Bachelors degree in Psychology from the University of Connecticut and a Masters of Arts in Teaching at Quinnipiac University. He is currently an 8th year doctoral student in Human Development and Education, working with advisors Elliot Turiel and Larry Nucci. His research focus is on how individuals conceptualize and judge deception, particularly across situations where equality or inequality may be promoted, as well as developmental changes in these judgments.

Date: 
Tuesday, November 5, 2019 - 2:00pm
Building: 
Berkeley Way West
Room: 
1215
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Presentation slides621.79 KB
PDF icon Handout259.73 KB