An instrument for assessing moral judgment was derived and used to study the effects of three different levels of peer group interaction on the moral judgments of 36 male and female eleventh-and twelfth-grade subjects. Discussion to consensus of issues of moral judgment produced greater increases on scores than did open-ended discussion or individual development of personal rationales (p < .OS). Additionally, both the consensus scores for the groups and the individual posttest scores of group members were found to exceed the individual pretest moral judgment levels (p < .OS in each case). Moreover, no differences were found between the group consensus and individual scores on posttest. Obtained results were discussed in terms of social conflict resolution as a mechanism for inducing higher levels of moral judgment.
Judges' use of case specific data in determining child custody arrangements was examined. Information collected on 60 contested initial disposition or disposition modification cases was used to model judicial decision-making. The sample was not representative of the full population of divorcing families in that it was disproportionately comprised of high conflict cases in which there were few unequivocally safe placement options.Our results indicated that judges generally followed the legal statutes, attended to the nature of family relationships, and did not rely on a general preference for one parent. Moreover, they demonstrated a strong reliance on the impressions and recommendations of Erik Sorensen, PhD, is on the staff,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.