http://gcq.sagepub.comGifted Child Quarterly DOI: 10.1177/0016986208321806 2008; 52; 340Gifted Child QuarterlyW. Pitt Derryberry and Brian Barger Do Contributors to Intellect Explain the Moral Judgment Abilities of Gifted Youth?http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/52/4/340The online version of this article can be found at:Published by:http://www.sagepublications.comOn behalf of:National Association for Gifted Childrencan be found at: Gifted Child QuarterlyAdditional services and information for http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:http://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/52/4/340 Citations by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009http://gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from 340Gifted Child QuarterlyVolume 52 Number 4Fall 2008 340-352 2008 National Association forGifted Children10.1177/0016986208321806http://gcq.sagepub.comhosted athttp://online.sagepub.comDo Contributors to Intellect Explainthe Moral Judgment Abilities ofGifted Youth?W. Pitt DerryberryWestern Kentucky UniversityBrian BargerElise Middle SchoolAbstract: Toassessreactiontimeandattributionalcomplexityasfactorscontributingtotherelativelyhighmoraljudgment of gifted youth, a sample of 30 gifted youth and 30 college students responded to a computerized measureof moral judgment development, which also indexed reaction time. Additionally, participants completed a measure-ment of attributional complexity and reported American College Test (ACT) scores. Statistically significant differ-encesfavoredthegiftedinmoraljudgmentdevelopment, reactiontime, andattributionalcomplexity.Regressionanalysis revealed that attributional complexity explained a significant amount of variance, whereas ACT scores andreaction times accounted for minimal variance. Although reaction time did not predict moral judgment developmen-tal difference, discussion is offered to suggest how gifted youth, such as those in this study, might benefit from usingtheir reaction time when considering moral situations.AccordingtotheNationalAssociationforGiftedChildren (http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx? id=574),thereareahandfuloffoundationaldefinitionsthatmaybecategorizedfromconservative(relatedtodemonstratedhighIQ)toliberal(abroadenedcon-ception that includes multiple criteria that might notbe measured through an IQ test; para. 3). Research onyouthwhowouldbeconsideredgiftedaccordingtotheconservativedefinition1hasproduceddatasup-portingdifferencesacrossavarietyofabilitiesfromtheaveragechild.Inadditiontodocumentingmoreadvancedintellectualandcreativeabilities, forexample, research on gifted youth as defined by con-servativeconsiderationshasdemonstratedhigherscoresoncertaincognitivedevelopmentalmeasuresAuthors Note: PleaseaddresscorrespondencetoW.PittDerryberry, DepartmentofPsychology, WesternKentuckyUniversity, 1906 College Heights Blvd. # 21030, Bowling Green,KY 42101-1030; e-mail: pitt.derryberry@wku.edu.Note: ThisarticlewasacceptedundertheeditorshipofPaulaOlszewski-Kubilius.Putting the Research to Use: The results of this study support the view that complex information processingand reaction time abilities of gifted youth are transferred to their moral judgment development. In sum, in com-parison with a control group of college students, the gifted youth considered in this study appeared to processreasonsformoraldecisionsinamorein-depthmannerandwereabletodosoinamoreefficientmanner.Currently, it is unknown why and how this occurs, whether obstacles exist that could block this process, andwhether practices exist that could help to facilitate these areas. Applications of these findings should thereforeexpound on these issues so that the utility of research on gifted moral judgment ability is increased. Appliedresearch should also focus on transferring this understanding to general populations in the hopes of affectingthe understanding of moral judgment development overall.Keywords: middle school; age/developmental stage; high school; college or adult by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009http://gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from Derryberry, Barger / Moral Judgment of Gifted Youth 341(Steiner & Carr, 2003). It is not surprising, then, thatmoraljudgmentdevelopmentalresearchhasshownsimilardifferencesfavoringgiftedpopulationsbecausemoraljudgmentdevelopmentisfacilitatedby cognitive development (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987;Gibbs, 1995; Walker, 1980).Accordingtotheneo-KohlbergianapproachofRest, Narvaez, Bebeau, andThoma(1999), moraljudgmentdevelopmentatthelowestlevelisatthepersonalinterestschemawherejudgmentsareone-dimensionalandfocusedonself-servinginterests. Atthe next level, moral judgments are made according tothemaintainingnormsschemainwhichmoraljudg-mentsarebasedonnorms, rules, andlaws.Finally,moral judgment development peaks at the postconven-tionalschema.Here, moraljudgmentsaredefinedbyidentified universal moral principles of justice and fair-nessasaresultofobjectivereflection, deliberativeinquiry, reasoning, and problem solving. Gifted youth,conservativelydefined, haveconsistentlyshownstrengths in their moral judgment development relativetotheirpeers(Chovan&Freeman, 1993;Foulkes,2000; Howard-Hamilton, 1994; Narvaez, 1993; Tirri &Pehkonen, 2002). There is some support that the moraljudgmentdevelopmentofsuchpopulationsofgiftedyouth can even exceed those who are more advancedinageandeducation(Derryberry, Wilson, Snyder,Norman, &Barger, 2005).Specifically, Derryberryet al. (2005) found that high-ability gifted youth weretransitioningfromthemaintainingnormsschematothe postconventional schema, whereas college studentsweretransitioningfromthepersonalinteresttothemaintaining norms schema.Althoughhigh-ability(theconservativelydefinedgiftedyouth)populationsweremoreadvancedonmoraljudgmentdevelopmentalassessments, weareuncertain how these advances translate to instances ofmoral decision making and behavior. Indeed, this is alimitation of research that focuses on moral reasoningandjudgment(Blasi, 1980;Kurtines&Greif, 1974).For example, research illustrates that moral exemplar-ity often has less to do with moral reasoning and moreto do with constructs pertaining to self-understanding(Colby & Damon, 1992; Hart & Fegley, 1995; Monroe&Epperson, 1994).Tobesure, theadvancementofmoraldevelopmentaltheoryhasaccountedforthis.Specifically, Rest et al. (1999) acknowledge that moraljudgmentisbutoneofatleastfourcomponentsthatarefundamentaltomoraldevelopmentandbehavior,and the neo-Kohlbergian approach of Rest et al. (1999)readilyacknowledgesthatmoraljudgmentdevelop-ment does not represent moral development in totality.Eventhoughmoraljudgmentdevelopmentisnotsynonymouswithmoraldevelopmentandbehavioranddefinitionsofmoraldevelopmentcontinuetobecomemorediversified, evidenceexiststhatmoraljudgment and reasoning are linked to moral action andbehavior(Thoma, Rest, &Davison, 1991).Recently,DerryberryandThoma(2005a, 2005b)providedempirical illustration of how moral judgment develop-mentcontributestoimportantmoralbehavioralout-comes, including honesty, altruism, and taking a standfor civil liberties. Additionally, support remains strongthat the consideration of moral judgment developmentis an important aspect and direction for moral develop-mental research (Walker, 2002). In particular, Tirri andPehkonen(2002)providedinstancesillustratinghowtheneo-Kohlbergianapproachtomoraljudgmentdevelopment in a high-ability gifted youth sample canrelate to logical and elegant (p. 127) reasoning on ascientific argumentation task.Furtherinvestigationintothemoraljudgmentdevelopmentofhigh-abilityyouthisimportanttoenablebetterunderstandingofbothmoraljudgmentdevelopmentandhigh-abilitygiftedyouth. Althoughresearchsuggeststhatadvancesinmoraljudgmentdevelopmentaretheproductofadvancedintellect(Sanders, Lubinski, &Benbow, 1995), definitiveexplanationsofwhyhigh-abilityyoutharesoadvancedrelativetotheirpeersaswellasothersintermsoftheirmoraljudgmentabilityhavenotbeenprovided.Sandersetal.(1995)exploredhowscoreson the Defining Issues Test (DIT), a popular objectivemeasurementofmoraljudgmentdevelopment(seeRestetal., 1999), relatedtogroupsofcognitiveandnoncognitivevariables.Sandersetal.(1995)usedAmerican College Test (ACT) or Scholastic AptitudeTest(SAT)scores, gradepointaverage(GPA), andRavens Progressive Matrix scores to define their cog-nitivegroupofvariables.ScoresontheFamilyEnvironmentScale, AdjectiveChecklist, StudyofValuesScale, andademographicsquestionnairerep-resented noncognitive variables. Once cognitive vari-ableswereenteredinaregressionmodel, Sanderset al. (1995) found that the DIT did not account for astatistically significant portion of noncognitive groupvariance. Thus, Sanders et al. (1995) argued that DITscoreswerereducibleto, orsynonymouswith, intel-lect. Given these findings, it might be tempting to pre-sumethatmoraljudgmentdevelopmentaladvancesseenamonggiftedyoutharetheproductoftheiradvancedintellectualandcreativecapacities.TherehasbeenlittlesupportfortheargumentsofSanderset al. (1995), prior and subsequenttotheir study. In by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009http://gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from 342 Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 4general, research addressing the relationship betweenmoraljudgmentdevelopmentandintellectsupportsthat intellect is a necessary but not a sufficient condi-tion for moral judgment development. As Rest (1979)originallynotedindevelopingtheDIT, moraljudg-ment development is a cognitive intellectual process.CitingcorrelationsbetweenDITscoresandvariousintellectual assessments that ranged from .25 to .50 assupportandotherDITvaliditycriteria(seeRest,1979;Restetal., 1999), RestmaintainedthatDITscoresanditsindexedconstructinvolveintellectualability, although additional sources of information areneededtofacilitateadvancedmoraljudgmentdevel-opment.Subsequentresearchhas, therefore, focusedondemonstratingtheroleofintellectinadvancedmoraljudgmentdevelopment.Forexample, Thoma,Narvaez, Rest, and Derryberry (1999) illustrated thatrelationships remained among moral judgment devel-opmentalindicesandrelevantcriteria, evenafteraspectsofintellectualabilitywerecontrolled.Theyfurtherdistinguishedtheuniquenessofmoraljudg-mentasameasurableconstructinastructuralequa-tion model that verified the independent existence andcontributionsofconstructsofmoraljudgmentandverbal intellectual ability on a criterion of social polit-icalideology(Thoma, Derryberry, Narvaez, &Rest,2000). Derryberry, Thoma, Narvaez, and Rest (2000)replicated the findings of Thoma et al. (2000) and fur-thernotedthatthesetrendscontinuedduringmoraljudgment developmental phases of consolidation andtransition.Derryberry, Jones, Grieve, andBarger(2007) relied on structural equation modeling to doc-ument the relationship among moral judgment devel-opmentasdefinedbytheDITandindicesofcrystallized and fluid intellect. In addition to support-ing the existence of three unique psychological latentconstructs, Derryberryetal.(2007)foundalargeamountofunexplainedvarianceremaininginpathsfrom the crystallized and fluid latent constructs to themoraljudgmentlatentconstruct.Researchinvolvingthe moral judgment development of gifted youth alsosupportsthesefindings.Narvaez(1993)notedthathigh ability is a necessary but not a sufficient ingredi-entfortheadvancedmoraljudgmentabilityseeningiftedpopulations.Similarly, TirriandPehkonen(2002) observed that there are qualitative differencesinthemoralreasoningofgiftedadolescents.Highintellectual ability does not predict mature moral judg-ment (p. 127).Given the disparate findings of Sanders et al. (1995)and others (e.g., Rest, 1979; Thoma et al., 1999, 2000;Derryberryetal., 2000, 2007), researchers ofthemoral judgment development of gifted youth are pre-sented with a perplexing problem. Though advancedmoral judgment is documented in the sparse researchthathasexaminedthegiftedaccordingtoconserva-tivedefinitionsinthisarea(Chovan&Freeman,1993;Derryberryetal., 2005;Foulkes, 2000;Howard-Hamilton, 1994;Narvaez, 1993;Tirri&Pehknonen, 2002), definitive explanations about whytheyareadvancedrelativetotheirpeersinthisdomainhavenotbeenprovided.Researchconsider-ing the relationship among indices of moral judgmentdevelopmentandintellectualabilityingeneraldoesnot instill the confidence needed to presume that theadvancedintellectualcapacitiesofconservativelydefined gifted youth are sufficient to account for theirmoral judgment development. Thus, the question, Ifmoraljudgmentdevelopmentisnotreducibletoorsynonymous with intellect, then why is it that those ofadvancedintellect(definedasgiftedaccordingtoconservative definitions) are regularly outperformingothers where this construct is concerned?Numerous conditions and rationales that go beyondintellectualabilityandaptitudehavebeenofferedforadvanced moral judgment development of high-abilitylearners(seeRest, Deemer, Barnett, Spickemier, &Volker, 1986). Factors such as academic orientations,motivations, interests, and social conditions of giftedyouthareidentifiedasinstrumentalcontributorstomoraljudgmentdevelopment.However, asalreadynoted, moraljudgmentdevelopmentisacognitiveintellectualprocess(Rest, 1979).Itshouldbeexpected, then, that factors serving intellectual abilityalsoservemoraljudgmentdevelopment.Hence,effortstoaddresstheroleofintellectualabilityinmoral judgment development are still needed. Ratherthan attempting to reduce indices of moral judgmentdevelopment to indices of intellectual ability, a moreappropriate approach is one that seeks to account forthe shared variance or commonality of these two con-structs.Inotherwords, itseemsthattheaforemen-tionedquestioncannotbefullyanswereduntilthefollowing question is answered: What is it that intel-lectual ability and moral judgment development havein common?Noted Contributors to Intellect andTheir Potential Contributions to MoralJudgment DevelopmentA great deal of research has been devoted to iden-tifyingandunderstandingthoseprocessesthatserveandfostergeneralintellectualabilityorg.Two by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009http://gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from Derryberry, Barger / Moral Judgment of Gifted Youth 343importantareasidentifiedaspertainingtointelli-genceincludereactionorresponsetime(RT;Deary,2000;Jensen, 2005)andcomplexinformationpro-cessing(CIP;Lohman, 2000;Sternberg, 1982).RTrefers to mental speed or the speed at which humansprocessinformationandisindexedthroughvariousindicesofmentalchronometry(seeJensen, 2005)thatrecordhowquicklypeoplerespondtochoices,items, orothertasks.CIPreferstovariousmentaltasksthatrequirecomprehension, judgment, andreasoning (Lohman, 2000, p. 288), such as inductivereasoning, deductive reasoning, and problem solving(Sternberg, 1982).Contributions of RT. The study of RT dates back toGalton, whohypothesizedthatmentalspeedisamajoraspectofgeneralintelligence (Jensen, 2005,p. 26). As Jensen notes, RT can be a highly precise,reliable, andsensitivemeasureofindividualdiffer-ences (p.26).JensenreportscorrelationsbetweenRT and intelligence quotients (IQ) ranging from .10to .50, and that a curvilinear relationship exists withsmaller correlations between IQ and simple and diffi-cult RT tasks and higher correlations with IQ-moder-ateRTtasks.Studiesinvolvinggiftedyouthand/orotherhigh-abilitylearnersconfirmthatRTisinvolvedintheirintellectualfunctioning(Beh,Roberts, &Prichard-Levy, 1994;Cohn, Carlson, &Jensen, 1985; Lajoie & Shore, 1986; Yun, Shi, Tang,&Liu, 2004).Thesestudiessupporttheconclusionthat RT is an important contributor to IQ (Beh et al.,1994;Lajoie&Shore, 1986)andalsoprovideevi-dencethathigh-abilitygiftedyouthrespondtovari-ous mental tasks and assignments more quickly thantheir peers (Cohn et al., 1985; Yun et al., 2004).AlthoughthecontributionofRTtointelligencemayseemnebulous, Jensen(2005)explaineditsimportanceinnotingthatfasterRTallowsmoreoperationstobeperformedontheinputperunitoftime, therebyincreasingthechancesofreachingasuccessful response before the point of overload andbreakdownduetolossofinformation (p.45).Inaddressing differences among those who are at moraljudgment phases of consolidation and those who areatmoraljudgmentphasesoftransition, Derryberryand Thoma (2005b) reported that consolidated phasescanfacilitatethedecisiontoacthonestlywhenanattractivealternativeforbehavingdishonestlyexistsin conjunction with minimal time for figuring out theproper course of action. According to Derryberry andThoma(2005b), thisindicatestheimportanceofbeing able to react or respond to information quicklyalongwiththeutilityofthemoraljudgmentschemaforindividualsinconsolidatedphases.Becauseofthese conditions, consolidated individualsregardlessoftheirdevelopmentalmoraljudgmentschemawere able to respond more quickly in determining theproper course of action.OthermoraljudgmentdevelopmentalresearchhasalsoaddressedtheroleofRT.Thoma, Narvaez,Endicott, andDerryberry(2002)notedthatconsoli-dated and transitional phases of moral judgment devel-opmentaffecthowquicklyoneconsidersschema-relevantandirrelevantinformation.Thosewhowerenoted to be in consolidated phases of moral judgmentdevelopmentwereobservedtotakemoretimeinresponding to items on the DIT overall than those thatweretransitionalbetweenmoraljudgmentschemata.Atthesametime, though, when Thomaetal.(2002)accountedforanindividualsmodalmoraljudgmentschema, theyfoundthatconsolidatedindividualsrespondedtoDITitemsthatreflectedtheirmodalschema more quickly than did transitional individuals.Thus, Thoma et al. found support that individuals morequickly react to schema-related moral judgment infor-mation at certain phases of development.Contributions of CIP. CIP has been recognized asanimportantcontributorinavarietyofconsidera-tionsofintellectualfunctioning.AccordingtoLohman(2000), theimportanceofthisaspectofinformation processing as a fundamental contributortointellectdatestotheworkofBinetandSimon(1916).CIPappearstobeacknowledgedbyPiaget(1963) in his description of intellectual developmentas following a progressing sequence of thought fromsimple to complex. According to this conception, CIPtaskssuchasinductiveanddeductivereasoningandproblem solving are prerequisites for the organizationand adaptation of formal operational thought. CIP isalso recognized in other accounts relevant to intellec-tualfunctioning.Forexample, CraikandLockharts(1972) levels of processing theory describe the intel-lectualcontributionofCIPwithitscontentionthatinformation that is mentally addressed more deeplythroughanalysis, connection, andotherformsofelaboration is most likely to be retained and deemedrelevant. In addressing CIP tasks including reasoningand problem solving, Sternberg (1982) declared theirintellectual contributions in stating that There seemsto be little doubt that reasoning and problem solvingplayimportantrolesinconceptionsofintelligence,almost without regard to the derivation of these con-ceptions: Theserolesareimportantassubsetsof by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009http://gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from 344 Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 4intelligentbehavior (p.226).Indeed, itisplausiblethat the ability and desire to engage in CIP ultimatelydistinguishestheintellectualcapacitiesofhigh-abilitygiftedyouthandnourishestheirtalentsandcreative capacities.In distinguishing CIP from simple forms of infor-mation processing (see Deary, 2000), Lohman (2000)summarizedSnow, Kyllonen, andMarshalek(1984)in noting four chief criteria includinga) an increase in the number of component processesinvolvedintaskperformance;b)anincreaseintheinvolvementofoneormoreparticularcomponents(suchasinference);c)anincreaseindemandsonworking memory or attentional resources; and d) anincrease in demands on adaptive functions, includingexecutive or metacognitive controls. (p. 301)In examining these criteria, the involvement of CIPis apparent in making a moral judgmentparticularlymoraljudgmentsfromthepostconventionalschema.AccordingtoRestetal.(1999), moraljudgmentdevelopment reflects a process where thinking aboutmoralsituationsisoriginallyverysimplisticatthepersonal interest and maintaining norms schemata butultimately requires the kind of tasks involved in CIPat the postconventional schema. Whereas moral judg-mentsaccordingtothefirsttwoschematasimplyrequireretrievalofself-orother-basedabsolutes,moraljudgmentsfromthepostconventionalschemarequirethattheimpendingjudgmenthasbeenrea-soned on with enough depth so that all aspects and allpartiespertainingtothesituationareobjectivelyreviewed.Essentially, makingapostconventionalmoraljudgmentrequirestheindividualtoengageinmoralmusicalchairs...(and)...reversibleroletaking (Kohlberg, 1987, p.35)andvariousotherdeliberations.Giventhenumerousconsiderationsinvolvedandprocesses(i.e., inductivereasoning,problem solving, etc.) operating in this kind of task,allfourofthecriteriaforCIPundoubtedlyoccurwhen a postconventional moral judgment is made.Arecentstudyofgiftedyouthfoundthatotherindices likely involving CIP predict their moral judg-mentdevelopment.Specifically, Derryberryetal.(2005)notedtheimportanceofattributionalcom-plexity, which refers to the depth of thinking one usesin regard to the explication of the behavior of others(Fletcher, Danilovics, Fernandez, Peterson, & Reeder,1986). AccordingtoFolletandHess(2002), attribu-tionalcomplexityisausefulreferentofcognitivecomplexitybecauseitreferstothedegreetowhichone considers, for example, multiple determinants andcausal explanations for behavior (p. 313). Given thischaracterization, it is warranted to presume that attri-butional complexity involves CIP. In a stepwise hier-archicallinearregressionmodel, Derryberryetal.(2005) found that most important in the prediction ofthe moral judgment development of the gifted was anaspectofattributionalcomplexitythatdescribesapersons preference for complex over simple explana-tionsinexplainingthebehaviorofselfandothers.AccordingtoDerryberryetal., theirfindingsontheimportance of attributionally complex thinking eluci-datethepossibilitythatitisthemannerinwhichintellect is used that is important for the advancementof moral judgment development.Purpose of the Current StudyThe reasons for the early advances in moral judg-ment development that are observed in high-ability orconservativelydefinedgiftedyouthpopulationsarenotwellunderstood.InconsideringRTandCIP, itmakes sense that groups like high-ability gifted youththat are likely proficient in both might effectively usethese abilities in other areas such as moral judgmentdevelopment. This is especially likely because moraljudgmentdevelopmentisregardedasacognitiveintellectual process (Rest, 1979) and is related to, butnotreducibleto, intelligence.Hence, theneedforastudyaddressingthecontributionsofRTandcon-structs involving CIP to the moral judgment develop-mentofhigh-abilitygiftedyouthiswarranted.Although it makes sense that attributionally complexthinking about the behavior of others would be bene-ficial in facilitating moral judgment development, it isunlikelythatattributionalcomplexityisthesolerea-son for the early advancement of moral thought struc-tures among high-ability gifted youth. As Derryberryetal.(2005)acknowledged, thiscontributiononlyaccountedfor4%ofthevarianceinmoralthoughtdevelopmentand, therefore, otherrelevantpredictorsneedtobeconsideredinunderstandingthemoraljudgment development of high-ability gifted youth.Givenitsnotedcontributionstointellectualfunctioning, ingeneral, andgiftedpopulations,RTparticularlywheremoralinformationiscon-cernedmightalsocontributetomoraljudgmentdevelopment. Furthermore, becausemoraljudgmentdevelopment has been shown to relate to RT (Thomaet al., 2002), it may be that the speed at which one canreacttoasituationbecomesanimportantfacetinensuringthatattributionallycomplexthinkingis by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009http://gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from Derryberry, Barger / Moral Judgment of Gifted Youth 345capitalizedonandnotlostbecauseofoverloadandbreakdown(seeJensen, 2005)inworkingmemory.For example, if a person is able to react to moral sit-uations quickly while also processing the situation inan attributionally complex manner, then it seems thatthe likelihood is increased that he or she will be ableto effectively consider a variety of possible alternativesregardingapotentialcourseofaction. Theendresultwouldthereforebemoreopportunitiesfordisequilib-rium about the morality of the situation, and the poten-tial for moral judgment growth would be heightened.The purpose of this study, then, is to compare themoraljudgmentdevelopmentandintellectualabilityofagroupofhigh-abilityorconservativelydefinedgifted youth with a group of college students. Similarto Derryberry et al. (2005), this study will also addresswhether there are differences in attributional complex-itybetweenthetwogroups, becauseattributionalcomplexityappearstoinvolveCIP. Additionally, thisstudy will address whether differences exist betweenthetwogroupsintheirmoralinformationRT.Comparisonsofhigh-abilitygiftedyouthwiththosewhomaybelessadvancedintermsofintellectualability yet more advanced in age and socioacademicexperiences (Derryberryetal., 2005, p.11)areadvantageousbecausesuchcomparisonsconsiderthosewhoaremorelikelytobesimilarintermsoftheirmoraljudgmentdevelopmentaswellasotherareasrelatedtomoraljudgmentdevelopment.Furthermore, such comparisons are of utility becauseanyadvancesthatmightbeobservedinthehigh-abilitygiftedyouthsamplewouldenableaclearerunderstandingandconfirmationofthedegreetowhichtheyareadvanced.Afterthesecomparisonshave been conducted, this study will merge both sam-plesandconductlinearregressiontodeterminewhether advances in RT and attributional complexityincreasethelikelihoodofadvancedmoraljudgmentonce intellectual ability has been entered.MethodParticipantsParticipants for this study included 30 gifted youthand30collegestudents.Giftedyouthparticipantswere enrolled in a summer program for gifted youthconductedataregionaluniversityintheSoutheast.This program serves students in Grades 7 through 10who have earned a minimum score of 18 on the ACTmath subtest and 25 on the ACT English subtest oraminimumscoreof500onSATmathandverbalsubtests. Thegiftedsampleincluded19females, 10males, and1participantwhodidnotprovideinfor-mationregardinggender.Amongthosethatvolun-teeredinformationregardingethnicity, 22classifiedthemselvesasWhite, 2asAsian, 1asBlack, 1asHispanic, and3asOther.Participantsrangedinagefrom12to16years.Thecollegestudentsampleattended a large regional university in the Southeast.Theseparticipantswererecruitedfrompsychologyclasses via the psychology departments study boardand they received extra credit in their courses for par-ticipating in the study. Students were eligible to par-ticipateinthestudyregardlessof ACTscore, GPA,age, class year, intellectual ability, or traditional ver-susnontraditionalcollegestudentstatus.Thisapproachisfavorabletorestrictingtheparticipationof those possessing certain demographic characteris-ticsbecauseitincreasesthelikelihoodthatthesam-pleobtainedisrepresentativeoftheundergraduatepopulationitrepresents.Nineteencollege-levelpar-ticipants were females and 11 were males. A total of18werefreshmen, 7weresophomores, 2werejuniors, and 3 were seniors. In terms of ethnicity, 11classifiedthemselvesas White, 1as Asian, and1asBlack. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 27 years.InstrumentsMoraljudgment.TheDIT-2(Rest, Thoma,Narvaez, & Bebeau, 1997) was used to assess moraljudgmentdevelopment.OntheDIT-2, respondentsread five different short scenarios in which a charac-terfacesamoraldilemma, provideanactionchoiceindicating what the character should do, then rate 12itemsreflectingthepostconventional, maintainingnorms, or personal interest moral judgment schematain terms of their importance in the participants deci-sion. To ensure individuals are not haphazardly ratingeachitem, theDIT-2alsoincludesseveralmeaning-lessitemsaswellasitemsthatpertaintoantiestab-lishment attitudes among the 12 associated with eachdilemma. Afterratingeachofthe12items, respon-dents rank the four items that were most important tothem in making their decisions. To ascertain develop-mentaldifferencesbetweengroups, participants N2scores, which assess the degree to which the partici-pantemphasizespostconventionalitemsoverotheritems in making moral judgments (Rest et al., 1997),are calculated. N2 scores range from 0 to 95. High N2scores are indicative of those that not only emphasizeitemspertainingtothepostconventionalschemaintheirratingandrankingsbutalsominimizethe by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009http://gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from 346 Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 4importanceofitemspertainingtothemaintainingnorms and personal interest schemata.DIT-2Typescoresarealsousedinthecurrentstudy. Inclusion of the Type score enables more pre-cisionindocumentingmoraljudgmentdevelopmentthan the N2 score. Type scores are categorical indicesthatrefertopositioningataparticularmoraljudg-mentschemaandindicatemoraljudgmentdevelop-mental phase criteria. If a person primarily referencesDIT items pertaining to one moral judgment schemarelative to others, he or she is considered in a consol-idatedphaseofmoraljudgmentdevelopment.IfapersondoesnotstronglyemphasizeDITitemsbelonging to a particular moral judgment schema rel-ativetootherschemata, heorsheisconsideredinatransitionalphaseofmoraljudgmentdevelopment.Typescoresrangefrom 1to7.Type1reflectsapersonconsolidatedatthepersonalinterestschema.AtType2, thepersonalinterestschemaremainsmodal though the individual is beginning to transitiontowardsthemaintainingnormsschema.Type3alsodesignates a transitional phase, although a modal shifthas occurred favoring the maintaining norms schema.Type4indicatesconsolidationatthemaintainingnormsschema.Type5revealsthattransitionawayfromthemaintainingnormsschemathoughthisschema remains modal. Type 6 is a transitional phasewhere a modal shift from the maintaining norms to thepostconventionalschemahasoccurred.Type7indi-cates consolidation at the postconventional schema.InternalconsistencyoftheDIT-2inthecurrentstudy was assessed using Cronbachs alpha computedat the item level for each schema (e.g., considerationof the consistency across DIT rating items specific toparticularmoraljudgmentschema), asCrowson,DeBacker, Derryberry, andThoma(2005)recom-mended. Internal consistency is acceptable ( = .716forthepostconventionalschema, .733forthemain-tainingnormsschema, and.757forthepersonalinterestschema).AnalysisofDIT-2scoresonlyincludesthosewithacceptablelevelsofreliability(see Rest et al., 1999).Reaction time (RT). RT indices were measured bypresentingtheDIT-2viaInquisit1.33software(Inquisit1.33, 2003).Responsetimesforallitemsarereportedinmilliseconds.ResponsetimeindicesusedinthisstudyincludetheaverageRTonallaction and rating choice items (AVErt), action choiceitems(ACrt), postconventionalitems(PCrt), main-tainingnormsorconventionallevelitems(MNrt),personalinterestorpreconventionalitems(PIrt),meaningless items (MGLSrt), and antiestablishmentitems (AErt).Inevaluatingtheinternalconsistencyfortheseindices, reportedRTforeachitemcomprisingeachindex were compared. Internal consistency is low forthe ACrt( = .367), the5RTscomprisingMGLSrt( = .148), and the 4 RTs comprising AErt ( =.373);good for the 65 RTs comprising AVErt ( = .886), forthe 14 RTs comprising PCrt ( = .801), and for the 20RTscomprisingPIrt( = .846);andacceptableforthe 17 RTs for MNrt ( = .736). Although CronbachsalphaindiceswerefoundforACrt, MGLSrt, andAErt, it is important to note that few items comprisethese items making it difficult to achieve high levelsof internal consistency. Although these indices will benoted in the study, any trends observed will be treatedwith caution.Attributionalcomplexity.TheAttributionalComplexityScale(ACS;Fletcheretal., 1986)wasused in making inferences about an individuals CIP.The ACS is a 28-item 7-point scale designed to assessparticipants complexityofthoughtinexplaininghumanbehavior.TheACShasbeensuccessfullyemployedinpreviousstudiesasaninferenceofaspectspertainingtocomplexthought(Derryberryet al., 2005; Follett & Hess, 2002). Examples of ACSitemsincludeIdontusuallybothertoanalyzeorexplainpeoplesbehavior, IthinkalotabouttheinfluenceIhaveonotherpeoplesbehavior, andIhavefoundthatthecausesforpeoplesbehaviorareusually complex rather than simple. The ACS yieldsa composite ACS score (ACScomp) that ranges from0 to 84. The ACS can be indexed into seven differ-ent subscales; however, low internal consistency wasfoundforsomeofthesesubscales.Thus, onlyACScomp scores are considered in the current studywhere = .862.Intellectualability. TheACTachievementtestistypicallyusedtoassessthelevelofcompetenceastudent should have for successful completion of col-lege-levelwork.Assuch, itisconsideredtobeanassessmentofachievementthanofintellect.Atthesametime, itsscoresareinferentialofintellectualability, andvariouscomparisonsofmoraljudgmentandintellectualabilityhavereferencedthesescoresindeducinginformationregardinggeneralintellec-tualability(Derryberryetal., 2000;Rest, 1979;Sanders et al., 1995; Thoma et al., 2000). Hence, ACTscores are considered an inferential reflection of intel-lectual ability in the current study so that differences by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009http://gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from Derryberry, Barger / Moral Judgment of Gifted Youth 347betweengroupscaneffectivelybeconsidered. ACTscoreswereobtainedthroughuniversityrecordsviapermissionfromparticipants.Inthecurrentstudy,only ACT composite scores were considered because11giftedyouthparticipantshadnottakenthe ACT(they had taken the SAT). SAT composite scores wereconvertedintoACTcompositeequivalentscoresaccordingtoconcordancetablespublishedthroughCollege Board (see Dorans, 1999). Four gifted youthparticipantswhohadnotcompletedeithertestwerenot considered in analyses involving ACT scores.ProceduresForbothgroups, datawerecollectedinasessionrangingfrom45minto1hr.Informedconsentorassentwasobtainedfrombothgroupsatthestartofthe session. Parental consent was granted and verifiedprior to the session for the gifted group. Those in thecollege student group were offered course extra creditfor their participation. All materials were coded witha participant number for confidentiality.ResultsDescriptive statistics for dependent variables can befound in Table 1. Table 2 documents moral judgmentdevelopmentintermsofmodalschemaandmoraljudgment phase as reflected in the frequency of DITTypescoresineachsample.Themajorityofthegifted youth samples were in consolidated phases ofmoraljudgmentdevelopment, whereasthemajorityofthecollegestudentsampleswereintransitionalphases of moral judgment development. Furthermore,Table 2 documents that the moral judgment develop-ment of most of the gifted youth sample was modal ateitherthemaintainingnormsorpostconventionalschema, whereas the moral judgment development ofthemajorityofthecollegeyouthsamplewasmodalat the maintaining norms schema.Analysesofvariance(ANOVA)wereconductedonDITN2, ACScomp, ACT, andAVErtscores.StatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweengroupswerereportedforN2: F(1, 58)= 23.629, p < .001,Table 1Descriptive StatisticsGifted Youth College StudentsM SD M SDACT 22.12 2.75 21.63 3.16DIT N2 39.07 12.87 24.52 10.16ACScomp 39.31 19.68 23.83 15.85AVErt 6590.05 1858.26 7421.87 1950.64ACrt 8666.29 6483.41 7014.84 4469.44PCrt 16035.53 7007.27 14640.38 9993.06MNrt 6203.79 1763.91 7131.09 1708.34PIrt 6237.31 1861.27 7254.44 1938.22MGLSrt 8106.27 4576.02 8068.33 3948.98AErt 6625.97 2539.36 8411.68 2690.34Note: ACT = American College Test; DIT N2 = Defining Issues Testversion 2; ACScomp = Attributional Complexity Scale comprehen-sive scores; AVErt = average reaction time; ACrt = average reaction time across action choices; PCrt = average reaction time across post-conventionalitems;MNrt= averagereactiontimeacrossmaintainingnormsitems;PIrt= averagereactiontimeacrosspersonalinterestitems; MGLSrt = average reaction time across meaningless items; AErt = average reaction time across antiestablishment items; M = mean;SD = standard deviation.Table 2DIT Type Score Frequency TableGifted Youth Sample College Student SamplePersonal interest Personal interestType 1 2 Type 1 1Type 2 2 Type 2 8Maintaining norms Maintaining normsType 3 4 Type 3 8Type 4 6 Type 4 5Type 5 3 Type 5 5Postconventional PostconventionalType 6 4 Type 6 3Type 7 9 Type 7 0Note: Types 1 and 2 = personal interest schema is mode; Types 3to 5 = maintaining norms schema is mode; Types 6 to 7 = postcon-ventionalschemaismode.Types1, 4, and7areconsolidatedphases; Types 2, 3, 5, and 6 are transitional phases. by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009http://gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from 348 Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 42= .29, d = 1.07, and ACScomp scores: F(1, 58) =11.101, p < .002, 2= .163, d = .80. No statisticallysignificant differences between groups for ACT com-positescoreswereseen.Amultivariateanalysisofvariance (MANOVA) was conducted to assess differ-ences between groups on the ACrt, PCrt, MNrt, PIrt,MGLSrt, and AErt RT indices. Four multivariate testsyielded statistical significance for RT-dependent vari-ables, F(6, 53) = 2.839, p < .018, 2= .24. Univariatetestsofstatisticalsignificancebetweengroupsweresignificant on three of these indices: MNrt, F(1, 58) =4.278, p < .05, 2= .07, d = .52; PIrt, F(1, 58) = 4.298,p < .05, 2= .07, d = .52; and AErt, F(1, 58) = 6.990,p < .05, 2= .11, d = .65.Linear regression analysis was used to assess howtheconsideredvariablespredictedmoraljudgmentdevelopmentalvarianceoverall(Table3).WithN2scoresasdependentvariable, threeblockswereenteredinwhichthecontributionsofACTscores,ACScomprehensivescores, andtheaverageoftheRT indices were noted. As Table 4 illustrates, only thesecond block, ACS scores, was noted to contribute toasignificantportionofN2variance.ACTscores(Block 1) and RT averages (Block 3) were shown toaccountforaminimalportionofN2variance.ThislackofcontributionfromtheRTaveragesisnottheproduct of shared variance with ACT and ACS scores.Asthecorrelationmatrixillustratedin Table3veri-fies, RT averages were negligibly related to these twovariables.DiscussionGiventhestrongeffectsize(2= .29, d = 1.07)observed for reported DIT N2 scores, there is supportthatthemoraljudgmentdevelopmentofthegiftedyouthsampleisdistinctlydifferentfromthecollegestudent sample. As higher N2 scores are indicative ofanincreasedemphasisoftheimportanceofDITitemspertainingtothepostconventionalschemainconjunction with a decreased emphasis of items per-taining to earlier schemata, the N2 scores reported forbothgroupssuggestakeymoraljudgmentdevelop-mentaldistinctioninthatthepostconventionalschemawasmorelikelytobeprioritizedinmakingmoral decisionsbythegiftedparticipantsthanitwasforthecollegesample.ThisisfurthersupportedinTable 2 which provides a breakdown of the participantsin each sample in terms of DIT Type scores. These find-ings confirm previous studies of advanced moral judg-mentdevelopmentofhigh-abilityorconservativelydefinedgiftedyouth(Chovan&Freeman, 1993;Derryberryetal., 2005;Foulkes, 2000;Howard-Hamilton, 1994;Narvaez, 1993;Tirri&Pehkonen,2002). An interesting aspect of these findings is thatthesemoraljudgmentdifferencesexisteventhoughACTscoredifferenceswerenotsignificant, refutingthose who contend that moral judgment developmentandintellectarereducibletoeachother(Sandersetal., 1995)andaffirmingassertionsthatsuchcon-structsareindependent(Derryberryetal., 2000,2007;Narvaez, 1993;Tirri&Pehkonen, 2002;Thoma et al., 1999; Thoma et al., 2000).Certain aspects relating to intellect can be involvedinfacilitatingthemoraljudgmentdevelopmentofhigh-abilitygiftedyouth, however.Forexample,Derryberry et al. (2005) suggested that processes thatunderlieandsupportintellectualabilitycouldstillplayarole, contributingtoourcontentionthatsuchTable 4Correlation MatrixN2 ACT ACScomp AVErtN2 1.00ACT .152 1.00ACScomp .552** .291* 1.00AVErt .051 .040 .088 1.00Note: N2 = Defining Issues Test (DIT) N2 scores; ACT = AmericanCollege Test; ACScomp = ACS Composite Score; AVErt = averagereaction time on DIT items.*Correlation is significant at the .05 level.**Correlation is significant at the .01 level.Table 3Summary of Linear Regression Analyses forVariables Predicting DIT N2 ScoresVariable B SE B t SignificanceBlock 1ACT .939 .638 .198 1.472 .147Block 2ACT .192 .572 .041 .337 .738ACScomp .405 .090 .541 4.484 .000Block 3ACT .167 .575 .035 .290 .773ACScomp .409 .091 .547 4.504 .000AVErt .001 .001 .087 .745 .459Note: ACT= AmericanCollegeTest, ACScomp= ACSCompositeScore, AVErt= averagereactiontimeonDITitems.R2= .039forBlock1(p < .147);R2= .268forBlock2(p