Desenvolvimento moral e empatia: medidas, correlatos e intervenções educacionais

Abstract

Kohlberg and Blatt have outlined a methodological practice in the field of Moral Education concerning the discussion of moral dilemmas enhancing moral development. Nevertheless, authors like M. Hoffman, criticized this proposal because they thought it overlooked affecitive aspects related to morality. In response to this criticism, this thesis aims at studying if there are differences between the effects of a rational-discursive intervention techinque and a rational-affective one. Three studies were carried out for this effect. The first of these was aimed at devising and testing the adequacy of tools to assess moral reasoning and empathy. 200 students participated in it and they responded to the tools Real Life Dilemmas and Empathy Scale focused on Groups 18 items (EEG-18). As far as Real Life Dilemmas are concerned, results indicated that the tools proposed managed to identify different stages of moral development. As regards EEG-18 results indicated that the scale could discriminate different levels of empathy and presented a multifactorial structure with an average Alfa of 0,68. The second study aimed at remaking and validating the Empathy Scale focused on Groups, as well as validating the Real Life Dilemma tools. 206 high-school students participated in this and responded to the Real Life Dilemma and to EEG-27 (a revised version), as well as two further tools which have been validated in Brazil the Defining Issues Test (DIT) and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI), aiming at reaching a converging validity. Regarding EEG-27, the results of the analysis of major components identified four factors, with an average Alfa of ,73. A subsequent factorial analysis with a second sample revealed psychometric indexes acceptable for the tetrafactorial model. Regarding Real Life Dilemmas, the results indicated the predominance of typical answers to the first stages of moral development. Regarding the converging validity, significant correlations between the tools created and those validated in Brazil were found. Last, the third study is concerned with a quasi-experimental research whose central object coincides with the main object of this thesis. 36 students participated in this study and they were divided into three groups which underwent, respectively, three experimental conditions: condition 1 (the rational-discursive technique) the students involved, having different levels of moral judgement, discussed moral dilemmas, under the supervision of a coordinator; condition 2 (the rational-affective technique) the group involved both discussed the moral dilemmas and were stimulated to develop empathy, by using psychodrama techniques; condition 3 (control group). As measuring techniques (before and after the intervention) the following tools were used: Real Life Dilemmas, DIT, EEG-27 and IRI. As a whole, the results revealed that the group to which the rational affective intervention was applied evolved faster than those under the rational-discursive intervention, both in terms of moral development, and empathy: the group tested by the rational-discursive intervention developed more than the control group regarding moral development; and the control group did not develop in the two types of developments tested (moral and empathic).