Abstract
After being classified by scores on the Defining Issues Test, an essay concerning capital punishment, and an Attitudes-toward-Capital Punishment Scale, subjects high and low in moral reasoning and for and against capital punishment evaluated on the Interpersonal Judgment Scale bogus strangers who supposedly had also written essays concerning capital punishment. Essays were varied to reflect attitudes similar to or opposed to the subject's own and to be presented on a similar or different (higher or lower) stage of moral reasoning. Strong main effects occurred in the direction of more positive evaluations of sources (bogus strangers) who were similar in attitude and who reasoned on a principled level. These results were interpreted to suggest that subjects may be favorably impressed by the structure of principled arguments independent of the effects of similarity. This is consistent with modeling as an influence in accounting for upward shifts in moral reasoning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.