Internalization of moral values

Abstract

The Internalization of Moral Values Scale (Hardy, Padilla-Walker, & Carlo, 2008) is a domain-specific psychometric instrument designed to assess the degree to which adolescents and emerging adults have integrated moral principles and behavioral standards into their autonomous self-regulatory systems. Drawing upon self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), Kohlbergian moral cognitive development (Kohlberg, 1984), and contemporary models of moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Blasi, 1983), the instrument presents 24 items structured across six everyday moral and prosocial dilemmas. These behavioral contexts include refraining from academic dishonesty, telling the truth, engaging in prosocial behavior, withholding prosocial degradation or ridicule, abstaining from theft, and fulfilling reciprocity obligations. Within each moral context, respondents evaluate four distinct motivational rationales corresponding to a continuum of behavioral regulation: external regulation (compliance driven by punishment avoidance or material consequence), introjected regulation (motivation rooted in social approval, impression management, or avoiding peer disappointment), identified regulation (valuing the moral principle as inherently right or normative), and integrated regulation or moral identity (moral conduct as a direct reflection and manifestation of core self-concept). Responses are recorded along a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (very important). Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust structural validity via confirmatory factor analysis, high internal consistency across subscales (Cronbach’s alphas typically ranging from .72 to .88), convergent validity with authoritative parenting and empathic concern, and divergent validity against externalizing problem behaviors and delinquent peer affiliations. The instrument provides developmental, educational, and clinical psychologists with a nuanced method for differentiating superficial behavioral compliance from authentic, identity-based moral internalization.

Keywords

Internalization of moral values, moral internalization, self-determination theory, moral identity, prosocial behavior, adolescent development, moral reasoning, moral motivation, introjected regulation, identified regulation

Authors

The Internalization of Moral Values Scale was developed and validated by a team of developmental and moral psychology scholars:

• Sam A. Hardy, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA. Specializes in adolescent moral identity, religious and spiritual development, and structural equation modeling in developmental science.
• Laura M. Padilla-Walker, Ph.D. — Professor and Dean of the College of Family, Home, and Social Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA. Renowned for empirical investigations into parenting styles, positive youth development, empathy, and prosocial engagement across adolescence.
• Gustavo Carlo, Ph.D. — Millsap Family Professor of Diversity and Multicultural Studies, School of Education and Human Development, University of Missouri, and Professor of Education, University of California, Irvine, USA. A leading international authority on the development of prosocial behaviors, moral emotions, culture, and socialization across youth from diverse backgrounds.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Internalization of Moral Values Scale is to quantify the qualitative shifts that occur when external moral prescriptions, cultural conventions, and parental expectations become transformed into personally endorsed, self-governing internal moral standards. Historically, developmental research in moral psychology faced an ongoing dilemma: standard cognitive-developmental interviews (such as Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview) assessed abstract sociomoral reasoning but often correlated weakly with actual everyday behaviors, while simple behavioral tallies (such as self-reported cheating or compliance) failed to elucidate the motivational mechanisms prompting the observed actions. Hardy, Padilla-Walker, and Carlo (2008) addressed this gap by creating an ecologically grounded instrument that decouples behavioral outcomes from their underlying regulatory sources.

In developmental and educational settings, the scale serves several critical diagnostic and research functions. First, it enables researchers to trace the developmental trajectory of moral motivation during adolescence—a critical developmental transition characterized by neurological restructuring in prefrontal executive control circuits, social reorientation toward peers, and the consolidation of personal identity. By examining whether an adolescent resists cheating out of fear of getting caught (external), fear of social disapproval (introjected), intrinsic respect for fairness (identified), or core identity congruence (integrated), researchers can capture variations in sociomoral maturity that raw compliance rates obscure.

Second, the instrument is widely employed in family studies to investigate the efficacy of varied parenting dimensions (e.g., authoritative warmth, induction, inductive reasoning, psychological control, and maternal/paternal monitoring). Decades of socialization research demonstrate that harsh or purely coercive parenting tends to freeze moral development at external or introjected levels, fostering situational compliance that collapses in the absence of surveillance. Conversely, positive parenting characterized by inductive communication and emotional support fosters deep internalization. The scale provides the precise empirical resolution required to differentiate these subtle socialization consequences.

Third, the scale demonstrates valuable utility in intervention science and clinical psychology. Applied youth development programs, character education initiatives, and juvenile justice rehabilitation efforts require sensitive metrics to evaluate whether character-building curricula merely teach participants how to produce socially desirable answers or whether they effectively catalyze authentic internalization and moral identity consolidation. Measuring shifts across the continuum of regulation enables practitioners to track authentic programmatic gains over time.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by this scale is moral value internalization, conceptualized as the process through which socially prescribed values, rules, and behavioral obligations are actively transformed into an inner, self-endorsed commitment. Rather than treating moral internalization as a monolithic, binary variable (i.e., internal versus external), the construct is operationalized across four hierarchical regulatory styles adapted from organismic integration theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and moral identity models (Blasi, 1983):

1. External Regulation

External regulation represents the least internalized form of moral motivation. In this regulatory style, moral compliance is prompted solely by perceived external contingencies, including the threat of punitive sanctions, physical or institutional consequences, or direct instrumental reciprocity. For instance, when presented with the opportunity to cheat on an academic examination, an externally regulated individual refrains primarily because “if I get caught, I could get an F on my test” (Item 1) or refrains from theft because “if I get caught I could get in trouble” (Item 17). Prosocial engagement under this mode is similarly transactional, such as helping others solely because “I want others to be nice to me” (Item 9) or repaying debts because “I might want to borrow from them again sometime” (Item 21). Behavior remains highly vulnerable to surveillance lapses.

2. Introjected Regulation

Introjected regulation represents a partial internalization wherein the external standard has been taken in by the individual but not genuinely accepted as part of the core self. Instead, regulation is driven by internally generated emotional pressures, impression management, avoidance of shame or guilt, and an urgent desire to preserve interpersonal esteem. When considering lying or mistreating a peer, the introjected adolescent refrains because “I would not want people to think of me as a liar” (Item 6), “I would not want others to think I am mean” (Item 14), or “other people would be disappointed in me” (Item 18). While behavior is self-monitored without immediate physical surveillance, it remains contingent upon anticipated social evaluations and self-esteem contingencies.

3. Identified Regulation

Identified regulation reflects a substantially deeper, autonomous level of internalization. The individual consciously endorses the moral norm because they perceive its inherent ethical validity, social necessity, and universal utility. Moral conduct is enacted not out of fear of punishment or desire for reputational reward, but because the principle itself is judged as intrinsically right. Prosocial actions are sustained because “I think it is good to do nice things for others” (Item 11), truth-telling is observed because “I think telling the truth is the right thing to do” (Item 7), and academic honesty is upheld because “I believe cheating is dishonest” (Item 3). Identification provides stable behavioral persistence across diverse social environments.

4. Integrated Regulation and Moral Identity

Integrated regulation represents the most complete, fully developed form of internalization, wherein moral principles are fully harmonized with the individual’s central self-concept and subjective identity. At this stage, acting morally is experienced as essential to preserving self-consistency and personal integrity. Violating the moral standard is psychologically unacceptable because it would represent an existential self-betrayal. Across the scale’s scenarios, this dimension is captured through direct self-defining declarations: “Because I am not a dishonest person” (Item 4), “Because I consider myself an honest person” (Item 8), “Because I am a nice person” (Item 12), and “Because I consider myself to be a fair person” (Item 24). Here, moral values serve as primary navigational anchors for personal identity.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Internalization of Moral Values Scale synthesizes three foundational paradigms in developmental psychology: Self-Determination Theory, Blasi’s Self-Model of Moral Functioning, and Socialization/Parenting Theory.

Self-Determination Theory and the Organismic Integration Continuum

At its core, the instrument relies on the taxonomy of human motivation formulated within Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), a sub-theory of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Connell, 1989). OIT posits that individuals possess natural, organismic tendencies to integrate culturally transmitted regulations into an autonomous self-regulatory system when their fundamental psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are supported. Rather than viewing moral internalization as a simple dichotomy between external compliance and internal guilt (as classical Freudian psychoanalysis postulated), OIT organizes human regulation along a continuous gradient from non-autonomous (heteronomous) to autonomous functioning.

By mapping external, introjected, identified, and integrated motivations across diverse situational domains, Hardy and colleagues operationalized this continuum specifically within the realm of moral cognition. External and introjected regulations represent controlled motivation, driven by coercive contingencies and contingent self-worth; identified and integrated regulations represent autonomous motivation, characterized by volitional endorsement, cognitive flexibility, and enduring prosocial stability.

Blasi’s Self-Model and Moral Identity Theory

The scale integrates Augusto Blasi’s (1983, 1984) landmark Self-Model of Moral Functioning. Blasi addressed the classic “moral judgment-moral action gap” by proposing that moral judgments only reliably produce moral actions when moral understandings are filtered through a judgment of responsibility and rooted in moral identity. If moral notions remain abstract concepts detached from how one defines the self, individuals frequently rationalize deviations when personal costs arise. However, when an individual integrates morality into the core architecture of identity—such that being honest, fair, and caring is central to one’s self-definition—the individual experiences an imperative need for self-consistency. Items 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 capture this exact theoretical nexus by assessing identity-based moral regulation.

Socialization and Parental Induction Frameworks

The instrument was designed within the broader theoretical context of parent-adolescent socialization, especially Martin Hoffman’s (2000) theory of moral socialization and Diana Baumrind’s (1991) authoritative parenting model. Hoffman emphasized that parental induction—disciplinary techniques that highlight the consequences of the child’s behavior for others, foster perspective taking, and explain the intrinsic reasons behind rules—catalyzes authentic internalization. In contrast, power assertion (e.g., physical punishment, revocation of privileges without explanation) and love withdrawal arrest moral development at the external and introjected stages, respectively. Hardy, Padilla-Walker, and Carlo (2008) created this scale specifically to test whether parental inductive reasoning, monitoring, and warmth differentially predict advanced autonomous moral internalization versus controlled compliance.

Validity

Extensive empirical studies provide strong evidence for the construct, convergent, criterion-related, and discriminant validity of the Internalization of Moral Values Scale across varied adolescent and collegiate cohorts.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially confirmed by Hardy, Padilla-Walker, and Carlo (2008) in a sample of adolescents. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) evaluated whether the items appropriately reflected distinct forms of regulation across moral contexts. A model specifying four higher-order regulatory dimensions (External, Introjected, Identified, and Integrated) demonstrated acceptable fit to empirical data, supporting the theoretical continuum. In subsequent research, investigators have frequently combined identified and integrated subscales into an overarching Autonomous Moral Internalization composite, while contrasting it against a Controlled Moral Internalization composite (composed of external and introjected items), yielding robust simplex pattern correlations consistent with self-determination theory (i.e., neighboring regulatory styles correlate more positively than styles located at opposite ends of the continuum).

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is supported by consistent, theoretically predicted associations with well-validated psychological constructs:

• Parenting Dimensions: Autonomous internalization (identified/integrated) correlates positively with maternal and paternal inductive reasoning ($r \approx .30$ to $.45, p < .001$), parental warmth, and democratic communication (Hardy et al., 2008). Conversely, external regulation correlates positively with parental psychological control, coercive discipline, and perceived arbitrary power assertion.
• Empathy and Sympathy: Autonomous moral internalization correlates strongly with dispositional empathy and perspective-taking as assessed by the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1983), with coefficients ranging from $.35$ to $.52$ ($p < .001$).
• Moral Identity: Integrated regulation items exhibit strong convergent correlations with the Internalization dimension of the Aquino and Reed (2002) Self-Importance of Moral Identity Scale ($r > .50$).

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The instrument displays high predictive utility regarding both prosocial engagement and antisocial conduct:

• Prosocial Behavior: Autonomous moral internalization significantly predicts prosocial behavior toward family, friends, and strangers, as well as voluntary civic engagement, even after controlling for age, gender, and social desirability biases.
• Antisocial and Delinquent Behavior: High levels of autonomous moral internalization demonstrate robust negative associations with academic cheating, substance abuse, aggressive conduct, and delinquency. Crucially, studies indicate that adolescents who report high external regulation but low identified/integrated regulation show elevated rates of rule infractions whenever parental or school monitoring is low, confirming the ecological validity of the scale.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is evidenced by weak or non-significant correlations with general intelligence, academic achievement test scores, and generalized social desirability scales (such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale), demonstrating that the instrument does not merely reflect cognitive capability or a generalized tendency to present oneself favorably.

Reliability

The scale demonstrates robust internal consistency and temporal stability across developmental research studies.

Internal Consistency

In the initial psychometric validation study by Hardy, Padilla-Walker, and Carlo (2008), internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s $\alpha$) were calculated for composite regulatory styles aggregated across the six situational vignettes (with 6 items per regulatory subscale):

• External Regulation (Items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .72$ to $.78$.
• Introjected Regulation (Items 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .74$ to $.81$.
• Identified Regulation (Items 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .80$ to $.86$.
• Integrated Regulation / Moral Identity (Items 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .82$ to $.88$.

When identified and integrated subscales are combined into a global 12-item Autonomous Internalization index, internal reliability consistently exceeds $\alpha = .88$ across diverse samples of adolescents and young adults. Similarly, composite Controlled Internalization indices consistently demonstrate reliability coefficients above $.80$.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal investigations spanning intervals between 6 months and 1 academic year report moderate-to-high rank-order stability coefficients ($r_{tt} = .61$ to $.75, p < .001$), reflecting both the enduring, trait-like quality of internalized moral identity and its sensitivity to developmental shifts during adolescent socialization.

Factor Analysis

The underlying factor structure of the 24-item instrument has been evaluated through both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) within structural equation modeling frameworks.

Factor Structure and Model Comparisons

In structural evaluations, researchers have tested several competing structural representations:

• Unidimensional Model: A single general factor representing overall moral importance. This model shows poor fit to the empirical data ($\chi^2/df > 5.2$, CFI < .75, RMSEA > .11), confirming that moral internalization is not a unitary dimension.
• Two-Factor Model (Controlled vs. Autonomous): Items representing external and introjected motives load onto a Controlled factor, while identified and integrated items load onto an Autonomous factor. This model yields acceptable fit indices ($\text{CFI} = .91$, $\text{TLI} = .90$, $\text{RMSEA} = .058$).
• Four-Factor Model (Organismic Integration Continuum): Four correlated factors corresponding to External, Introjected, Identified, and Integrated regulations. This four-factor structure demonstrates superior overall fit across adolescent samples: $\chi^2(246) = 432.18, p < .001$; $\text{CFI} = .95$; $\text{TLI} = .94$; $\text{RMSEA} = .044$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.037, .051]$); $\text{SRMR} = .048$.

Factor Loadings

Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) across the six situational vignettes demonstrate strong construct representation:

• External Regulation: Loadings range from $.54$ (Item 9, prosocial reciprocity) to $.76$ (Item 17, avoiding trouble for theft).
• Introjected Regulation: Loadings range from $.58$ (Item 22, social perception of fairness) to $.78$ (Item 6, fear of being labeled a liar).
• Identified Regulation: Loadings range from $.64$ (Item 11, belief in goodness of helping) to $.82$ (Item 7, truth as the right action).
• Integrated Regulation / Moral Identity: Loadings range from $.68$ (Item 20, unfairness avoidance) to $.85$ (Item 8, self-concept as honest person).

Multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) and bifactor modeling confirmed that the common variance is primarily driven by the underlying regulatory style (External, Introjected, Identified, Integrated) rather than situational context-specific method variance associated with the six specific dilemmas.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete structural attributes, operational characteristics, and scoring protocols of the scale are summarized below:

• Test Type: Self-report psychological scale / psychometric questionnaire based on behavioral dilemmas.
• Target Population: Adolescents (ages 11–18) and emerging adults (ages 18–25). Has also been successfully utilized with young adults in undergraduate populations.
• Total Items: 24 statements organized under 6 hypothetical moral/prosocial dilemmas.
• Behavioral Domains / Vignettes (4 items each):
  • Scenario A (Items 1–4): Deciding not to cheat on an academic examination.
  • Scenario B (Items 5–8): Deciding to tell the truth when given an opportunity to lie.
  • Scenario C (Items 9–12): Deciding to do something nice or helpful for someone else.
  • Scenario D (Items 13–16): Deciding not to ridicule or make fun of a peer for making an error.
  • Scenario E (Items 17–20): Deciding not to take property that belongs to another individual.
  • Scenario F (Items 21–24): Deciding to repay borrowed money in accordance with reciprocity obligations.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Not at all important
  • 2 = Slightly important
  • 3 = Moderately important
  • 4 = Important
  • 5 = Very important
• Subscales & Item Mapping:
  • External Regulation Subscale (6 items): Items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21.
  • Introjected Regulation Subscale (6 items): Items 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22.
  • Identified Regulation Subscale (6 items): Items 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23.
  • Integrated Regulation / Moral Identity Subscale (6 items): Items 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24.
• Scoring and Index Computation:
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of items belonging to that regulatory dimension (ranging from 1.00 to 5.00). Higher scores indicate greater importance attributed to that motivational rationale.
  • Autonomous Internalization Composite: Mean of the 12 items comprising the Identified and Integrated subscales (Items 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24).
  • Controlled Internalization Composite: Mean of the 12 items comprising the External and Introjected subscales (Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22).
  • Relative Autonomy Index (RAI) / Moral Self-Determination Index: Weighting subscale means according to the standard OIT simplex weights: $(-2 \times \text{External}) + (-1 \times \text{Introjected}) + (+1 \times \text{Identified}) + (+2 \times \text{Integrated})$. Higher positive values indicate predominant autonomous moral internalization.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Internalization of Moral Values Scale was published in 2008 by Sam A. Hardy, Laura M. Padilla-Walker, and Gustavo Carlo in the peer-reviewed scholarly journal Journal of Moral Education.

• Access and Usage Rights: The scale is available for non-commercial academic, research, and educational applications without licensing fees. Researchers and educators are granted permission to administer the items in scholarly inquiries, provided appropriate formal attribution is given to the authors and original publication.
• Commercial Applications: Any commercial deployment, proprietary software integration, or profit-driven assessment packaging requires explicit written authorization from the copyright holders and the journal publisher (Taylor & Francis).
• Archival Source: The original instrument protocol and associated parenting assessment dimensions were made available through university digital repositories and scholarly project archives (including Brigham Young University and University of Missouri academic project spaces).

References

• Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
• Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431691111004
• Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective. Developmental Review, 3(2), 178–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90029-1
• Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 128–139). John Wiley & Sons.
• Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Hardy, S. A., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2008). Parenting dimensions and adolescents’ internalisation of moral values. Journal of Moral Education, 37(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240802019987
• Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805851
• Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development. Harper & Row.
• Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Items of the Scale