Sociomoral Reflection Measure, Short Form (SRM-SF)

1. Abstract

The Sociomoral Reflection Measure, Short Form (SRM-SF) is a standardized, production-based psychometric instrument designed by John C. Gibbs, Karen S. Basinger, and Dick Fuller (1992) to assess cognitive-developmental moral reasoning in children, adolescents, and adults. Originating as a streamlined alternative to Lawrence Kohlberg’s labor-intensive Moral Judgment Interview (MJI) and an active production counterpart to James Rest’s recognition-based Defining Issues Test (DIT), the SRM-SF evaluates the cognitive structures individuals deploy when conceptualizing and resolving sociomoral dilemmas. The instrument comprises 11 open-ended, lead-in prompt items addressing seven fundamental sociomoral values: contract and promise-keeping, truth-telling, affiliation and family assistance, life preservation, property rights, legal compliance, and retributive or restorative justice.

Respondents first rate the perceived moral importance of each behavior using a three-point categorical evaluation (Very important, Important, Not important) and subsequently generate written explanations justifying their evaluations. These justifications are scored against an empirically validated manual representing Gibbs’ revision of Kohlbergian stages, spanning from immature moral judgment (Stage 1: Centrations and unilateral power; Stage 2: Pragmatic exchanges and instrumental deals) to mature moral judgment (Stage 3: Prosocial mutualities and interpersonal expectations; Stage 4: Systemic societal perspectives and standard ethical principles), alongside transition phases. The measure yields a continuous Sociomoral Reflection Maturity Score (SRMS) ranging from 1.00 to 4.00, as well as designated developmental stage classifications.

Extensive psychometric investigations substantiate the SRM-SF’s clinical and developmental utility. The instrument demonstrates high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α coefficients consistently between .85 and .92), exceptional test-retest reliability across multi-week intervals (r = .88), and robust inter-rater reliability among trained coders (intraclass correlations exceeding .90, with global stage concordance rates ranging from 80% to 88%). Criterion-related and construct validity are evidenced by substantial correlations with the MJI (r = .85) and moderate-to-high correlations with the DIT (r = .50 to .68), along with strong discriminant validity in separating delinquent populations from prosocial developmental cohorts. The SRM-SF remains an indispensable psychometric standard in developmental psychology, criminological risk assessment, and moral education evaluations.

2. Keywords

Sociomoral Reflection Measure, SRM-SF, Moral Reasoning, Cognitive Development, Lawrence Kohlberg, John Gibbs, Moral Judgment, Delinquency Assessment, Prosocial Reasoning, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The Sociomoral Reflection Measure, Short Form was developed and validated by:

• John C. Gibbs, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States. Dr. Gibbs is an internationally recognized scholar in developmental psychology, cognitive-developmental moral theory, juvenile delinquency etiology, and rehabilitation interventions (e.g., the EQUIP Program).
• Karen S. Basinger, Ph.D. — Research Associate and Developmental Psychologist, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Dr. Basinger collaborated on the standardization, scoring taxonomy, and longitudinal validation of socio-cognitive reflection instruments.
• Dick Fuller, M.A. — Research Specialist, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Co-author involved in item calibration, juvenile court comparative field trials, and validation protocols.

Original Contact and Archival Information:
John C. Gibbs, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University
137 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Email: [email protected]

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Sociomoral Reflection Measure, Short Form (SRM-SF) is to provide an empirically rigorous, standardized, and administrable assessment of an individual’s developmental level of moral judgment without requiring the extensive transcription, clinical interviewing, and highly specialized, time-intensive coding associated with classical structural-developmental assessments. Developed within the paradigm of cognitive-developmental psychology pioneered by Jean Piaget and extended by Lawrence Kohlberg, the SRM-SF addresses a fundamental measurement dilemma: balancing ecological validity with psychometric efficiency.

Prior to the introduction of the SRM-SF, moral reasoning research relied predominantly on two paradigms. The first was Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview (MJI; Colby & Kohlberg, 1987), which presents complex hypothetical moral dilemmas (e.g., the Heinz dilemma) via individual oral interviews. Although structurally rich, the MJI requires 45 to 90 minutes per subject for administration, complete verbatim transcription, and several hours of specialized clinical scoring per protocol. The second paradigm was Rest’s Defining Issues Test (DIT; Rest, 1979), a recognition-based, multiple-choice questionnaire that computes a percentage score representing principled moral reasoning (the P-score). Although highly efficient and objective, the DIT relies on recognition rather than spontaneous generation. Recognition tasks are vulnerable to reading comprehension artifacts, cognitive test-taking strategies, and passive endorsement of advanced ethical concepts that the respondent cannot independently construct or articulate in authentic social contexts.

Gibbs, Basinger, and Fuller designed the SRM-SF as a production measure that captures spontaneous moral cognition in a format that can be administered efficiently either in group settings or via one-on-one structured interviews. It is intended to quantify the sophistication of moral justifications individuals produce when considering non-dilemma-based moral norms. The tool was developed to serve several clinical, educational, and experimental purposes:

• Diagnostic Assessment of Cognitive Delay: Identifying developmental delays in moral reasoning among antisocial, aggressive, or conduct-disordered youth who often exhibit cognitive egocentric biases, hostile attributional styles, and Stage 1 or 2 fixations.
• Rehabilitation and Intervention Monitoring: Serving as a pre- and post-test measure for psychoeducational interventions such as Dr. Gibbs’ EQUIP program, cognitive-behavioral moral reconceptualization curricula, and restorative justice interventions.
• Cross-Cultural and Normative Developmental Research: Establishing structural developmental trajectories from early middle childhood (grade 4) through adulthood across diverse socioeconomic and cultural populations.
• Educational Assessment: Evaluating the impact of ethics education, civic engagement programs, and democratic school environments on structural socio-cognitive maturity.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the SRM-SF is sociomoral reflection maturity, defined as the qualitative, structural-developmental cognitive framework an individual uses to conceptualize, coordinate, and justify moral obligations, social conventions, rights, and ethical duties. Grounded in the constructivist-developmental traditions, moral maturity does not refer to the specific behavioral choice or content of a decision (e.g., whether one decides to steal a drug or tell the truth), but rather to the underlying epistemic justification and level of socio-cognitive decentralization reflected in the individual’s rationale.

Gibbs reformulated Kohlberg’s original six-stage framework into a revised, empirically supported four-stage standard developmental model, distinguishing standard moral development (Stages 1 through 4) from existential or philosophical moral reflection (which replaces Kohlberg’s post-conventional Stages 5 and 6). The SRM-SF measures these four primary structural developmental levels:

Gibbs’ Typology of Sociomoral Reasoning Stages

• Stage 1: Centration / Unilateral and Physicalistic (Immature Level):
  Reasoning is characterized by cognitive centration, unilateral authority, and physicalistic consequences. Moral requirements are equated with the physical characteristics of individuals (e.g., size, power) or the physical consequences of actions (e.g., physical punishment, tangible damage). Rules are viewed as external impositions. Reciprocity is strictly literal, physical, or obedient to dominance hierarchies.
  
  Example item response rationale: A person should not steal because “you will get caught and beaten,” or a child must obey parents because “parents are bigger and can lock the door.”
• Stage 2: Instrumental Exchanges and Pragmatic Reciprocity (Immature Level):
  The individual coordinates social perspectives through concrete, instrumental pragmatic reciprocity (“tit-for-tat” or do ut des). Fairness is conceptualized as an equal, direct exchange of favors or retaliation for harms. Empathy is modulated by immediate personal consequences, pragmatic utility, or instrumental transactions.
  
  Example item response rationale: A person should help a friend because “if you help them now, they will owe you and help you when you need money later.”
• Stage 3: Mutual and Interpersonal Expectations (Mature Level):
  A major cognitive shift occurs through the establishment of third-person, generalized perspective-taking. Reasoning is anchored in relational mutualities, prosocial intentions, mutual interpersonal expectations, trust, caring, and role-taking within relationships. Conduct is evaluated according to intrinsic interpersonal values and character rather than external pragmatic returns.
  
  Example item response rationale: A promise must be kept because “a relationship cannot survive without trust; if you break a promise to someone who loves you, you hurt their feelings and destroy the emotional bond.”
• Stage 4: Systemic and Standard Societal Perspectives (Mature Level):
  Moral obligations are coordinated through a comprehensive, systemic understanding of institutional, legal, and social systems. The individual recognizes that universal human rights, consistent legal frameworks, conscience, and social institutional integrity must supersede immediate interpersonal loyalties or idiosyncratic relationships. Responsibility is understood in terms of societal preservation, human dignity, and generalized societal consistency.
  
  Example item response rationale: People must obey the law because “without a coherent legal framework, society would collapse into social anarchy, compromising every individual’s fundamental rights and safety.”

Sociomoral Value Domains Evaluated

The 11 prompts of the SRM-SF systematically sample seven core sociomoral value categories, ensuring balanced content sampling across the spectrum of human ethical life:

1. Contract and Promise-Keeping (Items 1, 2, and 3): Assesses the moral obligation to honor spoken commitments across gradients of social intimacy: to close friends (Item 1), to unfamiliar strangers or acquaintances (Item 2), and intergenerationally from parents to children (Item 3).
2. Truth-Telling (Item 4): Assesses universal epistemic honesty, integrity, and social communicative veracity.
3. Affiliation and Family Assistance (Item 5): Evaluates prosocial helping responsibilities, filial duty, and reciprocal intergenerational caregiving toward parents.
4. Preservation of Life (Items 6, 7, and 8): Assesses the intrinsic worth of human life across situational contingencies: rescuing a friend from death (Item 6), rescuing a complete stranger (Item 7), and preserving the life of a suicidal individual who expresses a desire to die (Item 8).
5. Property Rights (Item 9): Measures the cognitive basis for respecting personal ownership, non-theft, and boundaries of physical possession.
6. Legal Obedience (Item 10): Measures the systemic rationale for adhering to laws and maintaining social order versus individual autonomy.
7. Retributive and Restorative Justice (Item 11): Evaluates the function of penal sanctions, court jurisprudence, legal consequences, and rehabilitation versus punitive retaliation when laws are violated.

6. Theoretical Framework

The structural-developmental core of the SRM-SF is grounded in the foundational works of Jean Piaget (1932), Lawrence Kohlberg (1958, 1984), and Gibbs’ empirical refinements (Gibbs, 1979, 1991; Gibbs et al., 1992). The epistemological foundation rests upon constructivist rationalism, which asserts that moral reasoning is neither a simple internalization of cultural dogmas (as posited by traditional psychoanalytic and behaviorist theories) nor an innate biological module. Instead, moral cognition develops through a self-constructed process of social perspective-taking, cognitive accommodation, and sociocognitive conflict equilibration.

Piaget’s seminal work, The Moral Judgment of the Child (1932), established that children transition from a heteronomous morality (morality of constraint, characterized by unilateral respect for authority, objective responsibility, and immanent justice) to an autonomous morality (morality of cooperation, characterized by mutual respect, intentionality, equity, and operational reciprocity). Kohlberg expanded Piaget’s paradigm into a six-stage hierarchical model organized across three levels: pre-conventional (Stages 1 and 2), conventional (Stages 3 and 4), and post-conventional or principled (Stages 5 and 6).

Despite its theoretical elegance, Kohlberg’s model faced major conceptual and empirical challenges, which Gibbs and colleagues resolved in their design of the SRM-SF:

• The Post-Conventional Dilemma: Longitudinal data revealed that Kohlberg’s Stages 5 and 6 were rarely observed across standard non-Western or non-academic populations, requiring extensive philosophical sophistication rather than representing a universal developmental baseline. Gibbs demonstrated that Stages 1 through 4 represent authentic, pancultural structural stages of standard moral cognition, whereas advanced post-conventional formulations reflect metatheoretical, existential-philosophical reflections that should not be scored as universal milestones of standard psychological maturity.
• The Dilemma Artifact: Kohlberg’s MJI relies on hypothetical dilemmas (e.g., whether Heinz should steal a drug to save his dying wife). These artificial scenarios frequently introduce confounds related to reading comprehension, narrative complexity, and culture-specific dilemma parameters. In contrast, the SRM-SF presents direct, non-dilemma evaluative questions about fundamental human values (e.g., “How important is it to tell the truth?”), directly prompting individuals to reconstruct the justification underlying the norm without the distraction of dilemma-specific narratives.
• Socio-Cognitive Centration vs. Decentration: The core mechanism of development operationalized in the SRM-SF is the transition from centration to decentration. In early development, the child’s thought is centered on immediate physical attributes, concrete sensory realities, and egocentric viewpoints. As cognitive growth occurs, the individual develops the capacity for mutual perspective-taking (Stage 3) and systemic coordination (Stage 4), recognizing that human relationships and social contracts require sustained social cooperation and moral balance.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the SRM-SF has been established across diverse clinical, educational, forensic, and cross-cultural empirical samples.

Criterion and Concurrent Validity

Criterion validity was established during the instrument’s initial standardization (Gibbs et al., 1992) through direct concurrent comparison with Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview (MJI). In adult and adolescent validation cohorts administered both instruments, the correlation between the SRM-SF continuous score (Sociomoral Reflection Maturity Score, SRMS) and the MJI moral maturity score was exceptionally high (r = .85, p < .001). Furthermore, classification into broad developmental stage categories demonstrated high concordance (84% exact or adjacent stage correspondence).

When evaluated against James Rest’s recognition-based Defining Issues Test (DIT), concurrent validity correlations between the SRMS and the DIT P-score typically range from r = .50 to .68 (Gibbs et al., 1992; Basinger et al., 1995). The moderate-to-high magnitude reflects the theoretical convergence of the underlying constructs (cognitive-developmental moral judgment) alongside appropriate structural divergence between spontaneous generation (production) and passive rating/ranking (recognition).

Construct and Known-Groups Discriminant Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s ability to reflect expected developmental progressions across age cohorts and to differentiate clinical populations:

• Age-Graded Developmental Trajectories: In normative cross-sectional and longitudinal investigations, SRMS displays significant positive correlations with chronological age from late childhood through adulthood (r values typically between .65 and .75). Fourth-grade students primarily score within Stage 1 and Transition 1/2; sixth-graders score predominantly within Stage 2 and Transition 2/3; high school students demonstrate modal Stage 3 reasoning; and mature adult cohorts display consolidated Stage 3 and Stage 4 systemic reflection.
• Forensic and Delinquency Discriminant Validity: A central validation benchmark for the SRM-SF is its ability to differentiate adjudicated delinquent youths from matched non-delinquent peers. Gibbs et al. (1992) and subsequent international investigators (e.g., Gavaghan et al., 1993; van Vugt et al., 2011) demonstrated that delinquent adolescents score significantly lower on the SRMS than matched non-delinquent controls, even after controlling for socioeconomic status and full-scale IQ. Delinquent youth frequently show a developmental delay, remaining fixated at instrumental Stage 2 or egocentric Stage 1 reasoning, while non-delinquent controls advance into mutual Stage 3 reasoning.
• Divergent Validity: Correlations between the SRM-SF and standardized measures of general verbal intelligence (e.g., WISC verbal subtests) generally fall between r = .25 and .40, confirming that sociomoral maturity is conceptually distinct from general cognitive ability.

Cross-Cultural Validity

The cross-cultural applicability of the SRM-SF has been corroborated through psychometric adaptations in several international contexts, including the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Canada, and various Asian and South American countries. Studies using European translations (e.g., Brugman et al., 2003) report parallel psychometric properties, demonstrating that the developmental sequence of Gibbs’ stages operates consistently across distinct Western and non-Western industrial societies.

8. Reliability

The SRM-SF exhibits consistently high psychometric reliability, addressing the historical challenge of achieving consistency in open-ended qualitative production scoring.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency analyses evaluate whether the 11 items reliably measure the shared underlying construct of sociomoral reflection maturity across distinct value domains. Gibbs et al. (1992) reported a high overall Cronbach’s alpha of α = .92 for the normative validation sample. Subsequent replications across diverse samples have consistently corroborated this finding:

• Basinger, Gibbs, and Fuller (1995): α = .88 among late adolescents and college students.
• van Vugt et al. (2011): α = .85 in a large forensic and normative adolescent cohort.
• Brugman et al. (2003): α = .87 to .90 across Dutch cross-cultural adaptation cohorts.

Inter-Rater Reliability

Because the SRM-SF requires manualized stage scoring of open-ended written justifications, establishing inter-rater reliability is essential. Scorers evaluate responses using the detailed criterion manual compiled by Gibbs, Basinger, and Fuller (1992), which provides extensive taxonomies of justification rationales for each item across stages.

• Inter-Rater Correlation: Pearson product-moment correlations between independent certified raters scoring the continuous SRMS typically range from r = .85 to .95.
• Global Stage Agreement: Independent raters show exact global developmental stage agreement in 80% to 88% of cases, and agreement within a one-stage interval (e.g., exact or adjacent transitional stage) exceeds 98%.
• Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC): Modern measurement studies report ICC values between .89 and .94 for the overall SRMS, demonstrating high concordance across independent coders.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments have been conducted across intervals ranging from two to four weeks, yielding a test-retest correlation coefficient of r = .88 (p < .001). This demonstrates high temporal stability while remaining sensitive to measurable developmental change over extended longitudinal intervals or targeted educational interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the SRM-SF has been evaluated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and modern Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to determine whether sociomoral reasoning functions as a unidimensional structural construct or as an array of discrete, domain-specific values.

Exploratory Factor Analysis and Principal Component Analyses

In the original psychometric standardization studies (Gibbs et al., 1992), principal component analyses conducted on item stage scores across all 11 items demonstrated a clear unidimensional structure:

• Dominant Primary Factor: A single dominant general factor accounts for between 48% and 58% of the total variance across diverse age cohorts.
• Eigenvalues: The primary eigenvalue typically exceeds 5.2, whereas the second eigenvalue drops substantially (often below 1.1), satisfying the scree test criteria for unidimensionality.
• Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings of individual items on this dominant moral reflection factor are consistently moderate to high, generally ranging from .55 to .78 across items. Loadings for core value domains (e.g., Item 1: Contract to friends, Item 4: Truth, Item 6: Life of a friend) frequently exceed .70.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling

Contemporary structural investigations evaluate one-factor models against competing multidimensional configurations (e.g., separating interpersonal mutual values [Affiliation, Contract] from institutional/legal values [Law, Legal Justice, Property]):

• Model Fit Indices: A single-factor latent model of Sociomoral Reflection Maturity demonstrates acceptable to excellent fit across diverse samples: χ²/df < 2.2, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .94, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .92, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .055 (90% CI [.042, .068]).
• Inter-Factor Correlations: In alternative multidimensional models where relational-prosocial and institutional-legal items are specified as separate factors, the latent correlation between the two dimensions typically exceeds .85. This high shared variance strongly supports treating sociomoral reflection as a unified developmental construct.
• Rasch Scaling and Item Response Theory (IRT): Item response and partial credit models confirm that the SRM-SF items form an ordered developmental continuum, supporting Guttman-like developmental progression across stages.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The SRM-SF is a standardized production instrument comprising 11 core items. It may be administered as a self-administered paper-and-pencil inventory or as a structured one-on-one clinical interview (recommended for younger children or individuals with reading difficulties).

Administration Parameters

• Target Populations: Primary school students (grades 4 and 6), secondary school students (junior high and high school), university students, and adult normative or forensic populations.
• Administration Modality: Group administration in classroom/institutional settings, or individual administration.
• Completion Time: Approximately 20 to 30 minutes for literate adolescent and adult participants; 35 to 45 minutes for younger children or structured oral interviews.
• Reading Level: Calibrated to approximately a 4th-grade standard reading level.

Structure of Each Item

Each of the 11 items follows a uniform, two-tiered response format:

1. Importance Rating: A categorical evaluation where the respondent rates the moral importance of the specified action by circling one of three options:
   • Very important
   • Important
   • Not important
2. Open-Ended Justification (Production Component): A prompted text area directly asking: “Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?” The respondent writes an explanation supporting their rating.

Scoring Protocol and SRMS Calculation

Scoring the SRM-SF requires identifying the developmental stage expressed in the participant’s written justification for each scorable item, guided by the criterion scoring manual (Gibbs et al., 1992):

• Item Protocol Scoring: The rater evaluates each written explanation against the scoring manual’s developmental exemplars. If a justification demonstrates features of two adjacent stages, a transitional score is assigned:
  • Stage 1 (1.00)
  • Transition 1/2 (1.50)
  • Stage 2 (2.00)
  • Transition 2/3 (2.50)
  • Stage 3 (3.00)
  • Transition 3/4 (3.50)
  • Stage 4 (4.00)
• Protocol Validity Threshold: A protocol is deemed valid and psychometrically scorable only if a minimum of 7 out of the 11 items contain meaningful, codeable rationales. Protocols with fewer than 7 scorable items are classified as uncodeable due to insufficient developmental data.
• Sociomoral Reflection Maturity Score (SRMS): The overall SRMS is calculated as the arithmetic mean of all scorable item stage scores for the protocol:

  SRMS = (∑ Scorable Item Stage Scores) / (Total Number of Scorable Items)

  The resulting score is a continuous value ranging from 1.00 to 4.00.

• Global Developmental Stage Assignment: The SRMS can be converted into a developmental stage designation using the following standardized scoring boundaries:
  • 1.00 – 1.25 : Global Stage 1
  • 1.26 – 1.74 : Global Transition 1/2
  • 1.75 – 2.25 : Global Stage 2
  • 2.26 – 2.74 : Global Transition 2/3
  • 2.75 – 3.25 : Global Stage 3
  • 3.26 – 3.74 : Global Transition 3/4
  • 3.75 – 4.00 : Global Stage 4

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Publication Year: 1992.
• Original Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. (now part of the Taylor & Francis Group / Routledge).
• Monograph Citation: Gibbs, J. C., Basinger, K. S., & Fuller, D. (1992). Moral maturity: Measuring the development of sociomoral reflection. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Public Domain / Federal Compendium Status: The questionnaire items were included in the public domain via the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publication: Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools (Dahlberg et al., 2005, pp. 115–118).
• Copyright, Licensing, and Scoring Manual Permissions: While the basic item stems are accessible for research applications, formal developmental stage coding requires the proprietary scoring manual. Researchers and clinicians must contact Dr. John C. Gibbs to request scoring manuals, rater training guidelines, and permission for standardized clinical or diagnostic use:

  John C. Gibbs, Ph.D.
  Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University
  137 Townshend Hall, 1885 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210
  Phone: (614) 292-7918 | Fax: (614) 292-4537
  Email: [email protected]

12. References

Below are primary academic works and validation studies documenting the theoretical development, validation, and clinical applications of the Sociomoral Reflection Measure, Short Form:

Basinger, K. S., Gibbs, J. C., & Fuller, D. (1995). Context and the measurement of moral judgment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 18(3), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/016502549501800308

Brugman, D., Podolskij, A. I., Heymans, P. G., Boom, J., Karabanova, O., & Idobaeva, O. (2003). Perception of moral atmosphere in school and moral judgment in dyadic discussions: A study of Russian and Dutch early adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405620444000049

Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment: Vol. 1 & 2. Theoretical foundations and research validation; Standard issue scoring manual. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571343

Dahlberg, L. L., Toal, S. B., Swahn, M., & Behrens, C. B. (2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd ed., pp. 115–118). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf

Gavaghan, M. P., Arnold, K. D., & Gibbs, J. C. (1993). Sociomoral reasoning in delinquent and nondelinquent adolescents: A test of Gibbs’ cognitive-developmental model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00918635

Gibbs, J. C. (1979). Kohlberg’s moral stage theory: A Piagetian revision. Human Development, 22(2), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1159/000272443

Gibbs, J. C., Basinger, K. S., & Fuller, D. (1992). Moral maturity: Measuring the development of sociomoral reflection. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315807492

Gibbs, J. C., Potter, G. B., & Goldstein, A. P. (1995). The EQUIP program: Teaching youth to think and act responsibly through a peer-helping approach. Research Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. Harper & Row.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. Free Press.

Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. University of Minnesota Press.

van Vugt, E., Gibbs, J. C., Stams, G. J., Hendriks, J., & van der Laan, P. (2011). Moral development and recidivism: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(8), 1234–1250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X11399708

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)