by Johan Björkehed and Kim Parker

 

Over the past few months, we have posted articles that refer to some of the principals behind moral decision making that Dr Goldstein based his Moral Reasoning Training on. This month’s 10 Lines takes a look a colleague that directly contributed to ART and the PREPARE Curriculum: Dr John Gibbs. As well, we will explore how Dr Sara Salmon’s Character Traits can help in the Moral Decision Making process.

Dr Gibbs is an American professor of developmental psychology, with interests in cross-cultural sociomoral development, parental socialization, empathy, prosocial behavior, and antisocial behavior. He has developed assessment measures of moral judgment, moral identity, social perspective-taking, self-serving cognitive distortions, and social skills. He is also co-author of EQUIP (Research Press,2024), a prevention program for middle and high school students.

Gibbs was instrumental in developing a 4 Phase model for conducting a Social Decision Making meeting, described in detail in ART/AART/AAART and the PREPARE Curriculum.

Phase 1: Introduce the problem situation
Phase 2: Cultivate moral maturity
Phase 3: Remediate moral development delay
Phase 4: Consolidate moral maturity

This all looks simple on paper; however, it has been established that cognitive distortions (thought traps) are not easily changed. Youth have found that these perspectives “work” for them; they are simply different ways of justifying one’s actions.

Our challenge, therefore,begins with cognitive restructuring (Phases 2-4). The PREPARE Curriculum (Table 5.2) flushes out these phases by providing “Cognitive Restructuring Strategies for Self-Instruction Training”.

Gibbs, Barriga, and Potter (1995) felt that these strategies were most effective when used in a group setting, where both facilitators and youth join together in the restructuring process.

1. Question the evidence What does the group feel is the problem? Help the group to clarify the situation

2. Dispute irrational beliefs Have the group identify Thought Traps

3. Redirect attention to nonhostile cues Are there Character Traits being practiced?

4. Decatastrophize (What is the worst that can happen?) Encourage If and Then thinking

5. Examine options and alternatives: generate several alternatives Gather information from self and others to brainstorm alternative outcomes

6. Generate assertive rather than aggressive responses How could one express themselves in a positive way?

7. Reduce imaginal ruminating about the anger-inducing event

8. Reduce imaginal exaggeration about the anger-inducing event For both of these: where can one use self-control/anger regulation

9. Consider both short- and long-term consequences of both aggressive and prosocial
responses Explore consequences to self and others, both negative and positive

10. Plan and rehearse prosocial response, step by step Have members of the group role play the situation, using social skills that fit the
situation

If one reflects on this list, opportunities to discuss self-regulation(#7,8), problem solving(#1,5), empathy(#9), social perception training(#2,3,4,9) and social skills (#6,10) can be woven into the Morals lesson. Most importantly, exploring alternatives to Thought Traps by emphasizing the use of Character Traits(#2,3) is essential.

Another colleague of Dr Goldstein’s was Dr Sara Salmon. Dr Salmon is a clinical psychologist, executive director of the Center for Antibullying and Nonviolence and author of Empathy and Social Competence program (Research Press). Her greatest contribution is the creation of the PEACE Curriculum, within which there are 15 Character Traits: Honesty, Caring, Cooperation, Courage, Gratitude, Goal Setting, Honesty, Humanity, Integrity, Patience, Perseverance, Respect, Responsibility, Self Control, and Service.

As we adapt our training approach in the Moral Decision Making process, we must focus on counteracting the youths’ use of Thought Traps: our task is to change moral attitudes, translating them into practical moral action. Moral Decision Making uses Problem Situations as a teaching tool to achieve this.

This is done first by having the group share where they see these Traps, in the Problem Situation presented, and how their use in justified. One then moves the discussion towards how things would be different if these Thought Traps were replaced by acts of Character. What Character Trait(s) would make a difference to the outcome(s) in the Situation? How would it look for each of the people in this Situation if they were practiced? A follow up Role Play, with the use of the Traits, would end the session with a potential positive shift in the group’s moral perspective.

In the original EQUIP program, the first Problem Situation to be discussed with the group is the Martian’s Adviser’s Problem Situation. This was designed to set the tone for future discussions, mainly to facilitate the discovery of common values and to foster a cohesive, prosocial group spirit as youth consider what the Adviser would council rather than themselves. With the same goal in mind, we have adapted this Problem Situation and named it The
Martian’s Decision.

This is a moral dilemma because there is no easy answer. Both options have pros and cons. Neila must weigh the potential benefits and risks of each option before making a decision. This dilemma is relevant to the current world because it highlights the conflict between the beauty of nature and the violence of humanity. It also raises questions
about our responsibility to protect the environment and to prevent war.

The Martian’s Decision

A Martian named Neila leaves his home on Mars, a planet of peace and untouched beauty, to travel to Earth, a world filled with conflict and war. He arrives on Earth and is immediately struck by the beauty of the planet, the lush green forests, the sparkling blue oceans, and the diverse array of animals. However, he is also shocked by the level of violence and destruction he sees. He sees people fighting over resources, destroying the environment, and killing each other.

Neila is torn. He sees the beauty of Earth, but he also sees the ugliness. He wonders if he made the right decision to leave Mars. He misses the peace and tranquillity of his home, but he also knows that Earth is a planet of great potential. He sees the creativity and innovation of the people, and he knows that they are capable of great things.

Neila must decide whether to stay on Earth and try to help make it a better place or return to Mars and live a peaceful life. He knows that either decision will have consequences. If he stays on Earth, he may be able to make a difference, but he may also be putting himself in danger. If he returns to Mars, he will be safe, but he may always wonder if he could have made a difference on Earth.

Discussion topics:
1. What Thought Traps are there on Earth?
2. What Character Traits are being ignored on Earth?
3. Does Neila have any Thought Traps?
4. How would ignoring these traits effect the people living on Earth?
5. How would their lives be different if people practiced these Character Traits?
6. What Character Traits could Neila use and show people to help make a better Earth?

Considering all of this, what should Neila do?