Luppo Kuillman

Chapter 1 12 1.3 James Rest’s Four Component Model of Moral Behavior The FCM is an extension of Kohlberg’s model of Moral Development. Kohlberg’s model (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977) explains moral judgment. According to the level of one’s moral judgment skill the model states from within that a person can be classified to be within one of the three major levels: (i) pre-conventional, (ii) conventional and (iii) post-conventional. Each of these levels is again divided into two stages. Reaching the post-conventional level of moral reasoning reflects principled conscience. Whereas Kohlberg’s theory thus focuses on the assumption that “moral judgement” is the only process in the psychology of morality, James Rest suggests that three other essential components must be incorporated into the explanation of the ethical decision- making process. Therewith the FCM includes the following processes to explain moral behavior, namely: 1) moral sensitivity/awareness, 2) moral reasoning/judgement, 3) moral motivation and 4) moral courage/character. Each of these components reflects the latent or underlying psychological processes and were measured in this doctoral research with self-report measures, either translated into Dutch or developed as new Dutch instruments. 1.3.1 Conceptualization and operationalization of Moral Sensitivity As soon as a moral dilemma arises, there is a need to recognize the conflict situation. The FCM’s first component, moral sensitivity, is conceptualized as the first and essential precursor for moral behavior. Rest defines moral sensitivity as: “a combination of one’s recognition of moral issues, and how one reacts and processes these issues from an affective perspective within a social context” (J. R. Rest, 1986). After James Rest introduced the FCM, many researchers in the field of moral psychology attempted to develop instruments measuring moral sensitivity. Nonetheless, it is apparent that not only are there a multitude of instruments being developed, but also a plurality of competing interpretations of the concept. In the literature, both moral sensitivity, as well as ethical sensitivity have been spotlighted. This becomes obvious in several of the works reviewing both the concept and instruments available for measuring either moral sensitivity or ethical sensitivity (Jordan, 2007; Weaver, 2007). In a review by Bebeau, ethical sensitivity is defined as “the awareness of alternative courses of action, knowing cause-consequence chains of events in the environment, and how each could affect the parties concerned” (M. J. Bebeau, 2002). An important point made by Bebeau is that ethical sensitivity is embedded in a professional