Running head: THEORY PAPER #2: KOHLBERG, BAXTER MAGDOLA, & DAUGELLI

Theory Paper #2:

Kohlberg, Baxter Magdola, DAugelli & Worthington
Daniel Espinoza-Gonzalez
SDAD 5400: Student Development Theory, Research, & Practice
Dr. Erica Yamamura
Seattle University
15 February 2015

THEORY PAPER #2: KOHLBERG, BAXTER MAGDOLA, & DAUGELLI

Analysis
In 1981, Lawrence Kohlberg established his theory of moral reasoning development
which focused on a six-stage sequence centered on judgments of rightness and obligation (103).
The stages were grouped into three levels representing a different relationship between the self
and societys rules and expectations (p. 103). Kohlberg proposed as the individual progresses
through each stage, they become more developed in their moral reasoning and understand and
use all stages of thinking below the stage at which they currently function (p. 102). The stages
follow a sequence and are hierarchical. They are labeled as so: (1) heteronomous morality, (2)
individualistic, instrumental morality, (3) interpersonally normative morality, (4) social system
morality, (5) human rights and social welfare morality, and (6) morality of universalizable,
reversible, and prescriptive general ethical principles (p. 103-04). As the individual develops
through each stage, they grow in their understanding of societys rules and expectations as well
as their role and obligations within society.
While drawing on the work of Robert Kegans 1994 theory of the evolution of
consciousness, Marcia Baxter Magdola (2001) created a four-phase theory of self-authorship. For
her theory, Baxter Magdola defined self-authorship as the internal capacity to define ones
beliefs, identity, and social relations (p. 183). Phase 1 labeled as Following Formulas
establishes the influences of external authorities on young adults. In this phase, young adults
simply follow and are defined by others. Phase 2, Crossroads, suggests the plan the individual
has been following set by others is no longer working for them. While the individual feels the
need to create their own sense of self, they still feel they are not at a point where they can act
upon their needs. Phase 3, Becoming the Author of Ones Life, describes the growth of the
individuals strong self-concept as well as their ability to choose and live out their beliefs (186).

THEORY PAPER #2: KOHLBERG, BAXTER MAGDOLA, & DAUGELLI

They also understand belief systems are contextual and can change. Individuals who reach Phase
4, Internal Foundation, will demonstrate a grounded self-determined belief system, a sense of
who they are, and inner strength (p. 186).
Anthony DAugellis 1994 model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development expanded
the identity development process into a changeable, life span model rather than the linear models
that have been used prior. DAugelli stressed multiple changes can occur over time in attitudes,
feelings, and behavior that can influence an individuals development and movement across
DAugellis proposed interactive processes. The six interactive processes illustrate various
potential events in an individuals coming-out process and/or understanding of their sexual
identity. It is important to note DAugellis sexual identity development model is nonlinear and
varies depending on context (p. 318).
Synthesis
Intersectionality
For students who may be exiting [their] heterosexual identity, the first process to
DAugellis model, there are many opportunities for Kohlbergs moral development model and
Baxter Magdolas self-authorship model to intersect with their sexual identity development.
While at the beginning of this process, students will imaginably be in an unstable, changeable,
and influential space. Most likely, the norm for these students has been centered on heterosexual
relationships and rules. In line with Baxter Magdolas Crossroads phase, these rules or plans
no longer work for them (p. 186). According to Kohlbergs first stage of moral development,
students have obeyed rules defined by others to avoid punishment (p. 103). At this early point in
the sexual development model, students may be at Kohlbergs second stage, discovering new
needs and following rules if it is in their interest to do so, but also trying to navigate through their

THEORY PAPER #2: KOHLBERG, BAXTER MAGDOLA, & DAUGELLI

development with as few negative consequences as possible. It is important for student affairs
professionals to realize while students may be contemplating their sexual identity as a possible
member of the LGBTQQ community, they too are negotiating their values and beliefs as they
traverse between phases 2 and 3 (Becoming the Author of Ones Life) of Baxter Magdolas
model, and similarly wrestling with what they have grown to believe is right and what right and
wrong now consist of within their new developing context.
As students continue to progress through their sexual identity development and now
identify as queer, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or trans, they may have revealed their identity to their
close friends and family members, begun an intimate relationship with a partner, and/or
becoming more involved in a queer community. Students could be demonstrating inner strength
and living out their beliefs. During this time, definitions of appropriate, acceptable social roles
are beginning to solidify, but an examination of whether the rules and procedures established in
their societal context ensures their new identitys welfare is taking place (p. 104). Although
evidence of a developed sense of self-authorship may be present, students could be considering
whether societys rules and the community they live in is supportive of their sexual identity.
Students societal context and their communitys beliefs will influence their sexual identity as
well as their self-authorship according to DAugelli (1994).
As a student affairs professional, it is imperative that we be supportive of students
throughout this entire process, and understand that while students could show a strong sense of
self-authorship, there are still many things left to be negotiated with how the students navigate
through society, communities, and spaces with their sexual identity. There is an opportunity for
Cass (1979) stage 5 (identity pride) to be involved here as feelings of both pride in things gay
and anger at things not gay [may] propel individuals into activism and confrontation with an

THEORY PAPER #2: KOHLBERG, BAXTER MAGDOLA, & DAUGELLI

oppressive society (p. 309). It is our role to take into context the realities of the communities we
live in and provide appropriate guidance for the students to feel safe through their navigation.
Critique
Although environments, communities, rules, procedures, and people influence a students
sexual identity, moral reasoning, and self-authorship development, it is essential to note other
factors and influences such as culture, race, ethnicity, and (dis)abilities. If these other influences
are included, we can examine power and privilege during this process with a wider lens. The
communities that appeal to a student may not only depend on sexual identity, but also race,
(dis)ability, generational status, class, or socioeconomic status. The lens and approach we use to
advise and interact with students could be different depending on the variety of influences the
student may be experiencing. When we work with students, we should take into account the
variety of identities the student is juggling and how they interact and conflict with one another.
This could lead into conversations of power, privilege, and oppression that students should be
having. As Baxter Magdola noted, Higher education has a responsibility to help young adults
make the transition from being shaped by society to shaping society in their role as leaders in
societys future (p. 184). I believe this is also the responsibility of student affairs professionals,
as long as it is done with a critical lens.
Reflection
If I were to place myself within these theories, I think my sense of self-authorship would
be soundly developed along with my moral reasoning, yet not to the full extent Kohlberg could
not evidently prove (p. 105). As far as DAugellis model goes, I would say I have accomplished
four out of the six interactive processes described. As I stated in the Critique, there are other
factors that influence the intersectionality of the three models and how much the individual

THEORY PAPER #2: KOHLBERG, BAXTER MAGDOLA, & DAUGELLI

negotiates time and attention between them. For me, my Mexican culture and upbringing
influenced how I navigated through DAugellis interactive processes as someone who identifies
as bisexual while developing my moral reasoning and self-authorship. What I defined as right
was dependent on my parents Catholic religious beliefs and their own Mexican cultural
influences. Being someone who identifies as a member of the LGBTQQ community was not
necessarily seen as bad in my family, but simply something that drew attention, whether negative
or positive. This could have influenced the development of my moral reasoning, but I didnt
begin to explore my sexual identity until in college. By then, I was fairly grounded in my own
beliefs, values, and moral consciousness, yet they were still taking shape and being solidified.
In order to be as inclusive as possible with regards to sexual, spiritual, moral, and selfauthorship development, student development professionals need to be aware of the variety of
influences that may affect a students developmental process. For example, my parents could
have not been accepting of any queer identity and could have pushed to include more religious
teachings and practices during my upbringing. This would affect my moral reasoning
development and whether I could have developed a strong sense of self-authorship. It also could
have affected my sexual identity development and could have restricted my growth through the
processes. Student development professionals need to be conscious of the influences surrounding
their students as well as the community and societal contexts that can contribute positively or
negatively to their students development. An understanding and experience with these theories
would help with one-on-one conversations, counseling opportunities, and how to engage with
students at a deeper level.
Through a social justice lens, these theories can be applied to trainings and procedures for
student leaders on campus and professional faculty and staff. The manner in which these theories

THEORY PAPER #2: KOHLBERG, BAXTER MAGDOLA, & DAUGELLI

intersect and impact the growth of students without them knowing can be observed. It is
important for us to provide opportunities to define each aspect of development (sexual, selfauthorship, and moral), then demonstrate how these may interact with one another within each
individual. What I would like to see within higher education are training programs that get
participants not only thinking about specific aspects of their identity, but how all these identities
impact one another. Students should leave their institutions having learned every person is
comprised of multiple dimensions of self, and recognize the amount of power and privilege may
exist within some individuals and not others. We need to understand all the forces at play when
working with people. By recognizing forms of power and privilege based on aspects of identity,
we gain greater understanding for how individuals navigate through spaces and the type of
support we can provide to develop conscious, aware, and critical human beings. These theories
also help with student development professionals own growth. Each student development
professional should have experience reflecting on these aspects of their identity in order to
effectively serve students as best as possible.

THEORY PAPER #2: KOHLBERG, BAXTER MAGDOLA, & DAUGELLI

References
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Development of
self-authorship. Student development in college (pp. 176-193). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Moral development
theory. Student development in college (pp. 99-118). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Sexual identity
theory. Student development in college (pp. 305-326). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.