World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Moral psychology

Article Id: WHEBN0001040741
Reproduction Date:

Title: Moral psychology  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Hypocrisy, Stephen Stich, Marcia Baron, Ethics, Outline of academic disciplines
Collection: Ethics, Moral Psychology, Philosophy of Mind
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Moral psychology

Moral psychology is a field of study in both philosophy and psychology. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.[1] However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics, psychology, and philosophy of mind.[2] Some of the main topics of the field are moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral responsibility, moral development, moral diversity, moral character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, and moral disagreement.[3]

Moral psychology is a novel branch within the field of psychology. The study of moral identity development is one aspect of psychology that shows the most potential for growth due to the numerous sections within the field regarding its structure, mechanisms, and dynamics.[4] A moral act is a type of behavior that refers to an act that has either a moral or immoral consequence. Moral Psychology can be applied across a broad range of studies, including philosophy and psychology. However it is implemented in different ways depending on culture. In many cultures, a moral act refers to an act that entails free will, purity, liberty, honesty, and meaning. An immoral act refers to an act that entails corruption and fraudulence and usually leads to negative consequences. Some of the main topics of the field are: moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral responsibility, moral development, moral character, altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral disagreement, moral psychology, moral action, moral forecasting, moral emotion, and affective forecasting.[5]

Some psychologists that have worked in the field are: Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, Elliot Turiel, Jonathan Haidt, Linda Skitka, Marc Hauser, C. Daniel Batson, Jean Decety, Joshua D. Greene, A. Peter McGraw, Philip Tetlock, Tobias Krettenauer, Liane Young and Fiery Cushman. Some philosophers that have worked in the field are Stephen Stich, John Doris, Joshua Knobe, John Mikhail, Shaun Nichols, Thomas Nagel, Robert C. Roberts, Jesse Prinz, Michael Smith, and R. Jay Wallace.


  • Background 1
  • History 2
  • Contemporary Thought of "it" Theories 3
    • Moral Identity 3.1
    • Moral Self 3.2
    • Moral Values 3.3
    • Moral Virtues 3.4
    • Moral Reasoning 3.5
    • Moral Willpower 3.6
    • Moral Behavior 3.7
    • Moral Intuitions 3.8
    • Moral Emotions 3.9
    • Moral Conviction 3.10
  • Cultural Values 4
  • CAD Triad Hypothesis 5
    • Community 5.1
    • Autonomy 5.2
    • Divinity 5.3
    • Linking the Triad 5.4
  • Triune Ethics Theory (TET; Narvaez, 2008) 6
    • Security 6.1
    • Engagement 6.2
    • Imagination 6.3
  • Moralization of Smoking 7
  • Moralization of Food 8
  • Topics 9
  • See also 10
  • Footnotes 11
  • References and further reading 12
  • External links 13


Moral psychology began with early philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. They believed that “to know the good is to do the good.” They analyzed the ways in which people make decisions with regards to moral identity. The battle of good versus evil has been studied since the time moral psychology became accepted as a formal branch of psychology/philosophy up until the present and it continues to expand. As the field of psychology began to divide away from philosophy, moral psychology expanded to include risk perception and moralization, morality with regards to medical practices, concepts of self-worth, and the role of emotions when analyzing one’s moral identity. In most introductory psychology courses, students learn about moral psychology by studying the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg,[6] who introduced the cognitive developmental theory in 1969. This theory emphasized that sound moral reasoning would innately motivate moral action. Psychologists Hardy and Carlo elaborated on this theory by providing a greater understanding of moral motivation and commitment. Today, psychologists and students alike rely on Blasi’s self-model that link ideas of moral judgment and action. This model illustrates that in order to predict moral behavior, one must first examine the moral judgments. A moral judgment can become a moral action by not only being moral, but by also being something the individual is responsible for doing. This can only be accomplished when a person’s identity is centered on morality. One must possess the desire to live a lifestyle that is constant with one’s sense of self. Of course individual differences prohibit some from achieving a moral identity. However, those who are motivated will attain a unique moral identity[4]


Historically, early philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato engaged in both empirical research and a priori conceptual analysis about the ways in which people make decisions about issues that raise moral concerns. Moral psychological issues have been central theoretical issues explored by philosophers from the early days of the profession right up until the present. With the development of psychology as a discipline separate from philosophy, it was natural for psychologists to continue pursuing work in moral psychology, and much of the empirical research of the 20th century in this area was completed by academics working in psychology departments.

Today moral psychology is a thriving area of research in both philosophy and psychology, even at an interdisciplinary level.[7] For example, the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg questioned boys and young men about their thought processes when they were faced with a moral dilemma[8][9] producing one of many very useful empirical studies in the area of moral psychology. As another example, the philosopher Joshua Knobe recently completed an empirical study on how the way in which an ethical problem is phrased dramatically affects an individual's intuitions about the proper moral response to the problem. More conceptually focused research has been completed by researchers such as John Doris. Doris (2002) discusses the way in which social psychological experiments---such as the Stanford Prison Experiments involving the idea of situationism---call into question a key component in virtue ethics: the idea that individuals have a single, environment-independent moral character. As a further example, Shaun Nichols (2004) examines how empirical data on psychopathology suggests that moral rationalism is false.

Contemporary Thought of "it" Theories

Recent attempts to develop an integrated model of moral motivation[10] have identified at least six different levels of moral functioning, each of which has been shown to predict some type of moral or prosocial behavior: moral intuitions, moral emotions, moral virtues/vices (behavioral capacities), moral values, moral reasoning, and moral willpower. This Social Intuitionist model of moral motivation[11] suggests that moral behaviors are typically the product of multiple levels of moral functioning, and are usually energized by the "hotter" levels of intuition, emotion, and behavioral virtue/vice. The "cooler" levels of values, reasoning, and willpower, while still important, are proposed to be secondary to the more affect-intensive processes.

The "Moral Foundations Theory" of psychologist Jonathan Haidt examines the way morality varies between cultures and identifies five fundamental moral values shared to a greater or lesser degree by different societies and individuals.[12] According to Haidt, these are: care for others, fairness, loyalty, authority and purity.[13] Haidt's book for the general reader The Happiness Hypothesis looks at the ways in which contemporary psychology casts light on the moral ideas of the past. On the other hand, in a recent conference, Haidt expressed views that may suggest he does not support a science of morality.[14]

Moral Identity

While Kohlberg's (cite) series of early studies and theoretical articles emphasized the role of moral reasoning, critics, such as Blasi (1981; 1984) suggested that it failed to adequately function as a predictor of moral motivation. But recent models of morality placed that identity is the source of moral motivation. Empirical studies on moral exemplars have shown that moral identity has been developed through moral action while theoretical studies have shown that moral identity was developed through the concepts of moral cognition, moral reasoning, and moral functioning. An individual has moral identity in such a way that he or she has constructed in his or her sense of self around moral concerns. When morality is important to an individual, it heightens the responsibility to live a consistently moral life. Hardy and Carlo (2005) raise critical questions for future research on moral identity as it relates to moral behavior. Is there a causal relationship between moral action and moral identity? What sort of factors influence development of moral identity? Are there moderating variables between it and moral behavior? Hardy and Carlo (2005) propose researchers should look closely at the operationalization of identity and the methodologies of experiments in the moral realm of psychology.[15]

A study was conducted by Anne Colby and William Damon[16] [17] regarding the lives of individuals who exhibit extraordinary moral commitment. This article suggests that one's moral identity is formed through that individual's synchronization of their personal and moral goals. This unity of their self and morality is what distinguishes themselves from non-exemplars and in turn makes them exeptional (pg.362). Colby and Damon studied moral identity through the narratives of Virginia Foster Durr and Suzie Valadez, whose behavior, actions, and life's work was considered to be morally exemplary by their communities and those with whom they came in contact. For example, Virginia Durr was a leader in the American civil rights movement for over 30 years, in particular she fought for voting rights of African Americans as well as racial integration (pg. 346). Suzie Valdez on the other hand, provided life long services to the poor and less fortunate people of Juarez, Mexico (pg. 346). The author describes these exemplars as maintaining a “unity between self and morality” (pg. 362). Some common characteristics, that these moral exemplars possess are certainty (refers to the exemplars' clarity about what they believe is right and about their own personal responsibility to act on those beliefs) , Positivity (refers to the exemplars' positive approach to life, enjoyment of work, and optimism), and unity of self and moral goals (refers to the central place of the exemplars' moral goals in their conception of their own identity) (pg.361-362). The research suggests that a "transformation of goals" takes place during the evolution of one's moral identity and development and therefore is not an exercise of self-sacrifice but rather one done with great joy. This transformation is not always a deliberate process, but can be described as a developmental process that takes place in ones personal beliefs, affecting their conduct. Transformation is most often a gradual process, but can also be rapidly set of by a "triggering event", or "sudden, unexpected occurrences that create powerful emotional responses the 'trigger' a reexamination of one's life choices" (pg. 354). Triggering events can be anything from a powerful moment in a movie, to a traumatic life event, or as portrayed in the case of Suzie Valadez, the perception of a vision from God. This transformation is brought about by powerful social interactions that will gradually change and shape the persons goals. Moral exemplars are said to have the same concerns and commitments as other moral people but to a greater degree, "extensions in scope, intensity and breadth" (pg. 364). Furthermore, exemplars possess the ability to be open to new ideas and experiences, also known as an "active receptiveness" (pg. 350) to things exterior to themselves. Using this active receptiveness, a relatively average person can experience a transformation of goals and become an exemplary figure over time.[18]

Hart and Fegley (1995)[19] contribute to the literature on moral identity by providing research on adolescent moral exemplars from diverse backgrounds. This study was conducted to see how teenagers who conducted themselves in a caring manner throughout their communities saw themselves, because up to this point, all research concerning teenagers only focused on delinquents. Their findings suggest that adolescent caring exemplars formulate their self-concept differently from comparable peers. Moral exemplars were found to have more references to positive, moral, caring personality traits as well as moral and caring goals. They were also more likely to emphasize academic goals and amoral typical activities. However, it should also be noted that there were no significant differences between the exemplars and the control group concerning moral knowledge. On a semantic space analyses, Hart and Fegley also discovered that moral exemplars tend to view their actual self as more integrated with their ideal self and expected self. This means that moral exemplars have less differences between their schemas and each of these share very similar traits. In the conversation of moral identity, this strongly implies that moral exemplarity is associated with a meaningful, moral definition of one's own identity.

According to Blasi’s theory on moral character, he stated that moral character is identified by the person’s set of the morality of virtues and vices. He theorized willpower, moral desires, and integrity have the capability for a person to act morally by the hierarchical order of virtues. He believed that the “highest” and complex of virtues are expressed by the concept of willpower while the “lowest” and simplistic of virtues are expressed by the concept of integrity. He essentially states that to have the lower virtues, one must have one or more of the higher virtues. This is not to say that one is higher than the other. The will as desire is expressed as the wanting to “move forward” towards the virtue whereas the will of self-control is the wanting to “move backward” from the vice. Thus, will as desire is the moral desire that contains the moral characters’ virtues and vices. The ending goals of moral development of character and identity are to establish core goals, act according to those goals and values, and use one's strengths and gifts to make a difference.[20]

In an article written by David B. Wong, he talks about Cultural Pluralism, and Moral Identity and how they correlate. He shows that in order to prove morality in terms of culture, there are two stand points. One being that morality is a cultural invention that was made so that people had something to strive towards. The other shows that any morality is as good as any other, and is not a cultural invention. He delves into showing how morality can be viewed much like language. While many places might have a certain way of looking at a situation morally and believe it to be right, this can contradict a separate culture's interpretation, (different moral dialects).

Moral Self

The moral self is a differential process wherein some people integrate moral values into their self-concept.[21] This construct specifically refers to motivational processes. Research on the moral self has mostly dealt with the assumption that adolescence is critical for the integration of self and morality, which gives rise to a moral self.[22] In other words, self and morality are traditionally seen as separate constructs that become integrated in adolescence.[23] However, the moral self may be established around 2–3 years-old.[24][25] In fact, children as young as 5 years-old are able to consistently identify themselves as having certain moral behavioral preferences reflective of the two internally consistent dimensions of the moral self: preferences for prosocial and avoidance of anti-social behaviour.[26] Children's moral self is also increasingly predictive of moral emotions with age.[26] Finally, children's moral self may be a precursor to the development of one's moral identity, which formulates later in life.

Moral Values

Kristiansen and Hotte review many research articles regarding people's values and attitudes and whether or not they guide behavior. With the research they reviewed and their own extension of Ajzen and Fishbein's theory of reasoned action, they conclude that value-attitude-behavior depends on the individual and their moral reasoning. They also pointed out that there are such things as good values and bad values. Good values are those that guide our attitudes and behaviors and allow us to express and define ourselves. It also involves the ability to know when values are appropriate in response to the situation or person that you are dealing with. Bad values on the other hand are those that are relied on so much that it makes you unresponsive to the needs and perspectives of others.

Another issue that Kristiansen and Hotte discovered through their research was that individuals tended to "create" values to justify their reactions to certain situations. Or in other words they used values as a "post-hoc justification of their attitudes (emotions) and behaviors". Kristiansen and Hotte call this phenomenon the "Value Justification Hypothesis". The authors use an example from Faludi's journal entry of how during the period when women were fighting for their right to vote a New Rights group appealed to society's ideals of "traditional family values" as an argument against the new law in order to mask their own "anger at women's rising independence." Another theory that this can be equated to is Jonathan Haidt's "Social Intuition Theory" where individual's justify their intuitive emotions and actions through reasoning in a post-hoc fashion.

Kristiansen and Hotte also found that Independent selves had actions and behaviors that are influenced by their own thoughts and feelings, but Interdependent selves have actions, behaviors and self-concepts that were based on the thoughts and feelings of others. Westerners have two dimensions of emotions, activation and pleasantness. The Japanese have one more, the range of their interdependent relationships. Markus and Kitayama found that these two different types of values had different motives. Westerners, in their explanations, show self-bettering biases. Easterners, on the other hand, tend to focus on "other-oriented" biases.[27]

Moral Virtues

Morality as virtues suggests that the morality of a person depends on the traits and temperaments that he or she possesses and values. Piaget and Kohlberg both developed stages of development to understand the timing and meaning of moral decisions. For Lapsley and Narvaez[28] in their paper (e.g., A Social-Cognitive Approach to Moral Personality) outline how social cognition explains aspects of moral functioning that are other theories alone could not cover. The social cognitive approach to personality has six critical resources of moral personality; cognition, self-processes, affective elements of personality, changing social context, lawful situational variability, and the integration of other literature. Lapsley and Narvaez suggest that our moral values and actions stem from more than our virtues and are more so controlled by a set of schemas, cognititve structures that organize related concepts and integrate past events, that we have created in our minds. They claim that schemas are "fundamental to our very ability to notice dilemmas as we appraise the moral landscape" (p. 197). As people add to their schemas through knowledge and experience, they deliberately shape their view of morality. This idea fits in with Kohlberg's idea that moral reasoning is what governs our actions. Although Kohlberg believes in virtues as an aspect of morality, he stresses more of a justice reasoning approach to generate a consensus about moral developmental dilemmas. Kohlberg also argues that virtues are not the same among different cultures; different societies have different moral virtues by which they live. Lapsley and Narvaez suggest that over time, we become "moral experts". In gaining this moral expertise, we align our goals to our moral self, seek out and gain new knowledge of what it is to be moral, and develop highly practiced behavioral routines, all for the ultimate goal of acting out what it means to be a moral person. Essentially we are achieving a social cognitive account of personality advocated by Cervone and Shoda (1999)[29] referred to as “personality coherence”. This “phenomenological sense of self-coherence that orders our goals, preferences, and values, and gives meaning to personal striving and motivated behavior” allows us to become moral experts because, according to the social cognitive approach, personality processes do not function independently but are instead are organized into coherent systems shaped by our personal experience and social contexts (p. 11).

In accord with Cicero, Emmons (2009) theorizes that gratitude is the greatest of all virtues (p. 257). Gratitude begins as an emotion, but it becomes a virtue as benevolence and further acts of altruism are inspired. Beneath the feelings of gratitude lies a motivating action tendency, a duty to return the good that has been given. Occasionally feeling grateful and being a person characterized by gratitude are not the same thing. Emmons specifies that a grateful personality type experiences gratitude with greater intensity, frequency, span, and density than average persons (p. 263). Gratefully-disposed individuals enact the virtue of gratitude across many situations and persisting through various life-circumstances. These sorts of people understand gratitude to be a lifestyle—the "parent of all the other [virtues]" (Cicero)— rather than a momentary, fleeting feeling. Its main function is to promote social relationships by establishing interpersonal ties amongst the members of a society. Gratitude spreads in an infectious chain of perceiving a gift and subsequent gift-giving. This system of reciprocity has previously been seen as an indebtedness response, but Emmons argues that gratitude more strongly predicts future helping behavior than inequity.[30]

Moral Reasoning

In the history of moral psychology, there is perhaps no more central figure than Lawrence Kohlberg. His cognitive developmental theory of moral reasoning dominated the field for decades. Briefly stated, he argued that moral development is best thought of as one's progression in their capacity to reason morally about various moral dilemmas or conflicts of interest. The most widely known moral scenario used in his research is usually referred to as the Heinz dilemma. Kohlberg suggested that children begin by reasoning about such dilemmas ...

Kohlberg developed six stages that a child will go through using a story called "Heinz steals the drug." In the story Heinz's wife is dying of cancer and the towns druggist has something that can help her but is charging more than Heinz can afford so Heinz steals the drug to save his wife's life. Children aged 10, 13, and 16 years old were asked if what Heinz did was okay. In the story children go from stage one, where they start to recognize higher authorities and that there are set rules and punishments for breaking those rules; to stage six, where good principles make a good society. They also start to define which of the principles are most agreeable and fair.[31] According to Kohlberg, an individual is considered more cognitively mature depending on their stage of moral reasoning. Kohlberg believes, and has found through empirical evidence, that individual's stages of moral reasoning will grow as they grow in both education and world experience. One of the examples that Kohlberg gives is called "Cognitive-moral conflict" wherein an individual who is currently in one stage of moral reasoning has their beliefs challenged by a surrounding peer group. Through this challenge of beliefs the individual engages in "reflective reorganization" which allows for movement to a new stage to occur.

Kohlberg argued that though these six stages are artificial classifications of what is in reality much less concrete, they are the most logical. He claims that "anyone who interviewed children about dilemmas and who followed them longitudinally in time would come to our six stages and no others,"[32] and also that this is the best way to conceptualize not simply morality, but also specifically the direction of growth and progression of moral reasoning at the individual level over time.

Kohlberg's six stages emphasize the form of morality over the content of morality, thus claiming his findings as universal. Form focuses purely on how one thinks about morality, or moral reasoning, shying away from explicity defining what is or is not moral.

Psychologist John Dewey claims that moral development is not being fostered in the education system. He states that “the aim of moral education should be to stimulate people’s thinking ability over time in ways which will enable them to use more adequate and complex reasoning patterns to solve moral problems."[33]

Despite the influence of Kohlberg, his views did not come without criticism and critique. Previous moral development scales, particularly Kohlberg’s, believe that moral reasoning is dominated by one main perspective: justice. However, Gilligan and Attanucci argue that there is an alternative to this approach known as the care perspective.[34] The justice view deals with problems of inequality and oppression with equal rights and respect for all, whereas the care perspective deals with attachment to others. Both are unique experiences found within human development and experiences. Gilligan and Attanucci analyzed male and female responses to moral situations using content analysis to identify their moral considerations. Overall the study found that a majority of participants do represent both care and justice in their moral orientations. In addition, they found that men do tend to use the justice view significantly more than women and the same for women towards the care perspective.[34] This is significant as it illustrates that females were prone to view moral situations is a way that previous research did not account for and overlooked. At the time of production, this study really opened multiple closed doors leading to answers and further understanding of what separates men and women, specifically with how they handle and act upon moral situations. Solely looking at justice when determining moral development may not be appropriate for both genders. While this article from Gilligan and Attanucci did need a broader spectrum of test subjects to really prove authenticity, it is important to remember that not everyone views morality the same. Reviews by Walker (2006) and Jaffee and Hyde (2001) found that the theory was not supported by empirical studies. In fact, in neo-Kohlbergian studies with the Defining Issues Test, females tend to get higher scores than males, though generally not significantly so (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau & Thoma, 1999).

This research is not undermining the importance of justice, nor is it lifting the care values to be a necessary and beneficial aspect or moral reasoning. Instead it is suggesting that there are different ways of analyzing moral judgment for men and women that previous research did not take into account.

Moral Willpower

Metcalfe and Mischel (1999)[35] research the idea of willpower in regard to the delay of gratification paradigm. They propose a hot/cool system in which one can control one's emotions while still being driven by impulses. The hot system is referred to as the "go" system whereas the cool system is referred to as the "know" system. The Hot System is characterized as being highly emotional, reflexive, impulsive, undermines efforts of self-control. It is specialized for quick emotional processing/responding, affected by triggers, both conditional and unconditional.The Cool System is characterized as being cognitive, emotionally neutral/flexible, slow, integrated, contemplative, and strategic and is specialized for complex episodic representations. The Hot System develops earlier, whereas the Cool System develops later as it relies on particular brain structures and particular cognitive capacities that develop later. With age, there in a shift of dominance from the Hot System to the Cool System. Furthermore, the different systems triggered decide how one reacts to different stimuli presented.

Baumeister, Miller and Delaney (2005) present a theory of a self-management in which humans have the power to overcome their innate desires and impulses through three different mechanisms- will power, self-regulation, and skill.The theory of moral willpower is contingent upon the belief that one can will oneself to act morally even beyond what the body or instincts demand. Much like pushing oneself to finish a long race despite the pain and exhaustion, one can utilize willpower to overcome all other internal influences. Baumeister, Miller and Delaney (2005) state that “[t]he self can free its actions from being determined by particular influences, especially those of which it is aware.” (p. 68) Consciousness equips an individual with the ability to override instinctual reactions, and because of this, rationalized decisions are much less predictable. However, there is a substantial cost in resisting these natural reactions and promoting moral ones. Research has shown that self-control, or willpower, works like a "moral muscle" whose strength may be depleted, conserved, or replenished.[36] While volitional exertion reduces the ability to engage in further acts of willpower in the short term, such exertions actually improve a person's ability to exert willpower for extended periods in the long run. That is, much like a regular muscle, the "moral muscle" is susceptible to depletion when heavily exerted, but repeated exertion builds strength that makes future prolonged exertions easier. Muraven, Baumeister and Tice (1999) demonstrate in their study that this moral muscle, when exercised, is strengthened in capacity but not necessarily in power - meaning the subjects became less susceptible to the depletion of self-regulatory faculties.[37] A second part of the self-management theory is self-regulation. This includes recognizing the current situation, computing a desired response, and initiating a substitute reaction.[36] For example, in the Muraven, Baumeister and Tice (1999) study it was shown that more complex tasks like regulating one's mood present substantive difficulty and may not be as effective in increasing willpower as other, more straight forward activities like posture correction or maintaining a food journal.[37] Over time, the "moral muscle" may be exercised by small tasks of self-control, such as attempting to correct slouched posture, to resist desserts, or to complete challenging tasks. Lastly, Baumeister argues that self-management, or the ability to alter one's responses, is a kind of skill that develops as one grows up.[36] There are also many little things that can help a person replenish this source of will power, such as meditation, rest, and positive emotion between tasks.[37] They also showed that there is a conservation effect when it comes to will power. Like in sports, once a person uses their energy, (or in this case when a person's volition and self control get used) they begin to conserve the little they have left so they can be more productive later on. People tend to realize that they are using up their stored up will volition and self control and disperse it when needed.[37]

Moral Behavior

Reynolds and Ceranic (2007) identified the various contributors to moral behavior, including moral judgment and moral identity. Reynolds and Ceranic identified some major limitations in these classic cognitive moral development theories. They sought to bring together the concept of moral identity and moral judgment, rather than studying them as separate contributors to moral behavior. This research suggests that moral identity and moral judgment work both separately and together in shaping moral behavior. In addition, they have researched the effects of social consensus on one's moral behavior. The study claims that depending on the level of social consensus (high vs. low), moral behaviors will require greater or lesser degrees of moral identity to motivate an individual to make a choice and endorse a behavior. Also, depending on social consensus, particular behaviors may require different levels of moral reasoning. This article seeks to demonstrate an integrated approach to examining moral identity and moral judgment, as well as study the effects of social consensus on moral judgment. [38]

Moral Intuitions

In 2001, Jonathan Haidt introduced his Social Intuitionist Model which claimed that with few exceptions, moral judgments are made based upon socially-derived intuitions. This model suggests that moral reasoning is largely post-hoc rationalizations that function to justify one's instinctual reactions. He provides four arguments to doubt causal importance of reason. The first is research supporting a dual process system in the brain when making automatic evaluations or assessments, Haidt proposes this applies to moral judgement. The second is evidence from Chaiken that evolved social motives bias humans to cohere and relate to other's attitudes in order to achieve higher societal goals, which in turn influences one's moral judgment. Thirdly, Haidt found that people have post hoc reasoning when faced with a moral situation, this a priori (after the fact) explanation gives the illusion of objective moral judgement but in reality is subjective to one's gut feeling. Lastly, research has shown that moral emotion has a stronger link to moral action than moral reasoning, citing Damasio's research on psychopaths and Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis.[39]

In 2008, Joshua Greene published a compilation which, in contrast to Haidt's model, suggested that fair moral reasoning does take place. A deontologist is someone who has rule-based morality that is mainly focused on duties and rights. In contrast, a consequentialist is someone who believes that only the best overall consequences ultimately matter.[40] Research has found that, generally speaking, individuals who answer to moral dilemmas in a consequential manner take longer to respond and show frontal-lobe activity (associated with cognitive processing). Individuals who answer to moral dilemmas in a deontological manner, however, generally answer more quickly and show brain activity in the amygdala (associated with emotional processing). Greene also proposes that a person is someone who is always an identifiable individual and not a statistical someone. This makes moral answers to also be determined based on whether you can or cannot identify with the other person. Research suggests that, although intuitions largely influence morality (especially non-utilitarian moralities), individuals are still capable of fair moral reasoning.[41]

In regard to moral intuitions, researchers Haidt and Graham performed a study to research the difference between the moral foundations of political liberals and political conservatives.[42] They challenge individuals to question the legitimacy of their moral world and introduce 5 psychological foundations of morality: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Harm/Care started with the sensitivity to signs of suffering in offspring and has developed into a general dislike of seeing suffering in others and the potential to feel the emotion of compassion in response. Fairness/Reciprocity is developed when someone observes or engages in reciprocal interactions. Virtues related to fairness and justice have developed in all cultures. However, they can be overridden. In particular, fairness "is an excellent candidate for a universal (though variably applied) value" (p.105). Ingroup/Loyalty is recognizing, trusting, and cooperating with members of one's ingroup as well as being wary and distrustful of members of other groups. Authority/Respect is how someone navigates in a hierarchal ingroups and communities. Lastly, Purity/Sanctity stems from the emotion of disgust that guards the body by responding to elicitors that are biologically or culturally linked to disease transmission. The five foundations theory are both a nativist and cultural-psychologica theory. Modern moral psychology concedes that “morality is about protecting individuals” and focuses primarily on issues of justice (harm/care & fairness/reciprocity) (p. 99). Their research found that “justice and related virtues…make up half of the moral world for liberals, while justice-related concerns make up only one fifth of the moral world for conservatives” (p. 99).[[42] ] Liberals value harm/care and fairness/reciprocity significantly more than the other moralities, while conservatives value all five equally. Additionally, their research illustrated social justice research and social psychology are constrained in their discussion of morality by focusing on harm and fairness. Their examination of these texts found that harm and fairness moral foundations were endorsed highly by articles, while the three other moral domains were associated more with vice than virtues because they conflicted with the harm and fairness foundations.[42] Haidt and Graham propose that in order for open discussions to take place in the political arena, liberals must recognize moral issues from a conservative perspective if they are to understand the stances of conservatives and hope to enact change. Their paper ultimately concludes with a call for tolerance between those who value different moral foundations. It is necessary for progress to occur.[42]

This idea is challenged by Augusto Blasi, who is hesitant to whole-heartedly accept this theory. Though Blasi recognizes that intuitions are sometimes valid and may motivate us to do moral things, this is not always the case. Blasi emphasizes the importance of moral responsibility and reflection as one analyzes an intuition (p.423)[43].. His main argument is that some, if not most, intuitions tend to be self-centered and self-seeking (p.397). Those desires and intuitions do not create good moral actions. Blasi critiques Haidt in describing the average person and questioning if this model (having an intuition, acting on it, and then justifying it) always happens. He came to the conclusion that not everyone follows this model. He accuses Haidt of being a magician, because he is causing a distraction. Haidt is causing people to focus on intuitions and ignore all the other elements like identity or self. Blasi is concerned that the design of experiments made by psychologists today not only reveal, but also hide many parts of humanity. In other words, they are taking something extremely complex and simplifying it, which creates a skewed perspective.In more detail, Blasi proposes Haidt's five default positions on intuition. 1.) Normally moral judgments are caused by intuitions, whether the intuitions are themselves caused by heuristics, or the heuristics are intuitions; whether they are intrinsically based on emotions, or depend on grammar type of rules and externally related to emotions. 2.) Intuitions occur rapidly and appear as unquestionably evident; either the intuitions themselves or their sources are unconscious. 3.) Intuitions are responses to minimal information, are not a result of analyses or reasoning; neither do they require reasoning to appear solid and true. 4.) Reasoning may occur but infrequently. In any event, its purpose, and the purpose of reasons, is not to lead to, and support, a valid judgment, but to justify the judgment after the fact, either to other people or to oneself. Reasons in sum do not have a moral function. 5.) Because such are the empirical facts, the "rationalistic" theories and methods of Piaget and Kohlberg are rejected. Blasi argues that Haidt does not provide adequate evidence to support his position (p.412) [44]

Moral Emotions

“One approach would be first to define morality and then to say that moral emotions are the emotions that respond to moral violations or that motivate moral behavior”.[45] There have generally been two approaches taken by philosophers to define moral emotion. The first “is to specify the formal conditions that make a moral statement (e.g., that is prescriptive, that it is universalizable, such as expedience)[46]”. This first approach is more tied to language and the definitions we give to a moral emotions. The second approach “is to specify the material conditions of a moral issue, for example, that moral rules and judgments ‘must bear on the interest or welfare either of society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent’[47]”. This definition seems to be more action based. It focuses on the outcome of a moral emotion. The second definition is more preferred because it is not tied to language and therefore can be applied to prelinguistic children and animals. Moral emotions are “emotions that are linked to the interests or welfare either of society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent.” ([48])

There is a debate whether there is a set of basic emotions or if there are “scripts or set of components that can be mixed and matched, allowing for a very large number of possible emotions”.[49] Even those arguing for a basic set acknowledge that there are variants of each emotion. Ekman (1992) calls these variants “families”. “The principal moral emotions can be divided into two large and two small joint families. The large families are the ‘other-condemning’ family, in which the three brothers are contempt, anger, and disgust (and their many children, such as indignation and loathing), and the ‘self-conscious’ family (shame embarrassment, and guilt)…[T]he two smaller families the ‘other-suffering’ family (compassion) and the ‘other-praising’ family (gratitude and elevation)”.[49] Haidt also leaves theoretical room for cultural specificities. Different cultures, he suggests, can formulate different local moral emotions that reflect the intrinsic values of that culture. For example, eastern cultures may be more inclined to consider serenity/calmness as a moral emotion than western cultures.

Jonathan Haidt argues that the studies of moral reasoning in moral psychology have done very little to determine what it is that leads us to action. He criticizes the field's avoidance of emotion and believes that it is emotion that drives us to act. As Haidt would suggest, the higher the emotionality of a moral agent the more likely they are to act morally. He also uses the term "disinterested elicitor" to describe someone who is less concerned with the self, and more concerned about the well being of things exterior to him or herself. Haidt suggests that society is made up of these disinterested elicitors and that each person's pro-social action tendency is determined by his or her degree of emotionality. Haidt uses Ekman's idea of "emotion families" and builds a scale of emotionality, from low to high. Combining this scale with self-interested vs. disinterested, and you find a likelihood to act. If a person works on a low level of emotion and has self-interested emotions, such as sad/happy, they are unlikely to act. If the moral agent possesses a high emotionality and operates as a disinterested elicitor with emotions such as elevation, they are much more likely to be morally altruistic.

Empathy also plays a large role in altruism. The empathy-altruism hypothesis states that feelings of empathy for another leads to an altruistic motivation to help that person.[50] In contrast, there may also be an egoistic motivation to help someone in need. This is the Hullian tension-reduction model in which personal distress caused by another in need leads the person to help in order to alleviate their own discomfort.[51]

Batson, Klein, Highberger, and Shaw[52] conducted experiments where they manipulated people through the use of empathy-induced altruism to make decisions that required them to show partiality to one individual over another. The first experiment involved a participant from each group to choose someone to experience a positive or negative task. These groups included a non-communication, communication/low-empathy, and communication/high-empathy. They were asked to make their decisions based on these standards resulting in the communication/high-empathy group showing more partiality in the experiment then the other groups due to being successfully manipulated emotionally. Those individuals who they successfully manipulated reported that despite feeling compelled in the moment to show partiality they still felt they had made the more "immoral" decision since they followed an empathy-based emotion rather than adhering to a justice perspective of morality.

Batson, Klein, Highberger, & Shaw conducted two experiments on empathy-induced altruism proposing that this can lead to actions that violate the justice principle. The second experiment operated similarly to the first using low-empathy and high-empathy groups. Participants were faced with the decision to move an ostensibly ill child to an Immediate Help Group versus leaving her on a waiting list after listening to her emotionally driven interview describing her condition and the life it has left her to lead. The results showed that empathy-induced altruism and acting in accordance to the justice principle are independent of one another. Empathy-induced altruism and justice are two independent prosocial motives, each with their own unique ultimate goal. Resource-allocation situations in which these two motives conflict cause empathy-induced altruism to become a source of immoral injustice. Empathy-induced altruism and justice morality can work together in situations where the empathy is felt towards a victim of injustice.

Recently neuroscientist Jean Decety, drawing on empirical research in developmental psychology, social neuroscience, and psychopathy, argued that empathy and morality are neither systematically opposed to one another, nor inevitably complementary.[53][54] Further, a better understanding of the relation between empathy and morality, may require abandoning the notion of empathy in favor of more precise concepts, such as emotional sharing, empathic concern, and affective perspective-taking.

Moral Conviction

One of the main questions within the psychological study of morality is the issue of what qualitatively distinguishes moral attitudes from non-moral attitudes. Linda Skitka and colleagues have introduced the concept of moral conviction, which refers to a “strong and absolute belief that something is right or wrong, moral or immoral."[55] According to Skitka’s Integrated Theory of Moral Conviction (ITMC), attitudes held with moral conviction, known as moral mandates, differ from strong but non-moral attitudes in a number of important ways. Namely, moral mandates derive their motivational force from their perceived universality, perceived objectivity, and strong ties to emotion.[56] Perceived universality refers to the notion that individuals experience moral mandates as transcending persons and cultures; additionally, they are regarded as matters of fact. Regarding association with emotion, ITMC is consistent with Jonathan Haidt's Social Intuitionist Model in stating that moral judgments are accompanied by discrete moral emotions (i.e., disgust, shame, guilt). Importantly, Skitka maintains that moral mandates are not the same thing as moral values. Whether or not an issue will be associated with moral conviction varies across persons.

One of the main lines of IMTC research addresses the behavioral implications of moral mandates. Individuals prefer greater social and physical distance from attitudinally dissimilar others when moral conviction was high. Importantly, this effect of moral conviction could not be explained by traditional measures of attitude strength, extremity, or centrality. Skitka, Bauman, and Sargis placed participants in either attitudinally heterogeneous or homogenous groups to discuss procedures regarding two morally mandated issues, abortion and capital punishment. Those in attitudinally heterogeneous groups demonstrated the least amount of goodwill towards other group members, the least amount of cooperation, and the most tension/defensiveness. Furthermore, individuals discussing a morally-mandated issue were less likely to reach a consensus, compared to those discussing non-moral issues.[57]

Cultural Values

Morality didn’t arise from individual choice but from a collection of human decisions to try and create a structure while living together. Constraints by their environments and natural human desires influenced these decisions. The evolution of human social instincts overlap with the evolution of culture. Cultural morality has provided a way of managing conflict. It is helpful to think of cultural morality as conversation that is constantly changing.[58] This conversational model takes into account differences in opinion, value priorities, and power. Moreover, just as there are different dialects of a common language, what is said and what is received may differ due to “noise”, misunderstanding, or disagreement. Ultimately though, all the various voices whether conflicting or not, do not undermine a common culture. Cultural morality requires behavior that is cooperative and considerate of others, it discourages potentially unhealthy self-interest, and encourages other-regarding emotions beneficial in society. Furthermore, it can provide an outlet of self-interest motivations in other-regarding actions.[58]

Schwartz (1992) studies how value priorities are affected by contextual social experiences across varying cultures. In particular, Schwartz has identified 10 value types that are prevalent in nearly all cultures: Self-Direction (independent thought and action), Stimulation (pursuit of variety), Hedonism (pleasure and satisfaction), Achievement (success according to social standards), Power (status and dominance), Security (stability and peace), Conformity (maintaining the social status quo), Tradition (sharing social experiences), Benevolence (concern for the welfare of immediate persons), and Universalism (welfare for all people and nature). These values also share certain compatibilities and conflicts. For example, the values of universalism and benevolence both are concerned with the welfare of others. Therefore, a person who values universalism will likely also value benevolence. Inversely, examples of conflicting values would compare hedonism against the values of conformity and tradition. In Schwartz' theory, these values were all placed onto a "map," known as the Guttman-Lingoes Smallest Space Analysis, which indicated the values' relationships. Among these ten value types, Schwartz identifies fifty-six universally-valued qualities (whose importance and value-type classification are culture-specific). This research laid the groundwork for conducting culture-specific moral phenomena in the future.[59]

Additionally, Schwartz also conducted a study on cultural values, defining cultural values as “conceptions of the desirable that guide the way social actors (e.g. organizational leaders, policy-makers, individual person) select actions, evaluate people and events, and explain their actions and evaluations” (p. 24) ([60]). To infer national value priorities, individual values within 49 nations were aggregated to represent overall themes of the broader nation. Schwartz selected 7 value types based on societal issues. The opposing value dimensions were: Autonomy vs. Conservatism, Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism, and Mastery vs. Harmony. The current study examined a dominant social group within the nations, studying urban school teachers within the most common school systems. Teachers are believed to play a role is value socialization, and are the “key carriers of culture,” reflecting a midrange of value priorities in society. A comparative analysis was conducted with samples of college students in each nation. The value profiles of the five nations had significant results in that not only did the students and teachers yield similar results, but similar geographic regions had similar values, illustrating a correlation between geographical proximity and shared cultural values. Schwartz proposes testable hypotheses based on this national data within areas of work including: work centrality, societal norms about work, and work goals.[60] Schwartz talks about work centrality as the importance of work relative to four other areas of life- leisure, community, religion, and family. It can be found more in Mastery and Hierarchy values and less in Affective Autonomy, Egalitarianism, Harmony, and Conservatism values. Work centrality is described as assertive, controlling, exploitative activity. Work centrality is most central in Japan, USA, and West Germany. Societal norms define these aspects of meaning. There are two different types of societal norms about the working field: entitlement norms and obligation norms. Entitlement norms are where the person is an equal, autonomous social actor. Obligation norms are where the person is an integral part of the larger collective who is required to behave according to the expectations attached to his or her role.[60] Lastly, work values refer to the goals or rewards people seek through their work. In other words, they are expressions of more general human values in the context of the work setting. There are four types of work values that were distinguished in this study: intrinsic, extrinsic, social, and power. No one type of work goal is likely to be the most effective across all cultures.

CAD Triad Hypothesis

Previous research on moral development has generally focused on rationality and cognitive development. Since Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist, developed what is now known as Kohlberg’s stages of moral development in 1969, it has been universally accepted that moral development is driven by cognitive processes. However, recently psychologists have begun to examine the relationship between morality and emotionality. It has been widely debated among philosophers and psychologists what concepts comprise the foundation of human morality: cognition or emotion. Human social life has been evolving to incorporate both aspects of moral judgment. As technology advances and social interactions become more complicated, the definition of morality has morphed into an expanding notion that includes emotional reactions.

It is human nature to attach emotion to uncontrollable events in life in an attempt to provide meaning.[61] An emotional reaction allows humans to more accurately gauge the morality of any given situation. Many psychologists have argued that emotional reactions are the best predictors of moral judgment. In an effort to learn more about the link between morality and emotionality, anthropologist and psychologist Richard Shweder and his colleagues affirmed that there are three distinct values that cultures implement to resolve moral issues: community, autonomy, and divinity. These three principals are known as the CAD Triad Hypothesis. This theory provides an innovative way to associate emotions to moralization by emphasizing that morality not only includes reasoning, but also emotional reactions.


The moral code of community is a moral obligation to care for the community in an attempt to not violate hierarchy. According to the CAD Triad Hypothesis, it is considered a breach of morality if a person fails to carry out his or her duties within a community. In order to deem an act within the community as immoral, one must consider respect for authority, loyalty, duty, obligation, and honor.


The moral code of autonomy is a moral obligation to uphold individual freedom and to prevent the violation of personal rights. An act is considered an immoral breach of autonomy if it directly hurts another person or defies another person’s individual rights. One must think about harm, fairness, individualism, liberty, and justice.


The moral code of divinity is a moral obligation to inhibit violations against purity. An act is considered an immoral breach of divinity when a person disrespects the inviolability of God or causes impurity to himself/herself or others. One must think about sanctity, sin, and degradation.[62]

Linking the Triad

Shweder expanded the CAD Triad Hypothesis by linking the three moral codes to three moral emotions. He proposed that anger connects to autonomy, contempt connects to community, and disgust connects to divinity. Moral psychologists acknowledge contempt, anger, and disgust as three logical pillars of moral emotion because they are often experienced in daily life. All three moral emotions involve condemnation of others, yet they illustrate very diverse ideas within the realm of moralization. Anger has always been viewed as a nonmoral emotion. When ones autonomy is broken, a natural human reaction is to get angry. Anger is linked to acts such as insults, transgressions, and the violation of rights against the self. We experience the feeling of disgust when people act without dignity or dignity is taken away unwillingly from others. Dignity encompasses the purity of the body, which includes maintaining control of all bodily functions such as sex, eating, and hygiene. Actions taken that somehow contaminate the body with regards to bodily functions are considered immoral and humans reaction with disgust. Research has shown that people who feel physical disgust towards an image or action will also feel an equal amount of moral disgust. This term is known as “moral hypervigilance”[63] Moral hypervigilance is specifically prominent in United States culture where people often describe immoral acts against dignity by utilizing physical characteristics. Contempt is often linked with hierarchy and community. The feeling of contempt differs from anger and disgust because although it does involve disapproval, it also entails a component of indifference. Moral superiority and contempt are often felt concerning individuals who violate the morality of the community.[62] With the help of the CAD Triad Hypothesis, people can grasp a better understanding at how important a role emotions play in moralization.

Triune Ethics Theory (TET; Narvaez, 2008)

Triune ethics theory attempts to highlight the importance of considering the development, purpose and function of biological systems or environments when considering morality and moral functioning. TET proposes three ethics that are the foundation or motivation for all ethics: security (or safety), engagement, and imagination. These are based on the universal growth of the human brain during basic periods of evolutionary change, particularly in the frontal lobes.[64]


The security ethic is based in the oldest part of the brain, involving the R-complex or the extrapyrimidal action nervous system.[65] The security ethic is triggered by the stress response which activates primal instincts and fight or flight responses.[66] These are concerned or centered on safety, survival, and thriving in an environment (or biological system). With these systems present at birth, the security ethic is conditioned during sensitive periods of development (such as infancy), life experience,and trauma.[64] If somebody becomes fixated at this ethic, they can be seen as cold, closed-minded, and aggressive. This ethic is most responsible for racism and hate towards outside groups.


The ethic of engagement is centered in the upper limbic system.[65] The limbic system allows for external and internal emotional signaling and is critical to emotion, identity, memory for ongoing experience and an individual's sense of reality and truth. The ethic of engagement refers to relational attunement in the moment (which the stress response prevents), focusing on social bonding. It relies significantly on caregiver influence for its scheduled development in early childhood.[64] The engagement ethic is strongly associated with the hormone Oxytocin, which is the hormone that has a strong presence during breastfeeding between a mother and child. Oxytocin is essential for building the trust between mother and child.


The imagination ethic "allows a person to step away from the impetuous emotional responses of the older parts of the brain and consider alternative actions based on logic and reason.[67] It is centered in the neocortex and related thalamic structures, including the frontal lobes used for reasoning and judgement skills.[65] It is focused on the outside world and allows for the integration and coordination of the other parts of the brain to allow for imaginative thinking and strategic problem solving. The ethic of imagination involves integrating internal information with external information, allowing an adult to acknowledge and possibly reject more emotional responses from the security or engagement ethics. The imagination ethic can build off of the self-protective states of the security ethic (vicious or detached imagination) or of the prosocial engagement ethic (communal imagination).[64]

Moralization of Smoking

Moral Psychology can be broken into two divisions: moralization that occurs individually and moralization that becomes institutionalized. Due to popular epidemiology, people have the freedom to govern themselves with regards to individual autonomy. Today, smoking has stimulated controversy within the field of moral psychology pertaining to whether it is considered an act of morality or immorality. Morality is typically defined as the collective beliefs that comprise and attribute to a good life. Based on religious morality, a good life means a long and healthy life.

Within the past ten years, there has been a shift from religious morality to a “here-and-now” secular value system. The health and fitness movement has had a major influence on our society’s social structure and attitudes concerning moralization. The present negative connotation of cigarette smoking in the United States is used to illustrate moralization. Being a morally sound person entails “a high-quality life that is extendable in years well beyond the lifespan of the previous generation – a relative immortality, won by a redoubled commitment to the health and fitness lifestyle”[68] Smoking has been proven to diminish your lifespan and therefore, under the standards of this new secular value system, would be considered immoral. Many people argue that smoking is in fact not immoral because the health and fitness movement requires a great deal of conformity, which infringes basic individual rights. The tobacco companies over exaggerate this infringement in an attempt to turn the public away from the morality and health issues that have been created due to new advancement in scientific findings. Twenty years ago, the negative effects of smoking tobacco were not well known to the general public and therefore smoking was not moralized. Tobacco companies attempted to keep sales up by creating a false sense of superiority and switching the blame to make the consumer feel immoral instead of the company. By claiming that there are healthier options to smoking, for example filtered and low-tar products, the customer feels as though they are making an immoral purchase by buying a regular pack of cigarettes as oppose to the healthier alternatives. Tobacco companies have also strategized to target teenagers as potential smokers because they are known to ignore risks due to the belief in their invulnerability and high moral status.[69]

Because smoking is highly moralized in the United States, multiple moral and social psychologists have researched the relationship between risk perception and moralization across cultures. A study by Helweg-Larsen and Nielsen (2009) found cross-cultural differences in risk perception and moralization among Danish and American smokers. The results showed that moralization was correlated with greater personal risk perception among American smokers but not among Danish smokers. This can be attributed to many cultural differences. Moralization permeates culture and attitudes relating to risk. Moralization may influence peoples risk perceptions more heavily in the United States then in Denmark. This could be attributed to the severity of the smoking attitudes in the United States compared to the more relaxed attitudes in Denmark[70]

To further illustrate the harsh antismoking attitudes in the United States, the media has scrutinized President Barack Obama for his smoking habit. President Obama’s promise to quit smoking increased the already high moralization attitudes. The media attempted to “encourage privately held attitudes and beliefs to become sufficiently public as to provide consensus for moral action”[68] Antismoking campaigns and lobbying groups focus their attention on questioning the voluntary nature of smoking in an effort to enhance the moralization of smoking.[71] Due to a snowball effect, second hand smoke also became a heated topic for debate among government officials and corporations. Anti second hand smoking campaigns have illustrated through images in the media that cigarette smoking harms other people and thus is an immoral act. Politicians endorse these anti smoking movements by discouraging or prohibiting smoking.[72]

Moralization of Food

Much like smoking, food is also highly moralized in the United States. As mentioned previously, people are viewed in good moral standing when they lead healthy lives. In today’s fast paced society, too often people rely on fast food for sustenance. With the boom of the organic movement, we have begun to moralize foods that previously were considered neutral and merely as a means for survival. “Moralization converts preferences into values, and in doing so influences cross-generational transmission (because values are passed more effectively in families than are preferences), increases the likelihood of internalization, invokes greater emotional response, and mobilizes the support of governmental and other cultural institutions”[72] Smoking within the United States has become moralized and in turn, smokers are being compared to meat eaters. Many Americans find the act of eating meat to be immoral. A study conducted by Rozin showed that there is a tendency for disgust toward meat to be associated with moralization as opposed to health motivations. Rejection of animal products as food is a contemporary example of moralization.[72]


The subjects covered by moral psychology include:

See also


  1. ^ See, for example, Lapsley, D.K. Moral psychology (1996). Boulder, CO: Westview Press
  2. ^ See, for example, Doris & Stich (2008) and Wallace (2007). Wallace writes: "Moral psychology is the study of morality in its psychological dimensions" (p. 86).
  3. ^ See Doris & Stich (2008), §1.
  4. ^ a b Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action?. Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212-218. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x
  5. ^ Teper, R., Inzlicht, M., & Page-Gould, E. (2011). Are we more moral than we think?: Exploring the role of affect in moral behavior and moral forecasting. Psychological Science, 22(4), 553-558. doi:10.1177/0956797611402513
  6. ^ Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive development approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.
  7. ^ Doris & Stich (2008), §1.
  8. ^ Kohlberg, Lawrence (1958). "The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16". Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.
  9. ^ Kohlberg, L. (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgment Vol. 2: Standard Issue Scoring Manual. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-24447-1.
  10. ^ Leffel (2008)
  11. ^ Leffel's (2008) model draws heavily on Haidt's (2001) "Social Intuitionist Model" of moral judgment.
  12. ^ Haidt, Jonathan; Jesse Graham (2007). "When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions That Liberals May Not Recognize" (PDF).  
  13. ^ Talks: Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives at TED in 2008
  14. ^
  15. ^ Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human Development, 48, 232-256.
  16. ^ Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1993). The uniting of self and morality in the development of extraordinary moral commitment. In G. G. Noam & T. E. Wren (Eds.), The moral self (pp. 149-174). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  17. ^ Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral commitment. New York: Free Press.
  18. ^ The development of extraordinary moral commitment, Anne Colby and William Damon
  19. ^ Hart, D., & Fegley, S. (1995). Prosocial behavior and caring in adolescence: Relations to self-understanding and social judgment. Child Development, 66(5), 1346-1359
  20. ^ Blasi, A. (2005). Moral character: A psychological approach. In D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Powers (Eds.), Character psychology and character education (pp. 67-100). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
  21. ^ Krettenauer, T. (2011). The dual moral self: Moral centrality and internal moral motivation. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 172, 309-328. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2010.538451
  22. ^ see Krettenauer, T. (2013). Revisiting the moral self construct: Developmental perspectives on moral selfhood. In B. Sokol, U., F. Grouzet, & U. Müller (Eds.). Self-regulation and autonomy (pp. 115-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. ^ see for example, Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  24. ^ Emde, R., Biringen, Z., Clyman, R., & Oppenheim, D. (1991). The moral self of infancy: Affective core and procedural knowledge. Developmental Review, 11, 251-270.
  25. ^ Kochanska, G. (2002). Committed compliance, moral self, and internalization: A mediational model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 339-351. doi:
  26. ^ a b Krettenauer, T., Campbell, S., & Hertz, S. (2013). Moral emotions and the development of the moral self in childhood. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 159-173. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.762750
  27. ^ Kristiansen, Connie M., Alan M. Hotte, and Ottawa U. Carleton. "Morality And The Self: Implications For The When And How Of Value–Attitude–Behavior Relations." The Psychology of Values. Vol. 8. Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996. 91. Print. The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology.
  28. ^ Lapsley, D. K., & Narvaez, D. (2004). A social-cognitive approach to the moral personality Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ
  29. ^ Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability, and organization. Guilford Press, New York, NY.
  30. ^ Emmons, Robert A. "Greatest of Virtues? Gratitude and the Grateful Personality." Personality, Identity, and Character. New York: Cambridge UP, 2009. 256-70. Print.
  31. ^ Crain, W.C. "Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development". Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. Retrieved 3 October 2011. 
  32. ^ Kohlberg, Lawrence (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (Essays on Moral Development, Volume 2). Harper & Row. p. 195. 
  33. ^ Kohlberg, Lawrence; Richard Hersh (1977). "Moral Development: A Review of the Theory" 16 (2). pp. 53–58. 
  34. ^ a b Gilligan and Attanucci (1988). Two Moral Orientations: Gender Differences and Similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly; 34(3), 223-237.
  35. ^ Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106(1), 3-19.
  36. ^ a b c Baumeister, Miller, & Delaney (2005). Self and Volition
  37. ^ a b c d Longitudinal Improvement of Self-Regulation Through Practice, Muraven, Baumeister & Tice
  38. ^ Reynolds, S.J., & Ceranic, T.L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: a empirical examiniation of the moral individual. Seattle, Journals of Applied Psychology.
  39. ^ Haidt, Jonathan (October 2001). "The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail". Psychological Review 108 (4).  
  40. ^ Greene, Joshua (2008). The Secret Joke of Kant's Soul. In: Sinnott-Armstrong W Moral Psychology, Vol. 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Disease, and Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
  41. ^ Armstrong, Walter (2008). Moral Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 35–79. 
  42. ^ a b c d Haidt, Jonathan, and Jesse Graham. "When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions That Liberals May Not Recognize." Social Justice Research 20.1 (2007): 98-116. Print.
  43. ^ Narvaez, Darcia (2009). Personality, Identity, and Character. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. pp. 396–440. 
  44. ^ Narvaez, Darcia (2009). Personality, Identity, and Character. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. pp. 396–440. 
  45. ^ Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. p. 853
  46. ^ Hare (1981)
  47. ^ Gewirth, 1984
  48. ^ Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. p 583
  49. ^ a b Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. p. 855
  50. ^ Batson, Klein, Highberger, & Shaw (1995)
  51. ^ Batson, Fultz, & Schoenrade (1987)
  52. ^ Batson, C. D., Klein, T. R., Highberger, L., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Immorality from empathy-induced altruism: When compassion and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1042-1054.
  53. ^ Decety, J. (2014). The neuroevolution of empathy and caring for others: Why it matters for morality. In J. Decety and Y. Christen (Eds). New Frontiers in Social Neuroscience (pp. 127-151). New York: Springer.
  54. ^ Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 337-339.
  55. ^ Skitka, Linda (2002). "Do the means always justify the ends or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28: 452–461. 
  56. ^ Morgan, G. S.; Skitka, L. J. (2011). "Moral conviction". In Daniel J. Christie. Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. 
  57. ^ Skitka, L. J.; Bauman, C.; Sargis, E. (2005). "Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88: 895–917.  
  58. ^ a b Wong (2009) Cultural pluralism and moral identity
  59. ^ Schwartz, Shalom H. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25 (1992): 1-65. Print.
  60. ^ a b c Schwartz, S (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. International association of applied psychology.
  61. ^ Rozin, P. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 10(3), 218.
  62. ^ a b Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 76(4), 574-586. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.574
  63. ^ Jones, A., Fitness, J. (2008). “Moral hypervigilance: The influence of disgust sensitivity in the moral domain”. Emotion 8(5): 613-627. doi: 10.1037/a0013435
  64. ^ a b c d Narváez, Darcia, "Triune Ethics Theory and Moral Personality." In D. Narvaez and D.K. Lapsley, Personality, Identity, and Character: Explorations in Moral Psychology. New York: Cambridge UP, 2009. pp. 136-158, Print.
  65. ^ a b c MacLean, P.D.(1990). The triune concept of the brain in evolution: Role in paleocerebral functions. New York:Plenum
  66. ^
  67. ^ Narvaez, D. Triune ethics: The neurobiological roots of our multiple moralities. New Ideas in Psychology (2007), doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.07.008
  68. ^ a b Katz, S. (1997). Secular morality. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and Health (pp. 295-330). New York, NY: Routledge
  69. ^ Brandt, A. M. (2004). Difference and diffusion: Cross-cultural perspectives on the rise of anti-tobacco policies. In E. A. Feldman & R. Bayer (Eds), Unfiltered: Conflicts over tobacco policy and public health (pp. 255-380). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  70. ^ Helweg-Larsen, M., Tobias, M. R., & Cerban, B. M. (2010). Risk perception and moralization among smokers in the USA and Denmark: A qualitative approach. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 871-886.
  71. ^ Brandt, A. M. (2004). Difference and diffusion: Cross-cultural perspectives on the rise of anti-tobacco policies. In E. A. Feldman & R. Bayer (Eds), Unfiltered: Conflicts over tobacco policy and public health (pp. 255-380). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  72. ^ a b c Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8(2), 67-73. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00685.x

28. ^Katz, S. (1997). Secular morality. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and Health (pp. 295–330). New York, NY: Routledge

29. ^Helweg-Larsen, M., Tobias, M. R., & Cerban, B. M. (2010). Risk perception and moralization among smokers in the USA and Denmark: A qualitative approach. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 871-886

30. ^Brandt, A. M. (2004). Difference and diffusion: Cross-cultural perspectives on the rise of anti-tobacco policies. In E. A. Feldman & R. Bayer (Eds), Unfiltered: Conflicts over tobacco policy and public health (pp. 255–380). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

31. ^Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action?. Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212-218. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x

32. ^Teper, R., Inzlicht, M., & Page-Gould, E. (2011). Are we more moral than we think?: Exploring the role of affect in moral behavior and moral forecasting. Psychological Science, 22(4), 553-558. doi:10.1177/0956797611402513

33. ^Jones, A., Fitness, J. (2008). “Moral hypervigilance: The influence of disgust sensitivity in the moral domain”. Emotion 8(5): 613-627. doi: 10.1037/a0013435

34. ^Rozin, P. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 10(3), 218.

35. ^Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 76(4), 574-586. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.574

36. ^Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8(2), 67-73. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00685.x

References and further reading

  • Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1-16.
  • Batson, C.D. (1987). Distress and Empathy: Two Qualitatively Distinct Vicarious Emotions with Different Motivational Consequences.
  • Batson, C. D. (1991). The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Batson, C. D. (1995). Immorality From Empathy-Induced Altruism: When Compassion and Justice Conflict.
  • Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 337-339.
  • Doris, John M. (2002). Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Doris, John & Stich, Stephen. (2008). Moral Psychology: Empirical Approaches. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). link
  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.
  • Jackson, Frank & Smith, Michael (eds.) (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy, Oxford University Press.
  • Lapsley, Daniel K. (1996). Moral Psychology. Westview Press. ISBN 0-8133-3033-5
  • Leffel, G.M. (2008). Who cares? Generativity and the moral emotions, Part 2: A social intuitionist model of moral motivation. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 36(3), 182-201.
  • McGraw, A.P., Tetlock, P.E., & Kristel, O.V. (2003). The limits of fungibility: Relational schemata and the value of things. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 219-229.
  • Mikhail, John. (2011). Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls’ Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • "Moral psychology" (2007). Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 6, 2008 from link
  • Narvaez, D. (2008). Triune ethics: The neurobiological roots of our multiple moralities. New Ideas in Psychology, 26, 95-119.
  • Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D.K. (Eds.) (2009). Personality, Identity, and Character: Explorations in Moral Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lapsley, D.K., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.) (2004). Moral development, self and identity: Essays in honor of Augusto Blasi. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Nagel, Thomas. (1970). The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton University Press.
  • Nichols, Shaun. (2004). Sentimental Rules: On the Natural Foundations of Moral Judgment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Plato. The Republic, public domain.
  • Richardson, Henry S. (2008). "Moral Reasoning", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). link
  • Roberts, Robert C. Emotions: An Essay in aid of Moral Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, ed. (2007). Moral Psychology, 3 volumes. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-69354-2
  • Smith, Michael. (1994). The Moral Problem. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
  • Tetlock, P., Kristel, O., Elson, B., Green, M., and Lerner, J. (2000). "The Psychology of the Unthinkable: Taboo Trade-Offs, Forbidden Base Rates, and Heretical Counterfactuals," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78, 853-870.
  • Thagard, Paul. (2007). "The Moral Psychology of Conflicts of Interest: Insights from Affective Neuroscience". Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(4), pp. 367–380.
  • Wallace, R. Jay. (2007). "Moral Psychology", Ch. 4 of Jackson & Smith (2007), pp. 86–113.
  • Wallace, R. Jay (2006). Normativity and the Will. Selected Essays on Moral Psychology and Practical Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Katz, S. (1997). Secular morality. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and Health (pp. 295–330). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Helweg-Larsen, M., Tobias, M. R., & Cerban, B. M. (2010). Risk perception and moralization among smokers in the USA and Denmark: A qualitative approach. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 871-886.
  • Brandt, A. M. (2004). Difference and diffusion: Cross-cultural perspectives on the rise of anti-tobacco policies. In E. A. Feldman & R. Bayer (Eds), Unfiltered: Conflicts over tobacco policy and public health (pp. 255–380). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action?. Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212-218. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x
  • Teper, R., Inzlicht, M., & Page-Gould, E. (2011). Are we more moral than we think?: Exploring the role of affect in moral behavior and moral forecasting. Psychological Science, 22(4), 553-558. doi:10.1177/0956797611402513
  • Jones, A., Fitness, J. (2008). “Moral hypervigilance: The influence of disgust sensitivity in the moral domain”. Emotion 8(5): 613-627. doi: 10.1037/a0013435
  • Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Rozin, P. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 10(3), 218.
  • Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 76(4), 574-586. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.574
Narváez, Darcia, and Daniel K. Lapsley. Personality, Identity, and Character: Explorations in Moral Psychology. New York: Cambridge UP, 2009. Print.

External links

  • Moral Psychology: Empirical Approaches - an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP).
  • Moral Character - entry in the SEP.
  • Empathy - entry in the SEP.
  • Moral Motivation - entry in the SEP.
  • Moral Responsibility - entry in the SEP.
  • Psychological Issues in Metaethics - section 1b of the "Ethics" entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP).
  • Moral Character - entry in the IEP.
  • Moral Development - entry in the IEP.
  • Responsibility - entry in the IEP.
  • Moral Psychology Research Group - with Knobe, Nichols, Doris and others.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.