Moral psychology

Moral psychology is a field of study in both philosophy and psychology. Historically, the term "moral psychology" was used relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.[1][2] Moral psychology eventually came to refer more broadly to various topics at the intersection of ethics, psychology, and philosophy of mind.[3][4][5] Some of the main topics of the field are moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral sensitivity, moral responsibility, moral motivation, moral identity, moral action, moral development, moral diversity, moral character (especially as related to virtue ethics), altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral forecasting, moral emotion, affective forecasting, and moral disagreement.[6][7]

Today, moral psychology is a thriving area of research spanning many disciplines,[8] with major bodies of research on the biological,[9][10] cognitive/computational[11][12][13] and cultural[14][15] basis of moral judgment and behavior, and a growing body of research on moral judgment in the context of artificial intelligence.[16][17]

History

The origins of moral psychology can be traced back to early philosophical works, largely concerned with moral education, such as by Plato and Aristotle in Ancient Greece,[18][19] as well as from the Confucian tradition.[20][21][22] Empirical studies of moral judgment go back at least as far as the 1890s with the work of Frank Chapman Sharp,[23] coinciding with the development of psychology as a discipline separate from philosophy. Since at least 1894, philosophers and psychologists attempted to empirically evaluate the morality of an individual,[24][25] especially attempting to distinguish adults from children in terms of their judgment, but these efforts failed because they "attempted to quantify how much morality an individual had—a notably contentious idea—rather than understand the individual's psychological representation of morality".[26](p284)

[I]f you said that you studied moral psychology in the 1980s, then you probably studied the development of moral reasoning. You didn’t need to agree with Kohlberg on any particular claim, but you lived and worked on land that Kohlberg had cleared.

Jonathan Haidt[27](p282)

In most introductory psychology courses, students learn about moral psychology by studying the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg,[28][29][30] who proposed a highly influential theory of moral development, developed throughout the 1950s and 1960s. This theory was built on Piaget's observation that children develop intuitions about justice that they can later articulate. Kohlberg proposed six stages broken into 3 categories of moral reasoning that, he believed to be universal to all people in all cultures.[31] The increasing sophistication of justice-based reasoning was taken as a sign of development. Moral cognitive development, in turn, was assumed to be a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for moral action.[32]

But researchers using the Kohlberg model found a gap between what people said was most moral and actions they took. In response, Augusto Blasi proposed his self-model that links ideas of moral judgment and action through moral commitment. Those with moral goals central to the self-concept are more likely to take moral action, as they feel a greater obligation to do so. Those who are motivated will attain a unique moral identity.[33]

Following the publication of a pair of landmark papers in 2001,[34][35] there was a surge in interest in moral psychology across a broad range of subfields of psychology, with interest shifting away from developmental processes towards a greater emphasis on social, cognitive, affective and neural processes involved in moral judgment.[1][5][36]

Methods
The trolley problem, a commonly-used moral dilemma in psychological research

Philosophers, psychologists and researchers from other fields have created various methods for studying topics in moral psychology, with empirical studies dating back to at least the 1890s.[26] The methods used in these studies include moral dilemmas such as the trolley problem,[23][35] structured interviews and surveys as a means to study moral psychology and its development, as well as the use of economic games,[37] neuroimaging,[38] and studies of natural language use.[39]

Interview techniques

In 1963, Lawrence Kohlberg presented an approach to studying differences in moral judgment by modeling evaluative diversity as reflecting a series of developmental stages (à la Jean Piaget). Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development are:[40]

  1. Obedience and punishment orientation
  2. Self-interest orientation
  3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
  4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
  5. Social contract orientation
  6. Universal ethical principles

Stages 1 and 2 are combined into a single stage labeled "pre-conventional", and stages 5 and 6 are combined into a single stage labeled "post-conventional" for the same reason; psychologists can consistently categorize subjects into the resulting four stages using the "Moral Judgement Interview" which asks subjects why they endorse the answers they do to a standard set of moral dilemmas.[29]

Survey instruments

Between 1910 and 1930, in the United States and Europe, several morality tests were developed to classify subjects as either fit or unfit to make moral judgments.[26][41] Test-takers would classify or rank standardized lists of personality traits, hypothetical actions, or pictures of hypothetical scenes. As early as 1926, catalogs of personality tests included sections specifically for morality tests, though critics persuasively argued that they merely measured intelligence or awareness of social expectations.[26]

Meanwhile, Kohlberg inspired a new series of morality tests. The Defining Issues Test (dubbed "Neo-Kohlbergian" by its constituents) scores relative preference for post-conventional justifications,[42] and the Moral Judgment Test scores consistency of one's preferred justifications.[43][44] Both treat evaluative ability as similar to IQ (hence the single score), allowing categorization by high score vs. low score.

Among the more recently developed survey measures, the Moral Foundations Questionnaire[45] is a widely used survey measure of the five moral intuitions proposed by Moral Foundations Theory: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. The questions ask respondents to rate various considerations in terms of how relevant they are to the respondent's moral judgments. The purpose of the questionnaire is to measure the degree to which people rely upon each of the five moral intuitions (which may coexist). The first two foundations cluster together with liberal political orientation and the latter three cluster with conservative political orientation.[46][47]

Evolutionary origins
Cooperative behavior has been observed in many nonhuman animals.
Main article: Evolution of morality
See also: Evolutionary ethics

According to Haidt,[27] the belief that morality is not innate was one of the few theoretical commitments uniting many of the prominent psychologists studying morality in the twentieth century. A substantial amount of research in recent decades has focused on the evolutionary origins of various aspects of morality.[48][49][50][51] In Unto Others: the Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (1998), Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson demonstrated that diverse moralities could evolve through group selection.[52] In particular, they dismantled the idea that natural selection will favor a homogeneous population in which all creatures care only about their own personal welfare and/or behave only in ways which advance their own personal reproduction.[53] Tim Dean has advanced the more general claim that moral diversity would evolve through frequency-dependent selection because each moral approach is vulnerable to a different set of situations which threatened our ancestors.[54]

Topics and Theories

Moral identity
Main article: Moral identity

Moral identity refers to the importance of morality to a person’s identity, typically construed as either a trait-like individual difference, or set of chronically accessible schemas.[33][55] Moral identity is theorized to be one of the key motivational forces connecting moral reasoning to moral behavior,[55] as suggested by a 2016 meta-analysis reporting that moral identity is positively associated with moral behavior.[56]

Moral values
See also: Moral foundations theory and Theory of Basic Human Values

Psychologist Shalom Schwartz defines individual values as "conceptions of the desirable that guide the way social actors (e.g.organisational leaders, policymakers, individual persons) select actions, evaluate people an events, and explain their actions and evaluations."[57] Cultural values form the basis for social norms, laws, customs and practices. While individual values vary case by case (a result of unique life experience), the average of these values point to widely held cultural beliefs (a result of shared cultural values).

Kristiansen and Hotte[58] reviewed many research articles regarding people's values and attitudes and whether 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. Another issue that Kristiansen and Hotte discovered through their research was that individuals tended to "create" values to justify their reactions to certain situations, which they called the "value justification hypothesis".[58] Their theory is comparable to Jonathan Haidt's social intuitionist theory,[34] where individuals justify their intuitive emotions and actions through post-hoc moral reasoning.

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.[58]

Moral Foundations Theory
Main article: Moral foundations theory

Moral foundations theory, first proposed in 2004 by Jonathan Haidt and Craig Joseph,[59] attempts to explain the origins of and variation in human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, modular foundations. Notably, Moral Foundations Theory has been used to describe the difference between the moral foundations of political liberals and political conservatives.[60][46] Haidt and Joseph expanded on previous research done by Shweder and his three ethics theory.[59] Shweder's theory consisted of three moral ethics: the ethics of community, autonomy, and divinity.[61] Haidt and Graham took this theory and extended it to discuss the five psychological systems that more specifically make up the three moral ethics theory. These Five Foundations of Morality and their importance vary throughout each culture and construct virtues based on their emphasized foundation. The five psychological foundations are:

  • Harm/care, which starts with the sensitivity to signs of suffering in offspring and develops into a general dislike of seeing suffering in others and the potential to feel compassion in response.
  • Fairness/reciprocity, which is developed when someone observes or engages in reciprocal interactions. This foundation is concerned with virtues related to fairness and justice.
  • Ingroup/loyalty, which constitutes recognizing, trusting, and cooperating with members of one's ingroup as well as being wary of members of other groups.
  • Authority/respect, which is how someone navigates in a hierarchal ingroups and communities.
  • Purity/sanctity, which 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-psychological theory. Modern moral psychology concedes that "morality is about protecting individuals" and focuses primarily on issues of justice (harm/care and fairness/reciprocity).[60](p99) 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".[60](p99) Liberals value harm/care and fairness/reciprocity significantly more than the other moralities, while conservatives value all five equally.

Moral virtues

In 2004, D. Lapsley and D. Narvaez outlined how social cognition explains aspects of moral functioning.[62] Their 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 moral values and actions stem from more than our virtues and are controlled by a set of self-created schemas (cognitive structures that organize related concepts and integrate past events). They claim that schemas are "fundamental to our very ability to notice dilemmas as we appraise the moral landscape" and that over time, people develop greater "moral expertise".[63]

Triune ethics theory

The triune ethics meta-theory (TEM) has been proposed by Darcia Narvaez as a metatheory that highlights the relative contributions to moral development of biological inheritance (including human evolutionary adaptations), environmental influences on neurobiology, and the role of culture.[64] TET proposes three basic mindsets that shape ethical behavior: self-protectionism (a variety of types), engagement, and imagination (a variety of types that are fueld by protectionism or engagement). A mindset influences perception, affordances, and rhetorical preferences. Actions taken within a mindset become an ethic when they trump other values. Engagement and communal imagination represent optimal human functioning that are shaped by the evolved developmental niche (evolved nest) that supports optimal psychosocial neurobiological development.[65] Based on worldwide anthropological research (e.g., Hewlett and Lamb's Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods), Narvaez uses small-band hunter-gatherers as a baseline for the evolved nest and its effects.

Moral reasoning and development
Main articles: Moral reasoning and Moral development
See also: Moral education and Values education

Moral development and reasoning are two overlapping topics of study in moral psychology that have historically received a great amount of attention, even preceding the influential work of Piaget and Kohlberg.[26] Moral reasoning refers specifically to the study of how people think about right and wrong and how they acquire and apply moral rules.[66] Moral development refers more broadly to age-related changes in thoughts and emotions that guide moral beliefs, judgments and behaviors.[67]

Kohlberg's stage theory
Main article: Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development

Jean Piaget, in watching children play games, noted how their rationales for cooperation changed with experience and maturation.[68] He identified two stages, heteronomous (morality centered outside the self) and autonomous (internalized morality). Lawerence Kohlberg sought to expand Piaget's work. His cognitive developmental theory of moral reasoning dominated the field for decades. He focused on moral development as one's progression in the capacity to reason about justice. Kohlberg's interview method included hypothetical moral dilemmas or conflicts of interest (most notably, the Heinz dilemma). He proposed six stages and three levels of development (claiming that "anyone who interviewed children about dilemmas and who followed them longitudinally in time would come to our six stages and no others).[69] At the Preconventional level, the first two stages included the punishment-and-obedience orientation and the instrumental-relativist orientation. The next level, the conventional level, included the interpersonal concordance or "good boy – nice girl" orientation, along with the "law and order" orientation. Lastly, the final Postconventional level consisted of the social-contract, legalistic orientation and the universal-ethical-principle orientation.[70] According to Kohlberg, an individual is considered more cognitively mature depending on their stage of moral reasoning, which grows as they advance in education and world experience.

Critics of Kohlberg's approach (such as Carol Gilligan and Jane Attanucci) argue that there is an over-emphasis on justice and an under-emphasis on an additional perspective to moral reasoning, known as the care perspective. The justice perspective draws attention to inequality and oppression, while striving for reciprocal rights and equal respect for all. The care perspective draws attention to the ideas of detachment and abandonment, while striving for attention and response to people who need it. Care Orientation is relationally based. It has a more situational focus that is dependent on the needs of others as opposed to Justice Orientation's objectivity.[71] However, reviews by others have found that Gilligan's theory was not supported by empirical studies since orientations are individual dependent.[72][73] In fact, in neo-Kohlbergian studies with the Defining Issues Test, females tend to get slightly higher scores than males.[74]

The attachment approach to moral judgment

Aner Govrin's attachment approach to moral judgment[75][76][77] proposes that, through early interactions with the caregiver, the child acquires an internal representation of a system of rules that determine how right/wrong judgments are to be construed, used, and understood. By breaking moral situations down into their defining features, the attachment model of moral judgment outlines a framework for a universal moral faculty based on a universal, innate, deep structure that appears uniformly in the structure of almost all moral judgments regardless of their content.

Moral behaviour
See also: Social preferences

Historically, major topics of study in the domain of moral behavior have included violence and altruism,[78] bystander intervention and obedience to authority (e.g., the Milgram experiment[79] and Stanford prison experiment[80]).[1] Recent research on moral behavior uses a wide range of methods, including using experience sampling to try and estimate the actual prevalence of various kinds of moral behavior in everyday life.[81][82] Research has also focused on variation in moral behavior over time, through studies of phenomena such as moral licensing.[83][84] Yet other studies focusing on social preferences examine various kinds of resource allocation decisions,[14][85] or use incentivized beavioral experiments to investigate the way people weight their own interests against other people's when deciding whether to harm others, for example, by examine how willing people are to administer electric shocks to themselves vs. others in exchange for money.[86]

James Rest reviewed the literature on moral functioning and identified at least four components necessary for a moral behavior to take place:[87][88]

  • Sensitivity – noticing and interpreting the situation
  • Reasoning and making a judgment regarding the best (most moral) option
  • Motivation (in the moment but also habitually, such as moral identity)
  • implementation—having the skills and perseverance to carry out the action

Reynolds and Ceranic researched the effects of social consensus on one's moral behavior. 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.[89]

More recent attempts to develop an integrated model of moral motivation[90] have identified at least six different levels of moral functioning, each of which has been shown to predict some type of moral or pro-social behavior: moral intuitions, moral emotions, moral virtues/vices (behavioral capacities), moral values, moral reasoning, and moral willpower. This social intuitionist model of moral motivation[91] 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.

Moral behavior is also studied under the umbrella of personality psychology where it is described in terms of traits such as agreeableness, cooperativeness and honesty/humility.[92]

Value-behavior consistency
See also: Moral disengagement

In looking at the relations between moral values, attitudes, and behaviors, previous research asserts that there is no dependable correlation between these three aspects, differing from what we would assume. In fact, it seems to be more common for people to label their behaviors with a justifying value rather than having a value beforehand and then acting on it. There are some people that are more likely to act on their personal values: those low in self-monitoring and high in self-consciousness, due to the fact that they are more aware of themselves and less aware of how others may perceive them. Self-consciousness here means being literally more conscious of yourself, not fearing judgement or feeling anxiety from others. Social situations and the different categories of norms can be telling of when people may act in accordance with their values, but this still isn't concrete either. People will typically act in accordance with social, contextual and personal norms, and there is a likelihood that these norms can also follow one's moral values. Though there are certain assumptions and situations that would suggest a major value-attitude-behavior relation, there is not enough research to confirm this phenomenon.

Moral willpower
Main articles: Ego depletion and Self-control
See also: Delayed gratification and Social cognitive theory of morality

Building on earlier work by Metcalfe and Mischel on delayed gratification,[93] Baumeister, Miller, and Delaney explored the notion of willpower by first defining the self as being made up of three parts: reflexive consciousness, or the person's awareness of their environment and of himself as an individual; interpersonal being, which seeks to mold the self into one that will be accepted by others; and executive function.[94] They stated, "[T]he self can free its actions from being determined by particular influences, especially those of which it is aware".[95] The three prevalent theories of willpower describe it as a limited supply of energy, as a cognitive process, and as a skill that is developed over time. Research has largely supported that willpower works like a "moral muscle" with a limited supply of strength that may be depleted (a process referred to as Ego depletion), conserved, or replenished, and that a single act requiring much self-control can significantly deplete the "supply" of willpower.[94] While 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.[96] Additional research has been conducted that may cast doubt on the idea of ego-depletion.[97]

Moral intuitions
Main articles: Social intuitionism and Dual process theory (moral psychology)

In 2001, Jonathan Haidt introduced his social intuitionist model which claimed that with few exceptions, moral judgments are made based upon socially derived intuitions. Moral intuitions happen immediately, automatically, and unconsciously, with reasoning largely serving to generate post-hoc rationalizations to justify one's instinctual reactions.[34] He provides four arguments to doubt causal importance of reason. Firstly, Haidt argues that since there is a dual process system in the brain when making automatic evaluations or assessments, this same process must be applicable to moral judgement as well. The second argument, based on research on motivated reasoning, claims that people behave like "intuitive lawyers", searching primarily for evidence that will serve motives for social relatedness and attitudinal coherence. Thirdly, Haidt found that people have post hoc reasoning when faced with a moral situation, this a posteriori (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 the somatic marker hypothesis and Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis.[34]

Following the publication of a landmark fMRI study in 2001,[35] Joshua Greene proposed his dual process theory of moral judgment, according to which intuitive/emotional and deliberative processes respectively give rise to characteristically deontological and consequentialist moral judgments. 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.[98] 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).

Moral emotions
Main article: Moral emotions
See also: Social emotions

Moral emotions are a variety of social emotion that are involved in forming and communicating moral judgments and decisions, and in motivating behavioral responses to one's own and others' moral behavior.[99][100][101] While moral reasoning has been the focus of most study of morality dating all the way back to Plato and Aristotle, the emotive side of morality has been looked upon with disdain.[99] However, in the last 30–40 years, there has been a rise in a new front of research: moral emotions as the basis for moral behavior. This development began with a focus on empathy and guilt, but has since moved on to encompass new scholarship on emotions such as anger, shame, disgust, awe, and elevation. With the new research, theorists have begun to question whether moral emotions might hold a larger in determining morality, one that might even surpass that of moral reasoning.[100]

Moralization and moral conviction

Moralization, a term introduced to moral psychology by Paul Rozin, refers to the process through which preferences are converted into values.[102][103][104] Relatedly, 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."[105] 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.[106] 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 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. 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.[107]

Intersections with other fields

Sociological applications

Some research shows that people tend to self-segregate based on moral and political views,[108][109] exaggerate the magnitude of moral disagreements across political divides,[110] and avoid exposure to the opinions of those with opposing political views.[111]

Normative implications

Researchers have begun to debate the implications (if any) moral psychology research has for other subfields of ethics such as normative ethics and meta-ethics.[112][113][114][115][116] For example Peter Singer, citing Haidt's work on social intuitionism and Greene's dual process theory, presented an "evolutionary debunking argument" suggesting that the normative force of our moral intuitions is undermined by their being the "biological residue of our evolutionary history."[117] John Doris 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.[118] As a further example, Shaun Nichols (2004) examines how empirical data on psychopathology suggests that moral rationalism is false.[119]

Additionally, research in moral psychology is being used to inform debates in applied ethics around moral enhancement.[120][121]

Robotics and artificial intelligence
Main article: Machine ethics
See also: Robot ethics and Ethics of artificial intelligence

At the intersection of moral psychology and machine ethics, researchers have begun to study people's views regarding the potentially ethically significant decisions that will be made by self-driving cars.[17][16][122]

See also

Notes
  1. Haidt, Jonathan; Kesebir, Selin (2010). "Morality". In Fiske, S; Gilbert, D; Lindzey, G (eds.). Handbook of Social Psychology (PDF) (5 ed.). Hoboken NJ: Wiley. pp. 797–832.
  2. Lapsley, Daniel K. (1996). Moral Psychology. Developmental psychology series. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-3032-7.
  3. Doris, John; Stich, Stephen (2008), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Moral Psychology: Empirical Approaches", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford UniversityCS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  4. Wallace, R. Jay (November 29, 2007). "Moral Psychology". In Jackson, Frank; Smith, Michael (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy. OUP Oxford. pp. 86–113. ISBN 978-0-19-923476-9. Moral psychology is the study of morality in its psychological dimensions
  5. Ellemers, Naomi; van der Toorn, Jojanneke; Paunov, Yavor; van Leeuwen, Thed (18 January 2019). "The Psychology of Morality: A Review and Analysis of Empirical Studies Published From 1940 Through 2017". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 23 (4): 332–366. doi:10.1177/1088868318811759. ISSN 1088-8683. PMC 6791030. PMID 30658545.
  6. Doris & Stich 2008, §1.
  7. 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. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1033.5192. doi:10.1177/0956797611402513. PMID 21415242.
  8. Doris & Stich (2008), §1.
  9. Sevinc, Gunes; Spreng, R. Nathan; Soriano-Mas, Carles (4 February 2014). "Contextual and Perceptual Brain Processes Underlying Moral Cognition: A Quantitative Meta-Analysis of Moral Reasoning and Moral Emotions". PLOS ONE. 9 (2): e87427. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...987427S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087427. PMC 3913597. PMID 24503959.
  10. Moll, Jorge; Zahn, Roland; de Oliveira-Souza, Ricardo; Krueger, Frank; Grafman, Jordan (October 2005). "The neural basis of human moral cognition". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 6 (10): 799–809. doi:10.1038/nrn1768. PMID 16276356.
  11. Kleiman-Weiner, Max; Saxe, Rebecca; Tenenbaum, Joshua B. (October 2017). "Learning a commonsense moral theory". Cognition. 167: 107–123. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.005. hdl:1721.1/118457. PMID 28351662.
  12. Cushman, Fiery (16 July 2013). "Action, Outcome, and Value". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 17 (3): 273–292. doi:10.1177/1088868313495594. PMID 23861355.
  13. Crockett, Molly J. (August 2013). "Models of morality". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 17 (8): 363–366. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.005. PMC 3925799. PMID 23845564.
  14. Henrich, Joseph; Boyd, Robert; Bowles, Samuel; Camerer, Colin; Fehr, Ernst; Gintis, Herbert; McElreath, Richard; Alvard, Michael; Barr, Abigail; Ensminger, Jean; Henrich, Natalie Smith; Hill, Kim; Gil-White, Francisco; Gurven, Michael; Marlowe, Frank W.; Patton, John Q.; Tracer, David (22 December 2005). ""Economic man" in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies" (PDF). Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 28 (6): 795–815. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000142. PMID 16372952.
  15. Purzycki, Benjamin Grant; Apicella, Coren; Atkinson, Quentin D.; Cohen, Emma; McNamara, Rita Anne; Willard, Aiyana K.; Xygalatas, Dimitris; Norenzayan, Ara; Henrich, Joseph (10 February 2016). "Moralistic gods, supernatural punishment and the expansion of human sociality" (PDF). Nature. 530 (7590): 327–330. Bibcode:2016Natur.530..327P. doi:10.1038/nature16980. PMID 26863190.
  16. Awad, Edmond; Dsouza, Sohan; Kim, Richard; Schulz, Jonathan; Henrich, Joseph; Shariff, Azim; Bonnefon, Jean-François; Rahwan, Iyad (24 October 2018). "The Moral Machine experiment". Nature. 563 (7729): 59–64. Bibcode:2018Natur.563...59A. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6. hdl:10871/39187. PMID 30356211.
  17. Bonnefon, J.-F.; Shariff, A.; Rahwan, I. (23 June 2016). "The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles". Science. 352 (6293): 1573–1576. arXiv:1510.03346. Bibcode:2016Sci...352.1573B. doi:10.1126/science.aaf2654. PMID 27339987.
  18. Carr, David (26 August 2014). "Metaphysics and methods in moral enquiry and education: Some old philosophical wine for new theoretical bottles". Journal of Moral Education. 43 (4): 500–515. doi:10.1080/03057240.2014.943167.
  19. Lewis, Paul (June 2012). "In defence of Aristotle on character: toward a synthesis of recent psychology, neuroscience and the thought of Michael Polanyi". Journal of Moral Education. 41 (2): 155–170. doi:10.1080/03057240.2012.668005.
  20. Fengyan *, Wang (December 2004). "Confucian thinking in traditional moral education: key ideas and fundamental features". Journal of Moral Education. 33 (4): 429–447. doi:10.1080/0305724042000327984.
  21. Murray, Judson B. (December 2012). "Educating human nature: 'nature' and 'nurture' in early Confucian moral education". Journal of Moral Education. 41 (4): 509–527. doi:10.1080/03057240.2012.721759.
  22. Wei, Tan Tai (January 1990). "Some Confucian Insights and Moral Education". Journal of Moral Education. 19 (1): 33–37. doi:10.1080/0305724900190104.
  23. Sharp, Frank Chapman (January 1898). "An Objective Study of Some Moral Judgments". The American Journal of Psychology. 9 (2): 198–234. doi:10.2307/1411759. JSTOR 1411759.
  24. May, Mark A.; Hartshorne, Hugh (March 1925). "Objective Methods of Measuring Character". The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology. 32 (1): 45–67. doi:10.1080/08856559.1925.10532317.
  25. Pittel, Stephen M.; Mendelsohn, Gerald A. (1966). "Measurement of moral values: A review and critique". Psychological Bulletin. 66 (1): 22–35. doi:10.1037/h0023425. PMID 5329602.
  26. Wendorf, Craig A (2001). "History of American morality research, 1894–1932". History of Psychology. 4 (3): 272–288. doi:10.1037/1093-4510.4.3.272.
  27. Haidt, Jonathan (September 2013). "Moral psychology for the twenty-first century". Journal of Moral Education. 42 (3): 281–297. doi:10.1080/03057240.2013.817327.
  28. Kohlberg, Lawrence (1958). The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10 to 16 (PhD thesis). Chicago. OCLC 1165315.
  29. Colby, Anne; Kohlberg, Lawrence (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgment. Standard Issue Scoring Manual. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-32565-3.
  30. Kohlberg, L. (1969). "Stage and sequence: The cognitive development approach to socialization". In Goslin, David (ed.). Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally. pp. 347–480.
  31. Kohlberg, Lawrence (1971-01-31), "1. Stages of moral development as a basis for moral education", in Beck, Clive M; Crittenden, Brian S; Sullivan, Edmund (eds.), Moral Education, University of Toronto Press, doi:10.3138/9781442656758-004, ISBN 9781442656758
  32. Kohlberg, Lawrence; Hersh, Richard H. (1977). "Moral development: A review of the theory". Theory into Practice. 16 (2): 53–59. doi:10.1080/00405847709542675.
  33. 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.
  34. Haidt, Jonathan (October 2001). "The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail" (PDF). Psychological Review. 108 (4): 814–834. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.620.5536. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814. PMID 11699120.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  35. Greene, J. D.; Sommerville, R Brian; Nystrom, Leigh E; Darley, John M.; Cohen, Jonathan D (14 September 2001). "An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment". Science. 293 (5537): 2105–2108. Bibcode:2001Sci...293.2105G. doi:10.1126/science.1062872. PMID 11557895.
  36. Cohen Priva, Uriel; Austerweil, Joseph L. (February 2015). "Analyzing the history of Cognition using Topic Models". Cognition. 135: 4–9. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.006. PMID 25497481.
  37. Story, Giles W.; Vlaev, Ivo; Metcalfe, Robert D.; Crockett, Molly J.; Kurth-Nelson, Zeb; Darzi, Ara; Dolan, Raymond J. (30 October 2015). "Social redistribution of pain and money". Scientific Reports. 5 (1): 15389. Bibcode:2015NatSR...515389S. doi:10.1038/srep15389. PMC 4626774. PMID 26515529.
  38. Moll, Jorge; de Oliveira-Souza, Ricardo; Eslinger, Paul J.; Bramati, Ivanei E.; Mourão-Miranda, Janaı́na; Andreiuolo, Pedro Angelo; Pessoa, Luiz (1 April 2002). "The Neural Correlates of Moral Sensitivity: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation of Basic and Moral Emotions". The Journal of Neuroscience. 22 (7): 2730–2736. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-07-02730.2002. PMC 6758288. PMID 11923438.
  39. Sagi, Eyal; Dehghani, Morteza (31 October 2013). "Measuring Moral Rhetoric in Text". Social Science Computer Review. 32 (2): 132–144. doi:10.1177/0894439313506837.
  40. Kohlberg, Lawrence (1973). "The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment". Journal of Philosophy. 70 (18): 630–646. doi:10.2307/2025030. JSTOR 2025030.
  41. Verplaetse, Jan (2008). "Measuring the moral sense: morality tests in continental Europe between 1910 and 1930". Paedagogica Historica. 44 (3): 265–286. doi:10.1080/00309230701722721.
  42. Rest, James R. (1979). Development in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-0891-1.
  43. Lind, Georg (1978). "Wie misst man moralisches Urteil? Probleme und alternative Möglichkeiten der Messung eines komplexen Konstrukts" [How do you measure moral judgment? Problems and alternative ways of measuring a complex construct]. In Portele, G. (ed.). Sozialisation und Moral [Socialization and Morality] (in German). Weinheim: Beltz. pp. 171–201. ISBN 9783407511348. OCLC 715635639.
  44. Lind, Georg (2008). "The meaning and measurement of moral judgment competence: A dual-aspect model". In Fasko, Daniel Jr; Willis, Wayne (eds.). Contemporary Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives on Moral Development and Education. Hampton Press. pp. 185–220.
  45. Graham, Jesse; Nosek, Brian A.; Haidt, Jonathan; Iyer, Ravi; Koleva, Spassena; Ditto, Peter H. (2011). "Mapping the moral domain". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101 (2): 366–385. doi:10.1037/a0021847. PMC 3116962. PMID 21244182.
  46. Graham, Jesse; Haidt, Jonathan; Nosek, Brian A. (2009). "Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (5): 1029–1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141. PMID 19379034.
  47. Graham, J.; Haidt, J.; Koleva, S.; Motyl, M.; Iyer, R.; Wojcik, S.; Ditto, P.H. (2013). Moral Foundations Theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism (PDF). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 47. pp. 55–130. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4. ISBN 9780124072367. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-07-31. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  48. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter, ed. (2007). Moral Psychology, Volume 1: The Evolution of Morality: Adaptations and Innateness. ISBN 9780262693547.
  49. Brosnan, S. F.; de Waal, F. B. M. (18 September 2014). "Evolution of responses to (un)fairness". Science. 346 (6207): 1251776. doi:10.1126/science.1251776. PMC 4451566. PMID 25324394.
  50. Tomasello, Michael; Vaish, Amrisha (3 January 2013). "Origins of Human Cooperation and Morality". Annual Review of Psychology. 64 (1): 231–255. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143812. hdl:10161/13649. PMID 22804772.
  51. Hare, Brian (3 January 2017). "Survival of the Friendliest: Evolved via Selection for Prosociality". Annual Review of Psychology. 68 (1): 155–186. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201. PMID 27732802.
  52. Sober, Elliot; Wilson, David Sloan (1999). Unto others : the evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674930476.
  53. Sober, Elliott; Wilson, David Sloan (1998). Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674930469.
  54. Dean, Tim (2012). "Evolution and moral diversity". Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication. 7. doi:10.4148/biyclc.v7i0.1775.
  55. Hardy, Sam A.; Carlo, Gustavo (2011). "Moral Identity". In Schwartz, Seth J.; Luyckx, Koen; Vignoles, Vivian L. (eds.). Handbook of identity theory and research. Springer. pp. 495–513. ISBN 978-1-4419-7988-9.
  56. Hertz, Steven G.; Krettenauer, Tobias (1 June 2016). "Does Moral Identity Effectively Predict Moral Behavior?: A Meta-Analysis". Review of General Psychology. 20 (2): 129–140. doi:10.1037/gpr0000062.
  57. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). "A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work" (PDF). Applied Psychology: An International Review. 48 (1): 23–47. doi:10.1080/026999499377655.
  58. Kristiansen, Connie M; Hotte, Alan M (1996). Morality and the self: Implications for the when and how of value-attitude-behavior relations. The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology. 8. Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ. pp. 77–105.
  59. Haidt, Jonathan; Craig Joseph (Fall 2004). "Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues" (PDF). Daedalus. 133 (4): 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-09-09. Retrieved 2012-10-13.
  60. Haidt, Jonathan; Graham, Jesse (23 May 2007). "When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize". Social Justice Research. 20 (1): 98–116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z.
  61. Shweder, Richard; Much, Nancy; Mahapatra, Manamohan; Park, Lawrence (1997). "The "big three" of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the "big three" explanations of suffering.". In Brandt, Allan; Rozin, Paul (eds.). Morality and Health. Routledge. pp. 119–169.
  62. Lapsley, Daniel K.; Narvaez, Darcia (2004). "A social-cognitive approach to the moral personality". Moral Development, Self, and Identity. Psychology Press. pp. 189–212. ISBN 978-1-135-63233-5.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  63. Lapsley & Narvaez 2004, p. 197.
  64. Narvaez, Darcia (March 1, 2008). "Triune ethics: The neurobiological roots of our multiple moralities". New Ideas in Psychology. 26 (1): 95–119. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.152.4926. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.07.008. ISSN 0732-118X.
  65. Narvaez, Darcia (2014). Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture and Wisdom. WWNorton. ISBN 978-0393706550.
  66. Pizarro, David A. (2007). "Moral Reasoning". In Baumeister, Roy F; Vohs, Kathleen F (eds.). Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 591–592. doi:10.4135/9781412956253.n352. ISBN 9781412956253.
  67. Barnett, Mark A. (2007). "Moral Development". In Baumeister, Roy F; Vohs, Kathleen D (eds.). Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 587. doi:10.4135/9781412956253.n349. ISBN 9781412956253.
  68. Piaget, Jean (1948). The Moral Judgment of the Child (PDF). Free Press.
  69. Kohlberg, Lawrence (1984). The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages. Essays on Moral Developent. 2. Harper & Row. p. 195. ISBN 978-0-06-064761-2.
  70. Crain, W.C. "Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development". Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved October 3, 2011.
  71. Gilligan, Carol; Attanucci, Jane (1994). "Two Moral Orientations: Gender Differences and Similarities". In Puka, Bill (ed.). Moral Development: Caring Voices and Women's Moral Frames. 34. Taylor & Francis. pp. 123–237. ISBN 978-0-8153-1553-7.
  72. Walker, Lawrence J.; Smetana, Judith (2005). "Gender and Morality". In Killen, Melanie (ed.). Handbook of Moral Development. Psychology Press. pp. 93–115. ISBN 978-1-135-61917-6.
  73. Jaffee and Hyde (2001)
  74. Rest, James R.; Narvaez, Darcia; Thoma, Stephen J.; Bebeau, Muriel J. (1999). Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-135-70561-9.
  75. Govrin, A (2014). "The ABC of moral development: an attachment approach to moral judgment". Frontiers in Psychology. 5 (6): 1–14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00006. PMC 3901400. PMID 24478739. This article contains quotations from this source, which is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) license.
  76. Govrin, A. (2019). Ethics and attachment - How we make moral judgments. London: Routledge
  77. Govrin, A. (2014) "From Ethics of Care to Psychology of Care: Reconnecting Ethics of Care to Contemporary Moral Psychology", Frontiers in Psychology pp. 1-10
  78. Staub, Ervin (2003). Psychology of good and evil: why children, adults, and groups help and harm others. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-07031-0.
  79. Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (4): 371–8. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.599.92. doi:10.1037/h0040525. PMID 14049516.
  80. Haney, Craig; Banks, Curtis; Zimbardo, Philip (1972). "Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison" (PDF). Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  81. Hofmann, W.; Wisneski, D. C.; Brandt, M. J.; Skitka, L. J. (11 September 2014). "Morality in everyday life". Science. 345 (6202): 1340–1343. Bibcode:2014Sci...345.1340H. doi:10.1126/science.1251560. PMID 25214626.
  82. Hofmann, Wilhelm; Brandt, Mark J.; Wisneski, Daniel C.; Rockenbach, Bettina; Skitka, Linda J. (30 May 2018). "Moral Punishment in Everyday Life" (PDF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 44 (12): 1697–1711. doi:10.1177/0146167218775075. PMID 29848212.
  83. Monin, B; Miller, D. T. (2001). "Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (1): 33–43. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33. PMID 11474723. Archived from the original on 2015-04-30.CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link)
  84. Blanken, Irene; van de Ven, Niels; Zeelenberg, Marcel (25 February 2015). "A Meta-Analytic Review of Moral Licensing". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 41 (4): 540–558. doi:10.1177/0146167215572134. PMID 25716992.
  85. Peysakhovich, Alexander; Nowak, Martin A.; Rand, David G. (16 September 2014). "Humans display a 'cooperative phenotype' that is domain general and temporally stable". Nature Communications. 5 (1): 4939. doi:10.1038/ncomms5939. PMID 25225950.
  86. Crockett, Molly J.; Kurth-Nelson, Zeb; Siegel, Jenifer Z.; Dayan, Peter; Dolan, Raymond J. (2 December 2014). "Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (48): 17320–17325. Bibcode:2014PNAS..11117320C. doi:10.1073/pnas.1408988111. PMC 4260587. PMID 25404350.
  87. Rest, James R (1983). "Morality". Handbook of Child Psychology. 3: 556–629.
  88. Narváez, Darcia; Rest, James (1995). "The four components of acting morally" (PDF). Moral Behavior and Moral Development: An Introduction: 385–400.
  89. Reynolds, Scott J.; Ceranic, Tara L. (2007). "The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual" (PDF). Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (6): 1610–1624. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1610. ISSN 1939-1854. PMID 18020800.
  90. 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. doi:10.1177/009164710803600303.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  91. Leffel 2008's model draws heavily on Haidt 2001's social intuitionist model of moral judgment.
  92. Thielmann, Isabel; Spadaro, Giuliana; Balliet, Daniel (January 2020). "Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 146 (1): 30–90. doi:10.1037/bul0000217. PMID 31841013.
  93. Metcalfe, J.; Mischel, W. (1999). "A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower". Psychological Review. 106 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.1.3. PMID 10197361.
  94. Baumeister (2005). "Self and volition". In Miller, William; Delaney, Harold (eds.). Judeo-Christian Perspectives on Psychology: Human Nature, Motivation, and Change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. pp. 57–72. ISBN 978-1-59147-161-5.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  95. Baumeister 2005, p. 68.
  96. Muraven, Mark; Baumeister, Roy F.; Tice, Dianne M. (August 1, 1999). "Longitudinal Improvement of Self-Regulation Through Practice: Building Self-Control Strength Through Repeated Exercise" (PDF). The Journal of Social Psychology. 139 (4): 446–457. doi:10.1080/00224549909598404. ISSN 0022-4545. PMID 10457761.
  97. "Hagger et al (2016) A Multilab Preregistered Replication of the Ego-Depletion Effect.pdf" (PDF).
  98. Greene, Joshua (2008). "The secret joke of Kant's Soul". In Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (ed.). Moral Psychology. 3. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 35–80. ISBN 978-0-262-69355-4. OCLC 750463100.
  99. Pizarro, David A. (2007). "Moral Emotions". In Baumeister, Roy F; Vohs, Kathleen D (eds.). Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 588–589. doi:10.4135/9781412956253.n350. ISBN 9781412956253.
  100. Haidt, Jonathan (2003). "The Moral Emotions" (PDF). In Davidson, Richard; Scherer, Klaus; Goldsmith, H. (eds.). Handbook of Affective Sciences. Oxford University Press. pp. 855. ISBN 978-0-19-512601-3.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
  101. Tangney, June Price; Stuewig, Jeff; Mashek, Debra J. (January 2007). "Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior" (PDF). Annual Review of Psychology. 58 (1): 345–372. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145. PMC 3083636. PMID 16953797.
  102. Rozin, Paul (1999). "The Process of Moralization". Psychological Science. 10 (3): 218–221. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00139.
  103. Rozin, Paul; Markwith, Maureen; Stoess, Caryn (6 May 2016). "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.
  104. Rhee, Joshua J.; Schein, Chelsea; Bastian, Brock (25 November 2019). "The what, how, and why of moralization: A review of current definitions, methods, and evidence in moralization research". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 13 (12). doi:10.1111/spc3.12511.
  105. 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 (5): 452–461. doi:10.1177/0146167202288003.
  106. Morgan, G. S.; Skitka, L. J. (2011). "Moral conviction". In Christie, Daniel J. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-9644-4.
  107. Skitka, L. J.; Bauman, C.; Sargis, E. (2005). "Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 88 (6): 895–917. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895. PMID 15982112.
  108. Haidt, Jonathan; Rosenberg, Evan; Hom, Holly (2003). "Differentiating Diversities: Moral Diversity Is Not Like Other Kinds". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 33 (1): 1–36. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02071.x.
  109. Motyl, Matt; Iyer, Ravi; Oishi, Shigehiro; Trawalterl, Sophie; Nosek, Brian A. (2014). "How ideological migration geographically segregates groups". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 51: 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.010.
  110. Graham, Jesse; Nosek, Brian A.; Haidt, Jonathan; Young, Liane (12 December 2012). "The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum". PLOS ONE. 7 (12): e50092. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050092. PMC 3520939. PMID 23251357.
  111. Frimer, Jeremy A.; Skitka, Linda J.; Motyl, Matt (September 2017). "Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 72: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003.
  112. Kahane, Guy (March 2011). "Evolutionary Debunking Arguments". Noûs. 45 (1): 103–125. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00770.x. PMC 3175808. PMID 21949447.
  113. Greene, Joshua (October 2003). "From neural 'is' to moral 'ought': what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology?". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 4 (10): 846–850. doi:10.1038/nrn1224. PMID 14523384.
  114. Greene, Joshua; Cohen, Jonathan (29 November 2004). "For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 359 (1451): 1775–1785. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1546. PMC 1693457. PMID 15590618.
  115. Berker, Selim (September 2009). "The Normative Insignificance of Neuroscience". Philosophy & Public Affairs. 37 (4): 293–329. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2009.01164.x.
  116. Nagel, Thomas (2 November 2013). "You Can't Learn About Morality from Brain Scans". The New Republic.
  117. Singer, Peter (October 2005). "Ethics and Intuitions". The Journal of Ethics. 9 (3–4): 331–352. doi:10.1007/s10892-005-3508-y.
  118. Doris, John M. (2002). Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-02549-9.
  119. Nichols, Shaun (2004). Sentimental Rules: On the Natural Foundations of Moral Judgment. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-988347-9.
  120. Darby, R. Ryan; Pascual-Leone, Alvaro (22 February 2017). "Moral Enhancement Using Non-invasive Brain Stimulation". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 11: 77. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2017.00077. PMC 5319982. PMID 28275345.
  121. Levy, Neil; Douglas, Thomas; Kahane, Guy; Terbeck, Sylvia; Cowen, Philip J.; Hewstone, Miles; Savulescu, Julian (2014). "Are You Morally Modified?: The Moral Effects of Widely Used Pharmaceuticals". Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology. 21 (2): 111–125. doi:10.1353/ppp.2014.0023. PMC 4398979. PMID 25892904.
  122. Awad, Edmond; Dsouza, Sohan; Bonnefon, Jean-François; Shariff, Azim; Rahwan, Iyad (24 February 2020). "Crowdsourcing moral machines". Communications of the ACM. 63 (3): 48–55. doi:10.1145/3339904.

References
Library resources about
Moral psychology
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.