Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-rwnhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T19:16:20.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - The Moral Domain

What Is Wrong, What Is Right, and How Your Mind Knows the Difference

from Part I - Building Blocks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2025

By
Samantha Abrams  and
Kurt Gray
Edited by
Bertram Malle  and
Philip Robbins
Bertram Malle
Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island
Philip Robbins
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Get access

Summary

This chapter of the handbook tackles a foundational question in moral psychology: What constitutes the moral domain? To answer this question, we first have to know how our minds determine right from wrong. The authors argue that our intuitive, culturally flexible perceptions of harm drive our judgments of the moral domain. This is not the dominant view of the moral domain, but the most popular models of the past and present need not be the most accurate ones. Instead, these paradigms reflect broader shifts in our values as a society and a field of research. The Turielian moral domain of the 1970s and 1980s took inspiration from the cognitive revolution, positing harm as a universal value that fully determines how people decide right from wrong. The Haidtian paradigm of today is influenced by the rise of cross-cultural psychology, arguing that harm is just one of many intuitive, culturally activated moral values. Ultimately, neither paradigm gets it completely right, but the authors argue that we can build a better paradigm by combining the strengths of each. In this model, harm is the key driver of moral judgments, but perceptions of harm are intuitive and culturally variable.

Keywords

moral domainmoral judgmentcultural variabilityharm perceptionscientific paradigms
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Moral Psychology , pp. 124 - 150
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, M. M., Chung, K. Y., & Eichenseher, J. W. (2003). Business students’ perception of ethics and moral judgment: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Business Ethics, 43, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Intention, awareness, efficiency, and control as separate issues. In Wyer, R. & Srull, T. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 1–40). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barrett, L. F. (2006). Are emotions natural kinds? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(1), 28–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartels, D. M., & Medin, D. L. (2007). Are morally motivated decision makers insensitive to the consequences of their choices? Psychological Science, 18(1), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruneau, E., & Kteily, N. (2017). The enemy as animal: Symmetric dehumanization during asymmetric warfare. PLoS ONE, 12(7), Article e0181422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchtel, E. E., Guan, Y., Peng, Q., Su, Y., Sang, B., Chen, S. X., & Bond, M. H. (2015). Immorality East and West: Are immoral behaviors especially harmful, or especially uncivilized? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(10), 1382–1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, C. D., Lindquist, K. A., & Gray, K. (2015). A constructionist review of morality and emotions: No evidence for specific links between moral content and discrete emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 371–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciuk, D. J. (2018). Assessing the contextual stability of moral foundations: Evidence from a survey experiment. Research & Politics, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/205316801878174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, F. (2015). Deconstructing intent to reconstruct morality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, F., Gray, K., Gaffey, A., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Simulating murder: The aversion to harmful action. Emotion, 12(1), 2–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: Testing three principles of harm. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1082–1089.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Andrade, R. G. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, P., Turiel, E., & Black, A. (1983). The effect of stimulus familiarity on the use of criteria and justifications in children’s social reasoning. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decety, J., & Cacioppo, S. (2012). The speed of morality: A high-density electrical neuroimaging study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 108(11), 3068–3072.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2018). Interpersonal harm aversion as a necessary foundation for morality: A developmental neuroscience perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 30(1), 153–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrich, K. R., & Irwin, J. R. (2005). Willful ignorance in the request for product attribute information. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(3), 266–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. In Dalgleish, T. & Power, M. (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 45–60). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, J. A. C., Clark, C. J., Meindl, P., Luguri, J. B., Earp, B. D., Graham, J., Ditto, P. H., & Shariff, A. F. (2020). Political differences in free will belief are associated with differences in moralization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 461–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Antonenko, O., & John, O. P. (2012). Liberating reason from the passions: Overriding intuitionist moral judgments through emotion reappraisal. Psychological Science, 23(7), 788–795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forgas, J. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelfand, M. J., Harrington, J. R., & Jackson, J. C. (2017). The strength of social norms across human groups. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 800–809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gewirth, A. (1978). The basis and content of human rights. Georgia Law Review, 13, 1143–1170.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1988). Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 34(3), 223–237.Google Scholar
Goodwin, G. P., & Darley, J. M. (2012). Why are some moral beliefs perceived to be more objective than others? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. (2015). Explaining away differences in moral judgment: Comment on Gray and Keeney (2015). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 869–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Motyl, M., Meindl, P., Iskiwitch, C., & Mooijman, M. (2019). Moral foundations theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In Gray, K. & Graham, J. (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 211–222). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., & Keeney, J. E. (2015). Impure or just weird? Scenario sampling bias raises questions about the foundation of morality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 859–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, K., MacCormack, J. K., Henry, T., Banks, E., Schein, C., Armstrong-Carter, E., Abrams, S., & Muscatell, K. A. (2022). The affective harm account (AHA) of moral judgment: Reconciling cognition and affect, dyadic morality and disgust, harm and purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(6), 1199–1222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., Schein, C., & Ward, A. F. (2014). The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition: Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1600–1615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, J. D., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guerra, V. M., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2010). The Community, Autonomy, and Divinity Scale (CADS): A new tool for the cross-cultural study of morality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., Bjorklund, D. F., & Murphy, S. (2000). Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason [Unpublished].Google Scholar
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., & Hersh, M. A. (2001). Sexual morality: The cultures and emotions of Conservatives and Liberals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., & Stich, S. (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367–391). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2011). How moral foundations theory succeeded in building on sand: A response to Suhler and Churchland. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2117–2122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 797–832). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., Koller, S. H., & Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Attitudes and Social Cognition, 65(4), 613–628.Google ScholarPubMed
Hamlin, J. K., & Wynn, K. (2011). Young infants prefer prosocial to antisocial others. Cognitive Development, 26(1), 30–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, X., Zhou, S., Fahoum, N., Wu, T., Gao, T., Shamay-Tsoory, S., Gelfand, M. J., Wu, X., & Han, S. (2021). Cognitive and neural bases of collateral damage during intergroup conflict. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(9), 1214–1225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hannikainen, I. R., Miller, R. M., & Cushman, F. A. (2017). Act versus impact: Conservatives and liberals exhibit different structural emphases in moral judgment. Ratio, 30(4), 462–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, E., Mikulan, E., Decety, J., Sigman, M., Garcia, M. del C., Silva, W., Ciraolo, C., Vaucheret, E., Baglivo, F., Huepe, D., Lopez, V., Manes, F., Bekinschtein, T. A., & Ibanez, A. (2016). Early detection of intentional harm in the human amygdala. Brain, 139(1), 54–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hester, N., & Gray, K. (2020). The moral psychology of raceless, genderless strangers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 216–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345(6202), 1340–1343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horberg, E. J., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2011). Emotions as moral amplifiers: An Appraisal tendency approach to the influences of distinct emotions upon moral judgment. Emotion Review, 3(3), 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutcherson, C. A., & Gross, J. J. (2011). The moral emotions: A social-functionalist account of anger, disgust, and contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 719–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2012). Disgusting smells cause decreased liking of gay men. Emotion, 12(1), 23–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inglehart, R. F., Basanez, M., & Moreno, A. (1998). Human values and beliefs: A cross-cultural sourcebook. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion-cognition relations. Psychological Review, 99(3), 561–565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jambon, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2018). Individual differences in prototypical moral and conventional judgments and children’s proactive and reactive aggression. Child Development, 89(4), 1343–1359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, K. (2010). Is the “Harry Potter…” series truly harmless? ChristianAnswers.Net. https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/harrypotter.htmlGoogle Scholar
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Carnes, N. C. (2016). Social justice and social order: Binding moralities across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 11(3), Article e0152479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, L. A. (2015). Moral development in a global world: Research from a cultural-developmental perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. (M. Gregor, Ed. and Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kivikangas, J. M., Fernández-Castilla, B., Järvelä, S., Ravaja, N., & Lönnqvist, J.-E. (2021). Moral foundations and political orientation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(1), 55–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š., Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialobrzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching, R., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into Practice, 16(2), 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. Contributions to Human Development, 10, 174.Google Scholar
Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, F., & Hoffman, M. (2016). The emerging neuroscience of third-party punishment. Trends in Neurosciences, 39(8), 499–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Landy, J. F., & Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Does incidental disgust amplify moral judgment? A meta-analytic review of experimental evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(4), 518–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Guen, O., Samland, J., Friedrich, T., Hanus, D., & Brown, P. (2015). Making sense of (exceptional) causal relations. A cross-cultural and cross-linguistic study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2015, August 11). How trigger warnings are hurting mental health on campus. The Atlantic. www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/Google Scholar
Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., & Monroe, A. E. (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. F. (2004). The birth of the mind: How a tiny number of genes creates the complexities of human thought. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Mikhail, J. (2009). Moral grammar and intuitive jurisprudence: A formal model of unconscious moral and legal knowledge. In Ross, B. H. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 50, pp. 27–100). Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. G., & Bersoff, D. M. (1988). When do American children and adults reason in social conventional terms? Developmental Psychology, 24(3), 366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mnookin, S. (2012). The panic virus: The true story behind the vaccine-autism controversy. Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Moore, J. W., Teufel, C., Subramaniam, N., Davis, G., & Fletcher, P. C. (2013). Attribution of intentional causation influences the perception of observed movements: Behavioral evidence and neural correlates. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulvey, K. L. (2016). Evaluations of moral and conventional intergroup transgressions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34(4), 489–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nichols, S. (2021). Rational rules: Towards a theory of moral learning. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, L., & Young, L. (2014). Blaming the victim in the case of rape. Psychological Inquiry, 25(2), 230–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Westview.Google Scholar
O’Connor, T. (1994). Emergent properties. American Philosophical Quarterly, 31(2), 91–104.Google Scholar
Oldridge, D. (2017). Strange histories: The trial of the pig, the walking dead, and other matters of fact from the Medieval and Renaissance worlds (2nd ed.). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paxton, J. M., & Greene, J. D. (2010). Moral reasoning: Hints and allegations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 511–527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paxton, J. M., Ungar, L., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 163–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 1–24). Springer.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (2013). The moral judgment of the child. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rai, T., & Fiske, A. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118, 57–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Rev. ed). Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royzman, E. B., & Borislow, S. H. (2022). The puzzle of wrongless harms: Some potential concerns for dyadic morality and related accounts. Cognition, 220, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royzman, E. B., Kim, K., & Leeman, R. F. (2015). The curious tale of Julie and Mark: Unraveling the moral dumbfounding effect. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(4), 296–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2015). The unifying moral dyad: Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1147–1163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schein, C., Ritter, R. S., & Gray, K. (2016). Harm mediates the disgust-immorality link. Emotion, 16(6), 862–876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1096–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwitzgebel, E., & Cushman, F. (2012). Expertise in moral reasoning? Order effects on moral judgment in professional philosophers and non-philosophers. Mind & Language, 27(2), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shweder, R. A. (2012). Relativism and universalism. In Fassin, D. (Ed.), A companion to moral anthropology (pp. 85–102). Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shweder, R. A., Mahapatra, M., & Miller, J. G. (1987). The emergence of morality in young children. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the “big three” explanations of suffering. In Brandt, A. M. & Rozin, P. (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119–169). Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2018). Asking the right questions in moral psychology. In Gray, K. & Graham, J. (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 565–571). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Skitka, L. J., Washburn, A. N., & Carsel, T. S. (2015). The psychological foundations and consequences of moral conviction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smetana, J. G. (1981). Reasoning in the personal and moral domains: Adolescent and young adult women’s decision-making regarding abortion. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2(3), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Hatemi, P. K. (2017). Intuitive ethics and political orientations: Testing moral foundations as a theory of political ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 424–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. (2018). The moral domain. In Gray, K. & Graham, J. (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 547–555). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Turiel, E., Edwards, C. P., & Kohlberg, L. (1978). Moral development in Turkish children, adolescents, and young adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9(1), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turiel, E., Hildebrandt, C., Wainryb, C., & Saltzstein, H. D. (1991). Judging social issues: Difficulties, inconsistencies, and consistencies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 56(2), i–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turiel, E., Killen, M., & Helwig, C. C. (1987). Morality: Its structure, functions, and vagaries. In Kagan, J. & Lamb, S. (Eds.), The emergence of morality in young children (pp. 155–243). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Van Bavel, J. J., Packer, D. J., Haas, I. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2012). The importance of moral construal: Moral versus non-moral construal elicits faster, more extreme, universal evaluations of the same actions. PLoS ONE, 7(11), Article e48693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van de Vondervoort, J. W., & Hamlin, J. K. (2018). The early emergence of sociomoral evaluation: Infants prefer prosocial others. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 77–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitell, S. J., & Patwardhan, A. (2008). The role of moral intensity and moral philosophy in ethical decision making: A cross-cultural comparison of China and the European Union. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(2), 196–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, S. J., & King, L. A. (2018). Individual differences in reliance on intuition predict harsher moral judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(5), 825–849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weston, D. R., & Turiel, E. (1980). Act-rule relations: Children’s concepts of social rules. Developmental Psychology, 16(5), 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychological Science, 16(10), 780–784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, S. F., Zhao, H., Leong, K. K., Smetana, J. G., Nucci, L. P., & Blair, R. J. R. (2017). Neural correlates of conventional and harm/welfare-based moral decision making. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(6), 1114–1128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoder, K. J., & Decety, J. (2018). The neuroscience of morality and social decision-making. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(3), 279–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, L., & Saxe, R. (2011). When ignorance is no excuse: Different roles for intent across moral domains. Cognition, 120(2), 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, L., Scholz, J., & Saxe, R. (2011). Neural evidence for “intuitive prosecution”: The use of mental state information for negative moral verdicts. Social Neuroscience, 6(3), 302–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yucel, M., Hepach, R., & Vaish, A. (2020). Young children and adults show differential arousal to moral and conventional transgressions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×