The Homogeneity and Heterogeneity of Moral Functioning in Preschool

Tensions chronically exist in the research literature among bio-evolutionary scientists, constructivist-developmental psychologists, and socio-constructionist scholars about how to describe, understand, and predict our moral functioning. An analysis of the assumptions of each of these theoretical paradigms, the disciplinary fields that inform their conceptual models, and the empirical evidence they use to sustain their claims reveals the tensions that exist, as different communities of scholars assign different roles to nature and nurture, reason and intuition, and to the private minds of individuals and the social intelligibilities available to them in a given time and place of history. Using simple multilevel structures, it is possible to see that the divisions that exist within these scientific communities can be conceptualized in terms of their use of different levels of analysis, as they each focus on different populations and employ different underlying units of time and space. Bio-evolutionary scientists study humans as species, using slow-paced time units of analysis such as millennia, and their studies focus on the epigenetic dimensions of our moral sense, documenting inter-species variance in moral functioning. Socio-constructionists study humans as members of groups, using moderately paced time units of analysis such as decades and centuries, and their studies focus on cultural variations in what different groups of people consider to be good or bad, according to the social structures and intelligibilities that are available to them in a given time and place of history. Constructivist-developmental psychologists study humans as individuals, using fast-paced time units of analysis such as months and years, and their studies focus on the maturational dimension of our moral sense, documenting within- and between-individuals variation throughout their lifetime. Unfortunately, by focusing on different populations and time units, these communities of scholars produce research findings that highlight certain aspects of our moral functioning while downplaying others. Interestingly, complex multilevel structures can illustrate how different levels of analysis are nested within each other and can demonstrate how different scientific endeavors have been striving to account for different sources of variability in our moral functioning. The use of complex multilevel structures can also allow us to understand our moral functioning from a dynamic, complex, multilevel theoretical perspective, and as the product of (a) genetic variations that occur between and within species, (b) variations in the social structures, discourses, and intelligibilities that are available in the culture and regulate what social groups consider good and bad at different places and times of history, and (c) variations in the personal experiences and opportunities of interaction that individuals have in different environments throughout their lifetime. Researchers need to clarify the epigenetic, historical, and developmental rules of our moral functioning, and the ways in which different dimensions interact with each other.

Download Full-text

Linking Moral Identity With Moral Emotions: A Meta-Analysis

Review of General Psychology ◽

10.1177/1089268019880887 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 23 (4) ◽

pp. 444-457 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Jean Paul Lefebvre ◽

Tobias Krettenauer

Keyword(s):

Positive Emotions ◽

Moral Identity ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Moral Emotions ◽

Effect Sizes ◽

Moral Functioning ◽

Moral Anger ◽

Other Regarding ◽

The Relationship

This meta-analysis examined the relationship between moral identity and moral emotions drawing on 57 independent studies. Moral identity was significantly associated with moral emotions, r = .32, p < .01, 95% confidence interval [CI: .27, .36]. Effect sizes were moderated by the type of moral emotion. Studies reporting other-regarding emotions (sympathy, empathy, and compassion) had the largest effect sizes ( r = .41), while negative other-evaluative emotions (moral anger, contempt, and disgust) had the smallest ( r = .16). Self-evaluative and other-evaluative positive emotions had intermediate effect sizes ( r values between .29 and .32). The type of emotion measure also was a significant moderator, with trait measures of emotion ( r = .38) correlating more strongly with moral identity than state measures ( r = .24). Effect sizes did not differ for the type of moral identity measure being used, publication status, or cultural origin of the study sample. The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate a robust empirical connection between moral identity and moral emotions, which confirms the multifaceted role of moral identity in moral functioning.

Download Full-text