Moral Reasoning Enables Developmental and Societal Change

Reinforcement learning of altruistic punishment differs between cultures and across the lifespan

Altruistic punishment is key to establishing cooperation and maintaining social order, yet its developmental trends across cultures remain unclear. Using computational reinforcement learning models, we provided the first evidence of how social feedback dynamically influences group-biased altruistic punishment across cultures and the lifespan. Study 1 (n = 371) found that Chinese participants exhibited higher learning rates than Americans when socially incentivized to punish unfair allocations. Additionally, Chinese adults showed slower learning and less exploration when punishing ingroups than outgroups, a pattern absent in American counterparts, potentially reflecting a tendency towards ingroup favoritism that may contribute to reinforcing collectivist values. Study 2 (n = 430, aged 12-52) further showed that such ingroup favoritism develops with age. Chinese participants' learning rates for ingroup punishment decreased from adolescence into adulthood, while outgroup rates stayed constant, implying a process of cultural learning. Our findings highlight cultural and age-related variations in altruistic punishment learning, with implications for social reinforcement learning and culturally sensitive educational practices promoting fairness and altruism.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves: we have no idea if moral reasoning causes moral progress

An important question about moral progress is what causes it. One of the most popular proposed mechanisms is moral reasoning: moral progress often happens because lots of people reason their way to improved moral beliefs. Authors who defend moral reasoning as a cause of moral progress have relied on two broad lines of argument: the general and the specific line. The general line presents evidence that moral reasoning is in general a powerful mechanism of moral belief change, while the specific line tries to establish that moral reasoning can explain specific historical examples of moral progress. In this paper, we examine these lines in detail, using Kumar and Campbell's (2022, A Better Ape: The Evolution of the Moral Mind and How It Made Us Human. Oxford University Press) model of rational moral progress to sharpen our focus. For each line, we explain the empirical assumptions it makes; we then argue that the available evidence supports none of these assumptions. We conclude that at this point, we have no idea if moral reasoning causes moral progress.

Intergroup resource allocation among children from minority and majority groups in three settings of former conflict

Intergroup resource allocation was examined among 333 children aged 7-11 (51.9% female) within three settings of former intergroup conflict (January-June 2021). Children represented both ethno-religious minority and majority groups (Republic of North Macedonia: Albanians, Macedonians; Croatia: Serbs, Croats; Northern Ireland: Catholics, Protestants), from predominantly White and middle-class families. Ingroup bias in average resource allocation amounts was demonstrated by both minority and majority children, across settings, in the context of novel targets (historic conflict rivals). Majority children were also more likely to give equally (which maintains the status quo) than minority children. Giving equally increased with age for both minority and majority children, despite being in "zero-sum," conflict settings. Equitable intergroup resource allocation in such settings has implications for conflict transformation.

Do contemplative practices make us more moral?

Contemplative practices are a staple of modern life and have historically been intertwined with morality. However, do these practices in fact improve our morality? The answer remains unclear because the science of contemplative practices has focused on unidimensional aspects of morality, which do not align with the type of interdependent moral functioning these practices aspire to cultivate. Here, we appeal to a multifactor construct, which allows the assessment of outcomes from a contemplative intervention across multiple dimensions of moral cognition and behavior. This offers an open-minded and empirically rigorous investigation into the impact of contemplative practices on moral actions. Using this framework, we gain insight into the effect of mindfulness meditation on morality, which we show does indeed have positive influences, but also some negative influences, distributed across our moral functioning.

Teenagers' but not young adults' beliefs about intrinsic interpersonal obligations for group members

Previous research has indicated that children perceive social category members as having intrinsic obligations toward each other, which shape their expectations for social interactions. However, it is unclear whether teenagers (aged 13 to 15) and young adults (aged 19 to 21) continue to hold such beliefs, given their increased experience with group dynamics and external social rules. To explore this question, three experiments were conducted with a total of 360 participants (N = 180 for each age group). Experiment 1 examined negative social interactions using different methods in two sub-experiments, while Experiment 2 focused on positive social interactions to examine whether participants viewed social category members as intrinsically obligated to avoid harming each other and to offer assistance. Results revealed that teenagers evaluated within-group harm and non-help as unacceptable, regardless of external rules, whereas they viewed between-group harm and non-help as both acceptable and unacceptable, depending on the presence of external rules. Conversely, young adults considered both within-group and between-group harm/non-help as more acceptable if an external rule permitted such behavior. These findings suggest that teenagers believe that members of a social category are intrinsically obligated to help and not harm each other, whereas young adults believe that individual social interactions are constrained mainly by external rules. That is, teenagers hold stronger beliefs than young adults about intrinsic interpersonal obligations to group members. Thus, in-group moral obligations and external rules contribute differently to the evaluation and interpretation of social interactions at different developmental stages.

What We Do When We Define Morality (And Why We Need to Do It)

All psychological research on morality relies on definitions of morality. Yet the various definitions often go unstated. When unstated definitions diverge, theoretical disagreements become intractable, as theories that purport to explain "morality" actually talk about very different things. This article argues for the importance of defining morality and considers four common ways of doing so: The linguistic, the functionalist, the evaluating, and the normative. Each has encountered difficulties. To surmount those difficulties, I propose a technical, psychological, empirical, and distinctive definition of morality: obligatory concerns with others' welfare, rights, fairness, and justice, as well as the reasoning, judgment, emotions, and actions that spring from those concerns. By articulating workable definitions of morality, psychologists can communicate more clearly across paradigms, separate definitional from empirical disagreements, and jointly advance the field of moral psychology.

Developmental Perspectives on Social Inequalities and Human Rights

Social inequalities and human rights are inevitably linked to children's and adolescents' healthy development. Children who experience structural and interpersonal inequalities in access to resources and opportunities based on their gender, race, ethnicity, or other group categories are denied the right to fair treatment. We assert that investigating the psychological perspectives that children hold regarding inequalities and human rights is necessary for creating fair and just societies. We take a constructivist approach to this topic which seeks to understand how individuals interpret and evaluate observed and experienced inequalities. Even young children think about these issues. Yet, throughout development, individuals must often weigh multiple, potentially conflicting considerations when interpreting, evaluating, and responding to social inequalities and rights violations. In these complex contexts, children and adolescents are neither fully "moral" nor fully "prejudiced." Rather, critical questions for research in this area concern when, why, and for whom young people reject inequalities and support rights, and, by contrast, when, why, and for whom they accept that inequalities and rights violations should be allowed to persist. This paper provides a brief overview of how different conceptions of social inequalities and rights are intrinsically linked together.

Give Up Flights? Psychological Predictors of Intentions and Policy Support to Reduce Air Travel

Concerted, timely action for mitigating climate change is of uttermost importance to keep global warming as close to 1.5°C as possible. Air traffic already plays a strong role in driving climate change and is projected to grow-with only limited technical potential for decarbonizing this means of transport. Therefore, it is desirable to minimize the expansion of air traffic or even facilitate a reduction in affluent countries. Effective policies and behavioral change, especially among frequent flyers, can help to lower greenhouse gas emissions. For both, a positive evaluation and public support is indispensable. This study contributes to understanding air travel behavior and the perception of regulative policies. We examined the role of attitudes, perceived behavioral control, efficacy, global identity, and justice concerns for intentions to avoid flights and aviation-related environmental policy support. We conducted an online survey study with a quota sample of N = 2,530 participants in Germany. The strongest positive predictors of intentions to refrain from flying and policy support were perceived behavioral control to travel without flying, efficacy beliefs that avoiding air travel contributes to climate change mitigation, and intergenerational justice concerns; pro-travel attitude was a negative predictor. Moreover, we tested whether the provision of additional information on climate impact, global and intranational inequalities as well as subsidies (implying intranational inequality) affected the intention to avoid air travel and policy support. We found no effects of the different types of information. Nor did we find an interaction between the type of information provided and global or national identity. Our results highlight the need for a shift within the mobility sector that facilitates attractive and accessible transport alternatives in order to strengthen people's behavioral control to choose other means than planes and their efficacy perceptions. Moreover, raising awareness of the impacts of climate change on future generations and developing strategies to promote people's concern for intergenerational justice might motivate people to reduce air travel and thereby contribute to a livable future for new generations.

Age- and sex-based differences in the moral intuitions of American early adolescents

This study sought to explore the validity of a latent-factor model of moral intuition development during early adolescence. The 3-Factor Character Foundations Survey (CFS-3) was used to assess the moral intuitions of early adolescents (n = 850, mean = 12.4 years old, SD = 0.96) under a moral foundations theory framework. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the psychometric validity of the three latent factor constructs (autonomy, loyalty and empathy), and partial metric invariance was established to allow for the comparison of latent factor means between four age- and sex-based groups coinciding with averages for pubertal onset. Results support prior findings of greater latent factor means for females in all three factors when compared with males in the 11-12-year-old age group. Additionally, 13-14-year-old females exhibited lower latent factor means in autonomy and loyalty factors when compared with 11-12-year-old females. This resulted in 13-14-year-old females remaining higher in empathy and autonomy but showing no difference in loyalty when compared with 13-14-year-old males. The results are interpreted through the lens of attachment theory, socio-cultural influence and certain limitations of the survey instrument itself. Suggestions for future studies are proposed.

Testing the effectiveness of the Developing Inclusive Youth program: A multisite randomized control trial

The Developing Inclusive Youth program is a classroom‐based, individually administered video tool that depicts peer‐based social and racial exclusion, combined with teacher‐led discussions. A multisite randomized control trial was implemented with 983 participants (502 females; 58.5% White, 41.5% Ethnic/racial minority; M_age = 9.64 years) in 48 third‐, fourth‐, and fifth‐grade classrooms across six schools. Children in the program were more likely to view interracial and same‐race peer exclusion as wrong, associate positive traits with peers of different racial, ethnic, and gender backgrounds, and report play with peers from diverse backgrounds than were children in the control group. Many approaches are necessary to achieve antiracism in schools. This intervention is one component of this goal for developmental science.

Prosocial Behavior and Aggression in the Daily School Lives of Early Adolescents

Research has not adequately addressed a possible mutual co-regulatory influence of prosocial and aggressive behaviors in adolescents' daily lives. This study explored bidirectional within-person associations between prosocial and aggressive behaviors in the daily school lives of early adolescents. The sample included 242 sixth-graders [M_age = 11.96 (SD = 0.18), 50% girls] and their teachers. Adolescents reported on daily prosocial behavior and reactive and proactive aggression for ten consecutive days. Teachers and adolescents reported on adolescents' overall prosocial behaviors. Across-day prosocial behaviors increased after days when adolescents exhibited more reactive aggression but not among self-reported low-prosocial adolescents. Increased prosocial behaviors did not mitigate aggression the next day. The findings suggest prosocial behaviors are a plausible compensatory strategy after daily aggressive reactions.

"This kid looks like he has everything": 3- to 11-year-old children's concerns for fairness and social preferences when peers differ in social class and race

This study investigated 3- to 11-year-old US children's (N = 348) perceptions of access to resources, social group preferences, and resource distribution decisions and reasoning when hypothetical peers differed in social class (poor or rich) and race (Black or White). Data were collected in 2019. The sample reflected the region where data were collected in terms of gender (44% girls, 30% boys, 1% another identity) and race and ethnicity (46% White, 10% multiracial or multiethnic, 9% Black, 5% Latinx, 2% Asian, 3% another identity), and parents reported a higher average level of education than the regional average. Results revealed both marked age differences in children's perceptions, preferences, decisions, and reasoning and specific combinations of peer group memberships that were especially likely to receive preferential treatment. With age, children perceived that rich peers had greater access to resources than poor peers, but when both peers were poor, White peers were perceived to have more resources than Black peers. Social group preferences changed with age, from mixed social class and racial group preferences, to preferences for rich peers, to dislike for rich peers. Resource allocation decisions and reasoning reflected both social group and fairness concerns: young children distributed more to White peers especially if they were also rich, participants in middle childhood explicitly favored rich peers regardless of their race, and older children distributed more to poor peers and reasoned about either moral concerns for equity or social class stereotypes. Thus, overall, younger children's responses often reflected broader economic and racial inequalities while older children often sought to create more equity, though not always for moral reasons.

Children’s Perspectives on Fairness and Inclusivity in the Classroom

School represents an important context for children’s social, moral, and identity development. Research indicates that supportive teacher-student relationships are significantly related to positive student academic achievement. Unfortunately, teacher bias as well as peer exclusion based on group identity (gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality) pervade many school contexts. The presence of these biases in the classroom is negatively related to students’ academic development, especially for children who are minoritized and marginalized. Very little research has connected teacher bias and children’s reasoning about bias and inequalities in the classroom context. The classroom is a complex environment in which to examine children’s social and moral reasoning about bias, given teachers’ position of authority which often includes power, status, and prestige. We propose that understanding both teacher bias and peer intergroup exclusion are essential for promoting more fair classrooms. This paper reviews foundational theory as well as the social reasoning developmental model as a framework for studying how children think about fairness and bias in the classroom context. We then discuss current research on children’s social-cognitive and moral capacities, particularly in the contexts of societal inequality and social inclusion or exclusion. Finally, this article proposes new directions for research to promote fairness and inclusivity in schools and suggests how these new lines of research might inform school-based interventions.

Adolescents' own and parental expectations for cross-group friendship in the context of societal inequalities

This study investigated adolescents' own and parental expectations about cross-group friendships between peers from different socio-economic status (SES). Nepalese adolescents (N = 389, M _age = 14.08; grades: 7-10) evaluated an ambiguous peer encounter between a low and a high SES peer. Overall, adolescents attributed negative intentions to high-SES more than to low-SES peers. Most adolescents expected that high- and low-SES targets could not be friends, that parents of high-SES targets would disapprove of cross-group friendships, referencing social hierarchies and reputation, and that parents of low-SES targets would support friendship citing moral concerns and social mobility. Most adolescents were aware of systemic reasons that underlie SES biases. Given that low SES adolescents often suffer when excluded from peer experiences, these findings indicate that parental socialization strategies should focus not only on protecting children from experiences of discrimination but also from experiences related to social inequalities and a lack of social mobility.

Social and Racial Justice as Fundamental Goals for the Field of Human Development

Social justice refers to promoting fairness, equality, equity and rights across multiple aspects of society, including economic, educational, and workforce opportunities. A number of scholars across academia have called for a greater incorporation of social and racial justice approaches to the field of human development, and have asserted that social justice constitutes both a theoretical framework as well as a set of hypotheses to investigate and understand the human condition. The emergence, experience, and awareness of social injustice has to be much better understood from a psychological and developmental perspective. Four areas that reflect theoretical changes in human development research are discussed: a) socialization theories about race, b) ethnic/racial identity and development, c) developmental social identity and moral reasoning, and d) lay theories and social essentialism. Childhood is a period of intense change and development; human development research is uniquely positioned to promote change that will contribute to challenging social and racial injustice.