View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Cognitive Underpinnings of Moral Reasoning in Adolescence: The Contribution of Executive Functions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Cognitive Underpinnings of Moral Reasoning in Adolescence: The Contribution of Executive Functions
Language: English
Authors: Vera-Estay, E., Dooley, J. J., Beauchamp, M. H.
Source: Journal of Moral Education. 2015 44(1):17-33.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Moral Values, Moral Development, Developmental Stages, Adolescents, Age, Intelligence, Nonverbal Ability, Verbal Ability, Decision Making, Predictor Variables, Executive Function, Visual Stimuli, Correlation, Intelligence Tests, Measures (Individuals), Social Cognition, Innovation, Measurement, Maturity (Individuals), Foreign Countries, Statistical Analysis
Geographic Terms: Canada
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Trail Making Test
DOI: 10.1080/03057240.2014.986077
ISSN: 0305-7240
Abstract: Adolescence is a developmental period characterized by intense changes, which impact the interaction between individuals and their environments. Moral reasoning (MR) is an important skill during adolescence because it guides social decisions between right and wrong. Identifying the cognitive underpinnings of MR is essential to understanding the development of this function. The aim of this study was to explore predictors of MR in typically developing adolescents (n = 92, 33 males, M = 16.3 years, SD = 2.2 years) and the specific contribution of higher order cognitive processing using an innovative visual MR assessment tool and measures of executive functioning and intelligence. MR maturity was correlated with four executive functions (cognitive flexibility, feedback utilization, conceptual reasoning, verbal fluency) and was predicted by four variables: age, intelligence, nonverbal flexibility and verbal fluency. Overall, these results contribute to a better understanding of MR during adolescence and highlight the importance of using innovative tools to measure social cognition.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 73
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1055231
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE23lw6JILukGVWKB26CWQmAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGg4jQ_buMQSUM7g1AIBEICBm7mFlfR2EDyV48V6wZMe7qPB9sMKmDCN16LfhusYyi2VxabKdobhUcONweY9G-pK_6K-fmWRWc-N1c-cYDkfaBY2Oox9P10QxYyedNiLYimlPCc_gFtwQAclTnF_tld3sfkdlUTSQXcgeMfT0_8BlcUOQsTS-uQU7CyxZtnxzTQuX4hxDqEr7kD71xz2zZ1aTS0lHNzuAtHgXojD
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0101623848;moe01mar.15;2019Mar14.12:29;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0101623848-1">Cognitive underpinnings of moral reasoning in adolescence: The contribution of executive functions. </title> <p>Adolescence is a developmental period characterized by intense changes, which impact the interaction between individuals and their environments. Moral reasoning (MR) is an important skill during adolescence because it guides social decisions between right and wrong. Identifying the cognitive underpinnings of MR is essential to understanding the development of this function. The aim of this study was to explore predictors of MR in typically developing adolescents (n = 92, 33 males, M = 16.3 years, SD = 2.2 years) and the specific contribution of higher order cognitive processing using an innovative visual MR assessment tool and measures of executive functioning and intelligence. MR maturity was correlated with four executive functions (cognitive flexibility, feedback utilization, conceptual reasoning, verbal fluency) and was predicted by four variables: age, intelligence, nonverbal flexibility and verbal fluency. Overall, these results contribute to a better understanding of MR during adolescence and highlight the importance of using innovative tools to measure social cognition.</p> <p>Keywords: moral reasoning; executive functions; social cognition; adolescence</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Adolescence is a developmental period characterized by intense physical, emotional, intellectual and social changes, which impact on the interaction between individuals and their environment. During this stage, adolescents' skills increase in complexity, they gain more independence from their parents as they spend more time with peers and they take on new social roles and responsibilities. Adolescents have increased opportunities for autonomous decision-making, including decisions about complex moral issues that may have lifelong individual and societal consequences (Adams & Berzonsky, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]). Many actions in daily life are guided by emotional and automatic reactions that alert people to the moral salience of an event, rather than an intentional and rational analysis of the situation (Haidt, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref2">36</reflink>]; Swedene, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref3">66</reflink>]). However, there are some moral conflicts in social contexts that warrant conscious evaluation, particularly when dilemmas are complex, the consequences are serious or competing values and interests are at play. This crucial component in the moral decision-making process which calls on rational analysis is referred to as moral reasoning (MR), the thinking mechanism through which moral judgements about right and wrong are attained (J. Moll, Zahn, de Oliveira-Souza, Krueger, & Grafman, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref4">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Mature MR has been linked with appropriate social functioning, such as prosocial behavior and altruistic personality traits (Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref5">27</reflink>]; Malti, Gummerum, Keller, & Buchmann, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref6">46</reflink>]; Malti & Latzko, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref7">47</reflink>]). Many studies have demonstrated that MR impairments are related to poor social functioning and engagement in socially maladaptive behaviors, including aggression, rule-breaking and criminality (Arsenio & Lemerise, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]; Stams et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref9">64</reflink>]; van Vugt et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref10">71</reflink>]). Moreover, considering the links between less mature MR and low socioeconomic status (Bradley & Corwyn, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]; Gibbs, Widaman, & Colby, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>]), adolescents from underprivileged backgrounds could be particularly vulnerable to engaging in delinquent, criminal and socially inappropriate behavior at least in part due to poor moral reasoning skills.</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-3">Theoretical underpinnings of moral development</hd> <p>Moral reasoning can be observed as early as childhood (Malti & Latzko, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref13">47</reflink>]); however, the quality and complexity of reasoning evolves during ontogenetic development. Kohlberg (Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>]), in his developmental theory of moral maturation, described six stages of moral reasoning across three periods (pre-conventional, conventional and post-conventional), structured hierarchically from basic to complex reasoning. Subsequent research challenged or redefined this work. For example, Social Domain Theory (Turiel, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref15">70</reflink>]) proposes that individuals construct different types of social knowledge. Morality, based on fairness, justice, welfare and rights, is considered as one of the three main forms of social knowledge (moral, societal and psychological) that guide social interactions and decisions. Recent research on the neurophysiological correlates of social cognition supports this theory, showing that judgments of moral and social/conventional transgressions are processed differently (Lahat, Helwig, & Zelazo, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref16">42</reflink>]; Lahat & Zelazo, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref17">43</reflink>]). Gibbs ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref18">33</reflink>]) updated theoretical concepts related to development of MR across the lifespan by proposing Sociomoral Stage Theory, according to which standard development of MR evolves via two levels: the Immature/Superficial level (stage 1, centrations; stage 2, pragmatic exchanges) and the Mature/Profound level (stage 3, mutualities; stage 4, systems). Only some individuals progress beyond these two standard levels to develop more reflexive and theoretical reasoning (Gibbs, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref19">33</reflink>]). In order to integrate the rational, emotional and intuitive aspects involved in the moral domain, Narvaez ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref20">54</reflink>]) proposes that moral experts develop higher and better organized knowledge and have an acute sensibility for moral details (i.e. developmental expertise). They act in a mature moral manner that could seem solely intuitive, but instead is influenced by a combination of emotion, intuition and automated reasoning schemes (Narvaez, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref21">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-4">Moral reasoning and cognitive development</hd> <p>Although cognitive development, socialization and age have been associated with MR abilities, their relative contribution remains unclear. MR skills typically develop with age, as adolescents increase their social interactions, role-taking opportunities and autonomy (Eisenberg, Zhou, & Koller, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref22">29</reflink>]; Gibbs, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref23">33</reflink>]; Malti & Latzko, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref24">47</reflink>]). In addition, evidence from social neuroscience research shows that brain changes occurring during adolescence are associated with the development of social cognition and executive functioning (Blakemore, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref25">8</reflink>]; Blakemore & Choudhury, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref26">9</reflink>]; Casey, Tottenham, Liston, & Durston, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>]; Paus, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref28">57</reflink>]), which may support the improvement of MR skills.</p> <p>Cognitive development is considered a necessary, but not sole, contributor to mature MR (Piaget, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref29">58</reflink>]; Rest, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref30">61</reflink>]). Complex cognitive skills (e.g. abstract thinking and hypothetical reasoning) that emerge during adolescence appear to be central to higher MR. Several studies demonstrate an association between MR and intellectual abilities (Derryberry & Barger, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref31">22</reflink>]; Derryberry, Wilson, Snyder, Norman, & Barger, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]; Narvaez, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref33">53</reflink>]). Recently, a preliminary study by our group using a novel, visual MR task (So-Moral) detected that both global intelligence and nonverbal intelligence predicted MR maturity in adolescence (Labelle-Chiasson, Vera-Estay, Dooley, & Beauchamp, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref34">41</reflink>]), suggesting that new measurement approaches may offer opportunities for more accurate and robust assessment of daily MR.</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-5">Moral reasoning and executive functioning</hd> <p>Given the complex processes involved in moral decisions, it is important to investigate the role of cognitive factors that may further contribute to MR. Executive functions (EF) include a broad range of skills that are implicated in regulating thinking and behavior (Kerr & Zelazo, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref35">39</reflink>]). As such, they have the potential to influence sociocognitive functions such as MR. However, as highlighted by Richardson, Mulvey, and Killen ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref36">62</reflink>]) and Lahat and Zelazo ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref37">43</reflink>]), research on Social Domain Theory does not provide details about the cognitive processes underlying MR. Cognitive-developmental theories have addressed this in part, underscoring the importance of higher-order cognitive abilities, such as abstraction and flexibility, for reaching moral maturity, even though they do not explicitly incorporate the concept of EF (Colby & Kohlberg, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref38">15</reflink>]; Gibbs, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref39">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>During adolescence, the protracted development of the frontal lobes (and accordingly EF) may partly explain vulnerability to poor decision-making when youth are faced with social dilemmas (De Luca et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref40">19</reflink>]; Prencipe et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref41">60</reflink>]; Steinberg, Cauffman, Woolard, Graham, & Banich, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref42">65</reflink>]). Effective EF during childhood has been shown to contribute to later social adjustment and resilience (Eisenberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref43">28</reflink>]; Martel et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref44">48</reflink>]; Miller & Hinshaw, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref45">49</reflink>]) and meta-analytic evidence indicates that EF impairments in childhood and adulthood are linked to poor social competence and psychopathological disorders affecting social adaptation (Ganesalingam et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref46">31</reflink>]; Kalinian, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref47">38</reflink>]; Lopez, Lincoln, Ozonoff, & Lai, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref48">45</reflink>]; Ogilvie, Stewart, Chan, & Shum, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref49">55</reflink>]). To take into account neurodevelopmental aspects of EF, P. J. Anderson ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref50">3</reflink>]) proposed an empirical model based on factor analyses. The 'Executive Control System' stipulates that EF are composed of four discrete factors, including: 1) Attentional control, including the capacity to select stimuli and focus attention as well as monitor and inhibit processes; 2) Cognitive flexibility, comprising working memory, conceptual shifting, feedback utilization and processing of multiple sources of information; 3) Goal setting, involving planning, problem-solving, strategic organization and conceptual reasoning; and 4) Information processing, related to the fluency, efficiency and speed of output.</p> <p>While growing research emphasizes the distinct importance of executive skills and MR on overall social adjustment, and neuroimaging studies have shown that both these high-order skills share a similar neural network (Blakemore & Choudhury, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref51">9</reflink>]; Choudhury, Blakemore, & Charman, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref52">13</reflink>]; Decety, Michalska, & Kinzler, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]), very little is known about the relationship between EF and MR. Some studies have demonstrated that brain injuries to the prefrontal cortex during childhood are linked to both executive impairment and poor MR during adolescence and adulthood (S. W. Anderson, Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref54">4</reflink>]; Couper, Jacobs, & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>]). Three other studies conducted with healthy, educated adults reveal that better executive skills contribute to more mature MR (Cottone, Drucker, & Javier, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref56">16</reflink>]; Travis, Harung, & Lagrosen, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref57">69</reflink>]; Wain & Spinella, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref58">72</reflink>]). While these findings shed some light on the positive association between EF and MR, few have specifically addressed EF's contribution to MR in healthy adolescents.</p> <p>The current study contributes to this emergent area of research and aims to: 1) evaluate the association between MR maturity and demographic characteristics (socioeconomic status and age), as well as cognitive functioning (intelligence and EF); 2) assess the specific contribution of six aspects of EF (inhibition, flexibility, feedback utilization, planning, conceptual reasoning, and verbal fluency) to MR and 3) evaluate the combined effect of age and EF on MR maturity. It was expected that age, intelligence and socioeconomic status would be positively correlated with MR maturity. We also expected that EF would predict MR maturity and, specifically, that conceptual reasoning and cognitive flexibility would have an independent impact on MR scores. According to the cognitive-developmental approach to moral development (Colby & Kohlberg, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]; Gibbs, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref60">33</reflink>]), these executive skills could facilitate mature moral thinking, which is characterized by an analysis of moral conflicts in light of abstract moral values and the ability to demonstrate flexible perspective-taking in order to obtain a global and objective view of social situations.</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0101623848-7">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 92 participants between 13 and 20 years (33 males, M = 16.36, SD = 2.16 years) participated in this study. They were predominantly Caucasian (82%; Hispanic 5.4%, Asian 4.3%, Arabic 4.3%, Black 3.3%), had no history of any developmental, psychiatric or neurological condition, had IQ levels in the low to high average range (85–138, M = 111.6, SD = 13.4) and were primarily from middle-class families (Blishen index, M = 55.30, SD = 15.16). Participants were identified and recruited through regular high schools and colleges in Quebec, Canada. All parents (for those under 18 years of age) and all participants provided written informed consent prior to participation. Participants received $20 for their participation. The Research Ethics Committee at the University of Montreal approved the study.</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-8">Measures</hd> <p>Participants and their parents completed the following measures.</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-9">Demographic and Developmental Questionnaire</hd> <p>Parents of participants completed a questionnaire pertaining to their child's medical, developmental, social and psychiatric history, as well as parents' education level, ethnicity, occupation, income, and family composition. Participants' socioeconomic status (SES) was derived using the Blishen socioeconomic index (Blishen, Carroll, & Moore, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref61">10</reflink>]). Scores are computed using the highest-level occupation in the family and are based on the average income and average education level associated with occupations in Canada (M = 42.74, SD = 13.3, range 17.81 (low SES) to 101.74 (high SES).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-10">Intellectual functioning</hd> <p>The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) (WASI, Wechsler, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref62">73</reflink>]) was used to provide an estimate of general intellectual ability based on the Vocabulary and Matrix Reasoning subtests (IQ, M = 100, SD = 15).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-11">Moral reasoning</hd> <p>The Socio-Moral Reasoning Aptitude Level Task (SoMoral; Beauchamp, Dooley, & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref63">7</reflink>]) is a self-paced, visual, computer-based task that presents 16 moral dilemmas specifically designed for male and female adolescents. Each dilemma (see Figure 1) consists of an introductory screen presenting the name of the dilemma (e.g. 'wallet'), three first-person perspective pictures of adolescent actors playing out various social scenarios representing a moral conflict (e.g. concerns with justice, welfare/harm and rights) according to Social Domain Theory (Turiel, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref64">70</reflink>]) and a final screen presenting a dichotomous decision (e.g. whether or not to engage in a particular action such as stealing from a shop, cheating at a game, intimidating a classmate, helping a friend, etc.). The aggregate number of responses is compiled to obtain a moral decision-making score, which ranges from 0 to 16 points. Adolescents are then asked to provide a justification for their decision. Each participant's justification is recorded verbatim and scored using a standardized coding system (Beauchamp & Dooley, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref65">6</reflink>]) based on the cognitive-developmental approach to MR (Gibbs, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref66">33</reflink>]; Kohlberg, Levine, & Hewer, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref67">40</reflink>]; Turiel, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref68">70</reflink>]). Developmental stages of MR have been adapted to fit the social nature of the dilemmas in the So-Moral task and consist of the following: 1) Centrations and authoritarian-based consequences; 2) Egocentric/pragmatic exchanges; 3) Interpersonal focus; 4) Societal regulation; and 5) Societal evaluation (see Figure 2). Transition stages (1.5, 2.5, etc.) are used to account for answers that provide elements of two consecutive reasoning stages. When elements of non-consecutive stages are provided, the response is coded 0 according to the highest schema detected. The MR maturity score (0 to 80 points) is obtained by summing the 16 justification scores. This test has adequate inter-rater reliability (Cronbach's α = .83 to.94) and construct validity (Dooley, Beauchamp, & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref69">25</reflink>]). In this study, each justification was scored independently by two trained raters and discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. The MR maturity score was used as the main dependent variable.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Example item from the SoMoral task (Beauchamp, Dooley, & Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref70">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Brief description of So-Moral coding and examples.</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-12">Executive functioning</hd> <p>Five tasks from the Delis Kaplan Executive Function System standardized battery (D-KEFS) (Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref71">21</reflink>]) were used to measure the six EF described in Anderson's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>]) model, including:</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-13">Color–Word Interference test</hd> <p>This task measures the ability to inhibit an over-learned response in reaction to conflicting verbal and visual information. In the third condition, the examinee must name the dissonant ink colors in which color words are printed. This condition provides a measure of <emph>inhibition</emph> (range 1–19, M = 10, SD = 3).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-14">Trail making test</hd> <p>This task was used to assess non-verbal <emph>cognitive flexibility</emph>. This paper-and-pencil test consists of a visual cancelation task (Visual scanning) and a series of connect-the-circle tasks (Number sequencing, Letter sequencing, Number–Letter switching and Motor speed). A cognitive flexibility score is provided by contrasting Number–Letter sequencing and Number–Letter switching (range 1–19, M = 10, SD = 3).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-15">Tower test</hd> <p>The participant must move five disks across three pegs to build a target tower in the fewest numbers of moves possible while respecting several rules. A measure of <emph>planning</emph> is provided by the 'total achievement score' (range 1–19, M = 10, SD = 3).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-16">20 Questions test</hd> <p>The participant is presented with a stimulus page containing 30 common objects and has to ask the fewest numbers of yes/no questions to identify the target. This task measures the ability to use abstract thinking in a strategic manner. <emph>Conceptual reasoning</emph> was measured using the 'initial abstraction' score, whereas <emph>feedback utilization</emph> was measured using the 'total questions asked' score (range 1–19, M = 10, SD = 3).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-17">Verbal Fluency Test</hd> <p>This test measures the ability to generate words that begin with a specific letter (Condition 1) or from a semantic category (Condition 2), and shift between semantic categories (Condition 3). The <emph>verbal fluency</emph> score was obtained using the first condition, whereas the <emph>cognitive flexibility</emph> score (verbal modality) was obtained using the third condition (total switching accuracy, range 1–19, M = 10, SD = 3).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-18">Statistical analyses</hd> <p>Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 19.0 software. Prior to all statistical analyses, data were examined for any violations of test assumptions (normality, linearity and homoscedasticity). Correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationship between MR maturity, demographic characteristics (age and SES) and cognitive functioning (IQ and EF). Hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to assess the impact of executive skills on MR maturity and the combined effect of age and EF on MR maturity. In the first analysis, significant covariates (age and IQ) were entered in the first block, and the scores on the executive skills that correlated with MR in block two, in order to determine which EF predict MR after controlling for possible confounding effects. In the second analysis, age was entered in the second block with the EF scores. Results corresponding to p < .05 were considered statistically significant.</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-19">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0101623848-20">Descriptive results</hd> <p>Descriptive results are presented in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Participant results on cognitive and moral measures</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Variable</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Cognitive variables</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Intellectual functioning (IQ,WASI)</td><td>111</td><td>13.39</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Conceptual reasoning<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0001">a</xref></td><td>10.31</td><td>3.37</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Cognitive flexibility, non-verbal<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0002">b</xref></td><td>9.68</td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Cognitive flexibility, verbal<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0003">c</xref></td><td>11.66</td><td>3.20</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Inhibition<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0004">d</xref></td><td>10.98</td><td>2.39</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Planning<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0005">e</xref></td><td>9.8</td><td>1.88</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Verbal fluency<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0006">f</xref></td><td>10.57</td><td>3.65</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Feedback utilization<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0007">g</xref></td><td>10.83</td><td>2.55</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td><italic>Moral variables</italic></td><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Moral reasoning maturity</td><td>47.67</td><td>10.24</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Moral decision making</td><td>13.74</td><td>1.88</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 20 Questions, initial abstraction score</p> <ulist> <item>2 Trail Making Test, contrast measure</item> <item>3 Verbal Fluency test, Condition 3</item> <item>4 Color-Word Interference test, Condition 1</item> <item>5 Tower test, total achievement score</item> <item>6 Verbal Fluency test, Condition 1</item> <item>7 20 Questions, Total questions asked score</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0101623848-21">MR maturity, moral decision-making and cognitive functioning</hd> <p>MR maturity was strongly and directly associated with age and IQ, but not with SES (see Table 2). As expected, there was a significant relationship between MR maturity and moral decision-making (r = .26, p = .01). Furthermore, MR maturity was significantly associated with both better verbal IQ and better nonverbal IQ. The results revealed a moderate positive relationship between MR maturity and cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency, conceptual reasoning and feedback utilization. However, no association was found between MR maturity and planning or inhibition skills.</p> <p>Table 2. Correlations between MR and cognitive variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Variable </td><td>MR maturity </td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>Intellectual functioning </td><td char=".">.48<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0009">***</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Verbal IQ</td><td char=".">.44<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0009">***</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Nonverbal IQ</td><td char=".">.27<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0008">*</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Conceptual reasoning</td><td char=".">.25<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0008">*</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Cognitive Flexibility - verbal</td><td char=".">.31<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0009">***</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Cognitive Flexibility – non-verbal</td><td char=".">.28<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0009">***</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Verbal fluency</td><td char=".">.47<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0009">***</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Inhibition</td><td char=".">.06</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Planning</td><td char=".">.07</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Feedback utilization</td><td char=".">.25<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0008">*</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Moral decision making</td><td char=".">.26<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0008">*</xref></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 p <.05,</item> <item>9 p <.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0101623848-22">Predictors of MR maturity</hd> <p>As shown in Table 3, age and EF (conceptual reasoning, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency and feedback utilization) have a combined effect of 31% on MR maturity, after controlling for the impact of IQ. The effect size (ƒ<sups>2</sups>=.67) corresponds to a large effect according to Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref73">14</reflink>]). Regarding the specific impact of EF on MR (Table 4), conceptual reasoning, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency and feedback utilization explained 13% of the variability in MR maturity after controlling for the impact of age and IQ. The effect size (ƒ<sups>2</sups>=.27) corresponds to a medium effect (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref74">14</reflink>]). In the final model, age and IQ significantly predicted MR maturity, as did cognitive flexibility and verbal fluency.</p> <p>Table 3. Impact of age and EF on moral reasoning maturity</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Predictor </td><td>MR Maturity</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Δ R<sup>2</sup></td><td>β</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>Step 1</td><td>.23<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0010">***</xref></td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td> IQ </td><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Step 2</td><td>31<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0010">***</xref></td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Age </td><td /><td char=".">.39<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0010">***</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Conceptual reasoning </td><td /><td char=".">.01</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Cognitive flexibility -verbal</td><td /><td char=".">-.06</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Cognitive flexibility – non-verbal </td><td /><td char=".">.26<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0010">***</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Verbal fluency </td><td /><td char=".">.21<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0011">*</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Feedback utilization</td><td /><td char=".">.10</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Total R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.54<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0010">***</xref></td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>N</td><td>92</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>10 p <.001,</item> <item>11 p < 05.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 4. Specific impact of EF on moral reasoning maturity</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr valign="top"><td>Predictor </td><td>MR Maturity</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Δ R<sup>2</sup></td><td>β</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr valign="top"><td>Step 1</td><td>.41<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0013">***</xref></td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Age and IQ</td><td /><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Step 2</td><td>.13<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0013">***</xref></td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Conceptual reasoning </td><td /><td char=".">.04</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Cognitive flexibility -verbal </td><td /><td char=".">-.04</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Cognitive flexibility – non-verbal </td><td /><td char=".">.27<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0013">***</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Verbal fluency </td><td /><td char=".">.23<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0012">*</xref></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td> Feedback utilization</td><td /><td char=".">.09</td></tr><tr valign="top"><td>Total R<sup>2</sup></td><td>.54<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="EN0013">***</xref></td><td /></tr><tr valign="top"><td>N</td><td>92</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>12 p < 05,</item> <item>13 p < 001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0101623848-23">Discussion</hd> <p>This study examined the relationship between age, intellectual functioning, EF and MR. Consistent with moral development theories and current research findings (Blakemore, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref75">8</reflink>]; Choudhury et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref76">13</reflink>]), it was demonstrated that MR increases with age. Age was the strongest predictor of MR maturity, suggesting that progressive exposure to social interactions, increasing autonomy and the acquisition of new social roles, issues that are characteristic of the period of adolescence, may contribute to the emergence of more complex reasoning skills, which are helpful for evaluating situations affecting the moral domain. In contrast to earlier findings (Bradley & Corwyn, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref77">11</reflink>]; Gfellner, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref78">32</reflink>]; Gibbs et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref79">34</reflink>]), no evidence of an association between MR maturity and SES was found. However, participants in this study were, in that regard, relatively homogeneous (i.e., primarily Caucasian, middle-class students).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-24">MR maturity and cognitive functioning</hd> <p>Our results contribute additional evidence with respect to the association between intellectual functioning and MR (Derryberry & Barger, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref80">22</reflink>]; Derryberry et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref81">24</reflink>]; Langdon, Clare, & Murphy, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref82">44</reflink>]; Narvaez, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref83">53</reflink>]). Intelligence appears to be associated not only with MR involving universal moral situations presented in written format (Rest, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref84">61</reflink>]), but also with reasoning about the types of moral dilemmas that occur in daily life, as measured by the So-Moral task. While the link between verbal abilities and moral reasoning has been documented previously (Derryberry, Jones, Grieve, & Barger, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref85">23</reflink>]; Poulshock, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref86">59</reflink>]; Tappan, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref87">68</reflink>]), the association with nonverbal abilities found here (e.g. visual information processing and abstract reasoning skills) is novel. The visual and realistic presentation of the dilemmas may have helped in detecting an association with nonverbal skills involved in moral information processing. This relationship might suggest that visual cues (e.g. body posture, facial expression) also influence the processing of moral dilemmas and the generation of moral responses. There is evidence from social information processing research (e.g. Crick & Dodge, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>], Orobio de Castro et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref89">56</reflink>]) that young people who display more aggressive behaviors have a heightened awareness of aggression-related cues, which, in turn, influences the generation of aggressive responses to social dilemmas. Overall, the results of this study highlight the complexity of moral dilemmas in relation to both the processing of the event and the generation of a response.</p> <p>Adolescents with more mature MR skills also tended to make better moral decisions, in line with the concept of moral expertise. Moral experts are better at reading a moral situation, reasoning about duty and consequence, detecting needs, controlling their personal biases in order to be morally responsive to others and assessing the options in order to choose the most moral decision in a given situation (Narvaez, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref90">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-25">Moral reasoning and executive functioning</hd> <p>The current study provides information on the cognitive processes underlying MR, a subject matter overlooked by Social Domain Theory (Lahat & Zelazo, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref91">43</reflink>]; Richardson et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref92">62</reflink>]). The results regarding the relationship between MR and EF revealed that four of the six functions measured (conceptual reasoning, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency and feedback utilization) were significantly associated with MR maturity. This is consistent with the cognitive-developmental view of moral development, in which mature MR is characterized by the ability to analyse moral conflicts from different perspectives in light of abstract moral values in order to obtain a global and objective view of the situation (in contrast to the egocentric and concrete pre-conventional perspective). On the other hand, adolescents who were able to rapidly access their vocabulary (verbal fluency) and who efficiently used the feedback provided were also better at providing justifications for their moral choices on the So-Moral task, and presumably in daily life, facilitating moral dialog and debate with peers and adults.</p> <p>In contrast to previous findings (e.g. Cottone et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref93">16</reflink>]; Travis et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref94">69</reflink>]; Wain & Spinella, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref95">72</reflink>]), inhibition and planning were not associated with MR maturity. However, given that impulsivity has consistently been linked to poor social adaptation (Eisenberg, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref96">26</reflink>]; Romer et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref97">63</reflink>]; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref98">67</reflink>]), it is possible that this EF has a greater effect on moral behavior than on moral cognition. Moreover, since this study focused on healthy adolescents, further studies are necessary to explore the relationship between MR maturity, inhibition and planning in other groups, such as adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.</p> <p>Despite the large effect of age and IQ on MR maturity, EF explained a significant additional amount of variance in moral maturity ratings. Consistent with clinical (S. W. Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref99">4</reflink>]; Eslinger, Flaherty-Craig, & Benton, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref100">30</reflink>]) and adult populations (Cottone et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref101">16</reflink>]; Moore, Clark, & Kane, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref102">52</reflink>]), the current study provides evidence of the influence of EF on MR in healthy adolescents. Specifically, cognitive flexibility and verbal fluency significantly and independently predicted moral maturity. These results lend support to the developmental view of EF proposed in Anderson's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref103">3</reflink>]) model as cognitive flexibility and information processing independently predicted MR. These skills are still in development during adolescence (P. Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref104">2</reflink>]) and may contribute to explaining individual differences in MR during this period. Similarly, flexible thinking is considered to be one of the most important features of mature MR. According to Kohlberg et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref105">40</reflink>]) and Gibbs ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref106">33</reflink>]), moral development is not only driven by brain maturation, but also by experiences in role-taking and in the ability to consider a problem from multiple perspectives. Moreover, whereas a rigid application of abstract moral rules may be dysfunctional in some social contexts, the ability to select appropriate rules in a changing environment is the hallmark of adaptive MR. Finally, the observed impact of verbal fluency on MR highlights the key role of language in morality. According to Tappan ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref107">68</reflink>]), high mental functioning, including MR, is mediated and shaped by language. Thus, MR may be considered as an inner moral dialog that guides moral decision-making. Moreover, as highlighted by Greene and Haidt ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref108">35</reflink>]), MR is not only important as an internal processing mechanism; it also matters in social contexts where people try to influence and convince each other. This is especially important during adolescence as social interaction increases, expanding the opportunities to elaborate, practice and exchange MR. However, if an adolescent's executive functioning is impaired, the quality of both social understanding and MR may be affected, resulting in inappropriate social behavior. This behavior may become more entrenched when individuals experience rejection from their social group, gravitate toward like-minded peers, and are reinforced for expressing and engaging in negative or antisocial behavior.</p> <p>Although the current study explored the directional impact of EF on MR, it is possible that MR skills also contribute to enhancing EF. While EF has considerable impact on emerging social understanding, social interaction may also contribute to EF (Hala, Pexman, Climie, Rostad, & Glenwright, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref109">37</reflink>]). Thus, increased social interactions during adolescence heighten opportunities to utilize and practice MR and related EF. Further research should investigate the impact of social reasoning opportunities on cognitive development, in line with the Vygotskian view suggesting that regular participation in cooperative and cultural interactions during childhood and adolescence enhances higher order cognitive skills (H. Moll & Tomasello, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref110">50</reflink>]; Tappan, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref111">68</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-26">Strengths and limitations</hd> <p>This study provides support for the cognitive-developmental approach to MR by using an innovative assessment tool adapted for the adolescent population and designed to minimize methodological flaws associated with some traditional MR tasks. The small but adequate sample size and the wide range of ages allowed us to detect small and moderate effects on our dependent variable, MR maturity. However, the present study has some limitations that need to be taken into account. Females were over-represented in the sample and participants had similar sociodemographic characteristics, somewhat limiting the generalizability of the results. A future study including an equal number of females and males from different socioeconomic backgrounds could enrich our understanding of MR in adolescence using the novel So-Moral task.</p> <hd id="AN0101623848-27">Conclusions</hd> <p>This study investigated the underpinnings of MR maturity in adolescence and the specific contribution of EF, revealing that four key functions are related to MR maturity (conceptual reasoning, cognitive flexibility, verbal fluency and feedback utilization) and that, in addition to age and intellectual functioning, two of these skills (cognitive flexibility and verbal fluency) are independent predictors of MR maturity in healthy adolescents. Overall, the results of this study contribute to our understanding of the factors that influence moral development during adolescence. Further studies are needed to explore other factors that may influence the development of MR, such as theory of mind, role-taking opportunities and moral emotions.</p> <ref id="AN0101623848-28"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, G. R., & Berzonsky, M. D. (2006). Blackwell handbook of adolescence. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756607</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref104" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 8, 71–82.10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref50" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, P. J. (2008). Towards a developmental model of Executive Function In V. Anderson, R. Jacobs, & P. J. Anderson (Eds.), Executive functions and the frontal lobes (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref54" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, S. W., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. (1999). Impairment of social and moral behavior related to early damage in human prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1032–1037.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arsenio, W. F., & Lemerise, E. A. (2004). Aggression and moral development: Integrating social information processing and moral domain models. Child Development, 75, 987–1002.10.1111/cdev.2004.75.issue-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref65" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beauchamp, M. H., & Dooley, J. J. (2012). Administration and coding manual SocioMoral Reasoning Aptitude Level Task (So Moral). Canada: ABCs Laboratory. University of Montreal.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref63" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beauchamp, M. H., Dooley, J. J., & Anderson, V. (2013). A preliminary investigation of moral reasoning and empathy after traumatic brain injury in adolescents. Brain Injury, 27, 896–902.10.3109/02699052.2013.775486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref25" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Blakemore, S. -J. (2008). Development of the social brain during adolescence. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Hove), 61, 40–49.10.1080/17470210701508715</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref26" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blakemore, S. -J., & Choudhury, S. (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blishen, B. R., Carroll, W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). The 1981 socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 24, 465–488.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399.10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casey, B. J., Tottenham, N., Liston, C., & Durston, S. (2005). Imaging the developing brain: What have we learned about cognitive development? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 104–110.10.1016/j.tics.2005.01.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choudhury, S., Blakemore, S. -J., & Charman, T. (2006). Social cognitive development during adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 165–174.10.1093/scan/nsl024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colby, A. & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment: Theoretical foundations and research validation (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cottone, J., Drucker, P., & Javier, R. A. (2007). Predictors of moral reasoning: Components of executive functioning and aspects of religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Couper, E., Jacobs, R., & Anderson, V. (2002). Adaptive behaviour and moral reasoning in children with frontal lobe lesions. Brain Impairment, 3, 105–113.10.1375/brim.3.2.105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crick, N., & Dodge, K. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Luca, C. R., Wood, S. J., Anderson, V., Buchanan, J. A., Proffitt, T. M., Mahony, K., & Pantelis, C. (2003). Normative data from the CANTAB. I: Development of executive function over the lifespan. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 242–254.10.1076/jcen.25.2.242.13639</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Decety, J., Michalska, K. J., & Kinzler, K. D. (2012). The contribution of emotion and cognition to moral sensitivity: A neurodevelopmental study. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 209–220.10.1093/cercor/bhr111</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan executive function system (D-KEFS). examiner's manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derryberry, W., & Barger, B. (2008). Do Contributors to Intellect Explain the Moral Judgment Abilities of Gifted Youth? Gifted Child Quarterly, 452, 340–352.10.1177/0016986208321806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derryberry, W., Jones, K. L., Grieve, F., & Barger, B. (2007). Assessing the relationship among Defining Issues Test scores and crystallised and fluid intellectual indices. Journal of Moral Education, 36, 475–496.10.1080/03057240701688036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Derryberry, W., Wilson, T., Snyder, H., Norman, A., & Barger, B. (2005). Moral judgment differences between gifted youth and college students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 6–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dooley, J. J., Beauchamp, M. H., & Anderson, V. (2010). The measurement of sociomoral reasoning in adolescents with traumatic brain injury: A pilot investigation. Brain Impairment, 11, 152–161.10.1375/brim.11.2.152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697.10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., & Carlo, G. (2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudinal study. Published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 993–1006.10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.993</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Cumberland, A., Shepard, S. A., ... Thompson, M. (2004). The relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children's resiliency and adjustment. Child Development, 75, 25–46.10.1111/cdev.2004.75.issue-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., & Koller, S. (2001). Brazilian adolescents' prosocial moral judgment and behavior: Relations to sympathy, perspective taking, gender-role orientation, and demographic characteristics. Child Development, 72, 518–534.10.1111/cdev.2001.72.issue-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eslinger, P. J., Flaherty-Craig, C. V., & Benton, A. L. (2004). Developmental outcomes after early prefrontal cortex damage. Brain and Cognition, 55, 84–103.10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00281-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganesalingam, K., Yeates, K., Taylor, H., Walz, N., Stancin, T., & Wade, S. (2011). Executive functions and social competence in young children 6 months following traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology, 25, 466–476.10.1037/a0022768</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gfellner, B. M. (1986). Ego development and moral development in relation to age and grade level during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 147–163.10.1007/BF02141735</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, J. C. (2010). Moral development & reality: Beyond the theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, J. C., Widaman, K. F., & Colby, A. (1982). Construction and Validation of a Simplified, Group-Administerable Equivalent to the Moral Judgment Interview. Child Development, 53, 895–910.10.2307/1129126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene, J., & Haidt, J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 517–523.10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. [Review]. Science, 316, 998–1002.10.1126/science.1137651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hala, S., Pexman, P., Climie, E., Rostad, K., & Glenwright, M. (2010). A bidirectional view of executive function and social interaction. In B. W. Sokol (Ed.), Self and social regulation: Social interaction and the development of social understanding and executive functions (pp. 293–311). Oxford; Toronto: Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalinian, H. (2003). Executive function performance as assessed by the D-KEFS in female psychopaths. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 760–761.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerr, A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2004). Development of "hot" executive function: The children's gambling task. Brain and Cognition, 55, 148–157.10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00275-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. Basel; New York NY: Karger.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Labelle-Chiasson, V., Vera-Estay, E., Dooley, J. J., & Beauchamp, M. H. (2012). The role of intelligence as a cognitive predictor of moral reasoning. Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, 18, 206.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lahat, A., Helwig, C. C., & Zelazo, P. D. (2013). An event-related potential study of adolescents' and young adults' judgments of moral and social conventional violations. Child Development, 84, 955–969.10.1111/cdev.2013.84.issue-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lahat, A., & Zelazo, P. D. (2012). Towards a process model of children's reasoning about social domains. Human Development, 55, 26–29.10.1159/000335525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langdon, P. E., Clare, I. C., & Murphy, G. H. (2010). Developing an understanding of the literature relating to the moral development of people with intellectual disabilities. Developmental Review, 30, 273–293.10.1016/j.dr.2010.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lopez, B. R., Lincoln, A. J., Ozonoff, S., & Lai, Z. (2005). Examining the relationship between executive functions and restricted, repetitive symptoms of Autistic Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 445–460.10.1007/s10803-005-5035-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malti, T., Gummerum, M., Keller, M., & Buchmann, M. (2009). Children's moral motivation, sympathy, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 80, 442–460.10.1111/cdev.2009.80.issue-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malti, T., & Latzko, B. (2010). Children's moral emotions and moral cognition: Towards an integrative perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2010, 1–10.10.1002/cd.v2010:129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martel, M. M., Nigg, J. T., Wong, M. M., Fitzgerald, H. E., Jester, J. M., Puttler, L. I., ... Z.., R. A. (2007). Childhood and adolescent resiliency, regulation, and executive functioning in relation to adolescent problems and competence in a high-risk sample. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 541–563.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, M., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2010). Does childhood executive function predict adolescent functional outcomes in girls with ADHD? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 315–326.10.1007/s10802-009-9369-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moll, H., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Cooperation and human cognition: The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moll, J., Zahn, R., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Krueger, F., & Grafman, J. (2005). OPINION The neural basis of human moral cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 799–809.10.1038/nrn1768</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A., & Kane, M. J. (2008). Who shalt not kill? Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 19, 549–557.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02122.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Narvaez, D. (1993). High achieving students and moral judgment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 268–279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Narvaez, D. (2010). The emotional foundations of high moral intelligence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2010, 77–94.10.1002/cd.v2010:129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ogilvie, J. M., Stewart, A. L., Chan, R. C. K., & Shum, D. H. K. (2011). Neuropsychological measures of executive function and antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 49, 1063–1107.10.1111/crim.2011.49.issue-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orobio de Castro, B., Veerman, J. W., Koops, W., Bosch, J. D., & Monshouwer, H. J. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 73, 916–934.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paus, T. (2005). Mapping brain maturation and cognitive development during adolescence. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 60–68.10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poulshock, J. W. (2006). Language and morality: evolution, altruism, and linguistic moral mechanisms (Doctor of Philosophy), University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prencipe, A., Kesek, A., Cohen, J., Lamm, C., Lewis, M. D., & Zelazo, P. D. (2011). Development of hot and cool executive function during the transition to adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 621–637.10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, C. B., Mulvey, K. L., & Killen, M. (2012). Extending social domain theory with a process-based account of moral judgments. Human Development, 55, 4–25.10.1159/000335362</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Romer, D., Betancourt, L., Giannetta, J. M., Brodsky, N. L., Farah, M., & Hurt, H. (2009). Executive cognitive functions and impulsivity as correlates of risk taking and problem behavior in preadolescents. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2916–2926.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.06.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stams, G. J., Brugman, D., Dekovic, M., van Rosmalen, L., van der Laan, P., & Gibbs, J. C. (2006). The Moral Judgment of Juvenile Delinquents: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. Springer Science + Business Media., 34, 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Woolard, J., Graham, S., & Banich, M. (2009). Are adolescents less mature than adults?: Minors' access to abortion, the juvenile death penalty, and the alleged APA "flip-flop". American Psychologist, 64, 583–594.10.1037/a0014763</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swedene, J. (2005). Feeling better about moral dilemmas. Journal of Moral Education, 34, 43–55.10.1080/03057240500049307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324.10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tappan, M. B. (1997). Language, culture, and moral development: A Vygotskian perspective. Developmental Review, 17, 78–100.10.1006/drev.1996.0422</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Travis, F., Harung, H. S., & Lagrosen, Y. (2011). Moral development, executive functioning, peak experiences and brain patterns in professional and amateur classical musicians: Interpreted in light of a Unified Theory of Performance. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1256–1264.10.1016/j.concog.2011.03.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Vugt, E., Gibbs, J. C., Stams, G. J., Bijleveld, C., Hendriks, J., & van der Laan, P. (2011). Moral development and recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 1234–1250.10.1177/0306624X11396441</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wain, O., & Spinella, M. (2007). Executive functions in morality, religion, and paranormal beliefs. International Journal of Neuroscience, 117, 135–146.10.1080/00207450500534068</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By E. Vera-Estay; J.J. Dooley and M.H. Beauchamp</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>E. Vera-Estay, Department of Psychology, University of Montreal</p> <p>J.J. Dooley, Cuyahoga County Court Psychiatric Clinic Justice Center, Cleveland</p> <p>M.H. Beauchamp, Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, and Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Center, Montreal</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref110"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1055231
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Cognitive Underpinnings of Moral Reasoning in Adolescence: The Contribution of Executive Functions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vera-Estay%2C+E%2E%22">Vera-Estay, E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dooley%2C+J%2E+J%2E%22">Dooley, J. J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Beauchamp%2C+M%2E+H%2E%22">Beauchamp, M. H.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Moral+Education%22"><i>Journal of Moral Education</i></searchLink>. 2015 44(1):17-33.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Values%22">Moral Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Moral+Development%22">Moral Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Stages%22">Developmental Stages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age%22">Age</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intelligence%22">Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nonverbal+Ability%22">Nonverbal Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Verbal+Ability%22">Verbal Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Executive+Function%22">Executive Function</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Stimuli%22">Visual Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intelligence+Tests%22">Intelligence Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Cognition%22">Social Cognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Innovation%22">Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measurement%22">Measurement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Maturity+%28Individuals%29%22">Maturity (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Trail+Making+Test%22">Trail Making Test</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/03057240.2014.986077
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0305-7240
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Adolescence is a developmental period characterized by intense changes, which impact the interaction between individuals and their environments. Moral reasoning (MR) is an important skill during adolescence because it guides social decisions between right and wrong. Identifying the cognitive underpinnings of MR is essential to understanding the development of this function. The aim of this study was to explore predictors of MR in typically developing adolescents (n = 92, 33 males, M = 16.3 years, SD = 2.2 years) and the specific contribution of higher order cognitive processing using an innovative visual MR assessment tool and measures of executive functioning and intelligence. MR maturity was correlated with four executive functions (cognitive flexibility, feedback utilization, conceptual reasoning, verbal fluency) and was predicted by four variables: age, intelligence, nonverbal flexibility and verbal fluency. Overall, these results contribute to a better understanding of MR during adolescence and highlight the importance of using innovative tools to measure social cognition.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 73
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1055231
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1055231
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/03057240.2014.986077
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 17
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Moral Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Moral Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Stages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nonverbal Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Verbal Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Executive Function
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Cognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measurement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Maturity (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trail Making Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Cognitive Underpinnings of Moral Reasoning in Adolescence: The Contribution of Executive Functions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vera-Estay, E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dooley, J. J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Beauchamp, M. H.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0305-7240
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Moral Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1