Links between justice sensitivity and moral reasoning, moral emotions, and moral identity in middle childhood

Abstract

Middle childhood is a critical phase for moral development with marked changes in moral reasoning (i.e., the level of justification for moral conduct) and moral emotions (i.e., affective responses to moral-related situations), and early indicators of moral identity (i.e., the consolidation of self-concept and moral traits; Hardy & Carlo, 2011;. Recent research indicated that individual differences in the tendency to frequently perceive and intensively respond to injustice, that is, in justice sensitivity (JS), also manifest in this age range (Strauß et al., 2020). Because JS was considered a moral trait (Baumert et al., 2013) and consistently related to prosocial behavior in older age groups (Bondü & Elsner, 2015;Edele et al., 2013;Strauß et al., 2020), it may also add to explain moral development. However, the potential role of moral-related traits for different dimensions of moral development in general was hardly considered and potential differential associations between JS in particular and moral cognitions, moral emotions, as well as moral identity have never been examined up to now. This, however, seems particularly interesting in childhood as a sensitive phase for both moral and JS development and because relations may be complex, as JS comprises concerns for justice for the self and for others. Therefore, the present study examined potential relations between JS and common measures of morality in middle childhood while controlling for theory of mind (ToM) and empathy as relevant social skills. Justice sensitivityJustice is an important aspect of what is generally considered as moral (Kohlberg, 1976;Rawls, 1971).

Responses Toward Injustice Shaped by Justice Sensitivity – Evidence From Germany

“…This corroborates previous empirical findings that showed positive associations between perpetrator JS and empathy (Edele et al, 2013;Baumert et al, 2014;Strauß et al, 2021) and the notion that the ability to empathize with the potential victim may explain the positive relations between perpetrator JS and prosocial behavior (Strauß et al, 2021). Also note, however, that in recent research, perpetrator JS predicted moral development beyond empathy (Strauß and Bondü, 2022), suggesting that perpetrator JS cannot merely be replaced by empathy but that the two constructs may have differential effects on different outcomes.…”

“…That way, high levels of JS may put extra strain on these individuals. These findings also suggest that particularly individuals high in beneficiary and perpetrator JS may tend to anticipate intense negative affect after unjust situations and, therefore, refrain from antisocial behavior and revert to prosocial behavior ( Strauß and Bondü, 2022 ).…”

“…Victim JS has reliably been related to a broad range of negative outcomes, including aggressive and uncooperative behavior, less sharing, justifications for norm transgressions, and externalizing problem behavior ( Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004 ; Gollwitzer et al, 2005 ; Baumert et al, 2014 ; Bondü and Elsner, 2015 ; Bondü, 2018 ). In contrast, the altruistic JS facets have reliably been related to more advantageous outcomes, including prosocial, cooperative, and moral behavior ( Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004 ; Gollwitzer et al, 2009 ; Baumert et al, 2014 ; Strauß and Bondü, 2022 ). Research has offered different approaches to explaining these outcomes within the existing theoretical framework of JS ( Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004 ; Gollwitzer et al, 2005 , 2013 ; Strauß and Bondü, 2022 ).…”

“…Given similar affective responses, there are strong theoretical and empirical overlaps between beneficiary and perpetrator JS and recent research has sometimes combined observer, beneficiary, and/or perpetrator JS into a single factor of altruistic JS ( Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004 ; Strauß and Bondü, 2022 ). All JS facets are positively correlated due to a common underlying concern for justice.…”

“…In contrast, the altruistic JS facets have reliably been related to more advantageous outcomes, including prosocial, cooperative, and moral behavior ( Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004 ; Gollwitzer et al, 2009 ; Baumert et al, 2014 ; Strauß and Bondü, 2022 ). Research has offered different approaches to explaining these outcomes within the existing theoretical framework of JS ( Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004 ; Gollwitzer et al, 2005 , 2013 ; Strauß and Bondü, 2022 ).…”