DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY PRACTICAL 01

AIM: To study the differences in moral reasoning among participants from different family
structures (nuclear and joint families) by analyzing moral dilemmas using Kohlberg’s stages
of moral development.

Introduction
Morality in broad terms refers to the norms regarding the right and wrong of human
behaviour. It can be observed as both a normative(the code of conduct, that given specific
situations would be endorsed by rational individuals) and descriptive concept(morality refers
to a code of conduct endorsed by an individual or group)(Bernard Gert, 2012)

Moral Development begins with self-awareness initiating at age 2 where the child becomes a
moral being. At this stage, the children are capable of evaluating their own behaviour as
good or bad and as language develops, they are able to verbalize the sentiment and reason
accompanying their moral thoughts and emotions. Therefore, it can be understood that
morality does in fact have emotional, cognitive and behavioural components which are all
interrelated.

The study of moral development begins with the evolutionary perspective which states that
all organisms including ants, bees and termites show actions of self-sacrifice, dogs show
intense regret and chimpanzees who are genetically closest to homosapiens also conform to
moral rules, show empathy and care as well as self-sacrifice. (Haidt and Kesebir, 2010)

Based on this and research conducted with human beings, it can be concluded that humans
are biased to aid family members as well as non-relatives. Ethologists have concluded that
this pro-social capability stems from the practice of hunting and gathering and nomadic
herding wherein all members of a group had to not only look out for themselves but for other
members of the group as well. And because these altruistic traits have a survival advantage,
they have been extremely prominent in the succeeding generations.

Theories of Moral Development

Psychodynamic Theory: Sigmund Freud believed that morality emerges between the ages of
3 and 6 which is a part of the phallic stage of which the Oedipus and Electra complex are the
central themes of. To maintain their parent’s affection, children form a superego
(Conscience), by identifying with the same-sex parent and adopting their moral values. The
former hostility is internalized and causes feelings of pain and guilt in the child every time
they disobey the superego. The process of moral development is therefore complete by age
6.
Therefore, it can be understood that Frued aimed to explain guilt as a motivator for moral
actions. However, it is not the only force that compels another person to act morally. Nor is
moral development completed by the end of early childhood.

Behaviorism: Social Learning theory: states that moral behaviour is learned and can be
acquired like any other behaviour through reinforcement and modeling. Bandura, 1977,
emphasizes the importance of modeling and learning through observation because the
model’s characteristics affect the child’s willingness to imitate the behavior. Some of these
characteristics include warmth and responsiveness, competence and power, consistency
between assertions and behaviour.

Piaget’s theory of Moral Development

Piaget’s work on moral development inspired his cognitive-developmental perspective. Using
clinical interviews, Piaget questioned 5 to 13 year old Swiss children about their
understanding of rules in the game of marbles.

He also told children stories in which characters’ intentions to engage in right or

wrong action differed from the consequences of their behavior. In the best known of these
stories, children were asked which of two boys is naughtier, and why—well-intentioned John,
who accidentally breaks 15 cups while on his way to dinner, or ill-intentioned Henry, who
breaks a single cup while stealing some jam. From children’s responses, Piaget identified
two broad stages of moral understanding.

Piaget described moral development in a stage-wise progression wherein a child develops

heteronomous morality between the ages of 5 and 8. This means that children view morality
as rules handed to them by authority figures that they cannot defy and must show absolute
obedience to.

According to him, two factors limit a child’s moral understanding: 1. Cognitive immaturity i.e.,
a limited capacity to imagine other perspectives and realism i.e., the tendency to view mental
phenomena as fixed external features of reality and 2. The power of adults to insist that
children comply which promotes unquestioning respect for rules and those who enforce
them.

The second stage is between the ages of 9-10 and older children wherein they develop the
morality of cooperation to see rules as flexible and socially accepted norms that can be
revised to suit the majority. Older children tend to understand the concept of ideal reciprocity
as well.

Kohlberg’s theory of Morality

Kohlberg’s theory is effectively an extension of Piaget’s theory of moral development. He
also used clinical interviewing with an open-ended approach to study morality. He presented
people with hypothetical moral dilemmas and asked what the protagonist in the dilemma
should do and why. The best known example of this is the “Heinz dilemma” which pits the
value of obeying the law against the value of human life. In addition to explaining their
answer, participants are asked to evaluate the conflicting moral values on which the dilemma
is based. Kohlberg emphasized that it is the way an individual reasons about the dilemma,
not the content of the response (whether or not to steal) that determines moral judgment
maturity. Individuals who believe that Heinz should steal the drug and those who think he
should not can be found at each of Kohlberg’s first four stages. Only at the highest two
stages do moral reasoning and content come together in a coherent ethical system

In his initial investigation, Kohlberg (1958) extended the age range Piaget studied, including
participants who were well into adolescence (10, 13, and 16year old boys). Then he followed
the participants longitudinally, reinterviewing them at three to four year intervals over the
next 20 years (Colby et al., 1983). Analyzing age related changes in the boys’ moral
judgments, Kohlberg generated his six stage sequence.

Kohlberg’s first three stages characterize children as moving from a morality focused on
outcomes to one based on ideal reciprocity. Inclusion of older adolescents yielded the fourth
stage, in which young people expand their notion of ideal reciprocity to encompass societal
rules and laws as vital for ensuring that people treat one another justly. Relying on moral
judgment responses of a small minority of adolescents, Kohlberg extended his sequence
further, positing a fifth and sixth stage. Kohlberg organized his six stages into three general
levels and made stronger claims than Piaget about a fixed order of moral change.

Kohlberg regarded his moral stages as universal and invariant—a sequence of steps
through which people everywhere move in a fixed order. He viewed each new stage as
building on reasoning of the preceding stage, resulting in a more logically consistent and
morally adequate concept of justice. He saw each stage as an organized whole—a
qualitatively distinct structure of moral thought that a person applies across a wide range of
situations (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987).

Furthermore, Kohlberg believed that moral understanding is promoted by the same factors
Piaget thought were important for cognitive development: (1) disequilibrium, or actively
grappling with moral issues and noticing weaknesses in one’s current thinking; and (2) gains
in perspective taking, which permit individuals to resolve moral conflicts in increasingly
complex and effective ways.

● The Preconventional Level

At the preconventional level, morality is externally controlled. Children accept the

rules of authority figures and judge actions by their consequences. Behaviors that
result in punishment are viewed as bad, those that lead to rewards as good.

● Stage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation. Children at this stage

find it difficult to consider two points of view in a moral dilemma. As a result,
they overlook people’s intentions. Instead, they focus on fear of authority and
avoidance of punishment as reasons for behaving morally.
● Stage 2: The instrumental purpose orientation. Children become aware that
people can have different perspectives in a moral dilemma, but at first this
understanding is concrete. They view right action as flowing from self-interest
and understand reciprocity as equal exchange of favors

● The Conventional Level.

At the conventional level, individuals continue to regard conformity to social rules as

important, but not for reasons of self-interest. Rather, they believe that actively
maintaining the current social system ensures positive relationships and societal
order.

● Stage 3: The “good boy–good girl” orientation, or the morality of interpersonal

cooperation. The desire to obey rules because they promote social harmony
first appears in the context of close personal ties. They want to maintain the
affection and approval of friends and relatives by being a “good
 person”—trustworthy, loyal, respectful, helpful, and nice. At this stage,
individuals understand ideal reciprocity: They express the same concern for
the welfare of another as they do for themselves.
● Stage 4: The social-order-maintaining orientation. At this stage, the individual
takes into account a larger perspective—that of societal laws. Moral choices
no longer depend on close ties to others. Instead, rules must be enforced in
the same evenhanded fashion for everyone, and each member of society has
a personal duty to uphold them.

The Postconventional or Principled Level.

Individuals at the postconventional level move beyond unquestioning support for their
own society’s rules and laws. They define morality in terms of abstract principles and
values that apply to all situations and societies.

● Stage 5: The social contract orientation. At Stage 5, individuals regard laws

and rules as flexible instruments for furthering human purposes. They can
imagine alternatives to their own social order, and they emphasize fair
procedures for interpreting and changing the law.
● Stage 6: The universal ethical principle orientation. At this highest stage, right
action is defined by self-chosen ethical principles of conscience that are valid
for all people, regardless of law and social agreement.

Factors affecting Moral Reasoning

● Personality - A flexible, open-minded approach to new information and experiences

is linked to gains in moral reasoning, just as it is to identity development
● Child-Rearing Practices - Child-rearing practices associated with mature moral
reasoning combine warmth, exchange of ideas, and appropriate demands for
maturity.
● Schooling - Consistent with this idea, college students who report more
perspective-taking opportunities and who indicate that they have become more
aware of social diversity tend to be advanced in moral reasoning
● Peer Interaction Research supports Piaget’s belief that interaction among peers who
present differing viewpoints promotes moral understanding.
● Culture - Individuals in industrialized nations move through Kohlberg’s stages more
rapidly and advance to a higher level than individuals in village societies because
moral cooperation is based on direct relations between people and does not allow for
the development of advanced moral understanding (Stages 4 to 6), which depends
on appreciating the role of larger social structures, such as laws and government
institutions, in resolving moral conflict

Differences in moral reasoning due to family structures

According to Elliott Turiel (2006), children arrive at conclusions regarding moral imperatives,
people’s rights and welfare, social customs, conventions and rules by reflecting on their
everyday social relations.

As they construct a flexible appreciation of moral rules, children clarify and link
moral imperatives and social conventions. Gradually their understanding becomes
more complex, taking into account an increasing number of variables, including the
purpose of the rule; people’s intentions, knowledge, and beliefs; and the context of
people’s behavior.

Such development and understanding of the world and its functioning gives rise to the
development of moral thinking and reasoning. This development can be classified into the 6
stages given by Kohlberg and is a lifelong process.

However, it is to be noted that this process may be affected by a numer of factors and
variables. One of the most influential being the type of family an individual has grown up in.
Whether the individual belong to a joint family or a nuclear family affects their moral
reasoning in the way they approach and look ar relationships, dilemmas and use their
problem solving cognitive techniques. This study aims to uncover such a relationship and
how it affects the development and reasoning of morality.

Review of literature

1. Fiona white et al (2004)This study investigated the extent to which parents' moral
thought and family processes are involved in the socialization of adolescent moral
thought. Olson et al's (1992) Circumplex Model and White's (2000) Family
Socialization Model provided the conceptual framework for predicting that families
high in cohesion, adaptability and communication would facilitate the transmission of
moral values between parents and adolescents more effectively than families low in
these family processes. Results involving 218 adolescent-parent dyads revealed that
perceived family cohesion and communication moderated the father-adolescent
moral thought relationship; that several facets of both parents' morality significantly
predicted adolescents' morality; and that all three family processes significantly
predicted certain aspects of adolescent morality. Therefore the extent to which
parents' socialize adolescent moral values will vary according to each parent's moral
view, the strength of family processes and the content of moral thought being
transmitted
2. Ali, 2018 conducted a study titled ‘The Effect of Nuclear and Joint Family System on
the Moral Development of Students at Elementary Level’ on a sample of 384
elementary students. The results revealed that there were significant correlations
among major variables of the study. Family system was found to have significant
influence on the moral development of elementary students. The elementary
students of joint families were morally better than their counterparts from nuclear
families. The gender of elementary students had significant effect as far as the moral
development of elementary students was concerned. The students of rural areas
were morally more developed than those of urban areas. Similarly, students from
large family size were morally better than those of small sized families.
3. Ali, Farooq and Idris (2018): The Effect of Nuclear and Joint Family Systems on the
Moral Development:The study was a gender Based Analysis on elementary students
randomly selected using Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview Form. The findings of
the study depicted that gender had significant influence on the moral values of
 elementary level students. Furthermore, girls belonging to the joint families were
found morally more advanced than boys of joint families.

Present study – This study is exploratory in nature and aims to discover the development of
morality in adolescents and young adults. The study aims to study the differnces in morality
due to the differences in family structures in response to moral dilemmas using Kohlberg’s
stages of moral development.

Research Question

Will there be differences due to family structure (nuclear vs joint family) in the responses of
participants on the two moral dilemmas?

Objectives

1. To study moral development in emerging adults in response to moral dilemmas by

assessing stages of moral development given in Kohlberg’s theory

2. To study differences due to family structure (nuclear vs joint family) in response to

moral dilemmas.

Method

Design
The practical aims to study differences due to family structure (nuclear vs joint family) in
response to moral dilemmas by assessing stages of moral development given in Kohlberg’s
theory. Two dilemmas were created after discussion in the class. Each student had to
collect data on two participants – one from a joint family and another from the nuclear family.
The two dilemmas were presented to the participants and they were asked to write down
their responses. The data were then pooled in for analysis. Differences in moral reasoning
between participants from nuclear and joint families were analyzed and discussed.

Participants

Each student had to collect data on two participants – one from the nuclear family and one
from the joint family. The data were then pooled in for analysis.

Measures

1. Informed consent form

2. Two self-constructed dilemmas

Instructions

“Please read the given situation and answer the question asked at the end. You can answer
in the language of your choice. If you do not understand the meaning of any term or any
part of the situation, please feel free to ask. If you have any query related to this study,
please feel free to ask”.

Situation 1:
A court magistrate was passing by a street one day, when he saw a man getting stabbed. He
watched the incident from afar, but decided not to report it as he did not want to serve as a
witness in a trial that would end up lasting for years.
After a few years, the magistrate got promoted to a judge. One day, the murder case that the
judge had witnessed as a magistrate came for trial in his court. However, when he saw the
accused, the judge instantly knew he was not the killer.
When the trial began, the police presented a foolproof case against the perpetrator
highlighting his other past crime where he had murdered an old woman. After all the
evidence was presented, the judge pronounced the accused guilty and gave him a death
sentence.
Should he have done so, or should he have come clean about knowing the truth? Why or
why not?

Situation 2:
X’ s sibling Y is in the hospital on the ventilator in a coma state. He has low survival
chances. However, another critical patient Z, came in but did not receive treatment due to
the lack of medical equipment. Due to there being only one hospital in the area and Z has no
time to look for another hospital. Z will survive if s/he receives medical attention. So, X
decides to give up the bed and Y passes away. Do you think X did the right thing?

Precautions

1) It was made sure that the dilemmas were understood by the participants.

2) It was made sure that the participants understood the instructions properly.

Results

Table 1: Responses of both the participants

Stages Dilemma 1 Dilemma 2

Person from Joint Family

Participant’s Response No Yes

Reason No. He shouldn’t have done it. Yes. He did the right thing.
It was a selfish decision and Yeah that’s about it. Saving a
he made an innocent person life is important. So save what
guilty. He breaks the law in can be saved.
 himself.

Level Conventional Post-Conventional

Stage 4 6

Person from Nuclear Family

Participant’s Response No Yes

Reason I think he should’ve come
clean about knowing the truth.
As a person who was and is
currently pursuing a career in
the field of law, the former
magistrate, current judge
should know that he has the
power of (pause and fumbles)
giving a particular punishment
to a particular person. After
judging all the evidences and
everything and prior cases
and everything altogether and
in this particular case he just
gave a death sentence to an
innocent person knowing that
this person was not the killer
and he was just an innocent
being whereas the killer was
probably someone else. So
yes, I don’t think he did the
right thing. And he sort of
misused his power and did
not own upto his integrity and
stuff.
Yes I think X did the right thing
by giving up on Y and giving the
ventilator to Z because it’s
mentioned that there is no other
hospital in the vicinity and
there’s shortage of medical
equipment’s and Z is a patient
who is very very critical and will
pass away if not given proper
treatment and going by how it’s
written in the question it can
also mean that if Z receives
medical attention he might
survive and it’s right to save a
life.

Level Conventional Post-Conventional

Stage 4 6

Table 2: Pooled data of all the participants

Dilemma 1 Dilemma 2
Stages
Joint % Nuclear % Joint % Nuclear %

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 14.28 2 13.4 2 15.83 1 7.69

 3 0 0 0 0 7 53.84 7 53.84

4 6 42.85 8 53.4 0 0 1 7.69

5 3 21.42 3 20 1 7.69 0 0

6 3 21.42 2 13.4 3 23.07 4 30.76

Bar graph depicting the frequency of responses for each stage of moral development
according to family structure (nuclear- joint family) (Dilemma 1)

Bar graph depicting the frequency of responses for each stage of moral development
according to family structure (nuclear vs joint family) (Dilemma 2)
Discussion

The aim of this praactical was to study the differences that occur between moral reasoning
due to child rearing in different family structures. In this research, the variable of nuclear vs
joint family structure has been selected and used to study the differences. This assessment
was based on Kohlberg’s theory of morality. Two moral dilemmas were created specifically
for the purpose for this explorative research based on extensive discussion and debate. The
students were required to each collect data from two participants- one from nuclear family
and one from joint family. The responses from the participants was recorded and transcribed
in order to understand the their responses through their tone of voice, paralanguage and
subtle behaviours which allowed us to understand which stage a response fit in. The data
was then amalgamated for analysis and the differences in moral reasoning was observed
and understood.

Participant 1 was from a Nuclear Family.

For Dilemma 1, she stated that the judge should’ve been honest and informed the justice
system of what he had witnessed and prevented an innocent man from being penalised for a
crime he did not commit. The participant emphaised upon the judge’s duty towards the law
as he himself was a part of the judiciary and was supposed to set a precedent for upholding
the law for all the citizens to model which he failed to do. She also mentioned the fact that
the judge misused his power and authority thereby defying social order and law. Therefore,
such a heavy bent points towards stage 4 under the conventional level of Kohlberg’s theory
of morality.

For Dilemma 2, she stated that the sibling did the right thing by giving up the bed to save a
life. She stated that under the dire circumstances of the predicament that X was put in, he
made the best possible decision and saved a life which is what matters most. She
emphasised the value of a human life as the greatest gift and one that should be protected
at all costs. This clearly indicates that the response best suits stage 6 of the
Post-conventional stage of Kohlberg’s theory of morality.

Participant 2 was from a Joint Family.

For Dilemma 1, she stated that the judge made a selfish decision to only protect himself
from the repercussions of being honest and risking losing his job status and title. She goes
onto say that the judge himself breaks the very law that he took an oath to protect and
therefore, made an innocent individual guilty. This reasoning shows that the participants
wants to protect the law and uphold it to avoid any social chaos and maintain order in the
system of functioning thereby, indicating that this response best fits stage 4 of the
Conventional stage of Kohlberg’s theory of morality.

For Dilemma 2, she stated that in a very brief and concise manner that X made the correct
decision by giving up the bed and saving a life, She stated that one should save what can be
saved when faced with doubt otherwise there may been a loss of two precious lives. This
points to the assumption that the participant greatly values human life and understands its
worth and important. Therefore, it can be concluded that this response fits stage 6 of the
Post-Conventional stage of Kohlberg’s theory of morality.

For further analysis and understanding of the data, a group analysis was conducted. The
data collected by all students was pooled together. There was an extensive discussion on
how the responses have to be categorised and each response was critically examined and
broken down to understand how each sentence influences the stage which is suited for the
response. This break down was studied both in isolation and as a whole response and then
the conclusions were drawn based on this critical review of each and every response. There
were 15 participants for the Nuclear family variable in Dilemma 1 and 14 participants for the
Joint Family Variable. For Dilemma 2, there 13 participants in both categories.

From the analysis it can be understood that:

For Dilemma 1 stage 4 under the Conventional Level had the highest number of responses
in both Nuclear(53.4%) and Joint(42.85%) Family categories . This shows that the majority
of the participants show an inclination towards maintaining social order and upholding legal
values and structures. They show a societal orientanist perspective and state that the
morality cannot be subjective but much rather based on a larger set of rules and regulations
since they affect the society as a whole. In a study conducted by Darley.,2009, it was found that when
a person registers a transgression against self or others, the person experiences an
intuitively produced, emotionally tinged reaction of moral outrage. The reaction is driven by
the just deserts–based retributive reactions of the person to the transgression rather than,
for instance, considerations of the deterrent force of the punishment. Therefore, they seek to
punish the person committing the transgression as can be seen from the above analysis of
the responses.

In the Pre-Conventional Level, stage 1 had no responses from participants coming from
either nuclear or joint households. This means that the participants found it difficult to explain
and morally reason their response using a simple reward-punishment principle and had a
much more complex understanding of how morality functions when an individual cannot exist
in solidarity but as a member of the society. Stage 2 had 14.28% (from the joint) and 13.4%
(from the nuclear) responses in each category hinting at considerations of the concept of
reciprocity. The participants that showed an inclination towards this stage was small
however, they firmly believed that there is a certain vice of self-interest displayed by the
Judge that motivates him to put this needs above everyone else’s.

In the Post-Conventional Stage, Stage 5 had 21.42% responses from the joint family
category and 20% responses from the nuclear family category. They viewed the situation to
not only have alternatives that could be used and probed into but they also stated that laws
only exist to bring the greater good and they should be utilised so, therefore, the Judge
should’ve not only come clean and prevented an innocent man from being framed but
should’ve also recused himself from the judgement panel for a fair decision to be made. In
Stage 6, there were 13.4% responses from a Nuclear family household and 21.42%
responses from the Joint family household. This stage hold the view that human is the most
important and precious gift which needs to be protected at all costs. They view humans as
capable of making the right decisions based on their conscience which means that the judge
should’ve come clean because he knew what he doing was wrong and he had the power to
protect an innocent life.

For Dilemma 2, Stage 3 from the Conventional level had the highest frequency of responses
with there being 7 (53.84% each) responses in each category making it a total of 14 when
taken together. Stage 3 is based on morality of interpersonal co-operation which means that
there is a familial and/or relational bent to it. This can be because the nature of the dilemma
was sibling oriented which made the participants resonate more familially and therefore
respond accordingly. Here, the participants showed a major emphasis on having kin based
ties and evaluated the dilemma based on the principle of ideal reciprocity and state that
others deserve the same welfare as we personally do. Stage 4 had only 1 response from the
Nuclear family household which focused on the concept of triage and saving the life that can
and legally should be saved.
In the Pre-conventional level, Stage 1 had zero responses in both the categories which
shows that the participants understand the fragility of human life and are therefore unable to
evaluate it on the simple principle of reward and punishment. Stage 2 has 1 response in the
Nuclear family category making it 7.69% and 2 responses in the Joint Family category
making it 15.83%. This shows that the participants feel that the X should put and value his
feelings over everyone elses’ and think whether he himself will be able to “live with himself”
after making a decision. If he does give up the bed, will he be able to live with the guilt of
supposedly giving up on his brother and letting him die and if he doesn’t give up the bed, will
he be able to live with the fact that he let another person die who could be saved. This stage
brings out these two pertinent questions based on which the participants have responded.

In the Post-Conventional Stage, Stage 5 had 0 responses in the Nuclear family category and
1 response in the Joint Family category making it 7.69%. This means that the individuals
from Joint family households state that the life should be saved but there shouldn’t have to
be a choice between them as they are both equally important and the hospital staff should
find an alternative solution to manage this situation and save both the patients. Stage 6 had
4 respones from the Nuclear Family category making it 30.76% and 3 Responses form the
Joint Family category making it 23.07%, that stated the greatest value of human life and
chose to save the one that could be surely saved given the dire circumstances. Their stance
was that a choice between a “sure” and a “maybe” should always give preference to the
“sure” and save the life which has a complete chance of survival, recovery and maintaining a
quality of life.

Implications
In this study, not much difference between the participants from nuclear and joint famiies in
all the three levels i.e, pre conventional, conventional and post conventional which points to
the fact that family structure produces differences which may not be significant statistically
however, there is room for more research and exploration to understand its greater effects
and generalisability.
Further research can also be done on attachment styles to understand how they affect moral
development and reasoning in young adults combined with the variable of our study-family
structures.
The nature of dilemma chosen should also be expanded making certain choices harder than
the others while keeping in mind the need for a larger sample size.

Conclusion:
The Research findings of the study indiciate that there is no significant difference in moral
reasoning due to being reared in different family structures i.e., nuclear and joint family
structures. This means that there is greater scope for research and other variables may be
playing a crucial role in the development of morality among young adults i.e., 18-25 years of
age.

Learning outcomes:
This research aims to understand the developement of moral reasoning. It shows the
significance of morality and how it impacts and influences our life decisions. This study has
helped me learn the following:
1. Understand the mixed method of research, data collection and analysis
2. Understand the difference in morality due to upbringing
3. Understand the importance of lab experiments and being able to control variables as
well as the affect of confounding variables on the responses given by the participant
4. Understand that all individual have a sense of morality, the difference lies in the
magnitude and the way it is used in everyday life.

References

Berk, L. E. (2010). Child Development (9th Ed.). New Delhi: Prentice Hall.

Santrock, J. W. (2011). Child Development (13th Ed.). New Delhi: McGraw Hill

Njus, D. M. (2016). Anxious and Avoidant Attachment to God Predict Moral

Foundations beyond Adult Attachment - David M. Njus, Katrina Okerstrom,

2016. Journal of Psychology and Theology.

https://doi.org/10.1177/009164711604400305

Aladžić, V., Hadžić, A. (2017). Adult Attachment and Moral Reasoning. In: J. Kostić

Opsenica M. Tošić Radev, D. Todorović, Pešikan, A. (Eds.) International

Thematic Proceedia Contemporary Psychology and Practice. University of Niš,

Faculty of Philosophy. pp. 131-1341. UDC 159.942:17 Research paper.

Ali, M. M. (2018). The Effect of Nuclear and Joint Family System on the Moral

Development of Students at Elementary Level. 131.244. https://doi.org/17487

White, F., & Matawie, K. M. (2004, June). Parental Morality and Family Processes as

Predictors of Adolescent Morality. ResearchGate; Springer Verlag.

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226590604_Parental_Morality_and_Fa

mily_Processes_as_Predictors_of_Adolescent_Morality

Ali, M. M., Farooq, R. A., & Idris, M. (2018). The Effect of Nuclear and Joint Family

Systems on the Moral Development: A Gender Based Analysis. Global Social

Sciences Review, III(I), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2018(iii-i).09