Psychology, Crime & Law, December 2005; 11(4): 353 /361
The relationship between moral reasoning and aggression,
and the implications for practice
EMMA J. PALMER
Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, UK
Abstract
This paper considers the relationship between moral development and aggression. After considering
the theory and research that has examined the association between immature moral reasoning
and aggressive behaviour, attention will be given to the psychological mechanisms mediating this
relationship. This will place moral reasoning into a wider framework of aggression, in which it is
proposed that children s early socialization experiences with families and peers influence the
development of moral reasoning and other social cognitive processes. These social cognitive variables,
such as social information processing, cognitive distortions, and moral reasoning all play a role in how
individuals behave in social situations, including the use of aggression. The practical implications of
this theoretical framework for reducing aggression are then considered, including the use of multi-
modal interventions such as Aggression Replacement Training.
Keywords: Moral reasoning, aggression, social cognition, interventions, Aggression Replacement
Training
Introduction
There is now an established body of work within the psychological literature examining the
relationship between moral reasoning and criminal behaviour (for recent reviews, see
Palmer, 2003a,b). While this research has typically concentrated on the differences between
convicted offenders and non-offenders, attention is now turning to a consideration of the
psychological mechanisms that may explain this relationship. In doing this, many
researchers are working within a developmental paradigm to examine how various factors
interact to lead to later offending. One result of this has been the widening of the focus to
incorporate other forms of antisocial behaviour, such as conduct disorder in childhood and
aggression. By examining the interaction of moral reasoning with other factors, including
social information processing, cognitive distortions, and early socialization experiences, and
how these influence behaviour it is proposed that a better understanding may be developed
of aggression and antisocial behaviour.
Over the last 10 years, research has pointed to social information processing acting as a
mediator between early socialization experiences and later behaviour (for a review, see
Palmer, 2000). Experience of harsh and rejecting relationships and environments in
Correspondence: Emma J. Palmer, PhD, Clinical Division of Psychiatry, Department of Health Sciences,
University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK. E-mail:
[e-mail]
ISSN 1068-316X print/ISSN 1477-2744 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/10683160500255190
354 E. J. Palmer
childhood has been proposed to lead to young children developing perceptions of the world
as a hostile place, which is reflected in their social schemata and scripts (Crittendon &
Ainsworth, 1989). Having these hostile schemata and scripts makes it more likely that
hostile and aggressive behaviour is used in social situations (Crick & Dodge, 1994),
particularly in situations which are emotionally arousing (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). In
turn this can lead to negative responses from other individuals, including peers, parents,
and teachers. These negative reactions will act to corroborate the child s hostile view of the
world and increase arousal levels, and as hostile social cognitions become more entrenched,
there may be an escalation of aggression into serious violent behaviour. Therefore, these
models of the world and relationships can become self-perpetuating, making them stable
over time and situations (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Moral reasoning may be
incorporated into this understanding of aggressive behaviour, as like other social cognition
variables its development is based in interpersonal interactions during childhood and
adolescence, and like social information processing is influenced by distortions in the
content of cognitions (Palmer, 2003a) and includes an affective component (Hoffman,
2000). In this paper, however, the focus will be on the cognitive aspects of moral reasoning,
rather than the emotional ones.
Moral reasoning: Development, delay, and cognitive distortions
Based upon Piaget s (1932) work examining the development of young children s
understanding of the world, and expanded upon by Kohlberg (1969, 1984), moral
reasoning refers to how individuals reason about and justify their behaviour. Kohlberg s
theory of moral reasoning comprised six stages through which individuals progress, with
reasoning becoming more complex and abstract over time. This progression is linked to
general cognitive development, particularly social perspective-taking. A recent revision of
Kohlberg s work by Gibbs (2003) places a greater emphasis on the role of social
perspective-taking and empathy. Gibbs (2003) theory of   sociomoral  reasoning covers
the first four stages of Kohlberg s theory (see Table I). Stages 1 and 2 are conceptualized as
immature moral reasoning, where reasoning is superficial and egocentric in nature.
Individuals who reason at these stages beyond adolescence are considered to be showing
a developmental delay in their moral reasoning. Mature moral reasoning is shown at Stages
3 and 4, and incorporates an understanding of interpersonal relationships and the needs of
Table I. Gibbs stages of sociomoral reasoning.
Immature moral reasoning
Stage 1: Unilateral and physicalistic
Reasoning refers to powerful authority figures (e.g. parents) and the physical consequences of behaviour.
Individuals show little or no perspective-taking.
Stage 2: Exchanging and instrumental
Reasoning incorporates a basic understanding of social interaction. However, this is typically in terms of cost /
benefit deals, with the benefits to the individual being of most importance.
Mature moral reasoning
Stage 3: Mutual and prosocial
Reasoning reflects an understanding of interpersonal relationships and the norms/expectations associated with
these. Empathy and social perspective-taking are apparent, along with appeals to one s own conscience.
Stage 4: Systemic and standard
Reasoning reflects an understanding of complex social systems, with appeals to societal requirements, basic
rights and values, and character/integrity.
The relationship between moral reasoning and aggression 355
society, with the acquisition of affective components of moral reasoning such as social
perspective-taking and empathy being requisites for reasoning at these stages. As such,
mature moral reasoning reflects   the cognitive /structural norm for any culture  (Gibbs,
Potter, & Goldstein, 1995, p. 44), including both the formal laws and informal values of a
society.
Gibbs (1993, 1995, 2003) has also examined the association between the process of
moral reasoning and the content of social cognitions, specifically the type of cognitive
distortions that may contribute to persistence of immature moral reasoning beyond
childhood. The primary cognitive distortion is that of an egocentric bias, whereby attitudes
and values place the individuals own concerns as central. This egocentric bias is typical of
young children s thinking (cf. Damon, 1977), but normally as individuals progress through
childhood into adolescence, they become less   centred  , and more able to take other
people s perspectives and appreciate these as being valid. Moral reasoning at the lower
stages (i.e. immature reasoning) is underpinned by an egocentric bias, with limited social
perspective-taking and an emphasis on one s own needs and desires ahead of those of other
people.
This primary cognitive distortion is supported by a raft of secondary cognitive distortions
(Gibbs, 1993, 2003). These are often used to justify behaviour that harms other people,
something that may occur as a result of placing one s own concerns first (egocentric bias).
Firstly, assuming the worst, or holding a hostile attributional bias, describes the tendency to
interpret ambiguous events as being hostile to oneself. Secondly, blaming others, whereby
individuals do not take the blame for their own actions when they hurt others. Instead they
blame external causes, such as other people or being drunk. Finally, mislabelling of one s
behaviour/minimization of consequences, allowing individuals to minimize feelings of guilt
and regret. By doing this, inhibitions to participate in aggressive and harmful behaviour are
weakened.
These cognitive distortions provide a greater understanding of the association that has
been demonstrated between reasoning at the lower stages and aggressive and antisocial
behaviour (for a review of the research, see Palmer, 2003a,b). The persistence of a
pronounced egocentric bias and an inability to take other people s perspective beyond
childhood, along with the accompanying moral developmental delay, can lead to a greater
likelihood of behaviours, such as aggression, that are harmful to other people (Gibbs,
1993). These behaviours are then rationalized using the secondary cognition distortions, so
as to minimize any feelings of guilt or regret for the effects of these behaviours on other
people (Gibbs, 1993). For example, a young person may justify hitting someone by stating
that   they looked at me in a funny way  ; as such making an assumption about the intent of
the other person. In this way, aggressive individuals can disengage from self-evaluations of
their behaviour with respect to moral issues (Bandura, 1991).
Use of these cognitive distortions among aggressive boys and adolescents to justify their
behaviour has been shown in a number of studies (e.g. Barriga & Gibbs, 1996; Liau,
Barriga, & Gibbs, 1998; Palmer & Hollin, 2000; Slaby & Guerra, 1988). Other research has
revealed the presence of complex belief systems among antisocial and aggressive youths that
enable justification of aggression (Vorrath & Brendtro, 1985). As such, aggression can be
seen to result from delay in moral development, with a persistence of a pronounced
egocentric bias and immature moral reasoning beyond childhood into adolescence. The
accompanying self-serving cognitive distortions provide aggressive individuals with
justifications for their behaviour and serve to contribute to its ongoing use.
356 E. J. Palmer
Despite the presence in the empirical literature of an association between moral
reasoning, cognitive distortions, and aggression, it needs to be acknowledged that other
social and psychological factors also have a role to play in the development of aggression.
This is an important point, as only by considering how moral reasoning might interact with
these other variables can a fuller theoretical understanding of aggression be gained. In turn,
this will allow us to improve on current methods for assessing and intervening with
aggressive individuals.
Moral reasoning and aggression: Influences of peers and parents
As moral reasoning is a developmental process, consideration will first be given to
the development of moral reasoning throughout childhood and adolescence. The
importance placed on social perspective-taking in the development of moral maturity is
reflected in the emphasis that Kohlberg (1984) placed on social interactions in the
facilitation of moral development. By participating in social interactions with other people,
opportunities for role-taking are provided that allow for the development of social
perspective-taking. During childhood, these interactions will predominately involve families
and peers. Research into the development of moral reasoning has traditionally focused on
peers, although there is evidence available supporting the role of parents and families in this
process.
The role of peers in facilitating children s moral development was first proposed by Piaget
(1932), who argued that peer interactions provided more opportunities than those with
parents and other adults for the development of social perspective-taking. The importance
of social interactions for development of moral reasoning is supported by the empirical
research, with Keasey (1971) finding children s level of moral reasoning to be associated
with various indices of social interaction (e.g. popularity in peer group, membership of
social clubs, and leadership roles within the peer group). More recently Sedikides (1989)
reported a positive association in children between the availability of role-taking
opportunities and development of moral reasoning up to Stage 3. In line with Piaget s
(1932) work, peer interactions were noted as being of greatest importance. Peer /pair
interactions have also been shown to have a greater association with upwards shifts in moral
reasoning, as compared with interactions between children and adults (Kruger, 1992;
Kruger & Tomasello, 1986). These findings have led Palmer (2003a) to suggest that the
equality in interactions between peers, as opposed to those with adults, makes peers more
credible models when challenging immature moral reasoning, something that is supported
by the stronger effect of high status peers in impacting on moral reasoning change (Taylor &
Walker, 1997).
Less attention has been paid to the influence of parents on their children s level of moral
reasoning. As would be expected due to differences in general cognitive maturity between
the generations, little association has been found between the level of moral reasoning of
parents and their children in cross-sectional studies (Speicher, 1994; Walker & Taylor,
1991). Instead, it appears that parental child-rearing practices are related to progress
through the stages of moral reasoning. A number of studies have reported that inductive
discipline, whereby parents explain to their children why behaviour is wrong, predicts
higher levels of moral reasoning among children (Boyes & Allen, 1993; Janssens & Dekovic,
1997; Speicher, 1982, 1985). Higher levels of moral reasoning among children and
adolescents are also associated with high levels of perceived parental warmth and low levels
of perceived rejection (Palmer & Hollin, 1996, 1997; Speicher, 1992).
The relationship between moral reasoning and aggression 357
Family interaction style is a further variable that has shown a link to moral reasoning of
children. Bakken and Romig (1994) reported higher levels of moral reasoning to be related
to the interaction of perceived family cohesion and adaptability. Both moderate levels of
perceived family cohesion combined with either high or low levels of adaptability, and low
perceived family cohesion and moderate adaptability were associated with higher levels of
moral reasoning among children. These findings led Bakken and Romig to suggest that the
two variables of family cohesion and adaptability may interact differentially to produce
mature moral reasoning development, with multiple pathways existing. Provision by parents
of a supportive, yet challenging environment in which moral issues are discussed along with
democratic decision-making within the family have been found to predict development of
moral reasoning to the mature stages (Powers, 1988; Speicher, 1982; Walker & Taylor,
1991). Furthermore, families showing these two attributes typically occur when parents are
reasoning at the higher moral stages (Powers, 1988), suggesting that discipline and family
interaction styles mediate the relationship between parental level of moral reasoning and
that eventually obtained by their children.
The parenting variables that appear to be relevant to the development of children s moral
reasoning are some of the many factors that have been shown to be associated with elevated
levels of aggression among children and adolescents (for reviews, see Haapasalo & Pokelo,
1999; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Therefore, a brief review of this research will
be provided next. Lax, erratic, and harsh discipline have all been found to be related
to aggression in children and adolescents (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). In
contrast, appropriate discipline involving the use of inductive techniques, is associated with
well-adjusted children (Baumrind, 1993; Patterson et al., 1992; Rothbaum & Weisz, 1994).
The relationship between harsh discipline and aggression also appears to be exponential in
nature, with extremely harsh discipline and physical abuse being very predictive of later
aggression (Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990; Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Valente, 1995; Patterson
et al., 1992). There is, however, some suggestion from recent research that the context in
which discipline is administered may moderate the impact of discipline, with harsh
discipline within a warm parent /child relationship having a less harmful result than that
delivered in a cold parent /child relationship (Deater-Deckard & Dodge, 1997).
Family interaction style, including levels of parental warmth, rejection, and support, is
seen as important in the establishment of positive attachments between parents and their
children, which will allow parents to maintain influence over their children s behaviour into
adolescence (Sampson & Laub, 1990). Having strong attachments to parents has been
shown to be related to low levels of self-reported delinquency in adolescents (Palmer &
Hollin, 2001; Rankin & Kern, 1994; Rankin & Wells, 1990). Associations have also been
found between low self-reported delinquency and high perceived parental warmth and low
perceived parental rejection (Mak, 1994; Palmer & Hollin, 1996, 1997).
As mentioned earlier in this paper, research suggests the relationship between parenting
and aggression is mediated by social information processing. Palmer (2000) describes how
this occurs, drawing on Crick and Dodge s (1994) six-step model of social information
processing, which outlines how individuals perceive the world around them and process
information about it, and how these processes are influenced by their previous experiences
and emotion processes (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). Briefly, the six steps in their model are:
encoding of social cues, interpretation and mental representation of the situation,
clarification of goals and outcomes for the situation, access or construction of responses,
response decision, and enactment of response. There is a plethora of research indicating
that aggressive children and adolescents show distinctive patterns of social information
358 E. J. Palmer
processing as compared to their non-aggressive peers. These patterns include deficits and
distortions in social information processing that map closely onto those outlined by Gibbs
(1993) as supporting moral developmental delay.
Therefore, it can be seen that it is possible to construct a developmental model of
aggression that integrates the research on the roles of families and parenting, peers, social
information processing, content of social cognitions, and moral reasoning. It is argued that
parenting impacts on later behaviour through the mediating effect of social cognitive factors
such as social information processing, content of social cognitions, and moral reasoning.
Children who experience harsh and neglectful and non-supportive parenting are more at
risk of moral developmental delay and forming hostile models of world and relationships.
These hostile models (or cognitive distortions) then act as a filter for interpreting new
experiences, and are likely to be exacerbated in these emotionally arousing situations. The
tendency to interpret ambiguous cues in a hostile way and the negative beliefs they
hold about the world combine to lead to aggressive behaviour. Furthermore, children s
behaviour will affect how people perceive and treat them in return. Therefore, a self-
perpetuating cycle of aggressive and antisocial behaviour can develop, which may escalate
into serious violence and offending behaviour in adulthood.
Implications for behaviour change programmes
This developmental model of aggression has a number of implications for treatment, with
there being a need to assess and treat individuals. The multi-faceted antecedents of
aggression outlined in the model mean it is, therefore, necessary to consider the range of
factors known to be associated with aggression in treatment programmes. As such, there is a
need to address issues relating to families and parenting style, social information processing,
cognitive distortions, emotionality and emotion regulation, and moral reasoning. It is also
important to deal with the affective part of aggression, to help individuals learn to control
feelings of anger and aggression in more socially appropriate and competent ways. The
interaction of these variables means that these issues need to be addressed in a
comprehensive treatment package, rather than in a piecemeal manner. As a multi-
component intervention, Aggression Replacement Training (ART; Goldstein, Glick, &
Gibbs, 1998) meets these criteria. The theory behind ART fits well with the developmental
model described above, in that it conceptualizes aggression as a behaviour that is learnt
early in life and can become self-perpetuating through the use of cognitive distortions and
moral developmental delay. Furthermore, ART places an emphasis on both cognition and
emotion in changing aggressive behaviour.
ART is comprised of three components that are run concurrently: skillstreaming to
address the social and interpersonal skill deficits associated with aggression; anger control
training to address emotion regulation, impulsivity and anger control problems; and moral
reasoning training to address egocentric bias and moral developmental delay. In line with
the emphasis of this paper on moral reasoning, the moral reasoning component will be
described in more detail to show how it deals with the specific issues of moral
developmental delay and cognitive distortions associated with aggression (for more details,
see Goldstein et al., 1998).
Each session of this component is based around a theoretical moral dilemma, which is a
situation in which an adolescent has a problem created primarily by another person s
selfishness (i.e. egocentricity, the primary cognitive distortion outlined by Gibbs (1993)).
The tutor next outlines a list of possible alternative actions the protagonist in the situation
The relationship between moral reasoning and aggression 359
could follow, which are designed to examine and challenge Gibbs secondary cognitive
distortions relating to attribution of intent and causality, and minimization/mislabelling of
behaviour and its harmful consequences. After setting up challenges to these cognitive
distortions the tutor questions each participant in turn about what they would do if in the
situation, attempting to get participants to consider the situation from new perspectives,
and think of new alternative behaviours. Throughout this process, the group is engaged in
discussion about participants answers. To facilitate mature moral reasoning, the tutor uses
the different responses given by participants to model mature moral reasoning and
challenge cognitive distortions, rather than using a didactic style of teaching. By the end
of the session it is hoped to get the group to reach a consensus (rather than a majority
decision) as to what the protagonist in the moral dilemma should do.
The EQUIP programme (Equipping Peers to Help One Another; Gibbs et al., 1995)
provides a further application of the ART intervention by placing it in a peer group therapy
setting positive peer culture. This allows for the creation of a   climate for change  in which
participants motivate and help each other to change, and are given responsibility for
managing the group and the changing of participants behaviour. The ART programme is
taken as a whole and incorporated into   equipment meetings  , during which participants
are helped to acquire the skills to allow them to help each other. Giving participants the
chance to help each other in this way is seen as a way of providing role-taking opportunities
that may facilitate the development of social perspective-taking that is required for moving
to mature levels of moral reasoning.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper has drawn upon the moral reasoning and aggression literatures to
construct a developmental framework for explaining aggressive behaviour. While some
aspects of this model are well supported by empirical literature, other areas require further
examination to consolidate our understanding. What is clear, however, is the complex and
multi-faceted antecedents to aggression, something that must be taken into account when
assessing and treating aggressive individuals. As research moves forwards, and allows the
proposed model to be refined, our ability to provide more effective interventions will
improve.
References
Bakken, L., & Romig, C. (1994). The relationship of perceived family dynamics to adolescents principled moral
reasoning. Journal of Adolescent Research , 9 , 442 /457.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines, & J. L. Gewirtz
(Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development. Vol. 1. Theory (pp. 45 /103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barriga, A. Q., & Gibbs, J. C. (1996). Measuring cognitive distortion in antisocial youth: development and
preliminary validation of the  How I Think questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior , 22 , 333 /343.
Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is not good enough: a response to Scarr. Child
Development , 64 , 1299 /1317.
Boyes, M. C., & Allen, S. G. (1993). Styles of parent /child interaction and moral reasoning in adolescence.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39 , 551 /570.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in
children s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin , 115 , 74 /101.
Crittendon, P. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Child maltreatment and attachment theory. In D. Cicchetti, & V.
Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research in the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect
(pp. 432 /463). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Damon, W. (1977). The social world of the child . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
360 E. J. Palmer
Deater-Deckard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (1997). Externalizing behavior problems and discipline revisited: nonlinear
effects and variations by culture, context and gender. Psychological Inquiry, 8 , 161 /175.
Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science , 250 , 1678 /1683.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social information processing patterns partially
mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104 , 632 /
643.
Gibbs, J. C. (1993). Moral /cognitive interventions. In A. P. Goldstein, & C. R. Huff (Eds.), The gang intervention
handbook (pp. 159 /185). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Gibbs, J. C. (1995). The cognitive /developmental perspective. In W. M. Kurtines, & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral
development: An introduction (pp. 29 /48). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gibbs, J. C. (2003). Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman . Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Gibbs, J. C., Potter, G. B., & Goldstein, A. P. (1995). The EQUIP Program: Teaching youth to think and act
responsibly through a peer-helping approach . Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Goldstein, A. P., Glick, B., & Gibbs, J. C. (1998). Aggression Replacement Training: A comprehensive intervention for
aggressive youth (revised edition). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Haapasalo, J., & Pokelo, E. (1999). Child-rearing and child abuse antecedents of criminality. Aggression and Violent
Behavior , 4 , 107 /127.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Janssens, J. M. A. M., & Dekovic, M. (1997). Child rearing, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviour.
International Journal of Behavioral Development , 20 , 509 /527.
Keasey, C. B. (1971). Social participation as a factor in the moral development of preadolescents. Developmental
Psychology, 5 , 216 /220.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive /developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin
(Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347 /480). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: the psychology of moral development . San Francisco, CA: Harper
and Row.
Kruger, A. C. (1992). The effect of peer and adult /child transactive discussions on moral reasoning. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 38 , 191 /211.
Kruger, A. C., & Tomasello, M. (1986). Transactive discussions with peers and adults. Developmental Psychology,
22 , 681 /685.
Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. E. (2000). An integrated model of emotion processes and cognition in social
information processing. Child Development , 71 , 107 /118.
Liau, A. K., Barriga, A. Q., & Gibbs, J. C. (1998). Relations between self-serving cognitive distortions and overt vs.
covert antisocial behavior in adolescents. Aggressive Behavior , 24 , 335 /346.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of
representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development , 50 , 66 /104.
Mak, A. S. (1994). Parental neglect and overprotection as risk factors in delinquency. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 46 , 107 /111.
Palmer, E. J. (2000). Perceptions of parenting, social cognition and delinquency. Clinical Psychology and
Psychotherapy, 7 , 303 /309.
Palmer, E. J. (2003a). An overview of the relationship between moral reasoning and offending. Australian
Psychologist , 38 , 165 /174.
Palmer, E. J. (2003b). Offending behaviour: moral reasoning, criminal conduct and the rehabilitation of offenders.
Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, C. R. (1996). Sociomoral reasoning, perceptions of own parenting and self-reported
delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences , 21 , 175 /182.
Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, C. R. (1997). The influence of perceptions of own parenting on sociomoral reasoning,
attributions for criminal behaviour, and self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences , 23 ,
193 /197.
Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2000). The inter-relations of sociomoral reasoning, perceptions of own parenting,
attributions of intent with self-reported delinquency. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5 , 201 /218.
Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2001). Sociomoral reasoning, perceptions of parenting and self-reported
delinquency in adolescents. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15 , 85 /100.
Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior.
American Psychologist , 44 , 329 /335.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial Boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.
The relationship between moral reasoning and aggression 361
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Powers, S. I. (1988). Moral judgment development within the family. Journal of Moral Education , 17 , 209 /219.
Rankin, J. H., & Kern, R. (1994). Parental attachments and delinquency. Criminology, 32 , 195 /515.
Rankin, J. H., & Wells, L. E. (1990). The effect of parental attachments and direct controls on delinquency. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27 , 140 /165.
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalising behavior in nonclinical samples: a
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 116 , 55 /74.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: the salience of adult social bonds.
American Sociological Review, 55 , 609 /627.
Sedikides, A. (1989). Relations between role-taking opportunities and moral judgment development. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Slaby, R. G., & Guerra, N. G. (1988). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: part 1.
Assessment. Developmental Psychology, 24 , 580 /588.
Speicher, B. (1982). Relationships between parent moral judgment, child moral judgment and family interaction: a
correlational study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Speicher, B. (1985). Relationships between parent and offspring moral judgment: longitudinal and cross-sectional
age patterns. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto.
Speicher, B. (1992). Adolescent moral judgment and perceptions of family interaction. Journal of Family
Psychology, 6 , 128 /138.
Speicher, B. (1994). Family patterns of moral judgment during adolescence and early adulthood. Developmental
Psychology, 30 , 624 /632.
Taylor, J. H., & Walker, L. J. (1997). Moral climate and the development of moral reasoning: the effects of dyadic
discussions between young offenders. Journal of Moral Education , 26 , 21 /43.
Vorrath, H. H., & Brendtro, L. K. (1985). Positive peer culture (2nd edn). Hawthorner, NY: Aldine.
Walker, L. J., & Taylor, J. H. (1991). Family interactions and the development of moral reasoning. Child
Development , 62 , 264 /283.