The Impact of the Moral Foundations Arguments on Early Adolescents

The empirical research reported in this article is based on the Moral Foundations Theory proposed by J. Haidt. Objectives. The author examines the impact of moral foundations arguments on early adolescents’ moral judgments regarding violating moral rules and explores gender-related differences between moral foundations preferences. Method. The effect of moral foundations arguments was measured by a newly developed meta-ethical position test (MEPT). The MEPT consists of a pretest questionnaire, treatment by moral foundations arguments, and a posttest questionnaire. The sample contained 178 early adolescents from the Czech Republic (84 females and 94 males). The influence of the moral foundations arguments was analyzed by comparing the pretest with the posttest. Results. 91% of teenagers changed their moral judgment due to confrontations with the moral foundations arguments. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test found that the moral foundations arguments were significantly relevant, since the P-value was lower than 0.001. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed the importance of the gender aspect: P-value care equals 0.01 and liberty 0.01. Girls have a preference for care foundation (21% more than boys), while boys tended to liberty (27 % more than girls). It seems that moral foundations arguments strongly change early adolescents’ moral judgments and can be practically applied as a valuable platform for early adolescents’ moral development.


Introduction
Why do some arguments change our moral judgment and others not? What gives them the special power to convince us? Are some types of arguments universal? Certain studies claim that universal arguments do not exist, and according to them morality is relative (Prinz 2007;Sargissian 2014;Quintelier 2013); others suppose morality is objective and believe that universal arguments exist (Nichols 2004;Goodwin & Darley 2012). This study is based on the Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt 2012) and aims to examine if arguments connected to moral foundations change early adolescents' moral (independent scholar; Pirna; Germany; kamila.stastna@seznam.cz) Kamila Stastna

The Impact of the Moral Foundations Arguments on Early Adolescents
decisions. In addition, the second aim is to investigate if gender makes a difference to moral foundations preference. Some studies do not reveal any significant differences between females and males (Krebs et al. 1994;Jaffee & Hyde 2000), whereas others do (Benhabib 1985;Friesdorf 2015). This research uses a meta-ethical position test (MEPT) to measure the willingness to violate basic moral rules and the differences between the moral foundations preferences of males and females. A deeper understanding of moral foundations arguments can help teachers motivate their students and develop their morality naturally.

Theoretical Background
The Furthermore, the Moral Foundations Theory has been examined by neuroscience.
Lewis and his colleagues scanned the brains of 70 young, healthy adults. According to their findings, people who have a preference for care and fairness were associated positively with the left dorsomedial PFC volume and associated negatively with bilateral precuneus volume. People who tended towards authority, loyalty, and purity showed an association to the bilateral subcallosal gyrus and the left anterior insula volume (Lewis et al., 2012).
The influence of moral foundations regarding children and adolescents was indirectly investigated by Nucci, Turiel, and Roded, who focused primarily on moral objectivism.
Their experiment involved 167 children and adolescents between 8-16 (17) years old, and showed that participants considered unconflicted situations, i.e., hitting, stealing, and not helping, as objectively wrong, whereas conflicted situations were judged differently in terms of age. For example, the participants 10-14 (11) years old were more likely than The Impact of the Moral Foundations Arguments others to follow and agree with the nonprosocial choice, i.e., not helping someone in need (Nucci et al. 2017). According to some researchers, understanding care, welfare, and fairness develop very early in comparison with the sense of justice. The latter develops later and associates with reasoning about mathematical and physical problems (Damon 1975;Smetana et al. 2014).
The first pioneer who explored the gender aspect in the context of moral orientation preference is the well-known British moral psychologist Carol Gilligan (1982). She investigated the Kohlberg moral typology and found that women are attached to care; men to justice. Studies dealing with gender differences have predominated from that time.
For example, Jaffee and Hyde (2000) conducted a meta-analysis from over one hundred studies; nevertheless, the results revealed only slight differences regarding care and justice. Accordingly, the study of Graham et al. (2011), which contained 34,476 adults and used MEQ, also found slight differences between the genders. Females scored higher in purity, care, and fairness, and males in authority and loyalty. In contrast, Niazi et al. (2020) showed there is a significant difference regarding care associated with females. This research was focused on a Pakistani sample comprising 300 male and female participants, and the MEQ was applied. Similarly, the results of the recent study conducted by Atari et al. (2020) involving a large sample of 336,691 adults from 67 countries revealed that females scored consistently higher on fairness, purity, and care.

Hypotheses and Methodology
The studies mentioned above confirm that moral foundations influence moral judgment. This study presumes that the arguments embedded into the moral foundations questionnaire can motivate or even manipulate the decision-making process.
Hence, the first hypothesis posits that the moral foundations arguments impact the willingness to change early adolescents' moral judgment.
The second hypothesis deals with gender differences regarding moral foundations preferences. The recent studies cited above presented controversial results. Some

Sample and Procedure
Data were collected from six regular schools (in three different parts of the Czech Republic: north, south, and central regions) with the principals' cooperation. The sample comprised 178 early adolescents, 84 females and 94 males, aged 12 to 13. Pupils took the MEPT during class time in 2019, and the procedure took approximately 10 minutes.

Assessment
The relevance of moral foundations arguments was examined by a statistical comparison of pretest and posttest, applying a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, which compares two dependent samples of ordinal data (i.e., Likert scale). The importance of the gender aspect was investigated by a Mann-Whitney U test, which compares two independent samples (i.e., females and males).

Results
1) According to the results, 91% of early adolescents changed their moral judgments due to moral foundations arguments. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test revealed statistical differences between before and after treatment with all moral foundations arguments (see Table 1 and  1 The participants were also willing to violate moral rules in the pretest under the condition that they wrote an argument connected to moral foundations (i.e., John's case: self-defense, humiliation, self-defense, or revenge). The Mann-Whitney U test revealed differences between females and males. A significant contrast was evident in oppression and harm, whereas others showed slight differences (see Table 2 and Figure 2).

Discussion
The results reveal the moral foundations arguments strongly influenced the willingness to change early adolescents' moral judgments, P-value < 0,001 and support the finding of Haidt et al. (2012) and other studies ( Similarly, the research conducted by Nucci et al. (2017) showed that participants across ages considered negative unconflicted situations, i.e., hitting, stealing, and not helping, objectively wrong. However, moral foundations arguments were regarded universally in the sense of motivation (activating the emotions and cognitive processes of moral judgments); understanding what is right and wrong was not universal, but rather relative to other aspects.
It appears that early adolescents have in their mind some scenario, some motives, some a priori reasons why an agent can act, and possibly this is based on individual experiences (i.e., boys found more motives than girls why John could intentionally beat up his classmate). These findings differ from Goodwin and Darley (2012) and Nucci et al. (2017), probably due to the controversial terminology of moral objectivism and applied methodology. In contrast to Goodwin and Darley (2012), this study was not conducted with adults. Modern neuroscience emphasizes some brain differences regarding adults' and adolescents' brains (Blakemore 2013).
The second findings refer to the gender aspect in connection to moral foundations preferences. The Mann-Whitney U test found statistical importance related to liberty and care. Fifty-four percent of boys, compared to 27% of girls, were convinced that oppressing was wrong. Eighty-one percent of girls were convinced that hitting classmates was wrong, contrary to 60% of boys. These results follow Carol Gilligan's theory and similar studies, showing that females are more likely to have a preference for care than males (Gilligan 1983;Friesdorf 2015). Gender differences in the context of moral foundations preferences are controversial in the research, and the reason for this should be further investigated (Graham et al. 2011;Jaffee & Hyde 2000;Atari et al. 2020;Niazi et al. 2020). This study has some limitations (i.e., conducted only in the Czech Republic, using nonparametric methods), and for this reason the findings cannot be generalized, and further studies are required.
Subsequent research could be conducted in different countries and religions; other studies could employ qualitative methods and apply neuroscience. Some studies could focus on practical innovation of moral education and investigate the impact of moral foundations arguments on mental perspective experiences. It could lead to the idea expressed by Gary Klein (2013). "I think helping people to arrive at insights isn't a The Impact of the Moral Foundations Arguments question of pushing the insights on the people or trying to explain it in words, as much as it is helping people to gain the experience so they can see the inconsistency for themselves, and then all of a sudden the mental model will shift naturally and easily," Klein (2013, 214) suggests.

Conclusion
This study dealt with moral foundations arguments and moral judgment regarding early adolescents. The findings reveal that the moral foundations arguments powerfully influenced the moral decision process and that gender impacted moral foundations preferences. Girls were attached significantly to care; boys to liberty. However, the moral foundations arguments appear to be universal regarding motivation (activating emotional and rational processes of moral judgments), the sense of understanding what is right and wrong seems to be relative to many other aspects (i.e., personal experiences).
Consequently, applying the moral foundations arguments in a class can motivate students to see, think, and discuss moral issues more profoundly. Additionally, adolescents can learn to be more open and not condemn what they do not truly understand.