Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Moral motivation

Moral motivation:
What drives people to act according to moral principles?

Overview

Morality refers to what determines the thoughts and behaviours of a person that are considered right or wrong. Generally stable over time, an individual's moral beliefs are influenced by insights from psychology, sociology, and cultural domains, shaping moral behaviour such as fairness, honesty, and respect. Motivation, on the other hand, is defined as the psychological process that stimulates behaviours and actions to execute and fulfil a goal (Simpson & Balsam, 2016). An essential aspect of personal development and learning, it is an indicator of the drive that allows individuals to participate and complete tasks sufficiently. Moral motivation is what drives us to act in accordance with these principles, which can stem from external influences such as social norms and cultural expectations. The purpose of judgement in understanding what drives people to act according to moral principles is a comprehensive factor in motivational drives. Moral judgements are the foundation for moral actions; research suggests moral judgement entails the connection between intuition, conscious reasoning, and several contextual factors (Cushman et al., 2006). Moral motivation is described as the inclination of a person's moral judgements or moral knowledge that prompts them towards the purpose of fulfilling an action associated with the judgement or understanding. (Joshua & Kumar 2018). Moral motivation is viewed as a general phenomenon, the term can be explained by normative motivation; which distinguishes between two types of reasons for actions. Motivating reasons, explain why someone does something, and normative reasons address why someone should or should not have done something. (McNaughton & Rawling, 2018)

Focus questions:

How do Kohlberg's stages demonstrate the development of moral reasoning and its impact on moral motivation?
In what ways does Social Intuitionist Theory contest traditional perspectives by highlighting the roles of intuition and social influences in moral decision-making?
How does self-determination theory explain the motivation for moral actions through autonomy, competence, and relatedness?

What is moral motivation?

Moral motivation is described as the inclination of a person's moral judgements or moral knowledge that prompts them towards the purpose to fulfil an action associated to the judgement or understanding. (Joshua & Kumar 2018).

Moral motivation is viewed as a general phenomenon, [grammar?] the term can be explained by normative motivation, which distinguishes between two types of reasons for actions. Motivating reasons explain individuals[grammar?] actions, and normative reasons address why individuals engage in behaviour that they ought to have done or should not have done. (McNaughton & Rawling, 2018)

According to many philosophers, when individuals judge that something is good, believe there is a reason to act in a certain way, or perceive a specific action as standard behaviour, they are more likely to be influenced and motivated to act similarly.[factual?]

Morality

Morality within a person determines the thought and behaviour of which is right or wrong. Moral principles generally established and remain stable over time, especially when individuals consider themselves as more morally oriented tend to have more secure attitudes compared to those who don’t base their beliefs and actions on moral values[grammar?]. Luttrell, A., & Togans, L. J. (2021)

Motivation

Motivation can be defined as the psychological process that stimulates behaviours and actions to execute and fulfil a goal. Motivation is determined by several factors, such as its origination, objective, strength, and endurance towards achieving set goals. Simpson, E. H., & Balsam, P. D. (2016)

Attaining motivation is important as it is an essential part of personal development and learning, and is an indicator of the drive that allows individuals to participate and complete tasks sufficiently.

Historical background

The history of moral motivation spans centuries, with contributions from both philosophers and psychologists. In Ancient Greek philosophy, Plato argued that reason drives moral actions, while Aristotle emphasised the role of emotions and personality traits like compassion and courage (Rosati, 2016). Mediaeval thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas believed moral motivation stemmed from divine grace, while Hobbes and Locke shifted the focus to self-interest, with Hobbes highlighting self-preservation and Locke emphasizing pleasure and pain avoidance (Griffith University Writers, 2018). In contemporary philosophy, moral motivation is linked to psychological states such as empathy, honour, and wisdom (Vasiliou, 2016). Immanuel Kant highlighted autonomy and moral law as key drivers (Hardy & Carlo, 2005). In the 20th century, Kohlberg’s stages of moral development suggested that moral reasoning evolves through cognitive stages, while Blasi argued that emotions and identity also play a role in moral actions (Schroeder et al., 2010).

Kohlberg's stages of moral development

To understand moral motivation as it is seen today in psychology, we must consider the intricate relationship between philosophical and psychological perspectives that have shaped our understanding of the phenomenon. Over thousands of years, various frameworks and theories have emerged to explain the different reasons why individuals are motivated to act morally.

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development provides a comprehensive framework that illustrates how individuals progress through stages of moral reasoning, which ultimately influence the moral actions they exhibit. In formulating this theory, he emphasised that moral understanding serves as the foundation for action; as individuals advance in their comprehension of moral principles throughout their lives, this understanding inherently motivates them to act morally. Deeply rooted in cognitive development, the theory suggests that this identified progression accounts for how people engage with increasingly complex moral dilemmas as they evolve, recognising the impact of their actions and guiding their behaviours and decisions (Sanders, 2023).

Kohlberg identified three levels of moral development: pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional, each comprising two stages, resulting in a total of six stages.

- Preconventional level:

Stage 1; obedience and punishment (avoiding punishment and obeying authority)

Stage 2; individualism and exchange (different people have different perspectives to understand morals)

- Conventional level:

Stage 3; good interpersonal relationships (social approval and maintaining relationships)

Stage 4; maintaining societal rules (law and order)

- post-conventional level:

Stage 5: social construct and individual rights (laws and societal rules can change for the better) Stage 6: universal principles (internal moral principles that are developed into laws and social rules)

The theory posits that social interactions significantly shape moral reasoning. As individuals navigate various social contexts, including school, sports teams, peers, family, and social norms, these engagements gradually help them understand morals beyond their initial perceptions (Lumen Learning, n.d.).

Consistent exposure to social culture influences individuals’ interpretations of societal expectations and community standards (Zhang & Zhao, 2017).

Do moral beliefs motivate action? A study investigated the relationship between moral beliefs and actions, challenging the notion that moral beliefs alone are sufficient to drive action. In developing this chapter, I considered the Moral Foundations Theory as a potential explanatory framework for understanding moral actions. However, this theory highlighted the necessity of integrating emotional engagement in producing actions, suggesting that moral beliefs alone might be insufficient. The study concluded that moral beliefs could lack motivational power unless supported by emotional engagement, such as experiencing and interacting with moral dilemmas throughout life to develop emotional attitudes toward morals.

When confronted with complex dilemmas, we engage in conscious deliberation to navigate competing principles. Kohlberg's original longitudinal study (1958) involved 72 males aged 10 to 16 from Chicago, Illinois, who were asked about moral dilemmas, including the famous Heinz dilemma, which poses the question of whether to obey the law or save a life.

The findings indicated that moral reasoning advances with age, as younger males tended to reason at the preconventional level, where punishment and reward primarily influenced their choices. In contrast, older boys exhibited higher reasoning levels, reflecting conventional and post-conventional stages, which demonstrated their motivations for deciding on actions in moral dilemmas (Haffey, 1991).

In a similar vein, a cross-cultural study was conducted to verify these findings across diverse cultural and socio-economic groups, including the USA, Canada, Turkey, Taiwan, and Mexico. Participants were presented with similar moral dilemmas, and the results showed that moral development progressed through stages across cultures. Western participants tended to advance to post conventional stages more quickly than those from collectivist cultures, suggesting that cultural context influences the rate of moral development, though not the order of stages (Tutor2u, 2019).

The Moral Development Scale for Professionals (2008) assessed professionals from various fields based on Kohlberg's theory of adult moral reasoning. The study revealed that only a small percentage of adults over age 20 reach the post-conventional level of moral reasoning, indicating that most adults are motivated to act morally based on societal norms and expectations rather than ethical considerations (Söderhamn et al., 2011).

This finding raises questions: if not all adults function at a post-conventional level, does this mean that external factors drive most people’s motivations for moral actions? Would individuals act immorally if societal laws and expectations were absent? This is a discussion worth having in the near future.

While this theory offers valuable insights into how morals are formed and the decisions made based on them, it has faced criticism for its lack of cross-cultural validity and for overlooking gender differences in moral reasoning. Gilligan's critique (1982) argued that Kohlberg’s model is male-centric, emphasising that women often prioritise care and relationships as motivators for moral actions, in contrast to the focus on justice and rights found in Kohlberg’s stages. This perspective led Gilligan to conduct research on gender differences in moral reasoning, highlighting that Kohlberg’s framework may not fully encompass women's moral experiences (Skoe, 2022).

Critiques and practical implications

Although the [what?] theory provides promising insights into moral development over a lifetime and its influence on behaviour, further research is needed to explore the evolution of individuals across the three levels and in various cultural contexts. Nonetheless, this theory suggests beneficial practical applications, such as fostering moral identity. Moral education programs could introduce moral dilemmas focused on rules and consequences for younger students while encouraging older students to reflect on rights and social injustices. This approach would help students understand ethical principles and encourage them to progress towards higher stages of moral reasoning as they mature (Green, 2024).

Social intuitionist theory

Following from an emphasis of social influences, the Social Intuitionist Theory suggests that moral judgements are derived from social motivations and the concept of intuition. Developed by Jonothan Haidt (2001) the theory emphasises the influence of moral judgements derived from rapid, automatic assessments instead of intentional reasoning. The theory consists of three components explaining the drive of intuition in moral actions. Intuition is referred to as the primary element of the theory, demonstrating that automatic intuitions guide judgements and, furthermore, actions rather than conscious reasoning, as it is considered more a post hoc justification for judgements than the cause.(Pizarro & Bloom, 2003) For example, when someone believes an action is wrong, they may later communicate arguments to support their belief. Highlighting the role of social influences, the theory recognises the significance of social and cultural contexts' influences on moral intuitions. This includes social interactions, collective values, and cultural norms, highlighting how morality and attitudes vary across cultural contexts. Haidt emphasises moral judgements are constructed by the beliefs and practices of the social groups one identifies and surrounds themselves with, and are not primarily individualistic. Hodgson & Watts, 2016). For example, if you had a friend who was from a sustainable political party and they invited you to a picnic with the rest of your group, putting your trash in the bin rather than tossing it on the floor would be an example of this theory, as a quick intuition was driven by the social group around you leading you to act morally. Haidt also emphasised the feeling of empathy in moral development as individuals engage with others in their communities, their intuition behaviours are influenced by experiences and interactions, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of morality (Haidt, 2006). The concept of moral dumbfounding was introduced by Haidt within this theory to suggest that people cannot communicate their reasons for moral actions, but however, convinced that their actions are correct, establishing the separation between intuition and rational justification. (Haidt, 2006)

Haidt's studies also introduced the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) exploring morality across cultures and suggesting there are innate psychological systems guiding moral reasoning and behaviour. These foundations include care, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. This theory was considered a motivational drive to act morally, however, the theory lacked empirical evidence, with critics addressing the genetic and neurological concepts of the evolved moral intuition foundations it serves (Rodrigo Sebastián Braicovich, 2022).

As well as being criticised for its "ad hoc" approach as opposed to being based on an explicit theoretical framework, it isn't a reliable theory to base the fact that moral actions are derived from these foundations; therefore, the social intuitionist model was better considered (Curry, 2019).

Multiple studies have been conducted to observe participants' immediate reactions when providing moral dilemma scenarios versus their later justifications for their thoughts and actions on the scenario. These investigations consistently identified that gut feelings were primarily relied on by participants and only after built rational arguments to support their first judgements, underpinning the social intuitionist perspective that intuitive responses come before rational thought in moral decision-making (Haidt, 2001).

A study conducted analysing disgust as embodied moral judgement (Wheatley & and Haidt, 2005) provided participants with moral judgement scenarios to feel disgusted when hearing specific words embedded in the scenarios through two experiments. The findings presented that pairing moral dilemma scenarios with a disgusted word increased the extremity of moral judgements. Participants recalled morally neutral actions as wrong when paired with a disgust-inducing word, concluding that successful intuitions can guide moral condemnation even without rational justification (Schnall et al., 2008).

Another study investigated a conceptual replication of the Wheatley and Haidt (2005 study, by having 127 Stanford student participants exposed to various levels of disgusting smells using a fart spray, while at the same time, making moral judgements. The results concluded those exposed to strong odours reflected feeling greatly more disgusted and made harsher moral judgements compared to those in mild or control conditions. This represented the idea that affective states can influence moral evaluations (Schnall et al., 2008).

Critiques and practical applications

While the [what?] model was promising in providing evidence for intuition as a drive for moral actions, Pizaro and Bloom's critique (2003) pointed out otherwise in conducting meta-analyses. From the findings of numerous studies using the social intuitionist model, the researchers aimed to present evidence that reasoning before action can direct intuitive responses. Though recognising recognised intuition's role, they believed that conscious deliberation plays a great role in influencing moral judgements, especially in real-world moral circumstances. They suggested a more nuanced interplay between intuition and reasoning than proposed by Haidt initially (Pizarro & Bloom, 2003).

Recognising the importance of social interactions in motivating moral behaviour, a practical application of this theory would be to implement interventions or programs for children and early adolescents focused on building meaningful relationships. Since these social interactions leave a lasting impact, shaping individuals' moral intuitions and actions, guiding young people through the complexities of social interactions as they grow can help reinforce and preserve their moral intentions and actions.

Self-determination theory

Self-Determination Theory (SDT), developed by Richard Ryan and Edward Deci, explores human motivation through three fundamental psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This theory provides a framework for understanding the motivations behind moral actions, highlighting how the fulfilment of these needs can influence intrinsic motivation and ethical behaviour (O’Hara, 2017).

Autonomy refers to the desire to feel in control of one’s actions. When individuals perceive their actions as self-directed, they are more likely to engage in positive moral behaviours that align with their values and beliefs (Avery, 2024). In the context of morality, autonomy reflects the capacity to make choices and act according to personal values, rather than succumbing to external influences (Krettenauer & Curren, 2020).

Research indicates that environments that support autonomy, where individuals feel free to make choices, enhance intrinsic motivation—a crucial factor in moral decision-making. Intrinsic motivation is characterised as a person's natural inclination towards an activity that satisfies psychological needs (Moller & Deci, 2014). For instance, a person might choose to volunteer at a homeless shelter out of a genuine desire to help others, rather than for a resume reference or to impress others.

Competence refers to the feeling of being skilled and successful in tasks. When individuals feel competent, they are more likely to take initiative and engage in moral actions, believing they can positively impact through their efforts. Competence plays a significant role in motivating people to act in accordance with ethical principles and align with their values. For example, a healthcare practitioner who continually updates their knowledge and skills in medical ethics is better equipped to make informed decisions in the workplace, demonstrating intrinsic motivation for moral actions (AIPC Article Library, 2010).

Relatedness denotes the need to connect with others (See Figure 2). In moral contexts, individuals who experience a strong sense of relatedness are more likely to be influenced towards moral behaviours, as they recognise the impact of their actions on relationships and the community. Interactions and support from others motivate individuals to adopt attitudes that reflect shared values and ethical standards (Hao & Lan, 2023). For instance, a community member fostering relationships with neighbours to address social issues illustrates motivations for moral action. By collaborating to tackle shared challenges, they cultivate empathy for others facing difficulties, fulfilling their need for connection and showcasing that their motivations are genuine, driven by a desire to enhance not only the community's quality of life but also their interpersonal relationships (Avery, 2024).

A considerable body of research has explored the role of SDT in moral motivation. A 2020 study of college students assessed their moral identity through self-report surveys, followed by moral decision-making scenarios. Findings indicated that participants with a strong internal moral identity were more inclined to engage in moral actions, supporting SDT's assertion that intrinsic motivation is a more significant driver of moral behaviour than external rewards or social approval (Krettenauer, 2020).

Additionally, a longitudinal study investigating the internalisation of moral values and behaviours in adolescents found that those who reported a high degree of internalisation were more likely to act morally in the future. This aligns with SDT's claim that autonomous motivation fosters consistent moral behaviour (Patrick & Williams, 2012). A meta-analysis examining SDT-based interventions related to health behaviours and morality revealed that such interventions effectively promote ethical decision-making and health behaviours that align with personal morals.

Critiques and practical applications

While Self-Determination Theory offers valuable insights into human motivation and moral actions, its scope is somewhat limited. SDT emphasises intrinsic motivation and the internalisation of extrinsic motivation as influences on moral behaviour; however, critics argue that it fails to account for other motivational drivers, such as virtue, consequentialist reasoning, or duty (Avery, 2024). The focus on autonomy and self-directed choices has led to critiques that overlook the influence of cultural values, social norms, and collective identities in shaping moral actions. Furthermore, researchers note a lack of attention to the moral reasoning processes involved in ethical decision-making. They argue that while SDT highlights motivational elements, it does not adequately address the cognitive influences or deliberative processes that form ethical choices (Krettenauer & Curren, 2020).

When individuals have control over their actions and those actions align with their personal values, they are more likely to act according to moral principles. A practical application of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) could involve creating opportunities for individuals to feel competent and fulfilled in their actions, thereby increasing their motivation to act morally. For example, offering students personalised feedback and engaging in one-on-one discussions with their teacher could help them better understand the material compared to general class lessons. This deeper understanding could make them feel capable enough to avoid cheating on a test, knowing that would be the wrong thing to do, as they feel confident in their own abilities (See Figure.1) . Furthermore, fostering positive connections can encourage and enhance moral behaviour. When this emphasis on meaningful relationships is applied across social groups, it can benefit the broader community as individuals adhere to moral principles.

Quiz

Conclusion

The integration of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development, Social Intuitionist Theory, and Self-Determination Theory offers a multidimensional understanding of moral motivation, each theory contributing unique insights into what drives individuals to act in accordance with moral principles. Kohlberg's framework underscores the progression of moral reasoning as a cognitive process, emphasising the development of moral principles through stages, while the Social intuitionist theory challenges this, arguing that moral actions are often driven by rapid, intuitive responses shaped by social interactions and cultural influences. Self-determination theory adds another layer by highlighting the role of intrinsic motivation, where autonomy, competence, and relatedness drive moral behaviour. Although each theory has its limitations, it collectively enhances our understanding of moral motivation by addressing both rational deliberation and emotional intuition, offering valuable applications in moral education and personal development across diverse social and cultural contexts. Further research into how these frameworks interact could deepen our grasp of what motivates moral action, particularly in addressing cross-cultural differences and real-world ethical challenges.

References

AIPC Article Library. (2010, October 20). Self Determination Theory of Motivation. Explore Our Extensive Counselling Article Library. https://www.aipc.net.au/articles/self-determination-theory-of-motivation/

Haffey, D. (1991). DOCUMENT RESUME ED 345 121 CG 024 186. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED345121.pdf

Haidt, B. (2006). Challenging the Social Intuitionist Model Page 1. https://www3.nd.edu/~dnarvaez/documents/NarvaezresponsetoHaidtBjorklund.pdf

Hao, Y., & Lan, Y. (2023). Research and practice of flipped classroom based on mobile applications in local universities from the perspective of self-determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.963226

Hodgson, D., & Watts, L. (2016). What Can Moral and Social Intuitionism Offer Ethics Education in Social Work? A Reflective Inquiry. British Journal of Social Work, 47(1), bcw072. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw072

Krettenauer, T. (2020). Moral identity as a goal of moral action: A Self-Determination Theory perspective. Journal of Moral Education, 49(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2019.1698414

Moller, A., & Deci, E. (2014). Intrinsic Motivation. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 3378–3381. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1532

O’Hara, D. (2017). The intrinsic motivation of Richard Ryan and Edward Deci. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/members/content/intrinsic-motivationhttps://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.58012

Luttrell, A., & Togans, L. J. (2021). The Stability of Moralized Attitudes Over Time. Personality & social psychology bulletin, 47(4), 551–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220935737

Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive Ethics: How Innately Prepared Intuitions Generate Culturally Variable Virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55–66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027945

Simpson, E. H., & Balsam, P. D. (2016). The Behavioral Neuroscience of Motivation: An Overview of Concepts, Measures, and Translational Applications. Current topics in behavioral neurosciences, 27, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2015_402

Rosati, C. S. (2016). Moral Motivation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-motivation/

Griffith University Writers. (2018, August 30). The Significance of Moral Motive Pluralism - Griffith News. Griffith News. https://news.griffith.edu.au/2018/08/30/the-significance-of-moral-motive-pluralism/

Vasiliou, Iakovos (ed.), 'Introduction: Moral Motivation and Its History', in Iakovos Vasiliou (ed.), Moral Motivation: A History, OXFORD PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS (New York, 2016; online edn, Oxford Academic, 18 Aug. 2016), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316564.003.0001,

Schroeder, T., Roskies, A. L., & Nichols, S. (2010). Moral Motivation. Oxford University Press EBooks, 72–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582143.003.0004

Harvard University. (n.d.). InBrief: Understanding the Science of Motivation. Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/inbrief-understanding-the-science-of-motivation/

External links

	True
	False

	True
	False

Overview

What is moral motivation?

Morality

Motivation

Historical background

Kohlberg's stages of moral development

Critiques and practical implications

Social intuitionist theory

Critiques and practical applications

Self-determination theory

Critiques and practical applications

Conclusion

See also

References

External links