Moral development and crime examines the processes through which individuals acquire, internalize, and act upon moral judgments about harm, fairness, rights, and responsibilities — and the ways in which deficits, distortions, or failures in these developmental processes contribute to criminal behavior. The connection between moral development and crime is both intuitive and empirically complex: crime by definition involves the violation of legal norms, and legal norms in democratic societies claim a broad correspondence with moral norms, so that criminal behavior might appear to reflect either inadequate moral development or deliberate moral transgression. Disentangling these possibilities — determining whether criminal behavior reflects reasoning about harm and fairness that differs structurally from non-criminal reasoning, or moral reasoning that is comparably sophisticated but applied through distortions, neutralizations, or values that diverge from mainstream legal norms — is among the central empirical and theoretical challenges of the psychology of moral development as applied to criminological questions.
Psychology and Criminology engages moral development as a multidimensional psychological domain that encompasses the cognitive dimension of moral reasoning (how individuals justify moral judgments), the affective dimension of moral emotion (the guilt, empathy, and shame that motivate moral behavior), the social dimension of moral socialization (how moral standards are transmitted through family, peer, and institutional contexts), and the behavioral dimension of moral action (whether and how moral cognitions and emotions translate into prosocial or antisocial behavior). Each dimension contributes independently to the relationship between moral psychology and criminal conduct.
Introduction
The psychology of moral development has been shaped by three major theoretical traditions whose insights are complementary rather than competing. Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental tradition — drawing on Piaget’s foundational work on children’s moral judgment — proposed that moral reasoning develops through invariant universal stages, from preconventional reasoning based on self-interest and punishment avoidance, through conventional reasoning based on rules, laws, and social order, to postconventional reasoning based on ethical principles that transcend specific rules. Gilligan’s care ethics tradition — developed partly in critique of Kohlberg’s research methodology and partly as an affirmative account of a relational approach to moral reasoning — proposed that moral development is not exhausted by the justice reasoning that Kohlberg emphasized but includes a distinct care orientation organized around relationships, responsibilities, and responsiveness to particular others rather than abstract principles.
Jonathan Haidt’s social intuitionist model — a more recent and increasingly influential account — proposed that moral judgments are typically made through rapid intuitive processes rather than through deliberate reasoning, and that moral reasoning serves primarily as post-hoc rationalization rather than genuine causal antecedent of moral judgment. The social intuitionist model has important implications for understanding the relationship between moral reasoning measures and criminal behavior: if moral behavior is primarily driven by moral intuitions rather than moral reasoning, then the correlation between measured moral reasoning stage and criminal behavior may reflect a common underlying factor (perhaps impulsivity or empathic sensitivity) rather than a direct causal chain running from reasoning quality to behavioral choice.
Each of these theoretical traditions has generated empirical research with direct implications for understanding crime, and their integration provides a more complete account of the moral dimension of criminal behavior than any single tradition alone.
Kohlberg’s Stage Theory and Criminal Behavior
The Stage Hierarchy and Its Measurement
Kohlberg’s stage theory proposes six stages of moral reasoning organized into three levels. Preconventional reasoning (Stages 1 and 2) is characteristic of young children and of individuals who reason primarily in terms of punishment avoidance (Stage 1) or instrumental self-interest and exchange (Stage 2). Conventional reasoning (Stages 3 and 4) is characteristic of most adults and reasons in terms of interpersonal conformity and others’ approval (Stage 3) or law, order, and the maintenance of social systems (Stage 4). Postconventional reasoning (Stages 5 and 6) reasons in terms of social contracts and individual rights (Stage 5) or universal ethical principles (Stage 6), and is relatively rare in the general adult population.
Research applying Kohlberg’s theory to criminal populations has consistently found that incarcerated samples score at lower average moral reasoning stages than matched community samples — the criminally active show more preconventional and less postconventional reasoning than the law-abiding. But interpretation of this finding requires care: the association between lower moral reasoning and criminal behavior does not establish that lower moral reasoning causes crime. Individuals in lower-stage reasoning groups may be concentrated in the social structural positions — lower socioeconomic status, lower educational attainment, more adverse developmental histories — that independently predict both lower moral reasoning and higher criminal involvement. Establishing that moral reasoning contributes causally to criminal behavior requires research designs that control for these confounds or that experimentally manipulate moral reasoning.
Research using just community programs in correctional settings — interventions that create genuinely democratic institutional environments in which incarcerated individuals participate in rule-making and community governance — has found that participation produces measurable increases in moral reasoning stage scores alongside reductions in institutional misconduct. This intervention evidence — documenting that deliberate changes in the social environment produce changes in moral reasoning that are associated with behavioral change — provides the strongest available support for a causal role of moral reasoning in criminal behavior rather than mere correlation.
Critique and Revision of the Kohlberg Account
Several important critiques have modified the Kohlberg account’s application to criminal behavior without fully displacing it. First, Kohlberg’s stage scoring is highly correlated with verbal intelligence and educational attainment, raising the question of whether moral reasoning stage is measuring the quality of moral cognition or the sophistication of verbal performance in an interview context. Second, the measured stage of moral reasoning is a poor predictor of moral behavior in experimental settings — individuals who reason at higher stages do not consistently behave more ethically than those at lower stages — suggesting that moral reasoning stage captures something important about how individuals justify their choices but not the full range of factors that determine whether those justifications translate into prosocial behavior.
Third, and most importantly for criminological application, Carol Gilligan’s critique documented that Kohlberg’s stage sequence was developed primarily from research on male subjects and may systematically under-rate the moral sophistication of care-oriented reasoning that emphasizes contextual responsiveness and relational responsibilities over abstract principle application. Research on gender differences in moral reasoning has found that women more frequently use care reasoning alongside justice reasoning, and that including care reasoning in moral stage assessment reduces or eliminates gender differences in moral maturity that pure justice reasoning assessments produce.
Table 1. Moral Development Frameworks and Their Criminological Applications
| Framework | Core Claim | Criminal Behavior Prediction | Criminological Evidence | Intervention Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental | Moral judgment develops through stages from preconventional to postconventional | Higher-stage reasoning associated with less criminal behavior | Consistent association; causal role supported by intervention studies | Moral reasoning programs; just community corrections |
| Gilligan’s care ethics | Moral development includes care alongside justice orientation | Care deficits (reduced empathy, relational responsibility) associated with interpersonal crime | Indirect support through empathy-crime research | Empathy and relational skills programs |
| Social intuitionist model | Moral judgment precedes and shapes moral reasoning | Moral intuitions (especially care intuitions) predict prosocial behavior better than reasoning stage | Growing experimental support; challenges reasoning-focused interventions | Moral emotion cultivation; intuitive empathy training |
| Moral disengagement | Moral self-regulation selectively disabled by specific cognitive mechanisms | Moral disengagement predicts antisocial behavior across populations | Strong experimental and longitudinal support | Disengagement mechanism recognition; moral agency strengthening |
| Moral identity | Criminal behavior inconsistent with strong moral self-concept | Strong moral identity inversely associated with criminal involvement | Moderate longitudinal support | Identity-based interventions; narrative approaches to desistance |
Moral Emotions: Empathy, Guilt, and Shame
The Role of Empathy in Moral Behavior
Empathy — the capacity to understand and share the emotional states of others — is among the most extensively studied individual differences in relation to prosocial and antisocial behavior. Research on the relationship between empathy and aggression has consistently found inverse associations: more empathic individuals are less aggressive, with the strongest associations for the affective empathy dimension (actually feeling what others feel) relative to the cognitive empathy dimension (understanding what others feel). Research on the specific empathy deficits of violent offenders — particularly those convicted of interpersonal violent crimes — has documented reduced affective empathic responding to victim distress cues in psychophysiological, neuroimaging, and self-report studies.
The theoretical mechanism connecting empathy to crime is direct: the empathic arousal produced by perception of another’s distress serves as a motivational brake on aggressive behavior — individuals who feel others’ pain are inhibited from inflicting it. Research by Eisenberg and colleagues documenting the developmental trajectory of empathic responding — from the emotional contagion of infancy through the perspective-taking and sympathy of later childhood — has established the developmental foundation of the empathy-crime relationship, establishing that interventions targeting empathy development in early childhood may have long-term crime prevention returns.
Research on victim empathy programs in correctional settings — programs that specifically develop sex offenders’, domestic violence perpetrators’, and other violent offenders’ capacity to understand and feel the impact of their behavior on victims — has produced mixed results that have led to more nuanced understanding of the empathy-crime relationship. Research suggesting that some high-risk offenders are capable of cognitive empathy (understanding victim experience) while lacking affective empathy (feeling it) — and that cognitive empathy without affective empathy may actually facilitate more skillful victim targeting — has complicated the simple “more empathy is better” intervention logic that early victim empathy programs assumed.
Guilt, Shame, and Criminal Behavior
Research on the moral emotions of guilt and shame — the self-conscious emotions that arise from perceived violations of moral standards — has documented their differential relationships to criminal behavior in ways that complicate the intuitive assumption that these emotions uniformly inhibit crime. June Tangney and colleagues’ research distinguishing guilt-proneness (the tendency to feel bad about specific behaviors, with motivation to repair harm and change future behavior) from shame-proneness (the tendency to feel bad about the self as a whole, with motivation to withdraw, hide, or externalize blame) found that guilt-proneness is consistently inversely associated with criminal behavior, while shame-proneness shows a more complex — and sometimes positive — relationship with antisocial behavior.
The theoretical account of this divergence is that guilt is a behavior-focused, reparative emotion that motivates prosocial corrective action, while shame is a global self-evaluation that produces defensive reactions — including externalized rage — that can themselves be criminogenic. Research documenting that shame without guilt predicts elevated aggression in experimental provocation paradigms — that individuals who feel ashamed rather than guilty about transgressions are more likely to respond with aggression — has important implications for interventions that induce shame (public humiliation, scarlet letter sanctions, public shaming as deterrence) versus those that cultivate healthy guilt (victim-offender mediation, restorative justice, cognitive-behavioral programs focused on responsibility recognition).
Moral Foundations Theory and Crime
Jonathan Haidt and colleagues’ moral foundations theory — which proposed that human moral psychology is organized around five or six distinct moral foundations (care/harm, fairness/reciprocity, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression) that vary in their relative endorsement across cultures and individuals — has begun to be applied to criminological questions about the moral bases of criminal law compliance and violation. Research documenting that political liberals primarily endorse the individualizing foundations of care and fairness while political conservatives also endorse the binding foundations of loyalty, authority, and sanctity has implications for understanding different communities’ moral evaluations of specific criminal behaviors — including drug offenses, sexual crimes, and civil disobedience — where moral foundations differ substantially in their directives.
Research applying the moral foundations framework to understanding gang violence has proposed that the honor-based violence of street gang culture is not morally arbitrary — not merely the absence of moral constraint — but reflects a specific moral framework organized heavily around the authority and loyalty foundations: the code of the street’s obligations of retribution for disrespect and protection of in-group members represent genuine moral commitments for those who hold them, even when those commitments lead to behaviors that the mainstream legal system defines as criminal. This moral foundations analysis parallels Elijah Anderson’s cultural criminological account of the code of the street, but grounds it in the empirical research on moral psychology rather than purely in ethnographic observation — providing a psychological mechanism for the subcultural moral framework that Anderson documented.
Research on the moral psychology of white-collar crime — drawing on moral foundations theory’s observation that the harm and fairness foundations are most consistently linked to interpersonal moral restraint — has proposed that white-collar offenders may be particularly likely to violate legal norms when those violations do not activate the care/harm foundation (as when victims are abstract, diffuse, or distant) while appearing consistent with the loyalty and authority foundations that organizational cultures emphasize. The moral foundations account of white-collar crime thus connects the cognitive distortions of individual moral disengagement to the broader moral frameworks that organizational cultures selectively emphasize or suppress.
Moral Identity and Desistance
Research on moral identity — the degree to which moral values and commitments are central to an individual’s self-concept — has proposed a mechanism through which moral psychology connects to the criminal career research: individuals for whom moral identity is central have a stronger motivational stake in behaving consistently with their moral commitments, making criminal behavior more costly to their self-concept and prosocial behavior more self-affirming. Research by Aquino and Reed documented that individuals with stronger moral identity were more likely to engage in prosocial behavior and less likely to engage in unethical behavior in experimental settings, with effects operating through the identity-consistency motivation that central moral self-concept produces.
Research connecting moral identity to the desistance process — the process through which individuals reduce and terminate criminal careers — has documented that successful desisters typically undergo a process of moral identity reconstruction: they develop prosocial self-narratives that displace criminal identity, construct accounts of their criminal past as a chapter they have moved beyond rather than their essential character, and invest in relationships and commitments that anchor their prosocial identity and make criminal behavior inconsistent with who they understand themselves to be. Maruna’s research on the redemption scripts of successful desisters — documenting the specific narrative structures through which former offenders construct coherent prosocial self-accounts — provides the richest empirical portrait of moral identity reconstruction in criminal career development available.
Socialization and Moral Development
Family, Parenting, and Moral Internalization
Research on the family processes through which moral standards are internalized — rather than merely complied with when external authority is present — has identified specific parenting practices that promote internalized moral motivation. Grazyna Kochanska’s research on conscience development in young children documented that inductive parenting (explaining the reasons for moral rules and the effects of norm violation on others) combined with a warm parent-child relationship produces more internalized moral motivation than power-assertive parenting (punishment and authority assertion) — and that this internalization effect is particularly strong for children with temperamentally fearful profiles who are receptive to anxiety-based moral learning, and mediated by committed compliance and moral self-regulation in children with temperamentally fearless profiles who require relationship-based rather than anxiety-based moral socialization.
These findings have direct implications for parenting intervention design: programs that train parents in inductive discipline alongside relationship warmth should produce stronger moral internalization than those focused only on behavioral management through punishment and reward — and may be particularly important for the fearless, reward-seeking children at highest risk for the life-course-persistent antisocial trajectory that Moffitt’s taxonomy identifies.
Moral Socialization in Schools and Communities
Research on school-based moral education programs — including character education, social-emotional learning, and the values clarification approaches developed from cognitive-developmental theory — has found evidence of positive effects on moral reasoning, prosocial behavior, and reduced aggression in controlled evaluations, though with effect sizes that are generally modest and dependent on implementation quality. The Character Education Partnership’s evidence synthesis and the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) research base provide the most comprehensive reviews of school-based moral and social-emotional learning programs, finding consistent small-to-moderate positive effects across diverse implementations.
Religious participation — which provides moral socialization through community, ritual, moral exemplars, and theologically grounded moral frameworks — has been associated with reduced criminal behavior in research, with the association strongest for individuals embedded in committed religious communities rather than nominal affiliates. Research on the mechanisms connecting religious participation to reduced crime has found partial support for the social control account (religious community provides prosocial social bonds), the moral belief account (religious teachings directly instill crime-relevant moral prohibitions), and the civic participation account (religious communities develop the social competencies and prosocial identities that crime avoidance requires).
Moral Development and Criminal Justice Policy
The moral development research has generated a specific set of policy implications that distinguish it from purely punitive approaches to crime control. The evidence that moral reasoning can be developed through deliberate intervention — through just community programs, moral reconation therapy, and social-emotional learning — supports rehabilitation and treatment over purely punitive approaches on the grounds that moral development is achievable and produces crime reduction. The evidence that shame without guilt may be criminogenic challenges shaming-based deterrence strategies (sex offender registries, public humiliation punishments) that may produce the externalized aggression that shame-proneness predicts rather than the motivated prosocial change that guilt cultivation encourages.
The evidence that moral identity reconstruction is a central mechanism of desistance has supported narrative therapy approaches and identity-based reentry programs that specifically address the self-concept work of desistance rather than focusing only on external behavior change. Research evaluating identity-based interventions in reentry settings — including the Resolve to Stop the Crime Problem (RSVP) program and various narrative therapy adaptations — has found promising preliminary evidence of reductions in criminal behavior alongside documented changes in identity and self-narrative that the theory predicts as the mechanism.
The National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention have both supported research on moral development and crime prevention programming, recognizing that moral development interventions address a dimension of criminal behavior — the motivational role of moral cognition and emotion — that purely behavioral and structural interventions do not directly target.
Empathy Development and Restorative Justice
The convergence of moral emotion research on empathy’s role in inhibiting harm with restorative justice practice’s emphasis on bringing offenders into direct contact with victim experience has produced an important practical and theoretical intersection. Restorative justice conferences — which bring together offenders, victims, and community members to address the harm of crime and develop reintegration plans — are partly structured to produce the empathic responding that experimental research documents as a primary moral inhibitor of harmful behavior. Research evaluating the specific empathy-related mechanisms of restorative justice — measuring empathy change in participants and connecting those changes to behavioral outcomes — has found that conferences do produce increases in offender-expressed empathy for victims, and that empathy increases mediate some of the behavioral improvement that conference participation produces.
The practical question of whether the empathic responding produced in conference settings generalizes to future situations — whether offenders who express genuine empathy toward a specific victim in a conference will experience empathic inhibition in future situations with different potential victims — remains partially unresolved. Research on the specificity versus generality of empathy-based moral inhibition suggests that empathy training is most effective when it develops the general empathic capacity that generalizes across targets rather than only the specific empathic response to a particular victim’s experience. Programs that combine the specific victim-facing empathy work of restorative justice with the general perspective-taking and emotional responsiveness training of cognitive-behavioral programs may produce more generalizable empathic inhibition of criminal behavior than either approach alone.
Moral Development and Cultural Context
Research on cross-cultural variation in moral development has complicated the universalist claims of Kohlberg’s original stage theory while generally supporting the broad developmental trajectory from self-interest-based to principle-based reasoning as a cross-cultural regularity. Research documenting that collectivist cultures emphasize relational and duty-based moral reasoning differently from individualist cultures — and that the specific content of moral principles varies substantially across cultural traditions — establishes that moral development research must attend to cultural context rather than treating Western liberal moral philosophy as the universal standard against which moral maturity is assessed.
For criminological application in the United States, cultural context matters for understanding the moral frameworks through which members of different communities evaluate the permissibility of criminal behavior — particularly in cases where legal norms and community moral norms diverge, as they have historically for Black Americans’ engagement with laws and institutions that enforced racial inequality. Research on legal cynicism — the perception that law and law enforcement are illegitimate — documents a specific moral-political stance toward legal authority that is not reducible to deficient moral development but reflects rational moral evaluation of legal institutions that have historically failed to provide equal protection and equal treatment.
Brain Development, Neurological Maturity, and Moral Judgment
Research connecting the neurobiological research on adolescent brain development to Kohlberg’s account of moral reasoning development has produced an important integrative account of why moral reasoning typically correlates with age in the specific pattern that the stage theory predicts. The prefrontal cortical systems that support the abstract, principle-based reasoning of postconventional moral judgment — including the ability to take third-party perspectives, to reason about abstract rights and duties, and to override immediate self-interest in favor of principle adherence — mature progressively through adolescence and into early adulthood in the same developmental window that moral reasoning research documents the transition from conventional to postconventional reasoning.
This neural-developmental account of moral reasoning development has the same implications for criminal justice policy as the broader adolescent brain development research: the genuine cognitive immaturity of adolescent moral reasoning, partly rooted in prefrontal developmental incompleteness, provides an additional neuroscientific basis for the developmental approach to juvenile justice that treats adolescent offenders differently from adults. Research by Cauffman and Steinberg documenting that psychosocial maturity — including impulse control, perspective-taking, and temporal orientation — continues developing into the early to mid-twenties in ways that parallel the neuroscience of prefrontal development, has extended this developmental account beyond adolescence into the emerging adulthood period that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roper, Graham, and Miller only partially addressed.
Research on the specific prefrontal systems supporting moral cognition — including the ventromedial prefrontal cortex’s role in integrating emotional signals into moral judgment, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex’s role in deliberative moral reasoning, and the right temporoparietal junction’s role in representing others’ mental states — has established the neurobiological foundations of moral judgment in ways that connect developmental psychology, neuroscience, and criminology into an integrated account of why moral capacity is both developmentally constructed and neurobiologically grounded.
Conclusion
Moral development and crime are connected through the cognitive, affective, and social processes through which individuals develop, internalize, and act upon moral standards — and through the deficits, distortions, and departures from mainstream norms in those processes that contribute to criminal behavior. Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental framework, Gilligan’s care ethics, Haidt’s social intuitionism, and the moral emotions research collectively provide a multidimensional account of the moral psychology of criminal behavior that reductionist accounts — whether purely structural or purely dispositional — cannot achieve.
The policy implications of moral development research consistently point toward rehabilitation and prevention approaches that address the moral psychological dimensions of criminal behavior: programs that develop moral reasoning through genuinely participatory institutional environments, interventions that cultivate the guilt-proneness and empathic responsiveness that inhibit interpersonal harm, identity-based approaches that support the moral self-reconstruction of desistance, and socialization investments that build the moral internalization through which prosocial behavior becomes self-motivating rather than externally coerced. That these approaches require more sustained investment than punitive alternatives is precisely why the political economy of American criminal justice has consistently underinvested in them — and precisely why the moral development research that supports their effectiveness deserves continued attention from both scholars and policymakers.
References
- Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
- Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.1
- Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment: Vol. 1. Theoretical foundations and research validation. Cambridge University Press.
- Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
- Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2015). Prosocial development. In M. E. Lamb & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Vol. 3 (7th ed., pp. 610–656). Wiley.
- Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
- Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
- Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon.
- Kochanska, G., & Murray, K. T. (2000). Mother-child mutually responsive orientation and conscience development: From toddler to early school age. Child Development, 71(2), 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00154
- 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). Rand McNally.
- Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association.
- Nichols, S. (2004). Sentimental rules: On the natural foundations of moral judgment. Oxford University Press.
- Piaget, J. (1932/1965). The moral judgment of the child (M. Gabain, Trans.). Free Press.
- Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Erlbaum.
- Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance. Law & Society Review, 32(4), 777–804. https://doi.org/10.2307/827739
- Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089195
- Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145
- Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. J. (1994). Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of interactional theory. Criminology, 32(1), 47–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01146.x
- Walters, G. D. (1995). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles, Part I: Reliability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22(3), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854895022003008
- Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.126