EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 222 (2025) SHS Web Conf., 222 (2025) 03006 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 222, 2025
2025 3rd International Conference on Education, Psychology and Cultural Communication (ICEPCC 2025)
Article Number 03006
Number of page(s) 11
Section Social, Cultural, and Familial Influences on Development
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202522203006
Published online 17 September 2025
  1. J. Haidt, The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological. Review. 108, 814–834 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814 [Google Scholar]
  2. B. F. Malle, Moral judgments. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 293-318 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  3. J. D. Greene, et al. An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science. 293, 2105–2108 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872 [Google Scholar]
  4. T. Bretag, Handbook of Academic Integrity, edited by Tracey Bretag. (Springer, Springer Singapore, 2020) [Google Scholar]
  5. V. C. Dias, Danah Boyd: it’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Med. Rev. 20, (2015). https://doi.org/10.5752/10054 [Google Scholar]
  6. J. Gibbs, et al. Moral judgment development across cultures: Revisiting Kohlberg’s universality claims. Dev. Rev. 27, 443–500 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  7. J. A. Baird, & J. W. Astington, The role of mental state understanding in the development of moral cognition and moral action. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2004, 37–49 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.96 [Google Scholar]
  8. C. Schein, The importance of context in moral judgments. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15,207-215 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  9. T. Eyal, & N. Liberman, Morality and psychological distance: A construal level theory perspective. The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil. 185–202 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1037/13091-010 [Google Scholar]
  10. J. Agerström, & F. Björklund, Why people with an eye toward the future are more moral: The role of abstract thinking. BASP. 35, 373–381(2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.803967 [Google Scholar]
  11. T. Eyal, N. Liberman, & Y. Trope, Judging near and distant virtue and vice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44, 1204–1209 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.012 [Google Scholar]
  12. H. Gong, R. Iliev, & S. Sachdeva, Withdrawn: Consequences are far away: Psychological distance affects modes of moral decision making. Cognition. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  13. J. D. Greene, et al. The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron. 44, 389–400 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 [Google Scholar]
  14. H. R. Heekeren, et al. An fmri study of simple ethical decision-making. NeuroReport. 14, 1215–1219 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200307010-00005 [Google Scholar]
  15. J. Moll, et al. The neural correlates of moral sensitivity: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of basic and moral emotions. J. Neurosci. 22, 2730–2736 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.22-07-02730.2002 [Google Scholar]
  16. V. S. Athota, P. Budhwar, & A. Malik, Influence of personality traits and moral values on employee well‐being, resilience and performance: A cross‐national study. Appl. Psychol. 69, 653-685 (2020). [Google Scholar]
  17. B. E. Hilbig, et al. It takes Two: Honesty–humility and agreeableness differentially predict active versus reactive cooperation. Pers. Individ. Dif. 54, 598–603 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  18. K. Lee, & M. C. Ashton, 2004. Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multi-variate Behavioral Research. 39, 329–358 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8 [Google Scholar]
  19. T. R. Cohen, et al. Moral character in the workplace. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 943–963 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037245 [Google Scholar]
  20. N. L. Matthews, & J. A. Bonus, How moral expectancy violations influence audiences’ affective dispositions toward characters. Commun. Res. 50, 263-286 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  21. M. Moshagen, B. E. Hilbig, & I. Zettler, The dark core of personality. Psychol. Rev. 125, 656–688 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000111 [Google Scholar]
  22. A. G. Sanfey, et al. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science. 300, 1755–1758 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082976 [Google Scholar]
  23. T. Hare, C. Camerer, & A. Rangel, Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmpfc valuation system. NeuroImage. 47, (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(09)70776-1 [Google Scholar]
  24. K. G. Volz, et al. The neural basis of deception in strategic interactions. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 9, (2015) https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00027 [Google Scholar]
  25. M. Peer, et al. Brain system for mental orientation in space, time, and person. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 11072–11077 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504242112 [Google Scholar]
  26. C. Parkinson, A. Kleinbaum, & T. Wheatley, Spontaneous neural encoding of social network position. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0072 [Google Scholar]
  27. I. Zettler, N. Friedrich, & B. E. Hilbig, Dissecting work commitment: The role of mach-iavellianism. Career Dev. Int. 16, 20–35 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111107793 [Google Scholar]
  28. Y. Trope, & N. Liberman, Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117, 440–463 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963 [Google Scholar]
  29. G. Lakoff, & M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By. (University of Chicago Press, 2003) https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. A. L. Chasteen, D. C. Burdzy, & J. Pratt, Thinking of god moves attention. Neuropsychologia. 48, 627–630 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.029 [Google Scholar]
  31. M. C. Ashton, & K. Lee, Honesty‐humility, the big five, and the five‐Factor Model. J. Personality. 73, 1321–1354 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00351.x [Google Scholar]
  32. M. C. Ashton, & K. Lee, Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEX-ACO model of Personality Structure. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11, 150–166 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907 [Google Scholar]
  33. Q. S. Yang, Effects of temporal distance on evaluation of moral transgressions and its effect mechanism, Ph.D. thesis, Hunan Normal University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, College of Educational Science (2014) [Google Scholar]
  34. M. Zhang, & J. Wang, Psychological distance asymmetry: The spatial dimension vs. other dimen -sions. J. Consum. Psychol. 19, 497–507 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  35. N. Abe, & J. D. Greene, Response to anticipated reward in the nucleus accumbens predicts behavior in an independent test of Honesty. J. Neurosci. 34,10564–10572 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0217-14.2014 [Google Scholar]
  36. M. Giacomantonio, C. K. De Dreu, & L. Mannetti, Now you see it, now you don’t: Interests, issues, and psychological distance in integrative negotiation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 761–774 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017879 [Google Scholar]
  37. S. K. Zhang, Research on the effect of individual construal level and emotion on moral judgment, Master thesis, East China Normal University, The School of Psychology and Cognitive Science (2017) [Google Scholar]
  38. S. Wang, & L. Mo, The Influence of Psychological Distance and Spatial Distance on Moral Judgment. The 20th National Congress of Psychology, Chinese Psychological Society: Psychology and National Mental Health – Abstract Collection 857–859 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  39. J. Agerstrom, F. Bjorklund, & C. M. Allwood, The influence of temporal and spatial distance on moral judgment and decision making. PsycEXTRA Dataset. (2007). https://doi.org/10.1037/e633982013-496 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.