Morality Research: Bibliography for Instrument Design

Compiled: August 5, 2026 · Status: published research base

Purpose: Ground the morality instruments (MVP forced-choice foundations, MTRS dilemma reasoning with ODR scoring, and the v2 directions in behavioral honesty and moral identity) in the canonical moral-psychology literature, and document which claims the battery can and cannot support.

Companion documents on this site: the creativity bibliography and the ZK feasibility memo. The litepaper summarizes the instruments themselves.

0. How to read this bibliography

Entries link to the publisher's record via DOI or ISBN wherever one exists, so every bibliographic detail can be checked directly. Where an annotation draws on the published abstract or on secondary sources rather than the full text, the entry says so; the two standing cases are:

Gawronski & Ng, "Beyond Trolleyology" (§5.7). Online-first March 2024; final issue PSPR 29(1) (2025). The annotation rests on the published abstract and the CNI literature, not the full text.
The Kirton adaption-innovation tradition. Cited in the creativity bibliography (§3.3 there), which carries its source notes and the KAI licensing status.

No citations have been fabricated.

1. Tier 1: Read first (most directly applicable to our battery design)

These eight references are the highest-priority reading for whoever authors the MVP, MTRS, and v2 moral-identity / behavioral-honesty modules.

1.1 Atari, Haidt, Graham, Koleva, Stevens & Dehghani (2023): MFQ-2 source paper

Full citation: Atari, M., Haidt, J., Graham, J., Koleva, S., Stevens, S. T., & Dehghani, M. (2023). "Morality Beyond the WEIRD: How the Nomological Network of Morality Varies Across Cultures." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 125(5): 1157–1188. DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000470
Single biggest contribution to our design: The MFQ-2 source paper. Our MVP module is a forced-choice replica of this instrument. The paper defines the 36 items, 6 foundations (Care, Equality, Proportionality, Loyalty, Authority, Purity), and the cross-cultural psychometric evidence our battery must cite.

1.2 Gawronski, Armstrong, Conway, Friesdorf & Hütter (2017): CNI source paper

Full citation: Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2017). "Consequences, Norms, and Generalized Inaction in Moral Dilemmas: The CNI Model." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113(4).
Pair with Körner, Deutsch & Gawronski (2020, PSPB) for the extended individual-differences battery, and with Gawronski & Ng (2025, PSPR) for the most current statement of the CNI framework including its ecological-validity limitations: see §5.7.
Single biggest contribution: Source paper for the multinomial ODR scoring (originally CNI) our MTRS uses. Defines the three parameters and supplies the validated dilemma set.

1.3 Haidt (2012): The Righteous Mind

Full citation: Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books. ISBN 978-0-307-37790-6 (hardcover); Vintage Books 2013 paperback ISBN 978-0-307-45577-2.
Single biggest contribution: Only book-length treatment of Moral Foundations Theory by its founder. Introduces the Liberty/Oppression sixth foundation and the "elephant and rider" model: both implicit in MFQ-2 item wording but never spelled out in the journal articles. If our participants or REVIEWERs ask "what theory does this measure?", Righteous Mind is the accessible reference.

1.4 Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau & Thoma (1999): Postconventional Moral Thinking

Full citation: Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). Postconventional Moral Thinking: A Neo-Kohlbergian Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-3285-3.
Licensing: DIT/DIT-2 proprietary to Center for the Study of Ethical Development, University of Alabama.
Single biggest contribution: The schema-theory framework (Personal Interests / Maintaining Norms / Postconventional schemas) lets us interpret MTRS deontology scores in a developmental light: turning MTRS from a flat "process-bias" score into a maturity-gradient score, which is what organizational-selection customers will value.

1.5 Bazerman & Tenbrunsel (2011): Blind Spots

Full citation: Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do About It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Single biggest contribution: The "bounded ethicality" framing is the theoretical scaffolding for the entire v2 behavioral-honesty module (matrix / die-roll / dictator). It is the principal defense for why behavioral paradigms are better predictors of workplace dishonesty than overt integrity tests: the single biggest selling point our organizational-selection product will have.

1.6 Colby & Kohlberg (1987): The Measurement of Moral Judgment

Full citation: Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgment (Vol. 1: Theoretical Introduction; Vol. 2: Standard Issue Scoring Manual). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-24447-1 (Vol. 2).
Licensing: MJI materials copyrighted; scoring manual published by Cambridge University Press, not open-access.
Single biggest contribution: Foundational psychometric document for the entire moral-reasoning-measurement tradition. Every reviewer will expect familiarity with it. Standard Issue Scoring principles (reliability across coders, structural-consistency emphasis) directly inform how we should validate our MTRS ODR scoring.

1.7 Hardy & Carlo (2011): Moral Identity handbook chapter

Full citation: Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2011). "Moral Identity." In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and Research (pp. 495–513). New York: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-7988-9.
Single biggest contribution: Single best starting reference for our v2 SIMI module: covers measurement, the internalization/symbolization distinction, and the meta-analytic ceiling on moral-identity → moral-action prediction (Hertz & Krettenauer 2016) we must acknowledge in our battery's validity claim.

1.8 Office of Technology Assessment (1990): The Use of Integrity Tests for Pre-Employment Screening

Full citation: Office of Technology Assessment (U.S. Congress). (1990). The Use of Integrity Tests for Pre-Employment Screening (OTA-SET-442). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Single biggest contribution: The canonical government report documenting the four major validity threats to legacy integrity tests (adverse impact, privacy, low fidelity, faking). Our organizational-selection battery is positioned as a replacement for these tests: this document is our competitive positioning evidence.

2. Tier 2: Foundational handbooks and textbooks

2.1 Killen & Smetana (Eds.) (2006): Handbook of Moral Development

Full citation: Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Moral Development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-1-4106-1533-6, 9780203581957.
Why it matters: Field-defining edited handbook for the developmental-science tradition. Chapters by Thoma (DIT research), Eisenberg (empathy), Narvaez (integrative ethical education), Walker & Smetana (gender), Thompson (conscience).

2.2 Gray & Graham (Eds.) (2018): The Atlas of Moral Psychology

Full citation: Gray, K., & Graham, J. (Eds.). (2018). The Atlas of Moral Psychology: Mapping Good and Evil in the Mind. New York: Guilford Press.
Why it matters: Most current one-volume map of the field. Graham et al.'s chapter (pp. 211–222) is the canonical compact statement of moral foundations theory "beyond monism."

2.3 Mikulincer & Shaver (Eds.) (2012): The Social Psychology of Morality

Full citation: Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2012). The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of Good and Evil. Washington, DC: APA Books. ISBN 978-1-4338-1011-4.
Why it matters: APA-sponsored social-psychology counterpart to Killen & Smetana. Haidt & Graham's "Sacred values and evil adversaries" chapter appears here.

2.4 Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.) (2007–2009): Moral Psychology (5 vols.)

Full citation: Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (Ed.). (2007–2009). Moral Psychology (Vols. 1–5). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press / A Bradford Book. ISBN 978-0-262-69354-7 (Vol. 1); 978-0-262-69355-4 (Vol. 3).
Why it matters: Five-volume collection from the Moral Psychology Research Group. Includes Greene's "Secret Joke of Kant's Soul" (Vol. 3): the philosophical-and-psychological foundation for dual-process moral judgment.

2.5 Narvaez & Lapsley (Eds.) (2009): Personality, Identity, and Character

Full citation: Narvaez, D., & Lapsley, D. K. (Eds.). (2009). Personality, Identity, and Character: Explorations in Moral Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89507-1.
Why it matters: Key bridge volume connecting moral-development, moral-identity, and moral-character research. Especially relevant if we expand to moral identity in v2.

2.6 Kurtines & Gewirtz (Eds.) (1991): Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development (3 vols.)

Full citation: Kurtines, W. M., & Gewirtz, J. L. (Eds.). (1991). Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development (Vols. 1–3). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Why it matters: Pre-Killen/Smetana handbook. Vol. 1 contains Bandura's "Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action": the foundational text for moral disengagement.

2.7 Lapsley (1996): Moral Psychology

Full citation: Lapsley, D. K. (1996). Moral Psychology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press (Developmental Psychology Series). ISBN 978-0-8133-3032-7.
Why it matters: One of the few single-author textbooks with "Moral Psychology" as its title before the post-2001 boom. Useful as a pre-MFT, pre-CNI baseline.

2.8 Fasko & Fair (2025): Critical Thinking in Moral Development

Full citation: Fasko, D. Jr., & Fair, F. (2025). Critical Thinking in Moral Development: Philosophy, Psychology, Education, and Assessment. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-71404-5.
Why it matters: Brand-new treatment that explicitly addresses assessment of moral thinking alongside philosophy and education. One of the only recent books whose subtitle literally contains "Assessment."

3. Tier 3: Books specifically on moral-psychology ASSESSMENT / measurement

3.1 Rest (1979): Development in Judging Moral Issues

Full citation: Rest, J. R. (1979). Development in Judging Moral Issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-0891-11.
Why it matters: The original monograph introducing the Defining Issues Test (DIT).

3.2 Rest (1986): Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory

Full citation: Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. New York: Praeger.
Why it matters: Introduces the "4-component" framework of moral behavior (sensitivity, judgment, motivation, character): still the standard scaffold for multi-dimensional moral assessment batteries like ours.

3.3 Rest & Narvaez (Eds.) (1994): Moral Development in the Professions

Full citation: Rest, J. R., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). (1994). Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Why it matters: DIT methodology applied to professional ethics (medicine, dentistry, law, education, business). Directly relevant to organizational-selection deployment.

3.4 Gawronski & Payne (Eds.) (2010): Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition

Full citation: Gawronski, B., & Payne, B. K. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Why it matters: Comprehensive handbook on indirect/implicit measurement (IAT, AMP, process-dissociation procedures). Directly relevant for any v2 behavior-based honesty module and for the multinomial-modeling family that produced CNI.

3.5 Sherman, Gawronski & Trope (Eds.) (2014): Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind

Full citation: Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Dual-Process Theories of the Social Mind. New York: Guilford Press.
Why it matters: Authoritative reference on dual-process modeling in social cognition: the methodological home of the APE model and CNI.

3.6 Gawronski & Bodenhausen (Eds.) (2015): Theory and Explanation in Social Psychology

Full citation: Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (Eds.). (2015). Theory and Explanation in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Why it matters: Edited treatment of theory-evaluation in social psychology. Methodological grounding for our construct-validity argument.

3.7 Lind (2008): Moral Judgment Test documentation

Full citation: Lind, G. (2008). "The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Judgment Competence: A Dual-Aspect Model." In Fasko & Willis (Eds.), Contemporary Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives on Moral Development and Education (pp. 185–220). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Why it matters: Lind's Moral Judgment Test (MJT) is the principal alternative to the DIT: scores consistency of moral reasoning rather than preference for postconventional thinking. Worth cross-referencing when justifying the CNI/ODR choice for MTRS.

3.8 Office of Technology Assessment (1990): The Use of Integrity Tests for Pre-Employment Screening

Already covered as Tier 1 entry #8 above.

4. Tier 3: Books on Moral Foundations Theory specifically

4.1 Haidt (2012): The Righteous Mind

Already covered as Tier 1 entry #3.

4.2 Graham, Haidt, Koleva, Motyl, Iyer, Wojcik & Ditto (2013): MFT pragmatic validity chapter

Full citation: Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). "Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 47: 55–130. ISBN 978-0-12-407236-7.
Why it matters: The canonical academic-length treatment of MFT, including measurement discussion. The citation reviewers will expect alongside Haidt (2012) when justifying the MFQ family.

4.3 Atari et al. (2023): MFQ-2 source paper

Already covered as Tier 1 entry #1.

4.4 Atari, Graham & Dehghani (2020): Qeirat Values Scale (QVS)

Full citation: Atari, M., Graham, J., & Dehghani, M. (2020). Qeirat Values Scale (24-item measure). APA PsycTESTS Dataset. DOI: 10.1037/t84827-000
Why it matters: A 24-item honor/Qeirat candidate-foundation scale developed for Middle Eastern moral contexts (see also Atari, Graham & Dehghani, Foundations of Morality in Iran, 2020 preprint). Useful reference for cross-cultural validity limitations of MFQ-2.

5. Tier 3: Books on moral reasoning and judgment

5.1 Kohlberg (1981): Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I

Full citation: Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-064760-4.
Why it matters: Kohlberg's philosophical defense of stage theory.

5.2 Kohlberg (1984): Essays on Moral Development, Vol. II

Full citation: Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. II: The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-06-064761-2.
Why it matters: Includes Kohlberg's responses to Gilligan and the full validation argument for stage theory. Contains the Standard Issue Scoring rationale and the judgment→action model.

5.3 Kohlberg, Levine & Hewer (1983): Moral Stages: A Current Formulation

Full citation: Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., & Hewer, A. (1983). Moral Stages: A Current Formulation and a Response to Critics. Basel: Karger.
Why it matters: The "current formulation" update responding to critics (Turiel, Gilligan, others). Contains refined scoring criteria directly relevant to MJI reliability.

5.4 Gilligan (1982): In a Different Voice

Full citation: Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-44544-4.
Why it matters: Founding text of the ethics-of-care tradition; critique of Kohlberg's stage theory as male-biased. Any moral-reasoning battery must address the care-vs-justice dimension Gilligan opened: our MTRS could explicitly capture care-oriented reasoning as a complement to ODR's outcomes/duties/restraint parameters.

5.5 Gilligan, Ward, Bardige & Taylor (1988): Mapping the Moral Domain

Full citation: Gilligan, C., Ward, J. V., Bardige, B., & Taylor, J. M. (1988). Mapping the Moral Domain: A Contribution of Women's Thinking to Psychological Theory and Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-54832-9.
Why it matters: Empirical and theoretical extension of In a Different Voice. Foundational for measuring care-based moral reasoning.

5.6 Gawronski, Conway, Armstrong, Friesdorf & Hütter (2016): CNI book chapter predecessor

Full citation: Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Armstrong, J., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2016). "Understanding Responses to Moral Dilemmas: Deontological Inclinations, Utilitarian Inclinations, and General Action Tendencies." In J. P. Forgas, L. Jussim, & P. A. M. Van Lange (Eds.), Social Psychology of Morality (pp. 91–110). New York: Psychology Press.
Why it matters: Book-chapter predecessor to the 2017 JPSP CNI paper. Documents the conceptual transition from "PD model" (Conway & Gawronski 2013) to "CNI model": relevant if a reviewer asks why MTRS uses ODR (CNI's four-parameter extension) rather than PD (two-parameter).

5.7 Gawronski & Ng (2025): Beyond Trolleyology (CNI review)

Full citation: Gawronski, B., & Ng, N. L. (2025). "Beyond Trolleyology: The CNI Model of Moral-Dilemma Responses." Personality and Social Psychology Review 29(1) (first published online March 2024). DOI: 10.1177/10888683241234114
Bibliographic record: online-first March 13, 2024; final issue PSPR 29(1) (2025). Annotation based on the published abstract and the broader CNI literature; full text not yet reviewed.
Why it matters: The most recent authoritative review of the CNI framework by its principal originator. Surveys the model's development since the original 2017 JPSP paper, integrates nearly a decade of replication and extension findings, and, critically for our limitations section, explicitly acknowledges the artificiality of trolley-style dilemmas and outlines directions for greater ecological validity.
Single biggest contribution to our design: Use this paper as the current canonical citation for the CNI framework alongside Gawronski et al. (2017) and Körner, Deutsch & Gawronski (2020). It directly informs: (a) how our dilemma-instrument limitations section should be framed (alongside Scruton 2017, §11.7 below), (b) which ecological-validity critiques we should acknowledge in candidate-facing and reviewer-facing documentation, and (c) which later expansions (richer dilemma content, real-world moral-judgment paradigms) would close the gap between trolley-style and real-world moral judgment.

5.8 Liao (2011): Bias and Reasoning

Full citation: Liao, S. M. (2011). "Bias and Reasoning: Haidt's Theory of Moral Judgment." In Bias and Reasoning (pp. 108–127). London: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-30588-5.
Why it matters: Philosopher's engagement with Haidt's social-intuitionism. Useful for theory-of-measurement section of our battery documentation.

5.9 May (2018): The Limits of Emotion in Moral Judgment

Full citation: May, J. (2018). The Limits of Emotion in Moral Judgment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-879707-4.
Why it matters: Empirically grounded critique of strong sentimentalism. Counterpoint to Haidt's intuitionism; useful for justifying cognitive-load or process-dissociation components in MTRS.

5.10 Greene (2014): Moral Tribes

Full citation: Greene, J. D. (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-260-5 (Penguin paperback 2014, ISBN 978-0-14-312605-8).
Why it matters: The "manual mode vs. automatic settings" book-length statement of dual-process morality from the dual-process founder. Most accessible theory-of-change text for designing dilemma batteries that separate deontological from utilitarian processing.

5.11 Cushman (2013): Action, Outcome, and Value

Full citation: Cushman, F. (2013). "Action, Outcome, and Value." Personality and Social Psychology Review 17(3): 273–292.
Why it matters: Computational learning-theoretic account of moral judgment: the principal alternative to dual-process models. Explains why MTRS should be prepared to model reinforcement-learning components.

5.12 Gibbs (2014): Moral Development and Reality

Full citation: Gibbs, J. C. (2014). Moral Development and Reality: Beyond the Theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190256273.
Why it matters: Major textbook comparing and integrating Kohlbergian, Hoffman, and Haidtian approaches. Single source for situating our battery's three modules against major competing traditions.

6. Tier 3: Books on moral development

6.1 Piaget (1932): The Moral Judgment of the Child

Full citation: Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. ISBN 0-02-925240-7 (Free Press paperback).
Why it matters: Foundational text for empirical moral-development research: premoral, heteronomous, and autonomous stages. Every modern moral-psychology instrument ultimately descends from Piaget's clinical-interview method.

6.2 Turiel (1983): The Development of Social Knowledge

Full citation: Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Why it matters: Original statement of Social Domain Theory. Provides the conceptual framework that distinguishes moral from conventional violations: directly relevant for MVP stimulus design (our moral-foundations items must avoid being read as conventions).

6.3 Turiel (2002): The Culture of Morality

Full citation: Turiel, E. (2002). The Culture of Morality: Social Development, Context, and Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Why it matters: Cross-cultural extension of social domain theory. Addresses WEIRD-sample concerns central to MFQ-2's cross-cultural validation.

6.4 Narvaez (2014): Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality

Full citation: Narvaez, D. (2014). Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture, and Wisdom. New York: W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-70967-4.
Why it matters: Triune-ethics-meta-theory; integrates neurobiology, evolutionary theory, and culture. Useful for v2 moral-identity module (moral identity develops via early caregiving).

6.5 Garz (2009): Lawrence Kohlberg: An Introduction

Full citation: Garz, D. (2009). Lawrence Kohlberg: An Introduction. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. ISBN 978-3-86649-285-1.
Why it matters: Standard short introduction to Kohlberg's life and work.

6.6 Hoffman (2000): Empathy and Moral Development

Full citation: Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-80585-1.
Why it matters: Major statement on empathy as the affective engine of moral development. Bridges Gilligan's care ethics with empirical work; useful if we add empathy modules alongside SIMI in v2.

6.7 Damon & Hart (1988): Self-Understanding in Childhood and Adolescence

Full citation: Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1988). Self-Understanding in Childhood and Adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-30791-8.
Why it matters: Developmental-identity foundation text; the "self and morality are integrated in adolescence" claim. Backdrop for SIMI.

7. Tier 3: Books on moral identity

7.1 Hardy & Carlo (2011): Moral Identity handbook chapter

Already covered as Tier 1 entry #7.

7.2 Blasi (2005): Moral Character chapter

Full citation: Blasi, A. (2005). "Moral Character: A Psychological Approach." In D. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Character Psychology and Character Education (pp. 67–100). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 978-0-268-03371-2.
Why it matters: Blasi's self-model of moral functioning: the conceptual origin of moral-identity measurement. Theoretical foundation for SIMI's internalization and symbolization dimensions.

7.3 Colby & Damon (1999): Extraordinary Moral Commitment chapter

Full citation: Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1999). "The Development of Extraordinary Moral Commitment." In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in Everyday Life: Developmental Perspectives (pp. 342–370). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66586-5.
Why it matters: Moral-exemplar research showing how personal and moral goals fuse. Supports the construct validity of SIMI in selection contexts.

7.4 Hertz & Krettenauer (2016): Moral-identity meta-analysis

Full citation: Hertz, S. G., & Krettenauer, T. (2016). "Does Moral Identity Effectively Predict Moral Behavior? A Meta-Analysis." Review of General Psychology 20(2): 129–140.
Why it matters: 111-study meta-analysis showing moral identity only modestly predicts moral action. The critical validity ceiling we must acknowledge if we add SIMI in v2: our battery should not over-claim what SIMI predicts.

7.5 Lapsley & Power (Eds.) (2005): Character Psychology and Character Education

Full citation: Lapsley, D., & Power, F. C. (Eds.). (2005). Character Psychology and Character Education. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. ISBN 978-0-268-03371-2.
Why it matters: Companion volume to the moral-identity literature; bridges psychology and character-education practice. Useful for validating character-content in our battery items.

8. Tier 3: Books on moral behavior, behavioral ethics, and honesty paradigms

8.1 Bazerman & Tenbrunsel (2011): Blind Spots

Already covered as Tier 1 entry #5.

8.2 Bandura (1986): Social Foundations of Thought and Action

Full citation: Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-815614-5.
Why it matters: Foundational text for social-cognitive theory; pp. 375–389 specifically address moral agency. Upstream theory for moral disengagement and for all modern behavioral-ethics framing.

8.3 Bandura (1990): Selective Activation and Disengagement of Moral Control

Full citation: Bandura, A. (1990). "Selective Activation and Disengagement of Moral Control." Journal of Social Issues 46(1): 27–46.
Why it matters: Introduces the moral-disengagement framework. Conceptual source for any future moral-disengagement scale.

8.4 Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara & Pastorelli (1996): Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement

Full citation: Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). "Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(2): 364–374.
Why it matters: Validated the eight-mechanism moral-disengagement framework empirically. Psychometric foundation for moral-disengagement scales.

8.5 Detert, Treviño & Sweitzer (2008): Moral Disengagement in Ethical Decision Making

Full citation: Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). "Moral Disengagement in Ethical Decision Making: A Study of Antecedents and Outcomes." Journal of Applied Psychology 93(2): 374–391.
Why it matters: Links moral-disengagement individual differences to unethical decisions at work. Directly establishes the workplace-selection relevance of moral-disengagement scales.

8.6 Moore (2015): Moral Disengagement review

Full citation: Moore, C. (2015). "Moral Disengagement." Current Opinion in Psychology 6: 199–204.
Why it matters: Current consensus review on moral disengagement in organizational contexts.

8.7 Maesschalck (2021): Behavioral ethics for management practice

Full citation: Maesschalck, J. (2021). "Making Behavioral Ethics Research More Useful for Ethics Management Practice: Embracing Complexity Using a Design Science Approach." Journal of Business Ethics 181(4): 933–944.
Why it matters: Design-science argument for translating behavioral-ethics research into management tools. Directly addresses the gap between lab paradigms and the selection-battery use case we are targeting.

8.8 Treviño, Weaver & Reynolds (2006): Behavioral Ethics in Organizations review

Full citation: Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). "Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review." Journal of Management 32(6): 951–990.
Why it matters: Most-cited organizational behavioral-ethics review. Grounds our battery in I/O-psychology rather than pure social psych.

9. Tier 3: Books on moral emotions

9.1 Tangney, Stuewig & Mashek (2007): Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior

Full citation: Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). "Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior." Annual Review of Psychology 58: 345–372.
Why it matters: Standard review of moral emotions (shame, guilt, empathy, moral elevation, disgust). Conceptual reference if our v2 battery expands to include moral-emotion items.

9.2 Tangney & Dearing (2002): Shame and Guilt

Full citation: Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. L. (2002). Shame and Guilt. New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 978-1-57230-987-6.
Why it matters: Book-length psychometric treatment of shame vs. guilt (TOSCA). If we add moral-emotion scales, this is the source.

9.3 Haidt (2003): The Moral Emotions chapter

Full citation: Haidt, J. (2003). "The Moral Emotions." In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Why it matters: Standard typology of moral emotions (other-condemning, self-conscious, other-praising, other-suffering). Conceptual taxonomy for any emotion-relevant items.

9.4 Prinz (2007): The Emotional Construction of Morals

Full citation: Prinz, J. (2007). The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571543.001.0001
Why it matters: Philosophical defense of moral sentimentalism grounded in empirical emotion research. Theoretical grounding for emotion-forward moral items.

9.5 Algoe & Haidt (2009): Other-Praising Emotions

Full citation: Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). "Witnessing Excellence in Action: The 'Other-Praising' Emotions of Elevation, Gratitude, and Admiration." Journal of Positive Psychology 4(2): 105–127.
Why it matters: Source for moral-elevation research. Relevant if v2 includes positive moral-behavior modules.

10. Tier 3: Books on virtue and character strengths

10.1 Peterson & Seligman (2004): Character Strengths and Virtues

Full citation: Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-516701-5.
Why it matters: The "VIA Classification": six virtues (wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, transcendence) and 24 character strengths; the DSM-parallel for positive psychology. Foundational classification for the entire positive-psychology measurement tradition. VIA-IS survey instruments distributed by the VIA Institute on Character.

10.2 Lapsley & Narvaez (Eds.) (2004): Moral Development, Self, and Identity

Full citation: Lapsley, D., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). (2004). Moral Development, Self, and Identity. New York: Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-135-63233-5.
Why it matters: Includes the Lapsley & Narvaez chapter on social-cognitive approach to moral personality. Foundational for character-psychology approaches that bridge moral identity and virtue ethics.

10.3 Athanassoulis: Virtue Ethics (IEP survey)

Full citation: Athanassoulis, N. (Online). Virtue Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Why it matters: Free, accessible overview of virtue ethics and its measurement challenges. Useful for justifying why our v1 battery does NOT include virtue items.

11. Tier 3: Books on moral dilemmas specifically (trolley-problem tradition)

11.1 Foot (1978): Virtues and Vices

Full citation: Foot, P. (1978). Virtues and Vices. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Essay "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect" originally 1967, Oxford Review No. 5.)
Why it matters: Origin of the trolley problem in the context of double-effect reasoning.

11.2 Thomson (1985): The Trolley Problem

Full citation: Thomson, J. J. (1985). "The Trolley Problem." Yale Law Journal 94(6): 1395–1415.
Why it matters: Coined "the trolley problem"; catalyzed the entire philosophical literature. Source for the Fat Man / footbridge variant that drives most of the personal-vs-impersonal response variance in CNI scoring.

11.3 Kamm (1989): Harming Some to Save Others

Full citation: Kamm, F. M. (1989). "Harming Some to Save Others." Philosophical Studies 57(3): 227–260. (Later expanded in Morality, Mortality.)
Why it matters: Extensive analysis of trolley variants and the Lazy Susan case. Needed if we design dilemmas that dissociate personal force from intention (key validity check for CNI items).

11.4 Unger (1996): Living High and Letting Die

Full citation: Unger, P. (1996). Living High and Letting Die. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Why it matters: Extended treatment of trolley-style cases arguing for demanding utilitarian conclusions. Source of additional dilemma variants.

11.5 Edmonds (2014): Would You Kill the Fat Man?

Full citation: Edmonds, D. (2014). Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us About Right and Wrong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Why it matters: Accessible popular-press intellectual history of the trolley problem.

11.6 Kagan (1989): The Limits of Morality

Full citation: Kagan, S. (1989). The Limits of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Why it matters: Engagement with the doctrine of double effect as applied to trolley cases.

11.7 Scruton (2017): On Human Nature

Full citation: Scruton, R. (2017). On Human Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Why it matters: Criticizes the reductive nature of trolley cases. Useful for the limitations section of our MTRS documentation.

12. Journals to treat as primary sources

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (APA): primary outlet for MFQ-2 and CNI source papers.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: Körner, Deutsch & Gawronski (2020) extended CNI battery.
Personality and Social Psychology Review: review articles (Cushman 2013; moral-disengagement reviews).
Journal of Applied Psychology: organizational/selection-relevant morality research (Detert et al. 2008).
Annual Review of Psychology: Tangney et al. 2007 moral-emotions review.
Review of General Psychology: Kaufman & Beghetto (2009) 4C model; Hertz & Krettenauer (2016) SIMI meta-analysis.
Journal of Business Ethics: organizational behavioral ethics.
Ethics (University of Chicago Press): philosophical background.

13. Licensing constraints summary

Instrument	Originator(s)	Open access?	Licensing constraint
MFQ-2 (MVP replica)	Atari et al. 2023	Yes: moralfoundations.org	Cite Atari et al. 2023; items free for research use. Our MVP is a forced-choice structural divergence.
MFQ (original)	Graham, Nosek, Haidt et al. 2011	Yes: moralfoundations.org	Free for research use
CNI model (MTRS replica)	Gawronski et al. 2017; Körner/Deutsch/Gawronski 2020	Yes: Gawronski lab page	Cite both papers; materials distributed via Gawronski's UT Austin page. Our MTRS uses ODR-named parameters as a structural divergence.
PD model (CNI predecessor)	Conway & Gawronski 2013	Yes	Cite Conway & Gawronski 2013
DIT-2	Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, Thoma 1999	Proprietary	Center for the Study of Ethical Development, U. Alabama; paid scoring required
DIT (original)	Rest 1979	Proprietary	Same as DIT-2
MJI + Standard Issue Scoring	Colby & Kohlberg 1987	Copyrighted	Cambridge University Press; manual purchase required
MJT	Lind 1978/2008	Free for research with attribution	Lind distributed via his website; check University of Konstanz archive
SIMI	Aquino & Reed 2002	Yes: widely reprinted	Cite Aquino & Reed 2002 JPSP
Matrix paradigm	Mazar, Amir, Ariely 2008; Gino & Ariely 2012	Yes: public materials	Cite Mazar, Amir, Ariely 2008 and Gino & Ariely 2012
Die-roll paradigm	Fischbacher & Föllmi-Heusi 2013	Yes	Cite Fischbacher & Föllmi-Heusi 2013
Dictator game	Kahneman, Knetsch, Thaler 1986	Yes: standard economic-game protocol	Cite Kahneman, Knetsch, Thaler 1986
VIA-IS (character strengths)	Peterson & Seligman 2004	Yes: viacharacter.org	Free for research use; VIA Institute distributes
TOSCA-3 (shame/guilt)	Tangney & Dearing 2002	Proprietary	Tangney distributed with permission
Moral Disengagement Scale	Bandura et al. 1996; Moore et al. 2012; Detert et al. 2008	Yes: multiple validated forms	Cite the validation paper for the form used
Overt / personality-oriented integrity tests (Reid, Stanton, London House PSI, Hogan)	Various commercial publishers	Commercial / Proprietary	These are the legacy tests our behavioral battery is positioned against (per OTA 1990)

14. Design decisions this bibliography informs

This bibliography grounds the following design decisions:

MVP (MFQ-2 replica): cite Atari et al. (2023) as the source paper; cite Haidt (2012) Righteous Mind as the book-length theoretical treatment for participants/reviewers wanting background. Note that the forced-choice party-judgment format is itself a structural divergence from MFQ-2's direct Likert format.
MTRS (CNI replica / ODR scoring), cite Gawronski et al. (2017) and Körner, Deutsch & Gawronski (2020) as source papers. The Rest et al. (1999) schema-theory framework lets us interpret MTRS deontology scores in a developmental light, this should be reflected in REVIEWER-facing documentation as the "maturity-gradient" interpretation of D (Duties sensitivity).
v2 behavioral honesty: Bazerman & Tenbrunsel (2011) is the principal theoretical scaffold. The OTA (1990) report provides the competitive positioning evidence against legacy integrity tests. Together these justify the platform's positioning as a behavioral-paradigm-based alternative to overt integrity tests.
v2 moral identity, Hardy & Carlo (2011) is the single best starting reference. Hertz & Krettenauer (2016) meta-analysis must be acknowledged in the validity claim, moral identity only modestly predicts moral action.
Care-vs-justice dimension: Gilligan (1982) and the ethics-of-care tradition expose a dimension our v1 MTRS does not capture. Worth considering for v2: a small care-ethic complement to MTRS that surfaces care-oriented reasoning alongside ODR's outcomes/duties/restraint.
Limitations section of MTRS documentation: Scruton (2017) and the broader trolley-problem-critique literature should be cited in our limitations section to acknowledge the reductive nature of trolley-style dilemma methodology.
Cross-cultural validity: Turiel (2002) and Atari & Graham's Qeirat Values Scale work flag that our MFQ-2 replica's 6-foundation structure is WEIRD-sample-validated. The platform's English-only v1 scope means this limitation is acceptable for v1 but should be revisited before cross-cultural expansion.

15. Open follow-ups

Acquire the full text of Gawronski & Ng (2025) Beyond Trolleyology (PSPR) and re-verify the ecological-validity framing used in §5.7 against the published text
Confirm Atari et al. (2023) MFQ-2 commercial licensing terms with the Dehghani lab before publishing the MVP as a structural replica
Confirm Gawronski CNI materials commercial licensing terms
Decide whether to commission a care-ethic complement to the dilemma instrument in v2 (Gilligan tradition) or stay within ODR's deontology/utilitarianism/inaction frame
Evaluate Bandura's moral-disengagement scale as a v2 or v3 candidate (links to Detert et al. 2008 workplace validation)

Compiled August 5, 2026. Entries link to publisher records via DOI or ISBN; where an annotation rests on secondary sources, the entry notes it (see §0).