Are there different moral domains? Evidence from Mongolia

In this paper we report a study conducted in Mongolia on the scope of morality, that is, the extent to which people moralize different social domains. Following Turiel’s moral-conventional task, we characterized moral transgressions (in contrast to conventional transgressions) in terms of two dimensions: authority independence
and generality of scope. Different moral domains are then defined by grouping such moral transgressions in terms of their content (following Haidt’s classification of morally relevant domains). There are four main results of the study. First, since all five Haidtian domains were moralized by the Mongolian participants, the study provides
evidence in favour of pluralism about moral domains. However, the study also suggests that the domain of harm can be reduced to the fairness domain. Furthermore, although the strong claim about reduction of all moral domains to the domain of fairness seems not to hold, a significant number of participants did indicate considerations of fairness across domains. Finally, a significant amount of participants moralized conventional transgressions a la Turiel, but it did not reach a statistical significance.

Utility of US Norms for the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (III) in UK and Irish Children

The aim of this paper is to explore the utility of the United States norms for United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland populations. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID III) is a globally used developmental assessment for typically developing and clinical samples of children aged 1 to 42 months. A UK norming exercise (REF) confirmed the suitability of US norms for UK based research and practice. However, debate has continued concerning the utility of the US norms in other countries. This paper further explores the utility of the US norms for the UK and ROI populations using BSID III developmental outcome data from two samples of over one thousand typically developing children.