The relationship between attachment quality, empathy skills, and moral judgement in adolescents

ABSTRACT

Moral judgement (making moral evaluation) refers to the way in which we judge an action to be good or bad, and thus constitutes an important factor in determining social behaviour. The outcome of moral judgement is influenced by thinking processes, personality structure, and environmental conditions. The study aims to assess the relationship between attachment quality and moral evaluation abilities in adolescents, examine potential gender differences, and explore the possibility that empathy skills mediate this relationship. The data was collected from 230 adolescents in Israel who completed self-report questionnaires. Results indicate a significant positive correlation between empathy and moral evaluation, with female adolescents exhibiting higher levels of both variables in comparison to their male peers. A correlation between attachment quality and levels of empathy was found only for cognitive empathy, but not for emotional empathy. These findings are essential for school counsellors as they stress the importance of designing interventions with adolescents in order to prevent high-risk behaviours.

KEYWORDS:

• Adolescent
• moral judgement
• empathy

Adolescence is characterized by developmental changes in a wide range of aspects. One such aspect is the development of moral judgement, which refers to the way a person evaluates an action as good or bad. Piaget and Inhelder (1969) claimed that the development of morality occurs in fixed and inevitable stages, but later research has shown that moral development may be more flexible and not always consistent with his stages. Kohlberg (1984) added to Piaget’s ideas in distinguishing between levels of moral thinking. Impaired moral judgement during adolescence may lead to rigid thinking and social disruption, manifesting as aggressive behaviour, including physical and verbal aggression. Kohlberg was criticized by feminists who argue that he ignored differences between men and women in their moral development. Gilligan et al. (1982), for example, claimed that women deal with moral dilemmas through emotional and social processes, while men deal with them through rational and objective processes. Other studies have suggested that women tending to emphasize interpersonal care and compassion more than men when making moral judgements (Kalsoom et al., 2012; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969).

Research in the field of moral judgement shows that attachment patterns and empathy can affect moral evaluation and contribute to the reduction of dangerous behaviours such as disruptive, aggressive, and violent behaviours (You et al., 2015). Attachment quality refers to the nature of the emotional bond between a child and their primary caregiver, with secure attachment being the ideal for healthy socioemotional development (Bowlby, 1969). Studies on attachment patterns indicate a correlation between secure attachment patterns and feelings of well-being, emotional stability, coping abilities, and empathy (Bowlby, 1988a; Narvaez & Vaydich, 2008; Teymoori & Shahrazad, 2012). Empathy is the ability to understand and vicariously share the feelings and thoughts of others (Decety & Jackson, 2004). The impact of attachment patterns and empathy on moral judgement has also been investigated by examining gender disparities in moral evaluation based on cultural and social differences (Carlo et al., 2013). Although only a few empirical studies to date have directly related attachment to moral emotions, a recent systematic review found a consistent link between positive attachment relationships and the development of empathy, guilt, and other moral emotions in children and adolescents (Costa Martins et al., 2021). However, the current study breaks new ground by focusing on adolescent populations in Israel.

The study examines the relationship between attachment quality, empathy, and moral judgement in adolescents, with a focus on gender differences. Understanding the factors that influence moral behaviour in adolescents is crucial for educational teams in developing effective intervention programmes.

Literature review

Morality and moral evaluation play a crucial role in social behaviour and personal well-being. The way individuals perceive themselves, others, and their relationships with others affects their moral decisions (Haidt, 2012). Understanding others and the way they choose to act in situations that require moral evaluation is also related to a person’s emotional intelligence and attachment patterns. Adolescence is a challenging period when significant developmental changes occur that can directly and indirectly impact moral evaluations, both in the short and long term.

Theoretical perspectives on the development of moral judgment

Moral judgement plays a significant role in creating a healthy society and thus deserves extensive research from various philosophical, religious, cognitive, social, and emotional perspectives. People determine whether a particular action is good or bad through moral evaluations, which is influenced by emotional and rational systems and variables such as culture, time, and place (Haidt, 2012). Moral judgement is a feature that characterizes the human species due to its presence in a natural social process (Wolf, 2003).

Bandura (1999) argues that when people are required to act in response to a moral event, their behaviour may not necessarily reflect the way they judge the event. That is, a gap may arise between a person’s actual behaviour and their feelings or thoughts about the moral event. This is explained by the person’s ‘moral disengagement’ when making moral decisions and may be influenced by personal and environmental factors. The cognitive developmental approach to moral development claims that moral judgement is a product of the individual’s assessment and judgement of the situation, and that judgement is a product of universal processes originating in the development of cognitive ability (Kohlberg, 1984).

Rest (1986) significantly contributed to the field of moral psychology by proposing a four-component model of moral behaviour including moral sensitivity, moral judgement, moral motivation, and moral character. Moral sensitivity involves being aware of and interpreting the moral aspects of a situation. Moral judgement involves determining the most just or ethical course of action. Moral motivation involves prioritizing moral values over other personal values, and moral character involves having the courage and persistence to follow through on moral action.

In addition to Rest’s model, Addad and Leslau (1989) developed a multidimensional approach to moral evaluation. Addad (1988) argues that a person acts morally not only based on their knowledge of values and their competence in them, but also based on an internal process that is influenced by education, environment, and emotional systems. Nonetheless, while each of these factors may have a positive or negative impact, moral behaviour is ultimately determined by cognitive maturity. This maturity provides the foundation for a person to act at a moral level and leads to the integration of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Addad further develops Kohlberg’s theory by suggesting that a person’s moral-judgement profile may be assessed according to five types of judgement:

1. Humanistic judgement is considered the highest level of moral reasoning. It places human beings at the centre of the universe and prioritizes principles of justice and equality over group or social needs, regardless of religion, ethnicity, age, or gender. The process of judgement is based on morality, integrity, and justice and does not serve any particular group; it corresponds to Kohlberg’s level of autonomous moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1984).

2. Self-interested judgement, which is considered non-moral reasoning, is driven by individual egoistic and materialistic interests and corresponds to Kohlberg’s level of preconventional moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1984).

3. Normative judgement, which is also considered non-moral reasoning, is driven by ‘social norms’ that guide human needs. In this social-based egoism, the needs of society are the highest priority. This type of judgement corresponds to Kohlberg’s stage of sociocentric-conventional moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1984).

4. Absence of judgement describes a person who acts in a formal (ritualistic) manner detached from human values or needs. This may indicate the person’s disconnection from their environment or a personal philosophical identity crisis. Kohlberg does not address this type of judgement.

5. Ambivalent judgement reflects a moral dilemma between two or more conflicting values or principles. It is characterized by indecision and uncertainty in moral decision-making. This type of judgement is not explicitly addressed by Kohlberg.

As noted, Gilligan et al. (1982) argues that there is a gender binary in moral development, with men adopting a more rational-objective approach and women inclined towards a more emotional-social approach. According to this theory, males tend to prioritize justice and rights, while females prioritize care and relationships. While Gilligan’s theory has been influential, critics have challenged the gender binary she presumes regarding morality focused on care vs. justice (Walker, 2001). Jaffee and Hyde (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of gender differences in moral orientations across multiple studies and found only minor differences that were influenced by the context. Thus, they are critical of strictly dichotomizing care and justice reasoning along gender lines. Subsequent research suggests moral reasoning involves both domains for both genders, influenced by social contexts. For example, a longitudinal study found that boys and girls use care and justice reasoning similarly, and that moral reasoning is more dependent on family-social context than gender (Pratt et al., 2003). Endendijk et al. (2013) and Allemand et al. (2015), demonstrated that socio-cultural contexts have a stronger influence on moral development than gender differences, while noting that gender differences are observed almost universally. In short, while social and cultural forces seem to play a bigger role than gender, the research still finds some differences between males and females when it comes to moral judgement.

Adolescence and the development of moral reasoning

Adolescence is characterized by the internal development processes that involve sexual, personal, social, and cognitive development. Factors such as identity formation, self-esteem, and sense of belonging become an integral part of the daily life of adolescents.

According to Kohlberg, the age of adolescence marks the transition to the second stage of cognitive development, ‘the orientation of responsibility and social order,’ and is characterized by cognitive development that allows for the understanding of abstract concepts such as justice, equality, and democracy (Kohlberg, 1984). This stage of cognitive development can shape the moral thinking and behaviour of young people through a guideline of preserving law and order. Thus, young adolescents can relate to moral values in a consistent and decisive manner, compared to later stages of development when moral and ethical decisions are also considered in the context of human rights.

Attachment patterns and their impact on adolescence

The term ‘attachment’ refers to the quality of the relationship established between two meaningful individuals over time. During infancy, the term refers to the relationship between the baby and the caregiver. In later life, the term refers to relationships with other significant individuals. A positive attachment pattern creates a secure foundation that fosters a sense of trust, protection, and basic needs, allowing for self-esteem and safe exploration of the world (Bowlby, 1988a). Attachment patterns are established from the earliest days of life and their impact is evident throughout life; they play a crucial role in the emotional, social, and behavioural development of the adolescent. A moral sense develops from the internal stability that comes from early secure attachment experiences (Carlo et al., 2013). A high level of moral reasoning is evident in pro-social behaviour, such as helping others and encouraging others in times of distress. Studies have shown that these abilities develop in early stages and are influenced by the quality of the relationship between the child and the mother (Knafo et al., 2008; Liszkowski et al., 2006).

Empathy

Empathy is defined as the ability of a person to feel and understand the world of others as if it were their own, based on understanding their struggles (and not necessarily due to an identification or connection with the other). Emotional empathy refers to the emotional response elicited in response to another’s situation, a quick and spontaneous response accompanied by physical or psychological discomfort. Cognitive empathy is the ability to respond in an understanding and thoughtful manner in response to another’s situation without compromising the emotional perspective (Raines, 1990). Behavioural empathy refers to physical actions that appear outwardly and may include emotional expressions, gestures, and help-giving. According to Hoffman (2001), moral development is dependent on empathy, the ability to respond to another’s distress while distinguishing between the self and others. Based on current research, the ability to empathize grows from secure relationships and is related to a moral conscience.

The effect of attachment styles on the development of empathy and moral reasoning during adolescence

Children with secure attachment styles tend to grow up with a sense of being deserving of love, concern, and care, and therefore tend to treat others similarly. On the other hand, children with insecure attachment styles may not develop meaningful relationship systems, and their level of empathy and emotional development may be affected, which in turn influences their moral reasoning (Carlo et al., 2013; Narvaez & Vaydich, 2008; Wang et al., 2017). Research on the connection between attachment style and empathy has found a positive connection between secure attachment and the development of empathy (Decety et al., 2015; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2012; Yu et al., 2012).

A child’s attachment style will affect their social relationships throughout their life. For example, a secure attachment style can provide a foundation for building future relationships in adolescence and in crisis situations that require positive problem-solving and coping with challenging situations (Bowlby, 1988a). Support for Bowlby’s approach was found in longitudinal studies that showed how a child’s attachment style affects both their future attachment patterns and moral behaviour (Nash et al., 2016; Teymoori & Shahrazad, 2012). The development of moral judgement occurs at an early age and is linked to the child’s ability to discover empathy (Wainryb et al., 2005).

Empathy facilitates moral awareness: In order to evaluate an action as good or bad, we need to understand the emotional component and social environment of that action (Nisan, 2017). Understanding and perceiving the needs of the environment are related to emotional intelligence and empathy, which are skills linked to making better moral decisions in adolescence, when moral decisions are often driven by emotion and instinct (Carlo et al., 2013; Roaten & Roaten, 2012). A recent systematic review by Costa Martins et al. (2021) highlighted the limited but significant research relating attachment security to the development of empathy and guilt in children and adolescents. However, gaps remained regarding other moral emotions like sympathy and altruism.

The present study aimed to address these underexplored areas by relating attachment quality to moral judgement, empathy subtypes, and exploring gender differences in Israeli adolescents.

Gender differences in cognitive processes and their impact on moral reasoning

There is considerable scholarly research on gender differences in moral reasoning. Different approaches explain the disparate cognitive thinking patterns, emotional toolkits, and social aspects that characterize each gender. The dramatic changes in brain function and structure that occur during adolescence can lead to impulsive behaviour and affect moral conduct and thinking (Narvaez & Vaydich, 2008).

The consequences of these changes are sometimes expressed in extreme moods and aggressive feelings that may arise when facing moral events (Crone, 2013). In terms of gender differences, studies show that girls tend to place great importance on personal relationships, family, and being sensitive and responsive to others as part of the ‘stereotypical female’ role imposed by the cultural and social context (Harter, 2015). The research also indicates that girls tend to be more oriented towards factors such as responsibility, concern, and treatment of others, while boys are more oriented towards justice in moral reasoning (Kalsoom et al., 2012).

One study examining moral decision-making factors found that girls are influenced more by empathy and social and moral relationships, while boys are influenced more by hedonistic and pleasure-seeking motives (Carlo et al., 2013). Another study identified differences between the sexes in the impact of social relationships on pro-social behaviour, with positive relationships with mothers and higher levels of cognitive empathy having a direct impact on lower levels of anti-social behaviour in girls (You et al., 2015).

The current study aims to contribute to the field of moral judgement, which plays a crucial role in the social behaviour and personal well-being of adolescents. Understanding the factors that influence moral behaviour in adolescents is crucial for educational teams in developing effective intervention programmes. The research explores the mediating role of empathy in the relationship between attachment quality and moral judgement, which has not been extensively studied before. The study also contributes to the field of moral judgement by examining possible gender differences in adolescents’ moral judgement, empathy, and the quality of attachment, and is novel in giving voice to the adolescents’ perspectives.

Research question

Is there a connection between attachment style, empathy, and moral-judgement in adolescents, and are there gender differences in empathy and moral-judgement?

Hypotheses:

1. A positive correlation will be found between secure attachment styles and empathy levels in adolescents – that is, a securer attachment fosters a higher level of empathy (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2012; Yu et al., 2012).

2. A positive correlation will be found between secure attachment styles and moral-judgement – that is, a securer attachment fosters a higher moral-judgement profile (Teymoori & Shahrazad, 2012).

3. A positive correlation will be found between empathy and moral-judgement: the higher the level of empathy, the higher the moral-judgement profile. (You et al., 2015).

4. Gender differences will be found in levels of empathy, with adolescent females exhibiting higher levels of empathy than adolescent males. (Gilligan et al., 1982; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; Carlo et al., 2013).

5. Gender differences will be found in moral judgement, with adolescent females showing a higher moral profile than adolescent males. (Kalsoom et al., 2012, Uzefovsky et al., 2016).

6. If there are correlations between attachment style, empathy, and moral judgement, empathy acts as a mediator between attachment style and moral judgement. The lower the levels of empathy, the weaker the correlation between attachment style and moral judgement.

Methodology

Participants

230 teenagers (ages 14–18) in Israel participated in the study. Data was collected through social media platforms (parents of adolescent groups) using a Google form linked to the questionnaire which included full explanations about the study and the researcher details. Parents approved and asked for their child’s consent and cooperation. 60% of the participants were female and 40% were male. Most of the participants came from two-parent homes (85.2%). The average age of the participants was 16.67 years old, with a standard deviation of 1.75 years. Outreach to adolescents was done through their parents on social media with parental consent.

Instruments

The participants were asked to complete four questionnaires:

(1) A demographic questionnaire that includes information on gender, age, country of origin, date of arrival, and parents’ marital status.

(2) A moral profile assessment questionnaire (1988, Addad) based on the judgment process model by Baruk (1972) and adapted to the ——- reality by Addad. The questionnaire consists of 16 scenarios that describe situations that raise moral questions. For example: ‘Equipment was stolen from a military base. After an investigation failed to uncover the thief or locate the stolen equipment, the commander decided to punish one of every 10 soldiers at the base.’ In this example, the participants were asked to choose one of the following five options:

1. The commander had to maintain control and authority in the absence of any confession from the soldiers.

2. The commander’s decision was necessary in order to maintain discipline and order in the military.

3. A commander’s decision should not be questioned.

4. The commander’s decision was severe but necessary to preserve the integrity of the military.

5. The punishment chosen by the commander was unjustified and wrong, as it punished the innocent along with the guilty.

For every situation, each of the five responses sequentially characterizes one of the following five moral profiles:

1. Personal interest-based judgement – amoral judgement based solely on self-interested motives

2. Social interest-based judgement – an intermediate level of moral judgement; the individual conforms to accepted social norms

3. Lack of judgement – the individual takes no moral stance and blindly accepts the existing norm

4. Dual value judgement – where there are two systematic processes (for example, social and personal) and an inability to decide between them

5. Humanistic judgement – the highest level of moral judgement, where the concept of justice is based on the supreme value of the human being, regardless of religion, race, or gender. The tool assesses the moral judgement of respondents based on their use of these five types of judgement, assigning a score of 1 to 5. The closer the respondent’s score is to 1, the lower the moral profile; the closer the score is to 5, the higher the moral profile. The reliability of the questionnaire in this study is α = 0.715.

(3) The Basic Empathy Scale (BES), a questionnaire designed to assess the general level of empathy in adolescents. Developed by Jolliffe and Farrington (2004), it includes 20 items associated with two empathy factors: cognitive empathy (for example, ‘I find it hard to tell when my friends are upset’) and emotional empathy (for example, ‘If someone I know is sad about something, I usually feel sad too’). The items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale with values ranging from (1) ‘strongly agree’ to (5) ‘strongly disagree.’ The higher the value, the higher the empathy level. For items 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 19, and 20, the scoring was reversed. The questionnaire’s internal consistency was α = 0.798; the internal consistency for cognitive empathy and emotional empathy was α = 0.71 and α = 0.82, respectively.

4. The ECR (Experience in Close Relationships) attachment style questionnaire developed by Brennan et al. (1998). The original version of 36 items was shortened to 24 items and is rated on a Likert scale that describes feelings in close relationships.

The questionnaire assesses attachment through two categories: avoidance (non-dyadic items) and anxiety (dyadic items). The items in the anxiety category include phrases such as ‘I worry about being rejected’ and ‘I worry about my relationships.’ The items in the avoidance category include phrases such as ‘It is hard for me to depend on others’ and ‘I try to avoid getting too close to others’.

Responses were scored from 1 (‘Strongly agree’) to 7 (‘Strongly disagree’). A low average score indicates a lack of secure attachment. The questionnaire’s internal consistency was α = 0.863; the internal consistency for anxiety and avoidance was α = 0.82and α = 0.83, respectively.

The research process and ethics

The research received approval from the Ethics Committee of the institution. The questionnaire was sent to the parents of adolescents and through them to the adolescents themselves, who were asked to confirm their consent to participate in the research. It was emphasized that the questionnaire was anonymous and would be used solely for research purposes. The parents and adolescent children received a detailed explanation of the research, and the parents were asked to confirm their child’s participation in the research by email.

Results

To describe the variables, we first analysed the mean and standard deviation of each variable (moral-judgement, empathy, and attachment style) (Table 1).

Table 1. Description of the quantitative research variables (N = 230).

Variable	Minimum	Maximum	Average	Standard deviation
Moral judgment (1–5)	2.75	5.00	4.36	0.44
Empathy (1–5)	2.55	4.65	3.72	0.40
Cognitive empathy	2.45	4.45	3.73	0.38
Emotional empathy	2.00	4.50	3.37	0.53
Attachment style (1–7)	1.96	7.00	4.33	0.83
Insecure attachment: avoidance	1.75	7.00	4.61	0.89
Insecure attachment: anxiety	1.42	7.00	4.04	1.13

Checking hypotheses

To test the first hypothesis – that there is a positive correlation between secure attachment styles and levels of empathy in adolescents – a Pearson test was conducted (Table 2).

Table 2. Pearson correlations between the research variables.

	Empathy	Cognitive empathy	Emotional empathy	Moral judgement
Insecure attachment	−0.120	−0.036	−0.168*	−0.061
Insecure attachment: avoidance	0.116	0.147*	0.035	0.022
Insecure attachment: anxiety	−0.267**	−0.169*	−0.274**	−0.106
Empathy	—	—	—	0.310**
Cognitive empathy	—	—	—	0.255**
Emotional empathy	—	—	—	0.221**

**p<0.01 *p<0.05.

Table 2 indicates the following nuances in regard to the first hypothesis:

1. A significant positive correlation was found between secure attachment and emotional empathy: adolescents who had a less secure attachment also scored lower on emotional empathy compared to adolescents with a more secure attachment.

2. A negative correlation was found between avoidant attachment and cognitive empathy: adolescents who had less secure (more avoidant) attachment, scored higher on the cognitive empathy.

3. A positive correlation was found between anxious attachment and both components of empathy: adolescents who had less secure (more anxious) attachment, scored lower on the emotional and cognitive empathy.

Table 2 shows no significant correlation between attachment style and moral judgement, contrary to the second hypothesis (of a positive correlation between these two variables). However, the results support the third hypothesis of a positive correlation between empathy and moral judgement. Indeed, Table 2 shows a significant positive correlation between moral-judgement and both components of empathy: the higher the moral judgement profile, the higher the emotional and cognitive empathy.

To test the fourth hypothesis about gender differences in empathy, which expected to find higher levels of empathy among females, an independent samples T-test was conducted (Table 3).

Table 3. Gender differences in empathy and moral judgement in adolescents.

	Boys (N=92)	Girls (N=138)
	Average (Standard deviation)	Average (Standard deviation)	T
Empathy	3.51 (0.39)	3.86 (0.35)	-7.032**
Cognitive empathy	3.62 (0.45)	3.80 (0.31)	−3.294**
Emotional empathy	3.10 (0.49)	3.56 (0.47)	−7.129**
Moral judgment	4.18 (0.49)	4.48 (0.35)	−5.092**

**p<0.01 *p<0.05.

As displayed in Table 3, a significant gender difference in empathy was found as hypothesized, with girls showing a higher level of cognitive and emotional empathy. The results also support the fifth hypothesis: A significant gender difference was found in moral-judgement, with girls exhibiting a higher moral-judgement profile.

In regard to the sixth hypothesis, no correlations between attachment and moral judgement were found. Therefore, no regression was performed, and the mediation hypothesis was rejected. However, moral judgement can be strongly predicted through empathy (β = 0.289, p < 0.01). In other words, the higher the empathy, the higher the moral judgement profile.

Discussion

While prior work has provided mixed evidence regarding gender differences in moral reasoning, no study has comprehensively examined the potential roles of attachment, empathy subtypes, and gender in shaping moral judgements within a single model. The current study breaks new ground by assessing these multiple factors concurrently in adolescents, thus allowing analysis of the relative influence of individual dynamics such as attachment security versus broader socialization forces tied to gender. Rather than presuming the gender binary critiqued in Gilligan’s theory, we explore gender as shaping social learning contexts while also measuring underlying developmental attachment bonds and empathic capacities related to moral cognition. This simultaneous investigation of gender, empathy mediators, and attachment foundations enriches our understanding of multiple pathways driving moral judgement development, pointing to the need for nuanced models beyond Gilligan’s oversimplified gender dichotomy regarding morality focused solely on care versus justice orientations. Our findings open avenues for exploring intersectional social identities and gender multidimensionality in moral reasoning.

Moral judgement is built and shaped throughout a person’s life in response to life situations such as relationship systems, social influences, genetics, and personal experiences. The current study addresses the relationships between attachment styles, empathy levels, and moral-judgement profiles, including gender differences.

The current study results showed higher empathy related to higher moral evaluation, supporting empathy’s role in moral awareness (Hoffman, 2001). However, attachment security did not predict moral evaluation, contrasting with assumptions that positive attachment fosters moral development (Dunn, 2006). This suggests other factors, such as social learning, shape moral judgement.

Additionally, girls exhibited higher empathy and moral evaluations compared to boys. This likely reflects gender socialization patterns emphasizing female caring and sensitivity (Gilligan et al., 1982). It shows how societal norms shape moral motivation.

The lack of association between attachment and moral judgement contrasts with assumptions, requiring further study. But it suggests social conditions, not just attachment, are crucial for developing moral judgement (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2012). Empathy was the main predictor, highlighting its importance for moral growth in adolescence.

The study’s results showed that higher empathy was related to higher moral judgement, supporting empathy’s role in Rest’s model component of moral sensitivity. The results also provide partial confirmatory evidence for the link between attachment security and empathy, as highlighted in the systematic review by Costa Martins et al. (2021). However, the lack of association found between attachment and moral judgement contrasts with assumptions in that review and indicates the need for further study on the role of attachment and suggests that other influences, such as social learning, shape moral reasoning.

Attachment security did not predict moral evaluations as expected, suggesting other influences like social learning affect moral judgement development contrary to Rest’s model. Additionally, girls exhibited higher empathy and moral evaluation compared to boys, likely reflecting gender socialization patterns emphasizing female caring, which demonstrates Rest’s component of moral motivation shaped by norms. Overall, the findings provide partial support for Rest’s four component model linking social environment to moral behaviour through empathy and gender norms. However, the lack of association between attachment and moral judgement contrasts with the model and requires further study. Fostering empathy development may support moral growth in adolescents within Rest’s framework.

Adolescence represents a key transitional period characterized by significant changes in identity, emotional connections, and moral awareness. As youth renegotiate relationships and develop greater perspective-taking abilities, they attune more to interpersonal dynamics and ethical implications of behaviour (Eisenberg et al., 2014). Attachment relationships established in childhood undergo transformation, with teens relying less solely on parents for security. Peer interactions take on heightened importance as teens turn more to friends for support (Stern et al., 2021). At the same time, adolescent brain development enables more complex social cognition critical to empathy and moral judgements (Steinberg, 2014).

Compared to younger children still embedded largely within family systems, the growing autonomy and peer orientation of adolescents may allow external societal and cultural influences to further shape social-emotional outcomes. Cultural norms and values regarding gender, relationships, and moral conduct likely interact with developmental changes during the teenage years as youths synthesize input from various sources into their own evolving moral framework (Sebastian et al., 2008). Friendship experiences emerge as especially salient, providing opportunities to both extend empathy and also potentially reinforce gender-stereotyped roles that colour moral evaluations (Gilligan et al., 1982).

In sum, early attachment forms the initial foundation, but expansions of context coupled with enhanced socio-cognitive capacities allow adolescents to develop increasing nuance in empathy, ethical judgements, and supportive capacities vis-à-vis peer interactions. The current study sought to capture this critical window of socio-moral growth shaped by individual maturation and widening cultural exposures during the teenage years.

Overall, our findings provide partial support for frameworks linking social environment to moral behaviour (Rest, 1986). Attachment did not show expected links, but empathy and gender norms were related as predicted by Gilligan’s theory. While this reflects possible socialization pressures, more complex gender identity development likely interacts with cultural messages inculcated. Cognitively, males and females both employ care and justice orientations (Walker, 2001). By moving beyond Gilligan’s gender binaries, future research can elucidate multidimensional cultural factors shaping moral reasoning for diverse youth. In short, further exploration of cultural factors is needed.

The study highlights the importance of understanding the factors that influence moral behaviour in adolescents, including attachment patterns, empathy, and gender differences. The lack of association between attachment and moral judgement contrasts with assumptions and requires further study. However, the study provides partial support for frameworks linking social environment to moral behaviour through empathy and gender norms. Fostering empathy appears key for supporting adolescents’ moral development. Educational teams can use this information to design interventions that promote empathy development and prevent high-risk behaviours in adolescents.

Limitations of the research and suggestions for future research

The moral judgement questionnaire used was time intensive and may not fully reflect real-world behaviour. While a conventional research tool, updating measures to engage modern youth is recommended. To further examine empathy and gender effects on moral judgement, exploring cultural, religious, and societal differences could prove insightful. Research must move beyond gender binaries to study intersecting cultural forces shaping moral development. Practice should support moral growth of all youth regardless of gender. Additionally, given attachment style’s limited impact, investigating parental and family variables may elucidate other developmental factors shaping moral cognition. Comparing moral judgement directly between attachment style groups could also be insightful for further investigation. Finally, since most research utilizes the ECR for adolescents, we opted for consistency. However, employing multiple measures and methodologies would provide converging evidence and allow comparison of potential variations in findings related to methodology.

Author Contribution

The paper reflects the authors’ own research and analysis in a truthful and complete manner. All sources used are properly disclosed. All authors have been personally and actively involved in substantial work leading to the paper and will take public responsibility for its content.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that supports the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author (T.R.).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the none.