The Psychological Foundations of Everyday Morality and Moral Expertise.

By D. Narvaez, D. Lapsley. 2005

201 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/369c753ec40024d081b0a1d8cf62ae47866352f4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Beyond Moral Reasoning: A Review of Moral Identity Research and Its Implications for Business Ethics (2008, background): “…from deliberate and conscious processes fails to account for the possibility that most of what constitutes the practice of “everyday morality” may be tacit, automatic, and driven by moral heuristics rather than calculative reasoning (Lapsley & Narvaez, 2004; Narvaez & Lapsley, 2005; Narvaez, 2008).”
The structure of virtue: An empirical investigation of the dimensionality of the virtues in action inventory of strengths (2010, background): “…research literature develop on character strengths and virtues, for example in personality psychology (e.g., Krueger, Hicks, & McGue, 2001), moral development (e.g., Walker & Pitts, 1998), positive youth development (e.g., Rich, 2003) and educational psychology (e.g., Narvaez & Lapsley, 2005).”
A Model of Third Parties' Morally Motivated Responses to Mistreatment in Organizations (2011, background): “Research in moral psychology indicates that, at least to a certain extent, the underlying factors that promote moral motivations can sometimes be persuaded (e.g., Aquino, Freeman, Reed, Lim, & Felps, 2009; Aquino & Reed, 2001; Grusec, 2006; Hart, Atkins, & Donnelly, 2006 ; Narvaez & Lapsley, 2005).”
Moral chronicity and social information processing: Tests of a social cognitive approach to the moral personality (2006, unknown): “In contrast to a traits/dispositions approach we have attempted to understand moral personality from the perspective of social-cognitive theory (Lapsley, 1996, 1999; Lapsley & Narvaez, 2004, 2000; Narvaez & Lapsley, 2005).”
Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review (2006, background): “Put differently, “moral schemas are chronically accessible for social information processing” (Narvaez & Lapsley, 2005: 146), often leading to automatic, intentional responses in morally significant situations.”
On dual processing and heuristic approaches to moral cognition (2008, background): “with which to ‘see’ the domain ( Narvaez & Lapsley, 2005 ).”
The Antecedents of Moral Imagination in the Workplace: A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective (2013, background): “Others have applied similar reasoning, arguing that creativity may represent a type of preconscious automaticity that impacts how an individual cognitively responds to an ethically charged situation (Narvaez and Lapsley 2005).”
Triune ethics: The neurobiological roots of our multiple moralities (2008, background): “However, familiarity (expertise) may play a role in the ability to explain reasoning choices (Narvaez & Gleason, in press; Narvaez & Lapsley, 2005), so one must not be too hasty to attribute moral ‘dumbfoundedness’ to lack of understanding.”
A classmate in distress: schoolchildren as bystanders and their reasons for how they act (2007, background): “2004; Lapsley & Narvaez, 2004; Narvaez & Lapsley, 2005 ) influence an individual’s behaviour in social situations concerning moral matters.”
Moral Development in Business Ethics: An Examination and Critique (2019, background): “He further states that “if moral conduct hinges on conscious, explicit deliberation, then much of human behavior simply does not qualify” (c.f., Narvaez and Lapsley 2005, p. 142).”