Meta-moral cognition: an introduction

  • Reena CheruvalathEmail author


This paper examines the literature on meta-moral cognition and juxtaposes that with meta-cognition. At a basic level, the moral agent coordinates and assigns meaning to the various micro-concepts and moral concepts involved in a moral judgment. These concepts are combined to make moral assumptions. Meta-moral cognition is a higher level cognitive skill. The skill helps the moral agent to understand the cognitive process, control it, regulate the concepts and strategies used, and helps to reflect on the right and wrong of the formulated moral judgment. To develop such moral taxonomy, the moral agent needs to understand the process of reasoning.


Meta-moral cognition Micro-concepts Meaning Reasoning Moral agent 



  1. Ardila A (2015) A Proposed neurological interpretation of language evolution. Behav Neurol. Google Scholar
  2. Bauer AJ, Just MA (2015) Monitoring the growth of the neural representations of new animal concepts. Hum Brain Mapp 36(8):3213–3226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bierwisch M, Schreuder R (1992) From concepts to lexical items. Cognition 42:23–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder JR, Desai RH (2011) The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends Cognit Sci 15(11):527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boudon R, Viale R (2000) Reasons, cognition and society. Mind Soc 1(1):41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell LO (2016) Concept mapping: an “instagram” of students ‘thinking. Soc Stud 107(2):74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheruvalath R (2019) Does studying ‘ethics’ improve engineering students’ meta-moral cognitive skills? Sci Eng Ethics 25(2):583–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crone EA, Konjin EA (2018) Media use and brain development during adolescence. Nat Commun 9:588. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crone EA, Ridderinkhof KR (2011) The developing brain: from theory to neuroimaging and back. Dev Cognit Neurosci 1(2):101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cushman F, Young L, Hauser M (2006) The role of conscious reasoning and intuition in moral judgment: testing three principles. Psychol Sci 17(12):1082–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fedorenko E, Varley R (2016) Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1369(1):132–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fiske S (2002) What we know now about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the century. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11:123–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaertner SL, Dovidio JF (2000) Reducing intergroup bias: the common Ingroup Identity model Philadelphia. The Psychology Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Gewirth A (1978) Reason and morality. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p 9Google Scholar
  15. Ghavam E, Soghra (2011) Metacognition education and moral reasoning: a case report of high school girls in Iran. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 29:1816–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greene JD, Nystorm LE, Engell AD, Darley JM, Cohen J (2004) The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron 44(2):389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gvozdic K, Moutier S, Dupoux E, Buon M (2016) Priming children’s use of intentions in moral judgment with metacognitive training. Front Psychol. Google Scholar
  18. Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 108:814–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Helyer R (2015) Learning through reflection: the critical role of reflection in work-based learning (WBL). J Work Appl Manag 7(1):15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keogh R, Pearson J (2017) The perceptual and phenomenal capacity of mental imagery. Cognition 162:124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiefer M, Pulvermuller F (2012) Conceptual representations in mind and brain: theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex 48:805–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Killen M, Margie NG, Sinno S (2006) Morality in the context of intergroup relationships. In: Killen M, Smetana JG (eds) Handbook of moral development. Lawrence Eerlbaum Associates Publishers, New Jersey, pp 155–159Google Scholar
  23. Laham SM, Alter AL, Goodwin GP (2009) Easy on the mind, easy on the wrongdoer: discrepantly fluent violations are deemed less morally wrong. Cognition 112(3):462–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee S (2016) Influence of informational clues on subjective knowledge, concern, and satisfaction and behavioral intention toward healthy foods in full-service restaurants. Culin Sci Hosp Res 22(6):78–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. May J (2014) Does disgust influence moral judgment? Aust J Philos 92(1):125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Medina MS, Castleberry AN, Persky AM (2017) Strategies for improving learner metacognition in health professional education. Am J Pharm Educ 81(4):78Google Scholar
  27. Mercier H (2011) What good is moral reasoning? Mind Soc 10(2):131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mills A, Glibert P, Bellew R, McEwan K, Gale C (2007) Paranoid beliefs and self-criticism in students. Clin Psychol Psychother 14(5):358–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moll J, Zahn R, de Oliveira-Souza R, Kruegar F, Grafman J (2005) The neural basis of human moral cognition. Perspectives 6:799–807Google Scholar
  30. Nicolae I, Acqualagna L, Blankertz B (2017) Assessing the depth of cognitive processing as the basis for potential user-state adaptation. Front Neurosci 11:548. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Novak JD, Canas AJ (2008) The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Accessed 8 Dec 2018
  32. Paxton JM, Ungar L, Greene JD (2011) Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognit Sci A Multidiscip J 36(1):163–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raine A, Yang Y (2006) Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behaviour. Soc Cognit Affect Neurosci 1(3):203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sabbagh MA, Hopkins SFR, Benson JE, Flanagan JR (2010) Conceptual change and preschoolers’ theory of mind: evidence from load–force adaptation. Neural Netw 23(2010):1043–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schnall S, Haidt J, Clore GL, Jordan AH (2008) Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34(8):1096–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Swanson HL, Hill G (1993) Metacognitive aspects of moral reasoning and behavior. Adolescence 28(111):711–735Google Scholar
  37. Thompson VA, Turner JAP, Pennycook G, Ball LJ, Brack H, Ophir Y, Ackerman R (2013) The role of answer fluency and perceptual fluency as metacognitive cues for initiating analytic thinking. Cognition 128:237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tregaskes MR, Daines D (1989) Effects of metacognitive strategies on reading comprehension. Read Res Instr 29(1):52–60Google Scholar
  39. Veenman MVJ, Hout-Wolters BHAM, Afflerbach P (2006) Metacognition and learning: conceptualnand methodological considerations. Metacognit Learn 1:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wainryb C (1991) Understanding differences in moral judgments: the role of informational assumptions. Child Dev 62:840–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walton DN (1990) What is reasoning? What is an argument? J Philos 87(8):405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Will G, Klapwijk ET (2014) Neural systems involved in moral judgment and moral action. J Neurosci 34(32):10459–11046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yarnell LM, Neff KD (2013) Self-compassion, interpersonal conflict resolutions, and Well-being. Self Identity 12(2):146–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Birla Institute of Technology Pilani Goa CampusZuarinagarIndia

Personalised recommendations