In that case, the indirect nature of the dilemma doesn’t stimulate their moral instincts, and we can’t count on them to adhere to societal conventions like they did when they were younger. For example, even though they wouldn’t actually pick someone else’s pocket, they’re less inclined than younger kids to return money they find on the street. This means that when their moral decisions have only indirect effects on other people, they become less likely to do the right thing. Once they hit middle school age, however, they become less bound by societal conventions. Research suggests that even through adolescence, kids maintain a strong emotional response to moral issues where the direct effects on another person are clear-they still know it’s wrong to hit other people or pick their pockets, for instance. Nucci and Turiel stress that, when dealing with student misbehavior, teachers need to take both areas into consideration.

Children as young as two-and-a-half years old have demonstrated that they understand the difference between moral issues and societal conventions. Societal conventions, on the other hand, focus on norms or rules (e.g., talking in class).

Moral issues focus on the effects students’ actions have on the welfare of others (e.g., hitting another child). The answer can be found in research by human development experts Larry Nucci and Elliot Turiel, who have identified two important domains that play a role in the moral development of children: moral issues and societal conventions. But because of where adolescents are developmentally, we need to practice very specific strategies for translating their moral instincts into moral behavior. In fact, research on moral development suggests that middle school is a crucial developmental period for these moral instincts to take root and grow. So what happens to this moral instinct when they reach middle school? Does it just shut down for a while? Not at all. From the GGSC to your bookshelf: 30 science-backed tools for well-being.

Middle schooler