ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 23(3), 214–236Copyright © 2013 Taylor &

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 23(3), 214–236
Copyright © 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online
DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2012.739943
An Exploration of Moral Rebelliousness with Adolescents
and Young Adults
Tammy L. Sonnentag and Mark A. Barnett
Department of Psychology
Kansas State University
The present pair of studies investigated the assessment,
correlates, and evaluation of “moral rebels”
who follow their own moral convictions despite social pressure
to comply. In Study 1, self, peer,
and teacher ratings of adolescents’ tendencies to be a moral
rebel were positively intercorrelated.
In Study 2, young adults’ tendencies to be a moral rebel were
associated with relatively high
self-esteem scores and relatively low willingness to engage in
minor moral violations and need to
belong scores. Both adolescents and young adults reported
relatively favorable attitudes toward a
morally rebellious peer, especially when they themselves had
heightened ratings on this characteristic.
Keywords: moral behavior, moral rebel, prosocial behavior

Many researchers have strived to identify individuals who
engage in exemplary moral behav-
iors that exceed mainstream expectations. Examples of
individuals who have been identified as
engaging in such exceptional moral behavior include influential
social activists (Colby & Damon,
1992; Haste & Hogan, 2006); volunteers (Hart & Fegley, 1995;
Matsuba & Walker, 2004, 2005);
humanitarians, heroes, and altruistic individuals (Monroe, 2002;
Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Walker
& Frimer, 2007); moral role models (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997,
2000); and religious leaders
(Smith, 2003). The present study sought to expand on these
literatures by examining a specific
type of moral exemplar, the moral rebel.
Monin, Sawyer, and Marquez (2008) applied the term moral
rebel to individuals “who take a
principled stand against the status quo, who refuse to comply,
stay silent, or simply go along when
this would require that they compromise their values” (pp. 76–
77). Although Monin et al.’s label
is unique, individuals with characteristics similar to the moral
rebel have been studied in various
domains. For example, within Industrial/Organizational
Psychology, the prosocial behavior of
principled organizational dissent refers to the behaviors of
employees, such as whistle-blowers,
who challenge organizational policies because these policies
violate a personal standard of fair-
ness or honesty (Piliavin, Grube, & Callero, 2002). Within the
social psychological literature,
morally rebellious behavior may be attributed to the one third of
participants in Milgram’s (1974)
classic obedience study who refused to acquiesce to the

experimenter’s firm instructions to elec-
trically shock a “poor learner” to full strength. Further, within
developmental psychology, the
Correspondence should be addressed to Tammy L. Sonnentag,
Kansas State University, Department of Psychology,
Bluemont Hall, 1100 Mid-Campus Drive, Manhattan, KS 66506.
E-mail: [email protected]
MORAL REBELLIOUSNESS 215
idea of the moral rebel is nicely illustrated in Stage 6,
individual principles and conscience, of
Kohlberg’s (1973, 1976) model of moral development. In this
infrequently attained stage of moral
reasoning, the postconventional moral perspective of an
individual is grounded in his or her inter-
nalized beliefs of right and wrong. An individual who reasons
from the perspective of this stage
believes that moral action should be guided by what his or her
conscience determines to be proper,
not by what is expected, desired by others, or previously agreed
upon.
Although some individuals have been found to engage in
morally rebellious thoughts and
behaviors, few studies have focused specifically on identifying
the characteristics of individu-
als, especially relatively young individuals, who choose to
follow their own moral convictions
despite considerable social pressures not to do so. In an attempt
to gain knowledge about the
moral rebel, the purposes of the present pair of studies
involving adolescents (Study 1) and young

adults (Study 2) were to (a) assess participants’ tendencies to be
a moral rebel, (b) examine some
characteristics potentially associated with participants’
tendencies to be a moral rebel, and (c)
examine participants’ evaluations of a morally rebellious (vs. a
compliant) peer.
STUDY 1
Overview
In Study 1, an adolescent’s tendency to be a moral rebel was
assessed by self, peer (i.e.,
sociometric), and teacher ratings. Of particular interest was the
extent to which these different
raters agree in their assessments. In addition, four individual
difference variables potentially asso-
ciated with an adolescent’s tendency to be a moral rebel (i.e.,
conscience, reluctance to engage in
minor moral violations, self-esteem, need to belong) were
measured. Finally, Study 1 examined
adolescents’ evaluations of a morally rebellious (vs. a
compliant) peer and the extent to which
those evaluations are influenced by their own tendencies to be a
moral rebel (as assessed by self,
peers, and teachers).
Using Self, Peer, and Teacher Ratings in the Moral Domain
In their pursuit of the moral individual, psychologists have
called for the use of multi-
method approaches to measure individuals’ characteristics and
behaviors (Morris, Robinson, &
Eisenberg, 2006). Common methods used for assessing
individual differences in adolescents’
tendencies to display moral characteristics and behaviors

include self-report measures as well as
peer and teacher ratings.
Self-report measures have frequently been used to assess
individuals’ characteristics and
behaviors in the moral domain (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Laible,
Eye, & Carlo, 2008; Morris et al.,
2006) because each person has unique insight into his or her
own moral thoughts and behav-
iors that may be difficult for others to observe. Among
adolescents, self-reported moral identity
has been found to be associated with level of donation to needy
others (Aquino & Reed, 2002),
and self-reported measures of generosity and helpfulness have
been found to be associated with
observations of generous and helpful behaviors toward peers in
various school settings (Carlo,
Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003).
216 SONNENTAG AND BARNETT
Another popular approach for acquiring information about an
adolescent’s moral character-
istics and behaviors is to ask those who are likely to observe the
adolescent on a regular basis,
such as peers and teachers. Previous research has found that
peer ratings (e.g., Cassidy, Werner,
Rourke, Zubernis, & Balaraman, 2003) and teacher ratings (e.g.,
Roberts & Strayer, 1996) are
positively associated with independent observations of
adolescents’ tendencies to engage in
various forms of prosocial behavior.
In addition to establishing a relation between self, peer, and

teacher ratings and observations
of adolescents’ behaviors in the moral domain, previous
research has examined the degree of
concordance among these raters. In one study, for example,
Greener (2000) initially had adoles-
cents generate a list of normative prosocial behaviors that were
subsequently used to describe the
construct of prosocial behavior in peer and teacher ratings. In
addition, the adolescents completed
a self-report measure of their own interpersonal behaviors.
Results revealed that self, peer, and
teacher ratings of prosocial behaviors were positively correlated
with one another.
These and other studies (e.g., Eisenberg, Cameron, Pasternack,
& Tyron, 1988) indicate that
self, peer, and teacher ratings may (a) be useful in examining
individual differences among
adolescents on variables within the moral domain and (b) yield
acceptable levels of interrater
agreement. Study 1 used two self-report measures of an
adolescent’s tendency to be a moral rebel
as well as peer and teacher ratings of this tendency (see Method
section for a complete descrip-
tion of these measures). The relations among the self, peer, and
teacher ratings of adolescents’
tendencies to be a moral rebel were predicted to be positive and
significant.
Characteristics Potentially Associated with an Adolescent’s
Tendency to be a Moral
Rebel
In addition to assessing adolescents’ tendencies to be a moral
rebel, another purpose of Study
1 was to examine some characteristics potentially associated

with adolescents’ tendencies to be
a moral rebel. To aid in selecting these potential correlates, we
describe a preliminary model of
moral rebelliousness. Recall, that a moral rebel is someone who
takes a principled stand despite
considerable social pressures not to do so. Given this definition,
we propose that the tendency
to be a moral rebel incorporates two clusters of characteristics
and associated behaviors. First,
the tendency to be a moral rebel is proposed to involve
characteristics and related behaviors that
reflect a strong, internalized moral foundation (for a discussion
of this construct, see Graham,
Haidt, & Nosek 2009). Second, we propose that the tendency to
be a moral rebel involves the
moral courage to stand up for one’s values and beliefs in
various social settings (for a discussion
of this construct, see Bronstein, Fox, Kamon, & Knolls, 2007).
As a preliminary test of this
proposed model, we selected two individual difference variables
from each cluster to examine
their relationships with adolescents’ tendencies to be a moral
rebel (as assessed by self, peer, and
teacher ratings).
Characteristics and Behaviors That Reflect a Strong,
Internalized Moral Foundation
In our assessment of the moral foundation of individuals’
tendencies to be a moral rebel,
we measured adolescents’ conscience and their reluctance to
engage in minor moral violations.
We propose that adolescents who have heightened tendencies to
be a moral rebel will strive to
avoid feelings of guilt by engaging in behaviors believed to be
moral and inhibiting behaviors

believed to be immoral. The specific rationale for the inclusion
of measures of conscience and
the reluctance to engage in minor moral violations as indices of
the moral foundation of moral
rebelliousness are elaborated next.
Conscience. The study of conscience has a long history in moral
psychology beginning
with the seminal writings of Freud (1935) on the concept of the
superego. Freud’s observa-
tions laid the groundwork for empirical inquiry into the
development of individuals’ internalized
standards of how they should behave (e.g., Kochanska & Aksan,
2006). The development of
the conscience is viewed as a critical factor in motivating the
individual to engage in behavior
believed to be moral and inhibit behavior believed to be
immoral (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Hart
& Carlo, 2005; Matsuba & Walker, 2005). In essence, it is
theorized that individuals learn to
behave in a manner consistent with their internalized beliefs and
values to avoid feelings of guilt
emanating from the conscience (or superego). In a similar vein,
Kohlberg (1973, 1976) posited
that moral judgments and principles motivate moral action. He
postulated that as moral reasoning
develops, individuals become more inclined to internalize
values and beliefs and to use moral
principles to make decisions about how they and others should
act.

An adolescent whose behavior is regulated by his or her
internalized standards of right and
wrong would be inclined to act in accordance with those
standards in situations in which those
values and beliefs are or are not threatened. Consequently, it
was predicted that the more ado-
lescents report a guilty conscience when they behave (or
anticipate behaving) in a manner
inconsistent with their moral values and beliefs, the higher their
ratings will be on the tendency
to be a moral rebel.
Reluctance to engage in minor moral violations. An individual
could, potentially, have
internalized immoral values and beliefs that he or she defends
and acts upon in the face of social
pressure. In the current conceptualization of the moral rebel,
however, the term moral applies
to a wide range of behaviors that are consistent with accepted
norms of appropriate conduct
(Trevifio, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006). In our culture, these
norms typically reflect the enactment
of positive and prosocial behaviors (e.g., helping, sharing) and
the avoidance of negative and
antisocial behaviors (e.g., lying, stealing). If a moral rebel
accepts and internalizes these positive
norms of moral behavior, then he or she would tend to behave in
a manner consistent with these
norms. Therefore, it was predicted that adolescents with
heightened tendencies to behave like a
moral rebel would be relatively unlikely to engage in various
minor moral violations.
Characteristics That Provide Moral Courage in Social Settings
In our preliminary investigation of the characteristics

potentially providing the moral courage
to stand up for one’s values and beliefs in a social setting, we
measured adolescents’ self-esteem
and need to belong. We hypothesized that an adolescent’s
tendency to be a moral rebel would be
associated with relatively high scores on a self-esteem measure
but relatively low scores on a need
to belong measure. Possessing relatively high self-esteem and
relatively low need to belong may
provide adolescents with the moral courage to engage in
positive behaviors and avoid engaging
in negative behaviors when there is social pressure to do
otherwise. The specific rationales for the
inclusion of relatively high self-esteem and relatively low need
to belong as potential contributors
to adolescents’ moral courage to stand up for their moral values
and beliefs in social settings are
elaborated next.
Self-esteem. High self-esteem is broadly defined as having a
favorable attitude toward the
self (Rosenberg, 1989) and as having confidence in one’s own
abilities and beliefs (Blascovich
& Tomaka, 1991). Research has demonstrated that adolescents
with high self-esteem are more
likely to resist peer pressure to engage in inappropriate
behaviors than adolescents with low
self-esteem (Bamaca & Umana-Taylor, 2006; Dielman,
Campanelli, Shope, & Butchart, 1987).
In essence, adolescents with a relatively high level of self-
esteem may have more confidence

than their lower self-esteem counterparts to adhere to their own
beliefs and values and to resist
conformity pressures to behave otherwise. Therefore, it was
predicted that the higher adolescents’
level of self-esteem, the higher their ratings will be on the
tendency to be a moral rebel.
Need to belong. The construct “need to belong” denotes a need
to form and maintain inter-
personal relationships in order to feel that one fits in with
others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Although adolescents are generally believed to have a
heightened need to acquire and main-
tain acceptance from peers (Brown, 1990; Osterman, 2000;
Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006),
research suggests that adolescents differ markedly in their need
to belong, with some individu-
als going to great lengths (e.g., changing their behavior, faking
a belief) to fit in, whereas others
simply have little desire to be part of a group (Brown, Eicher, &
Petrie, 1986). Given that a moral
rebel is, by definition, resistant to altering his or her values or
behaviors when confronted with
social pressure to be compliant, it was hypothesized that the
stronger an adolescent’s tendency to
be a moral rebel, the less he or she would report a need to
belong.
Summary
In sum, in line with our preliminary model of moral
rebelliousness, it was predicted that an
adolescent’s tendency to be a moral rebel (as assessed by self,
peers, and teachers) would be
associated with a relatively high score on measures of
conscience and self-esteem but a relatively

low score on measures of the tendency to engage in minor moral
violations and the need to
belong.
Evaluation of a Moral Rebel
Monin et al. (2008) demonstrated that undergraduate
participants who were in the experimental
condition in which they were uninvolved “observers” of a peer’s
behavior (rather than in the
“actor” condition in which they were induced to be compliant
themselves) perceived a morally
rebellious peer as more likeable and as having a stronger moral
character than a compliant peer.
The final pair of goals of the present study was to determine (a)
whether adolescent “observers”
also favor a morally rebellious peer over a compliant peer and
(b) whether their evaluations of a
morally rebellious (vs. a compliant) peer are related to their
own tendencies to be a moral rebel
(as assessed by self, peers, and teachers).
Previous research (Byrne, Griffitt, & Stefaniak, 1967; Eshel &
Kurman, 1994; Rubin, Lynch,
Coplan, Rose-Krasnor, & Booth, 1994; Sturmer, Snyder, Kropp,
& Siem, 2006) has demonstrated
that individuals tend to respond relatively favorably to similar
others. Therefore, in Study 1,
adolescents who scored relatively high on moral rebelliousness
(as assessed by self, peers, and
teachers) were predicted to express especially favorable

attitudes toward an individual who was
similar to themselves, a morally rebellious peer. In contrast,
ratings of the adolescents’ tendencies
to be a moral rebel were expected to be unrelated to their
attitudes toward an unexceptional and
dissimilar individual, a compliant peer.
Method
Participants and Experimenter
The participants in Study 1 were 107 seventh- and eighth-grade
students (63 male, 44 female;
age range = 12.3–15.3 years; M age = 13.6 years) and their
teachers from a public middle
school in a small midwestern city in the United States. All of
the adolescents had the written
permission of a parent or legal guardian to take part in the
study, and they provided their own
assent to participate. The study was conducted in the students’
regular classrooms by a female
experimenter during days and times selected by the teachers.
Materials
The participants’ ratings on all of the following measures were
made on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Assessments of an adolescent’s tendency to be a moral rebel.
One self-report assess-
ment of an adolescent’s tendency to be a moral rebel consisted
of five items adapted from the
nine-item Measure of Susceptibility to Social Influence (Bobier,
2002). The Moral Rebel (MR)
Scale (α = .72)1 assesses the extent to which an indi vidual

refuses to go along with others’ words
or actions when doing so would conflict with what he or she
believes to be morally correct (e.g.,
I am not afraid to stand up to others in order to defend my
beliefs). Participants’ responses to the
five statements were summed, with higher scores on the MR
Scale reflecting a greater tendency
for an individual to be a moral rebel.
In addition to the MR Scale, a sociometric rating form was used
to assess self- and peers’
perceptions of each participant’s tendency to be a moral rebel.
The instructions at the top of the
form stated that
moral rebels are individuals who take a principled stand against
the status quo, refuse to comply, stay
silent, or simply go along when this would require that they
compromise their values. A moral rebel
is not someone who challenges others or rebels in situations just
to be difficult or to cause trouble.
Each participant rated himself or herself (MR-Self) and all of
his or her “same school year”
classmates on the tendency to be a moral rebel (i.e., seventh
graders rated seventh graders, eighth
1Initially, the MR scale adapted from Bobier’s (2002) Measure
of Susceptibility to Social Influence measure included
a total of nine statements. However, the adolescence in Study 1
appeared to have difficulty understanding the reverse-
keyed items, and the internal reliability of the MR scale was
improved by the reduction from nine to five items. As noted
later, all nine items adapted from Bobier’s (2002) original
measure were retained on the Moral Rebel Scale for the young
adults in Study 2.

graders rated eighth graders). A participant’s peer rating (MR-
Peer) score was calculated as the
average of all of his or her same school year classmates’ ratings
of his or her tendency to be a
moral rebel.2
Finally, pairs of teachers (one pair for the seventh-grade
participants and one pair for the
eighth-grade participants) who instructed at least one course in
which all of the participants in the
same grade were enrolled rated each of their students on the
tendency to be a moral rebel using
a form that is highly similar to the sociometric form just
described. A participant’s teacher rating
(MR-Teacher) score was calculated as the average of two
teachers’ ratings.3
Individual Difference Variables Potentially Associated With
Being a Moral Rebel
Conscience. The measure of conscience included six items (e.g.,
I do what is right because
otherwise I would feel guilty; α = .84) adapted from the Guilty-
Conscience subscale of the
Revised Mosher Guilt Inventory (Mosher, 1988). The higher the
conscience score, the more the
individual feels guilty when engaging in behaviors inconsistent
with his or her beliefs and values.
Minor moral violations. To assess an adolescent’s tendency to
engage in various behaviors

that could be considered inappropriate or immoral, seven items
(e.g., I would allow someone else
to be blamed for something I did; α = .84) were adapted from
the scale of Minor Moral and Legal
Violations (Barnett, Sanborn, & Shane, 2005). The higher the
score on this adapted measure, the
more the adolescent would be willing to engage in minor moral
violations.
Self-esteem. Adolescents’ self-esteem was measured using
Rosenberg’s (1989) 10-item
self-esteem scale (e.g., I take a positive attitude toward myself;
α = .87). A higher self-esteem
score reflects a more positive evaluation of one’s worth or
value.
Need to belong. An individual’s need to belong was assessed
using three items (e.g.,
Fitting in with other kids at school is important to me; α = .72)
adapted from the Measure of
Belongingness (Lee & Robbins, 1995). A higher need to belong
score reflects a greater desire to
fit in and feel part of a crowd or group.
Social desirability. The adolescent participants also completed
the short form of the
Crandall Social Desirability Test for Children (Crandall,
Crandall, & Katkovsky, 1965) to assess
their tendency to give socially desirable responses to statements
rather than responses that reflect
their true attitudes, behaviors, or feelings. Participants
responded to the 12 statements on this
2Although only half of a grade’s participants were assigned to
the same classroom (or “block”) during the semester
in which the sociometric data were collected, the adolescents in

this relatively small school likely had ample opportunity
to observe morally rebellious behavior in all of their same-grade
classmates. In fact, the average “in block” and “out of
block” peer ratings of adolescents’ tendencies to be a moral
rebel were strongly positively correlated with one another
(r = .78, p < .001). Prior studies (e.g., Parkhurst & Hopmeyer,
1998; Rose & Swenson, 2009) successfully used similar
sociometric procedures in which all same-grade classmates are
rated by participants.
3Although the correlations between pairs of teachers’ ratings
were not particularly strong, the decision to use average
teacher ratings in subsequent analyses was based on two
considerations: (a) The teachers may have differed markedly
in their opportunities to observe morally rebellious behavior in
their students and (b) in the present study, there was no
way of determining whether one teacher was making a more
valid assessment than the other of a student’s tendency to
be a moral rebel. It is important to note that the average of a
pair of teachers’ ratings (i.e., MR-Teacher) scores was more
consistently related to the students’ MR-Scale, MR-Self, and
MR-Peer scores than the ratings from individual teachers.
measure (e.g., When I make a mistake, I always admit that I am
wrong; α = .76), with higher
scores reflecting an adolescent’s tendency to provide more
socially desirable responses. This
individual difference variable was not considered as a
characteristic potentially associated with
an adolescent’s tendency to be a moral rebel. However, scores
on this variable were included as
a covariate in the first step of the regression analyses described

in the Results because reporting
that one engages in morally rebellious behavior may be a
socially desirable response.
Evaluations of a Morally Rebellious Peer
To examine adolescents’ evaluations of a morally rebellious or
compliant peer, they listened
to one of two audiotaped scenarios (adapted from Monin et al.,
2008). The scenarios described an
English teacher at another school assigning a writing task to his
middle school students to support
implementing a social service requirement prior to middle
school graduation. Participants heard a
male peer’s morally rebellious or compliant response to this
assignment (see the appendix for the
complete scripts of the contrasting scenarios presented to
participants in the two conditions). The
morally rebellious peer scenario depicted a student refusing to
complete the writing assignment in
accordance with the teacher’s instructions because acquiescing
would conflict with his beliefs and
values. The compliant peer scenario, in contrast, depicted a
student complying with the teacher’s
instructions even though doing so conflicted with his beliefs
and values. After listening to one
of the two audiotaped scenarios, participants were asked to
respond to nine statements (e.g., I
respect this boy for his behavior in this situation; α = .90)
assessing their evaluations of the
morally rebellious or compliant peer. Higher scores on this
measure reflected a more favorable
attitude toward the peer.
Procedure

At the beginning of each session, the participants were led to
believe that they would be
taking part in two separate and unrelated studies during a single
30-min session. After the experi-
menter provided an overview of the studies, the adolescents
completed an assent form and a brief
demographics sheet.
At the beginning of the “first” study, the experimenter
described the sociometric rating form
and had the participants practice using the 5-point scale. After
the adolescents were comfortable
using the scale, copies of the sociometric rating form were
distributed. The experimenter read the
instructions at the top of the rating form out loud and then
instructed each adolescent to circle
his or her name on the form and rate himself or herself on the
The adolescents were then allowed to complete the remainder of
the sociometric rating form on
their own. After the adolescents completed the form, they
received a questionnaire that contained
statements (in mixed order) from the following scales: moral
rebel, conscience, minor moral
violations, self-esteem, need to belong, and social desirability.
Participants used the same 5-point
scale to respond to all of the statements on this questionnaire.
After the participants completed the questionnaire, the
experimenter reintroduced the “sec-
ond” study. The participants were led to believe that the
experimenter had interviewed many
adolescents who had engaged in a variety of behaviors. The
experimenter explained that she had
randomly chosen one peer for them to evaluate. Next, the
experimenter played the audiotaped

scenario of the morally rebellious or compliant peer. After
listening to one of the recordings, the
participants were given a copy of the transcribed scenario to
refer to, as needed, and were asked to
respond to a series of statements regarding their evaluations of
the morally rebellious or compliant
peer. Following completion of this questionnaire, participants
were thanked and debriefed.
The participating teachers rated their students on the tendency
to be a moral rebel and
returned the completed forms to the experimenter within a few
days of data collection within
the classrooms.
Results
Relationships Among Scores on Measures of Adolescents’
Tendencies to be a Moral
Rebel
Correlations were conducted to examine the interrater
reliabilities among the ratings on
the MR-Scale, MR-Self, MR-Peer, and MR-Teacher measures of
the adolescents’ tendencies
to be a moral rebel. Results revealed that all correlations among
the four measures of moral
rebelliousness were positive and significant (see Table 1).4
Characteristics Potentially Associated With Being a Moral
Rebel

Hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to compare
the strength of associations
among the individual difference measures and the tendency to
be a moral rebel (as assessed by
MR-Scale, MR-Self, MR-Peer, and MR-Teacher measures). A
separate analysis was conducted
for each moral rebel measure. In each of these regressions,
participant gender and social desir-
ability scores were included in the first step as covariates. The
second step included scores on the
individual difference variables (i.e., conscience, minor moral
violations, self-esteem, and need to
belong).
The only significant unique relations to emerge were for the
regressions involving MR-Self
scores, R2 = .21, F(6, 99) = 4.34, p < .001, �R2 = .20, p < .001,
and MR-Teacher scores,
R2 = .09, F(6, 99) = 1.66, p = .14, �R2 = .09, p < .05. The MR-
Self regression revealed
TABLE 1
Correlations among Scores on the Moral Rebel (MR) Scale,
MR-Self, MR-Peer, and
MR-Teacher Measures of the Adolescents’ Tendencies to Be a
Moral Rebel
Measure 2 3 4
1. MR-Scale .40∗ ∗ .29∗ ∗ .56∗ ∗
2. MR-Self — .34∗ ∗ .32∗ ∗
3. MR-Peer — .48∗ ∗
4. MR-Teacher —

Note. All of the correlations among scores on the four measures
of moral rebelness were
positive and significant when male and female participants were
considered separately.
∗ ∗ p < .01.
4Independent samples t tests revealed no significant gender
differences on any of the four moral rebel measures.
TABLE 2
Correlations between Adolescents’ Scores on the Four Measures
of Moral
Rebelness and Their Evaluations of the Morally Rebellious or
Compliant Peer
Peer Target
Measure Morally Rebellious Compliant
MR Scale .37∗ ∗ −.10
MR-Self .42∗ ∗ .17
MR-Peer .33∗ .07
MR-Teacher .43∗ ∗ .00
Note. MR = Moral Rebel.
∗ p < .05. ∗ ∗ p < .01.
(a) a unique negative relation between MR-Self scores and need
to belong scores (β = –.31, t =
3.26, p < .01) and (b) a unique positive relation between MR-

Self scores and self-esteem scores
(β = .36, t = 3.76, p < .001). The regression for MR-Teacher
scores revealed a unique positive
relation between MR-Teacher scores and conscience scores (β =
.26, t = 2.14, p < .05).
Evaluations of a Morally Rebellious (vs. Compliant) Peer
To examine the participants’ evaluations of the peers presented
in the audiotaped scenarios
(and to explore for gender differences), a 2 (gender of
participant) × 2 (moral rebel condition:
morally rebellious peer vs. compliant peer) analysis of variance
was conducted. Results revealed
a significant main effect of moral rebel condition, F(1, 103) =
37.23, p < .001, ηp2 = .27, with the
morally rebellious peer (M = 4.11, SD = .73) being evaluated
more favorably than the compliant
peer (M = 3.25, SD = .65). The main effect of gender, F(1, 103)
= .06, p = .81, and the interaction
between gender and moral rebel condition, F(1, 103) = 1.43, p =
.24, were both nonsignificant.
Correlations were computed to examine the relations between
the participants’ scores on the
four measures of moral rebelliousness and their evaluations of
the morally rebellious or compliant
peer. As presented in Table 2, significant positive correlations
were found between participants’
moral rebel scores (on the MR-Scale, MR-Self, MR-Peer, and
MR-Teacher measures) and their
evaluations of the morally rebellious peer, whereas
nonsignificant relations were found between
participants’ moral rebel scores and their evaluations of the
compliant peer.

To more closely examine the associations between participants’
scores on the four measures
of moral rebelliousness and their evaluations of the two peer
targets, four hierarchical regres-
sions were conducted, with a separate analysis for each moral
rebel measure. In each of these
regressions, participant gender and social desirability scores
were included in the first step as
covariates. The second step contained scores on one moral rebel
measure (i.e., MR-Scale, MR-
Self, MR-Peer, or MR-Teacher). The third step of the
regressions contained the dummy-coded
conditions (i.e., morally rebellious or compliant peer). The
fourth step of each of the regressions
included the product terms for the two-way interactions between
(a) condition and (b) moral rebel
scores as well as gender.5
5In this analysis, the effects of particular interest were the main
effects of moral rebel condition and the interaction
between moral rebel measure and moral rebel condition in
predicting the adolescents’ evaluations of the peer targets.
The series of regressions were consistent in yielding no effects
of gender, significant effects
of condition (again, reflecting a more favorable evaluation of
the morally rebellious than the
compliant peer), and no interactions between gender and
condition in predicting evaluations of
the peers. Only the MR-Self regression revealed a significant
interaction between moral rebel
rating and condition in predicting evaluations of the peers, R2 =

.35, F(5, 100) = 8.74, p < .001,
�R2 = .31, p < .05. As participants’ MR-Self scores increased,
they responded more favorably
to the morally rebellious peer (β = .34, t = 2.96, p < .01) ,
whereas participants’ MR-Self scores
were unrelated to their evaluations of the compliant peer (β = –
.09, t = .68, p = .50).
Discussion
The results of Study 1 revealed that adolescents, peers, and
teachers displayed a considerable level
of agreement concerning the extent to which adolescents tend to
be a moral rebel (see Table 1).
The consistent intercorrelations among the four moral rebel
measures may be attributable to the
“visible” behaviors associated with being a moral rebel. An
adolescent’s defense of his or her
own beliefs and values in the face of conformity pressures to
comply is likely a salient behavior
for observers such as peers and teachers. Although specific acts
of morally rebellious behavior
may occur relatively infrequently, when such a behavior does
occur, it is likely memorable for
both the actor and observers. As discussed earlier, previous
research in the moral domain has also
reported relatively high levels of interrater agreement when
behaviors with heightened visibility
(e.g., generosity, donating, sharing) have been considered
(Aquino & Reed, 2002; Carlo et al.,
2003; Eisenberg et al., 1988; Greener, 2000). Because of the
salience and memorability of certain
moral acts, some adolescents may acquire a reputation as a
moral rebel among peers and teachers
that further serves to enhance the level of interrater agreement
of these judgments.

Contrary to expectations, higher moral rebelliousness scores (as
assessed by MR-Scale, MR-
Self, MR-Peer, and MR-Teacher measures) were not
consistently associated with higher scores
on the measures of conscience and self-esteem, and lower scores
on the measures of minor moral
violations and need to belong. Although the few significant
relations that did emerge were as
predicted (e.g., a positive relationship between MR-Teacher
scores and conscience scores), in
no case were the scores on the individual difference measures
associated with scores across
the four moral rebelliousness measures. In fact, the MR-Self
rating was the only assessment of
moral rebelliousness to yield a significant relation in a
regression with more than one individual
difference measure (i.e., self-esteem, need to belong).
The positive relationship between MR-Self and self-esteem
scores is consistent with the con-
tention that the more confidence adolescents have in their worth
and abilities, the greater their
tendencies will be to behave like a moral rebel. Previous
research suggests that heightened self-
esteem is associated with adolescents’ resistance to peer
pressure to engage in inappropriate
behaviors (e.g., Bamaca & Umana-Taylor, 2006; Dielman et al.,
1987). The present findings
suggest that heightened self-esteem may provide adolescents not
only with the self-confidence
needed to resist peer pressure to engage in inappropriate
behaviors but with the self-confidence
needed to engage in actions that challenge the status quo and
reflect exemplary moral behavior.

Consistent with prediction, a significant negative relation
emerged between MR-Self and need
to belong scores. This pattern suggests that adolescents who
have a heightened tendency to be a
moral rebel may not be motivated to change their beliefs or
values just to be compliant and to
“fit in with the crowd.” This finding is noteworthy because
adolescence is typically marked by
a strong desire to acquire and maintain friendships and
friendship groups (Harold, Colarossi, &
Mercier, 2007). Despite the heightened importance of peers
during adolescence, for those with
relatively strong tendencies to be a moral rebel, doing what they
believe is “right” may be a higher
priority than fitting in with a peer group.
Adolescents reported more favorable attitudes toward the
morally rebellious than the compli-
ant peer depicted in the audiotaped scenarios. As with Monin et
al.’s (2008) adult “observers,”
adolescents appear to recognize the courage and moral strength
needed for an individual to stand
up for personal beliefs and values in the face of social pressures
to comply. The positive evalu-
ation of the morally rebellious peer was found to be especially
true for adolescents who scored
relatively high on moral rebelliousness themselves (as assessed
by correlations involving all four
moral rebel measures). Specifically, and consistent with
previous research demonstrating that
individuals tend to respond relatively favorably to similar

others (Byrne et al., 1967; Eshel &
Kurman, 1994; Rubin et al., 1994; Sturmer et al., 2006),
correlational analyses indicated that
adolescents scoring relatively high on moral rebelliousness
reported especially favorable atti-
tudes toward a peer who was presumably perceived as similar to
the self (i.e., another moral
rebel) but not one presumably perceived as unexceptional and
dissimilar (i.e., a compliant peer).
Although this pattern emerged in the correlational analyses
performed on all four measures of
moral rebelliousness, only the MR-Self measure yielded a
significant interaction between moral
rebel rating and condition in the more sensitive regression
analyses.
The relatively robust pattern of findings involving MR-Self
scores in this regression and two
earlier regressions (involving scores on self-esteem and need to
belong) suggests that this simple
measure may be an especially useful index of moral
rebelliousness. In preparing to rate them-
selves on the one-item MR-Self measure embedded within the
sociometric form, the adolescents
were provided with a precise and unambiguous description of
what a moral rebel is and is not.
Therefore, adolescents should have had a clear understanding of
the construct when they rated
themselves on the tendency to behave like a moral rebel.
Previous research has demonstrated
that one-item measures, such as MR-Self, can be as valid as
multi-item measures at assessing
various constructs such as interpersonal closeness (Aron, Aron,
& Smollan, 1992), quality of
life (de Boer et al., 2004), and personal happiness (Holder &
Klassen, 2010). Of course, addi-

tional research will be needed to assess the relative value of the
MR-Self measure in assessing
adolescents’ tendencies to be a moral rebel.
STUDY 2
As expected, the adolescents, peers, and teachers in Study 1
displayed considerable agreement in
their ratings of adolescents’ tendencies to be a moral rebel. In
addition, the adolescents rated a
morally rebellious peer more positively than a compliant peer,
and the favorable evaluation of the
moral rebel tended to be especially strong among adolescents
who scored relatively high on moral
rebelliousness themselves. However, the examination of
individual difference variables believed
to be related to moral rebelliousness was not particularly
successful and, thus, a follow-up study
with older participants was conducted to further examine these
potential relations.
Given that adolescence is a stage of life characterized by
heightened pressure to “fit in” and
conform to one’s peer group (Harold et al., 2007), the
examination of moral rebelliousness among
adolescent participants was arguably a strength of Study 1.
However, a problem with studying the
potential correlates of a trait (such as moral rebelliousness) in
adolescents is that personality char-
acteristics may be in flux, or even “turbulence,” during this
period (Rutter, Graham, Chadwick, &

Uhle, 1976). Given the evidence that personality characteristics
tend to stabilize during the early
adult years (McCrae & Costa, 1990; McGue, Bacon, & Lykken,
1993), Study 2 sought to deter-
mine whether the predictions concerning the relations between
scores on moral rebelliousness
and the four individual difference variables of interest (i.e.,
conscience, minor moral violations,
self-esteem, and need to belong) would be more clearly
supported in a young adult sample than
in the adolescent sample in Study 1.
As in Study 1, the present investigation also examined young
adults’ evaluations of a morally
rebellious (vs. compliant) peer and whether those evaluations
would be influenced by the partic-
ipants’ own tendency to be a moral rebel. Based on the results
of Study 1, we expected that (a)
young adults would respond more favorably to a morally
rebellious peer than a compliant peer
and (b) the extent to which a moral rebel received a favorable
evaluation would be positively
associated with the young adults’ scores on a trait measure of
moral rebelliousness.
Method
Participants
The participants in Study 2 were 402 undergraduate students
(221 female, 181 male; M age =
19.71 years) from a large midwestern university who took part
in exchange for credit in a General
Psychology course. Each participant completed the study using
an online data collection system
managed by the university’s Department of Psychology.

Materials and Procedure
As in Study 1, the participants’ responses to all of the measures
were made on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The
questionnaire completed by the par-
ticipants consisted of mixed items from the following measures:
(a) Moral Rebel (nine statements;
adapted from Bobier, 2002; α = .73 with the present sample),
(b) Conscience (six statements;
adapted from Mosher, 1988; α = .81), (c) Minor Moral
Violations (seven statements; adapted
from Barnett et al., 2005; α = .73), (d) Need to Belong (six
items; adapted from Lee & Robbins,
1995; α = .70), and (e) Self-Esteem (10 items; Rosenberg, 1989;
α = .84). After completing this
questionnaire, participants responded to 33 statements assessing
their tendencies to behave in a
socially desirable manner (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; α = .73).
Subsequently, participants read one of two scenarios that were
modified slightly from the
audiotaped scenarios used in Study 1. The introduction of the
scenario presented to all partic-
ipants described an English professor from another university
assigning a writing task to his
undergraduate students to support implementing a social service
requirement prior to graduation
from the university. As in Study 1, the scenario concluded with
the presentation of a male student
who, in the essay that he writes, either stands up for his beliefs
and values by refusing to comply
with the professor’s instructions (morally rebellious peer
condition) or fails to stand up for his
beliefs and values by acquiescing to the professor’s instructions

(compliant peer condition). After
reading one of the two scenarios, participants responded to nine
statements (α = .81) assessing
their evaluation of the male peer described in the scenario.
Results
Individual Differences Potentially Associated With Being a
Moral Rebel
A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to compare
the strength of associations
among the individual difference measures and the tendency to
be a moral rebel as assessed by the
Moral Rebel Scale. The steps of the regression were consistent
with the analytic strategy used
in Study 1 with the adolescent sample. The regression, R2 = .40,
F(6, 395) = 44.43, p < .001,
�R2 = .26, p < .001, revealed that, for these young adults,
moral rebel scores had (a) a significant
positive relation with self-esteem scores (β = .09, t = 2.07, p <
.05), (b) a significant negative
relation with need to belong scores (β = –.50, t = 11.78, p <
.001) and minor moral violation
scores (β = –.11, t = 2.27, p < .05), and (c) a nonsignificant
relation with conscience scores (β =
.05, t = 1.14, p > .05).
Evaluations of a Morally Rebellious (vs. Compliant) Peer
To examine the participants’ evaluations of the peers presented

in the scenarios (and to explore
for gender differences), a 2 (gender of participant) × 2 (moral
rebel condition: morally rebellious
peer vs. compliant peer) analysis of variance was conducted.
Results revealed a significant main
effect of moral rebel condition, F(1, 396) = 17.98, p < .001, ηp2
= .05, with the morally rebel-
lious peer (M = 3.50, SD = .68) being evaluated more favorably
than the compliant peer (M =
3.24, SD = .62). The main effect of gender, F(1, 396) = .91, p =
.34, and the interaction between
gender and moral rebel condition, F(1, 396) = .07, p = .79, were
both found to be nonsignificant.
Correlations were computed to examine the relations between
the participants’ evaluations
of the morally rebellious or compliant peer and their moral
rebel scores. Paralleling the pattern
of results for the adolescent sample in Study 1 (see Table 2), a
significant positive correlation
emerged between participants’ moral rebel scores and their
evaluations of the morally rebellious
peer (r = .14, p < .05), whereas a nonsignificant relation
emerged between participants’ moral
rebel scores and their evaluations of the compliant peer (r = –
.04, p = .55).
To determine the associations among the potential predictors
(gender, scores on the Social
Desirability Scale and the Moral Rebel Scale) and condition
(morally rebellious or compliant
peer) on evaluation of the peer, a hierarchical regression was
conducted. Again, the steps of the
regression were consistent with the analytic strategy used in
Study 1 with the adolescent sample.

Consistent with the results for the adolescent sample, the
regression yielded no effect of gen-
der, a significant effect of condition (again, reflecting a more
favorable evaluation of the morally
rebellious than the compliant peer), and no interaction between
gender and condition in predicting
evaluation of the target. The interaction between moral rebel
scores and condition in predicting
evaluations of the peers was significant, R2 = .08, F(8, 391) =
4.39, p < .001, �R2 = .02,
p < .05. As participants’ moral rebel scores increased, they
responded more favorably to the
morally rebellious peer (β = .16, t = 2.26, p < .05), whereas
participants’ moral rebel scores
were unrelated to their evaluations of the compliant peer (β = –
.03, t = 0.39, p = .69).
Discussion
The major purpose of Study 2 was to determine whether the
predictions concerning the relations
between scores on moral rebelliousness and the four individual
difference variables of interest
(i.e., self-esteem, minor moral violations, need to belong, and
conscience) would be more clearly
supported with a young adult sample than with the adolescent
sample in Study 1. As in Study 1,
the present study also examined young adults’ evaluations of a
morally rebellious (vs. compliant)
peer and whether those evaluations are influenced by the
participants’ own tendencies to be a
moral rebel.

As expected, participants scoring relatively high on moral
rebelliousness tended to have rela-
tively high self-esteem. Having heightened confidence in one’s
worth and abilities may provide
individuals with the courage to stand up for their values and
beliefs in the face of conformity
pressures not to do so. Thus, heightened self-esteem may be
associated not only with the capacity
to resist social pressures to engage in negative or unacceptable
behaviors (Bamaca & Umana-
Taylor, 2006; Dielman et al., 1987) but with the confidence to
actively promote one’s own moral
beliefs and values.
Given the broad definition provided by Monin et al. (2008), it is
conceivable that a moral
rebel could be an individual who actively defends beliefs and
values that are immoral or unjust.
However, the negative relationship found between young adults’
scores on moral rebelliousness
and the tendency to engage in various minor moral violations
was predicted and suggests that
moral rebels are morally upstanding individuals who avoid
engaging in antisocial behavior as a
reflection of their own (presumably, moral and just) beliefs and
values. This emerging image of
the moral rebel is consistent with the conceptualization that
“being moral” involves the avoidance
of negative, antisocial behaviors as well as the enactment of
positive, prosocial behaviors (Trevifio
et al., 2006).
As predicted, a young adult’s tendency to be a moral rebel was
negatively related to his/her
need to belong. Although moral rebels have presumably been

aware since childhood of the poten-
tial social cost associated with “doing the right thing” when
others are not (e.g., being rejected by
peers; Thornberg, 2010), they appear unwilling to change (or
distort) their beliefs or values just
to be part of a group.
The prediction that participants’ scores on measures of moral
rebellion and conscience would
be positively related was not supported. Rather than
experiencing feelings of guilt when behaving
(or anticipating behaving) in a manner inconsistent with their
beliefs and values, individuals
scoring relatively high on moral rebelliousness may experience
feelings of pride when behaving
(or anticipating behaving) in a manner consistent with their
beliefs and values. This speculation
is supported by prior research suggesting that when individuals
“do the right thing,” feelings of
pride and self-approval often emerge (Tangney, Stuewig, &
Mashek, 2007). Clearly, additional
research is needed to examine the emotions that are experienced
by individuals who stand up for
their beliefs and values in the face of social pressure to comply.
The young adults in Study 2 reported relatively favorable
attitudes toward a morally rebel-
lious (vs. a compliant) peer, and this was especially true when
they themselves had heightened
scores on this characteristic. Consistent with the adolescent
sample in Study 1 and Monin et al.’s
(2008) “observer” participants, the present sample apparently
valued the “bravery” the moral
rebel displayed in standing up for his beliefs and values in the
face of social pressures to com-
ply, making him socially attractive (Haidt, 2000). Given that

individuals tend to respond relatively
favorably to similar others (Byrne et al., 1967; Eshel &
Kurman, 1994; Rubin et al., 1994; Sturmer
et al., 2006), the young adults in Study 2 scoring relatively high
on moral rebelliousness may
have reported especially favorable attitudes toward a brave (i.e.,
morally rebellious) peer who
was presumably perceived as similar to themselves but not a
timid and compliant peer who was
presumably perceived as dissimilar to themselves.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
As initially described by Monin et al. (2008), a moral rebel is
an individual who stands up for
his or her beliefs and values in the face of conformity pressures
not to do so. The present pair
of studies with adolescent (Study 1) and young adult (Study 2)
participants contribute to our
understanding of the assessment of moral rebelliousness, some
characteristics associated with dif-
ferences in the tendency to be a moral rebel, and individuals’
attitudes toward a morally rebellious
(vs. a compliant) peer.
The results of Study 1 suggest that adolescents, peers, and
teachers comprehend the construct
of moral rebelliousness, and they displayed an acceptable level
of agreement in their judgments of
the extent to which seventh- and eighth-grade students display
this characteristic. The acceptable

levels of interrater agreement found in assessing moral
rebelliousness in this sample add to the
literature demonstrating that adolescents, peers, and teachers
tend to agree in their assessment of
individual differences on characteristics within the moral
domain (Eisenberg et al., 1988; Greener,
2000). Moreover, with regard to the assessment of this specific
characteristic, brief self-report
measures of moral rebelliousness were found to achieve an
acceptable level of internal reliability
with both the adolescent and young adult samples.
The examination of variables potentially related to individual
differences in moral rebel-
liousness was not particularly successful with the adolescent
sample. Specifically, only three of
16 relations emerging as predicted across the four different
measures of this characteristic (i.e.,
MR-Scale, MR-Self, MR-Peer, MR-Teacher), and two of these
predicted relations (involving rel-
atively high scores on self-esteem and relatively low scores on
need to belong) emerged with
the single-item MR-Self measure. In contrast, in the follow-up
study with young adults using
the Moral Rebel Scale only, three of the four relations emerged
as predicted. Specifically, young
adults who scored relatively high on the tendency to be a moral
rebel scored higher on self-esteem,
but lower on the tendency to engage in minor moral violations
and the need to belong, than their
less morally rebellious counterparts. Contrary to prediction, no
relation was found between the
young adults’ scores on the Moral Rebel Scale and their scores
on a measure of conscience.
Although the present pattern of findings provide insight into
some of the characteristics that may

be associated with individual differences in moral
rebelliousness, additional research is needed
to determine which measure of this tendency is most valid with
younger and older samples and is
most likely to yield reliable and meaningful relations with
scores on other individual difference
variables of interest.
In addition to measuring moral rebelliousness and the variables
potentially associated with
adolescents’ and young adults’ tendencies to be a moral rebel,
the current pair of studies exam-
ined participants’ evaluations of a hypothetical morally
rebellious (vs. compliant) peer. Across
both studies, participants reported more favorable attitudes
toward the morally rebellious peer
than the compliant peer. This pattern is consistent with findings
reported for the “observer” par-
ticipants in Monin et al.’s (2008) study who appeared to value
the courage and moral strength
demonstrated by another individual who stood up for his or her
beliefs and values in the face
of pressures to comply. Going beyond Monin et al.’s findings,
the higher the adolescents and
young adults scored on moral rebelliousness themselves, the
more favorable their evaluations
of the morally rebellious peer (but not the compliant peer). The
adolescents and young adults
scoring relatively high on moral rebelliousness may have
reported especially favorable atti-
tudes toward a brave (i.e., morally rebellious) peer who was

presumably perceived as similar
to themselves, but not a timid (i.e., compliant) peer who was
presumably perceived as dis-
similar to themselves (see Byrne et al., 1967; Eshel & Kurman,
1994; Rubin et al., 1994;
Sturmer et al., 2006, for prior demonstrations of the “favorable
evaluation of similar others”
phenomenon).
Limitations and Future Directions
Although our initial inquiry into the assessment of individual
differences in moral rebelliousness
across informants was a strength of the current studies, the
measures did not provide insight
into the participants’ enactment (or avoidance) of specific
morally rebellious behaviors, and it is
unknown what behaviors contributed to the self ratings (in
Study 1 and 2) or the ratings of others
(peers and teachers in Study 1). One possible assessment
approach for future research is to have
participants (and others) describe and evaluate the situation or
situations in which participants
behaved in a morally rebellious manner. Alternatively, future
research could assess the extent to
which individuals display morally rebellious behavior in
contrived situations in which they must
choose between acquiescing to the will of others or standing up
for their values and beliefs in the
face of conformity pressure to comply.
The current pair of studies provided an initial test of our
preliminary model of two clus-
ters of characteristics and associated behaviors (i.e., moral
foundation and moral courage) that
we believe comprise moral rebelliousness. Although some

support was found for the contention
that individual difference variables selected as potential
representatives of each cluster would be
related to adolescents’ and young adults’ tendencies to be a
moral rebel, a consistent and robust
pattern of results did not emerge across both studies. Future
research should continue to test our
model and examine additional variables potentially associated
with an individual’s tendency to
be a moral rebel.
With regard to the strong, internalized moral foundation
component of moral rebelliousness,
one good candidate for inclusion in future research is the
individual’s tendency to have a well-
integrated moral identity. Previous research has demonstrated
that when morality is central to a
person’s identity or sense of self, he or she tends to experience
a heightened sense of obligation
to behave in accordance with his or her moral values and beliefs
(Colby & Damon, 1992). In a
recent relevant study, Sonnentag and McDaniel (in press) found
that a heightened level of moral
trait integration was associated with self-reported moral
rebelliousness. Thus, an individual who
displays a tendency to be a moral rebel may possess an identity
that incorporates a tightly inter-
connected set of moral values and characteristics. Two other
individual difference variables worth
examining in future research on the moral foundation
component of moral rebelliousness are sen-
sitivity to perceived injustice (Schmitt, Baumert, Gollwitzer, &
Jurgen, 2010) and prosociality
(Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Hekken, 1981).

With regard to the second component in our proposed model of
moral rebelliousness (i.e., the
various social settings), future research
could examine the relationship between individuals’ willingness
to take social risks and their ten-
dency to be a moral rebel. Because moral rebels risk being
rejected or ostracized for “doing the
right thing” under some circumstances (see results for the
“actor” condition in the Monin et al.,
2008, study), differences in the inclination to take social risks
may be associated with individ-
uals’ willingness (or reluctance) to take a principled stand when
confronted with interpersonal
pressures to comply or remain silent. In one relevant study
(Swim & Hyers, 1999), individuals
who were willing to confront a prejudiced confederate reported
less concern over risking negative
interpersonal consequences for their behavior than individuals
who failed to confront the confed-
erate. In addition to the tendency to take social risks, other
individual differences that might be
worth examining as factors reflecting the moral courage
component of moral rebelliousness are
autonomy (Arsenio & Cooperman, 1996), tendency to conform
(Goldsmith, Clark, & Lafferty,
2005), and resistance to peer pressure (Guttma n, 1981).
In addition to providing an initial test of our preliminary model
of the moral rebel, the current
pair of studies examined participants’ perceptions of a
hypothetical morally rebellious (vs. com-
pliant) peer. One limitation of this portion of the studies was

the inclusion of only one situation
in which a male agemate did (or did not) display morally
rebellious behavior. Future research
should address males’ and females’ perceptions of male and
female moral rebels in a broader
range of situations. It is possible that moral rebelliousness may
be perceived as more gender
appropriate for males than females, as “defending one’s own
beliefs” and “willingness to take a
stand” are considered traditionally masculine characteristics
(Bem, 1979). Consequently, female
moral rebels may be evaluated less favorably than their male
counterparts. Furthermore, males
may be less accepting than females of female moral rebels, as
previous research has demon-
strated that males tend to respond less favorably than femal es to
females engaging in traditionally
masculine behaviors (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins,
2004). In addition, there are many
situations in which an individual may stand up for his or her
values and beliefs in the face of con-
formity pressures to comply. Although the moral rebel scenario
used in the current pair of studies
was adapted to parallel Monin et al.’s (2008) “observer”
condition, our specific finding (i.e., the
morally rebellious peer being rated more favorably than the
compliant peer) may not generalize
to other situations. Future research should utilize various
scenarios, including more volatile and
emotionally charged situations, wherein engaging in morally
rebellious behavior may be more
controversial and not so favorably evaluated.
Finally, another direction for future research on this topic
would be to explore the antecedents
of individual differences in the tendency to be a moral rebel.

Given the importance of moral
education and the development of character (e.g., Killen &
Smetana, 2006), correlational and
(especially) longitudinal studies should be conducted to identify
the socialization factors that
promote the development of individuals who are inclined to
stand up for their values and beliefs in
the face of social pressure to comply. For example, individual
differences in moral rebelliousness
may be related to parents’ styles of communicating values and
beliefs to their children. Research
has demonstrated that children raised by authoritative parents
(who are warm, are sensitive to
the child’s needs, and provide clear standards for moral
behavior; Baumrind, 1967) are more
resistive to antisocial peer pressures (e.g., vandalism, stealing,
cheating on an examination) and
are more willing to tell their friends not to engage in these
immoral acts than children from
authoritarian or permissive homes (e.g., Steinberg, 1987).
Authoritative parents also encourage
their children to express their thoughts and feelings, and when
they and their children disagree,
they encourage their children to confidently state their point of
view in a joint decision making
process whenever possible (Berk, 2013). By supporting the
child’s desire to have his or her voice
heard in disputes within the home, the parent may bolster the
child’s moral courage to stand up
for his or her values and beliefs outside the home. Consistent
with this notion, Allen, Chango,

Szwedo, Schad, and Marston (2012) have found that adolescents
who receive considerable social
support from their mothers and are reluctant to back down
during contentious discussions with
them are especially likely to stand up for their beliefs when
faced with peer pressure to engage in
inappropriate behaviors (i.e., drinking alcohol and/or smoking
marijuana). Additional research is
clearly needed to further delineate the role that parents, role
models (Sonnentag & McDaniel, in
press), and other socializing agents play in the development of
individuals who choose to stand
up for their values and beliefs when confronted with social
pressure to conform or not challenge
the status quo.
REFERENCES
Allen, J. P., Chango, J., Szwedo, D., Schad, M., & Marston, E.
(2012). Predictors of susceptibility to peer influence
regarding substance use in adolescence. Child Development, 83,
337–350.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II. (2002). The self-importance of
moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83, 1423–1440.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusions of
other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal
closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
596–612.
Arsenio, W., & Cooperman, S. (1996). Children’s conflict-
related emotions: Implications for morality and autonomy. In
M. Killen (Ed.), Children’s autonomy, social competence, and
interactions with adults and other children: Exploring

connections and consequences (pp. 25–39). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Bamaca, M. Y., & Umana-Taylor, A. (2006). Testing a model of
resistance to peer pressure among Mexican-origin
adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 631–645.
Barnett, M. A., Sanborn, F. W., & Shane, A. C. (2005). Factors
associated with individuals’ likelihood of engaging in
various minor moral and legal violations. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 27, 77–84.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three
patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 75, 43–88.
Bem, S. L. (1979). Theory and measurement of androgyny.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1047–1054.
Berk, L. E. (2013). Child development (9th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Higher Education.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of personality
and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Bobier, D. M. (2002). A measure of susceptibility to social
influence: Scale development and validation (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses
database. (ATT AAI3058388)
Bronstein, P., Fox, B. J., Kamon, J. L., & Knolls, M. L. (2007).
Parenting and gender as predictors of moral courage in

adolescence: A longitudinal study. Sex Roles, 56, 661–674.
Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S.
Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The
developing adolescent (pp. 171–196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Brown, B. B., Eicher, S. A., & Petrie, S. (1986). The
importance of peer group (“crowd”) affiliation in adolescence.
Journal of Adolescence, 9, 73–96.
Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., & Stefaniak, D. (1967). Attraction and
similarity of personality characteristics. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 82–90.
Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A.
(2003). Sociocognitive and behavior correlates of a measure
of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 23, 107–134.
Cassidy, K. W., Werner, R. S., Rourke, M., Zubernis, L. S., &
Balaraman, G. (2003). The relationship between
psychological understanding and positive social behaviors.
Social Development, 12, 198–221.
Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary
lives of moral commitment. New York, NY: Free Press.
Crandall, V. C., Crandall, V. J., & Katkovsky, W. (1965). A
children’s social desirability questionnaire. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 29, 27–36.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social

desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
de Boer, A., van Lanschot, J., Stalmeier, P., can Sandick, J.,
Hulscher, J., de Haes, J., & Sprangers, M. (2004). Is a single-
item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as
multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality
of Life Research, 13, 311–320.
Dielman, T. E., Campanelli, P. C., Shope, J. T., & Butchart, A.
T. (1987). Susceptibility to peer pressure, self-esteem, and
health locus of control as correlates of adolescent substance
abuse. Health Education Quarterly, 14, 207–221.
Eisenberg, N., Cameron, E., Pasternack, J., & Tyron, K. (1988).
Behavioral and sociocognitive correlates of ratings of
prosocial behavior and sociometric status. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 149, 5–15.
Eshel, Y., & Kurman, J. (1994). Availability, similarity, and
gender as determinants of adolescent peer acceptance. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1944–1964.
Freud, S. (1935). A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New
York, NY: Washington Square Press.
Goldsmith, R. E., Clark, R. A., & Lafferty, B. A. (2005).
Tendency to conform: A new measure and its relationship to
psychological reactance. Psychological Reports, 96, 591–594.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and
conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.
Greener, S. H. (2000). Peer assessment of children’s prosocial
behavior. Journal of Moral Education, 29, 47–60.

Guttman, J. (1981). Various measures of moral judgment as a
function of social pressure. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 108, 165–171.
Haidt, J. (2000). The positive emotion of elevation. Prevention
and Treatment, 3, 15–32.
Harold, R., Colarossi, L., & Mercier, L. (2007). Smooth sailing
or stormy waters?: Family transitions through adolescence
and their implications for practice and policy. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hart, D., & Carlo, G. (2005). Moral development in
adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 223–233.
Hart, D., & Fegley, S. (1995). Prosocial behavior and caring in
adolescence: Relations to self-understanding and social
judgment. Child Development, 66, 1346–1359.
Haste, H., & Hogan, A. (2006). Beyond conventional civic
participation, beyond the moral-civic divide: Young people
and contemporary debates about citizenship. Journal of Moral
Education, 35, 473–493.
Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M.
(2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who
succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied
Holder, M. D., & Klassen, A. (2010). Temperament and
happiness in children. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 419–
439.
Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of moral
development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (2006). Children’s conscience and
self-regulation. Journal of Personality, 74, 1587–1617.
Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest
stage of moral judgment. Journal of Philosophy, 70,

630–646.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The
cognitive developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral
development and behavior: Theory, research and social issues
(pp. 31–53). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Laible, D., Eye, J., & Carlo, G. (2008). Dimensions of
conscience in mid-adolescence: Links with social behavior,
parenting, and temperament. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
37, 875–887.
Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness:
The social connectedness and social assurance scales.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 232–241.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me:
Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 91–103.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (2000). Outstanding role models:
Do they inspire or demoralize us? Psychological
Perspectives on Self and Identity, 15, 147–171.
Matsuba, M. K., & Walker, L. J. (2004). Extraordinary moral
commitment: Young adults involved in social organizations.
Journal of Personality, 72, 413–435.
Matsuba, M. K., & Walker, L. J. (2005). Young adult moral
exemplars: The making of self through stories. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 15, 275–297.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1990). Personality in
adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford.
McGue, M., Bacon, S., & Lykken, D. T. (1993). Personality
stability and change in early adulthood: A behavioral genetic
analysis. Developmental Psychology, 29, 96–109.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental
view. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The
rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right
thing.
Monroe, K. R. (2002). Explicating altruism. In S. G. Post, L. G.
Underwood, J. P. Schloss, & W. B. Hurlbut (Eds.),
Altruism and altruistic love: Science, philosophy, and religion
in dialogue (pp. 106–122). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Morris, A. S., Robinson, L. R., & Eisenberg, N. (2006).
Applying a multimethod perspective to the study of
developmental
psychology. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of
multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 371–384).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Mosher, D. L. (1988). The development and multitrait–
multimethod matrix analysis of three measures of three aspects
of
guilt. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 25–29.
Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic personality:
Rescuers of the Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland. New York,
NY: Free Press.

Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the
school community. Review of Educational Research, 70,
323–367.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric
popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct
dimensions
of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144.
Piliavin, J. A., Grube, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (2002). Role as a
resource for action in public service. Journal of Social
Issues, 58, 469–485.
Roberts, W., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy, emotional
expressiveness, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 67,
449–470.
Rose, A. J., & Swenson, L. P. (2009). Do perceived popular
adolescents who aggress against others experience emotional
adjustment problems themselves? Developmental Psychology,
45, 868–872.
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer
interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg,
W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development
(pp. 571–645). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Rubin, K. H., Lynch, D., Coplan, R. J., Rose-Krasnor, L., &
Booth, C. L. (1994). “Birds of a feather. . . ”: Behavioral
concordances and preferential personal attraction in children.
Child Development, 65, 1778–1785.

Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Hekken, G. C. (1981). The
altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale.
Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293–302.
Rutter, M., Graham, P., Chadwick, O., & Uhle, W. (1976).
Adolescent turmoil: Fact or fiction? Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 77, 35–56.
Schmitt, M., Baumert, A., Gollwitzer, M., & Jurgen, M. (2010).
The justice sensitivity inventory: Factorial valid-
ity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern,
and normative data. Social Justice Research, 23,
211–238.
Smith, C. (2003). Theorizing religious effects among American
adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
42, 17–30.
Sonnentag, T. L., & McDaniel, B. L. (in press). Doing the right
thing in the face of social pressure: Moral rebels and their
role models have heightened levels of moral trait integration.
Self and Identity.
Steinberg, L. (1987). Single parents, stepparents, and the
susceptibility of adolescents to antisocial peer pressure. Child
Development, 58, 269–275.
Sturmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006).
Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group
membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7,
943–956.
Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—what did you
just say?!: Women’s public and private responses to sexist
remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68 –

88.
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. (2007). Moral
emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology,
58,
345–372.
Thornberg, R. (2010). A student in distress: Moral frames and
bystander behavior in school. The Elementary School
Journal, 110, 585–608.
Trevifio, L. T., Weaver, G., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006).
Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of
Management, 32, 951–990.
Walker, L. J., & Frimer, J. A. (2007). Moral personality of
brave and caring exemplars. Journal of Personality and Social
APPENDIX
Audiotaped Scenarios Presented to Participants in Study 1:
Morally Rebellious Peer versus
Compliant Peer Conditions
Introduction of Scenario: Presented to All Participants
Recently, the school board has been debating implementing a
community service requirement in
order for middle school students to advance to high school. This
requirement would force every
student in middle school to complete 30 hours of approved

service within the community before
he or she can enter the ninth grade. Opportunities could include
helping at a local animal shelter,
tutoring younger children, cleaning the streets and city parks,
fund-raising, or similar activities.
Many teachers and parents are in support of making community
service a mandatory component
of middle school education and because this is a new topic of
debate, the school board is currently
seeking feedback.
Mr. Thomas, an eighth-grade English teacher, is strongly in
favor of implementing this com-
munity service requirement and wants to encourage the school
board to reach this decision.
Consequently, Mr. Thomas decided to create an assignment in
which his students would use
their persuasive writing skills to argue in favor of implementing
the requirement.
Approximately one month prior to the school board meeting,
Mr. Thomas explained to his
students his belief that enforcing a mandatory community
service requirement would encourage
students to learn the value of helping and develop an
appreciation for community service. He
argued that the requirement would build character in students
while helping the community. Mr.
Thomas then announced that in order to help the school board
make the right decision, every
class member would be required to write a persuasive paragraph
in favor of the mandatory com-
munity service requirement. These essays would be worth 10
points in the class and would also
be forwarded to the school board to aid in their decision.

After explaining the details of the assignment, Mr. Thomas
repeated that this was a required
assignment and that each student’s essay should argue for the
benefits of implementing the com-
munity service requirement. A few students began to whisper
and grumble, but soon turned their
attention to writing the essay. Mr. Thomas then allowed the
students to use the remainder of the
class period to write their persuasive arguments.
Conclusion of Scenario: Presented to Participants in the Morally
Rebellious Peer
Condition
Chris, one of the eighth-grade boys in the class, was frustrated
with the fact he was being required
to write an essay that expressed a view with which he did not
totally agree. Chris believed that
volunteering is a respectable and beneficial activity, but forcing
someone to volunteer does not
promote the same lessons that one would learn if a person were
to volunteer freely. After sitting
for a few minutes, Chris decided that he was not going to
comply with Mr. Thomas’s instructions
to write the essay because doing so would go against his beliefs
and values. Instead, Chris wrote
the following paragraph and turned it in to Mr. Thomas:
So I know I am supposed to write an essay saying that we
should require all middle school students
to volunteer at least 30 hours before they can enter high school,

right? Well you know what? I don’t
think I am going to do that. I know I was told to do it and I am
a student in this class, but I am still
free to stand up for what I believe is correct, right? And I am
not going to do something that I am
not 100% comfortable doing, like writing an essay in favor of
forcing someone to volunteer. I do not
believe making community service mandatory promotes the
same morals and values that someone
would learn if he or she volunteered without being required to
do so. So I am not going to write an
essay in favor of implementing this requirement just because I
am told to write it. There you have
it—my official refusal, in writing and all. I don’t care about the
consequences or whatever, I would
rather not do something I have a problem with.
Conclusion of Scenario: Presented to Participants in the
Compliant Peer Condition
Chris, one of the eighth-grade boys in the class, was frustrated
with the fact that he was being
required to write an essay that expressed a view with which he
did not totally agree. Chris believed
that volunteering is a respectable and beneficial activity, but
forcing someone to volunteer does
not promote the same lessons that one would learn if a person
were to volunteer freely. For a
few minutes, Chris considered not completing the assignment
because it went against his beliefs
concerning a mandatory community service requirement for
eighth-grade students. However, he
eventually decided to do what Mr. Thomas asked because it was
a graded class assignment and all
of the other students were already working on their essays.
Chris wrote the following paragraph

and turned it in to Mr. Thomas:
A mandatory community service requirement should be
implemented that requires all middle school
students to volunteer at least 30 hours before they can enter
high school. By having a mandatory com-
munity service requirement, students could learn the value of
helping and appreciate the community
more. In addition, volunteering is good for the community
because it promotes the helping of other
people. If people volunteer, we all benefit from a cleaner, more
cooperative community. Further, mid-
dle school students have a lot of time, energy, and skills that
could be used in positive ways to assist
the community. These are a few reasons why a mandatory
community service requirement should be
implemented for middle school students to graduate to high
school.
Copyright of Ethics & Behavior is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 23(3), 214–236
Copyright © 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online
DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2012.739943
An Exploration of Moral Rebelliousness with Adolescents
and Young Adults
Tammy L. Sonnentag and Mark A. Barnett
Department of Psychology
Kansas State University
The present pair of studies investigated the assessment,
correlates, and evaluation of “moral rebels”
who follow their own moral convictions despite social pressure
to comply. In Study 1, self, peer,
and teacher ratings of adolescents’ tendencies to be a moral
rebel were positively intercorrelated.
In Study 2, young adults’ tendencies to be a moral rebel were
associated with relatively high
self-esteem scores and relatively low willingness to engage in
minor moral violations and need to
belong scores. Both adolescents and young adults reported
relatively favorable attitudes toward a
morally rebellious peer, especially when they themselves had
heightened ratings on this characteristic.
Keywords: moral behavior, moral rebel, prosocial behavior
Many researchers have strived to identify individuals who
engage in exemplary moral behav-
iors that exceed mainstream expectations. Examples of
individuals who have been identified as
engaging in such exceptional moral behavior include influential
social activists (Colby & Damon,

1992; Haste & Hogan, 2006); volunteers (Hart & Fegley, 1995;
Matsuba & Walker, 2004, 2005);
humanitarians, heroes, and altruistic individuals (Monroe, 2002;
Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Walker
& Frimer, 2007); moral role models (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997,
2000); and religious leaders
(Smith, 2003). The present study sought to expand on these
literatures by examining a specific
type of moral exemplar, the moral rebel.
Monin, Sawyer, and Marquez (2008) applied the term moral
rebel to individuals “who take a
principled stand against the status quo, who refuse to comply,
stay silent, or simply go along when
this would require that they compromise their values” (pp. 76–
77). Although Monin et al.’s label
is unique, individuals with characteristics similar to the moral
rebel have been studied in various
domains. For example, within Industrial/Organizational
Psychology, the prosocial behavior of
principled organizational dissent refers to the behaviors of
employees, such as whistle-blowers,
who challenge organizational policies because these policies
violate a personal standard of fair-
ness or honesty (Piliavin, Grube, & Callero, 2002). Within the
social psychological literature,
morally rebellious behavior may be attributed to the one third of
participants in Milgram’s (1974)
classic obedience study who refused to acquiesce to the
experimenter’s firm instructions to elec-
trically shock a “poor learner” to full strength. Further, within
developmental psychology, the
Correspondence should be addressed to Tammy L. Sonnentag,
Kansas State University, Department of Psychology,
Bluemont Hall, 1100 Mid-Campus Drive, Manhattan, KS 66506.

E-mail: [email protected]
idea of the moral rebel is nicely illustrated in Stage 6,
individual principles and conscience, of
Kohlberg’s (1973, 1976) model of moral development. In this
infrequently attained stage of moral
reasoning, the postconventional moral perspective of an
individual is grounded in his or her inter-
nalized beliefs of right and wrong. An individual who reasons
from the perspective of this stage
believes that moral action should be guided by what his or her
conscience determines to be proper,
not by what is expected, desired by others, or previously agreed
upon.
Although some individuals have been found to engage in
morally rebellious thoughts and
behaviors, few studies have focused specifically on identifying
the characteristics of individu-
als, especially relatively young individuals, who choose to
follow their own moral convictions
despite considerable social pressures not to do so. In an attempt
to gain knowledge about the
moral rebel, the purposes of the present pair of studies
involving adolescents (Study 1) and young
adults (Study 2) were to (a) assess participants’ tendencies to be
a moral rebel, (b) examine some
characteristics potentially associated with participants’
tendencies to be a moral rebel, and (c)
examine participants’ evaluations of a morally rebellious (vs. a
compliant) peer.

STUDY 1
Overview
In Study 1, an adolescent’s tendency to be a moral rebel was
assessed by self, peer (i.e.,
sociometric), and teacher ratings. Of particular interest was the
extent to which these different
raters agree in their assessments. In addition, four individual
difference variables potentially asso-
ciated with an adolescent’s tendency to be a moral rebel (i.e.,
conscience, reluctance to engage in
minor moral violations, self-esteem, need to belong) were
measured. Finally, Study 1 examined
adolescents’ evaluations of a morally rebellious (vs. a
compliant) peer and the extent to which
those evaluations are influenced by their own tendencies to be a
moral rebel (as assessed by self,
peers, and teachers).
Using Self, Peer, and Teacher Ratings in the Moral Domain
In their pursuit of the moral individual, psychologists have
called for the use of multi-
method approaches to measure individuals’ characteristics and
behaviors (Morris, Robinson, &
Eisenberg, 2006). Common methods used for assessing
individual differences in adolescents’
tendencies to display moral characteristics and behaviors
include self-report measures as well as
peer and teacher ratings.
Self-report measures have frequently been used to assess
individuals’ characteristics and
behaviors in the moral domain (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Laible,
Eye, & Carlo, 2008; Morris et al.,

2006) because each person has unique insight into his or her
own moral thoughts and behav-
iors that may be difficult for others to observe. Among
adolescents, self-reported moral identity
has been found to be associated with level of donation to needy
others (Aquino & Reed, 2002),
and self-reported measures of generosity and helpfulness have
been found to be associated with
observations of generous and helpful behaviors toward peers in
various school settings (Carlo,
Hausmann, Christiansen, & Randall, 2003).
Another popular approach for acquiring information about an
adolescent’s moral character-
istics and behaviors is to ask those who are likely to observe the
adolescent on a regular basis,
such as peers and teachers. Previous research has found that
peer ratings (e.g., Cassidy, Werner,
Rourke, Zubernis, & Balaraman, 2003) and teacher ratings (e.g.,
Roberts & Strayer, 1996) are
positively associated with independent observations of
adolescents’ tendencies to engage in
various forms of prosocial behavior.
In addition to establishing a relation between self, peer, and
teacher ratings and observations
of adolescents’ behaviors in the moral domain, previous
research has examined the degree of
concordance among these raters. In one study, for example,
Greener (2000) initially had adoles-
cents generate a list of normative prosocial behaviors that were
subsequently used to describe the

construct of prosocial behavior in peer and teacher ratings. In
addition, the adolescents completed
a self-report measure of their own interpersonal behaviors.
Results revealed that self, peer, and
teacher ratings of prosocial behaviors were positively correlated
with one another.
These and other studies (e.g., Eisenberg, Cameron, Pasternack,
& Tyron, 1988) indicate that
self, peer, and teacher ratings may (a) be useful in examining
individual differences among
adolescents on variables within the moral domain and (b) yield
acceptable levels of interrater
agreement. Study 1 used two self-report measures of an
adolescent’s tendency to be a moral rebel
as well as peer and teacher ratings of this tendency (see Method
section for a complete descrip-
tion of these measures). The relations among the self, peer, and
teacher ratings of adolescents’
tendencies to be a moral rebel were predicted to be positive and
significant.
Characteristics Potentially Associated with an Adolescent’s
Tendency to be a Moral
Rebel
In addition to assessing adolescents’ tendencies to be a moral
rebel, another purpose of Study
1 was to examine some characteristics potentially associated
with adolescents’ tendencies to be
a moral rebel. To aid in selecting these potential correlates, we
describe a preliminary model of
moral rebelliousness. Recall, that a moral rebel is someone who
takes a principled stand despite
considerable social pressures not to do so. Given this definition,
we propose that the tendency

to be a moral rebel incorporates two clusters of characteristics
and associated behaviors. First,
the tendency to be a moral rebel is proposed to involve
characteristics and related behaviors that
reflect a strong, internalized moral foundation (for a discussion
of this construct, see Graham,
Haidt, & Nosek 2009). Second, we propose that the tendency to
be a moral rebel involves the
various social settings (for a discussion
of this construct, see Bronstein, Fox, Kamon, & Knolls, 2007).
As a preliminary test of this
proposed model, we selected two individual difference variables
from each cluster to examine
their relationships with adolescents’ tendencies to be a moral
rebel (as assessed by self, peer, and
teacher ratings).
Characteristics and Behaviors That Reflect a Strong,
Internalized Moral Foundation
In our assessment of the moral foundation of individuals’
tendencies to be a moral rebel,
we measured adolescents’ conscience and their reluctance to
engage in minor moral violations.
We propose that adolescents who have heightened tendencies to
be a moral rebel will strive to
avoid feelings of guilt by engaging in behaviors believed to be
moral and inhibiting behaviors
believed to be immoral. The specific rationale for the inclusion
of measures of conscience and

the reluctance to engage in minor moral violations as indices of
the moral foundation of moral
rebelliousness are elaborated next.
Conscience. The study of conscience has a long history in moral
psychology beginning
with the seminal writings of Freud (1935) on the concept of the
superego. Freud’s observa-
tions laid the groundwork for empirical inquiry into the
development of individuals’ internalized
standards of how they should behave (e.g., Kochanska & Aksan,
2006). The development of
the conscience is viewed as a critical factor in motivating the
individual to engage in behavior
believed to be moral and inhibit behavior believed to be
immoral (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Hart
& Carlo, 2005; Matsuba & Walker, 2005). In essence, it is
theorized that individuals learn to
behave in a manner consistent with their internalized beliefs and
values to avoid feelings of guilt
emanating from the conscience (or superego). In a similar vein,
Kohlberg (1973, 1976) posited
that moral judgments and principles motivate moral action. He
postulated that as moral reasoning
develops, individuals become more inclined to internalize
values and beliefs and to use moral
principles to make decisions about how they and others should
act.
An adolescent whose behavior is regulated by his or her
internalized standards of right and
wrong would be inclined to act in accordance with those
standards in situations in which those
values and beliefs are or are not threatened. Consequently, it
was predicted that the more ado-
lescents report a guilty conscience when they behave (or

anticipate behaving) in a manner
inconsistent with their moral values and beliefs, the higher their
ratings will be on the tendency
to be a moral rebel.
Reluctance to engage in minor moral violations. An individual
could, potentially, have
internalized immoral values and beliefs that he or she defends
and acts upon in the face of social
pressure. In the current conceptualization of the moral rebel,
however, the term moral applies
to a wide range of behaviors that are consistent with accepted
norms of appropriate conduct
(Trevifio, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006). In our culture, these
norms typically reflect the enactment
of positive and prosocial behaviors (e.g., helping, sharing) and
the avoidance of negative and
antisocial behaviors (e.g., lying, stealing). If a moral rebel
accepts and internalizes these positive
norms of moral behavior, then he or she would tend to behave in
a manner consistent with these
norms. Therefore, it was predicted that adolescents with
heightened tendencies to behave like a
moral rebel would be relatively unlikely to engage in various
minor moral violations.
Characteristics That Provide Moral Courage in Social Settings
In our preliminary investigation of the characteristics
potentially providing the moral courage
to stand up for one’s values and beliefs in a social setting, we
measured adolescents’ self-esteem
and need to belong. We hypothesized that an adolescent’s
tendency to be a moral rebel would be
associated with relatively high scores on a self-esteem measure
but relatively low scores on a need

to belong measure. Possessing relatively high self-esteem and
relatively low need to belong may
provide adolescents with the moral courage to engage in
positive behaviors and avoid engaging
in negative behaviors when there is social pressure to do
otherwise. The specific rationales for the
inclusion of relatively high self-esteem and relatively low need
to belong as potential contributors
to adolescents’ moral courage to stand up for their moral values
and beliefs in social settings are
elaborated next.
Self-esteem. High self-esteem is broadly defined as having a
favorable attitude toward the
self (Rosenberg, 1989) and as having confidence in one’s own
abilities and beliefs (Blascovich
& Tomaka, 1991). Research has demonstrated that adolescents
with high self-esteem are more
likely to resist peer pressure to engage in inappropriate
behaviors than adolescents with low
self-esteem (Bamaca & Umana-Taylor, 2006; Dielman,
Campanelli, Shope, & Butchart, 1987).
In essence, adolescents with a relatively high level of self-
esteem may have more confidence
than their lower self-esteem counterparts to adhere to their own
beliefs and values and to resist
conformity pressures to behave otherwise. Therefore, it was
predicted that the higher adolescents’
level of self-esteem, the higher their ratings will be on the

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 23(3), 214–236Copyright © 2013 Taylor &

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 23(3), 214–236Copyright © 2013 Taylor &

Similar to ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 23(3), 214–236Copyright © 2013 Taylor & (20)

More from BetseyCalderon89

More from BetseyCalderon89 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 23(3), 214–236Copyright © 2013 Taylor &