462842

12
NMS15610.1177/1461444812462842new media & societyFlores and James

Article

new media & society

Morality and ethics behind 15(6) 834­–852

© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
the screen: Young people’s sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461444812462842
perspectives on digital life nms.sagepub.com

Andrea Flores
Brown University, USA

Carrie James
Harvard University, USA

Abstract
While emerging research illuminates how youth engage with digital media, relatively
little attention has been given to moral and ethical issues. Drawing on interviews with
61 teens and young adults, we explored the extent to which youth’s approaches to
online life include moral or ethical considerations. We report the prevalence of three
ways of thinking about use of social networks, massive multiplayer games, Wikipedia,
and downloading. We found that individualistic thinking (focusing on consequences
for oneself) dominated participants’ thinking; moral thinking (considering known
others) was somewhat prevalent; and ethical thinking (acknowledging unknown others
and communities) was least prevalent. We explore the targets and triggers of these
approaches to online life, discuss ethical lapses observed, and consider theoretical and
practical implications.

Keywords
Adolescence, digital media, emerging adults, ethics, internet, morality, qualitative
interviews

Everyone in my class was doing a project… using Wikipedia, so we thought it’d be funny if we
[posted], ‘This person is from Fairville, Massachusetts and owned Kentucky Fried Chicken’.
Something stupid like that… And we did it a minute before everyone else turned on their
computers. And my friends turned it on, read the first few lines and [said], ‘What? This is not

Corresponding author:
Carrie James, Harvard Project Zero, Harvard University, 20 University Road, 6th Floor, Cambridge, MA
02138, USA.
Email: carrie_james@harvard.edu

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

Flores and James 835

right at all’... HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING TRUE TO IT?
Not really. I don’t really know about this stuff. (Drew, age 17)

HOW DID YOU BECOME INTERESTED IN EDITING WIKIPEDIA? I don’t know. If I see
something that’s wrong, I’ll say, ‘Oh, someone might get the wrong information’, and I’ll fix
it… because, I think, ‘[What] if it was me?’ So, if someone comes on this page looking for
information and there’s wrong information, how are they going to feel? That might affect them
in a bad way. And same thing, if I go to a page looking for information and there’s incorrect
information, I’ll be affected in a negative way. So, I kind of think of paying it forward. (Trey,
age 15)

New media – including sites like Wikipedia, Facebook, and YouTube – are integral to
young people’s lives today. Accordingly, questions are raised about the positive and neg-
ative impacts for cognitive and social development, learning, and civic engagement.
Recent research examines these questions and the general contours of youth’s digital
lives (Ito et al., 2009; Palfrey and Gasser, 2008; Turkle, 2011). Another important area of
inquiry – not sufficiently addressed by current research – involves the relationship
between new media and moral and ethical sensibilities.
Indeed, the opening quotes from Drew and Trey about their uses of Wikipedia suggest
different ways of thinking about ethics online. Specifically, they suggest different levels
of awareness and concern for effects of their choices on others. Drew’s conduct suggests
a lack of consideration for the potential negative effects of posting misinformation on a
widely used online encyclopedia. By contrast, Trey’s participation is motivated by a
sense of responsibility to a broad public. While stories of young people’s misdeeds and,
less frequently, their positive conduct receive media attention, little information exists
about the ways of thinking behind the conduct of youth like Drew and Trey.
In this paper, we explore the ways of thinking that guide young people’s uses of new
media. Drawing on qualitative interviews, we explore how teens and young adults
(hereafter, referred to as ‘young people’ or ‘youth’, for ease of reference) think about
their participation in social networks, blogs, content sharing sites, and online games.
We describe the extent and consistency with which their thinking involves individual-
istic, moral, and ethical considerations, and the situations that trigger these ways of
thinking. We also note the prevalence of amoral and unethical attitudes toward online
situations.

Background
Moral and ethical development
A long-standing subject of study in psychology (Kohlberg, 1981, 1984; Piaget, 1965;
Selman, 1975; Turiel, 1983), moral development theory is an appropriate starting point
for considering young people’s approaches to online life. Kohlberg’s stage theory (1981,
1984) describes an evolution of moral thinking from the self (stages 1–2), to known oth-
ers (stage 3), to society (stage 4), and toward the establishment of abstract principles,
such as justice (stages 5–6, rarely achieved). Most relevant to our focus is Kohlberg’s
suggestion that teens and ‘emerging adults’ (Arnett, 2004) should have the capacity to be

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

836 new media & society 15(6)

attentive to moral concerns in their interactions with others and to appreciate the impor-
tance of ‘good’ behavior to a functioning society.
Even if teens and young adults have the capacity to think morally and ethically,
they need to recognize situations as moral or ethical in nature – as raising issues of
justice, rights, and others’ welfare – as opposed to interpreting situations as simply
matters of personal preference or social convention (Nucci, 1996; Nucci and Lee,
1993; Turiel, 1983). Relatedly, ‘moral sensitivity’ or ‘the awareness of how our
actions affect other people’ (Bebeau et al., 1999: 22) is observed to be as important as
the capacity to reason and make judgments. Furthermore, even when a young person
recognizes a given situation as moral, she may not act accordingly, and vice versa;
moral thinking does not always coincide with moral conduct (Colby and Damon,
1992). The literature suggests that moral development occurs not simply through
adults teaching moral principles, but by young people confronting problems in the
world, making sense of them, and making choices (Damon, 1988; Kohlberg, 1981,
1984; Piaget, 1965; Turiel, 1983). Recent studies about offline conduct suggest that
amoral conduct – lying, cheating, and bullying – are widespread among young people
(Fischman et al., 2004; Josephson Institute, 2010) and that youth have a weak sense
of what constitutes a moral dilemma (Smith, 2011). Online spaces are crucial for
study, given that they provide new contexts, opportunities, and challenges for moral
development (Bradley, 2005; Willard, 2007).

Qualities of digital life

While all tools affect people’s thoughts, intellectual technologies (e.g., the clock, the
book, the internet) ‘have the greatest and most lasting power over… how we think’ (Carr,
2010: 45). Certain qualities of digital technologies differentiate them from prior media
and accordingly may have unanticipated moral and ethical implications. In providing
young people with new spaces for identity experimentation that are unmediated by
adults, Bradley (2005) argues that the internet can produce the ‘disequilibrium‘ required
for moral development. At the same time, constant connectivity may thwart the development
of an autonomous self (Turkle, 2011), an important ingredient of moral develop-
ment (Piaget, 1965). Moreover, digital media can destabilize relationships with others in
two ways: (1) if connected continuously to others, a total convergence between self and
other; or (2) a total ‘othering’, a drastic distancing of one’s actions from their effects on
others (Lanier, 2010; Silverstone, 2006; Willard, 2007). Related to this is the quality of
‘invisibility’, or the fact that one cannot see others online, which may have a ‘disinhibi-
tion’ effect (Suler, 2004). The persistence, replicability, searchability, and scalability of
content posted online (boyd, 2007, 2010) are further concerns that raise ethical chal-
lenges (James et al., 2009; Jenkins et al., 2009; Shirky, 2008).
Despite rampant speculation, the effects of new media on moral and ethical disposi-
tions have been little studied; however, emerging research suggests mixed effects. A
2001 study of how children ages 7–12 react to moral dilemmas suggested that context
(offline versus computer-based) affected moral reasoning (Burnam and Kafai, 2001).
More specifically, older children conveyed more ambivalence and confusion about
whether computer-based scenarios were moral in nature. A study of youth in middle

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

Flores and James 837

school, high school, and college found greater acceptance of unethical conduct with digi-
tal technologies than in offline contexts (Poole, 2007). Some research suggests that
tweens are more likely to engage in plagiarism online than to copy from physical books
(Ma et al., 2007). Other studies reveal similar attitudes about software piracy and illegal
downloading (Business Software Alliance, 2004; Palfrey and Gasser, 2008). Video game
studies suggest that some people perceive games as ‘magic circles’ where morality and
ethics are suspended (Castronova, 2005), while others see games, especially massive
multiplayer games, as communities (Powers, 2003). Finally, teen interactions on social
networks are reported to be ‘mostly kind’ but a majority of teens have witnessed cruelty
online (Lenhart et al., 2011).
These studies suggest the need for further understanding of how young people think
about online choices and the circumstances where moral and ethical thinking is present
or absent. Our research explores young people’s moral and ethical dispositions by study-
ing their approaches to online self-expression, privacy, trust, appropriation of content,
cheating in games, and speech (James et al., 2009). This paper focuses on the ways of
thinking adopted across such topics.

Studying ‘the good’ online: Distinguishing three ways of thinking

The current study was informed by a conceptual framework that distinguishes among
individualistic, moral, and ethical ‘ways of thinking’. We explore the extent to which
young people employ approaches to online life that are principally focused on the self
versus obligations to known others and recognition of larger contexts. Our framework
is influenced by Kohlberg’s moral development theory; however, we depart from
Kohlberg in that our main focus – and basis for distinguishing among the different
approaches – is the target of thinking. In other words, we wish to understand who the
primary target of thinking is when youth consider the potential impacts of their
actions. We acknowledge the importance of other components of morality, such as
judgment and identity (Bebeau et al., 1999); however, we focus on the target of think-
ing because the aforementioned qualities of digital technologies may obscure impacts
on others.
Reminiscent of Kohlberg’s pre-conventional stages, we define individualistic or
‘consequence thinking’ as marked by a primary focus on gaining rewards or avoiding
negative consequences for the self. Online decisions guided by consequence thinking
alone may produce unintended negative consequences for others. On the other hand,
consequence thinking is important when making certain decisions online, such as
when choosing privacy settings.
While consequence thinking focuses on the self, moral and ethical thinking involve
considering the potential effects of one’s actions on others. The distinction we make
between moral and ethical thinking is derived from, and mirrors, Gardner’s distinction
(2011) between ‘neighborhood morality’ (how one treats known others) and ‘the ethics
of roles’ (how one conducts oneself in formal, public spheres of school, work, and
society). Similarly, Rest et al. (2000) speak of ‘micro-morality’, which pertains to
face-to-face interactions, and ‘macro-morality’, which centers on interactions with
non-intimates and in larger communities and societal institutions.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

838 new media & society 15(6)

These distinctions are particularly apt for the internet where young people operate
both in smaller communities of interpersonal relations and in large networked publics.
Online, teens and young adults most often interact with known others – their Facebook
‘friends’ are usually their offline friends (boyd, 2008). However, they also interact
with, and sometimes forge relationships with, online-only contacts, for example partici-
pants in multiplayer games or fan fiction communities (Ito et al., 2009). As noted, certain
qualities of the internet can affect offline and online relations positively or negatively.
Self-disclosure can facilitate intimacy; yet sensitive chat conversations shared with unin-
tended audiences can harm disclosers. Therefore, what we call ‘moral thinking’ includes:
(1) awareness that one’s actions affect known others; (2) a capacity for empathy; and (3)
adherence to principles such as fairness, justice, and mutual respect in relation to known
others. These elements align with Gardner’s ‘respectful mind’ (2006), Kohlberg’s con-
ventional stage 3, Gilligan’s ‘ethics of care’ (1982), and Noddings’ concern with empa-
thy (1984).
Yet the networked, public nature of the internet requires a capacity for thinking more
abstractly, about the effects of one’s actions on unknown others and at the level of the
community. What we call ‘ethical thinking’ involves a sense of responsibility for a wider
set of participants, aligning with Kohlberg’s conventional stage 4, advanced cognitive
capacities (Alexander and Langer, 1990; Fischer and Bidell, 1998), societal perspective-
taking (Selman, 1975), and the ‘ethical mind’ (Gardner, 2006, 2011). In our framework,
ethical thinking is akin to ‘systems thinking’ and includes: (1) community thinking, or
awareness of potential effects of online actions for larger entities; (2) reflection on one’s
roles and responsibilities in online and offline communities; and (3) complex perspec-
tive-taking, or considering multiple stakeholders implicated in online actions.
These conceptual distinctions – among consequence, moral, and ethical thinking –
informed our study. Our research questions are: How and when do young people think in
primarily individualistic, moral, and ethical terms about their online participation? To
what extent are they consistent in their approaches? How prevalent are amoral or unethi-
cal approaches?

Method
We explored these questions through qualitative interviews with 61 young people aged
15–25 (mean age, 20) who frequently engage in one or more of the following activi-
ties: blogging; social networking (e.g., Facebook); gaming (e.g., massive multiplayer
games, virtual worlds); content creation (e.g., production and online sharing of video,
art, or other content); participation in online forums or knowledge communities (e.g.,
Wikipedia).

Participants
We recruited participants from three public high schools and six colleges, including pri-
vate and public institutions, and through social networks and email listservs at work sites
in the Greater Boston area. The resulting sample was diverse with respect to gender, race,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Our overall sample included 32 females and 29

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

Flores and James 839

males; 34 were White, eight African American, eight Asian American, seven Latino, one
Native American, and three ‘Other’. With respect to primary online activity, the sample
included 26 social network users, 14 gamers, 13 bloggers, and eight content creators.
Most of our participants engaged in multiple online activities but, for the purposes of
each interview, one activity was chosen as a focal point.

Procedure
Study participants completed a brief survey of online activities and participated in two
interviews; on average, each interview lasted 60 minutes and six days transpired
between interviews. Interview one focused on participants’ online experiences and
perceptions. Interview two involved hypothetical dilemmas about online situations; in
some cases, interviewers asked participants to elaborate on any unclear responses to
questions raised in interview one.
The findings reported here are based on analysis of interview one transcripts. In this inter-
view, we asked participants about their histories of digital media use, including how they
began using social networks, online games, blogs, etc.; their choices about self-presentation
in different online contexts; and how they manage privacy issues and make choices about
accessing online content. We probed for their perceptions of what is appropriate or inap-
propriate in various contexts, as well as their views of the risks and benefits of online life.
Related to this, we asked participants to tell us about any online situations that ‘troubled’ them
and probed their responses to such situations (see Selected Interview Questions, Appendix 1).
We aimed to be as value-neutral as possible in the wording of our questions.

Data analysis
All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. We developed a coding scheme com-
prised of ‘etic’ codes, or codes derived from our initial research questions and conceptual
framework of ways of thinking. We also included ‘emic’ codes, or codes based on themes
that emerged directly from the stories and perspectives shared by our participants (Glaser
and Strauss, 1967; Miles and Huberman, 1994). For example, participants’ emotional invest-
ment in their online activities surfaced as an important theme and thus became a basis for a
code. A four-person team obtained reliability by coding several transcripts for all codes,
comparing coding, and resolving disagreements through discussion and refinement of code
definitions. We entered final coding into NVivo, a qualitative software program. A shadow
coder reviewed selected transcripts to ensure that reliability was maintained.
In this paper, we report results from coding focused on the presence or absence of
consequence, moral, and ethical thinking; and targets and triggers of these approaches.
Where interview participants mentioned more than one target or trigger of thinking,
instances were coded with each target or trigger mentioned.

Results
Findings regarding the prevalence of all three approaches are reported in Table 1. It is
important to note that consequence thinking, moral thinking, and at least one form of

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

840 new media & society 15(6)

Table 1.  Average number of instances, all thinking types and subtypes (n=61).
  Consequence Moral thinking* Ethical thinking Absence
thinking of ethical
Explicit Person- Moral Community- Roles and Complex or moral
standards centered perspective- level thinking responsibilities perspective- thinking
thinking thinking taking thinking taking  
Total 9 4 3 1 4 2 .5 4

ethical thinking appeared in nearly every interview; however, the frequency and consist-
ency with which these approaches appeared varied tremendously.

Ways of thinking: Consequence thinking

The most frequent way of thinking about online life was consequence thinking. As
described above, consequence thinking is individualistic; it is focused on potential con-
sequences to the self and involves little or no consideration of others. At least two
instances of consequence thinking were found among every participant. On average,
participants exhibited consequence thinking nine times over the course of an interview;
the range was 2–18 references (see Table 1). Jared, age 23, exemplifies this approach in
his comments about music downloading: ‘You are always aware of what [downloading]
sites you go to, and [think], “I hope this doesn’t get me in trouble”. When Jared downloads
illegally, he thinks about potential punishments from legal authorities, game administrators,
or school figures. Moreover, his decision to download illegally despite these threats
suggests an emphasis on personal gain (e.g., access to music).

Targets of consequence thinking.  The most frequent targets of consequence thinking were,
by definition, the young people themselves; 75% of all consequence thinking instances
pointed to the self only. A quarter of interviewees referred to other people as well –
including known and unknown others. When others were mentioned, the primary
concern for the self was apparent; for instance, a teen expressed concern that a friend
‘hurt’ by her online comments will be angry at her.

Triggers of consequence thinking.  Certain topics appeared to be particular triggers for con-
sequence thinking. Of consequence thinking instances, 42% were in relation to online
privacy, including decisions about disclosure of identifiable information, posting habits,
and settings on social networks. For example, athletes spoke about not posting photos
containing questionable content such as alcohol use for fear of sanctions from coaches or
school administrators. The second most frequent trigger, covering 24% of cases, was con-
cern for one’s reputation. For example, Rosa, an 18-year-old high school student, reflected
this concern when she described decision-making about her content on Facebook: ‘I don’t
want to have nude pictures and people be like, “Okay, what is she? What type of person is
she, posting up these types of pictures?” So it really is important to me’.
The third most frequent trigger, referenced in 21% of all instances, was illegal down-
loading. Nearly all participants reported engaging in illegal downloading in the past or

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

Flores and James 841

present. As indicated by Jared’s comment, concerns focused on punitive consequences.

However, the rewards of downloading coupled with awareness of uneven violation
enforcement contributed to most participants engaging in piracy. Devon, age 19, said, ‘I
know what I’m doing is wrong, but until there are some more strict laws, I just don’t
really think about it’.
Other triggers of consequence thinking include decisions not to cheat in online games
(11% of references) and not to plagiarize (4%). The thwarting effect in such instances
suggests that consequence thinking can be a valuable tool that protects youth from harm-
ing their reputations in multiplayer games or other consequences.

Moral thinking
The second most frequent thinking type was moral thinking. This approach focuses on a
circumscribed set of known individuals, such as friends, acquaintances, family members,
authority figures, and fellow bloggers or gamers. All participants exhibited at least one
instance of moral thinking. On average, participants used moral thinking seven times in
their interviews, within a range of 1–17 references. We coded for three dimensions of
moral thinking when participants thought about known others: (1) person-centered think-
ing (evident in 40% of instances); (2) moral perspective-taking (13%); and (3) principled
thinking (48%).
In person-centered moral thinking, participants acknowledge that their actions may
affect others. When deciding about posting on her friends’ Facebook walls, Alexis, age
18, considered the potential emotional effects on them: ‘I don’t want to say something
that would probably make them uncomfortable’. While person-centered thinking is a
basic acknowledgement that one’s actions can affect others, moral perspective-taking
involves taking the perspective of another person. For example, while Alexis acknowl-
edged the potential for a bad reaction, Madeline, age 21, placed herself in the shoes of a
recipient of a negative comment: ‘I haven’t had any negative comments…but, things that
I’ve seen that are negative [about other people] – that would make me feel bad’.
Trey, age 15, illustrated principled thinking when he described the moral principles
that guide his interactions with others in an online game: ‘You don’t treat someone like
a jerk because you’re behind the microphone... I think you should just treat someone the
same way you treat them as if you were talking to them face-to-face’. More specifically,
Trey appeared to be beholden to principles of fairness and respect for others. Overall, he
appeared to adhere to a kind of digital Golden Rule – ‘Do unto others online as you
would have them do to you offline’.

Targets of moral thinking.  Participants most often conveyed moral thinking towards offline
friends and peers (38% of references). However, 26% of instances pointed to individuals
with whom participants communicated online-only and may not know offline, for
instance fellow gamers and bloggers. Roughly half of the young people we interviewed
suggested that such online contacts deserve to be treated with respect or otherwise
viewed them in a moral way. Notably, participants like Trey who conveyed principled
thinking may be poised to begin thinking in generalities, extending their principles to
larger groups of people, a hallmark of ethical thinking.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

842 new media & society 15(6)

Table 2.  Percentage of participants who used ethical thinking types.

Community-level Roles and Complex

thinking responsibilities thinking perspective-taking
Number of 56/61 22/61 9/61
participants
% of total sample 92% (including 36% 15%
prompted and
unprompted cases)

Triggers of moral thinking.  Of all moral thinking references, 45% were related to interper-
sonal conduct in online multiplayer games, user-generated content sites, and social net-
works, such as friending practices. The second most frequent trigger for moral thinking
was commenting on social networks and other platforms. As exemplified by Madeline’s
quote above, participants considered the emotional effects on the recipients or readers of
comments. Other topics that generated moral thinking include: decisions about sharing
gossip about friends online (15% of references) and privacy decisions motivated by con-
cern for others (12%) (e.g., a musician makes his social network profile private to protect
his girlfriend from harassment by fans).

Ethical thinking
We define ethical thinking as the capacity to think abstractly about the impact of one’s
actions on a larger community. While nearly every participant exhibited ethical thinking
at some point in his/her interview, this approach was less prevalent and, where present,
was inconsistently used. Indeed, none of the young people interviewed appeared to
engage ethical thinking consistently when making decisions online. We looked for three
dimensions of ethical thinking: (1) community thinking – an awareness of the potential
impacts of online actions beyond a circle of known others; (2) reflection on one’s roles
and responsibilities in online and offline communities; and (3) complex perspective-
taking, considering the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in a given activity. Certain
dimensions of ethical thinking, such as community thinking, were more frequently used
than others, such as complex perspective-taking (see Table 2).

Community thinking.  The most frequently observed ethical thinking form was awareness
of community-level impacts. Community thinking was employed at least one time by
92% of participants; on average, this way of thinking came up four times (range of 0–10
references; see Table 1). It is worth noting that participants were asked explicitly about
the benefits and harms of the internet. These questions prompted 23% of community
thinking instances; 77% were unprompted.
Targets of community thinking. The communities considered by participants varied.
Forty-four percent of all instances focused on the internet public – anyone who can
access the internet and find information online. For example, Trey, age 15, discussed
the benefits of Wikipedia for the ‘internet community’. Participants also considered the

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

Flores and James 843

negative effects of certain types of conduct for the population of young internet users
(15% of references). Gaming communities, including large populations that number in
the millions, accounted for 12% of communities mentioned. Five percent of references
concerned the financial effects of the internet on creative industries, for instance music
and film.
Triggers of community thinking.  Negative effects were cited more often than positive
effects (57% vs. 43%). Cited harms included participatory harms, such as cyberbullying
or in-game cheating. Seth, age 25, describes how actions can negatively impact game
communities: ‘in an online game that [focus on the self] changes. Because the things that
you do to your character can adversely affect things that occur [in the game]… That’s
ruining the game experience for other players’. Consequently, Seth strives to balance
his enjoyment with what is optimal for the game community. Other references focused
on harmful online content (e.g., violent content) negatively affecting young people and
declining social cohesion overall (e.g., ‘screen time’ replacing ‘face time’ with friends
and family).
On the benefits side, participants discussed online knowledge sharing, creative oppor-
tunities, and greater social cohesion in online communities. Knowledge sharing was
cited most often, especially in reference to Wikipedia. For example, Trey describes
Wikipedia as: ‘a global knowledge source… people contribute to it for the good of the
internet community’.

Roles and responsibilities thinking. Roles and responsibilities (R&R) thinking refers to

instances where young people assume roles and responsibilities online (e.g., citizens of
a game community) or reflect on offline roles and responsibilities when online (e.g.,
thinking about one’s role as a musician when downloading music). Thirty-six percent of
participants used this approach at least once in their interview; on average, two instances
of R&R thinking were found among participants (range of 0–12 references). Compared
to community thinking, which involves only recognition of the effects of online actions
for communities, R&R thinking suggests a sense of personal accountability for one’s
online and offline communities. Carlos, an aspiring musician, conveys this idea:

I guess because I got more involved with music, more seriously involved with music, and I kind
of started to learn about what illegal downloading – how that can affect and how that is currently
affecting music careers, and how the music industry is suffering because of that. So I choose
not to support [downloading].

While Carlos once relied on illegal downloading to increase his musical exposure, as
he assumed the role of musician, he assumed a greater sense of responsibility for his
actions’ effects on other musicians and the industry.

Targets of roles and responsibilities thinking.  Participants who used roles and responsibili-
ties thinking mentioned several different roles. The most frequent was offline worker,
observed in 43% of all R&R thinking. Jane, a young professional, conveys this approach
in relation to the high school students with whom she works offline and interacts online:
‘I work… with high school [performers], and they friend me on Facebook. And they’re
all on my limited profile because I’m supposed to be a professional role model figure to

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

844 new media & society 15(6)

them. [But] it’s nice to know that they have my personal email if they need me’. Jane
appreciates the ability to connect with the high school students online but is mindful of
her responsibility to maintain her ‘role model’ status.
The second most frequently observed role was citizen, surfacing in 31% of instances.
While the word itself was rarely used, the role of citizen was evident when participants
discussed online actions aimed at creating social change or social good offline. Some
participants discussed citizenship in relation to online-only communities, such as Seth’s
strong sense of responsibility to his World of Warcraft guild: ‘I had a sense of pride in my
ability to go in with a group, understand what my role was, and do it properly… you have
a responsibility to kind of do what you need to do to make sure everyone has a good
experience’. This level of commitment to an online role was not exclusive to gamers;
bloggers and content creators also referred to their online roles as writers or creators
(11% of instances).

Triggers of roles and responsibilities thinking. The most frequent trigger for R&R thinking,
evident in 33% of references, is engagement in social networks. As seen with Jane, many
young adults make decisions about online content mindful of their roles as workers or
employees of organizations. Julian, age 23, strongly articulated his multiple roles and
responsibilities when social networking:

I think I feel most responsible to myself to make sure I’m not presented negatively. I also feel
a certain sense to the museum because I am an employee of theirs, so I wouldn’t want to do
anything to make them look negative, particularly on any page that also lists where I work.
Same thing with [my college]. And I think I also feel a certain sense of obligation to my friends
and family. I don’t want to have other people come to them… Because, whether you like it or
not, you are judged on that stuff. So I think that’s the chain of responsibility.

Julian, an exemplary roles and responsibilities thinker, was a rare case. Most young
adults who mentioned their worker role exhibited surface acknowledgement of their
employer or their profession and, consistent with consequence thinking, a stronger focus
on the impact of online choices for their own professional image.
Other triggers for R&R thinking included creating and posting content (text, video,
music) (31% of instances) and playing multiplayer games (16%).

Complex perspective-taking.  As described above, moral perspective-taking – the capacity

to imagine and consider another person’s feelings about a particular action – is an impor-
tant dimension of moral thinking.
Complex perspective-taking involves empathizing with multiple stakeholders (includ-
ing unknown individuals, industries, and communities), discerning their motivations, and
recognizing potential consequences for them pursuant to a particular action. This form of
thinking was rarest among participants – only 15% were strong complex perspective-takers.
Participants averaged three references per interview, with a range of 0–6 references.

Targets of complex perspective-taking. The most frequent targets of complex perspective-

taking were those related to music and film downloading. Among the targets mentioned
were the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

Flores and James 845

Association of America (MPAA), record companies, mainstream musicians, and

independent artists. While these stakeholders were often considered, most participants
nonetheless engaged in illegal downloading, suggesting the dominance of consequence
thinking.
Other targets were tied to online environments. For example, gamers readily dis-
cerned the perspectives of fellow gamers and considered the game economy. Yet, consid-
eration of more distant stakeholders, such as game programmers, was rare. When
discussing commenting on friends’ social network pages, many participants used moral
perspective-taking. A smaller number of participants went further, imagining the per-
spectives of other audiences, including other youth, college admissions officers, and the
police. For example, Carlos exhibits complex perspective-taking when he acknowledges
the limits of text and the possibility of multiple interpretations of online comments:

Spoken language typed can mean a whole different thing and people can take it the wrong way
because you can’t hear vocal inflections and that kind of stuff. So everything I put up there I try
to think about what kind of reaction it’ll have from people and if there’s any chance that
someone could take this the wrong way.

Triggers of complex perspective-taking.  The activities that triggered complex perspective-

taking include illegal downloading (35% of references); gaming (29%), e.g., considering
the implications of cheat codes on other players, guilds, etc.; creative activities, such as
considering reactions of different audiences or creators (23%); and commenting on
social networks (6% of references).

Amoral and unethical thinking

Nearly all of our participants (98%) – including strong moral and ethical thinkers –
exhibited at least one instance of amoral or unethical thinking. Forty-seven percent of
references suggest a total lack of awareness of ethical or moral features of online situa-
tions, and 53% involve awareness of such features but a dismissal of their importance.
On average, participants had four references coded as amoral or unethical thinking, rang-
ing from 0–20 references per interview.
Common topics where lapses were observed included questionable gaming strategies,
such as buying and selling characters; illegal downloading; and commenting on social
networks. For example, some gamers were unapologetic about cheating, often drawing
on the rationale that ‘it’s just a game’ and therefore not a ‘real’ moral or ethical concern.
With respect to illegal downloading, Justine, age 19, recognizes the negative effects on
musicians but fails at empathy: ‘If we buy a CD, they’re getting – that’s their paycheck,
kind of… They’re losing money but, I don’t know. I kind of don’t care at the same time’.
Even more participants in our sample failed altogether to acknowledge the effects of
piracy for musicians and creative industries.
We observed 11 cases of egregious amoral or unethical conduct. Pete, a 15-year-old
content creator, spoke about spamming online forums for ‘entertainment’, conveying a
disregard for the negative impact on forum participants. Kayla, age 17, described how
she and her friends created a fake Facebook account in order to friend their coach and
look at her Facebook profile:

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

846 new media & society 15(6)

It was nothing bad or anything, but they just made this fake account of someone who they said
went to high school with her. But then the [coach] ended up finding [the fake] account… And
so she was like, ‘Who is this? Why would you do this?’ We’re like, ‘Okay, bye’. Logged it off
or deleted it or something. It was just really funny.

Calling the situation ‘just really funny’, Kayla failed to recognize any harms to her
coach, team, school, or to herself. Other egregious cases included privacy invasions,
large-scale cheating in an online game community, and plagiarism.
Our findings about moral and ethical lapses suggest that consistent approaches to
online life were rare. Some participants who were strong ethical thinkers in certain online
situations exhibited moral or ethical lapses in other situations. For example, a college
student evinced a moralistic attitude about photos of under-age drinking posted on
Facebook – her peers, she argued, fail to consider the potential negative effects for people
in the photos, Resident Advisors, and the school. At the same time, she failed to see the
ethical dimensions of writing positive articles on Wikipedia about her college as part of
her admissions job – a clear violation of Wikipedia’s standards. Moreover, Carlos, who is
cited as an exemplary ethical thinker with respect to music downloading, conveyed an
amoral approach to privacy. During his interview, he revealed that he had recently broken
into his girlfriend’s Facebook account to read her private messages.

Conclusion
The current study explored young people’s narratives about their online lives in order to
uncover the prevalence of moral and ethical approaches. We focused on the targets of
youth’s thinking, including the self, known others, and distant others and communities.
The findings provide insights into the key considerations that may guide young people’s
conduct online.
We found that teens and young adults most frequently focus on the potential conse-
quences for themselves when making decisions online. This finding is consistent with
previous studies that suggest uncertainty about the moral effects of computer-based
actions (Burnam and Kafai, 2001; Castronova, 2005; Ma et al., 2007). We also found that
nearly all participants exhibited at least one instance in which they either failed to recog-
nize or trivialized the moral or ethical dimensions of certain online activities, according
with offline studies (Fischman et al., 2004; Josephson Institute of Ethics, 2010) and with
Poole (2007), who found greater tolerance for unethical conduct online. At the same
time, our study moves beyond previous research in delineating the triggers and targets
associated with individualistic or unethical approaches online.
While we found that teens and young adults approach online life with their own inter-
ests foremost, the prevalence of moral thinking is notable. This way of thinking was
found among participants who interact principally with offline friends and among those
with online-only friends, such as fellow bloggers or gamers. Therefore, there is evidence
for the prevalence of Kohlberg’s stage 3 thinking as well as for an ‘ethics of care’
(Gilligan, 1982). Indeed, most young people participate in networked publics as if they
were smaller neighborhoods made up of close relations. The ‘neighborhood morality’ is
valuable, and may help prevent online contexts from deteriorating into dystopias.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

Flores and James 847

Moreover, ‘principled thinking’, the application of principles such as the Golden Rule to
interactions with known others, may be a gateway to ethical thinking if youth extend
their principles to distant targets. However, moral thinking is insufficient in contexts
where one routinely makes choices that can affect distant, unknown others. Also, moral
thinking is not consistently used; most participants in our study conveyed at least one
instance of amoral or unethical thinking, often in relation to known others.
Another objective of our research was to explore if and when young people engage in
ethical thinking. Nearly all participants demonstrated capacities for ethical thinking,
consistent with Kohlberg’s suggestion (1981, 1984) that most adolescents can acknowl-
edge larger effects of their actions (stage 4). Interestingly, certain activities, including
illegal downloading and online gaming, appeared to trigger ethical thinking though often
subordinate to consequence-driven considerations. When ethical thinking surfaced, it
typically took the form of community thinking; participants were less skilled at taking
the perspectives of different stakeholders often implicated in online activities. These
findings suggest that many young people may acknowledge the existence of others but
may be uninformed about – or uninterested in – the range of stakeholders affected by
these activities.
Importantly, relatively few participants consistently thought about the ethical implica-
tions of their online actions. Indeed, some of our more impressive ethical thinkers about
some themes committed moral lapses in other areas. More than just suggesting a lack of
consistency, this suggests that youth deploy their ethical thinking situationally.
Our findings raise significant questions for the literatures on moral development
and digital life. The public nature of the internet – the fact that one can never know
who is behind the screen – suggests that ‘ethical thinking’ is vital. The fact that all
participants showed ethical thinking capacities but lacked consistent follow-through is
important. These findings suggest that online interactions may be susceptible to a ‘dis-
connect’ between moral or ethical thinking and action (Colby and Damon, 1992), and/
or an inclination to favor self-focused thinking. This disconnect may be tied to distinct
qualities of online life, including ‘invisibility’ (Suler, 2004) and ‘distance’ (Silverstone,
2006). If we understand moral development as the product of confronting and making
sense of dilemmas (Damon, 1988; Kohlberg, 1981, 1984; Piaget, 1965; Turiel, 1983),
these qualities of online life may interfere with the critical ‘making sense’ step. In
other words, online, youth may fail to reflect about their experiences and the implica-
tions of their choices. Relatedly, they may perceive online interactions are less ‘real’
than face-to-face interactions that might typically prompt ethical thinking and con-
duct. If so, and if young people’s interactions are increasingly mediated, moral devel-
opment may be thwarted.
The inconsistent use of ethical thinking suggests that certain online contexts may
engender greater ‘moral sensitivity’ (Bebeau et al., 1999) while others may coincide with
greater ‘disinhibition’ (Suler, 2004). Our work illuminating the targets and triggers of
thinking suggests that particular online situations can prompt moral, ethical, or unethical
action. We also need to understand better how specific digital qualities (e.g., invisibility)
manifest across platforms and are negotiated by participants in different online commu-
nities. For example, supports for different ways of thinking may be relevant, and varia-
ble, across contexts. Studies suggest that peer supports in multiplayer game contexts can

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

848 new media & society 15(6)

scaffold ethical thinking, countering the ‘invisibility’ of other players (Croft, 2011;
Gilbert, 2009). In turn, online cultures in which cheating and bullying occur may embrace
‘distance’ between people online and thereby promote self-protectionist thinking.
Exploring how digital qualities are handled across contexts is therefore a critical next
step for understanding what promotes or inhibits moral and ethical approaches.
The limitations of the current study include a small, geographically limited sample
and self-reported data. Studies which observe teens and young adults as they engage
online may confirm our findings about the circumstances that elicit certain approaches
and the correlation between thinking and conduct. Future studies should also explore
whether our findings prevail among larger samples, and among young people engaged
with different levels of frequency and in a wider range of online activities. For example,
studies of interest-driven youth (Ito et al., 2009), such as members of fan communities,
could afford an understanding of how investment, role, and identity are associated with
‘moral sensitivity’ and ‘macro-morality’ (Rest et al., 2000). Some studies compare
youth’s perceptions of offline moral situations with online situations (Burnam and
Kafai, 2001; Poole, 2007). However, in light of our findings, further research is needed
to understand the extent to which dispositions to think ethically offline correspond with
ethical thinking online. Such studies should identify the triggers and targets, as well as
the qualities of offline and online contexts that support or detract from different ways of
thinking.
Our study has relevant implications for parents, educators, and policymakers and
raises questions about current supports for digital ethics. The internet safety movement
is a dominant purveyor of messages that may contribute to largely individualistic
approaches; moreover, the relevance of such efforts has been challenged given the low
risk of ‘stranger danger’ based on online contact (Wolak et al., 2008). Emerging ‘digital
citizenship’ curricula may provide more relevant supports. Such efforts may scaffold
principled thinking – a key component of moral thinking – as a ‘gateway’ to digital citi-
zenship. At the same time, school-based efforts may be more effective if supplemented
by peer-based efforts in online contexts. ‘Just in time’ supports from fellow participants
in online games, blogs, and other contexts may be more powerful (Croft, 2011; Gilbert,
2009). Indeed, supports targeted to ‘triggers’ for ethical thinking (but not always ethical
conduct) – such as illegal downloading and online games – are warranted. Moreover,
designers of digital environments may support ethical thinking by designing in features
that illuminate distant stakeholders and communities – those behind the screen – who are
potentially affected by online decisions.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Katie Davis, Howard Gardner, Erhardt Graeff, Julie Maier, Margaret Rundle,
and András Tilcsik for comments on earlier versions of this paper, and John M. Francis and Sam
Gilbert for the interviews they conducted.

Funding
The research reported in this article was funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

Flores and James 849

References
Alexander CN and Langer EJ (eds) (1990) Higher Stages of Human Development. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Arnett JJ (2004) Emerging Adulthood: The Winding Road from the Late Teens through the
Twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bebeau MJ, Rest JR and Narvaez D (1999) Beyond the promise: A perspective on research in
moral education. Educational Researcher 28(4): 18–26.
boyd d (2008) Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage
social life. In: Buckingham D (ed.) Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press, pp.119–142.
boyd d (2010) Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications.
In: Papacharissi Z (ed.) A Networked Self. New York: Routledge, pp.39–58.
Bradley K (2005) Internet lives: Social context and moral domain in adolescent development.
New Directions for Youth Development 108: 57–76.
Burnam B and Kafai YB (2001) Ethics and the computer: Children’s development of moral
reasoning about computer and Internet use. Journal of Educational Computing Research
25(2): 111–127.
Business Software Alliance (2004) Tweens’ and teens’ Internet behavior and attitudes about
copyright materials. Available at: http://www.bsa.org/country/Research%20and%20Statistics/
Research%20Papers.aspx (accessed 30 October 2010).
Carr N (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W. W. Norton
& Company.
Castronova E (2005) Synthetic Worlds. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Colby A and Damon W (1992) Some Do Care: Contemporary Lives of Moral Commitment.
New York: Free Press.
Croft J (2011) ‘It’s just a game’: Ethical reasoning in virtual worlds. GoodWork™ Project Report
Series. Available at: http://www.goodworkproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/73-Its-
Just-a-Game.pdf (accessed 1 November 2011).
Damon W (1988) The Moral Child. New York: Free Press.
Fischer KW and Bidell TR (1998) Dynamic development of psychological structures in action and
thought. In: Learner RM (ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology, vol. 1. New York: Wiley, pp. 467–561.
Fischman W, Solomon B, Greenspan D, et al. (2004) Making Good: How Young People Make
Moral Decisions at Work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gardner H (2006) Five Minds for the Future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gardner H (2011) Truth, Beauty and Goodness Reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Gilbert S (2009) Ethics at play: Patterns of ethical thinking among young online gamers. In: Schrier
K and Gibson D (eds) Ethics and Game Design: Teaching Values through Play. Hershey, PA:
IGI Global, pp.151–166.
Gilligan C (1982) In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Glaser BG and Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Ito M, Baumer S, Bittanti M, et al. (2009) Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
James C, Davis K, Flores A, et al. (2009) Young People, Ethics, and the New Digital Media.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Jenkins H, Purushotma R, Weigel M, et al. (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory
Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Josephson Institute of Ethics (2010) Report card on American youth. Available at: http://char-
actercounts.org/programs/reportcard/2010/installment02_report-card_honesty-integrity.html
(accessed 16 December 2011).

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

850 new media & society 15(6)

Kohlberg L (1981) The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Kohlberg L (1984) The Psychology of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Lanier J (2010) You Are Not a Gadget. New York: Knopf.
Lenhart A, Madden M, Smith A, et al. (2011) Teens, kindness and cruelty on social network
sites. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/
Reports/2011/Teens-and-social-media (accessed 17 December 2011).
Ma H, Lu RY, Turner S, et al. (2007) An empirical investigation of digital cheating and plagiarism
among middle school students. American Secondary Education 35(2): 69–82.
Miles MB and Huberman M (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Noddings N (1984) Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Nucci L (1996) Morality and the personal sphere of action. In: Reed E, Turiel E and Brown T (eds)
Knowledge and Values. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 41–60.
Nucci L and Lee J (1993) Morality and personal autonomy. In: Noam G and Wren T (eds) The
Moral Self. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 123–148.
Palfrey J and Gasser U (2008) Born Digital. New York: Basic Books.
Piaget J (1965) The Moral Judgment of the Child. New York: The Free Press.
Poole D (2007) A study of beliefs and behaviors regarding digital technology. New Media &
Society 9(5): 771–793.
Powers TM (2003) Real wrongs in virtual communities. Ethics and Information Technology 5:
191–198.
Rest JR, Narvaez D, Thoma SJ, et al. (2000) A neo-Kohlbergian approach to morality research.
Journal of Moral Education 29(4): 381–395.
Selman RL (1975) Level of social perspective-taking and the development of empathy in children:
Speculations from a social-cognitive viewpoint. Journal of Moral Education 5(1): 35–43.
Shirky C (2008) Here Comes Everybody. New York: Penguin Press.
Silverstone R (2006) Media and Morality. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Smith C, Christoffersen K, Davidson H, et al. (2011) Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging
Adulthood. New York: Oxford University Press.
Suler J (2004) The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 7(3): 321–326.
Turiel E (1983) The Development of Social Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turkle S (2011) Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Ourselves.
New York: Basic Books.
Willard N (2007) Moral development in the information age. The center for safe and respon-
sible Internet use. Available at: http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/articles/willard.html
(accessed 23 September 2010).
Wolak J, Finkelhor D, Mitchell K, et al. (2008) Online ‘predators’ and their victims: Myths,
realities and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist 63(2):
111–128.

Author biographies
Andrea Flores is a Research Assistant at Harvard Project Zero and a PhD candidate in
Anthropology at Brown University. She holds an MA in anthropology from Brown
University.

Carrie James is a Principal Investigator at Harvard Project Zero. Her research focuses on
young people’s digital and civic lives. She has a an MA and a PhD in Sociology from
New York University.

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

Flores and James 851

Appendix 1
Selected interview questions
I. Introductory questions
Participants were asked to reflect on their broader lives and early use of digital media.
Questions included:

• Apart from your online activities, how do you spend your time? What are some of
the things that you care about?
• Can you remember at what age you first started using a computer or cell phone?
What kinds of things did you first do with these devices? How did your activities
change over time?

II. Participation contexts

Participants reflected on their participation in gaming, social networking, blogging, or
content creation. Interviewers probed for how participants think about and negotiate
online identities, privacy, credibility, ownership and authorship issues, and norms about
appropriate conduct. Questions included:

• How did you learn how to use or what to do on social networks? Are there any
things/behaviors that are considered taboo or inappropriate to do?
• Looking back on your own experiences playing games, have you ever experi-
enced or observed something that troubled you? How, if at all, did you respond?
Why did you decide to respond in this way?
• How does your blog compare to how you present yourself offline?
• How do you feel about selling avatars? Have you ever sold or bought a high-level
character?
• To whom or what do you feel most responsible when blogging?

III. Accessing content online

Participants were asked about the content they access online – including music, video,
and other creative content – in addition to their uses of Wikipedia and other information
sites. Questions included:

• Do you ever download/share content with others from non-commercial sites/

services? Why or why not? If yes: Do you ever worry about downloading/
sharing from free sites? What do you worry about? Issues like copyright
infringement?
• In what situations might you purchase content versus downloading it for free?
• How do you use Wikipedia? Do you use it in similar or different ways from other
information sources? Do Wikipedia entries need to be cited? Why/why not? If
yes, how should they be cited?

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015

852 new media & society 15(6)

IV. Perspectives on new digital media

Participants were asked to reflect broadly on the benefits and disadvantages of the new
digital media. Questions included:

• What are the benefits of blogs, games, social networks for young people? For
society?
• Beyond what you have experienced personally, do you have any larger concerns
about things that happen on the internet?

Downloaded from nms.sagepub.com by eman hosny on May 31, 2015