Is Moral Identity Flexible or Firm? Evidence From Experience Sampling Data

Theories of moral identity diverge in whether moral identity primarily reflects stable individual differences ("firm" models) or situationally driven fluctuations ("flexible" models). Despite extensive theorizing, little empirical work has quantified the relative contribution of these two sources of variability in everyday life.

Using experience sampling methodology, 224 university students reported up to five times daily over 7 days on the salience of their moral identity and the occurrence of morally relevant events. Multilevel models decomposed moral identity variance into between-person and within-person components and examined associations with everyday moral and immoral experiences.

Moral identity exhibited substantial variability at both levels, with 55%-57% of variance attributable to stable between-person differences and the remainder to residual within-person fluctuations. Moral and immoral events were associated with higher momentary salience. Between persons, higher propensities for acting morally were associated with stronger chronic moral identity, whereas higher propensities for acting immorally were associated with weaker chronic moral identity. Individuals with stronger moral identities showed smaller event-related fluctuations.

Moral identity in everyday life reflects a balanced combination of trait-like stability and state-like fluctuation. These findings provide no empirical support for claims that moral identity is predominantly situationally flexible in typical populations.