 Thus far our focus has been on work that sought to test Shweder’s contention that Turiel’s definition of morality would not travel well because people in other cultures would offer moral-pattern criterion judgments about transgressions that do not involve harm or justice or rights. But Haidt’s analysis of the responses of low SES American participants to transgressions that are edgier than the ones Turiel and his colleagues typically use suggests that we do not have to travel abroad to gather data that might challenge Turiel’s definition of morality. This was an idea that had occurred to Turiel quite independently. Two years before Haidt’s study appeared, Turiel, Hildebrandt, and Wainryb (1991) published a lengthy monograph in which they explored judgments of American high school and college students about a variety of what they labeled “nonprototypical” transgressions. “In the moral domain”, they tell us,