 During the last three decades, there have been a number of studies that cleaved more closely to the authority independence and generalization criterion judgments advocated by Turiel and his associates and explored the sorts of transgressions that evoked those judgments in a variety of religions groups and a variety of cultural  settings.[16]  Most of the studies undertaken by Turiel and researchers associated with him used intuitive moral transgressions that seemed (to contemporary Western observers) to be obviously harmful, and intuitive conventional transgressions that seemed (again, to contemporary Western observers) to obviously not be harmful. These studies confirm the prediction that transgressions that evoke moral criterion judgments are harmful and transgressions that don’t evoke moral criterion judgments aren’t. But none of these studies are problem free. None of them follow Haidt’s lead and actually ask participants whether the transgressive behavior is harmful. Also most of the transgressions used in these studies are of the tame “schoolyard” variety that can be comfortably used with children. None of these studies used anything like the more flamboyant “harmless taboo violations” that were center stage in Haidt’s study. So we do not know whether people in these cultures and religious groups would offer moral or conventional criterion judgments in response to transgressions like the ones that Haidt used.