This chapter of the handbook tackles a foundational question in moral psychology: What constitutes the moral domain? To answer this question, we first have to know how our minds determine right from wrong. The authors argue that our intuitive, culturally flexible perceptions of harm drive our judgments of the moral domain. This is not the dominant view of the moral domain, but the most popular models of the past and present need not be the most accurate ones. Instead, these paradigms reflect broader shifts in our values as a society and a field of research. The Turielian moral domain of the 1970s and 1980s took inspiration from the cognitive revolution, positing harm as a universal value that fully determines how people decide right from wrong. The Haidtian paradigm of today is influenced by the rise of cross-cultural psychology, arguing that harm is just one of many intuitive, culturally activated moral values. Ultimately, neither paradigm gets it completely right, but the authors argue that we can build a better paradigm by combining the strengths of each. In this model, harm is the key driver of moral judgments, but perceptions of harm are intuitive and culturally variable.

We discuss how children’s executive functions (EFs) and self-regulation (SR) contribute to coping by supporting positive adaptation in contexts of stress and adversity. We first describe literature linking EFs and SR to the most frequently studied child coping strategies, noting commonalities and identifying empirical gaps. Next, we synthesize how EFs and SR relate to adaptation in adverse contexts, which we conceptualize as reflecting successful coping. We highlight studies in which EFs and SR moderate and mediate the effects of adversity on developmental outcomes and discuss needed research extensions to address coping strategies and behaviors. In the final section, we raise future directions for studying EFs and SRs in the context of coping, including (1) improved assessments; (2) a reconceptualization of what is adaptive and maladaptive; (3) an understanding of promotive aspects of adversity; (4) examinations of dyadic, family, classroom, and communal co-regulation processes that affect and co-produce individual-level processes; and (5) the identification of processes that promote coping-relevant EFs and SR. We underscore the need for scholarship about EFs, SR, and coping beyond Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) contexts to reflect the diverse cultures, experiences, stressors, and resources children experience globally.