This shows that a group of white boys won't have conflict unless there is an outside force interfering. https://www.simplypsychology.org/robbers-cave.html Difficult to determine numbers, but we are immediately posed with questions of time, place and race; in regards to good or evil. Fatherlessness plays a role in morality and impulse control. https://www.fatherhood.org/father-absence-statistic It's an interesting line of questioning, in that you immediately see the world of psychology steer as far from quantifying what makes people good and bad right around the time Milgram proved you could put some of these ideas to the test. One person can give orders in the am to dictate all the news for the world. That is what technology allows. The cabal loves this, as they believe stealing freedom and agency from other people adds to their own. They're not all that wrong. The logical conclusion of evil is one master stealing everyone else's agency. Is this trend happening? We could study it, but nobody does so accurately and without ulterior agendas. Would black children living at subsistence level in Africa do as well as the Robbers Cave boys? Would two Latino groups with no fathers do as well? We're not allowed to study that, apparently. Poverty is not the reason for bad behavior. Fatherlessness might be. However, wouldn't the race baiters love to prove that once and for all? No. Fatherlessness is part of their toolset. Of the couple of thousand studies you can find that reference morality in the title, there seems to be a directionlessness in regards to morality. Intentional, I'd say, as I only see a handful of meta studies where we'd see many more in other areas of interest... literally less than 5. Different branches of research seem to be driven by variable sets of questions and empirical approaches that do not connect to a common approach or research agenda... unless the agenda was obfuscation. What this means is that morality was useful for maintaining social order, by the powers that be, but they no longer require it. Empathy, a capability of dogs and monkeys, not just humans, is what leads to The Golden Rule. Humans have a magical capacity for empathy, though, where mirror neurons synchronize between multiple individuals in cyclical millivolt feedback loops. Ultimately, psychologists are no doing a great job of quantifying moral actions and behaviors and their contributing factors. Considering what civilization is capable of, it seems strange that morality and quality of life statistics aren't at the forefront of concern. Instead, we have critical race baiting. Instead of studying what results in better morals, the entire field is way more preoccupied with studies that explore what debilitated morality like exposure to war and being abused as a child. Not that these things shouldn't be studied, the trend shows us gaps in motivation to learn certain things about morality. People literally avoid doing studies that would force them to question their own moral reasoning combined with selection pressure on publication according to political agendas. Emotional resiliency leads to resiliency against peer pressure. The cabal does not want anyone to be emotionally resilient. If you read the meta studies, you'll see that no one wants to answer your question. There isn't enough of the right kind of data. There is tons of data on how to manipulate morality, however, which, suggests to me that someone is watching the metric you are interested in, in real time. EVL BATCAVE is the project I'll be looking into, next, because they're tied to the daemon that purportedly exists to spot evil people. Hopefully, this will bring us to the studies we need to find where AI is being used to spot bad people with mal intent. This technology is used to lock people out of classified computers. Point being, there is an answer to your question that Google doesn't want everyone to know. I believe the numbers are in Flux. Let's see if we can dig up someone's attempt to quantify this.