Second, the part played by suggestion in bringing about moral habits and ideals must be recognized.  The human personalities surrounding the child are his most influential teachers in this line.  This influence of personalities begins when the child is yet a baby.  Reflex imitation first, and later conscious imitation plus the feeling of dependence which a little child has for the adults in his environment, results in the child reflecting to a large extent the characters of those about him.  Good temper, stability, care for others, self-control, and many other habits; respect for truth, for the opinion of others, and many other ideals, are unconsciously absorbed by the child in his early years.  Example not precept, actions not words, are the controlling forces in moral education.  Hence the great importance of the characters of a child’s companions, friends, and teachers, to say nothing of his parents.  Next to personalities, theaters, moving pictures, and books, all have great suggestive power.

Third, there is always a danger that theory become divorced from practice, and this is particularly true here because morality is conduct.  Knowing what is right is one thing, doing it is another, and knowing does not result in doing unless definite connections are made between the two.  Instruction in morals may have but little effect on conduct.  It is only as the knowledge of what is right and good comes in connection with social situations when there is the call for action that true morality can be gained.  Mere classroom instruction cannot insure conduct.  It is only as the family and the school become more truly social institutions, where group activity such as one finds in life is the dominant note, that we can hope to have morality and not ethics, ideals and not passive appreciation, as a result of our teaching.

Fourth, it is without question true that in so far as the habits fixed are “school habits” or “Sunday habits,” or any other special type of habits, formed only in connection with special situations, to that extent we have no reason to expect moral conduct in the broader life situations.  The habits formed are those that will be put into practice, and they are the only ones we are sure of.  Because a child is truthful in school, prompt in attendance, polite to his teacher, and so on is no warrant that he will be the same on the playground or on the street.  Because a child can think out a problem in history or mathematics is no warrant that he will therefore think out moral problems.  The only sure way is to see to it that he forms many useful habits out of school as well as in, that he has opportunity to think out moral problems as well as problems in school subjects.[18]

Fifth, individual differences must not be forgotten in moral training.  Individual differences in suggestibility will influence the use of this factor in habit formation.  Individual differences in power of appreciation will influence the formation of ideals.  Differences in interest in books will result in differing degrees of knowledge.  Differences in maturity will mean that certain children in a class are ready for facts concerning sex, labor and capital, crime, and so on, long before other children in the same class should have such knowledge.  Differences in thinking power will determine efficiency in moral situations just as in others.