scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Mapping the Moral Domain

TL;DR: The Moral Foundations Questionnaire is developed on the basis of a theoretical model of 5 universally available (but variably developed) sets of moral intuitions and convergent/discriminant validity evidence suggests that moral concerns predict personality features and social group attitudes not previously considered morally relevant.
Abstract: The moral domain is broader than the empathy and justice concerns assessed by existing measures of moral competence, and it is not just a subset of the values assessed by value inventories. To fill the need for reliable and theoretically grounded measurement of the full range of moral concerns, we developed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire on the basis of a theoretical model of 5 universally available (but variably developed) sets of moral intuitions: Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. We present evidence for the internal and external validity of the scale and the model, and in doing so we present new findings about morality: (a) Comparative model fitting of confirmatory factor analyses provides empirical justification for a 5-factor structure of moral concerns; (b) convergent/discriminant validity evidence suggests that moral concerns predict personality features and social group attitudes not previously considered morally relevant; and (c) we establish pragmatic validity of the measure in providing new knowledge and research opportunities concerning demographic and cultural differences in moral intuitions. These analyses provide evidence for the usefulness of Moral Foundations Theory in simultaneously increasing the scope and sharpening the resolution of psychological views of morality.
Citations
More filters
Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: The Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) as discussed by the authors was created to answer these questions, including: where does morality come from? Why are moral judgments often so similar across cultures, yet sometimes so variable? Is morality one thing, or many?
Abstract: Where does morality come from? Why are moral judgments often so similar across cultures, yet sometimes so variable? Is morality one thing, or many? Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) was created to answer these questions. In this chapter, we describe the origins, assumptions, and current conceptualization of the theory and detail the empirical findings that MFT has made possible, both within social psychology and beyond. Looking toward the future, we embrace several critiques of the theory and specify five criteria for determining what should be considered a foundation of human morality. Finally, we suggest a variety of future directions for MFT and moral psychology.

702 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The construct validity of SDO is clarified by strictly assessing a preference for dominance hierarchies in general, removing a possible confound relating to support for hierarchy benefitting the ingroup.
Abstract: A new conceptualization and measurement of social dominance orientation-individual differences in the preference for group based hierarchy and inequality-is introduced. In contrast to previous measures of social dominance orientation that were designed to be unidimensional, the new measure (SDO7) embeds theoretically grounded subdimensions of SDO-SDO-Dominance (SDO-D) and SDO-Egalitarianism (SDO-E). SDO-D constitutes a preference for systems of group-based dominance in which high status groups forcefully oppress lower status groups. SDO-E constitutes a preference for systems of group-based inequality that are maintained by an interrelated network of subtle hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and social policies. Confirmatory factor and criterion validity analyses confirmed that SDO-D and SDO-E are theoretically distinct and dissociate in terms of the intergroup outcomes they best predict. For the first time, distinct personality and individual difference bases of SDO-D and SDO-E are outlined. We clarify the construct validity of SDO by strictly assessing a preference for dominance hierarchies in general, removing a possible confound relating to support for hierarchy benefitting the ingroup. Consistent with this, results show that among members of a disadvantaged ethnic minority group (African Americans), endorsement of SDO7 is inversely related to ingroup identity. We further demonstrate these effects using nationally representative samples of U.S. Blacks and Whites, documenting the generalizability of these findings. Finally, we introduce and validate a brief 4-item measure of each dimension. This article importantly extends our theoretical understanding of one of the most generative constructs in social psychology, and introduces powerful new tools for its measurement.

609 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that moral judgment is rooted in a cognitive template of two perceived minds—a moral dyad of an intentional agent and a suffering moral patient, and dyadic morality uniquely accounts for the phenomena of dyadic completion, and moral typecasting.
Abstract: Mind perception entails ascribing mental capacities to other entities, whereas moral judgment entails labeling entities as good or bad or actions as right or wrong. We suggest that mind perception is the essence of moral judgment. In particular, we suggest that moral judgment is rooted in a cognitive template of two perceived minds—a moral dyad of an intentional agent and a suffering moral patient. Diverse lines of research support dyadic morality. First, perceptions of mind are linked to moral judgments: dimensions of mind perception (agency and experience) map onto moral types (agents and patients), and deficits of mind perception correspond to difficulties with moral judgment. Second, not only are moral judgments sensitive to perceived agency and experience, but all moral transgressions are fundamentally understood as agency plus experienced suffering—that is, interpersonal harm—even ostensibly harmless acts such as purity violations. Third, dyadic morality uniquely accounts for the phenomena of dyadic completion (seeing agents in response to patients, and vice versa), and moral typecasting (characterizing others as either moral agents or moral patients). Discussion also explores how mind perception can unify morality across explanatory levels, how a dyadic template of morality may be developmentally acquired, and future directions.

605 citations


Cites background from "Mapping the Moral Domain"

  • ...Anthropology suggests that morality encompasses more than interpersonal harm (Shweder et al., 1987), an idea extended by Haidt, Graham, and colleagues (Graham et al., 2011; Haidt & Graham, 2007) in their model of five independent moral domains: harm, fairness, in-group, authority, and purity....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper studied the psychological underpinnings of culture war attitudes using Moral Foundations Theory and found that endorsement of five moral foundations predicted judgments about these issues over and above ideology, age, gender, religious attendance, and interest in politics.

438 citations


Cites background or methods from "Mapping the Moral Domain"

  • ...Please cite this article in press as: Koleva, S. P., et al. Tracing the threads: How Journal of Research in Personality (2012), doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006 with statements that embody or negate each foundation, e.g., ‘‘It is more important to be a team player than to express oneself’’ for Ingroup (the MFQ items can be found at www.moralfoundations.org)....

    [...]

  • ...Since both RWA and SDO were used as external validity criteria for the MFQ (Graham et al., 2011) we expected that the conceptual and measurement overlap in these constructs would tend to reduce the original associations....

    [...]

  • ...The MFQ is a 30-item measure of the extent to which an individual endorses each of five types of moral concerns: Harm, Fairness, Ingroup, Authority, and Purity (see Graham et al., 2011 for an extensive analysis of its psychometric properties)....

    [...]

  • ...Here we report results for those who completed both the MFQ and a second morality survey....

    [...]

  • ...Participants were 14,517 adult US residents who self-selected to take both the MFQ and a survey called ‘‘Political Attitudes Questionnaire’’ at www.yourmorals.org....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
21 Aug 2012-PLOS ONE
TL;DR: Across 16 measures in a large web-based sample that included 11,994 self-identified libertarians, libertarian values showed convergent relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social preferences, adding to a growing recognition of the role of personality differences in the organization of political attitudes.
Abstract: Libertarians are an increasingly prominent ideological group in U.S. politics, yet they have been largely unstudied. Across 16 measures in a large web-based sample that included 11,994 self-identified libertarians, we sought to understand the moral and psychological characteristics of self-described libertarians. Based on an intuitionist view of moral judgment, we focused on the underlying affective and cognitive dispositions that accompany this unique worldview. Compared to self-identified liberals and conservatives, libertarians showed 1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle, and weaker endorsement of all other moral principles; 2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style; and 3) lower interdependence and social relatedness. As predicted by intuitionist theories concerning the origins of moral reasoning, libertarian values showed convergent relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social preferences. Our findings add to a growing recognition of the role of personality differences in the organization of political attitudes.

410 citations


Cites background from "Mapping the Moral Domain"

  • ...The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) measures the degree to which a person relies on each of five moral foundations: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity....

    [...]

  • ...The MFQ has been shown to be reliable and valid, and to predict a variety of moral and political attitudes, independent of political ideology [41]....

    [...]

  • ...We addressed this question by examining several measures designed to give a broad overview of a person’s values and morals, in particular the Moral Foundations Questionnaire [41], and the Schwartz Value Scale [42], as well as a new measure of endorsement of liberty as a moral principle, introduced here (see Appendix S1)....

    [...]

  • ...First, we conducted a cluster analysis of participants using Moral Foundations Questionnaire sub-scale scores, to see if we could statistically extract libertarians based on their pattern of responses concerning their values, rather than on their self-identification....

    [...]

  • ...But as we began to collect data on libertarians and to hear objections from libertarians that their core value was not well represented, we created questions related to liberty in the style of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire....

    [...]

References
More filters
Book
20 Apr 2001
TL;DR: In this paper, values and culture data collection, treatment and validation power distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism and Collectivism Masculinity and Femininity Long versus Short-Term Orientation Cultures in Organizations Intercultural Encounters Using Culture Dimension Scores in Theory and Research
Abstract: Values and Culture Data Collection, Treatment and Validation Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Individualism and Collectivism Masculinity and Femininity Long versus Short-Term Orientation Cultures in Organizations Intercultural Encounters Using Culture Dimension Scores in Theory and Research

15,228 citations

Book
01 Jan 1935
TL;DR: In this paper, Neuberg and Heine discuss the notion of belonging, acceptance, belonging, and belonging in the social world, and discuss the relationship between friendship, membership, status, power, and subordination.
Abstract: VOLUME 2. Part III: The Social World. 21. EVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (Steven L. Neuberg, Douglas T. Kenrick, and Mark Schaller). 22. MORALITY (Jonathan Haidt and Selin Kesebir). 23. AGGRESSION (Brad J. Bushman and L. Rowell Huesmann). 24. AFFILIATION, ACCEPTANCE, AND BELONGING: THE PURSUIT OF INTERPERSONAL CONNECTION (Mark R. Leary). 25. CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS (Margaret S. Clark and Edward P. Lemay, Jr.). 26. INTERPERSONAL STRATIFICATION: STATUS, POWER, AND SUBORDINATION (Susan T. Fiske). 27. SOCIAL CONFLICT: THE EMERGENCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF STRUGGLE AND NEGOTIATION (Carsten K. W. De Dreu). 28. INTERGROUP RELATIONS 1(Vincent Yzerbyt and Stephanie Demoulin). 29. INTERGROUP BIAS (John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner). 30. SOCIAL JUSTICE: HISTORY, THEORY, AND RESEARCH (John T. Jost and Aaron C. Kay). 31. INFLUENCE AND LEADERSHIP (Michael A. Hogg). 32. GROUP BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE (J. Richard Hackman and Nancy Katz). 33. ORGANIZATIONAL PREFERENCES AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES (Deborah H. Gruenfeld and Larissa Z. Tiedens). 34. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF POLITICAL BEHAVIOR (Jon A. Krosnick, Penny S. Visser, and Joshua Harder). 35. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW (Margaret Bull Kovera and Eugene Borgida). 36. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LANGUAGE: WORDS, UTTERANCES, AND CONVERSATIONS (Thomas Holtgraves). 37. CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY (Steven J. Heine). AUTHOR INDEX. SUBJECT INDEX.

13,453 citations

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the universals in the content and structure of values, concentrating on the theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries, and its four basic issues: substantive contents of human values; identification of comprehensive set of values; extent to which the meaning of particular values was equivalent for different groups of people; and how the relations among different values was structured.
Abstract: Publisher Summary This chapter addresses the universals in the content and structure of values, concentrating on the theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries, and its four basic issues: substantive contents of human values; identification of comprehensive set of values; extent to which the meaning of particular values was equivalent for different groups of people; and how the relations among different values was structured. Substantial progress has been made toward resolving each of these issues. Ten motivationally distinct value types that were likely to be recognized within and across cultures and used to form value priorities were identified. Set of value types that was relatively comprehensive, encompassing virtually all the types of values to which individuals attribute at least moderate importance as criteria of evaluation was demonstrated. The evidence from 20 countries was assembled, showing that the meaning of the value types and most of the single values that constitute them was reasonably equivalent across most groups. Two basic dimensions that organize value systems into an integrated motivational structure with consistent value conflicts and compatibilities were discovered. By identifying universal aspects of value content and structure, the chapter has laid the foundations for investigating culture-specific aspects in the future.

12,151 citations


"Mapping the Moral Domain" refers background or methods in this paper

  • ...For Harm, the external criterion was the Empathy subscale of the IRI (Davis, 1983); for Fairness, the Schwartz Equality value item (Schwartz, 1992); for Ingroup, the Schwartz Loyalty value item (Schwartz, 1992); for Authority, the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale (Zakrisson, 2005); and for Purity,…...

    [...]

  • ...…(reverse-scored, as it measures preference for social inequalities; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; n 1,215), importance of being fair/just on Barriga et al.’s (2001) Good-Self scale, and endorsement of the social justice item on the Schwartz Values Scale (SVS; Schwartz, 1992)....

    [...]

  • ...…subscale of the IRI (Davis, 1983); for Fairness, the Schwartz Equality value item (Schwartz, 1992); for Ingroup, the Schwartz Loyalty value item (Schwartz, 1992); for Authority, the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale (Zakrisson, 2005); and for Purity, the Disgust Scale—Revised (Haidt, McCauley,…...

    [...]

  • ...Most efforts to identify the range of values begin with long lists of possible values, covering everything from cleanliness to hedonism, and then use factor analysis of endorsement ratings to identify a smaller set of core values (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992)....

    [...]

Book
01 Jan 1976
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors take up the concepts of altruistic and selfish behaviour; the genetical definition of selfish interest; the evolution of aggressive behaviour; kinship theory; sex ratio theory; reciprocal altruism; deceit; and the natural selection of sex differences.
Abstract: Science need not be dull and bogged down by jargon, as Richard Dawkins proves in this entertaining look at evolution. The themes he takes up are the concepts of altruistic and selfish behaviour; the genetical definition of selfish interest; the evolution of aggressive behaviour; kinship theory; sex ratio theory; reciprocal altruism; deceit; and the natural selection of sex differences. Readership: general; students of biology, zoology, animal behaviour, psychology.

10,880 citations

Trending Questions (1)
What is the theory of moral domains?

The paper presents Moral Foundations Theory as a way of thinking about morality that goes beyond harm and fairness.