Reanalysing the factor structure of the moral foundations questionnaire

Harper, Craig A.; Rhodes, Darren

doi:10.1111/bjso.12452

Cited by 55 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This research is not without limitations. Any conclusions regarding the individualizing foundations should be taken with some caution also given evidence that these foundations have low internal reliability, as was previously found for both binding and individualizing foundations (e.g., Harper and Rhodes, 2021 ). As such, the poor reliability of the scales may introduce bias in the relationships between variables.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The questionnaire consisted of two parts: in the first part, participants rated how relevant (from “1 = Not at all relevant” to “6 = Extremely relevant”) each of 15 sources of information were to them when making moral judgments (e.g., “Whether or not someone showed a lack of respect for authority,” “Whether or not someone cared for someone weak or vulnerable”); in the second part, participants rated their agreement (from “1 = Strongly disagree” to “6 = Strongly agree”) with 15 moral statements (e.g., “Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue,” “If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer’s orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty”). 1 In line with the literature that used the broad categories of moral foundations (e.g., Wright and Baril, 2011 ; Harper and Rhodes, 2021 ), we collapsed the five moral foundations into the two higher-order variables, finding satisfactory internal reliability for both the binding (Cronbach’s α = 0.84) and individualizing (Cronbach’s α = 0.73) scales.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Moral Foundations of Desired Cultural Tightness

Santo

Gelfand²,

Baldner

et al. 2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People vary on their desire for strict norms, and the moral underpinnings of these differences have yet to be explored. The current research examined whether and how moral beliefs held by individuals would affect the extent to which they want their country to be tight (i.e., having strict social norms) or loose (i.e., having more permissive social norms). In particular, the effects of the “binding” and “individualizing” foundations, which are moral beliefs focused on the importance of groups and individuals, respectively, were examined. We hypothesized that the binding foundations could predict people’s desire for cultural tightness. We also hypothesized that the perception that one’s society is threatened may drive this effect. Three studies were conducted using both cross-sectional (Studies 1 and 3) and two-wave (Study 2) designs. Demographic variables and participants’ political orientation effects were controlled. In Study 1, only the binding foundations significantly predicted higher desired tightness. In Study 2, binding foundations predicted desired tightness measured at follow-up. In Study 3, the positive effect of perceived threat on desired tightness via the binding foundations was confirmed. From additional within-paper analyses we also have some evidence of significant relationships, albeit unstable across studies, between desired tightness and individualizing foundations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

The Moral Foundations of Desired Cultural Tightness

Santo

Gelfand²,

Baldner

et al. 2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, Atari, Graham, and Dehghani (2020) used network psychometric methods and found that regardless of mean endorsement of moral foundations, the network of items and foundations are substantially different between the two countries, with Iran having a denser interconnected network of moral foundations, compared with the more segregated network of moral concerns in the U.S., wherein Care-Fairness and Loyalty-Authority-Purity are two disconnected "islands" (or sub-networks). Another study in the U.K. also failed to replicate the five-factor model originally proposed by Graham and colleagues (2011) and suggested that "compassion" and "traditionalism" may account for the structure of the MFQ-1 in the U.K. (Harper & Rhodes, 2021).…”

Section: Gaps In Theory and Measurementmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…In the past few years, MFQ-1 has been rightly subjected to psychometric criticism regarding its structural validity as well as internal consistency, especially in diverse, non-Western samples (e.g., Davis et al, 2017;Harper & Rhodes, 2021;Iurino & Saucier, 2020). In many of these studies, the original factor structure was not replicated, and foundation-level internal consistency coefficients were lower than conventional thresholds.…”

Section: Nomological Network Of Moral Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morality Beyond the WEIRD: How the Nomological Network of Morality Varies Across Cultures

Atari¹,

Haidt²,

Graham³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moral Foundations Theory has been a generative framework in moral psychology in the last two decades. Here, we revisit the theory and develop a new measurement tool, the Moral Foundations Questionnaire-2 (MFQ-2), based on data from 25 populations. We demonstrate empirically that Equality and Proportionality are distinct moral foundations while retaining the other four existing foundations of Care, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Three studies were conducted to develop the MFQ-2 and to examine how the nomological network of moral foundations varies across 25 populations. Study 1 (N = 3,360, five nations) specified a refined top-down approach for measurement of moral foundations. Study 2 (N = 3,902, 19 populations) used a variety of methods (e.g., factor analysis, exploratory structural equations model, network psychometrics, alignment measurement equivalence) to provide evidence that the MFQ-2 fares well in terms of reliability and validity across cultural contexts. We also examined population-level, religious, ideological, and gender differences using the new measure. Study 3 (N = 1,410, three populations) provided evidence for convergent validity of the MFQ-2 scores, expanded the nomological network of the six moral foundations, and demonstrated the improved predictive power of the measure compared with the original MFQ. Importantly, our results showed how the nomological network of moral foundations varied across cultural contexts: consistent with a pluralistic view on morality, different foundations were influential in the network of moral foundations depending on cultural context. These studies sharpen the theoretical and methodological resolution of Moral Foundations Theory and provide the field of moral psychology a more accurate instrument for investigating the many ways that moral conflicts and divisions are shaping the modern world.

show abstract

“…However, they found that a five correlated-factors models showed the best fit in their sample despite, again, no model showing adequate fit. More recently, Harper & Rhodes [32] tested the factor structure of the MFQ in two British samples (total N = 750), confirming that the proposed five-factor structure was not psychometrically sound according to accepted metrics. They also tested an extended MFQ, including the nine items of the sixth "Liberty" foundation proposed by Haidt and colleagues [12].…”

Section: Psychometric Modelling Of the Moral Foundations Questionnair...mentioning

confidence: 91%

Remapping the foundations of morality: Well-fitting structural model of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire

Zakharin

Bates

2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Moral foundations theory posits five moral foundations, however 5-factor models provide poor fit to the data. Here, in five studies, each with large samples (total N = 11,496), we construct and replicate a well-fitting model of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). In study 1 (N = 2,271) we tested previously theorised models, confirming none provide adequate fit. We then developed a well-fitting model of the MFQ. In this model, the fairness/reciprocity and harm/care foundations were preserved intact. The binding foundations, however, divided into five, rather than the original three foundations. Purity/sanctity split into independent foundations of purity and sanctity. Similarly, Ingroup/loyalty divided into independent factors of loyalty to clan and loyalty to country. Authority/respect was re-focussed on hierarchy, losing one item to the new sanctity foundation and another into loyalty to country. In addition to these 7 foundations, higher-level factors of binding and individualizing were supported, along with a general/acquiescence factor. Finally, a “moral tilt” factor corresponding to coordinated left-leaning vs. right-leaning moral patterns was supported. We validated the model in four additional studies, testing replication of the 7-foundation model in data including from US, Australia, and China (total N = 9,225). The model replicated with good fit found in all four samples. These findings demonstrate the first well-fitting replicable model of the MFQ. They also highlight the importance of modelling measurement structure, and reveal important additional foundations, and structure (binding, individualizing, tilt) above the foundations.

show abstract

Reanalysing the factor structure of the moral foundations questionnaire

Cited by 55 publications

References 68 publications

The Moral Foundations of Desired Cultural Tightness

The Moral Foundations of Desired Cultural Tightness

Morality Beyond the WEIRD: How the Nomological Network of Morality Varies Across Cultures

Remapping the foundations of morality: Well-fitting structural model of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About