PREDICTING ATTITUDES USING MORAL FOUNDATIONS THEORY
Ciara K. Kidder*, Katherine R. G. White, & Stephen L. Crites, Jr.
University of Texas at El Paso
Moral Foundations Theory (MFT)
• Moral domain is composed of five stable foundations[2]:
• Harm/Care
• Fairness/Reciprocity
• In-group/Loyalty
• Authority/Respect
• Purity/Sanctity
• Extent to which we rely on them influence attitude [3]:
• ↑ disapproval Animal Research = ↑ reliance on Harm
• ↑ disapproval Same-sex Marriage = ↑ reliance on Purity
Issue Relatedness
Participants: 302 undergraduates (211 Female), Mean Age =
20.17 (SD = 3.99), 86.8% Hispanic
Measures and Procedure:
Issue related measures toward 4 issues: making gay marriage
legal, making abortion illegal, using torture in interrogations,
using animals in medical research.
• Attitude: 9-item measure of attitude. Measured on a 1-7
scale; higher numbers indicating a more positive attitude.
• Issue relatedness: 10-item measure measuring extent to
which participants view an issue as being related to each
of the moral foundations. Measured on a 1-7 scale; higher
numbers indicating greater relatedness.
Individual difference measures were completed after the issue
relatedness measures.
• Moral foundations questionnaire: 30-item measure of
participant’s reliance on the five moral foundations;
6/foundation. Measured on a 1-7 scale; higher numbers
indicating greater reliance
Current Study
The goal of the current study is to replicate previous
research [3] and examine how issue relatedness predicts attitude.
HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis 1: Replicate Koleva et al. (2012); moral
foundations will predict attitudes
Hypothesis 2: Extend by adding issue relatedness; issue
relatedness will also predict attitudes
Poster presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social
Psychology.
*Author contact: ckconnally@miners.utep.edu
Gender
Age
Politics
Attendance
MFQ Harm
-.323
Gay
Marriage
.138
.242
-.196
MFQ Purity
Harm
Fairness
Loyalty
Authority
Purity
Animal
Research
-.300
.174
-.261
-.231
MFQ Fairness
MFQ Loyalty
MFQ Authority
Abortion
(Illegal)
X
X
-210
R2Δ .037*
.177
X
.264**
X
.091**
.191
.260
-.182
.043**
.221
.483
.153
-.289
*X indicates that the MFQ predictor from block 2 did not remain significant
DISCUSSION
RESULTS
• Attitudes are bases on multiple types of information [4].
• Some issues may be related to multiple foundations.
• Person 1: High reliance on fairness & Gay marriage is
related to fairness  Reliance predicts attitude
• Person 2: High reliance on fairness but Gay marriage is
not related to fairness  Reliance does not predict
attitude
Torture
Individual
Differences
• Morality: a belief system or ideology characterized by
strong conviction; varies across individuals and cultures.
• Moral attitudes: distinct set of attitudes connected to our
morals.
• Differ from non-moral attitudes [1]:
• Resistant to change and influences of authority
• Preference for greater physical and social distance from
dissimilar others
• Less cooperation and conflict resolution in group settings
TABLE 1. BLOCK 3 OF REGRESSIONS
Reliance on
Foundations
Moral Attitudes
METHOD
Issue
Relatedness
INTRODUCTION
Replication of Koleva et al.:
• Replicated regressions used by Koleva et al. (2012):
• Block 1: age, gender, religious attendance, and political
ideology
• Block 2: MFQ scores (reliance on the moral foundations)
• Block 2: Four foundations were predictors
• Harm- Neg. attitudes toward Torture and Animal
Research
• Loyalty- Pos. attitudes toward Gay Marriage
• Authority- Pos. attitudes toward Torture and Animal
Research
• Purity- Neg. attitudes toward Gay Marriage, Torture, &
Animal Research, Pos. attitudes toward Abortion (illegal)
Extension - Adding Issue Relatedness:
•Block 3: Issue-relatedness scores = significant ΔR2
• Some MFQ predictors dropped out
• IR foundation predictors not seen in MFQ
• Fairness = Pos. attitudes toward Gay Marriage
• Harm = Pos. attitudes toward Abortion (illegal)
• Loyalty = Pos. attitudes toward Torture
Replication of Koleva et al.:
• Partially replicate
• 7/9 of the MFQ predictors match previous [3]
• Some predictors from previous did not replicate
• Methodological differences:
• Attitude measure
• Sample size and characteristics
Extension - Adding Issue Relatedness:
• Some aspects of moral attitude is captured by IR when not
captured by MFQ
• e.g., Torture related to harm (MFQ) to person and loyalty (IR)
to group/country
Future Directions:
• Further exploration of relationship between MFQ and IR
• Model relationship between MFQ, IR, and attitude
REFERENCES
1. Skitka, L.J. (2010) The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 4(4), 267-281. doi: 10.111/j.1751-9004.2010.00254.x
2. Haidt, J. & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions
that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116. doi: 10.1007/s11211-007-0034z
3. Koleva, S.P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P.H., Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral
concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality,
46(2), 184-194. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006
4. Crites, S.L., & Aikman, S.N. (2005). Impact of nutrition knowledge on food evaluations. European
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59, 1191-1200. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602331