Cited by 2,666Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentEthics in Business and EducationValues and Moral Education

Mapping the moral domain.

Open access
Graham, Jesse, Nosek, Brian A., Haidt, Jonathan, Iyer, Ravi, Koleva, Spassena, Ditto, Peter H.·2011·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0021847

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MFQ scores have been shown to vary between cultures and between social groups within a single culture.

    “MFQ scores have been shown to vary between cultures (Graham et al., 2011) and between social groups within a single culture (Graham et al., 2009).”

    From Exploring the psychology of LLMs’ moral and legal reasoning (2024) · cites this paper as Graham et al., 2011

  • According to each of the three distance metrics, self-reported GPT liberals had a lower distance to the human liberal sample and a higher distance to the human conservative sample than did the self-reported GPT conservatives.

    “When these three distance metrics were applied to our sample of self-reported GPT liberals, we found that first, according to each of the three distance metrics, self-reported GPT liberals had a lower distance to the human liberal sample and a higher distance to the human conservative sample than did the self-reported GPT conservatives.”

    From Diminished diversity-of-thought in a standard large language model (2024) · cites this paper as Graham et al. (2011)

  • For self-reported GPT liberals, the two human samples furthest away were always the liberal sample and the libertarian sample.

    “Just like for self-reported GPT conservatives, the two human samples furthest away from the self-reported GPT liberals were always the liberal sample (furthest away from with respect to cosine similarity metric) and the libertarian sample (furthest away with respect to the L1 and L2 distance metrics).”

    From Diminished diversity-of-thought in a standard large language model (2024) · cites this paper as Graham et al. (2011)

  • The L1 distance metric found self-reported GPT liberals closest in response to human conservatives among human liberals, moderates, conservatives, and libertarians; the L2 and cosine similarity metrics found them closest to human moderates, with human conservatives a close second.

    “Also, the L1 distance metric found that self-reported GPT liberals were – among human liberals, human moderates, human conservatives, and human libertarians – closest in response to human conservatives.”

    From Diminished diversity-of-thought in a standard large language model (2024) · cites this paper as Graham et al. (2011)

  • According to each of the three distance metrics, self-reported GPT liberals were still closer to the human conservative sample than to the human liberal sample.

    “The second, arguably more surprising finding was that according to each of the three distance metrics, our sample of self-reported GPT liberals were still closer to the human conservative sample than it was to the human liberal sample.”

    From Diminished diversity-of-thought in a standard large language model (2024) · cites this paper as Graham et al. (2011)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 91 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Haidt J Kesebir S Fiske ST Gilbert D Lindzey G Morality Handbook of Social Psychology 2010 5th Edition Hoboken, NJ Wiley 797 832
  2. Hofstede G Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations 2001 New York Sage Publications
  3. James W Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking and The Meaning of Truth 1907/1998 Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press
  4. Mill JS On liberty 1859/2003 New Haven, CT Yale University Press
  5. Singer P Practical ethics 1979 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2011
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
366-385
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2096910467
Cited by
2,666
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 169 · 2025: 254 · 2024: 245 · 2023: 242 · 2022: 269 · 2021: 245 · 2020: 212 · 2019: 215 · 2018: 174 · 2017: 157 · 2016: 137 · 2015: 114 · 2014: 92 · 2013: 77 · 2012: 42
FWCI
37.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Institute of Education Sciences
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH68447)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Values and Moral Education
Keywords
moral foundations, Moral Foundations Questionnaire, moral intuitions, harm/care, ingroup loyalty, moral competence, empathy, justice, personality traits, cultural differences in morality, cross-cultural comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Morals, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Values, Reproducibility of Results, Intuition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review