The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mapping the moral domain.
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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)
In the citing paper
“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)
In the citing paper
“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)
In the citing paper
“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)
In the citing paper
“All three distance metrics found our sample of self-reported GPT conservatives to be most similar to conservative participants of Graham et al. (2011). This was always followed relatively closely by the moderate sample. The two furthest away were always the liberal sample (furthest away with respect to cosine similarity metric) and the libertarian sample (furthest away with respect to the L1 and L”
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.
Citations
Cites
Bhagat, R. S., & Hofstede, G. (2002) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2002.7389951 · Cited by 21,688
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 · Cited by 14,619
The Handbook of Social Psychology
Gravatt, A. E., Lindzey, G. E., & Aronson, F. (1969) · The Family Coordinator · doi:10.2307/582242 · Cited by 12,518
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317 · cited 1×
“Second, we wanted to supplement the abstract relevance assessments—which, as selftheories about how one makes moral judgments, may be inaccurate with regard to actual moral judgments (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977)—with contextualized items that could more directly gauge actual moral judgments.”
BackgroundThe Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory And Women's Development
Gilligan, & Carol, C. (1982) · Cited by 10,877
(1976) · Cited by 10,423
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/jyj1-4868 · Cited by 10,297
Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
Davis, M. H. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 · Cited by 10,272
(1973) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 10,144
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
- Haidt J Kesebir S Fiske ST Gilbert D Lindzey G Morality Handbook of Social Psychology 2010 5th Edition Hoboken, NJ Wiley 797 832
- Hofstede G Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations 2001 New York Sage Publications
- James W Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking and The Meaning of Truth 1907/1998 Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press
- Mill JS On liberty 1859/2003 New Haven, CT Yale University Press
- Singer P Practical ethics 1979 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,006 of 1,006
Wang, T., Wang, X., Jiang, T., Wang, S., & Chen, Z. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18063170 · Cited by 9
Rape or Homicide: Which Is Worse?
Felson, R. B., & Silver, E. (2024) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-023-02799-w · Cited by 5
Valmori, A., Carraro, L., Guidetti, M., Lenzi, M., & Castelli, L. (2024) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-024-06195-y · Cited by 5
Moral Reactions to Sexual Relationships that Violate Age Norms
Felson, R. B., & Silver, E. (2024) · The Journal of Sex Research · doi:10.1080/00224499.2023.2192196 · Cited by 3
Development and validation of social issues advocacy scale 2-short form
Nilsson, J. E., Marszalek, J. M., Kim, A., Khalid, A., Bierman, B., & Chabot, S. (2025) · Counselling Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.1080/09515070.2024.2441935 · Cited by 3
Signaling (in)tolerance: Social evaluation and metaethical relativism and objectivism
Moss, D., Montealegre, A., Bush, L. S., Caviola, L., & Pizarro, D. (2025) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105984 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC3116962
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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 › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource 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
