Home Logout Explore Your Morals About Us Links Welcome

YourMorals.Org Home Logout Explore Your Morals About Us Links Welcome [email protected] - logout The scale you completed was the "Moral Foundations Questionnaire," developed by Jesse Graham and Jonathan Haidt at the University of Virginia. The scale is a measure of your reliance on and endorsement of five psychological foundations of morality that seem to be found across cultures. Each of the two parts of the scale contained three questions related to each foundation: 1) harm/care, 2) fairness/reciprocity (including issues of rights), 3) ingroup/loyalty, 4) authority/respect, and 5) purity/sanctity. The idea behind the scale is that human morality is the result of biological and cultural evolutionary processes that made human beings very sensitive to many different (and often competing) issues. Some of these issues are about treating other individuals well (the first two foundations - harm and fairness). Other issues are about how to be a good member of a group or supporter of social order and tradition (the last three foundations). Haidt and Graham have found that political liberals generally place a higher value on the first two foundations; they are very concerned about issues of harm and fairness (including issues of inequality and exploitation). Political conservatives care about harm and fairness too, but they generally score slightly lower on those scale items. The big difference between liberals and conservatives seems to be that conservatives score slightly higher on the ingroup/loyalty foundation, and much higher on the authority/respect and purity/sanctity foundations. This difference seems to explain many of the most contentious issues in the culture war. For example, liberals support legalizing gay marriage (to be fair and compassionate), whereas many conservatives are reluctant to change the nature of marriage and the family, basic building blocks of society. Conservatives are more likely to favor practices that increase order and respect (e.g., spanking, mandatory pledge of allegiance), whereas liberals often oppose these practices as being violent or coercive. In the graph below, your scores on each foundation are shown in green (the 1st bar in each set of 3 bars). The scores of all liberals who have taken it on our site are shown in blue (the 2nd bar), and the scores of all conservatives are shown in red (3rd bar). Scores run from 0 (the lowest possible score, you completely reject that foundation) to 5 (the highest possible score, you very strongly endorse that foundation and build much of your morality on top of it). If you liked this scale, consider using the YourMorals.org Facebook App where you can compare yourself to your friends on these five foundations. To learn more about "Moral Foundations Theory" and political psychology you can visit . Return to the "Explore" page. contact: webmaster at yourmorals dot org

Paper For Above instruction

The Moral Foundations Theory, developed by Jesse Graham and Jonathan Haidt, offers a nuanced understanding of human morality by identifying five fundamental psychological foundations that underpin moral judgments across cultures. These foundations—harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity—serve as lenses through which individuals evaluate moral issues, shaping behaviors, beliefs, and social attitudes. Exploring these foundations provides valuable insights into political psychology and the moral divides characteristic of contemporary culture wars.

At the core of the theory is the premise that human morality is a product of both biological evolution and cultural influences, resulting in diverse moral emphases among individuals and groups. The harm/care foundation reflects an innate sensitivity to suffering and a desire to protect others from harm, which is typically emphasized by liberals. This foundation supports moral concerns related to alleviating pain, preventing exploitation, and promoting kindness. The fairness/reciprocity foundation emphasizes justice, rights, and equality, also valued highly among liberals, who tend to prioritize issues of social justice and equality.

Conversely, the other three foundations—ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity—are often associated with conservative moral judgments. The ingroup/loyalty foundation underscores the importance of group membership, allegiance, and loyalty, fostering a sense of identity and solidarity. Authority/respect emphasizes adherence to social hierarchies and respect for tradition and authority figures. Purity/sanctity pertains to maintaining moral boundaries and avoiding contamination or perceived moral dangers.

This framework illuminates why liberals and conservatives often diverge on moral and social issues. For example, liberals tend to support policies like gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws, motivated by concern for harm and fairness. Conservatives, on the other hand, may oppose such policies due to their emphasis on tradition, social order, and purity. The differences in how these foundations are prioritized explain contrasting stances on topics such as discipline, social cohesion, religious practices, and responses to cultural change.

Research by Haidt and Graham indicates that liberals generally score higher on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, reflecting their moral priorities centered on alleviating suffering and promoting justice. Conservatives typically have a more balanced profile, with somewhat lower scores on harm and fairness but higher scores on ingroup/loyalty, authority, and purity. These variations contribute to the political polarization seen in many societies, where moral values shape ideological identities and policy preferences.

The importance of understanding these moral foundations extends beyond academic theory. For instance, social psychologists and political analysts can leverage this knowledge to foster dialogue and reduce conflict between opposing groups. Recognizing that different groups prioritize different moral values can facilitate communication strategies that respect these differing perspectives, leading to more constructive political discourse and social cohesion.

Additionally, digital platforms like the YourMorals.org Facebook App enable individuals to compare their scores on these foundations with others, fostering awareness of moral diversity. This comparative understanding can promote empathy and tolerance, essential components of a healthy democratic society. As moral psychology continues to evolve, integrating empirical insights into public policy and education can help bridge moral divides and promote social harmony.

References

• Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.
• Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Bantam Books.
• Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2017). Moral psychology: Understanding the roots of moral reasoning and bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 237-262.
• Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. Viking.
• Blanton, H., & Carlisle, R. (2011). The moral foundations of political ideology. Political Psychology, 32(3), 383–405.
• Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (2013). Motivated reasoning. In P. R. Sharp & S. M. Rogers (Eds.), The psychology of attitude change and social influence (pp. 55–86). Routledge.
• Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2014). Moral conviction and the social psychology of justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 293–357.
• Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (2004). Overcoming moral prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 15–22.
• Crawford, J. T. (2018). Ethical judgment in political contexts: The role of moral foundations. Political Psychology, 39(4), 509–527.
• Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.