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

Abstract

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.

Human morality is based on an early-emerging moral core

“…This collective response was striking, given the many differences in values and experiences between individuals within and across cultures, and is consistent with psychological and anthropological research documenting similarities in which behaviors are deemed morally right versus wrong across cultures (Brown 1991;Curry et al 2019;Graham et al 2011; see also, Atari et al 2022). For example, in examining the ethnographies of 60 societies worldwide, Curry et al (2019) found evidence across societies that behaviors such as helping and dividing resources equally are seen as morally good.…”

Moral disciplining: The cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality

“…This reasoning closely parallels the logic of variations in authoritarian values (Nettle & Saxe, 2021), which are associated with puritanical values (Atari et al, 2022;Harper & Rhodes, 2021).…”

“…Their most systematically documented pattern of variation is their decline in particularly rich, WEIRD societies. In line cultural psychological studies (Atari et al, 2022;Haidt et al, 1993;Shweder et al, 1987), the World Value Surveys demonstrate that virtually all societies, when they are made richer by modern economic development, progressively abandon puritanical values (Inglehart, 2018;Inglehart & Baker, 2000). The richest regions of the world (e.g., Western Europe, North America, Australia/New Zealand) show the lowest levels of puritanical values, while the poorest regions (e.g., Africa, Middle East, Communist Asia) exhibit the highest levels .…”

“…Purity was originally introduced to moral psychology to raise awareness on the cross-cultural variation of morality: beyond the harm-and fairness-centered values of WEIRD societies, morality involves, in more traditional societies, temperance, chastity, and piety (Haidt, 2012;Haidt et al, 1993;Henrich et al, 2010;Shweder et al, 1987). This cross-cultural revolution in moral psychology was essential, and led to systematic documentation of the fall of puritanical values in modern societies (see Section 5; Atari et al, 2022;Haidt et al, 1993). This movement, we suggest, should go one step further.…”

Double standards in judging collective action

“…We included additional measures, not used in the analyses reported in this paper, including measures of moral conviction (Ryan, 2014), gender-related systemjustifying beliefs (Jost & Kay, 2005), and the updated moral foundations questionnaire (Atari et al, 2022, for details, see SOM). Within the latter questionnaire, we embedded three further attention checks (e.g., "To show that you are paying attention and giving your best effort, please select 'moderately describes me' .…”