The five-factor model of the moral foundations theory is stable across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures

Doğruyol, Burak; Alper, Sinan; Yılmaz, Onurcan

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.109547

Cited by 84 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of moral judgment doesn't involve death or bodily harm, let alone dilemmas featuring these moral considerations. Reams of evidence now suggest that across cultures fundamental moral values include not just harm or care but also fairness, group loyalty, sanctity, and respect for authority (Gilligan 1982;Haidt et al 1993;Doğruyol et al 2019)…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brain activity in these moral circuits changes over the course of development, and such changes are associated with key elements of moral cognition, particularly: assigning value to outcomes such as harm, representation of the actor's knowledge or intentions, and retrieval of relevant social information. However, again, morality involves more than harm or even fairness (Gilligan 1982;Haidt et al 1993;Doğruyol et al 2019). Further developmental neuroscience research should study more than simplistic depictions of harm, altruism, or compassion and make sure their findings generalize to, say, fraud, torture, betrayal, and filial duties.…”

Section: Moral Judgment and Brain Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Neuroscience of Moral Judgment: Empirical and Philosophical Developments

May¹,

Workman²,

Han³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We chart how neuroscience and philosophy have together advanced our understanding of moral judgment with implications for when it goes well or poorly. The field initially focused on brain areas associated with reason versus emotion in the moral evaluations of sacrificial dilemmas. But new threads of research have studied a wider range of moral evaluations and how they relate to models of brain development and learning. By weaving these threads together, we are developing a better understanding of the neurobiology of moral judgment in adulthood and to some extent in childhood and adolescence. Combined with rigorous evidence from psychology and careful philosophical analysis, neuroscientific evidence can even help shed light on the extent of moral knowledge and on ways to promote healthy moral development.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Moral Judgment and Brain Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Neuroscience of Moral Judgment: Empirical and Philosophical Developments

May¹,

Workman²,

Han³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, the presented scenarios might be culturally biased and therefore not touch on the concerns of the Chinese young adult population. Similar issues have been encountered in the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (Graham et al, 2011), where a recent replication of the MFQ did not succeed to uncover a five-factor model across different cultures, casting some doubt on the cross-cultural gene ralizability of five moral foundations (Iurino & Saucier, 2019; though see Doğruyol, Alper, & Yilmaz, 2019 for an alternative analyses). Again, items on the MFQ might be culturally biased, this way creating measurement variance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Beyond the Moral Domain: The Normative Sense Among the Chinese

Berniūnas

Silius

Dranseika

2020

PSY

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we report a study on how different types of normatively relevant transgressions are evaluated by Chinese participants. We hypothesized that, given the continuing influences of Confucian worldview on contemporary Chinese societies, the Chinese will not make a distinction between moral (daode) and conventional norms of cultured behavior (wenming). Our results indicate that Chinese participants expressed a strong normative conviction not only towards harmful and unfair actions, usually subsumed under the moral domain in Western literature, but also towards violations of what would be widely accepted as conventional (or cultural) norms. Similarly, Chinese participants expressed a strong normative conviction towards violations of the traditional Chinese value of family reverence (xiao), thus further supporting our general thesis. Moreover, results indicate that, overall, explicit considerations of wenming (unculturedness) emerged as the best predictor of a normative conviction response among the Chinese. Though considerations of harm and fairness also emerged as significant predictors of normative conviction response. The results are discussed in the light of recent debates about the moral/conventional distinction and the scope of morality.

show abstract

“…Combining these criteria, Table 1 lists the highly cited studies that repeatedly meet the inclusion criteria, including the following list of surveys and their respective publication citations. Athota et al 2019;Bespalov et al 2017;Boer and Fischer 2013;Cantarero et al 2018;Curry et al 2019;Dogruyol et al 2019;Du 2019;Feldman 2019;Graham et al 2012Graham et al , 2011Haidt 2013aHaidt , 2013bHaidt and Graham 2007;Joseph 2004, 2011;Haidt et al 1993;Hu 2017;Hu et al 2020;Iurino and Saucier 2020;Kim et al 2012;Kim and Kang 2013;Koleva et al 2016;Matsuo et al 2019;Mooijman et al 2018;Moreira et al 2019;Nechtelberger et al 2017;Nejat et al 2015;Niazi et al 2020;Nilsson and Erlandsson 2015;Ochoa et al 2016;Peker et al 2018;Purzycki et al 2018;Rahman 2015;Shim et al 2018;Shweder 1990;Shweder and Haidt 1993;Shweder et al 1997 Since the focus is on contemporary publications in the last decade, studies that originated before 2010 were included if a number of current publications continued to analyze the study's data within the 2010-2020 focus (e.g., WVS, ESS, EVS). However, studies that were primarily investigated prior to 2010, without numerous contemporary analyses were excluded.…”

Section: Systematic Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-Cultural Values: A Meta-Analysis of Major Quantitative Studies in the Last Decade (2010–2020)

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2010, scholars have made major contributions to cross-cultural research, especially regarding similarities and differences across world regions and countries in people’s values, beliefs, and morality. This paper accumulates and analyzes extant multi-national and quantitative studies of these facets of global culture. The paper begins with a summary of the modern history of cross-cultural research, then systematically reviews major empirical studies published since 2010, and next analyzes extant approaches to interpret how the constructs of belief, morality, and values have been theorized and operationalized. The analysis reveals that the field of cross-cultural studies remains dominated by Western approaches, especially studies developed and deployed from the United States and Western Europe. While numerous surveys have been translated and employed for data collection in countries beyond the U.S. and Western Europe, several countries remain under-studied, and the field lacks approaches that were developed within the countries of interest. The paper concludes by outlining future directions for the study of cross-cultural research. To progress from the colonialist past embedded within cross-cultural research, in which scholars from the U.S. and Western Europe export research tools to other world regions, the field needs to expand to include studies locally developed and deployed within more countries and world regions.

show abstract

The five-factor model of the moral foundations theory is stable across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures

Cited by 84 publications

References 21 publications

The Neuroscience of Moral Judgment: Empirical and Philosophical Developments

The Neuroscience of Moral Judgment: Empirical and Philosophical Developments

Beyond the Moral Domain: The Normative Sense Among the Chinese

Cross-Cultural Values: A Meta-Analysis of Major Quantitative Studies in the Last Decade (2010–2020)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About