The Moral Framing Scale MFS Measuring Moral Perceptions

The Moral Framing Scale (MFS): Measuring Moral Perceptions of Social Issues Katherine R. G. White & Ciara Kidder Columbus State University & University of Texas at El Paso Abstract Methods & Procedure Introduction • N = 407 (undergraduate students) • Hotly contested and debated issues in society tend to contain moral • Using Moral Foundations Theory (MFT; Haidt & Graham, 2007), the Moral Framing Scale (MFS) was developed to assess the extent to which participants believe a specified social issue relates to harm, fairness, ingroup loyalty, respect, and purity. arguments and appeals. Examples include the debate about legalized abortion and using torture to obtain military intelligence. Given this, information about individual’s moral beliefs can be useful for predicting their attitudes on these issues. • Moral Foundations Theory (MFT; Haidt & Graham, 2007) states that all groups and individuals base their moral beliefs upon five basic foundations (Harm, Fairness, Ingroup loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity). Importantly, scores on these various foundations have been successfully used to predict attitudes toward various social groups (Graham et al. , 2011). • To examine the validity and reliability of the MFS, participants completed a series of survey scales (MFS, general attitudes) for ten social issues (e. g. , euthanasia, stem cell research). • We used MFT to develop and test a survey instrument that captures the extent to which a person believes a specific social issue is related to these moral foundations. We have named this instrument the Moral Framing Scale (MFS). • Separate confirmatory factor analyses were run for each social issue and suggested adequate model fit for the hypothesized factor structure of the MFS. Cronbach alpha estimates varied by subscale but provided initial evidence for the internal reliability of the MFS subscales. • The purpose of the present research was to examine the factor structure, validity, and reliability of the Moral Foundations Scale. • It was predicted that MFS items pertaining to the harm foundation would load on a common latent factor, items pertaining to the fairness foundation would load on a common latent factor, and so forth (five-factor structure). • For every issue but recycling, the MFS subscales accounted for a significant amount of variance in general attitudes beyond that explained by gender, age, and political orientation, supporting the scale’s concurrent validity. • It was also predicted that scores on the MFS subscales would predict a significant amount of unique variance in attitudes above and beyond that accounted for by sex, gender, political orientation, and scores on the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham et al. , 2011). Results Issue Abortion Gay Marriage *** Torture ** Death Penalty ** Gun Control ** Recycling * Drones *** Stem Cell Research * Euthanasia *** Wikileaks RFI (>. 90). 865. 849. 924. 886. 895. 888. 893. 903. 869. 915 CFI (>. 93). 927. 920. 964. 944. 951. 945. 946. 953. 931. 963 RMSEA (<. 08). 095. 09. 074. 077. 072. 077. 081. 078. 091. 064 • Hierarchical regression analyses (one per issue, N = 293) • DV = attitude; Block 1: sex, age, political orientation; Block 2: MFQ scores • Block 3: the five MFS scores (harm, fairness, ingroup, respect, purity) Issue Abortion Gay Marriage Torture Death Penalty Gun Control Recycling Drones Stem Cell Research Euthanasia Wikileaks R 2Δ. 073. 147. 068. 050. 053. 019. 075. 046. 126. 137 R 2Δ p <. 001. 007. 008. 344 <. 001. 009 <. 001 • Measures and Materials • Issues examined: abortion, gay marriage, torture, death penalty, gun control, recycling, drones, stem cell research, euthanasia, wikileaks • Moral Framing Scale (MFS) for each issue • 15 questions, 3 per moral foundation (5 subscales) • “To what extent do you think [issue] is related to the following? ” • Sample items: Compassion and prevention of cruelty (harm) Wholesomeness and virtues (purity) • 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely • Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham et al. , 2011) • Measure of attitude valence for each issue (N = 293) • Demographics: sex, age, and political orientation • Surveys administered using Survey Monkey after obtaining informed consent Discussion & Conclusion Sample Hypothesized Model for the MFS • Confirmatory Factor Analyses (one per issue, N = 407) • 271 female; Mean age = 20. 1 years Sig predictors sex (-), pol orient (-), MFQ purity (-), MFS fair (+), MFS pure (-) sex (+), pol orient (-), MFQ pure (-), MFS fair (+) sex (-), age (+), pol orient (+), MFS ingroup (+), MFS pure (-) age (+), pol orient (+), MFQ harm (-), MFS harm (+), MFS pure (-) pol orient (-), MFS ingroup (-) MFS pure (+) sex (-), MFS harm (+), MFS pure (-) age (+), MFQ respect (+), MFQ pure (-), MFS fair (+) MFQ harm (-), MFQ ingroup (+), MFQ pure (-), MFS harm (+), MFS fair (+), MFS ingroup (-), MFS pure (-) sex (-), age (-), MFQ pure (-), MFS fair (+), MFS respect (-) Cronbach Alphas (α). 87, . 78, . 75, . 78, . 86. 81, . 89, . 80, . 76. 90, . 83, . 88, . 84, . 86. 83, . 79, . 80, . 79, . 82. 85, . 79, . 77, . 82, . 85, . 70, . 76, . 75. 86, . 78, . 87, . 81. 85, . 81, . 87, . 81, . 83. 85, . 79, . 78, . 82, . 83. 85, . 79, . 80 • The confirmatory factor analyses revealed moderate to adequate fit for several of the tested social issues – torture, death penalty, gun control, recycling, drones, stem cell research, and wikileaks. • This provides initial evidence for hypothesized five-factor structure of the MFS. • Estimates of the internal reliability of the MFS varied by issue and subscale but largely confirmed the reliability of the MFS. • Hierarchical regression analyses: • Controlling for gender, age, political orientation, and scores on the MFQ, the MFS subscales accounted for a significant amount of unique variance in attitudes for all issues except recycling. • This provides evidence for the hypothesized validity of the MFS. • Conclusion: The current research confirms the predicted factor structure of the Moral Framing Scale and also provides initial evidence for the reliability and validity of the instrument. The MFS may therefore serve as a valuable tool when seeking to better understand predict morally charged attitudes. Knowing the extent to which a person believes a specific issue is related to the five moral foundations may be as, if not more, useful for predicting their attitudes on that issue than knowledge concerning their general reliance on the five moral foundations. References Graham, J. , Nosek, B. , Haidt, J. , Iyer, R. , Koleva, S. , & Ditto, P. (2011). Mapping the Moral Domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366 -385. Haidt, J. & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98116. For further information regarding this research, please contact Katherine White at white_katherine 2@columbusstate. edu.