超越怪异的道德:道德的法理学网络如何在不同文化中变化。

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-17 DOI:10.1037/pspp0000470
Mohammad Atari, Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham, Sena Koleva, Sean T Stevens, Morteza Dehghani
{"title":"超越怪异的道德:道德的法理学网络如何在不同文化中变化。","authors":"Mohammad Atari, Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham, Sena Koleva, Sean T Stevens, Morteza Dehghani","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Moral foundations theory has been a generative framework in moral psychology in the last 2 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 (<i>N</i> = 3,360, five populations) specified a refined top-down approach for measurement of moral foundations. Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 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 (<i>N</i> = 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 of 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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1157-1188"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Morality beyond the WEIRD: How the nomological network of morality varies across cultures.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Atari, Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham, Sena Koleva, Sean T Stevens, Morteza Dehghani\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pspp0000470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Moral foundations theory has been a generative framework in moral psychology in the last 2 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 (<i>N</i> = 3,360, five populations) specified a refined top-down approach for measurement of moral foundations. Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 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 (<i>N</i> = 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 of 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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16691,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of personality and social psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1157-1188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of personality and social psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000470\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000470","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

道德基础理论是近二十年来道德心理学的一个生成框架。在这里,我们重新审视了这一理论,并开发了一个新的测量工具,道德基础问卷-2 (MFQ-2),基于25个人群的数据。我们的经验证明,平等和比例性是独特的道德基础,同时保留了其他四个现有的基础,即关心,忠诚,权威和纯洁。研究人员进行了三项研究,以开发MFQ-2,并检查道德基础的法理学网络如何在25个人群中变化。研究1 (N = 3,360, 5个群体)指定了一种完善的自上而下的方法来衡量道德基础。研究2 (N = 3,902, 19个人群)使用多种方法(如因子分析、探索性结构方程模型、网络心理测量学、校准测量等效性)提供证据,证明MFQ-2在跨文化背景的信度和效度方面表现良好。我们还使用新方法检查了人口水平、宗教、意识形态和性别差异。研究3 (N = 1410, 3个人群)为MFQ-2评分的收敛效度提供了证据,扩展了6个道德基础的法则网络,并证明了与原始MFQ相比,该测量的预测能力有所提高。重要的是,我们的研究结果显示了道德基础的法理网络在不同的文化背景下是如何变化的:与道德的多元观一致,不同的基础在不同的文化背景下对道德基础网络有影响。这些研究强化了道德基础理论的理论和方法解决方案,并为道德心理学领域提供了一个更准确的工具,用于调查道德冲突和分歧塑造现代世界的多种方式。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Morality beyond the WEIRD: How the nomological network of morality varies across cultures.

Moral foundations theory has been a generative framework in moral psychology in the last 2 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 populations) 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 of 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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
期刊最新文献
Compassionate love and beneficence in the family. How people (fail to) control the influence of affective stimuli on attitudes. A contest study to reduce attractiveness-based discrimination in social judgment. Group information enhances recognition of both learned and unlearned face appearances. Moderators of test-retest reliability in implicit and explicit attitudes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1