Link Search Menu Expand Document
Moral Psychology
The Science of Good and Evil?

Moral Foundations Theory Reprise

How well supported are the claims of Moral Foundations Theory (see Moral Foundations Theory: An Approach to Cultural Variation) by the discoveries we have encountered? And how does Moral Foundations Theory relate to our stripped-down dual-process theory (see A Dual Process Theory of Ethical Judgement)?

If the video isn’t working you could also watch it on youtube. Or you can view just the slides (no audio or video).

This recording is also available on stream (no ads; search enabled).

If the slides are not working, or you prefer them full screen, please try this link. The recording is available on stream and youtube.

Notes

Objections to Moral Foundations Theory

The main theoretical objection to Moral Foundations Theory arises from moral disengagement (Bandura, 2002; see Moral Disengagement: The Theory), which shows that moral judgements are sometimes (indirectly, perhaps) a consequence of reasoning. This is incompatible with the Social Intuitionist Model of Moral Judgement, which is one component of Moral Foundations Theory.

This theoretical objection matters for interpreting the results of studies using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. For the objection implies, contra Social Intuitionist Model of Moral Judgement, that moral judgements are not a function only of moral foundations and cultural learning.

The main empirical objection to Moral Foundations Theory arises from the multiple failures of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire to exhibit scalar invariance (see Operationalising Moral Foundations Theory and The Argument and Some Objections).

A Hybrid Theory?

Moral Foundations Theory and our stripped-down dual-process theory are incompatible. Most clearly because Moral Foundations Theory includes a one-process theory of moral judgement.

Nevertheless, it may be possible to combine components of the two theories. This could be advantageous for both sides.

From the point of view of Moral Foundations Theory, mixing in a dual-process theory could suggest new ways to discover evidence for cultural variation that do not depend on the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (such as process dissociation; see Moral Reframing and Process Dissociation).

From the point of view of our dual-process theory, taking moral pluralism serious may help in getting beyond relying too heavily on a crude and not-well-supported-by-evidence distinction between characteristically consequentialist and characteristically deontological judgements.

Glossary

characteristically consequentialist : According to Greene, a judgement is characteristically consequentialist (or characteristically utilitarian) if it is one that in ‘favor of characteristically consequentialist conclusions (eg, “Better to save more lives”)’ (Greene, 2007, p. 39). According to Gawronski, Armstrong, Conway, Friesdorf, & Hütter (2017, p. 365), ‘a given judgment cannot be categorized as [consequentialist] without confirming its property of being sensitive to consequences.’
characteristically deontological : According to Greene, a judgement is characteristically deontological if it is one that in ‘favor of characteristically deontological conclusions (eg, “It’s wrong despite the benefits”)’ (Greene, 2007, p. 39). According to Gawronski et al. (2017, p. 365), ‘a given judgment cannot be categorized as deontological without confirming its property of being sensitive to moral norms.’
dual-process theory : Any theory concerning abilities in a particular domain on which those abilities involve two or more processes which are distinct in this sense: the conditions which influence whether one mindreading process occurs differ from the conditions which influence whether another occurs.
Moral Foundations Theory : The theory that moral pluralism is true; moral foundations are innate but also subject to cultural learning, and the Social Intuitionist Model of Moral Judgement is correct (Graham et al., 2019). Proponents often claim, further, that cultural variation in how these innate foundations are woven into ethical abilities can be measured using the Moral Foundations Questionnare (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009; Graham et al., 2011). Some empirical objections have been offered (Davis et al., 2016; Davis, Dooley, Hook, Choe, & McElroy, 2017; Doğruyol, Alper, & Yilmaz, 2019). See Moral Foundations Theory: An Approach to Cultural Variation.
Social Intuitionist Model of Moral Judgement : A model on which intuitive processes are directly responsible for moral judgements (Haidt & Bjorklund, 2008). One’s own reasoning does not typically affect one’s own moral judgements, but (outside philosophy, perhaps) is typically used only to provide post-hoc justification after moral judgements are made. Reasoning does affect others’ moral intuitions, and so provides a mechanism for cultural learning.

References

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322
Davis, D., Dooley, M., Hook, J., Choe, E., & McElroy, S. (2017). The Purity/Sanctity Subscale of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire Does Not Work Similarly for Religious Versus Non-Religious Individuals. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 9(1), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000057
Davis, D., Rice, K., Tongeren, D. V., Hook, J., DeBlaere, C., Worthington, E., & Choe, E. (2016). The Moral Foundations Hypothesis Does Not Replicate Well in Black Samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000056
Doğruyol, B., Alper, S., & Yilmaz, O. (2019). The five-factor model of the moral foundations theory is stable across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109547
Gawronski, B., Armstrong, J., Conway, P., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2017). Consequences, norms, and generalized inaction in moral dilemmas: The CNI model of moral decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 343–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000086
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Motyl, M., Meindl, P., Iskiwitch, C., & Mooijman, M. (2019). Moral Foundations Theory: On the advantages of moral pluralism over moral monism. In K. Gray & J. Graham (Eds.), Atlas of Moral Psychology. New York: Guilford Publications.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847
Greene, J. D. (2007). The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Psychology, Vol. 3 (pp. 35–79). MIT Press.
Haidt, J., & Bjorklund, F. (2008). Social intuitionists answer six questions about moral psychology. In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology, Vol 2: The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 181–217). Cambridge, Mass: MIT press.
Luke, D. M., & Gawronski, B. (2021). Political Ideology and Moral Dilemma Judgments: An Analysis Using the CNI Model: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220987990