Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 440–457 | Cite as

An Investigation of Moral Foundations Theory in Turkey Using Different Measures

  • Bilge YalçındağEmail author
  • Türker Özkan
  • Sevim Cesur
  • Onurcan Yilmaz
  • Beyza Tepe
  • Zeynep Ecem Piyale
  • Ali Furkan Biten
  • Diane Sunar
Article

Abstract

Claims of universality for Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) require extensive cross-cultural validation. The present study aims to (1) develop Turkish versions of three instruments used to research MFT (MFQ, MFQL, MSQ); (2) assess the psychometric properties of the Turkish instruments; (3) test the assumptions of the theory against findings from the instruments in Turkish culture. Three independently translated versions of the MFQ were administered to three samples totaling 1432 respondents. Results were consistent across samples. Internal reliability was satisfactory. CFA indicated a best fit for a 5-factor solution despite low fit indices and high error coefficients. EFA yielded a 3-factor solution, which did not replicate the 2-factor “individualizing” and “binding” factors found in U.S. samples. CFA and EFA with the MSQ produced 2-factor solutions which also did not align with the individualizing-binding dichotomy. Meaningful relations between the moral foundations and scores on political orientation and religiosity supported the validity of the measures in Turkish culture.

Keywords

Morality Moral foundations Culture Sacredness Liberty 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Türker Özkan has received research grant from Middle East Technical University for this study (grant number: BAP- 07-03-2014-015).

Funding

Findings related to Sample 3 were funded by Middle East Technical University (grant number: BAP- 07-03-2014-015).

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Berniūnas, R., Dranseika, V., & Sousa, P. (2016). Are there different moral domains? Evidence from Mongolia. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 275–282.Google Scholar
  3. Bobbio, A., Nencini, A., & Sarrica, M. (2011). Il moral foundation questionnaire: Analisi della struttura fattoriale della versione italiana. Giornale di Psicologia, 5, 7–18.Google Scholar
  4. Bowman, N. (2010, July). German translation of the moral foundations questionnaire-some preliminary results. http://onmediatheory.blogspot.com.tr/2010/07/german-translation-of-moral-foundations.html Google Scholar
  5. Davies, C. L., Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis of the moral foundation questionnaire: Independent scale validation in a New Zealand sample. Social Psychology, 45, 431–436.Google Scholar
  6. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2012). Sacred values and evil adversaries: A moral foundations approach. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 11–31). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  8. 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, 1029–1046.Google Scholar
  9. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.Google Scholar
  10. 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, 366–385.Google Scholar
  11. Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1002.Google Scholar
  12. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon Boks.Google Scholar
  13. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 6, 98–116.Google Scholar
  14. Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 797–832). Hobeken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PloS One, 7(8), 1–23.Google Scholar
  16. Kim, K. R., Kang, J., & Yun, S. (2012). Moral intuitions and political orientation: Similarities and differences between South Korea and the United States. Psychological Reports: Sociocultural Issues In Psychology, 111, 173–185.Google Scholar
  17. Kolhberg, L. (1973). The claim ot moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral development. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 630–646.Google Scholar
  18. Métayer, S., & Pahlavan, F. (2014). Validation de l'adaptation française du questionnaire des principes moraux fondateurs. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 27(2), 79–107.Google Scholar
  19. Nilsson, A., & Erlandsson, A. (2015). The moral foundations taxonomy: Structural validity and relation to political ideology in Sweden. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 28–32.Google Scholar
  20. Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity) and the “big three” explanations of suffering. In A. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119–169). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Sunar, D. (2009). Suggestions for a new integration in the psychology of morality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 447–474.Google Scholar
  22. Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Yalçındağ, B. (2015). Searching for the content and scope of morality: With a framework of moral foundations theory (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ankara: Middle East Technical University.Google Scholar
  24. Yilmaz, O., Harma, M., Bahçekapılı, H. G., & Cesur, S. (2016a). Validation of the moral foundations questionnaire in Turkey and its relation to cultural schemas of individualism and collectivism. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 149–154.Google Scholar
  25. Yilmaz, O., Sarıbay, S. A., Bahçekapılı, H. G., & Harma, M. (2016b). Political orientations, ideological self-categorizations, party preferences, and moral foundations of young Turkish voters. Turkish Studies, 17(4), 544–566.Google Scholar
  26. Zhang, Y., & Li, S. (2015). Two measures for cross-cultural research on morality: Comparison and revision. Psychological Reports, 117, 144–166.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Middle East Technical University, Üniversiteler MahallesiAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Nuh Naci Yazgan UniversityKayseriTurkey
  3. 3.İstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Doğuş UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  5. 5.Bahçeşehir UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  6. 6.İstanbul Işık UniversityŞileTurkey
  7. 7.İstanbul Bilgi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations