Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Investigation of Moral Foundations Theory in Turkey Using Different Measures

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Liberty is still being tested as a candidate foundation, therefore as a scale it is thought to be separate from the MFQ (J. Graham, personal communication, November 24, 2014)

  2. We repeated all the analyses for 3 samples by a) excluding 2 groups of participants whose ratings on item 6 (“whether or not someone is good at math”) are high (whose ratings are 3, 4, and 5; and 4, and 5), b) excluding weakest items (common and unique in 3 samples) based on the reliability analyses when all participants are in. The weakest items remained the same in the conditions where participants were excluded. For sample 1 and 3, the weakest items were 28, 29, 30; for sample 2, they were 25, 28, & 29. Items 11 (for sample 1) and 30 (for sample 2) were occasionally weak. In these alternative samples, CFAs yield mostly similar results, the changes were minor in model fit indices. For relevance and judgment models, 5-factor models; for full MFQ 5-factor or 6-factor models remained as the best fitting ones. The warnings mostly remained. There were no dramatic changes in model fits and error coefficients. The 3-factor solution of EFA results remained to a large extent the same, across samples and conditions (also, the results of the EFA were to a great extent similar to the reported when filler items were also included in the analyses.).

  3. Information related to CFA of Relevance and Judgment scales of MFQ; figures related to CFAs of MFQ, MFQL, and MSQ in 3 samples; partial correlations (when controlled by religiosity and political orientation) in sample 3 can be requested from the corresponding author. When controlled for ideology or religiosity, the correlations of Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity generally decreased to a certain extent. However, correlations regarding Care and Fairness increased, suggesting a suppression effect.

  4. We also tested other alternative factor structures (2-factor, 5-factor and 6-factor) as argued in literature (Graham et al. 2011), as forced EFA solutions. Results are available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

  • Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berniūnas, R., Dranseika, V., & Sousa, P. (2016). Are there different moral domains? Evidence from Mongolia. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 275–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Challenges (2009, August). Moral Foundations.org. http://moralfoundations.org/challenges

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon Boks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 6, 98–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolhberg, L. (1973). The claim ot moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral development. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 630–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Questionnaires (2013, August). Moral Foundations.org. http://moralfoundations.org/questionnaires

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sunar, D. (2009). Suggestions for a new integration in the psychology of morality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 447–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Zhang, Y., & Li, S. (2015). Two measures for cross-cultural research on morality: Comparison and revision. Psychological Reports, 117, 144–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Bilge Yalçındağ

    Present address: Nuh Naci Yazgan University, Kayseri, Turkey

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Middle East Technical University, Üniversiteler Mahallesi, Dumlupınar Bulvarı No:1, 06800 Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey

    Bilge Yalçındağ & Türker Özkan

  2. İstanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Sevim Cesur

  3. Doğuş University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Onurcan Yilmaz

  4. Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Beyza Tepe

  5. İstanbul Işık University, Şile, Turkey

    Zeynep Ecem Piyale

  6. İstanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ali Furkan Biten & Diane Sunar

Authors
  1. Bilge Yalçındağ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Türker Özkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sevim Cesur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Onurcan Yilmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Beyza Tepe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zeynep Ecem Piyale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ali Furkan Biten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Diane Sunar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bilge Yalçındağ.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Findings related to Sample 3 were part of a doctoral dissertation completed by the first author under the supervision of the second.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yalçındağ, B., Özkan, T., Cesur, S. et al. An Investigation of Moral Foundations Theory in Turkey Using Different Measures. Curr Psychol 38, 440–457 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9618-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9618-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation