Title |
Moral foundations vignettes: a standardized stimulus database of scenarios based on moral foundations theory
|
---|---|
Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, January 2015
|
DOI | 10.3758/s13428-014-0551-2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Scott Clifford, Vijeth Iyengar, Roberto Cabeza, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong |
Abstract |
Research on the emotional, cognitive, and social determinants of moral judgment has surged in recent years. The development of moral foundations theory (MFT) has played an important role, demonstrating the breadth of morality. Moral psychology has responded by investigating how different domains of moral judgment are shaped by a variety of psychological factors. Yet, the discipline lacks a validated set of moral violations that span the moral domain, creating a barrier to investigating influences on judgment and how their neural bases might vary across the moral domain. In this paper, we aim to fill this gap by developing and validating a large set of moral foundations vignettes (MFVs). Each vignette depicts a behavior violating a particular moral foundation and not others. The vignettes are controlled on many dimensions including syntactic structure and complexity making them suitable for neuroimaging research. We demonstrate the validity of our vignettes by examining respondents' classifications of moral violations, conducting exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and demonstrating the correspondence between the extracted factors and existing measures of the moral foundations. We expect that the MFVs will be beneficial for a wide variety of behavioral and neuroimaging investigations of moral cognition. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 17% |
United Kingdom | 3 | 17% |
Netherlands | 2 | 11% |
Spain | 1 | 6% |
Guinea | 1 | 6% |
Germany | 1 | 6% |
Japan | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 10 | 56% |
Scientists | 4 | 22% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | <1% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
Ireland | 1 | <1% |
Luxembourg | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 421 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 100 | 23% |
Student > Master | 63 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 49 | 11% |
Researcher | 48 | 11% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 21 | 5% |
Other | 75 | 18% |
Unknown | 72 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 212 | 50% |
Social Sciences | 47 | 11% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 23 | 5% |
Neuroscience | 10 | 2% |
Computer Science | 9 | 2% |
Other | 39 | 9% |
Unknown | 88 | 21% |