Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest reliability was established using college students, who took the MFQ twice, between 28 and 43
days apart ( Graham et al., 2011 ). Stability coefficients were .71 for Harm, .68 for Fairness, .69 for Ingroup, .71 for
Authority, and .82 for Purity.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Graham et al. (2011) identified multiple scales that they predicted would be related to each of the MFQ foun-
dation scores, and these scales were grouped into five external criteria scale sets, with one set for each founda-
tion. The items for the same scale were averaged together, and the correlations between the foundations and the
scales were averaged together for each criterion group. Each foundation was the strongest predictor for its own
conceptually related group of external scales with an average correlation of .51, compared with an average corre-
lation of .14 for the off-diagonals.
Divergent/Discriminant
The Graham et al. (2011) study also provided evidence of discriminative validity given the average off-
diagonal correlation of .14 between the foundations and t he conceptually-unrelated criteria scales. The data
gathered also suggest that Eastern par ticipants display greater concern about ingroup and purity foundations
than Westerners ( Graham et al., 2011 ). Graham et al. found that compared with Westerners, Eastern partici-
pants showed stronger concerns a bout Ingroup (mean difference 5.23), t(107149)512.42, p,.0001, d50.08, an d
Purity (mean difference 5.25), t(107149) 510.51, p,.0001, d50.06. Additionally, women were significantly
more concerned than men about Harm (mean difference 5.47), t(118238)599.16, p,.0001, d50.58; Fairness
(mean difference 5.16), t(118238)537.75, p,.0001, d50.22; and Purity (mean difference 5.16), t(118238)525.10,
p,.0001, d50.15.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Explanatory maximum-likelihood factor analyses with direct oblimin rotation found significant explanatory
power for only two of the foundations, with Harm and Fairness loading on and ‘Individualizing’ factor, and
Ingroup, Purity and Authority loading on a second ‘Bin ding’ factor. However, conf irmatory factor analyses
provided support for the 5-factor model (CFI 50.82, and RMSEA 50.05 for the U.S. sample; Graham et al.,
2011 ).
Criterion/Predictive
Graham et al. (2011) tested whether the MFQ had predictive validity over and above Schwartz’s SVS in pre-
dicting a range of morally relevant scales, attitudes and behaviors. The MFQ increased the predictive power over
the SVS on a variety of scales and topics including attitudes on social groups and political positions (average
ΔR258%; all ΔR2s significant at p,.001; Graham et al., 2011 ).
Location
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/C0385.
Results and Commentary
Graham et al. (2011) have presented evidence for the reliability and validity of the MFQ and also have
presented a rigorous methodology to select items to maximize both internal and external validity.
Moreover, the MFQ shows incremental predictive val idity beyond the SVS for multiple external scales of
moral personality, attitudes, and political beliefs. The MFQ scale is internally consistent while maintaining
a broad degree of coverage of moral domains over an d above ‘traditional’ moral domains such as harm
and fairness. Confirmatory factor analysis provided evid ence of the 5-factor representation. Finally, external
validation of the MFQ using a range of widely used scales showed convergent, discriminant, and predictive
validity.525 ‘NORMAL ’ PERSONALITY AND MORAL PERSONALITY
V. VICES AND VIRTUES