3.I always identify the reasons for my actions.
4.Being able to come up with new and different ideas is one of my strong points.
5.I am very aware of my surroundings.
6.I always have a broad outlook on what is going on.
7.I have taken frequent stands in the face of strong opposition.
8.I never quit a task before it is done.
9.I always keep my promises.
10.I am never too busy to help a friend.
Note: Reproduced with permission.
Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ)
(Haidt & Joseph, 2004 ).
Variable
The MFQ is a novel measure that assesses moral relevance and moral judgments across five foundations pos-
ited by moral foundations theory (harm, fairness, ingroup, authority, and purity; Graham et al., 2011 ). Moral rele-
vance questions measure the relative importance of each of the five foundations, and moral judgment questions
ask about behaviors relevant to the five foundations.
Description
Haidt and Joseph (2004) ,a n d Graham et al. (2011) p u tf o r t han e wm o d e lo fm o r a l i t yt h a ti n c o r p o r a t e s
evolutionary, personality, and developmental perspectives. Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) uses a modified
nativist approach that explains mo rality as both innate and learned ( Haidt & Joseph, 2004; Haidt, 2008 ).
Subsequent research on Moral Foundations Theory esta blished the Moral Foundat ions Questionnaire (MFQ)
as a methodology through which to investigate both cross-cultural variability and shared views ( Graham
et al., 2011 ). The MFQ measures the differences in application and importance of the five foundations of
Moral Foundations Theory between individuals and cultures ( Graham et al., 2011 ) .T h ef i r s ta n ds e c o n dv e r -
sions of the scale were tested on large, heterogeneous populations (total N53825), recruited from the inter-
net. These initial studies found the five-factor MF Q to be a better fit than other models of morality with
fewer factors. However, internal consistency was low and in the second MFQ, some items meant to measure
one foundation correlated more strongly with others. This led to the development of the third version of the
MFQ, which collected pilot data from more than 28,000 participants ( Graham et al., 2011 ).
The fourth version of the MFQ was developed using the results from Graham, Haidt, and Nosek (2009) . The
scale contains two sections: moral relevance and moral judgments. Each section includes three questions on each
of the 5 foundations. Previous versions of the MFQ did not include questions about moral judgments. Moral
judgment questions contextualize abstract moral considerations by asking participants whether they would or
would not behave in a certain manner ( Graham et al., 2011 ).Graham et al. (2009) found that while the relevance
scale measures obvert beliefs about what is morally relevant, the judgment scale reveals that application of moral
foundations in decision-making. Taken together, the two subscales arguably provide a dynamic picture of per-
sonal moral conceptions ( Graham et al., 2011 ).
Sample
The fourth edition of the MFQ was piloted on www.yourmorals.org/index.php (Retrieved January 12, 2014)
with a large sample of 34,476 participants (37% women, mean age 36.2) ( Graham et al., 2011 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Graham et al. (2011) reported moderate Cronbach alpha coefficients for the five moral domains assessed by
the MFQ as follows: .65 for Fairness, .69 for Harm, .71 for Ingroup, .74 for Authority, and .84 for Purity.524 18. MEASURES OF VALUES AND MORAL PERSONALITY
V. VICES AND VIRTUES