1. The Moral Framing Scale (MFS): Measuring Moral Perceptions of Social Issues Katherine R. G. White & Ciara Kidder Columbus State University & University of Texas at El Paso Introduction Results Abstract Methods & Procedure Discussion & Conclusion Using Moral Foundations Theory (MFT; Haidt & Graham, 2007), the Moral Framing Scale (MFS) was developed to assess the extent to which participants believe a specified social issue relates to harm, fairness, ingroup loyalty, respect, and purity. To examine the validity and reliability of the MFS, participants completed a series of survey scales (MFS, general attitudes) for ten social issues (e.g., euthanasia, stem cell research). Separate confirmatory factor analyses were run for each social issue and suggested adequate model fit for the hypothesized factor structure of the MFS. Cronbach alpha estimates varied by subscale but provided initial evidence for the internal reliability of the MFS subscales. For every issue but recycling, the MFS subscales accounted for a significant amount of variance in general attitudes beyond that explained by gender, age, and political orientation, supporting the scale’s concurrent validity. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (one per issue, N = 407) Hierarchical regression analyses (one per issue, N = 293) DV = attitude; Block 1: sex, age, political orientation; Block 2: MFQ scores Block 3: the five MFS scores (harm, fairness, ingroup, respect, purity) Sample Hypothesized Model for the MFS N = 407 (undergraduate students) 271 female; Mean age = 20.1 years Measures and Materials Issues examined: abortion, gay marriage, torture, death penalty, gun control, recycling, drones, stem cell research, euthanasia, wikileaks Moral Framing Scale (MFS) for each issue 15 questions, 3 per moral foundation (5 subscales) “To what extent do you think [issue] is related to the following?” Sample items: Compassion and prevention of cruelty (harm) Wholesomeness and virtues (purity) 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham et al., 2011) Measure of attitude valence for each issue (N = 293) Demographics: sex, age, and political orientation Surveys administered using Survey Monkey after obtaining informed consent The confirmatory factor analyses revealed moderate to adequate fit for several of the tested social issues – torture, death penalty, gun control, recycling, drones, stem cell research, and wikileaks. This provides initial evidence for hypothesized five-factor structure of the MFS. Estimates of the internal reliability of the MFS varied by issue and subscale but largely confirmed the reliability of the MFS. Hierarchical regression analyses: Controlling for gender, age, political orientation, and scores on the MFQ, the MFS subscales accounted for a significant amount of unique variance in attitudes for all issues except recycling. This provides evidence for the hypothesized validity of the MFS. Conclusion: The current research confirms the predicted factor structure of the Moral Framing Scale and also provides initial evidence for the reliability and validity of the instrument. The MFS may therefore serve as a valuable tool when seeking to better understand and predict morally charged attitudes. Knowing the extent to which a person believes a specific issue is related to the five moral foundations may be as, if not more, useful for predicting their attitudes on that issue than knowledge concerning their general reliance on the five moral foundations. For further information regarding this research, please contact Katherine White at white_katherine2@columbusstate.edu. Hotly contested and debated issues in society tend to contain moral arguments and appeals. Examples include the debate about legalized abortion and using torture to obtain military intelligence. Given this, information about individual’s moral beliefs can be useful for predicting their attitudes on these issues. Moral Foundations Theory (MFT; Haidt & Graham, 2007) states that all groups and individuals base their moral beliefs upon five basic foundations (Harm, Fairness, Ingroup loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity). Importantly, scores on these various foundations have been successfully used to predict attitudes toward various social groups (Graham et al., 2011). We used MFT to develop and test a survey instrument that captures the extent to which a person believes a specific social issue is related to these moral foundations. We have named this instrument the Moral Framing Scale (MFS). The purpose of the present research was to examine the factor structure, validity, and reliability of the Moral Foundations Scale. It was predicted that MFS items pertaining to the harm foundation would load on a common latent factor, items pertaining to the fairness foundation would load on a common latent factor, and so forth (five-factor structure). It was also predicted that scores on the MFS subscales would predict a significant amount of unique variance in attitudes above and beyond that accounted for by sex, gender, political orientation, and scores on the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham et al., 2011). References Graham, J., Nosek, B., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. (2011). Mapping the Moral Domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385. Haidt, J. & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98- 116. IssueRFI (>.90)CFI (>.93)RMSEA (<.08) Abortion.865.927.095 Gay Marriage.849.920.09 *** Torture.924.964.074 ** Death Penalty.886.944.077 ** Gun Control.895.951.072 ** Recycling.888.945.077 * Drones.893.946.081 *** Stem Cell Research.903.953.078 * Euthanasia.869.931.091 *** Wikileaks.915.963.064 IssueR2ΔR2Δ R 2 Δ pSig predictors Cronbach Alphas (α) Abortion.073<.001 sex (-), pol orient (-), MFQ purity (-), MFS fair (+), MFS pure (-).87,.78,.75,.78,.86 Gay Marriage.147<.001 sex (+), pol orient (-), MFQ pure (-), MFS fair (+).81,.89,.80,.70,.76 Torture.068<.001 sex (-), age (+), pol orient (+), MFS ingroup (+), MFS pure (-).90,.83,.88,.84,.86 Death Penalty.050.007 age (+), pol orient (+), MFQ harm (-), MFS harm (+), MFS pure (-).83,.79,.80,.79,.82 Gun Control.053.008 pol orient (-), MFS ingroup (-).85,.79,.77,.77,.82 Recycling.019.344 MFS pure (+).82,.85,.70,.76,.75 Drones.075<.001 sex (-), MFS harm (+), MFS pure (-).86,.78,.87,.81,.81 Stem Cell Research.046.009 age (+), MFQ respect (+), MFQ pure (-), MFS fair (+).85,.81,.87,.81,.83 Euthanasia.126<.001 MFQ harm (-), MFQ ingroup (+), MFQ pure (-), MFS harm (+), MFS fair (+), MFS ingroup (-), MFS pure (-).85,.79,.78,.82,.83 Wikileaks.137<.001 sex (-), age (-), MFQ pure (-), MFS fair (+), MFS respect (-).85,.85,.79,.80,.80