All Things Being Equal: Distinguishing Proportionality and Equity in Moral Reasoning

Christofer Skurka, Liana B. Winett, Hannah Jarman-Miller, Jeff Niederdeppe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Moral foundations theory (MFT) has been a useful framework for understanding moral judgment and its relationship to political leaning. However, some have argued that MFT omits key domains of moral reasoning. We explored the utility of two candidate foundations (Proportionality and Equity) with a national sample of U.S. adults recruited through Nielsen’s Harris Panel, randomly split into calibration (n = 1,499) and replication samples (n = 1,499). We find that Proportionality and Equity are conceptually distinct from the original foundations (as measured in the Moral Foundations Questionnaire [MFQ]) but relate to them in predictable ways. Equity consistently predicted political leaning above and beyond covariates and the original foundations, but Proportionality only distinguished conservatives from liberals in the calibration sample, which suggests Proportionality may be highly relevant to moral judgments regardless of political ideology. Our findings also indicate potential bias when using one of the MFQ’s screener items to filter out unengaged participants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalSocial Psychological and Personality Science
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Calibration
Surveys and Questionnaires

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology

Cite this

@article{14bab9734d0c4cc2a4f0cf2f031a2523,
title = "All Things Being Equal: Distinguishing Proportionality and Equity in Moral Reasoning",
abstract = "Moral foundations theory (MFT) has been a useful framework for understanding moral judgment and its relationship to political leaning. However, some have argued that MFT omits key domains of moral reasoning. We explored the utility of two candidate foundations (Proportionality and Equity) with a national sample of U.S. adults recruited through Nielsen’s Harris Panel, randomly split into calibration (n = 1,499) and replication samples (n = 1,499). We find that Proportionality and Equity are conceptually distinct from the original foundations (as measured in the Moral Foundations Questionnaire [MFQ]) but relate to them in predictable ways. Equity consistently predicted political leaning above and beyond covariates and the original foundations, but Proportionality only distinguished conservatives from liberals in the calibration sample, which suggests Proportionality may be highly relevant to moral judgments regardless of political ideology. Our findings also indicate potential bias when using one of the MFQ’s screener items to filter out unengaged participants.",
author = "Christofer Skurka and Winett, {Liana B.} and Hannah Jarman-Miller and Jeff Niederdeppe",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1948550619862261",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Social Psychological and Personality Science",
issn = "1948-5506",
publisher = "Sage Periodicals Press",

}

All Things Being Equal : Distinguishing Proportionality and Equity in Moral Reasoning. / Skurka, Christofer; Winett, Liana B.; Jarman-Miller, Hannah; Niederdeppe, Jeff.

In: Social Psychological and Personality Science, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - All Things Being Equal

T2 - Distinguishing Proportionality and Equity in Moral Reasoning

AU - Skurka, Christofer

AU - Winett, Liana B.

AU - Jarman-Miller, Hannah

AU - Niederdeppe, Jeff

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Moral foundations theory (MFT) has been a useful framework for understanding moral judgment and its relationship to political leaning. However, some have argued that MFT omits key domains of moral reasoning. We explored the utility of two candidate foundations (Proportionality and Equity) with a national sample of U.S. adults recruited through Nielsen’s Harris Panel, randomly split into calibration (n = 1,499) and replication samples (n = 1,499). We find that Proportionality and Equity are conceptually distinct from the original foundations (as measured in the Moral Foundations Questionnaire [MFQ]) but relate to them in predictable ways. Equity consistently predicted political leaning above and beyond covariates and the original foundations, but Proportionality only distinguished conservatives from liberals in the calibration sample, which suggests Proportionality may be highly relevant to moral judgments regardless of political ideology. Our findings also indicate potential bias when using one of the MFQ’s screener items to filter out unengaged participants.

AB - Moral foundations theory (MFT) has been a useful framework for understanding moral judgment and its relationship to political leaning. However, some have argued that MFT omits key domains of moral reasoning. We explored the utility of two candidate foundations (Proportionality and Equity) with a national sample of U.S. adults recruited through Nielsen’s Harris Panel, randomly split into calibration (n = 1,499) and replication samples (n = 1,499). We find that Proportionality and Equity are conceptually distinct from the original foundations (as measured in the Moral Foundations Questionnaire [MFQ]) but relate to them in predictable ways. Equity consistently predicted political leaning above and beyond covariates and the original foundations, but Proportionality only distinguished conservatives from liberals in the calibration sample, which suggests Proportionality may be highly relevant to moral judgments regardless of political ideology. Our findings also indicate potential bias when using one of the MFQ’s screener items to filter out unengaged participants.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071094259&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071094259&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1948550619862261

DO - 10.1177/1948550619862261

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85071094259

JO - Social Psychological and Personality Science

JF - Social Psychological and Personality Science

SN - 1948-5506

ER -