Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Mar 7.
Published in final edited form as: Behav Res Methods. 2015 Dec;47(4):1178–1198. doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0551-2

Table 4.

Predicting scores for the moral foundations vignettes (MFV) with existing moral foundations scales

Care (e) Care (p) Fairness Liberty Loyalty Authority Sanctity
MFQ
 Care .34***
(.06)
.47***
(.06)
.08
(.06)
.15*
(.06)
.06
(.06)
−.06
(.06)
.14*
(.06)
 Fairness .21**
(.06)
.23***
(.06)
.34***
(.06)
.39***
(.06)
.09
(.06)
.18*
(.06)
−.03
(.06)
 Loyalty .15*
(.06)
−.05
(.06)
.00
(.07)
.09
(.07)
.41***
(.06)
.22***
(.06)
.16**
(.06)
 Authority −.03
(.07)
−.04
(.07)
.05
(.07)
−.07
(.07)
.10
(.07)
.24***
(.07)
.10
(.06)
 Sanctity .05
(.06)
−.10
(.06)
.06
(.07)
−.10
(.06)
.05
(.06)
.14*
(.06)
.37***
(.06)
 Constant −.01
(.04)
−.04
(.04)
−.01
(.04)
−.01
(.04)
.03
(.04)
.03
(.04)
.03
(.04)
R2 .30 .30 .17 .20 .34 .33 .38
MFSS
 Care .17* (.09) .57***
(.08)
.15
(.08)
.22* (.09) −.22**
(.09)
−.25**
(.08)
.06
(.08)
 Fairness .10
(.09)
−.02
(.08)
.42***
(.08)
.06
(.09)
−.11
(.09)
.13
(.08)
−.04
(.08)
 Loyalty .04
(.08)
−.08
(.08)
.05
(.08)
.04
(.08)
.35***
(.08)
.12
(.08)
.11
(.08)
 Authority .09
(.07)
−.08
(.07)
−.19**
(.07)
−.08
(.07)
.03
(.07)
.20**
(.07)
.04
(.07)
 Sanctity −.02
(.08)
−.05
(.07)
.07
(.04)
−.03
(.08)
.14
(.08)
.15*
(.07)
.26***
(.07)
 Constant −.04
(.05)
−.08
(.05)
−.07
(.04)
−.04
(.05)
.00
(.05)
.00
(.05)
−.04
(.04)
R2 .08 .13 .15 .03 .09 .14 .12

Cell entries show ordinary least-squares coefficients for the Moral Foundation Questionnaire (MFQ, top) and Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale (MFSS, bottom) foundations predicting MFV scales. All scales are standardized. The largest coefficient in each row is bolded. Note that there are no existing criterion variables for the Liberty foundation. “Care (e)” refers to the emotional harm factor, and “Care (p)” refers to the physical harm factor.

*

p < .05,

**

p < .01,

***

p < .001, two-tailed. Standard errors are in parentheses.