The Science of Measuring Morality

Context

A matters of increasing personal interest in relation to politics is morality and the related concept of moral courage. Over time, morality and immorality appear to be of growing importance to politics. It's not clear if that shifting perception is mostly due to social changes, my own ongoing learning, a combination of both, and/or something(s) else, e.g., increasing social and/or economic stress.

Researchers interested in politics such as Johnathan Haidt are also looking at morality to see if there are correlates between moral and political beliefs. This line of research seems to be moving from a relatively intuitive phase into a more objective and empirical phase. Whether experts would characterize it that way isn't clear, but that's my take on it.

Haidt and others are developing tests for morality and related traits to try to gain insight into what is going on in people's minds. These tests are open to the public so that a big database can be built and analyzed. The main test page is here. I took seven tests out of about 20 to see what insight I could gain about my own mind. For what it's worth, what my mind did, along with with explanations of the tests, are shown below.

I'm not sure what all the results mean, but they do seem to indicate a personal trait of moral concern that seems a bit more pronounced than it is in most others. That includes concern for religious moral values despite being a hard core atheist. Hm. Does that make more more religious than most other people?

Personal Theories of Morality

The scale is a measure of your agreement with five different ideas about what fundamentally determines whether particular thoughts and actions are moral or immoral. These different ideas were related to the following factors: 1) benevolent consequences, which is the idea that thoughts or actions are immoral when they do not result in positive outcomes for other people; 2) normative standards, which is the idea that thoughts or actions are immoral when they violate what is generally believed to be acceptable in society; 3) emotional experiences, which is the idea that thoughts or actions are immoral when they lead to negative feelings and emotions; 4) religious principles which is the idea that thoughts or actions are immoral when they are inconsistent with religious teachings or the perceived will of some higher power, and 5) malicious intentions which is the idea that thoughts or actions are immoral if they arise from harmful intentions, such as jealously or hate.

In the graph below, your scores on each personal theory of morality are shown in GREEN (the 1st bar in each set of 3 bars). The scores of all men who have taken it on our site are shown in BROWN (the 2nd bar), and the scores of all women are shown in ORANGE (3rd bar). Scores run from 1 (the lowest possible score, you completely reject that lay theory) to 7 (the highest possible score, you very strongly endorse that lay theory of morality and use it to decide whether some action or intention is moral or immoral).

Left-wing Authoritarianism Index 

This research seeks to capture the diversity and complexity of the authoritarian personality. Indeed, that the term “authoritarianism“ is so frequently invoked in news media and popular culture may belie the numerous fundamental research questions regarding the construct’s nature that have yet to be meaningfully answered by psychological scientists, including those tied to (a) authoritarianism’s key features and their structure and interrelations; (b) whether these features manifest differently across different populations (e.g., left-wing vs. right-wing groups); (c) how, and why, these features are organized and/or interrelated; and (d) how authoritarian traits can be most accurately measured.

Although measures of right-wing authoritarianism have proved extremely fruitful in generating corroborated hypotheses concerning the psychological correlates of political extremism, the same cannot be said for previous measures of left-wing authoritarianism, a notoriously elusive construct that is sometimes called the “Loch Ness monster of political psychology“ (Altemeyer, 1996, p. 5). The reasons for this may be multiply determined, but we suspect that one key reason is that scholars have yet to elucidate what psychological “glue“ binds right-wing authoritarianism and left-wing authoritarianism. Hence, measuring left-wing authoritarianism in a sound, robust manner may bear substantial implications for the psychological underpinnings of political extremism and generalized prejudice.

The scale is a measure of the six major dimensions of personality 

This test attempts to assess Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness (versus Anger), Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience as explained below.

Honesty-Humility: Persons with very high scores on the Honesty-Humility scale tend to avoid manipulating others for personal gain, feel little temptation to break rules, are uninterested in lavish wealth and luxuries, and feel no special entitlement to elevated social status. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale often flatter others to get what they want, are inclined to break rules for personal profit, tend to be motivated by material gain, and feel a strong sense of self-importance.

Emotionality: Persons with very high scores on the Emotionality scale tend to experience fear of physical dangers, experience anxiety in response to life's stresses, feel a need for emotional support from others, and feel empathy and sentimental attachments with others. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale tend not to be deterred by the prospect of physical harm, feel little worry even in stressful situations, have little need to share their concerns with others, and feel emotionally detached from others.

Extraversion: Persons with very high scores on the Extraversion scale tend to feel positively about themselves, feel confident when leading or addressing groups of people, enjoy social gatherings and interactions, and experience positive feelings of enthusiasm and energy. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale tend to consider themselves unpopular, feel awkward when they are the center of social attention, are indifferent to social activities, and feel less lively and optimistic than others do.

Agreeableness (versus Anger): Persons with very high scores on the Agreeableness scale tend to forgive the wrongs that they suffered, are lenient in judging others, are willing to compromise and cooperate with others, and can easily control their temper. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale tend to hold grudges against those who have harmed them, are rather critical of others' shortcomings, are stubborn in defending their point of view, and feel anger readily in response to mistreatment.

Conscientiousness: Persons with very high scores on the Conscientiousness scale tend to organize their time and their physical surroundings, work in a disciplined way toward their goals, strive for accuracy and perfection in their tasks, and deliberate carefully when making decisions. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale tend to be unconcerned with orderly surroundings or schedules, avoid difficult tasks or challenging goals, are satisfied with work that contains some errors, and make decisions on impulse or with little reflection.

Openness to Experience: Persons with very high scores on the Openness to Experience scale tend to become absorbed in the beauty of art and nature, are inquisitive about various domains of knowledge, use their imagination freely in everyday life, and take an interest in unusual ideas or people. Conversely, persons with very low scores on this scale are usually rather unimpressed by most works of art, feel little intellectual curiosity, avoid creative pursuits, and feel little attraction toward ideas that may seem radical or unconventional.

Moral Foundations Questionnaire revised 

The scale is a measure of your reliance on and endorsement of six psychological foundations of morality that seem to be found across cultures. This revised scale asks a variety questions related to each foundation: 1) Care/Harm, 2) Fairness/Cheating, 3) Loyalty/Betrayal, 4) Authority/Subversion, 5) Purity/Degradation, and 6) Autonomy/Oppression. We suspect that the Fairness/Cheating foundation may consist of two kinds of fairness. Fairness as equity and fairness as equality. Thus, the revised MFQ attempts to measure both potential forms of fairness.

The idea behind the scale is that human morality is the result of biological and cultural evolutionary processes that made human beings very sensitive to many different (and often competing) issues. Some of these issues are about treating other individuals well and respecting them as individuals (care, fairness, and autonomy). Other issues are about how to be a good member of a group or supporter of social order and tradition (loyalty, authority, and purity). Haidt and Graham have found that political liberals generally place a higher value on the care and fairness foundations; they are very concerned about issues of harm and fairness (including issues of inequality and exploitation). Political conservatives care about harm and fairness too, but they generally score slightly lower on those scale items. The big difference between liberals and conservatives seems to be that conservatives score slightly higher on the loyalty foundation, and much higher on the authority and purity foundations. Libertarians appear to score highly on the autonomy foundation and lower (relative to liberals and conservatives) on the other foundations.

This difference seems to explain many of the most contentious issues in the culture war. For example, liberals support legalizing gay marriage (to be fair and compassionate), whereas many conservatives are reluctant to change the nature of marriage and the family, basic building blocks of society. Conservatives are more likely to favor practices that increase order and respect (e.g., spanking, mandatory pledge of allegiance), whereas liberals often oppose these practices as being violent or coercive.

In the graph below, your scores on each foundation are shown in green (the 1st bar in each set of 3 bars). The scores of all liberals who have taken it on our site are shown in blue (the 2nd bar), and the scores of all conservatives are shown in red (3rd bar). Scores run from 0 (the lowest possible score, you completely reject that foundation) to 4 (the highest possible score, you very strongly endorse that foundation and build much of your morality on top of it).

Need for Cognition

The scale is a measure of a personality variable reflecting the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities. People high in the Need for Cognition are more likely to form their attitudes by paying close attention to relevant arguments, whereas people low in the need for cognition are more likely to rely on peripheral cues, such as how attractive or credible a speaker is. This variable may be quite relevant to political psychology: many political advertisements try to manipulate people through emotional appeals and poorly reasoned arguments. People who are higher in the Need for Cognition may be less swayed by such commercials. The construct is also used widely in consumer psychology; advertisers use it target their appeals to audiences that vary on the trait.

In the graph below, your score is shown in green. The scores of all liberals who have taken it on our site are shown in blue, and the scores of all conservatives are shown in red. Scores run from 1 (the lowest possible score, lowest need for cognition) to 5 (the highest possible score, highest need for cognition).

Consumer Values Scale

The scales measure six dimensions that we believe predict a large amount of variance in terms of the kinds of consumption decisions that people make. In this case, we are defining consumption broadly to include not just material goods, but also the experiences one buys, the causes one supports, and the places one travels. The six dimensions we are currently measuring are:
- Achievement: How much one values individual achievement.
- Purpose: How altruistic one is.
- Pleasure: How much one values fun in the present moment.
- Freedom: How much one values independence.
- Security: How much one values security and safety.
- Tradition: How much one values tradition.

The idea behind the scale is that people's values may be related to what they purchase, experience, consume, and desire. For example, in previous samples, we have found that those who are high in self determination, support, and generosity tend to do more research on their purchases. Those who value tradition and wealth are more responsive to ads. We are broadly interested in exploring the relationship between values and spending behavior with an eye towards helping consumers self-actualize through their consumption patterns better.

Engagement with Beauty 

The scale is a measure of your reactions to three different kinds of beauty: natural, artistic, and moral. Moral beauty refers to any action that displays virtue -- acts of love, courage, loyalty, or generosity, for example, often produce in observers a distinct pattern of physical feelings (often in the chest) and social motives (such as to copy the person who did the good deed). Haidt (2003) has called this feeling "moral elevation," drawing on a description of the feeling from Thomas Jefferson.

The idea behind the scale is that philosophers and psychologists have long been intrigued by the connection between beauty and virtue. Are those who are more "sensitive" to beauty and ugliness in the physical world also more sensitive to beauty or ugliness in the social world? Immanuel Kant said "A direct interest in the beauty of nature is always a mark of a good soul." Kant surely overstated things -- Hitler seems to have been quite fond of the natural beauty of Germany. Nonetheless, Diessner has found that scores on the EBS do correlate with scores on measures of gratitude, spiritual transcendence, and happiness. Diessner created the EBS in part to investigate whether feelings of moral elevation (in response to moral beauty) are related to the feelings of spiritual uplift that many people report in response to viewing natural and artistic beauty.

The graph below shows your scores (in green) compared to those of the average male (in brown) and the average female (in orange) visitor to this website. The first green bar shows your average response to the "natural beauty" items. The next green bar shows your average response to the "artistic beauty" items. The third green bar shows your average response to the "moral beauty" items. The scale runs from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest possible score).