Moral Foundations Questionnaire and Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale: Assessing the Factorial Structure of the Dutch Translations

Ann de Buck; Lieven J. R. Pauwels

doi:10.5334/pb.1188

Figures & Tables

Hypothesized best fitting model 1: Five correlated factors model.

Table 1

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the five subscales of MFQ-20 and MFSS.

	MFQ-20 CRONBACH’S α (4 ITEMS/FOUNDATION)	MFSS CRONBACH’S α (4 ITEMS/FOUNDATION)
Care/Harm	.47	.71
Fairness/reciprocity	.41	.63
Loyalty/betrayal	.51	.59
Authority/respect	.53	.70
Sanctity	.50	.53
FULL SCALE (20 items)	.70	.86

Table 2

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the relationships among Moral Foundations models.

MODEL	WLSMVχ²	df	CFI/TLI	RMSEA	WRMR
MFQ20
A. One-factor model	3907.90***	170	.520/.470	.105	3.84
B. Two-factors model	2887.28***	169	.650/.610	.090	3.32
C. Three-factors model	2348.28***	167	.720/.680	.081	2.98
D. Five-factors model	The model fails to converge
MFSS
A. One-factor model	1838.63***	170	.900/.890	.070	2.09
B. Two-factors model	1426.37***	169	.930/.920	.060	1.83
C. Three-factors model	1346.65***	167	.930/.920	.060	1.76
D. Five-factors model	1126.86***	160	.940/.930	.060	1.58

[i] Note: Structural equation modeling was used for the analyses. Weighted Least Squares Means and Variances (WLSMV) was used for model estimation. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; WRMR = weighted mean-square residual standardized.

*** p <.001.

In each Model A, respectively, the 20 items of MFQ, and MFSS are loaded into one factor.

In each Model B, Care, and Fairness items are loaded onto one factor, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity items are loaded onto a second factor.

In each Model C, Care and Fairness items are loaded onto one factor, Loyalty and Authority factors are loaded onto a second factor, and Sanctity items are loaded onto a third factor.

In each Model D, Care items are loaded onto one factor, Fairness items are loaded onto a second factor, Loyalty items are loaded onto a third factor, Authority items are loaded onto a fourth factor, and Sanctity items are loaded onto a fifth factor.

Pearson correlations among and between MFQ20 and MFSS three-factor model.
*Note*: Figure 2 represents Pearson correlations between and among MFQ20 and MFSS’ three-factor model Correlations among MFQ20 subscales are represented on the left, and correlations among MFSS subscales are on the right. For the sake of clarity and parsimony, correlations between MFQ20 and MFSS subscales are represented for their counterparts only. Correlations between non-equivalent subscales of both questionnaires are found in Table 3.
CFA-model fit indices: WLSMVχ² = 4365.65, df = 725; χ²/df = 6.02; RMSEA = 0.05; WRMR = 2.28; CFI/TLI = 0.86/0.85.

Table 3

Standardized correlations between MFQ20 and MFSS subscales.

MFQ-20 SUBSCALES THREE-FACTOR MODEL	MFSS SUBSCALES THREE-FACTOR MODEL
MFQ-20 SUBSCALES THREE-FACTOR MODEL	F1 CARE FAIRNESS	F2 LOYALTY AUTHORITY	F3 SANCTITY
F1 = CARE FAIRNESS	.40***	.21***	.26***
F2 = LOYALTY AUTHORITY	Ns	.32***	.31***
F3 = SANCTITY	.23***	.34***	.50***

[i] *** p < .001; ns = not significant.

Table 4

Results of measurement invariance of the three-factor model: MFQ20 items (N_females = 1062; N_males = 435).

MODEL	WLSMVχ²			RMSEA			WRMR	CFI/TLI	ΔCFI	DIFFtest Δχ² (Δdf)
MODEL	VALUE	df	p	VALUE	95%CI	p	WRMR	CFI/TLI	ΔCFI	DIFFtest Δχ² (Δdf)
Configural model	2051.68	334	<.001	.083	[.079, .086]	.000	2.84	.702/.661
Weak invariance	1965.53	351	<.001	.078	[.075, .082]	.000	2.91	.720/.696	.02	54.16 (17) p < .001

Table 5

Results of measurement invariance of the five-factor model: MFSS (N_females = 1060; N_males = 436).

MODEL	WLSMVχ²			RMSEA			WRMR	CFI/TLI	ΔCFI	DIFFtestΔχ² (Δdf)
MODEL	VALUE	df	p	VALUE	95% CI	p	WRMR	CFI/TLI	ΔCFI	DIFFtestΔχ² (Δdf)
Configural model	1018.20	320	<.001	.054	[.050, .058]	.038	1.60	.946/.936	–.01
Weak invariance	909.48	335	<.001	.048	[.044, .052]	.821	1.66	.956/.950	.02	22.55 (15) p < .094
Strong invariance	1244.73	446	<.001	.049	[.046, .052]	.703	2.01	.940/.950	379.08 (111) p < .001

Moral Foundations Questionnaire and Moral Foundations Sacredness Scale: Assessing the Factorial Structure of the Dutch Translations

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Figure 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Paradigm

My account