A brief assessment tool for investigating facets of moral judgment from realistic vignettes
Humans make moral judgments every day, and research demonstrates that these evaluations are based on a host of related event features (e.g., harm, legality). In order to acquire systematic data on how moral judgments are made, our assessments need to be expanded to include real-life, ecologically valid stimuli that take into account the numerous event features that are known to influence moral judgment. To facilitate this, Knutson et al. (in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(4), 378–384, 2010) developed vignettes based on real-life episodic memories rated concurrently on key moral features; however, the method is time intensive (~1.4–3.4 h) and the stimuli and ratings require further validation and characterization. The present study addresses these limitations by: (i) validating three short subsets of these vignettes (39 per subset) that are time-efficient (10–25 min per subset) yet representative of the ratings and factor structure of the full set, (ii) norming ratings of moral features in a larger sample (total N = 661, each subset N = ~220 vs. Knutson et al. N = 30), (iii) examining the generalizability of the original factor structure by replicating it in a larger sample across vignette subsets, sex, and political ideology, and (iv) using latent profile analysis to empirically characterize vignette groupings based on event feature ratings profiles and vignette content. This study therefore provides researchers with a core battery of well-characterized and realistic vignettes, concurrently rated on key moral features that can be administered in a brief, time-efficient manner to advance research on the nature of moral judgment.
KeywordsMoral judgment Vignette Moral Assessment Sex
EKM was supported by the NSF IGERT Fellowship, Grant No. 0903622.
We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and assistance in improving the manuscript.
- Bzdok, D., Schilbach, L., Vogeley, K., Schneider, K., Laird, A. R., Langner, R., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2012). Parsing the neural correlates of moral cognition: ALE meta-analysis on morality, theory of mind, and empathy. Brain Structure and Function, 217(4), 783–796.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Carver, R. P. (1990). Reading rate: A review of research and theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Clark, S. L., Muthén, B., Kaprio, J., D’Onofrio, B. M., Viken, R., & Rose, R. J. (2013). Models and strategies for factor mixture analysis: An example concerning the structure underlying psychological disorders. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(4), 681–703. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2013.824786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Collaboration, O. S. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716–aac4716. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716
- Cumming, G. (2013). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Cushman, F., Sheketoff, R., Wharton, S., & Carey, S. (2013). The development of intent-based moral judgment. Cognition, 127(1), 6–21.Google Scholar
- Escobedo, J. R. (2009). Investigating Moral Events: Characterization and Structure of Autobiographical Moral Memories. Unpublished Dissertation. Pasadena, California: California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo, U. (2000). Unrestricted versus restricted factor analysis of multidimensional test items: Some aspects of the problem and some suggestions. Psicológica, 21, 301–323.Google Scholar
- Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Gold, N., Pulford, B. D., & Colman, A. M. (2014). The outlandish, the realistic, and the real: Contextual manipulation and agent role effects in trolley problems. Frontiers in Psychology 5, 35. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00035
- Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366.Google Scholar
- Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., and Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy Behind Bars: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey (NCES 2007-473). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education StatisticsGoogle Scholar
- Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science (New York, N.Y.), 293(5537), 2105–2108. doi: 10.1126/science.1062872
- Haidt, J. (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.Google Scholar
- Herzog, A. R., & Bachman, J. G. (1981). Effects of questionnaire length on response quality. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(4), 549–559. doi: 10.1086/268687
- Kahane, G. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social Neuroscience, 00(00), 1–10.Google Scholar
- Kotsiantis, S., & Kanellopoulos, D. (2006). Discretization Techniques: A recent survey. GESTS International Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering, 32(1), 47–58.Google Scholar
- MATLAB (2014). Natick, Massachusetts. The MathWorks Inc.Google Scholar
- McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Bond, M. H., & Pauonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the revised NEO personality inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moll, J., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Eslinger, P. J., Bramati, I. E., Mourão-Miranda, J., Andreiuolo, P. A., & Pessoa, L. (2002). The neural correlates of moral sensitivity: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of basic and moral emotions. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 22(7), 2730–2736.Google Scholar
- Molloy, E. K. and Kruepke, M. D., (2017). Selecting representative subsets of vignettes for investigating multiple facets of moral judgement: Documentation and MATLAB Code. GitHub repository, https://github.com/ekmolloy/select-vignette-subsets
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2008). Mplus (Version 5.1). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
- Revelle, W. (2015) psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version = 1.5.8.
- Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564–596). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Shweder, R., Much, N., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). Divinity and the “Big Three” Explanations of Suffering. Morality and Health, 119.Google Scholar
- Thoma, S. (1994). Moral judgments and moral action. Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics, 199–21.Google Scholar
- Young, L., Bechara, A., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2010). Damage to ventromedial prefrontal cortex impairs judgment of harmful intent. Neuron, 65(6), 845–851.Google Scholar