I examined the relationship between personal values and moral foundations by conducting a mini meta-analysis of the values–foundations links in five large-scale cross-cultural samples (overall N = 32,492). I further tested whether the two theories predicted unique variance in moral variables. I found support for values and foundations as unique constructs with consistent and theoretically meaningful relationships. Broadly, self-transcendence versus self-enhancement values dimensions were associated with individualizing foundations, whereas conservation versus openness-to-change values dimensions were associated with binding foundations. Links between values and foundations categories followed the expected theoretical values theory circumplex structure sinusoidal pattern. Dimensions of the two theories predicted unique variance in morality attitudes, behavior, and individual differences. All materials, data sets, and code are available on https://osf.io/6qs5g/.
AquinoK.ReedA. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423.
2.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.FunderD. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403.
3.
BoerD.FischerR. (2013). How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude–value linkages. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1113.
4.
CapraraG. V.SchwartzS.CapannaC.VecchioneM.BarbaranelliC. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27(1), 1–28.
5.
DavidovE.SchmidtP.SchwartzS. H. (2008). Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 420–445.
6.
DehghaniM.JohnsonK.HooverJ.SagiE.GartenJ.ParmarN. J.GrahamJ. (2016). Purity homophily in social networks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(3), 366.
7.
DjeriouatH.TrémolièreB. (2014). The dark triad of personality and utilitarian moral judgment: The mediating role of honesty/humility and harm/care. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 11–16.
8.
FeldmanG.ChaoM. M.FarhJ. L.BardiA. (2015). The motivation and inhibition of breaking the rules: Personal values structures predict unethicality. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 69–80.
9.
FrimerJ. A.WalkerL. J. (2009). Reconciling the self and morality: An empirical model of moral centrality development. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1669.
10.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549.
11.
GrahamJ. (2015). Explaining away differences in moral judgment: Comment on Gray and Keeney (2015). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 869–873.
12.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ. (2012). Sacred values and evil adversaries: A moral foundations approach. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), Herzliya series on personality and social psychology. The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 11–31). American Psychological Association.
13.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS. P.DittoP. H. (2012). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
14.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029.
15.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366.
16.
GrayK.KeeneyJ. E. (2015). Impure or just weird? Scenario sampling bias raises questions about the foundation of morality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 859–868.
17.
HaidtJ. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 65–72.
18.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
19.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.
20.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ.JosephC. (2009). Above and below left–right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 110–119.
21.
IyerR.KolevaS.GrahamJ.DittoP.HaidtJ. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS One, 7, e42366.
22.
JostJ. T.BasevichE.DicksonE. S.NoorbaloochiS. (2016). The place of values in a world of politics: Personality, motivation, and ideology. Handbook of value: Perspectives from economics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and sociology, (pp. 351–374). Oxford University Press.
23.
KohlbergL.HershR. H. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory into practice, 16, 53–59.
24.
KosinskiM.StillwellD.GraepelT. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 5802–5805.
25.
KuglerM.JostJ. T.NoorbaloochiS. (2014). Another look at moral foundations theory: Do authoritarianism and social dominance orientation explain liberal-conservative differences in “moral” intuitions?Social Justice Research, 27(4), 413–431.
26.
LindemanM.VerkasaloM. (2005). Measuring values with the short Schwartz’s value survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 170–178.
27.
LönnqvistJ. E.IrlenbuschB.WalkowitzG. (2014). Moral hypocrisy: Impression management or self-deception?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 53–62.
28.
LönnqvistJ. E.VerkasaloM.WichardtP. C.WalkowitzG. (2013). Personal values and prosocial behaviour in strategic interactions: Distinguishing value-expressive from value-ambivalent behaviours. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(6), 554–569.
29.
LönnqvistJ. E.WalkowitzG.WichardtP.LindemanM.VerkasaloM. (2009). The moderating effect of conformism values on the relations between other personal values, social norms, moral obligation, and single altruistic behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 525–546.
30.
Parks-LeducL.FeldmanG.BardiA. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 3–29.
31.
PiurkoY.SchwartzS. H.DavidovE. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries. Political Psychology, 32(4), 537–561.
32.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values (Vol. 438). Free Press.
33.
SaucierG.KennerJ.IurinoK.MalhamP. B.ChenZ.ThalmayerA. G.KemmelmeierM.TovW.BouttiR.MetaferiaH.ÇankayaB.MastorK. A.HsuH. Y.WuR.ManiruzzamanM.RugiraJ.TsaousisI.SosnyukO.AdhikaryJ. R.…AltschulC. (2015). Cross-cultural differences in a global “survey of world views.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 53–70.
34.
ScheinC.GrayK. (2015). The unifying moral dyad: Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1147–1163.
35.
SchierU. K.OckenfelsA.HofmannW. (2016). Moral values and increasing stakes in a dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 56, 107–115.
36.
SchulzeR. (2004). Meta-analysis—A comparison of approaches. Hogrefe Publishing.
37.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
38.
SchwartzS. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
39.
SchwartzS. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems in the psychology of values. In SeligmanC.OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P (Eds.), The Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology. The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 1–24). Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
SchwartzS. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. Questionnaire Package of the European Social Survey, 259–290.
41.
SchwartzS. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 711–728.
42.
SchwartzS. H. (2009). Draft users manual: proper use of the Schwarz value survey, version 14 January 2009, compiled by Romie F. Littrell. Auckland, New Zealand: Centre for Cross Cultural Comparisons. Manuscript. Available at: http://crossculturalcentre.homestead.com/ (Accessed July 16, 2013).
43.
SchwartzS. H.BoehnkeK. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230–255.
44.
SchwartzS. H.CapraraG. V.VecchioneM. (2010). Basic personal values, core political values, and voting: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 31(3), 421–452.
45.
SchwartzS. H.CieciuchJ.VecchioneM.DavidovE.FischerR.BeierleinC.RamosA.VerkasaloM.LönnqvistJ. E.DemirutkuK.Dirilen-GumusO.KontyM. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663.
46.
SchwartzS. H.MelechG.LehmannA.BurgessS.HarrisM.OwensV. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542.
47.
SchwartzS. H.SagivL. (1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 92–116.
48.
SmithI. H.AquinoK.KolevaS.GrahamJ. (2014). The moral ties that bind…even to out-groups: The interactive effect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations. Psychological science, 25(8), 1554–1562.
49.
SverdlikN.RoccasS.SagivL. (2012). Morality across cultures: A value perspective. The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. American Psychological Association.
50.
SylwesterK.PurverM. (2015). Twitter language use reflects psychological differences between democrats and republicans. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0137422.
51.
WhitleyB. E.Jr. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 126.
52.
WilsonR. E.GoslingS. D.GrahamL. T. (2012). A review of Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 203–220.
53.
YouyouW.KosinskiM.StillwellD. (2015). Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 1036–1040.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
