The current research assessed the reliability and validity of two Western measures of morality in a Chinese sample, namely the Community, Autonomy, and Divinity Scale (CADS) and the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). Questionnaires were administered to 274 Chinese participants in Northern China (M age = 25.4 yr., SD = 8.50; 86% women). Confirmatory factor analysis using a structural equation model was conducted to evaluate the construct validity of the two scales. The results indicated a reasonable model fit of both the CADS and the MFQ after certain modifications. The revised versions of both measures had good internal consistency reliabilities. Correlation analysis indicated moderate correlations between the dimensions of the two scales. Regarding the content of morality, Chinese people endorsed more of the traditional ethics and foundations than people from Western cultures in other studies. In addition, participants who reported a religious affiliation scored higher on the Divinity subscale compared to those who claimed to be atheists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArnettJ. J.RamosK. D.JensenL. A. (2001) Ideological views in emerging adulthood: Balancing autonomy and community. Journal of Adult Development, 8(2), 69–79.
2.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp. 136–162.
3.
CamachoG. J.HigginsE. T.LugerL. (2003) Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: “what feels right is right” and “what feels wrong is wrong.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 498–510.
4.
DamasioA. R. (1994) Descartes' error: Emotion, rationality and the human brain. New York: Putnam.
5.
GilliganC. (1982) In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press.
6.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.
7.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011) Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.
8.
GreeneJ. D.SommervilleR. B.NystromL. E.DarleyJ. M.CohenJ. D. (2001) An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108.
9.
GuerraV. M.Giner-SorollaR. (2010) The Community, Autonomy, and Divinity Scale (CADS): A new tool for the cross-cultural study of morality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(1), 35–50.
10.
HaidtJ. (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.
11.
HaidtJ. (2007) The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002.
12.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007) When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.
HaidtJ.KollerH. S.DiasG. M. (1993) Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 613–628.
15.
HooperD.CoughlanJ.MullenM. R. (2008) Structural equation modeling: Guide-lines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
16.
JaffeeS.HydeJ. S. (2000) Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 703–726.
17.
JensenL. A. (1995) Habits of the heart revisited: Autonomy, community, and divinity in adults' moral language. Qualitative Sociology, 18(1), 71–86.
18.
JensenL. A. (1998) Moral divisions within countries between orthodoxy and progressivism: India and the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 90–107.
19.
JensenL. A. (2011) Autonomy, community, and divinity: The cultural development of three fundamental moral ethics. Zygon, 46(1), 150–167.
20.
KimK. R.KangJ.YunS. (2012) Moral intuitions and political orientation: Similarities and differences between Korea and the United States. Psychological Reports, 111(1), 173–185.
21.
KlineR. B. (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (2nd ed.) New York: Guilford Press.
22.
KohlbergL. (1958) The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years 10 to 16. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
23.
KrebsD. L. (2005) The evolution of morality. In BussD. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. New York: Wiley. Pp. 747–771.
24.
LuY. (2014) Chinese family panel studies (CFPS) 2012. The World Religious Cultures, 1, 11–25.
25.
MillerJ. G. (2001) Culture and moral development. In MatsumotoD. (Ed.), The hand-book of culture and psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer. Press. Pp. 151–170.
26.
PinkerS. (1997) How the mind works. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
27.
RobertsonC.FadilP. A. (1999) Ethical decision making in multinational organizations: A culture-based model. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(4), 385–392.
28.
RozinP.LoweryL.ImadaS.HaidtJ. (1999) The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 574–586.
29.
ShwederR. A.MuchN. C. (1991) Determinations of meaning: Discourse and moral socialization. In ShwederR. A. (Ed.), Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press. Pp. 186–240.
30.
ShwederR. A.MuchN. C.MahapatraM.ParkL. (2003) The “Big Three” of morality (Autonomy, Community, Divinity) and the “Big Three” explanations of suffering. In ShwederR. A. (Ed.), Why do men barbecue? Recipes for cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press. Pp. 74–133.
31.
SteigerJ. H. (2007) Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898.
32.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007) Using multivariate statistics. (5th ed.) New York: Allyn & Bacon.
33.
TurielE.DavidsonP. (1986) Heterogeneity, inconsistency, and asynchrony in the development of cognitive structures. In LevinI. (Ed.), Stage and structure: Reopening the debate. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Pp. 106–143.
34.
VasquezK.KeltnerD.EbenbachD. H.BanaszynskiT. L. (2001) Cultural variation and similarity in moral rhetorics: Voices from the Philippines and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(1), 93–120.
35.
YangF. (2014) What about China? Religious vitality in the most secular and rapidly modernizing society. Sociology of Religion, 75(4), 564–578.
36.
ZhangY. (2011) A cross-cultural study of crime judgment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of California, Irvine, CA.
