Data Science & Psychology Data Science applied to Values, Morals, Politics, & things that matter.

18Sep/09

Robustness of Liberal-Conservative Moral Foundations Questionnaire Differences

All social science research faces questions about the external validity of the results.  Much social psychology research is done on students and so the natural question is whether those findings generalize to non-student populations.  Even representative surveys of the population face questions about validity due to the assumptions which go into what representative means.  Since all measurement is imperfect, one of the main ways to determine the robustness of a finding is to examine many measurements and look for overall patterns.  FiveThirtyEight.com did this during the 2008 presidential election and became a national sensation.

The central finding of Moral Foundations theory to date is the split between what liberals and conservatives report caring about.  Specifically, Liberals care more exclusively about issues concerning harm and fairness, while conservatives also care about issues surrounding obeying rightful authority, being loyal to one's ingroup, and avoiding "unnatural" violations of one's purity.

How can we tell if this finding is robust?  All web servers keep track of referring traffic and so we can analyze the data we collect at yourmorals.org by the source of the traffic.  If the pattern holds among people who read the New York Times, people who come from conservative blogs (a minority, but there are some), people who read the Houston Chronicle, people who find the site by typing 'morality quiz' into a search engine, and people who read Libertarian magazines....then it is likely that the pattern is somewhat robust.  Of course, these patterns are all among internet samples, so it would be fair to say that if this pattern of liberal-conservative differences holds among all these groups, then it is fairly robust amongst the type of people who use the internet to read about news or politics.

Below are graphs across many of these groups.  You'll see the same pattern where as you move from liberal to conservative, the exclusivity of concern about issues of harm and fairness gets less and less.Moral Foundation Questionnaire Results by Politics - Referrals from Search Engines

Moral Foundation Questionnaire Results by Politics - Referrals from VoteHelp.Org (Candidate Calculator)

 Moral Foundation Questionnaire Results by Politics - Referrals from Reason (Libertarian Publication)

Moral Foundation Questionnaire Results by Politics - Referrals from Prospect Magazine (UK)

Moral Foundation Questionnaire Results by Politics - Referrals from New York Times

Moral Foundation Questionnaire Results by Politics - Referrals from Mother Jones

Moral Foundation Questionnaire Results by Politics - Referrals from Houston Chronicle

Moral Foundation Questionnaire Results by Politics - Referrals from Dallas Morning News

MFQ Results - Referrals from Conservative Blogger CrunchyCon at BeliefNetmfq_libcon_alternet0.JPG

mfq_libcon_andrewsullivan0.JPG

Comments

comments

Old Comments (5) Trackbacks (9)
  1. In case anyone is wondering, the “spikiness” of the graphs is due to the fact that some cases have fewer people in the graph and some cases have more people represented in the graph. With fewer people, you get more random variation which creates “spikiness”.

  2. spikiness

  3. Now I get a good understanding of conservatives’ weird morals. Conservatism is a mental disease!

  4. please can some one tell me how this concept relates to statistics: robust, conservatives, and liberal

  5. It is robust, if I understand correctly, insofar as it tests how predictably the expected pattern (the crocodile jaws facing to the left) appears, even when the source of the referral varies. You see this pattern is approximated in every graph from all types of political source (i.e. websites with any given political philosophy, Left, Right, Libertarian, what have you…). The presumption is that how a person found the survey is not entirely independent of that persons political views, but despite what biases may be thought to play out because of this, the pattern is still seen, i.e. it is a robust finding. At least to my eyes.

    The spikiness is to do with a well known fact of statistics, the smaller the sample (the N values) the more the noise, the larger the sample the more that noise is cancelled out, i.e. you get less spiky, smoother lines.

    Nice article, by the bye.


Leave a comment