Beliefs in a Just World Scale

 

 According to the just world hypothesis, “people have a need to believe that their environment is a just and orderly place where people usually get what they deserve (Lerner & Miller, 1978, p. 1030).”

Beliefs about a just world may be measured with the Global Belief in a Just World Scale (Lipkus, 1991).

The scale has 7-items, which participants rate on a 6-point basis: 1 = strong disagreement and 6 = strong disagreement about the applicability of an item to oneself.

Permission

According to PsycTESTS, contact the publisher and corresponding author.

Author contact as of 21 December 2020

https://scholars.duke.edu/person/isaac.lipkus

Sample items

1. I feel that people get what they are entitled to have.

7. I basically feel that the world is a fair place.

 

References

Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030

Lipkus, Isaac. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(11), 1171-1178. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90081-L

 For help with survey research, 

Creating Surveys on AMAZON    or   GOOGLE  Worldwide

For more tests and measures- Resource Link:  A – Z Test Index

Links to Connections

Checkout My Page    www.suttong.com

  

My Books  AMAZON          and             GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW me on   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Articles: Academia   Geoff W Sutton   ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

 

 

The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ)

The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) is available online and as a download. You can take the test online and get your scores. The MFQ is designed to measure the five core moral foundations derived from Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) developed by Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues. (See references at the end of this post).


The MFQ evaluates moral foundations based on answers to questions. There are five moral foundations in the MFQ:

Care-Harm
Equality-Fairness; aka fairness/cheating
Loyalty-Betrayal
Authority-Respect; aka Authority/subversion
Purity-Sanctity aka Sanctity/degradation

I added the aka because you will find somewhat different words for the foundations in some articles.

See this page for a description of Moral Foundations Theory

Researchers can use the MFQ items to create their own surveys.

The current version (2018) is a 30-item version known as the MFQ30. There is also a shorter version known as the MFQ20, which has 20 items, 4-items for each of the 5 core moral foundations.

The MFQ is available in multiple languages.

Where to get the MFQ: https://www.moralfoundations.org/questionnaires 

Haidt and his colleagues have added a sixth foundation to assess liberty. There are two subscales to this foundation.

Where to get the Liberty Scale Items: 

See the Appendix at the end of the Iyer et al. article on Plos One: 

   https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366#s5


My ad
Consider buying Creating Surveys to help with your survey projects.

Available on AMAZON in multiple countries

Resource Link to more tests and questionnaires:  A – Z Test Index

References

Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. doi: 10.1177/1088868309353415

Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009).  Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e50092. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092

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, 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.

Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007).  When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z

Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature, 133(4), 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555

Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding Libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified Libertarians. Plos One, 7(8): e42366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

Johnson, K. A., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Sandage, S. J., & Crabtree, S. A. (2016). Moral foundation priorities reflect U.S. Christians’ individual differences in religiosity. Personality and Individual Differences. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.037.