Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

The three models previously applied to the MFQ: A: 2-factor model, B: 5-factor model, C: Hierarchical model.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

MFQ fit metrics obtained in the previous studies.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Incorporating multitrait-multimethod into a 5-foundation model of the MFQ.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

5-factor item-level model of including individualising and binding domains.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 2.

Study 1 comparative model fits, reported in order of most complex to least complex.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Model fit comparisons for the training dataset in Study 1.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Model fit comparisons for the holdout dataset replication in Study 1.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 4.

Study 1 best-fitting model showing only the seven moral foundations and two general-factors (binding/individualizing and method variance paths in Fig 5 for clarity).

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Study 1 best-fitting model showing only the binding/individualizing and method variance paths (seven moral foundations and two general-factors in Fig 4 for clarity).

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Movement of items from the five MFQ foundations to the well-fitting 7 factor model.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Structural part of the final model in Study 2.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 5.

Model fit comparisons for the replication dataset in Study 2.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 8.

Structural part of the final model in Study 3.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Table 6.

Model fit comparisons for the replication dataset in the Study 3.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 9.

Structural part of the final model in Study 4.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Table 7.

Model fit comparisons for the replication dataset in the Study 4.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Fig 10.

Structural part of the final model in Study 5.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Table 8.

Model fit comparisons for the replication dataset in the Study 5.

More »

Table 8 Expand