Are there different moral domains? Evidence from Mongolia

Renatas Berniunas, Vilius Dranseika, Paulo Sousa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)
478 Downloads (Pure)


In this paper we report a study conducted in Mongolia on the scope of morality, that is, the extent to which people moralize different social domains. Following Turiel’s moral-conventional task, we characterized moral transgressions (in contrast to conventional transgressions) in terms of two dimensions: authority independence
and generality of scope. Different moral domains are then defined by grouping such moral transgressions in terms of their content (following Haidt’s classification of morally relevant domains). There are four main results of the study. First, since all five Haidtian domains were moralized by the Mongolian participants, the study provides
evidence in favour of pluralism about moral domains. However, the study also suggests that the domain of harm can be reduced to the fairness domain. Furthermore, although the strong claim about reduction of all moral domains to the domain of fairness seems not to hold, a significant number of participants did indicate considerations of fairness across domains. Finally, a significant amount of participants moralized conventional transgressions a la Turiel, but it did not reach a statistical significance.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)275-282
JournalAsian Journal of Social Psychology
Issue number3
Early online date19 Apr 2016
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2016


  • Mongolia
  • Social cognition
  • Moral domains
  • Moral psychology
  • Moral/conventional task


Dive into the research topics of 'Are there different moral domains? Evidence from Mongolia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this