Examining the Moral Foundations of High School Students

This research was carried out as Study-1 and Study-2. In both studies, it was aimed to examine the factors that form the foundations of high school students' moral perception. In Study-1, data were collected with the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. In Study-1, high school students saw the concepts of Harm/Care, Fairness, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity related to morality and formed their judgments on social life basing on these foundations. In addition, it was observed that women got significantly higher scores than men in harm/care and fairness sub-factors. In Study-2, the moral perceptions of high school students were examined with open-ended questionnaire questions. According to the analysis of the results of the answers to open-ended questions, high school students highlighted the fields of social morality and sexual morality. Apart from these two areas, they also touched upon the areas of violent morality and individual morality. Thus, four areas of morality were identified in Study-2. In addition, it was observed that women in social morality and men in violent morality came to the fore negatively. In sexual morality, moral problems of women came to the fore in some codes and moral problems of men came to the fore in some codes. As a general result, it was seen in both studies that the foundations of high school students' moral perceptions were built on similar moral foundations.


Introduction
The concept of morality has affects on the thoughts of many scientists who were interested in human and religious sciences. This situation is understood when looking at the long historical evolution of Morals. Especially in the field of religion and philosophy, this evolution is seen more clearly. In this long historical process, different perspectives on what Morality is have been presented. Various definitions and conceptual relationships that overlap or do not overlap due to social changes have been written and drawn. Of course, morality is expressed in different words in different languages. For example, Morality is expressed with the words "ḫuluḳ" in Arabic, "ethos" in Greek, "moralis" in Latin and "muşar" in Hebrew (Koca, 2016a, p. 131). However, the diversity of the meaning of Morality and the concepts it frames is more than using different names of morality in different languages; it is rather a serious discussion and research adventure.
For some, Morality is directly related to concepts such as empathy (Warnich & Stemberg, 2007), respect and responsibility (Lickona, 1991), decision making (especially moral decisions) (Haydon, 2007), divine rules (Wainwright, 2005) (cited in : Temli, Şen & Akar, 2013, p.199-200). According to Ünverdi, facing with alternatives, assessment-evaluation (intention), freedom of will, responsibility-liability and sanction are the five basic elements of Morality (Ünverdi, 2014, p. 328-329). Lickona said that Moral Knowledge, Moral Emotion and Moral Behavior are the three components of character (Lickona, 1996). According to Peterson and Seligman, reason and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, moderation, and transcendence constitute the six basic virtues of character (Ruch et al., 2010, p. 139). In the moral maturity scale that developed by Şengün, it was seen that the items framed concepts such as love, conscience, trust, solidarity, being fair, respect, sharing, being kind, patience, responsibility, being conscious and being humble (Şengün, 2008). The list of these concepts with which morality is related can be extended. These concepts have an important place in understanding what morality is, what its foundations can be and what factors are affected.
It is a well-known fact that the environment in which the individuals live is important in formation of Morality. Culture shows itself as in many other things. Morality is shaped by the culture of the community, social changes, and national history (or social culture). Dewey said that the school and civil society are two important social areas in the moral inquiry skill and that morality is the result of social changes (Dewey, 1994). Similarly, Hardy (2008) reported that the most important factor affecting a person's moral perception is social structures. Temli and et al. stated that these social structures are school, family, friendships, neighbors, religious and social organizations (Temli, Şen & Akar, 2013, p.200). Since social structures are different in different cultures, the understanding of morality changes accordingly. For example, cultural differences in western and eastern societies also show themselves in the field of morality. While individual factors are seen in the focus of morality in Western cultures, social life and relations are more prominent in the framework of morality in eastern cultures. For example, while not harming anyone, human well-being and fair treatment are seen at the focus of morality in the liberal west, factors such as spiritual purity, loyalty, family, social environment and religious norms are at the center of morality in societies with low social classes such as Brazil and India (Graham et al., 2011, p.367). All these concepts of morality in western and eastern cultures are the foundations or trivets of morality.
The foundation or trivets of morality constitute the sub-dimensions of the scales in quantitative measurements. Therefore, it is important to know how many concepts frame this foundation. Although the formation of a set of moral concepts that can appeal to all societies in a complete way is an imposible claim, it should not be overlooked that some aspects of the picture can be formed. For example, autonomy, community, and holiness are said to be three important pillars of morality (Shweder, Much, Mahapatra, & Park, 1997). Schwartz, who collects data on values in 20 countries, says that 10 values stand out. These values called 10 values of Schwartz; self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, success, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence and universalism (Schwartz, 1992). Although Schwartz's 10 values are comprehensive, it is seen that concepts such as non-harm to others and chastity are lacking. In another comprehensive study trying to map the concepts of morality, these values or foundations were determined as five. Five values are defined as Harm/Care, Fairness, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity, and it has been stated that these dimensions are close to be regarded as universal (Graham et al., 2011). In this study, these five values were considered as the moral foundations.

Purpose and Importance
Many scales for morality have been developed. One that is comprehensive is the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) developed by Graham et al. (see Graham et al., 2011). It is a scale development study conducted by examining many moral theories, collecting data on 34,476 people, and performing correlation analysis with similar scales. The scale has been translated into 39 languages (see: moralfoundations.org/questionnaires/) and has been used in many studies. This scale was adapted to Turkish by Yılmaz et al. (Yılmaz, Harma, Bahçekapılı, & Cesur, 2016). The scale consists of five sub-dimensions. However, in some studies, different sub-dimension models were also examined. But the scale generally gives the best values in the five sub-factor model, of which names are Harm/Care, Fairness/Justice, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. These five dimensions are called the foundations of morality. In this study, the thoughts of high school students about these five sub-dimensions were evaluated with MFQ items. Then, in the second study, the opinions of high school students on morality were evaluated again with the open-ended questionnaire. More importantly, it was examined whether the moral foundations obtained as a result of the second study and the moral foundations on the scale (five sub-factors) would be similar.
In addition, scale which was adapted to Turkish by Yılmaz et al. was not used in any other studies as a data collection tool. With the help of this scale, it is important to identify the thoughts of high school students, who are a critical segment of society, on the foundations of morality. Because of this importance, this study was carried out and the purpose of the study was determined as "the evaluation of high school students' thoughts on morality according to some variables". With this study, an important gap could be filled out and a more holistic evaluation opportunity culd also be provided for other studies and ethics. In addition, thanks to this holistic evaluation, steps towards education could be taken more accurately.

Study -1
In Study-1, the answers to the question "Which situations and/or behaviors do high school students think are related to morality?" were seeked with a MFQ form. Thus, it was tried to examine the moral foundations of the moral perceptions of high school students.

Method
Model: The model of this research was determined as the survey model. Survey model is a quantitative assessment method used to describe the attitudes, views, behaviors or characteristics of a group or society (Creswell, 2012, p.376). In accordance with the definition, the thoughts of high school students were tried to be described in the light of some variables with the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ).

Population & Sample:
In this research, high school students from Batman and Muş city centers formed the population. Data were collected from 259 high school students from this population through an online questionnaire. Familiar teachers and students were tried to be reached and they were asked to send the online questionnaire link to their students and friends. As the online questionnaire was delivered to many people randomly the sampling method was the simple random sampling. This method, which is called simple random sampling, plain sampling, unbiased sampling or non-proportional sampling, is defined as that each element in the population has an equal selection rate and its inclusion in the sample set is entirely based on chance (Karasar, 2016, p.151).

Data Collection Tool:
The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ) which was developed by Graham et al. (2011) and adapted into Turkish by Yılmaz et al. (see: Yılmaz, Harma, Bahçekapılı and Cesur, 2016) was used as a data collection tool. In addition to the scale questions, the students were asked about their demographic information.
The scale consists of 5 sub-factors. The scale includes a total of 30 items, and 6 items in each sub-factors. 3 of the 6 items in each factor were created for moral relevance, and the other 3 for moral judgment. The sub-factors are called Harm/Care, Fairness, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. Some studies also examined different numbers of sub-dimensions of the scale. In this study, the factor loads of the five sub-factors and two sub-factors models were compared. The following table shows the internal consistency coefficients of the scale in the studies: Graham et al. (2011), Yılmaz et al. (2016, and in this study. Data Analysis: The data collected from high school students with the Moral Foundations Questionnaire were analyzed with the SPSS package program. Descriptive statistics, t-test and ANOVA test were used in the analysis of the data.

Results
First of all, fit indices of the five-factor and two-factor models of the scale were examined and compared. The fit indices of the moral foundations scale are shown in table 2. It was seen that the values for both models were at a good level. The AIC and CFI values differed slightly in favor of the five-factor model, while the other values differed slightly in favor of the two-factor model. Since the two-factor model also produced appropriate values, the internal reliability coefficient (α) was examined. The internal consistency coefficient of the individualistic moral factor in the two-factor model was α = 0.60, and the second factor, which was the binding morality, was α = 0.72. According to descriptive statistics made according to the sub-factors, the means vary between X ̅ = 3.2 and X ̅ = 4.0.
Looking at the results in Table 3, high school students showed that they used these sub-factors in their moral judgment and moral decisions. The difference between the total scale score and the sub-factors according to the demographic variables were examined by ANOVA and the t-test. According to the test results, there was no difference in terms of high school type, ideology felt close, and time spent on social networks. In the analysis made according to gender, scale total score (t = -2,118; Sd = 142, p = 0.036), harm/care (t = -3,054; Sd = 142, p = 0.003) and fairness (t = -2,279; Sd = 142, p = 0.024) sub-factors were found to be significantly different. According to Table 4, it can be interpreted that the significant differences are that female students pay more attention to fairness and harm/care in their moral understanding compared to male students.

Discussion
The Moral Foundations Scale is a 5-factor scale. In the development of the scale and its adaptation to Turkish, one, two, three, four, hierarchical and five sub-factors models of the scale were examined and the scale generally gave the best fit indices in the 5-factor model (Graham et al., 2011;Yılmaz, Harma, Bahçekapılı, and Cesur, 2016). Since the five factor and two factor models are frequently discussed in the literature, the fit indices values of the five factor model and two factor model were compared in this study. Although there are very small differences between the values (some in favor of the five factor and some in favor of the two factor model), both models gave good fit indices.
In the two factor model, the harm/care and fairness sub-factors come together in one factor and this factor is called the individualistic morality. The remaining sub-factor of Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity constitute the binding morality factor (Graham et al., 2013). Some researchers leave the five model structure and use two model structure which is broader (see Alper & Yılmaz, 2020;Barnett et al., 2018;Malka et al., 2016;Napier & Luguri, 2013;Smith, Aquino, Koleva, & Graham, 2014). For example, from the analysis of over 8000 data collected from 27 countries selected from all regions of the world, it has been concluded that the 5-dimensional structure is over (Iurino & Saucier, 2018).
Harm/care and fairness sub-factors mostly include moral behaviors that prioritize the individual rights. The sub-factors of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity, on the other hand, mostly include the moral behaviors that stand out in the society. In this respect, the individualistic understanding of morality and the binding moral understanding show itself in the types of society. While the harm/care and fairness sub-factors are scored higher in liberal or individualist societies, the sub-factors of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity are scored higher in conservative societies (Graham et al., 2009;Graham et al., 2011;Haidt & Graham, 2007;Graham, Nosek, & Haidt, 2012). Similarly, there is a stronger relationship between multiculturalism and individualistic moral foundation scores, and between ethnic/racial affiliation and binding moral foundation scores (Graham et al., 2013).
When the means of the sub-factors in the MFQ were examined, it was seen that they were between X ̅ = 3.2 and X ̅ = 4.0. Therefore, it could be said that high school students consider the sub-factors of the scale such as harm/care, fairness, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity are related to morality, and these dimensions affected them in their moral judgments. Also, it was seen that the means of harm/care and fairness sub-dimensions was higher than the other means. An interpretation could be made that the group whose data was collected had an individualistic, liberal and multicultural understanding (Haidt & Graham, 2007;Graham et al., 2013). However, when looking at whether there was a difference between the mean by gender, it was seen that there was a significant difference between women and men in the harm/care and fairness sub-factors, and women had a higher means than men. Thus, it was understood that the girls in the data collection group had an individualistic, liberal and multicultural understanding. In the sub-dimensions of morality, where there was no difference between genders, it was seen that women again had higher scores (for a similar finding, see Niazi, Inam &Akhtar, 2020 andGraham et al., 2011). In many studies, women have a meaningful and higher means score than men in harm/care and fairness sub-factors. The high scores of women, especially in these two sub-factors, were attributed to the fact that women are more sensitive than men on issues such as not doing harm, being careful, pity, defending rights and justice (Efferson & Glenn, 2018).
The difference between genders may differ in studies. For example, there are studies that find a difference in favor of women only in the factor of harm/care (Matsuo, Sasahara, Taguchi & Karasawa, 2019;Njus, Fawcett & Hazlett, 2016). Similarly, studies that find significant differences in favor of women in the factors of harm/care, fairness and purity/sanctity, and in favor of men in the factors of ingroup/loyalty and authority/respect (Niazi, Inam & Akhtar, 2020;Efferson & Glenn, 2018) were conducted. As a result, it could be said that women attach more importance to individual moral foundations than men, and men attach more importance to binding moral foundations (Sağel, 2015).

Study -2
This second study was conducted to satisfy the curiosity whether the themes that would emerge in using open-ended questions be similar to the subthemes of the MFQ scale. For this reason, Study-2 was designed. In Study-2, open-ended survey questions were used to answer the question "which situations and/or behaviors do high school students think are related to morality?" Students were not led to choose ready-made and limited preferences of closed-ended questions. On the contrary, they were able to give information as much as they wanted. Thus the foundations of moral perceptions were tried to be examined more objectively and without any restriction of closed-ended questions.

Method
Model: The model of Study-2 was also determined as survey model. In accordance with the definition, the thoughts of high school students about the concept of morality were tried to be described with two open-ended survey questions.

Population & Sample:
In Study-2, high school students in Muş city center formed the population. Data were collected from 140 high school students via survey. Unlike Study-1, the survey form was copied by photocopy, distributed by teachers and collected manually. Students who contributed to the research were reached through teachers. Since the survey forms were delivered randomly, the sampling method is simple random sampling.

Data Collection
Tool: Two open-ended survey questions were asked as data collection tools. Survey questions are as follows; • When you call someone Immoral Man/Boy, because of what behavior do you say that?
• When you call someone Immoral Woman/Girl, because of what behavior do you say that?
In addition to these two questions, demographic information like gender and high school type were asked in the survey form.
Data Analysis: Qualitative data collected from high school students with two open-ended survey questions were transformed into quantitative data. In this analysis method, the situations, and behaviors that students perceive as immoral are written one by one. Situations and behaviors that students perceive as immoral are harassment, adultery, improper dressing, chastity, rape, socially inappropriate behavior, profanity, disrespect, violence against women, violence, slander, gossip, justification, etc. These situations and behaviors are grouped under themes. The themes are Sexual Morality, Social Morality, Violent Morality, and Individual Morality. Number of situations and behaviors that written under each theme were encoded in the SPSS program. After the data were quantified, the data and demographic variables were analyzed using the frequency and chi-square test.

Results
In this section, the frequency values of the themes and how these values change according to demographic variables are examined. Whether the values in the tables show a significant difference according to demographic variables was examined with the chi-square test. No significant p value was obtained in any of the chi-square tests. For this reason, chi-square values were not given, and frequency values were examined. When Table 5 is examined, it is understood that high school students perceive immoral behaviors as situations and behaviors that are not welcomed by the society for both men and women (n = 123 and n = 155). Statements under the theme of Social Morality such as "exhibiting inappropriate behaviors and movements in the society", "swearing", "people who engage in immoral behavior" were intensely mentioned by the participants in the survey form. In addition, when we look at the frequency values of the social morality theme, it can be said that the negative display of the situation and behavior in the society is seen as a more moral problem for women than for men.
In Table 5, sexual morality, as well as social morality, have remarkable frequency values. High school students see sexual morality in the second place for both men and women in the field of morality. The students stated that they regarded expressions such as "if he harassed him/her", "harasse with eyes", "if dress too openly", "if he cheated on his wife" as immoral. In the field of sexual morality, it could be said that, contrary to social morality, high school students see situations related to sexuality as more immoral for men than women. In the analysis of the answers, it was seen that harassment was written more for the immoral situation of men than for women, and that inappropriate dressing was used more for the immoral situation of women.
Considering the frequency values in Table 5, it could be stated that violent morality and individual morality fields are seen as moral problems after sexual and social morality fields. Situations such as "slander", "gossip", "lying", "arrogance", "theft", "righteousness", which were specified in the field of individual morality, were written less often as immorality. In addition, in this morality field, it was seen that the frequency values in the table were almost equal for both men and women. Table 5 shows that violence is seen as a moral problem for men than women in the field of morality. It could be said that especially violence against women is seen as the main immoral behavior for men. Statements written by the students in the form such as "if he does violence on woman", "if he is violent on", "a man who inflicts violence on women is immoral" shows that violence is believed to be a moral problem for men compared to women. The frequency numbers of the situations and behaviors perceived as immoral by high school female students are given in Table 6. According to the values in the table, we can say that female students believe that the field of sexual morality and social morality contain more moral problems than the other two areas of morality. However, it is understood that female students perceive the problem of immorality as equal in sexual morality, more for women in social morality, more for men in violent morality, and nearly equal in individual morality.  Table 7 shows the frequency values of the situations and behaviors that male students wrote about immorality. It is worth noting that the number of male students participating in the study is n = 25 (18%). When the table is examined, it is understood that this group of 25 male students perceives sexual morality as a moral problem for men compared to women, and social morality as approximately equal moral problem for both genders. It is seen that male students do not write any situation or behavior regarding women's immorality in the field of individual morality. Moreover, we can say that they see the violence as a moral problem with equal values for both sexes.  Table 8 shows the frequency values of the situation and behaviors that students perceive as moral problems according to the high school types. According to the values in the table, it is seen that the students studying at Imam Hatip High School, High School and Vocational High School think that the social morality field contains more immoral situations and behaviors for women. Similar to Table-5 and Table-7, we can say that according to the type of high school, students see sexual moral problems mostly as immorality problem of men. According to the type of high school, we see that students believe that violent morality has more moral problems for men than women and that individual morality has less immorality problems for both genders.

Discussion
Answers of the high school students were coded and codes were themed and according to analyses four themes emerged. These themes are sexual morality, social morality, violent morality and individual morality which frame many concepts relating to morality. Situations and behaviors relating to sexual morality and social morality were stated predominantly by the students according to the other two themes.
The most important difference regarding immoral situations towards women and men is that students believe women should exhibit more appropriate behaviors (e.g. clothing, attitudes in society, etc.) in society than men. Many studies using the moral foundations scale put forward reverse results. In other words, while women get high scores in more individualistic moral structure, men receive high scores in binding moral structure (authority/respect, ingroup/loyalty), which is more conservative social morality (Niazi, Inam, & Akhtar, 2020;Graham et al., 2011;Efferson & Glenn, 2018;Dawson & Tyson, 2012). However, it is known that women are more highly condemned than men in situations such as dressing in society, inappropriate acts, and indecent behaviors, and therefore women have been under the grip of culture since history (see Turan, 2013). Therefore, in more traditional and conservative societies, the statement like "women's comfort (freedom) is at home" has been said. Finding such as dressing too openly written for women as immorality, and harassment written for men as immorality supports this situation. In both cases, dressing and harassment, women are not comfortable-free in society. However, it should be noted that every behavior within the field of social morality is not only registered in the women's immorality. For example, the state of disrespect in the field of social morality is reflected as nearly equal numbers of immorality for both sexes.
In sexual morality, there is a perception that the man reflects more sexual immoral situations (e.g. harassment). This perception comes from the perceptions of male students. On the other hand, female students stated that sexual morality creates immoral situations of equal value for both genders. However, as stated, it should be noted again that harassment is an immoral situation that is considered for men and situations that are more visible (i.e. dressing in public, contact with their lover in society) are stated as immoral for women. In a study conducted on women working in the banking sector, it was found that 35.4% of women participating in the study were subjected to harassment at least once. The author stated that this rate was low and that women were embarrassed to mention this situation. Because they felt humiliated and therefore hid the event (Gerni, 2001). It is understood that women are very annoyed by sexual harassment and they see sexual harassment as men's immorality.
In the violence morality, it is seen that men reflect more problematic moral behaviors than women with the high frequency value. Both female students and male students stated that violence (especially violence against women) reflects the immorality of men. It is a well-known fact that men use their muscular power as a means of violence in many areas (for a comprehensive report see the Turkish Prime Ministry, General Directorate of the Status of Women, 2014). According to the report, 38% of the women participating in the study have experienced physical violence at least once in their lives. However, a point to be considered here is that situations such as violence against children, harming animals and being cruel are written as immoral situations for both sexes in almost equal numbers. Direct violence against women was stated as the immorality of men. The violence of women against women or men against men was never reported by the students. This can be interpreted as violence is not immoral among equal powers but violence on the vulnerable is perceived as immorality.

General Discussion and Conclusion
According to analyzes of the first and second studies, the moral perception of high school students showed a significant difference at some points according to gender. Although there was no significant difference in the chi-square test in Study-2, it was observed that at some points, women and at some points men showed more immorality behaviours.
One of the important aims of this study is to examine whether the sub-factors of the scale and the themes in the second study are parallel to each other. For this reason, the sub-factors model of the scale and the themes in the second study were shown in two different figures and compared visually. Figure 1 shows the 5 and 2 sub-factor modeling of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). The words in the rectangle are the coded form of the scale items. Thus, it will be possible to compare figure 1 with figure 2. In Figure 2, the codes and themes of high school students' perception of immorality are shown. In the analysis of Study-2, the codes were divided into four themes. These themes are social morality, sexual morality, violent morality, and individual morality.
The codes under the social ethics theme were compared with the codes under the authority/respect sub-factor of the scale. In both, behaviors appropriate to the authority are perceived as moral. In both codes boxes, there are concepts of respect, obedience, conforming to society and tradition. Therefore, it can be said that the authority/respect sub-factor in the scale and the social morality theme in the second study are the same.
When the codes under the sexual moral theme and the codes under the purity/sanctity sub-factor are examined, it is seen that they have similarities. In both codes, it is seen that there is honor and obedience to divine prohibitions and rules. For example, concepts such as haressmet, deception, eye haressmet under the theme of sexual morality are the situations that fall under divine prohibitions. Moreover, it can be said that racy dressing, flirt, and inappropriate photo sharing are also seen as behaviors within the scope of honor. Thus, it can be said that the sexual moral theme and the purity/sanctity sub-factor are the same.
When the codes of the violence morality theme are compared with the codes of the harm/care sub-factor, it is seen that behaviors such as cruelty, ruthlessness and violence stand out in both. The concepts of harming animals, killing people, insulting, rude behavior, violence to children, and not showing affection are also compatible with cruelty, that is, violence. In other words, it can be said that the theme violence morality and the harm/care sub-factor are the same.
When the codes under the individual morality theme are examined, it can be seen that the codes actually indicate two behaviors. First of all, concepts such as slander, gossip, lies, dishonesty, and theft evoke the act of taking rights or injuring someone, that is, the concept of fairness. Second, the concepts of love for minors, not taking care of their children, and not being interested in their families indicate loyalty to their family and children. It is seen that the ingroup/loyalty sub-factor includes loyalty to the country, family and group, while the fairness sub-factor includes injustice. As a result, it can be said that individual morality theme is the sum of ingroup/loyalty and fairness sub-factors of the scale.
As a result of the comparison of the codes under the themes with the codes under the sub-factors, it was seen these equalities: social morality = authority/respect, sexual morality = purity/sanctity, violent morality = harm/care, and individual morality = ingroup/loyalty + fairness. As can be seen from both figures, the individualist moral foundation and the binding moral foundation replace itself as the upper main factors. As a result, in this study and in many other studies, it is seen that the 5 and 2 sub-factor models are also revealed as a result of the analyzes made in the second study. Although it is referred to by different names, the themes of the moral perception of high school students are similar to the 5 sub-factors and 2 sub-factors in the scale. This situation supports the claim that the Moral Foundations Scale is almost universal (Graham et al., 2011).

Limitations and Recommendations
The biggest limitation of this study is that the majority of the participants in both studies are women (For Study-1, n = 220 (84.9%) women, n = 39 (15.1%) men; for Study-2 n = 115 (%) 82) women, n = 25 (18%) men). It was revealed in both studies that women have different perceptions than men in some moral points. However, in a study with almost equal numbers of male and female participants, it is important to reveal this difference. Therefore, it is recommended to take this issue into consideration in future studies.
Second and in our opinion a more important limitation is some reflections of the questionnaire items in our culture. For example, some people who score five of the six items of the authority/respect sub-factor with a "5" can score "0" for the question "If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer's orders, I would obey anyway because that is my duty". Similarly, questions in ingroup/loyalty sub-factor are scored with "5", while the question "I am proud of my country's history" can be scored as "0". This situation shows that while some participants may show loyalty to family, elderly people and social values, there is no moral respect and loyalty to state. Researchers who will work on this issue are especially recommended to do in-depth studies on why this difference occurs.
Finally, in study-1 and study-2, it can be seen as a limitation that the participants are mostly from imam hatip (vocational religious high school) high school (Study-1, n = 148 (57.1%); Study-2, n = 70 (50%)). For the objectivity of the future studies, it is suggested to prefer the equal number of participants from different high school types. For this, stratified sampling method is recommended instead of random sampling method.