Similar morality, different priorities? A mixed-methods study of moral foundations in incarcerated and community women

Traditional accounts of offender morality often emphasize moral deficits, whereas Moral Foundations Theory offers a pluralistic framework in which incarcerated individuals may show distinct moral concerns rather than deficits. This mixed-methods study examined whether incarcerated and community women in the Netherlands differed in moral foundation endorsement and prioritization, and whether these foundations were reflected in the content of moral regret narratives. Quantitative data were collected from 152 women (37 incarcerated, 115 community), and regret narratives from 75 participants (13 incarcerated, 62 community). ANCOVAs controlling for age showed that incarcerated women reported higher absolute endorsement of authority and purity, while relative scores indicated greater prioritization of authority and purity and lower care and proportionality. Sensitivity analyses additionally controlling for education yielded comparable results. However, findings for purity and proportionality warrant caution due to weaker psychometric performance in the incarcerated sample. No significant between-group difference emerged in the proportion of moral versus non-moral regrets, although few moral regrets among incarcerated women preclude conclusions of equivalence. Across groups, all moral regrets involved care, either alone or alongside other foundations. Descriptively, care more often co-occurred with loyalty-group among community women, whereas all three moral regrets of incarcerated women involved care, with two also involving authority or purity. Findings provide some support for a nuanced, non-deficit account of offender morality and highlight the value of examining absolute endorsement alongside relative priorities and regret narratives. Future research should clarify how moral orientations change in carceral environments and identify contextual and proximal processes linking foundations to behavior.