Two opposing views define the debate on the moral principles underlying human behavior. One side argues a central role for five moral foundations (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity), while the other argues that two of these (care, fairness) capture the essence of human moral concerns. In an experiment comparing these two views, Wright and Baril (2011) found that conservatives under cognitive load devalue loyalty, authority and sanctity, and become more liberal. Their finding of common intuitive concern with care and fairness supports the two-foundation perspective. In two high-powered preregistered experiments (N = 3275), we used time-pressure to induce intuitive thinking and tested Wright and Baril's finding that “we are all liberals at heart.” Although the manipulations worked as intended, Study 1 failed to identify an effect on the moral foundations questionnaire (MFQ). We conjectured that familiarity with standard survey items may weaken intuition manipulations by eliciting stable opinions. In Study 2, we therefore used not only the MFQ but also novel moral foundations vignettes. Study 2 failed to find an effect of time-pressure on either questionnaire type. An internal Bayesian meta-analysis indicated strong evidence against an effect of intuitive thinking on moral foundations.

两种对立的观点定义了关于人类行为基础道德原则的辩论。一方认为五个道德基础（关怀，公平，忠诚，权威，圣洁）的核心作用，而另一方则认为其中两个（关怀，公平）体现了人类道德关注的实质。在比较这两种观点的实验中，赖特和巴里尔（Wright and Baril，2011）发现，在认知负担下的保守派贬低了忠诚，权威和神圣性，并变得更加自由。他们对共同的直觉关注的关心和公平发现支持了两基础的观点。在两个功能强大的预注册实验中（N = 3275），我们利用时间压力来引导直觉思维，并检验了赖特和巴里尔的发现：“我们都是自由主义者。” 尽管操作可以按预期进行，但研究1未能确定对道德基础调查表（MFQ）的影响。我们推测，熟悉标准调查项目可能会通过引起稳定的意见而削弱直觉操作。因此，在研究2中，我们不仅使用MFQ，而且使用了新颖的道德基础。研究2未能找到时间压力对任一问卷类型的影响。内部贝叶斯荟萃分析表明，有力的证据反对直觉思维对道德基础的影响。