Moral Disengagement as a Self-Regulatory Cognitive Process of Transgressions: Psychometric Evidence of the Bandura Scale in Chilean Adolescents
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Moral Disengagement
1.2. Moral Disengagement and Transgressive Behavior
1.3. Moral Disengagement, Prosocial Behavior, and Empathy
1.4. Moral Disengagement as a Mediator
1.5. Measurement of Moral Disengagement
1.6. Objectives and Hypotheses
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
2.2. Participants
2.3. Instruments
2.3.1. Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement Scale (MMDS)
2.3.2. Adolescent Social Behavior Self-Report Questionnaire (CACSA)
2.3.3. Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ)
2.4. Procedure
2.5. Data Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Item Analysis
3.2. Evidence of Validity Based on the Internal Structure
3.3. Internal Consistency
3.4. Evidence of Validity Based on the Relationships with Other Variables
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications
4.2. Limitations
4.3. Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. List of Items in the Chilean Adaptation of the MMDS
Ítems de la Versión Chilena de la EMDM |
01. Está bien pelear para proteger a tus amistades. |
02. Golpear y empujar a alguien es solo una forma de bromear. |
03. Dañar algunas propiedades no es gran cosa si consideras que otros golpean a las personas. |
04. Un joven en una pandilla no debe ser culpado por los problemas que causa la pandilla. |
05. Si los jóvenes viven en malas condiciones, no se les puede culpar por comportarse agresivamente. |
06. Está bien decir pequeñas mentiras porque realmente no hacen ningún daño. |
07. Algunas personas merecen ser tratadas como animales. |
08. Si los estudiantes pelean y se portan mal en el colegio, es culpa de su profesor. |
09. Está bien golpear a alguien que insulta a tu familia. |
10. Golpear a compañeros de curso que son odiosos es simplemente darles lo que merecen. |
11. Robar algo de dinero no es demasiado grave en comparación con aquellos que roban millones de pesos. |
12. Alguien que propone romper las reglas no debe ser culpado si otras personas lo hacen. |
13. Si a los jóvenes no se les enseña disciplina, no se les debe culpar por el mal comportamiento. |
14. A los jóvenes no les importa que los molesten porque es una manera de mostrar interés en ellos. |
15. Está bien tratar mal a alguien que se comportó como una persona despreciable. |
16. Si las personas son descuidadas con sus cosas, es culpa suya si se las roban. |
17. Está bien pelear cuando el honor de tu grupo está amenazado. |
18. Tomar la bicicleta de alguien sin su permiso es simplemente “tomarla prestada”. |
19. Está bien insultar a un compañero de curso porque golpearlo sería peor. |
20. Si un grupo decide hacer algo malo, es injusto culpar a cualquiera persona del grupo por ello. |
21. No se puede culpar a alguien por decir garabatos cuando todos sus amigos lo hacen. |
22. Molestar a alguien realmente no le hace daño. |
23. Alguien que es detestable no merece ser tratado como un ser humano. |
24. Los jóvenes que son maltratados usualmente hacen cosas para merecerlo. |
25. Está bien mentir para proteger a tus amigos. |
26. No es malo “volarse” de vez en cuando. |
27. En comparación con las cosas ilegales que hacen las personas, sacar algunas cosas de una tienda sin pagarlas no es muy grave. |
28. Es injusto culpar a alguien que solo tuvo una pequeña parte de responsabilidad en el daño que hizo un grupo. |
29. No se puede culpar a los jóvenes por su mal comportamiento si sus amigos los presionaron para que lo hicieran. |
30. Los insultos entre los jóvenes no hacen daño a nadie. |
31. Algunas personas tienen que ser tratadas de manera brusca porque no tienen sentimientos. |
32. Los jóvenes no tienen la culpa de comportarse mal si sus padres los presionan demasiado. |
References
- Van Dijk, J.; Nieuwbeerta, P.; Joudo Larsen, J. Global Crime Patterns: An Analysis of Survey Data from 166 Countries Around the World, 2006–2019. J. Quant. Criminol. 2021, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Children’s Defense Fund. The State of America’s Children® 2021; Children’s Defense Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Youth.gov. Youth Involved with the Juvenile Justice System. Available online: https://youth.gov/youth-topics/juvenile-justice/youth-involved-juvenile-justice-system (accessed on 26 June 2022).
- Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia; Defensoría Penal Pública. Sistema Penal Adolescente 2008–2018: Cifras, Avances y Desafíos Pendientes; Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia: Santiago, Chile, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Bronfenbrenner, U.; Morris, P.A. The Bioecological Model of Human Development. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development; Lerner, R.M., Damon, W., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 793–828. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. Social Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 248–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A.; Caprara, G.V.; Barbaranelli, C.; Pastorelli, C.; Regalia, C. Sociocognitive Self-Regulatory Mechanisms Governing Transgressive Behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 80, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falla, D.; Ortega-Ruiz, R.; Runions, K.; Romera, E.M. Why Do Victims Become Perpetrators of Peer Bullying? Moral Disengagement in the Cycle of Violence. Youth Soc. 2020, 54, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Itzkovich, Y.; Barhon, E.; Lev-Wiesel, R. Health and Risk Behaviors of Bystanders: An Integrative Theoretical Model of Bystanders’ Reactions to Mistreatment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Romero, C. Desentendimiento Moral y Atribución de Culpa: Encuentros y Desencuentros En El Estudio de La Cognición Moral. Rev. Colomb. Psicol. 2020, 29, 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Toward a Psychology of Human Agency: Pathways and Reflections. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 13, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bandura, A. Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. J. Moral Educ. 2002, 31, 101–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bussey, K.; Luo, A.; Fitzpatrick, S.; Allison, K. Defending Victims of Cyberbullying: The Role of Self-Efficacy and Moral Disengagement. J. Sch. Psychol. 2020, 78, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves; Worth Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. Selective Activation and Disengagement of Moral Control. J. Soc. Issues 1990, 46, 27–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A.; Barbaranelli, C.; Caprara, G.V.; Pastorelli, C. Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 71, 364–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shulman, E.P.; Cauffman, E.; Piquero, A.R.; Fagan, J. Moral Disengagement among Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Longitudinal Study of the Relations between Morally Disengaged Attitudes and Offending. Dev. Psychol. 2011, 47, 1619–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, Z.; Zhang, W.; Lai, X.; Sun, W.; Wang, Y. Parental Attachment and Chinese Adolescents’ Delinquency: The Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement. J. Adolesc. 2015, 44, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gini, G.; Pozzoli, T.; Hauser, M. Bullies Have Enhanced Moral Competence to Judge Relative to Victims, but Lack Moral Compassion. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2011, 50, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barchia, K.; Bussey, K. Individual and Collective Social Cognitive Influences on Peer Aggression: Exploring the Contribution of Aggression Efficacy, Moral Disengagement, and Collective Efficacy. Aggress. Behav. 2011, 37, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Obermann, M.-L. Moral Disengagement in Self-Reported and Peer-Nominated School Bullying. Aggress. Behav. 2011, 37, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gini, G.; Thornberg, R.; Bussey, K.; Angelini, F.; Pozzoli, T. Longitudinal Links of Individual and Collective Morality with Adolescents’ Peer Aggression. J. Youth Adolesc. 2022, 51, 524–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubio-Garay, F.; Amor, P.J.; Carrasco, M.A. Dimensionality and Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement Scale (MMDS-S). Rev. Psicopatol. Psicol. Clín. 2017, 22, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paciello, M.; Fida, R.; Tramontano, C.; Lupinetti, C.; Caprara, V.; Paciello, M.; Fida, R.; Tramontano, C.; Lupinetti, C.; Caprara, G.V. Stability and Change of Moral Disengagement and Its Impact on Aggression and Violence in Late Adolescence. Child Dev. 2008, 79, 1288–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Lei, L.; Yang, J.; Gao, L.; Zhao, F. Moral Disengagement as Mediator and Moderator of the Relation Between Empathy and Aggression Among Chinese Male Juvenile Delinquents. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2017, 48, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bussey, K.; Quinn, C.; Dobson, J. The Moderating Role of Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking on the Relationship between Moral Disengagement and Aggression. Merrill. Palmer. Q. 2015, 61, 10–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passini, S. The Delinquency-Drug Relationship: The Influence of Social Reputation and Moral Disengagement. Addict. Behav. 2012, 37, 577–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newton, N.C.; Havard, A.; Teesson, M. The Association between Moral Disengagement, Psychological Distress, Resistive Self-Regulatory Efficacy and Alcohol and Cannabis Use among Adolescents in Sydney, Australia. Addict. Res. Theory 2012, 20, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Antelo, I.; Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Discrimination and Violence Due to Diversity of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Explanatory Variables. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubio-Garay, F.; Carrasco Ortiz, M.Á.; García-Rodríguez, B. Desconexión Moral y Violencia En Las Relaciones de Noviazgo de Adolescentes y Jóvenes: Un Estudio Exploratorio. Rev. Argent. Clin. Psicol. 2019, 28, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Jiménez, V.; Muñoz-Fernández, N. When Are Sexist Attitudes Risk Factors for Dating Aggression? The Role of Moral Disengagement in Spanish Adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rollero, C.; De Piccoli, N. Myths about Intimate Partner Violence and Moral Disengagement: An Analysis of Sociocultural Dimensions Sustaining Violence against Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fung, A.L.C. Psychosocial Correlates of Reactive and Proactive Aggression among Protesters during the Social Movement in Hong Kong. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paciello, M.; Tramontano, C.; Nocentini, A.; Fida, R.; Menesini, E. The Role of Traditional and Online Moral Disengagement on Cyberbullying: Do Externalising Problems Make Any Difference? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 103, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romera, E.M.; Ortega-Ruiz, R.; Runions, K.; Camacho, A. Bullying Perpetration, Moral Disengagement and Need for Popularity: Examining Reciprocal Associations in Adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 2021, 50, 2021–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romera, E.M.; Ortega-Ruiz, R.; Runions, K.; Falla, D. Moral Disengagement Strategies in Online and Offline Bullying. Psychosoc. Interv. 2021, 30, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Travlos, A.K.; Tsorbatzoudis, H.; Barkoukis, V.; Douma, I. The Effect of Moral Disengagement on Bullying: Testing the Moderating Role of Personal and Social Factors. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 36, 2262–2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Almeida, A.; Correia, I.; Marinho, S.; Garcia, D. Virtual but Not Less Real: A Study of Cyberbullying and Its Relations to Moral Disengagement and Empathy. In Cyberbullying in the Global Playground: Research from International Perspectives; Li, Q., Cross, D., Smith, P.K., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 223–244. ISBN 9781444333763. [Google Scholar]
- Pornari, C.D.; Wood, J. Peer and Cyber Aggression in Secondary School Students: The Role of Moral Disengagement, Hostile Attribution Bias, and Outcome Expectancies. Aggress. Behav. 2010, 36, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falla, D.; Ortega-Ruiz, R.; Romera, E.M. Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Transition from Cybergossip to Cyberaggression: A Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perren, S.; Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E. Cyberbullying and Traditional Bullying in Adolescence: Differential Roles of Moral Disengagement, Moral Emotions, and Moral Values. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2012, 9, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gini, G.; Pozzoli, T.; Hymel, S. Moral Disengagement Among Children and Youth: A Meta—Analytic Review of Links to Aggressive Behavior. Aggress. Behav. 2014, 40, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Férriz, L.; Navas, M.P.; Gómez-Fraguela, J.A.; Sobral, J. Desconexión Moral y Delincuencia Juvenil Severa: Metaanálisis de Su Asociación. Rev. Latinoam. Psicol. 2019, 51, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Yang, J.; Yang, L. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Moral Disengagement and Aggressive Behavior. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 22, 1092–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Killer, B.; Bussey, K.; Hawes, D.J.; Hunt, C. A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Moral Disengagement and Bullying Roles in Youth. Aggress. Behav. 2019, 45, 450–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhao, L.; Yu, J. A Meta-Analytic Review of Moral Disengagement and Cyberbullying. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paciello, M.; Fida, R.; Cerniglia, L.; Tramontano, C.; Cole, E. High Cost Helping Scenario: The Role of Empathy, Prosocial Reasoning and Moral Disengagement on Helping Behavior. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2013, 55, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boardley, I.D.; Kavussanu, M. The Moral Disengagement in Sport Scale-Short. J. Sports Sci. 2008, 26, 1507–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodge, K.; Gucciardi, D.F. Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior in Sport: The Role of Motivational Climate, Basic Psychological Needs, and Moral Disengagement. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2015, 37, 257–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Waal, F.B.M. Putting the Altruism Back into Altruism: The Evolution of Empathy. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2008, 59, 279–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, J.; Wang, X.; Yuan, K.H.; Wen, Z.; Yu, X.; Zhang, G. Callous-Unemotional Traits and Cyberbullying Perpetration: The Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement and the Moderating Role of Empathy. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2020, 157, 109829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakioğlu, F.; Çapan, B.E. Moral Disengagement and Cyber Bullying, A Mediator Role of Empathic Tendency. Int. J. Technoethics 2019, 10, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zych, I.; Llorent, V.J. Affective Empathy and Moral Disengagement Related to Late Adolescent Bullying Perpetration. Ethics Behav. 2019, 29, 547–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.; Yuan, L.; Xiong, X.; Xin, T. Empathy and Cyberbystander Behavior: The Role of Moral Disengagement. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bautista, G.; Vera, J.Á.; Cuevas, M.C.; Tánori, J. Propiedades Psicométricas de Un Instrumento de Mecanismos de Desconexión Moral: Validación En Adolescentes Del Noroeste de México. Eur. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 13, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García Vázquez, F.I.; Valdés Cuervo, Á.A.; Carlos Martínez, E.A.; Alcántar Nieblas, C. Psychometric Properties of a Scale Measuring Moral Disengagement in Mexican Children. Acta Colomb. Psicol. 2019, 22, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peraza-Balderrama, J.N.; Valdés-Cuervo, A.A.; Martínez-Ferrer, B.; Reyes-Rodríguez, A.C.; Parra-Pérez, L.G. Assessment of a Multidimensional School Collective Efficacy Scale to Prevent Student Bullying: Examining Dimensionality and Measurement Invariance. Psychosoc. Interv. 2021, 30, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malavé, J.; Santalla-Banderali, Z.; González, R.A. Business Education and Students’ Ethical Orientations in a Latin American Business School. J. Educ. Bus. 2021, 96, 516–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santalla-Banderali, Z.; Malavé, J. Individual and Situational Influences on the Propensity for Unethical Behavior in Responses to Organizational Scenarios. J. Pacific Rim Psychol. 2022, 16, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez Tabares, A.S.; Narváez Marín, M. Mecanismos de Desconexión Moral y Su Relación Con La Empatía y La Prosocialidad En Adolescentes Que Han Tenido Experiencias Delictivas. Rev. Psicol. 2019, 37, 603–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gómez Tabares, A.S.; Landinez-Martínez, D.A. Moral Disengagement Mechanisms and Its Relationship with Aggression and Bullying Behaviour among School Children and Youth at Psychosocial Risk. Emot. Behav. Diffic. 2021, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-González, M.B.; Arenas-Rivera, C.P.; Cardozo-Rusinque, A.A.; Morales-Cuadro, A.R.; Acuña-Rodríguez, M.; Turizo-Palencia, Y.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Psychological and Gender Differences in a Simulated Cheating Coercion Situation at School. Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-González, M.B.; Turizo-Palencia, Y.; Arenas-Rivera, C.; Acuña-Rodríguez, M.; Gómez-López, Y.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J. Gender, Anxiety, and Legitimation of Violence in Adolescents Facing Simulated Physical Aggression at School. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, C. Moral Disengagement. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2015, 6, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaefer, U.; Bouwmeester, O. Reconceptualizing Moral Disengagement as a Process: Transcending Overly Liberal and Overly Conservative Practice in the Field. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 172, 525–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caprara, G.V.; Tisak, M.S.; Alessandri, G.; Fontaine, R.G.; Fida, R.; Paciello, M. The Contribution of Moral Disengagement in Mediating Individual Tendencies toward Aggression and Violence. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 50, 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Detert, J.R.; Treviño, L.K.; Sweitzer, V.L. Moral Disengagement in Ethical Decision Making: A Study of Antecedents and Outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 374–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kokkinos, C.M.; Voulgaridou, I.; Markos, A. Personality and Relational Aggression: Moral Disengagement and Friendship Quality as Mediators. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2016, 95, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyde, L.W.; Shaw, D.S.; Moilanen, K.L. Developmental Precursors of Moral Disengagement and the Role of Moral Disengagement in the Development of Antisocial Behavior. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2010, 38, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fontaine, R.G.; Fida, R.; Paciello, M.; Tisak, M.S.; Caprara, G.V. The Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement in the Developmental Course from Peer Rejection in Adolescence to Crime in Early Adulthood. Psychol. Crime Law 2014, 20, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visconti, K.J.; Ladd, G.W.; Kochenderfer-Ladd, B. The Role of Moral Disengagement in the Associations between Children’s Social Goals and Aggression. Merrill. Palmer. Q. 2015, 61, 101–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chirico, A.; Lucidi, F.; Pica, G.; Di Santo, D.; Galli, F.; Alivernini, F.; Mallia, L.; Zelli, A.; Kruglanski, A.W.; Pierro, A. The Motivational Underpinnings of Intentions to Use Doping in Sport: A Sample of Young Non-Professional Athletes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelton, J.; Gound, M.; Forehand, R.; Brody, G. The Moral Disengagement Scale: Extension with An American Minority Sample. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2004, 26, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucidi, F.; Zelli, A.; Mallia, L.; Grano, C.; Russo, P.M.; Violani, C. The Social-Cognitive Mechanisms Regulating Adolescents’ Use of Doping Substances. J. Sports Sci. 2008, 26, 447–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, C.; Detert, J.R.; Treviño, L.K.; Baker, V.L.; Mayer, D.M. Why Employees Do Bad Things: Moral Disengagement and Unethical Organizational Behavior. Pers. Psychol. 2012, 65, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hymel, S.; Rocke-Henderson, N.; Bonanno, R.A. Moral Disengagement: A Framework for Understanding Bullying Among Adolescents. J. Soc. Sci. 2005, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Haro, I. Factores Vinculados Con La Conducta Que Asumen Los Alumnos Involucrados En Situaciones de Maltrato Entre Iguales (Bullying). Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Azimpour, A.; Karimian, N.; Mohammadi, N.; Azarnioushan, M.; Rahmani, F. Validation of the Moral Disengagement Scale among Some Iranian University Students. Iran. J. Psychiatry Behav. Sci. 2021, 14, e106381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caprara, G.V.; Fida, R.; Vecchione, M.; Tramontano, C.; Barbaranelli, C. Assessing Civic Moral Disengagement: Dimensionality and Construct Validity. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2009, 47, 504–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gini, G.; Pozzoli, T.; Bussey, K. Collective Moral Disengagement: Initial Validation of a Scale for Adolescents. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 11, 386–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirshenbaum, J.M.; Miller, M.K.; Kaplan, T.; Cramer, R.J.; Trescher, S.A.; Neal, T.M.S. Development and Validation of a General Legal Moral Disengagement Scale. Psychol. Crime Law 2021, 27, 751–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quiroga, M.; Velosa, L. Influencia de La Enmarcación Discursiva Negativa Sobre La Desconexión Moral Utilizando Dos Escalas de Medición. Undergraduate Thesis, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Orozco, A.; Mercado, M. Actitudes Hacia La Violencia y Creencias Culturales En Adolescentes Involucrados En Violencia Escolar. Anu. Psicol. 2019, 49, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robles-Haydar, C.A.; Martínez-González, M.B.; Flórez-Niño, Y.A.; Ibáñez-Navarro, L.M.; Amar-Amar, J.J. Personal and Environmental Predictors of Aggression in Adolescence. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Romera, E.M.; Herrera-López, M.; Ortega-Ruiz, R.; Camacho, A. The Moral Disengagement Scale-24: Factorial Structure and Cross-Cultural Comparison in Spanish and Colombian Adolescents. Psychol. Violence 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brennan, T.; Dieterich, W. Correctional Offender Management Profiles for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS). In Handbook of Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment Tools; Singh, J.P., Kroner, D.G., Wormith, J.S., Desmarais, S.L., Hamilton, Z.K., Eds.; Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 49–75. [Google Scholar]
- Montero, I.; León, O.G. A Guide for Naming Research Studies in Psychology. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2007, 7, 847–862. [Google Scholar]
- Abad, F.J.; Olea, J.; Ponsoda, V.; García, C. Medición En Ciencias Sociales y de La Salud; Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas. Síntesis de Resultados Censo 2017; Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas: Santiago, Chile, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Asociación de Investigadores de Mercado. Clasificación Grupos Socioeconómicos y Manual de Aplicación, Chile; Asociación de Investigadores de Mercado: Santiago, Chile, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Muñiz, J.; Elosua, P.; Hambleton, R.K. Directrices Para La Traducción y Adaptación de Los Tests: Segunda Edición. Psicothema 2013, 25, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alarcón, P.; Pérez-Luco, R.; Salvo, S.; Roa, G.; Jaramillo, K.; Sanhueza, C. Validación Del Cuestionario de Auto-Reporte de Comportamiento Antisocial En Adolescentes: CACSA. Paidéia 2010, 20, 291–302. [Google Scholar]
- Alarcón, P. Una Aproximación Multidimensional Al Comportamiento Antisocial Durante La Adolescencia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, Salamanca, España, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Muñoz, P.; Valenzuela, K. Validación Preliminar Del Cuestionario de Empatía de Toronto (TEQ) En Una Muestra de Adolescentes Chilenos de Las Regiones de La Araucanía y Los Ríos. Master’s Thesis, Universidad de La Frontera, Temuco, Chile, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Spreng, R.N.; McKinnon, M.C.; Mar, R.A.; Levine, B. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale Development and Initial Validation of a Factor-Analytic Solution to Multiple Empathy Measures. J. Pers. Assess. 2009, 91, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browne, M.W.; Cudeck, R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models; Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S., Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1993; pp. 136–162. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- George, D.; Mallery, P. IBM SPSS Statistics 25 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 15th ed.; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- West, R.M. Best Practice in Statistics: Use the Welch t-Test When Testing the Difference between Two Groups. Ann. Clin. Biochem. 2021, 58, 267–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988; ISBN 0805802835. [Google Scholar]
- Elosua, P.; Egaña, M. Psicometría Aplicada. Guía Para el Análisis de Datos y Escalas Con Jamovi; Universidad del País Vasco: Lejona, España, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bandalos, D.L.; Finney, S.J. Factor Analysis. Exploratory and Confirmatory. In The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences; Hancock, G.R., Stapleton, L.M., Mueller, R.O., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 98–122. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- White, J.; Bandura, A.; Bero, L.A. Moral Disengagement in the Corporate World. Account. Res. 2009, 16, 41–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danioni, F.; Kavussanu, M.; Regalia, C.; Barni, D. “My Teammates Think It Is Alright to Fight to Protect Friends”: Collective Moral Disengagement in Team Sports. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2021, 19, 598–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Cueto, E.; García García, J.; De La Fuente Sánchez, L.; Borges del Rosal, Á.; Sánchez Bruno, A.; San Luis Costas, C.; De La Fuente Solana, E.I.; Martín Tamayo, I. Escalamiento Subjetivo de Conductas Delictivas En Legos y Expertos. Psicothema 2003, 15, 638–642. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Put, C.E.; Deković, M.; Stams, G.J.J.M.; van der Laan, P.H.; Hoeve, M.; van Amelsfort, L. Changes in Risk Factors during Adolescence: Implications for Risk Assessment. Crim. Justice Behav. 2011, 38, 248–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bustamante, A.; Chaux, E. Reducing Moral Disengagement Mechanisms: A Comparison of Two Interventions. J. Latino/Latin Am. Stud. 2014, 6, 52–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newton, N.C.; Andrews, G.; Champion, K.E.; Teesson, M. Universal Internet-Based Prevention for Alcohol and Cannabis Use Reduces Truancy, Psychological Distress and Moral Disengagement: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. Prev. Med. 2014, 65, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Antelo, I.; Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. Moral Disengagement as an Explanatory Factor of the Polyivictimization of Bullying and Cyberbullying. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuadrado-Gordillo, I.; Fernández-Antelo, I.; Martín-Mora Parra, G. Moral Disengagement as a Moderating Factor in the Relationship between the Perception of Dating Violence and Victimization. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cuadrado-Gordillo, I.; Fernández-Antelo, I.; Martín-Mora Parra, G. Search for the Profile of the Victim of Adolescent Dating Violence: An Intersection of Cognitive, Emotional, and Behavioral Variables. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kollerová, L.; Soukup, P.; Gini, G. Classroom Collective Moral Disengagement Scale: Validation in Czech Adolescents. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2018, 15, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Country/Sample | Items and Factor structure | Reliability | Evidence of Validity Based on the Relationship with Other Variables |
---|---|---|---|
United States [73] | |||
245 children (mean age = 11.4 years) | 28 items 1 dimension | α = 0.82 | Correlations with total MD (only significant):self-ratings (aggression, r = 0.30 **; delinquency, r = 0.26 **) and parent ratings (aggression, r = −0.13 *; social competence, r = −0.16 *). Structural equation model: positive effect of MD on aggressive behavior (β = 0.28 **) and delinquent behavior (β = 0.23 **). |
United States [67] | |||
828 university students (mean age = 18.4 years) | 24 items Eight first-order factors—one per mechanism—and one second-order factor (MD). | α Total = 0.87 There is no information for each factor. | Correlations with total MD (only significant):sociodemographic (gender (F= 0; M = 1) r = 0.30 **), psychological (empathy, r = −0.27 ***; trait cynicism, r = 0.30 ***; moral identity, r = −0.24 ***; unethical decisions, r = 0.34 ***), and locus of control (chance, r = 0.20 ***; power, r = 0.14 *). Mediations: (1) Moral disengagement mediates the relationships between empathy, trait cynicism, chance, locus of control, and moral identity and the dependent variable of unethical decisions (UD). (2) Moral disengagement does not mediate the relationships between internal locus of control and UD or between power, locus of control, and UD. |
Denmark [21] | |||
677 students (11–14 years old) | 32 items 1 dimension | α = 0.85 | Correlations with total MD (only significant): peer-nominated (bullying, r = 0.200 **) and self-assessed (victimization, r = 0.158 **; bullying, r = 0.280 **). Group differences in MD: self-reported bullying status (main effect (η² = 0.06 ***), pure bullies score higher) and peer-nominated bullying status (main effect (η² = 0.024 *), bully-victim status scored higher). |
Australia [28] | |||
1022 students (12–15 years) | 13 items 1 dimension | α = 0.90 | Correlations with total MD: psychological distress, r = 0.231 **; resistive self-regulatory efficacy, r = −0.418 **; full serve of alcohol, r = 0.286 **; binged, r = 0.317 **; ever tried cannabis, r = 0.290 **. |
Mexico [77] | |||
157 students (12–14 years old) | 8 items Two factors: (1) moral justification and (2) language distortion and advantageous comparison. | α F1 = 0.69, α F2 = 0.69. α Total = 0.73 | Students labeled pro-bullying scored higher on total MD than defenders and outsiders (p < 0.001). |
Spain [23] | |||
513 youths (15–25 years old) | 32 items 8 indicators (mechanism) Three first-order factors: (1) depersonalization, (2) irresponsibility, and (3) rationalization, and a second-order factor (MD). | α F1 = 0.73, α F2 = 0.70, α F3 = 0.79 α Total = 0.87 | Correlations with total MD (only significant):aggression (physical aggression: r = 0.55 **; verbal aggression, r = 0.41 **; hostility, r = 0.33 **; anger, r = 0.36 **) and interpersonal reactivity (perspective-taking, r = −0.30 **; fantasy, r = −0.11 *; empathic concern, r = −0.21 **. |
Mexico [83] | |||
195 teenagers (ages not reported) | 32 items There is no factorial structure study. The original structure is used. | α Total = 0.80 There is no information for each factor. | Correlations with total MD (only significant): school violence, r = 0.37 *, victimization, r = −0.18 *, cultural beliefs (vertical individualism, r = 0.27 *) and attitudes toward violence (form of entertainment, r = 0.62 *; improve self-esteem, r = 0.53 *; managing problems and social relationships, r = 0.55 *; legitimate perception, r = 0.49 *). Hierarchical regression: among other factors, the MD predicted school violence (β = 0.40 *) and victimization experience (β = −0.28 *). |
Mexico [55] | |||
1212 students (11–15 years old) | 32 items Eight first-order factors, with one per mechanism. A second-order factor (MD). | McDonald’s Ω Total = 0.93 There is no information for each factor. | Structural Equation Model: Positive effect of MD on encouraging aggression (β = 0.53 ***). |
Iran [78] | |||
346 university students (average age = 21 years) | 24 items One dimensional. | α of each dimension or mechanism ranging from 0.48 to 0.85. α Total = 0.81 Stability, r = 0.693 | Correlations with total MD (only significant): social desirability, r = −0.124 *. Group differences in MD (only significant): males scored higher (η² = 0.032 **). |
Spain [31] | |||
1113 adolescents (12–17 years old) | 14 items One dimensional. | α = 0.83 | Correlations with total MD: sexism (hostile sexism, r = 0.46 ***; benevolent sexism, r = 0.41 ***) and dating violence (psychological aggression, r = 0.24 ***; physical aggression, r = 0.32 ***). |
Colombia [84] | |||
827 students (11–16 years old) | 32 items There is no factorial structure study. Original structure is used. | McDonald’s Ω = 0.94 There is no information for each factor. | Direct effect: adolescents who endorse higher levels of moral disengagement tend to be more aggressive (β = 0.09). MD mediations: Different predictors act on aggression through moral disengagement: distant maternal permissiveness (β Total = 0.01), maternal trust (β Total = 0.01), maternal verbal discipline (β Total = 0.01), punishment-based discipline from the father (β Total = 0.0001), the value of power (β Total = −0.01), emotional instability (β Total = 0.01), and energy (β Total = 0.01). |
Spain and Colombia [85] | |||
1396 Spanish and 1298 Colombian students (11–17 years old) | 24 items 8 factors Measurement invariance was demonstrated. | Spanish: ρc = 0.77–0.89 Colombian: ρc = 0.84–0.91 | Correlations with the MD dimensions (Spanish or Colombian):bullying perpetration ((1) MJ, r = 0.36/.32; (2) EL, r = 0.49/.36; (3) AC, r = 0.42/0.30; (4) RD, r = 0.24/0.22; (5) DifR, r = 0.21/0.17; (6) CD, r = 0.42/0.32; (7) D, r = 0.32/0.24; (8) AB, r = 0.30/0.26) and bullying victimization ((1) MJ, r = 0.12/0.16; (2) EL, r = 0.14/0.20; (3) AC, r = 0.13/0.17; (4) RD, r = 0.12/.17; (5) DifR, r = 0.10/0.10; (6) CD, r = 0.10/0.14; (7) D, r = 0.13/0.17; (8) AB, r = 0.12/0.12). All correlations were significant at ***. |
Socio-Demographic Variables | f | % | χ2 (df) | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 198 | 37.5% | 33.000 (1) | <0.001 |
Female | 330 | 62.5% | |||
Age | 14 | 20 | 3.8% | 326.754 (4) | <0.001 |
15 | 34 | 6.4% | |||
16 | 91 | 17.2% | |||
17 | 132 | 25.0% | |||
18 | 251 | 47.5% | |||
SES | E | 139 | 26.3% | 140.087 (4) | <0.001 |
D | 184 | 34.8% | |||
C3 | 115 | 21.8% | |||
C2 | 52 | 9.8% | |||
C1a-C1b | 38 | 7.2% | |||
Country | North | 50 | 9.5% | 125.894 (3) | <0.001 |
Zone | Central–Non-Metropolitan | 133 | 25.2% | ||
Central–Metropolitan (Santiago) | 230 | 43.6% | |||
South | 115 | 21.8% |
Scales | αordinal | Ω | χ2/df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA (90% CI) | SRMR |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abusive Behavior against Peers (ABP, 9 items) Unifactorial | 0.876 | 0.860 | 3.94 | 0.948 | 0.925 | 0.075 (0.059 0.090) | 0.062 |
Violent Antisocial Behavior (VAB, 8 items) One general factor and two first-order factors (Violent Interpersonal Behavior and Vandalism) | 0.885 | 0.863 | 3.36 | 0.962 | 0.950 | 0.067 (0.050 0.084) | 0.055 |
Self-Reported Delinquent Behavior (SRD, 9 items) Unifactorial | 0.921 | 0.920 | 3.45 | 0.950 | 0.934 | 0.068 (0.053 0.084) | 0.085 |
Prosocial Behavior (PROB, 10 items) Unifactorial | 0.828 | 0.828 | 3.44 | 0.960 | 0.949 | 0.068 (0.055 0.081) | 0.038 |
Empathy (9 items) Unifactorial | 0.884 | 0.886 | 3.71 | 0.981 | 0.973 | 0.072 (0.057 0.087) | 0.027 |
MMDS Items | SD | D | Und. | A | SA | M | SD | Skew. | Kurt. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. It is alright to fight to protect your friends. | 11.9% | 14.4% | 35.8% | 28,0% | 9.8% | 3.1 | 1.135 | −0.273 | −0.583 |
2. Slapping and shoving someone is just a way of joking. | 51.3% | 31.3% | 15.7% | 1.7% | 0,0% | 1.7 | 0.798 | 0.846 | −0.294 |
3. Damaging some property is no big deal when you consider that others are beating people up. | 57.6% | 27.3% | 10,0% | 3.8% | 1.3% | 1.6 | 0.905 | 1.512 | 1.981 |
4. A kid in a gang should not be blamed for the trouble the gang causes. | 23.5% | 22.7% | 32.6% | 16.7% | 4.5% | 2.6 | 1.151 | 0.166 | −0.850 |
5. If kids are living under bad conditions, they cannot be blamed for behaving aggressively. | 25.4% | 31.6% | 25.4% | 13.4% | 4.2% | 2.4 | 1.126 | 0.454 | −0.610 |
6. It is okay to tell small lies because they don’t really do any harm. | 19.9% | 30.5% | 29.5% | 17,0% | 3,0% | 2.5 | 1.083 | 0.219 | −0.764 |
7. Some people deserve to be treated like animals. | 44.5% | 18.8% | 19.9% | 10.4% | 6.4% | 2.2 | 1.272 | 0.766 | −0.575 |
8. If kids fight and misbehave in school, it is their teacher’s fault. | 56.1% | 30.9% | 11.6% | 1.3% | 0.2% | 1.6 | 0.759 | 1.138 | 0.766 |
9. It is alright to beat someone who bad mouths your family. | 19.7% | 26.1% | 31.4% | 17.6% | 5.1% | 2.6 | 1.136 | 0.177 | −0.778 |
10. To hit obnoxious classmates is just giving them “a lesson”. | 44.1% | 28.2% | 18.9% | 6.8% | 1.9% | 1.9 | 1.036 | 0.900 | 0.037 |
11. Stealing some money is not too serious compared to those who steal a lot of money. | 50.4% | 30.9% | 10.4% | 5.5% | 2.8% | 1.8 | 1.022 | 1.372 | 1.371 |
12. A kid who only suggests breaking rules should not be blamed if other kids go ahead and do it. | 39.8% | 27.1% | 20.6% | 9.3% | 3.2% | 2.1 | 1.122 | 0.766 | −0.306 |
13. If kids are not disciplined, they should not be blamed for misbehaving. | 22.5% | 23.1% | 27.8% | 21.6% | 4.9% | 2.6 | 1.189 | 0.108 | −1.015 |
14. Children do not mind being teased because it shows interest in them. | 47.9% | 28.2% | 20.5% | 3.4% | 0,0% | 1.8 | 0.883 | 0.714 | −0.626 |
15. It is okay to treat badly somebody who behaved like a “worm”. | 26.1% | 26.5% | 25.2% | 18.6% | 3.6% | 2.5 | 1.167 | 0.271 | −0.970 |
16. If people are careless where they leave their things, it is their own fault if they get stolen. | 43,0% | 27.5% | 12.5% | 13.3% | 3.8% | 2.1 | 1.193 | 0.867 | −0.383 |
17. It is alright to fight when your group’s honor is threatened. | 34.8% | 30.7% | 21.8% | 9.3% | 3.4% | 2.2 | 1.105 | 0.710 | −0.281 |
18. Taking someone’s bicycle without their permission is just “borrowing it”. | 66.3% | 26.5% | 5.3% | 1.3% | 0.6% | 1.4 | 0.707 | 1.931 | 4.528 |
19. It is okay to insult a classmate because beating him or her is worse. | 47.5% | 25.2% | 17.2% | 8,0% | 2.1% | 1.9 | 1.072 | 0.961 | 0.012 |
20. If a group decides together to do something harmful, it is unfair to blame any kid in the group for it. | 29.9% | 19.5% | 22.7% | 18.4% | 9.5% | 2.6 | 1.335 | 0.283 | −1.136 |
21. Kids cannot be blamed for using bad words when all their friends do it. | 26.9% | 28,0% | 24.2% | 14.8% | 6.1% | 2.5 | 1.203 | 0.431 | −0.775 |
22. Teasing someone does not really hurt them. | 65.5% | 23.9% | 8.5% | 1.5% | 0.6% | 1.5 | 0.762 | 1.719 | 3.001 |
23. Someone who is obnoxious does not deserve to be treated like a human being. | 41.3% | 30.9% | 18.2% | 7.4% | 2.3% | 2.0 | 1.047 | 0.896 | 0.083 |
24. Kids who get mistreated usually do things that deserve it. | 61.6% | 25.6% | 10.4% | 2.1% | 0.4% | 1.5 | 0.793 | 1.446 | 1.702 |
25. It is alright to lie to keep your friends out of trouble. | 19.7% | 25.9% | 33.9% | 17.4% | 3,0% | 2.6 | 1.082 | 0.096 | −0.785 |
26. It is not a bad thing to “get high” once in a while. | 40.5% | 18.6% | 20.8% | 14,0% | 6.1% | 2.3 | 1.286 | 0.582 | −0.880 |
27. Compared to the illegal things people do, taking some things from a store without paying for them is not very serious. | 53.2% | 28,0% | 11.4% | 6.1% | 1.3% | 1.7 | 0.971 | 1.283 | 0.988 |
28. It is unfair to blame a child who had only a small part in the harm caused by a group. | 22,0% | 33.7% | 27.1% | 12.7% | 4.5% | 2.4 | 1.102 | 0.453 | −0.487 |
29. Kids cannot be blamed for misbehaving if their friends pressured them to do it. | 26.1% | 29.5% | 25.9% | 14.4% | 4,0% | 2.4 | 1.137 | 0.402 | −0.717 |
30. Insults among children do not hurt anyone. | 40,0% | 27.3% | 23.5% | 7.4% | 1.9% | 2.0 | 1.049 | 0.702 | −0.332 |
31. Some people have to be treated roughly because they lack feelings that can be hurt. | 48.7% | 29.2% | 17.2% | 4,0% | 0.9% | 1.8 | 0.929 | 1.006 | 0.392 |
32. Children are not at fault for misbehaving if their parents force them too much. | 23.3% | 25.8% | 32.6% | 13.4% | 4.9% | 2.5 | 1.133 | 0.283 | −0.674 |
MMDS Items | ITCc | Loading | ABP | VAB | SRD | PROB | Empathy |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. It is alright to fight to protect your friends. | 0.358 | 0.373 | 0.109 * | 0.294 ** | 0.209 ** | 0.033 | 0.020 |
2. Slapping and shoving someone is just a way of joking. | 0.480 | 0.514 | 0.118 ** | 0.246 ** | 0.247 ** | −0.112 * | −0.209 ** |
3. Damaging some property is no big deal when you consider that others are beating people up. | 0.464 | 0.490 | 0.128 ** | 0.264 ** | 0.234 ** | −0.125 ** | −0.178 ** |
4. A kid in a gang should not be blamed for the trouble the gang causes. | 0.395 | 0.405 | 0.040 | 0.088 * | 0.127 ** | −0.031 | 0.010 |
5. If kids are living under bad conditions, they cannot be blamed for behaving aggressively. | 0.375 | 0.374 | 0.079 | 0.072 | 0.06 | −0.008 | 0.098 * |
6. It is okay to tell small lies because they don’t really do any harm. | 0.495 | 0.519 | 0.105 * | 0.150 ** | 0.290 ** | −0.110 * | −0.135 ** |
7. Some people deserve to be treated like animals. | 0.395 | 0.425 | 0.119 ** | 0.170 ** | 0.152 ** | −0.113 ** | −0.121 ** |
8. If kids fight and misbehave in school, it is their teacher’s fault. | 0.319 | 0.345 | 0.089 * | 0.183 ** | 0.116 * | −0.150 ** | −0.235 ** |
9. It is alright to beat someone who bad mouths your family. | 0.497 | 0.528 | 0.166 ** | 0.303 ** | 0.206 ** | −0.068 | −0.133 ** |
10. To hit obnoxious classmates is just giving them “a lesson”. | 0.555 | 0.594 | 0.118 ** | 0.316 ** | 0.169 ** | −0.150 ** | −0.226 ** |
11. Stealing some money is not too serious compared to those who steal a lot of money. | 0.491 | 0.509 | 0.198 ** | 0.146 ** | 0.290 ** | −0.135 ** | −0.163 ** |
12. A kid who only suggests breaking rules should not be blamed if other kids go ahead and do it. | 0.529 | 0.553 | 0.120 ** | 0.170 ** | 0.225 ** | −0.107 * | −0.094 * |
13. If kids are not disciplined, they should not be blamed for misbehaving. | 0.443 | 0.452 | 0.072 | 0.102 * | 0.116 * | 0.017 | 0.100 * |
14. Children do not mind being teased because it shows interest in them. | 0.479 | 0.515 | 0.091 * | 0.161 ** | 0.133 ** | −0.145 ** | −0.184 ** |
15. It is okay to treat badly somebody who behaved like a “worm”. | 0.590 | 0.617 | 0.144 ** | 0.262 ** | 0.204 ** | −0.053 | −0.050 |
16. If people are careless where they leave their things, it is their own fault if they get stolen. | 0.308 | 0.334 | 0.094 * | 0.082 | 0.101 * | −0.118 ** | −0.150 ** |
17. It is alright to fight when your group’s honor is threatened. | 0.574 | 0.601 | 0.152 ** | 0.270 ** | 0.149 ** | −0.029 | −0.133 ** |
18. Taking someone’s bicycle without their permission is just “borrowing it”. | 0.432 | 0.463 | 0.115 ** | 0.139 ** | 0.185 ** | −0.111 * | −0.202 ** |
19. It is okay to insult a classmate because beating him or her is worse. | 0.548 | 0.587 | 0.201 ** | 0.211 ** | 0.260 ** | −0.147 ** | −0.218 ** |
20. If a group decides together to do something harmful, it is unfair to blame any kid in the group for it. | 0.393 | 0.398 | 0.136 ** | 0.116 ** | 0.178 ** | 0.015 | −0.060 |
21. Kids cannot be blamed for using bad words when all their friends do it. | 0.525 | 0.539 | 0.110 * | 0.151 ** | 0.157 ** | −0.101 * | −0.090 |
22. Teasing someone does not really hurt them. | 0.428 | 0.472 | 0.085 * | 0.193 ** | 0.167 ** | −0.158 ** | −0.303 ** |
23. Someone who is obnoxious does not deserve to be treated like a human being. | 0.556 | 0.590 | 0.131 ** | 0.162 ** | 0.141 ** | −0.141 ** | −0.206 ** |
24. Kids who get mistreated usually do things that deserve it. | 0.390 | 0.432 | 0.046 | 0.168 ** | 0.076 | −0.135 ** | −0.214 ** |
25. It is alright to lie to keep your friends out of trouble. | 0.550 | 0.565 | 0.156 ** | 0.170 ** | 0.238 ** | −0.068 | −0.030 |
26. It is not a bad thing to “get high” once in a while. | 0.324 | 0.337 | 0.104 * | 0.155 ** | 0.261 ** | −0.068 | 0.010 |
27. Compared to the illegal things people do, taking some things from a store without paying for them is not very serious. | 0.515 | 0.538 | 0.181 ** | 0.180 ** | 0.291 ** | −0.083 | −0.163 ** |
28. It is unfair to blame a child who had only a small part in the harm caused by a group. | 0.485 | 0.495 | 0.164 ** | 0.137 ** | 0.224 ** | −0.039 | −0.010 |
29. Kids cannot be blamed for misbehaving if their friends pressured them to do it. | 0.512 | 0.526 | 0.136 ** | 0.080 | 0.145 ** | −0.021 | 0.010 |
30. Insults among children do not hurt anyone. | 0.513 | 0.545 | 0.103 * | 0.202 ** | 0.210 ** | −0.123 ** | −0.203 ** |
31. Some people have to be treated roughly because they lack feelings that can be hurt. | 0.518 | 0.559 | 0.156 ** | 0.180 ** | 0.219 ** | −0.195 ** | −0.262 ** |
32. Children are not at fault for misbehaving if their parents force them too much. | 0.537 | 0.547 | 0.216 ** | 0.169 ** | 0.192 ** | 0.036 | 0.072 |
MMDS Items | EFA (n = 264) | CFA (n = 264) |
---|---|---|
2. Slapping and shoving someone is just a way of joking. | 0.658 | 0.584 |
3. Damaging some property is no big deal when you consider that others are beating people up. | 0.613 | 0.637 |
6. It is okay to tell small lies because they don’t really do any harm. | 0.501 | 0.561 |
10. To hit obnoxious classmates is just giving them “a lesson”. | 0.683 | 0.642 |
11. Stealing some money is not too serious compared to those who steal a lot of money. | 0.595 | 0.507 |
18. Taking someone’s bicycle without their permission is just “borrowing it”. | 0.592 | 0.642 |
19. It is okay to insult a classmate because beating him or her is worse. | 0.653 | 0.723 |
23. Someone who is obnoxious does not deserve to be treated like a human being. | 0.664 | 0.662 |
30. Insults among children do not hurt anyone. | 0.618 | 0.566 |
31. Some people have to be treated roughly because they lack feelings that can be hurt. | 0.669 | 0.772 |
Average variance extracted (AVE) | 0.393 | 0.402 |
Construct reliability (CR) | 0.865 | 0.869 |
Moral Disengagement | ABP | VAB | SRD | PROB | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Abusive Behavior against Peers | 0.250 *** | 1 | |||
Violent Antisocial Behavior | 0.366 *** | 0.456 *** | 1 | ||
Self-Reported Delinquency | 0.380 *** | 0.590 *** | 0.491 *** | 1 | |
Prosocial Behavior | −0.309 *** | −0.053 | −0.171 ** | −0.152 * | 1 |
Empathy | −0.352 *** | −0.087 | −0.182 ** | −0.154 * | 0.576 *** |
Group or Quartile | n | Min. | Max. | Mean | Median | SD | Welch’s t | df | p | d |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low empathy | 126 | 10 | 39 | 21.24 | 21.5 | 6.738 | 6.754 | 218.67 | <0.001 | 0.875 |
High empathy | 106 | 10 | 33 | 16.24 | 15.0 | 4.467 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Concha-Salgado, A.; Ramírez, A.; Pérez, B.; Pérez-Luco, R.; García-Cueto, E. Moral Disengagement as a Self-Regulatory Cognitive Process of Transgressions: Psychometric Evidence of the Bandura Scale in Chilean Adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12249. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912249
Concha-Salgado A, Ramírez A, Pérez B, Pérez-Luco R, García-Cueto E. Moral Disengagement as a Self-Regulatory Cognitive Process of Transgressions: Psychometric Evidence of the Bandura Scale in Chilean Adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12249. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912249
Chicago/Turabian StyleConcha-Salgado, Andrés, Angélica Ramírez, Beatriz Pérez, Ricardo Pérez-Luco, and Eduardo García-Cueto. 2022. "Moral Disengagement as a Self-Regulatory Cognitive Process of Transgressions: Psychometric Evidence of the Bandura Scale in Chilean Adolescents" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12249. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912249