Luppo Kuillman

Chapter 3 66 Differences between NPs and PAs across instruments Regarding moral reasoning (N2), no statistically significant difference ( p = .24) between NPs ( mean = 28.3; SD = 12.5) and PAs ( mean = 30.7; SD = 12.1) occurred. Non- significant differences also accounted for the personality meta-traits Stability (NPs: mean = 45.3, SD = 18.9; PAs: mean = 50.1, SD = 21.2; p = .15) and Plasticity (NPs: mean = 58.7, SD = 15.0; PAs: mean = 53.73, SD = 20.0; p = .08). With respect to moral disengagement (Moral Disengagement Scale), also no statistically significant differences emerged: NPs ( mean = 20.3; SD = 9.4) and PAs ( mean = 21.5; SD = 7.8), p = .39. Based on these results, merging the samples for analyses was considered justified Higher-order meta-traits of Personality For assessing the two meta-traits Stability and Plasticity using the Big Five Inventory (BFI) we followed the factor analytical steps as employed by Van der Linden et al. (2010). The criterion of eigenvalue >1 and oblique rotation methods initially led to a two-factor solution. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 2.0 and explained 40% of the Big Five variance. Conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability (i.e., the reverse of neuroticism) loaded highly on this first factor (.71, .82 and -.55, respectively). This first factor is similar to the factor Stability or α found by others (Digman 1997, DeYoung et al. 2002, Van der Linden et al. 2010). The second factor had an eigenvalue of 1.0 and explained 21% of the variance. Openness and extraversion loaded substantially on this factor (.91 and .57, respectively) while van der Linden and colleagues found loadings of .99 and .39, respectively. This factor is similar to Plasticity or β (Van der Linden et al. 2010). We applied confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimates to test the factorial structure of the two components α and β as a result of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) against our data. Hypothesizing and testing the two meta-factors - where Stability comprised conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism, while Plasticity encompassed openness and extraversion - yielded a good model fit. The items of the Big Five Inventory loaded as expected on the two meta-factors (see Figure 1) with the following parameters: χ 2 = 3.341, df = 4, p = .506, RMSEA = .001, CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.023. Both Stability and Plasticity also demonstrated good internal consistencies, with Cronbach’s alphas of .79 and .80, respectively