Luppo Kuillman

Chapter 3 68 Path analysis of personality, moral reasoning and mechanisms of moral disengagement The tenability of the hypothesized model (as depicted in Figure 1) was tested to address the study aim. Prior to SEM, correlation analysis among the variables of interest was performed (See Table 2). Table 2: Correlation matrix of all variables prior to inclusion in SEM Stability (α) Plasticity (β) Moral disengagement Stability (α) Plasticity (β) .33** Moral disengagement -.27** -.30** Moral reasoning .18* ,06 -.25** * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 Path analysis confirmed that Stability regressed statistically significantly (β = 1.74 ** ) on moral reasoning but did not account for Plasticity toward moral reasoning (β = -.74). Direct paths from Stability and Plasticity to moral disengagement had negative beta coefficients, indicating that moral self-control is increased by having more characteristics that belong to both personality traits (β = -.19 ** and β = - .24 ** , respectively). The influence of both personality traits also increased the influence of lower levels of moral disengagement on moral reasoning (β = -2.87). Furthermore, in the relationships between Stability and Plasticity withmoral reasoning, statistically significant indirect effects (β = 0.54 * and β = 0.68 ** , respectively), occurred through moral disengagement. However, due to the absence of a direct effect from Plasticity on moral reasoning, moral disengagement only mediated the relationship between Stability and moral reasoning (See Table 3 for path coefficients and the related confidence intervals).