Luppo Kuillman

Moral reasoning explained by personality traits 69 3 Table 3: Structural equation model with Maximum Likelihood Estimates and indirect effects (n= 155) Structural Coefficient Standard Error z P > | z | 95 % Confidence Interval Moral disengagement <- Stability (α) Plasticity (β) _cons -.19 -.24 .02 .064 .003 .022 -3.16 -72.25 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 -.31 >-.07 -.24 >-.23 -.02 > .07 Moral reasoning <- Moral disengagement Stability (α) Plasticity (β) _ cons -2.87 1.74 -.74 29.68 .482 .750 .543 1.373 -5.94 2.33 -1.36 21.62 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.00 -3.81 >-1.92 .27 > 3.21 -1.81 > .32 26.99 > 32.37 Indirect effects Coefficient Standard Error z P > | z | 95 % Confidence Interval Moral reasoning <- Moral disengagement Stability (α) Plasticity (β) .54 .68 .26 .12 2.06 5.49 0.04 0.00 .027 > 1.06 .43 > .92 Bold numbers are at least statistically significant at P < 0.05 The model yielded good model fit, considering the following fit parameters: RMSEA = .003, CFI = 1.000 and TLI = 1.000. The substantially lower Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) of 2477, derived from the model with the two meta-traits, compared with a model where the five personality traits were included separately (AIC = 3706), proved the advantage of using the two meta-traits Stability and Plasticity (Akaike 1974).