RISE AGAINST LEADERS: DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE
MEASURE OF MORAL REBELLION PROPENSITY
Master thesis, MSc, Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
July 11, 2013
TANJA GRGIĆ
Studentnumber: 1816187
Diny Sprockstraat 34
8923 HB Leeuwarden
tel.: +31 (0)58-8433209
e-mail: t.grgic@student.rug.nl
First supervisor: Drs. T. Vriend
2
ABSTRACT
3
INTRODUCTION
Turning on the television or reading a newspaper inevitably leads to hearing or reading about fraud, embezzlement and other unethical behaviors. Research suggests that
approximately 56% of the employees of American organizations have observed unethical acts in the workplace. Almost a third of these employees did not stand up against the wrongdoings they witnessed (Ethics Resource Centre (ERC), 2007). This unwillingness of employees to rebel against these wrongdoings costs the US economy an estimated $200 billion annually (Greenberg, 1997; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Evidence indicates that, when authority figures are involved, the number of employees who do not stand up against unethicality might be even higher. For example, Milgram’s obedience study shows that two-third of participants did not dare to rebel against the authority figure that was involved (Milgram, 1974). Hence, it is crucial to investigate why and when employees can be motivated to rebel against their leaders in the work setting.
Research on moral rebellion was recently instigated by Monin, Sawyer and Marquez (2008), whom stated that moral rebellion reflects atypical behavior that is grounded in high moral standards. Employees who engage in such moral rebellious behaviors are referred to as moral rebels, which can be defined as “individuals who take a principled stand against the
status quo, who refuse to comply, stay silent, or simply go along when this would require that they compromise their values” (p. 76). The assertion that high moral standards are on the base
4
A search through the literature shows that research on the topic of moral rebellion is limited to date1. To my knowledge, little has been done to systematically develop a
measurement instrument necessary for the testing of theory about the origins and outcomes of moral rebellion. However, the existence of a reliable and valid instrument contributes to the development of a research field (Slavec & Drnovšek, 2012), because the standardization of tests is a necessary condition for comparability of test performances (Drenth & Sijtsma, 2006). Standardized testing has advantages over non-standardized testing, such as a relative degree of validity and reliability, generalizable results that are easier to replicate by other researchers (Kuncel & Hezlett, 2007), and the possibility to control the influence that extraneous factors might have on the scores obtained from the test (Heneman, Judge &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Given these advantages of standardized testing, and the suggested lack of a standardized measure for moral rebellion at present, might explain the low interest in moral rebellion. Hence, the development of a standardized scale for moral rebellion is
essential to advance knowledge about this concept.
This research strives to lay the necessary conceptual groundwork and empirically test the validity and reliability of this yet to be developed scale. With a valid and reliable scale
researchers would be able to examine the antecedents and consequences of moral rebellion and be able to test what factors contribute to or heighten the intention of being a moral rebel. Furthermore, it would allow the identification of individuals that have the propensity to be a moral rebel and consequently it would provide the opportunity for organizations, where moral rebellion would be valued, to screen for the right employees.
11
5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK A constitutive definition of moral rebellion
The term moral rebel fits within the wider framework of principled organizational dissent by employees. Due to the violation of a personal standard these employees may exhibit behavior that challenges organizational policies (Piliavin, Grube, & Callero, 2002).
As mentioned before, Monin et al. (2008) define moral rebels as “individuals who take a
principled stand against the status quo, who refuse to comply, stay silent, or simply go along when this would require that they compromise their values”(p. 76).
Here, “against the status quo”, suggests that moral rebels are individuals who choose to follow their own moral convictions despite social pressures not to do so. Sonnentag and Barnett (2013) show that moral rebels appear to be unwilling to compromise their beliefs and values in order to fit in with a group, as the tendency to be a moral rebel is negatively related to the need to belong. Thus, the refusal to comply, stay silent or go along with others is a result of the desire to abide by the moral rebel’s own beliefs even in the face of opposition. This suggests that going against the status quo (i.e., be a moral rebel) is expected at the moment when an individual encounters a discrepancy between the status quo and their moral convictions. As can be derived from the different examples of moral rebels described by Monin et al. (2008), ‘status quo’, could refer to standards that are normally held by the individual and the majority (i.e., ‘authority figures must be obeyed’ as in the case of
Milgram’s (1965) experiment, but also to what seems to be the majorities view (as in the case of Asch’s (1956) experiment). In the latter case the moral rebels could be the ones that set themselves apart in a situation of pluralistic ignorance where group members privately reject a norm, but publicly support it as it seems to be the majority view.
6
by what their conscience determines to be appropriate, not by what is expected by others or dictated by law. However, this does not necessarily mean that moral rebels actively defend their own immoral beliefs and values. Sonnentag and Barnett (2013) found a negative relationship between scores on moral rebellion and the tendency to engage in several minor moral violations, which shows that moral rebels can be seen as individuals who avoid engaging in behaviors that are not in line with their presumably moral and just convictions.
The conclusion that an individual’s moral perspective is anchored in internalized beliefs of right and wrong leads to the idea that moral rebellion is reflected in the sixth stage, i.e. universal ethical principles, of Kohlberg’s (1973, 1976) model of moral development as this is the stage in which rebellion would be the result of ethical decision making on the basis of one’s internalized moral convictions, instead of adherence to rules or expectations of others (Sonnentag & Barnett, 2013). This also suggests that moral rebels take a deontologist
approach to actions, which states that the morality of an action is derived from the nature of the behavior, not from what is achieved by the behavior (Davis, 1993). Due to this
internalized set of moral beliefs, which suggests that morality is central to the individuals identity and personality, moral rebellion could very well be considered as a disposition or a characteristic of the individual. Moral rebellion could therefore be described as an
individuals’ propensity to hold on to their values when confronted with a situation, instigated by their leader, in which there is a discrepancy between the moral values that the individual holds and the state of affairs that someone finds himself in.
The Nomological Network of Moral Rebellion
7
ethics in the workplace, and therefore will advance knowledge about moral rebellion. Seeing that the focus within this study is on moral rebellion propensity in organizational settings, only behavioral correlates that are relevant in an organizational context will be considered.
It is proposed that the constructs that need to be examined in relation to moral rebellion fall into three categories; proxies for moral rebellion (e.g., MSSI), related personality characteristics (e.g., moral identity, moral disengagement, need for affiliation and
assertiveness), and related behavioral tendencies (e.g., voice, minority dissent, organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior).
Considering this is the first study devoted to designing an instrument to specifically measure the moral rebellion propensity and the possible variables that it is related to, there is little empirical research that can support the need to investigate the abovementioned
constructs.
Proxies for moral rebellion
The Measure of Susceptibility to Social Influence. The only self-report assessment of the tendency to be a moral rebel that I encountered was an adaption of the Measure of
Susceptibility to Social Influence (MSSI) from Bobier (2002; as used by Sonnentag, 2010; Sonnentag & Barnett, 2013). However, there is no consistency in the use of the adapted MSSI as a scale for moral rebellion propensity. Four items of the initially 9-item scale proved to be problematic within some of the studies and subsequently were dropped from further analysis, but only in the studies where the items yielded problems. Furthermore, the adaption from the MSSI is intended for adolescents and is not directly applicable to work settings.
Furthermore, Sonnentag (2010) states that “the MSSI was designed to assess possible
8
behaviors” (p. 4). However, the desire an individual might have to remain independent of
others does not equal the desire to adhere to one’s own beliefs when confronted with an ethical dilemma. Hence, I propose that the adaptions of the MSSI, as used by Sonnentag (2006) and Sonnentag and Barnett (2013), might not be an accurate measure of moral rebellion propensity.
Hypothesis 1: The MSSI is statistically divergent from the measure of moral rebellion propensity
Related personality characteristics
Moral identity. From previous research support can be found for the inclusion of moral
identity as a correlate of the moral rebellion propensity. Sonnentag and Barnett (2013) suggest that “with regard to the strong, internalized moral foundation component of moral
rebelliousness, one good candidate for inclusion in future research is the individual’s tendency to have a well integrated moral identity” (p. 230). Generally, moral identity refers
9
McDaniel, 2013). Furthermore, it is argued by some that moral identity may even be the best predictor of moral action (Damon & Hart, 1992). The abovementioned findings support the notion that moral identity is on the basis of the motivation to act morally.
Hypothesis 2: Moral rebellion propensity is positively related to moral identity
Moral disengagement. The theory of moral disengagement was developed by Bandura (1999), who argued that individuals rationalize their immoral actions through various
mechanisms in order to decrease the experience of negative affect, which might decrease the constraint on behaving negatively hereafter. The mechanisms that are used for moral
disengagement include moral justification (entails the cognitive reconstrual of detrimental behaviors into commendable ones, which creates the belief that the behavior is just by portraying it as serving a meaningful moral or social goal), euphemistic labeling (the use of language to reframe and mask culpable actions as less harmful), advantageous comparison (makes behaviors appear trivial by contrasting the behaviors that one is trying to justify with even more reprehensible acts), displacement of responsibility (attribution of responsibility for the behaviors to external factors, e.g. social pressure or orders from others), diffusion of responsibility (in terms of ‘when everyone is responsible, no one really feels responsible”, diffusion of responsibility occurs through the division of labor, collective decision making and/or group action), disregard or distortion of consequences (ignoring, avoiding or
cognitively minimizing the negative consequences of the harmful behaviors), dehumanization (strip human characteristics from opponents or attribute beastlike traits to them), and
attribution of blame (the blame for a detrimental action is attributed to the victim, i.e. self-defense in response to being provoked by the victim).
10
2012). If an individual’s inclination to morally disengage is an important driver of unethical actions, than a individual’s disinclination to morally disengage may be related to ethical behaviors. Hence, it is hypothesized that individuals who tend to rationalize their immoral actions through these mechanisms may be less likely to have a propensity to morally rebel.
Hypothesis 3: Moral rebellion propensity is negatively related to moral disengagement
Need for affiliation. Need for affiliation can be described as a personality factor that
corresponds to an individuals’ desire for social contact, friendships or belongingness (Veroff & Veroff, 1980). When we look at this construct in broad terms we can see a similarity between the need for affiliation and moral rebellion, namely both can function as a motive for behavior.
However, the difference between the two concepts is much more striking. Individuals who have a high need to affiliate want to be liked by others and are more likely to conform to groups. Sonnentag and Barnett (2013) hypothesized that a low need to belong, a construct close to the need for affiliation, may provide an individual with the courage to hold on to their own beliefs when social pressure is present. Results of the study indicate a negative
association between self-reports of moral rebellion (as assessed with an adaption of the MSSI) and the need to belong. This suggests that individuals who have a tendency to be moral rebels may not be willing to compromise their beliefs just to fit in with a peer group.
11
Assertiveness. Assertiveness has been defined by Alberti and Emmons (1970) as "behavior
which enables a person to act in his own best interests, or stand up for himself without undue anxiety, to express his rights without denying the rights of others" (p. 2). Wolpe (1969) states
that appropriate assertiveness denotes "the outward expression of practically all feelings other
than anxiety... It may express friendly, affectionate, and other nonanxious feelings" (p. 118).
Assertive communication involves respect for boundaries (oneself and others (Gottman & Silver, 1999), and can be divided into three ‘dimensions’: positive assertiveness (e.g.,
expressing compliments, requesting favors, expressing affection), negative assertiveness (expressing justified annoyance or anger) and self-affirmation-self-denial (standing up for legitimate rights, refusing unreasonable requests, and concern vs. exaggerated concern for the feelings of others).
The self-affirmation-self-denial dimension is the closest to moral rebellion. In this dimension assertiveness can be seen as an attempt to re-establish or maintain the realm that the individual controlled at the beginning of the conflict (Bakker, Bakker-Rabdau & Breit, 1978). The self-affirmation-self-denial dimension has to do with standing up for one’s rights (here entitlement to such rights is the status quo and the individual just has to point that out), while moral rebellion challenges the existing moral micro-system in the organization in order to break away from the current state of affairs (meaning that the beliefs of the moral rebel differ from the status quo). Thus, the difference is in disagreeing with deviations from status quo versus disagreeing with the status quo. Further, moral rebels are not willing to
12
Hypothesis 5: Moral rebellion propensity is positively related to assertiveness
Related behavioral tendencies
Voice. Voice refers to the “discretionary communication of ideas, suggestions, concerns, or
opinions about work-related issues with the intent to improve organizational or unit functioning, even though such information may challenge and upset the status quo of the organization and its power holders” (Detert, Burris, Foote, Delaney-Klinger, Ed, Harrison,
O’Connor, Pro, Sauer & Thomas-Hunt, 2007: 869).
Thus, voice is constructive by nature (Detert et al., 2007) and is meant to promote a positive change in some activity, whereas moral rebellion involves criticism and is about the adherence to one’s moral convictions. Moral rebellion is broader than voice in that it is not bound to internal communication, and narrower in that it focuses only on information about inappropriate activities. However, both voice and moral rebellion are challenging and both may pose an upsetting factor to interpersonal relationships (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Futhermore, both concepts have to do with counter-normativity, and therefore might share some of the same antecedents. This leads to the hypothesis that voice is positively related to moral rebellion propensity.
Hypothesis 6: Moral rebellion propensity is positively related to voice
Minority dissent. Minority dissent can be defined as “publicly advocating and pursuing
beliefs, attitudes, ideas, procedures, and policies that go against and challenge the position or perspective assumed by the majority of the group or organization’s members” (De Dreu, De
13
includes nonconformity, as well as disagreeing with and opposing the majorities’ point of view (Schweiger, Sandberg & Ragan, 1986).
Minority dissent can be based on convictions other than moral ones, which makes it broader than moral rebellion. Furthermore, minority dissent explicitly challenges the accuracy of the majority consensus, whereas moral rebellion can be seen as an implicit challenge of the majority consensus accuracy, as the moral rebel refuses to conform, but does not judge the majority for doing so.
Given the factors (nonconformity, goings against the majorities point of view) that moral rebellion and minority dissent have in common, and the finding that dissent is considered to be an antecedent to standing up against unethicality in the workplace (Stewart, 1980), it is hypothesized that minority dissent is positively related to the intention to be a moral rebel.
Hypothesis 7: Moral rebellion propensity is positively related to minority dissent
Organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to “behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward
system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”
(Organ, 1988: 4).
14
positive thing by many people and probably is not in line with organizational norms, it is conceivable that an individual who adheres to the organizational norms and rules may be less likely to break them when their values are at stake.
Hypothesis 8: Moral rebellion propensity is negatively related to OCB
Counterproductive work behavior. Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) includes volitional and active acts that go against the organizations’ interests (Sackett & DeVore, 2002) and that cause harm to the organization or to people in the organization (Spector & Fox, 2005). Actions that are accidental or unintentional (e.g., not being able to perform the job properly) are not covered by the construct. CWB shares it volitional and active nature with moral rebellion, where one is taking a active stand against unethicality. Despite this one similarity, there seems to be no further common ground between CWB and moral rebellion.
The behaviors that are included in the concept of CWB are ranging from the abusive and ill treatment of others to theft and damaging property (Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh & Kessler, 2006). It are behaviors like these that bring about the enormous costs for organizations associated with wrongdoings in the workplace. It are the exact behaviors that moral rebels would not engage in, because of their presumably moral convictions. It is therefore hypothesized that moral rebellion propensity and CWB are negatively related.
Hypothesis 9: Moral rebellion propensity is negatively related to CWB
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
15
the hypotheses. The focus in the second study was therefore mainly on the investigation of the convergent and divergent validity of the scale as obtained from the first study.
STUDY 1
The purpose of the first study was to develop a scale to assess moral rebellion propensity, from the perspective of an individual within an organizational setting.
Method
Item development. Firstly a large pool of items was generated on basis of the literature and the constitutive definition of moral rebelliousness. In an iterative process, items were written reviewed and revised. Eventually, a preliminary pool of 59 items that were deemed to be a good representation of the conceptual domain were selected for analysis. However, combining the fact that a scale of 59 items is time consuming, difficult to analyze and unpractical to administer with the conceivability that the same underlying variable can be measured with fewer items, the ideal would be to reduce the number of items for the scale. For that purpose an Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) will be conducted.
Participants. A survey consisting of all 59 items was administered, as part of a battery of unrelated studies, to 85 international business undergraduate students enrolled at the University of Groningen (Mage = 21.4, SDage = 2.5, 46% female). Each respondent was
provided €8 or partial course credit as compensation for their participation.
Measures. Respondents provided their agreement with each of the 59 statements on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores on the items equate to higher levels of moral rebellion propensity.
16
skewness (e.g. < -1.96 or > 1.96) will be excluded from further analysis. Furthermore, Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficients between the items will be assessed to ensure that items have neither a high (> .80) nor low inter-itemcorrelation ( < .30). Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity will be used to investigate whether the total correlation between the items is satisfactory and whether it is meaningful to carry out an EFA. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) also provides information about the appropriateness of the data for EFA (Field, 2009).
Using SPSS 20 an EFA will be conducted in order to come up with the factor structure of the Measure of Moral Rebellion Propensity (MMRP). With regard to the factor analysis a principle component analysis with varimax rotation will be conducted. With the calculation of the Cronbach alpha, an estimate of the internal reliability of the scale will be obtained. The Cronbach alpha is a measure for the internal consistency of the scale, and represents how coherent the items are (Van den Brink & Mellenbergh, 1998). It is said that a reliability of at least .70 is required for scientific research and the Cronbach alpha provides the lower
boundary of the actual reliability. A low value of the Cronbach alpha could be indicative of a too broad content area being measured or poorly written items (Crocker & Algina, 1986).
Results
Initial analyses. Firstly, the suitability of the data for an EFA was investigated. Items with high kurtosis or skewness, and either high or low inter-item correlations were excluded from analysis. After this preliminary analysis of the data 36 items remained that suffice to the assumptions. Bartlett’s test (χ2 (666) = 2487.68 p < .001) and KMO (.85) both were indicative of the appropriateness of the data for EFA.
17
EFAs were conducted. After each EFA, the results were reviewed. On the basis of the obtained factor loadings and guided by theory, items were selected to be excluded for analysis. Concretely, this means that items which did not load at all on the first factor or theoretically would not be a good representation of this factor were deleted. After performing a number of exploratory factor analyses, the items were reduced to a one-factor solution of seven items (see Table 1) with an eigenvalue of 3.91. This one-factor solution explains 55.89 % of the variance. The Cronbach alpha for the seven item scale is .84.
--- Insert Table 1 about here ---
Discussion
The goal of this study was to develop a measure for moral rebellion propensity. The EFA showed that a one factor solution could be derived that in total explains 55.89% of the variance. Within the literature, there does not seem to be a general consensus on how many variance should be explained by the factors. However, within research in the humanities, the explained variance is commonly around 50 to 60% (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1995; Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan, 2003). This suggests that the variance that is explained by this one factor solution suffices.
18
individuals are guided by their beliefs, not by rules or a sense of obligation. Therefore, this item reflects an important part of the theory nicely, and therefore it was not deleted. Given the successful development of a 7 item measure to assess moral rebellion propensity, it is now possible to examine how it relates to its correlates.
Limitations. No questions about employment were assessed during this study, therefore it is not known if the participants of this study held a job at the time of participation. This may have affected the way the participants perceive their leader and the ease with which they perceive that they could stand up to their leader.
STUDY 2
As stated before, the purpose of the second study was to test and validate the scale from study 2, thereby concentrating on data obtained from individuals that are currently employed within an organization.
Method
Participants. The scale was administered for a second time using a different sample consisting of 152 employees (Mage = 38.06, SDage = 12.68, 48.7 % female) from various
19
Measures. The participants had to fill in the items of the scale to reflect their agreement with the items on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Furthermore, in this phase it was also asked from the respondents to fill in the surveys for the constructs that are proposed to be associated with moral rebellion propensity, the moral rebel scale as used by Sonnentag and Barnett (2013) and some demographic questions. All scales, unless otherwise indicated, used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The surveys themselves and the items, within each of the surveys, were randomized to reduce any potential ordering effects. For all measures, the Cronbach alpha was calculated.
MSSI. The adaption of the MSSI as used by Sonnentag and Barnett (2013) consists of
nine items for which respondents had to provide their agreement on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .60. After removal of the four ‘problematic’ items the Cronbach alpha was .85.
Moral identity. To assess the degree to which the respondent’s self-concepts are based
on moral traits, the Moral Identity Scale by Aquino and Reed (2002) was included. Respondents were presented with the following description ‘caring, compassionate, fair,
friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking, hones, kind’, after which they have to provide their
agreement to ten questions about these characteristics. The Cronbachs alpha for the moral identity scale was .79.
Moral disengagement. The scale for moral disengagement (Moore et al., 2012)
consists of eight statements. Each representing one of the eight mechanisms used to achieve moral disengagement. The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .91.
Need for affiliation. A five item scale from Hill (1987) is used to assess the
respondents need to affiliate. The Cronbachs alpha for this scale was .89.
Assertiveness. In order to assess assertiveness the Rathus Assertiveness Scale (RAS;
20
expected to provide an answer that indicates the degree to which the statements are
descriptive of them on a scale of -3 (highly nondescriptive of me, very uncharacteristic) to 3 (highly descriptive of me, very characteristic). The scale was found to be internally reliable (α = .89).
Voice. Voice was assessed with Van Dyne and LePine’s Self Voice Measure (Van
Dyne & LePine, 1998) consisting of six items intended to measure the likelihood to voice. The Cronbach alpha was .91 for this scale.
Minority dissent. A four item scale for the willingness to dissent (De Dreu, De Vries,
Franssen & Altink, 2000) was included. Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which they engaged in publicly advocating and pursuing beliefs on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .48.
OCB. The Organizational Citizenship Behavior – Checklist (Fox, Spector, Goh,
Bruursema & Kessler, 2012) is a 20-item scale that allows respondents to indicate their engagement in OCBs on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (every day). The Cronbach alpha was .93 for this scale.
CWB. The Counterproductive Work Behavior – Checklist (Spector et al., 2006)
consists of 32 items for which respondents have to indicate the frequency with which they engage in the particular behaviors at work on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (every day), was also administered. The Cronbach alpha was .98.
21
Results
Firstly, an EFA was conducted to test if the same factor solution could be found within a new and different sample. Analysis showed that for this sample the same factor solution of seven items could be derived. As indicated in Table 1, this time with an eigenvalue of 4.93, accounting for 62.75 % of the variance and a Cronbach alpha of .88.
Convergent and discriminant validity. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the measured constructs. With LISREL 8.80 parameter estimates for ten models were obtained: (1) a model with ten latent constructs reflecting the intended theoretical framework (i.e., setting the newly developed MMRP apart from other constructs and the measure used by Sonnentag and Barnett (2013)), (2) a model where the items from the adapted MSSI, as used by Sonnentag and Barnett (2013), load onto the latent variable moral rebellion propensity, (3) a model where all items from moral identity load onto moral rebellion propensity, (4) a model where moral disengagement loads onto moral rebellion propensity, (5) a model where need for affiliation loads onto moral rebellion propensity, (6) a model where all items from assertiveness load onto moral rebellion
propensity, (7) a model where voice loaded onto moral rebellion propensity, (8) a model where minority dissent loaded onto moral rebellion propensity, (9) a model where OCB loaded onto moral rebellion propensity, (10) and a model where CWB loaded onto moral rebellion propensity. Comparison between these models provides information about how well the hypothesized model (e.g. corresponding to Model 1) fits the data. Several fit indices were used in order to assess the overall model fit, including the Root Mean Square Error of
22
needed to justify the conclusion that there is a good fit between the hypothesized model and the data. Given these recommendations, the results presented in Table 2 suggest that the model fit of the baseline model (Model 1) is not optimal.
--- Insert Table 2 about here
---
Comparison of the χ2 values for the first two models shows that Model 1 fits significantly better than model 2 (Δχ2 = 233.54, Δdf = 8, p < .001), which suggests that the newly developed MMRP is in fact different from the measure for moral rebellion as used by Sonnentag and Barnett (2013). Furthermore, the χ2 values and fit indices of models 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all indicate that Model 1 is superior. This suggests that, although the moral rebellion scale might be associated with the other constructs, their psychometric structure is the best when they all are depicted as separate latent variables.
23
propensity and the need for affiliation (r = 27, p = .001). No relation could be found between OCB and moral rebellion (r = .06, p = .47).
--- Insert Table 1 about here ---
After controlling for the MSSI, need for affiliation (r = . 19, p = .02) and voice (r = .20, p = .01) were still significantly related to moral rebellion. Moral identity (r = .13, p = .10), minority dissent (r = .16, p = .06) and CWB (r = -.16, p = .05). were marginally significant. The p-value for assertiveness and moral disengagement dropped to a non significant value, after controlling for the effects of the MSSI (see Table 4).
--- Insert Table 4 about here ---
Convergent and discriminant validity of a second model. As mentioned earlier, there are two versions of the adapted MSSI. Therefore, there was also a model tested with the short (i.e., without the problematic items) 5-item version of the adapted MSSI. Again, using LISREL 8.80, parameter estimates for ten models were obtained: (1a) a model where all scales load onto their own latent variable, (2a) a model where the items from the short adapted MSSI, as used by Sonnentag and Barnett (2013), load onto moral rebellion propensity, (3a) a model where moral identity loads onto moral rebellion propensity, (4a) a model where moral
24
rebellion propensity, (7a) a model where voice loaded onto moral rebellion propensity, (8a) a model where minority dissent loaded onto moral rebellion propensity, (9a) a model where OCB loaded onto moral rebellion propensity, (10a) and a model where CWB loaded onto moral rebellion propensity. The values and indices obtained from the CFA are reported in Table 5. As indicated in Table 5, the fit indices are very similar across the models, but comparison of the χ2 values indicates that Model 1a is superior, suggesting that the psychometric structure of the data is the best when scales are portrayed as loading onto separate latent variables.
Table 3 shows the mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficients of the short MSSI. The relations between moral rebellion propensity and the short MSSI resemble the relations between moral rebellion propensity and the longer version of the adapted MSSI. After controlling for the effects of the short version, moral disengagement (r = -.16, p = .05), voice (r = . 16, p = .05) and minority dissent (r = .19, p = .02) are significantly related to moral rebellion propensity. CWB remains marginally significant (r = . 15, p = .07). However, this time the p-values for moral identity ( r = .12 , ns) and need for affiliation (r = .13, ns) drop to non significant levels (see Table 6).
25
Discussion
With this second study the attempt was to validate the scale that was developed during the first study. Analysis shows that within CFA the model where moral rebellion propensity is posed as a distinct concept is superior to the other models that were tested. However, given the recommendations from Hu and Bentler (1999) about cutoff scores, it seems possible that a better representation could be found for the covariance structure in the observed data.
Within this study the first steps for the validation of a scale to assess moral rebellion propensity have been taken. The results of the study indeed indicate that previously used measures for moral rebellion propensity might not encompass the concept fully. The evidence suggests that the new scale may have some incremental validity over the MSSI. Therefore, this research contributes to and expands knowledge about moral rebellion propensity.
Limitations. The findings of this study naturally must be interpreted within the boundaries of the methodology that was applied. Within this study there is a possibility that the common methods bias may have affected the findings, because all of the variables were being measured in the same survey at the same point in time (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee &
Podsakoff, 2003). Even though this worry cannot be eliminated entirely, it is conceivable that the common methods bias would affect all participants equally. If that is true, then it is not clear why the relationship between moral rebellion and one of the other constructs would be stronger for some participants than for other. Hence, it is unlikely that the common methods bias is accountable for the key results obtained in this study.
26
power of the study and could explain why some of the expected relationships could not be established. However, Bartlett’s test and KMO were indicative of the suitability of the data for structure detection nonetheless.
Lastly, the correlational nature of the study allows an initial exploration of the relationships between moral rebellion propensity and other constructs. However, it does not permit the inference of causal linkages. Hence, it may be most appropriately to view this study as an initial, exploratory research of moral rebellion propensity.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The goal that I started with was to develop and validate a scale to measure moral rebellion propensity. Two studies have been conducted in order to meet this goal. It was argued that being able to resist social influence is not the same as the resistance to compromise values because the individual wants to abide by their internalized moral
convictions. Evidence indicated that the MMRP is indeed divergent from the previously used adapted versions of the MSSI.
27
suggests that the characteristics involved when standing up against leaders, may differ from those involved when standing up against peers. Even though research indicated that
individuals high in affiliation need may be more likely to engage in unethical behaviors just to fit in with others, Shaikh and Kanekar (1994) show otherwise. Their findings indicate that attraction between individuals is determined by attitudinal similarity, not by the need for affiliation an individual may experience. After this initial attraction, it is plausible that the individuals high in affiliation need further internalize their moral beliefs that initially attracted them to their peers. It may eventually bring them over the threshold that people have to overcome in order to dare stand up to leaders. However, looking at the correlations between the need for affiliation scale and other constructs, it is clear that the pattern is contrary to what is expected between each pairing. As O’Connor and Rosenblood (1996) show, it is possible that an individual’s need to affiliate can vary over time. Even though randomization of the surveys was applied to counter order effects, the fact that the other scales emphasized the person’s individuality might have made the participants aware of their separation from others, and may have affected their need to belong somehow.
Furthermore, a positive relation was found between gender and the moral rebellion propensity, implying that women report higher levels of moral rebellion propensity. The finding corresponds with earlier research indicating that women report higher levels over morality overall (Cross & Markus, 1993; Yurtsever, 2010)
28
a relationship between OCB and moral rebellion propensity, it may be moderated by the degree to which individuals consider the organizational climate to value standing up for one’s rights (i.e., portraying moral rebellion propensity as an OCB).
After controlling for the effects of the MSSI, moral rebels are still more likely to have a high need for affiliation (moral rebellion still explains 3.6% of the variance) and to voice (moral rebellion explains 4 % of the variance) their ideas in their organizations.
Moral identity, minority dissent and CWB are marginally significant, but the
relationship with assertiveness has disappeared altogether. When the susceptibility to social influence of the individual is held constant, being assertive does not seem to be a requirement to act as a moral rebel. This suggests that assertive people are better equipped to counter social influence, but when it comes to one’s beliefs being threatened assertiveness does not interfere with their desire to stick to their values. It might be worth noting that the MSSI showed questionable internal reliability, which might have influenced the findings when being controlled for. However, the short MSSI was internally reliable. After controlling for its effects some of the relationships between moral rebellion propensity and the other constructs changed. As hypothesized, moral disengagement was found to be negatively related to moral rebellion propensity this time. Furthermore, no relationship existed between need for
affiliation and moral rebellion propensity after controlling for the short MSSI. Lastly, the previously marginal relationship between moral rebellion propensity and moral identity disappeared. However, after dividing The Moral Identity Scale of Aquino and Reed (2002) into its two dimensions, there was a significant relationship between moral rebellion propensity and moral identity. This suggests that individuals with high moral rebellion
29
The MMRP goes beyond the measure used by Sonnentag and Barnett (2013), in that it focuses on a work setting and relationships with others that go beyond the ‘peer-pressure idea’ as measured by the adapted MSSI. Furthermore, the participants of this study were diverse in terms of age, tenure, occupation and many more features, which enhances the potential generalizability of the results. This study increases knowledge about the moral rebellion and adds to the literature on the relationships between moral rebellion and other constructs.
Limitations. Both studies had some limitations in common. Due to the rather subjective nature of picking and excluding items for EFA it may be wondered whether the selected items are in fact the ones best representing moral rebellion propensity.
Continuing with the issue of generalizability, which may have been affected in both studies. The participants of the first study, which consisted solely of undergraduate business students, are not representative of the working population and were not selected randomly. Therefore, the results of this study might have limited generalizability. The sample of the second study itself is diverse, however, it may be that the individuals that filled in the survey differed in a way important to this study, from the people that did not participate or initiated the survey but did not finish it. If this is true, then it may affect the generalizablity of this study.
Theoretical implications. This study provides researchers with an internally consistent measure for moral rebellion, which encompasses a broader scope of the concept than previously used measures. The scale can be used within research to further advance knowledge about moral rebellion.
30
willingness to be a moral rebel would mean that organizations can adjust and/or implement their strategy accordingly (Heneman II et al., 2012).
Knowing that moral rebels are the individuals that are less likely to engage in
behaviors that might bring about great cost for the organizations and more likely to stand up against these behaviors, makes the moral rebel a desired employee. Organizations that are able to attract moral rebels into their workforce, can expect to see less wrongdoings and more ethical behavior in the workplace. The creation of an ethical climate is even more important with the possibility of a high need to belong amongst moral rebels. A study by O’Fallon and Butterfield (2011) indicates, under the statement ‘monkey see, monkey do’, that individuals who have a high need for affiliation may be more likely to be influenced by others’ unethical behaviors because they value their social relationships. This suggests that individuals who have a high need for affiliation might also be more likely to be swayed by others’ ethical behavior.
Directions for future research. Shedding a light on the antecedents can provide organizations with information about the tools they could use to enhance moral rebellion in their workplace. Furthermore, Monin et al (2008) show that one consequence of moral rebellion could be resentment of the moral rebel by the people who were involved but did not stand up against the state of affairs. This observation that moral rebels run the risk of being rejected by their peers, combined with the finding that there may be an association between moral rebellion and the need to belong, indicates a need to investigate the relationship between moral
31
from this study because of its correlational design. Therefore, in order to investigate the causal linkages among the variables included in this study, longitudinal research is necessary.
CONCLUSION
In the current literature not much is known about the concept of moral rebellion. The aim of this study was to further advance knowledge on this topic by developing a scale for the assessment of moral rebellion. I have argued that moral rebellion is more than just being able to resist social pressure and that therefore the adapted MSSI may not be an accurate measure of moral rebellion, as it does not encompass the whole scope of the construct. I developed an instrument which is shown to be distinctive from and to have some incremental validity over the MSSI.
The findings obtained from this study are important, because they lay out the
32
REFERENCES
Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. (1970). Your perfect right: A guide to assertive behavior. Oxford England: Impact.
Alizadeh, Z., Darvishi, S., Nazari, K., & Emami, M., (2012). Antecedents and consequences of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 3(9), 494-505.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A.,II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423-1440.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9).
Bakker, C. B., Bakker-Rabdau, M., & Breit, S. (1978). The measurement of assertiveness and aggressiveness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42(3), 277-284.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193-209.
Barsky, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of moral disengagement and participation on unethical work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(1), 59-75.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee "citizenship." Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595.
Bobier, D. M. (2002). A measure of susceptibility to social influence: Scale development and validation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses.
33
Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral
commitment. New York: Free Press.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Cross, S. & Markus, H., (1993): Gender in thought, belief, and action: a cognitive approach. In: Beall, A., Sternberg, R. (Eds.), The Psychology of Gender. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 55–98
Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1992). Self-understanding and its role in social and moral
development. In M. H. Bornstein, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), (pp. 421-464). Hillsdale, NJ England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Davis, Nancy. 1993. Contemporary Deontology. A Companion to Ethics. Peter Singer, ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
De Dreu, Carsten K. W., De Vries, N. K., Franssen, H., & Altink, W. M. M. (2000). Minority dissent in organizations: Factors influencing willingness to dissent. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 30(12), 2451-2466.
Detert, J.R., Burris, E.R., Foote, N. Delaney-Klinger, K., Ed, A., Harrison, D., O’Connor, K., Pro, C., Sauer, S., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 869.
Drenth, P.J.D. & Sijtsma, K. (2006). Testtheorie. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum. Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS. Third Edition. London: Sage.
34
organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 85(1), 199-220.
Gottman, J.M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Crown Publishers.
Greenberg, J. (1997). The STEAL motive: Managing the social determinants of employee theft. In R. A. Giacalone, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), (pp. 85-108). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action? Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212-218.
Hair, J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995) Multivariate data analysis. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Heneman, G.H., Judge, T., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2012). Staffing organizations. US: McGraw-Hill.
Hill, C. A. (1987). Affiliation motivation: People who need people… but in different ways.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 1008-1018.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment.
Journal of Philosophy, 70, 630-646.
Kohlberg, L., & Lickona, T. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive
developmental approach (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and
social issues. Holt, NY: Rinehart and Winston.
35
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(6), 853-868.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The rejection of moral rebels:
Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
95(1), 76-93.
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why
employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior.
Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1-48.
O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2011). Moral differentiation: Exploring boundaries of the “monkey see, monkey do” perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 379-399.
O'Connor, S. C., & Rosenblood, L. K. (1996). Affiliation motivation in everyday
experience: A theoretical comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70(3), 513-522.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA England: Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time.
Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R. & Sullivan, J.J. (2003). Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The
use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. California:
Sage Publications Inc.
36
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior
Therapy, 4(3), 398-406.
Reid, M. & Hammersley R. (2000). Communicating successfully in groups: A practical
introduction for the workplace. London: Routledge.
Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2002). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N.
Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), (pp. 145-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 51-71. Shaikh, T., & Kanekar, S. (1994). Attitudinal similarity and affiliation need as
determinants of interpersonal attraction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(2), 257-259.
Slavec, A. & Drnovšek, M. (2012). A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship research. Economic and Business Review, 14(1), 39–62. Sonnentag, T.L. (2010). The moral rebel: measurement, correlates, and perceptions.
Retrieved on the 20th of march from
http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/6650/TammySonnentag2010.pdf?sequence=3 Sonnentag, T. L., & Barnett, M. A. (2013). An exploration of moral rebelliousness with
adolescents and young adults. Ethics and Behavior, 23(3), 214-236.
37
pressure: Moral rebels and their role models have heightened levels of moral trait integration. Society for Research in Child Development. 4, 18-20.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of actors
and targets, (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: APA.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446-460.
Stewart, S. (1980). Review of 'power: Its forms, bases and uses'. The Sociological
Review, 28(3), 694-695.
Suresh, S., & Venkatammal, P. (2010). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 36(2), 276-286. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence
of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108-119. Van den Brink, W.P., & Mellenbergh, G.J. (1998). Testleer en testconstructie.
Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and
management. Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Veroff, J., & Veroff, J. B. (1980). Social incentives: A life span developmental approach. New York: Academic Press.
Wolpe, J. (1969). The practice of behavior therapy. Oxford England: Pergamon.
Yurtsever, G. (2010). Gender-related differences in moral imagination. Social Behavior and
Table 1. Principal-Components Analysis of the Moral Rebellion Propensity
Item Factor Loadings
Study 1
Factor Loadings Study 2 1. I would refuse to comply with a request if complying would require that I compromise my values .52 .82
2. I would refuse to perform an action that is not in line of my values, even if my leader wants me to 3. In my role as employee I’m not obligated to follow orders from my leader that are not in line with my
beliefs
4. I would rather stand up against my leader, than compromise my values
.91 .38 .85 .89 .58 .91
5. I would stand up against my leader if that was necessary to hold on to my values .91 .88
6. If my leader orders me to do something that is against my beliefs, I would refuse to do so .78 .84
39
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis
Model χ² df Δχ² Δdf Δp
RMSEA
[90%CI] NFI NNFI CFI
1 14750.25 8339 .071 [.069 ; .073] .79 .87 .88 2 14983.79 8348 233.54 8 p < .001 .073 [.071 ; .074] .79 .87 .88 3 15489.22 8348 738.97 8 p < .001 .075 [.073 ; .077] .79 .97 .87 4 16504.97 8348 1754.72 8 p < .001 .080 [.079 ; .082] .79 .87 .97 5 15433.68 8348 683.43 8 p < .001 .075 [.073 ; .077] .79 .87 .87 6 16418.24 8348 1667.99 8 p < .001 .080 [.078 ; .082] .78 .87 .87 7 15651.43 8348 901.18 8 p < .001 .076 [.074 ; .078] .79 .87 .87 8 14867.22 8343 116.97 8 p < .001 .072 [.070 ; .074] .79 .87 .88 9 19468.45 8348 4718.20 8 p < .001 .094 [.092 ; .096] .78 .86 .86 10 16311.44 8348 1561.19 8 p < .001 .079 [.078 ; .081] .79 .87 .87
Note: n = 152. Δχ², Δdf and Δp are all relative to Model 1
40
Table 3. Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations of the ten scales
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. Moral Rebellion Propensity 35.55 7.56 .88 2. MSSI 29.44 4.44 .61** .60 3. MSSI short 18.02 3.84 .60** .85 4. Moral Identity 50.48 8.65 .28** .30** .32** .79 5. Moral Disengagement 23.32 10.49 -.30** -.36** -.30** -.34** .91
6. Need for Affiliation 23.98 5.68 .27** .19* .28** .53** -.12 .89
7. Assertiveness 110.36 19.95 .32** .57** .48* .17* -.19* .23** .89 8. Voice 30.73 6.47 .46** .53** .59** .47** -.22** .47** .40** .91 9. Minority Dissent 12.27 2.31 .42** .52** .48** .09 -.10 .21 ** .50** .39** .48 10. OCB 59.50 14.02 .06 .17* .18* .34** -.04 .31** .11 .29** .22** .93 11. CWB 48.92 5.68 -.32** -.33** -.35** -.35** .58** -.17* -.21* -.33** .02 .14 .98 12. Gender 1.49 .50 .17** .12 .05 .26** -.24** .10 -.06 .01 -.04 .10 -.28** 13. Age 38.06 12.68 .05 .09 .14 .22** -.36** .27** .02 .22** .00 .18** -.34** .19**
41
Table 4. Partial correlations between the scales after controlling for the 9-item MSSI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Moral Rebellion Propensity
2. Moral Identity .13*
3. Moral Disengagement -.11 -.26**
4. Need for Affiliation .19** .51** -.05
42
Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis
Model χ² df Δχ² Δdf Δp
RMSEA
[90%CI] NFI NNFI CFI
1a 13859.89 7829 .071 [.069 ; .073] .80 .88 .88 2a 14096.79 7838 236.90 8 p < .001 .073 [.071 ; .075] .80 .88 .88 3a 14614.64 7838 754.75 8 p < .001 .076 [.074 ; .078] .80 .88 .88 4a 15588.12 7838 1728.23 8 p < .001 .081 [.079 ; .083] .79 .87 .88 5a 14544.08 7838 684.19 8 p < .001 .075 [.073 ; .077] .80 .88 .88 6a 15499.93 7838 1640.04 8 p < .001 .080 [.079 ; .082] .79 .87 .88 7a 14729.16 7838 869.27 8 p < .001 .076 [.074 ; .078] .80 .88 .88 8a 13976.59 7838 116.70 8 p < .001 .072 [.070 ; .074] .80 .88 .88 9a 18580.26 7838 4720.37 8 p < .001 .095 [.094 ; .097] .78 .87 .87 10a 15397.24 7838 1537.35 8 p < .001 .080 [.078 ; .082] .79 .87 .88
43
Table 6. Partial correlations between the scales after controlling for the short 5-item MSSI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10. Moral Rebellion Propensity
11. Moral Identity .12
12. Moral Disengagement -.16** -.28**
13. Need for Affiliation .13 .50** -.03
