Stability and Change of Moral Disengagement and Its Impact On Aggression and Violence in Late Adolescence

Child Development, September/October 2008, Volume 79, Number 5, Pages 1288 1309
Stability and Change of Moral Disengagement and Its Impact on Aggression and Violence in Late Adolescence
Marinella Paciello, Roberta Fida, Carlo Tramontano, Catia Lupinetti, and Gian Vittorio Caprara
Sapienza University of Rome
Stability and change of moral disengagement were examined in a sample of 366 adolescents from ages 14 to 20 years. Four developmental trajectories were identified: (a) nondisengaged group that started with initially low levels followed by an important decline, (b) normative group that started with initially moderate levels followed by a decline, (c) later desister group that started with initially high-medium levels followed by an increase from 14 to 16 years and an even steeper decline from 16 to 20 years, and (d) chronic group that started with and maintained medium-high levels. The results attest that adolescents who maintained higher levels of moral disengagement were more likely to show frequent aggressive and violent acts in late adolescence.
Among the mechanisms conducive to aggression, moral standards exert a notable influence in dictating when it may be legitimate to resort to behavior that may hurt other people and when, on the contrary, one has to refrain from detrimental conduct (Bandura, 1986, 1991, 2001). People are active agents who pursue their goals in accordance with personal standards that serve as guides and deterrents for action through selfreactive anticipatory evaluations. People monitor their conduct and the conditions under which it occurs, judging their actions in relation to their moral standards and perceived circumstances, and regulate their actions by anticipating the consequences they would apply to themselves. People do things that give them satisfaction and refrain from behaviors that bring self-censure. Anticipatory self-pride and self-blame are suggested to be human mind self-regulatory capacities that keep behavior in line with personal standards. Yet, this does not exclude the possibility that people, after having adopted personal standards and despite being morally committed to ethical principles, may enact behaviors that violate those standards, while continuing to profess those principles and avoiding feelings of conflict, guilt, or remorse. The chronicles of recent atrocities attest to the fact that even considerate people may become
This study was partially supported by grants from the Spencer Foundation and W. T. Grant Foundation to Albert Bandura, and from the Johann Jacobs Foundation and Ministero dellIstruzione ` e della Ricerca to G.V.C. (COFIN 1998, 2000, 2004) dellUnivesita and to Eugenia Scabini (COFIN 2000 2002). We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers and Marie S. Tisak for their helpful comments and suggestions. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marinella Paciello, Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy. Electronic mail may be sent to marinella.paciello@uniroma1.it.
engaged in inhumane behavior without experiencing any moral concern or discomfort (Bandura, 1999, 2004; Zimbardo, 1995, 2004). In this regard, Banduras (1986) social cognitive theory provides a theory of moral agency that supplies the conceptual apparatus that is needed to clarify the mechanisms by which people come to live in accordance with moral standards as well as the mechanisms that allow a kind of divorce between moral thought and moral actions (Bandura, 1991; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). In particular, Bandura (1986, 1991) has introduced the construct of moral disengagement to explain the determinants and mechanisms governing aggressive behaviors. Moral disengagement refers to individuals tendency to use mechanisms conducive to a selective disengagement of moral censure. This is achieved by reconstructing behavior, obscuring causal agency, misrepresenting injurious consequences, and blaming victims. These mechanisms allow individuals to engage in self-serving behavior that is in contrast with their moral principles, while continuing to advocate those principles and without incurring self-evaluative emotional reactions such as guilt. It is likely that these mechanisms become crystallized over time when dealing with transgressions in the pursuit of self-interest. Indeed, a previous study found that moral disengagement to be positively correlated with self-enhancement and negatively correlated with self-transcendence (Caprara & Capanna, 2005). The focus of the present study is to examine the stability and change of moral disengagement both at
# 2008, Copyright the Author(s) Journal Compilation # 2008, Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2008/7905-0006
Moral Disengagement Development
1289
a population level and at an interindividual level as well as explore the extent to which different developmental pathways are associated with different aggressive and violent outcomes over the course of adolescence. Over the past few decades, different cognitive theories have examined moral development and the relation among moral thinking, social behaviors, and social context (Bandura, 1986; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Crick, 1990; Gibbs, Potter, Barriga, & Liau, 1996; Huesmann, 1988, 1998; Kohlberg, 1969; Turiel, 1978, 1983). Furthermore, extensive knowledge has been accumulated on the development of processes related to moral self-regulation, such as the construction of moral standards, the formation of moral judgments, and the exercise of self-influence through emotional self-reactions (Bandura, 1991; Eisenberg, 2000; Killen & Smetana, 2006; Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007; Turiel, 2006). According to social cognitive theory and adopting a developmental approach, we focus on self-exonerative mechanisms that exert a crucial role in attenuating the links between moral thought and moral actions. These mechanisms have been overlooked in the examination of moral development. To our knowledge, this is the first study that longitudinally maps individual differences in moral disengagement over the course of adolescence. The present study focused on the adolescent transition because various manifestations of aggression may dramatically change throughout childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood, and these changes are not the same for all individuals (Brame, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2001; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998; Moffitt, 1993; Sampson & Laub, 2003; Tremblay, 2000). Most adolescents adopt antisocial behavior patterns but a large part abandon them in adulthood and only a small percentage become deeply and chronically engaged in risky aggressive and violent behaviors (Loeber, 1991; Loeber & Hay, 1997; Tremblay, 2000). We believe that moral disengagement can be crucial in explaining mechanisms conducive to chronic engagement in aggressive and violent behavior (Bandura, 1999; Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001; Bandura et al., 1996; Zimbardo, 2004, 2006). Moral Disengagement Over the course of development, the adoption of moral standards attests that the property of human mind is guided from within in accordance with principles that derive from ones own and others experiences and that, in various ways, are at the core of social life. Individuals increasing self-regulatory
capacities and the change from external to autonomy regulation make adolescence a period particularly sensitive for the study of moral functioning. During adolescence, the development of metacognitive abilities promotes the internalization of moral principles, and ultimately, the development of ones own moral identity and agency (Bergman, 2002; Blasi, 1984; Carlo, Eisenberg, & Knight, 1992; Hardy & Carlo, 2005; Helwig & Turiel, 2003; Kohlberg & Candee, 1984; Krettenauer, 2004; Swanson & Hill, 1993). Once formed, moral standards dictate the goals to be pursued and the actions from which to refrain and exert their influence over behavior through anticipated positive and negative self-evaluative reactions. Although self-sanctions carrying feelings of guilt are associated with actions that violate individual moral standards, positive reactions carrying pride, and selfworth are associated with actions that promote those moral standards (Bandura, 1991; Bandura & Walters, 1959; Elkin & Westley, 1955; Emmons & Diener, 1986). Self-sanctions exert an important influence in refraining individuals detrimental conduct particularly when ones interest is at stake, and detrimental conduct may be instrumental in the pursuit of specific goals. However, the adoption of moral abstract principles, although necessary, is not always sufficient to refrain from detrimental conduct. Through moral disengagement, self-sanctions can be deactivated and affective self-evaluative reactions are avoided, permitting different types of detrimental conduct while saving the same moral standards. In the social cognitive theory of moral agency, there are four major points at which self-sanction can be disengaged from detrimental conduct and eight mechanisms that have been corroborated experimentally, through which moral disengagement operates (Bandura, 1991). Different disengagement practices may focus on the behavior, on the sense of personal responsibility, on the outcomes of behavior, and on the recipients of behavior. Thus, the first set of disengagement practicesfocusing on behaviorsoperates on the cognitive construal of the behavior itself. It includes moral justification, euphemistic language, and advantageous comparison. By moral justification, detrimental conduct is made personally and socially acceptable (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989; Rapoport & Alexander, 1982; Reich, 1990; Sanford & Comstock, 1971). A lot of aggressive behavior gets justified in the name of protecting honor and reputation (Cohen & Nisbett, 1994). Euphemistic language provides a convenient way of masking immoral activities conferring a respectable status upon them (Bollinger, 1982; Diener, Dineen, Endresen, Beaman, & Fraser, 1975; Lutz, 1987). People behave much more aggressively
1290
Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara
when assaulting a person is given a sanitized label than when it is called aggression. By advantageous comparison, detrimental conduct can lose its repugnancy by comparing it with more flagrant inhumanities (Bandura, 1991). The more flagrant the contrasted activities, the more likely it is that ones own injurious conduct will appear trifling or even benevolent. The second set of disengagement mechanismsfocusing on personal responsibilityoperates by obscuring, minimizing, or disclaiming the agentic role in the harm that one causes. It includes displacement of responsibility and diffusion of responsibility by which people view their actions as ordered by the social pressures of others rather than as something for which they are personally responsible (Bandura, Underwood, & Fromson, 1975; Diener, 1977; Milgram, 1974; Zimbardo, 1995). People are willing to behave in ways they normally repudiate if a legitimate authority accepts responsibility for the effects of their actions and if responsibility can be diffused (when everyone is responsible, no one really feels responsible). The third set of disengagement mechanismsfocusing on outcomesavoids self-deterring reactions by disregarding or distorting the consequences of action. When people are involved in activities harmful to others for personal gain or because of social inducements, they avoid facing the harm they cause or they minimize it (Klass, 1978). They readily recall prior information given to them about the potential benefits of the behavior, but are less able to remember its harmful effects (Brock & Buss, 1962, 1964). In addition to selective inattention and cognitive distortion of effects, the misrepresentation may involve active efforts to discredit evidence of the harm they cause. The final set of disengagement practices focusing on the recipients of detrimental acts includes dehumanization and attribution of blame. Dehumanization divests people of human qualities or attributes bestial qualities to them. Once dehumanized, they are no longer viewed as persons with feelings, hopes, and concerns but as subhuman objects (Haritos-Fatouros, 1988; Keen, 1986; Kelman, 1973). It is difficult to mistreat humanized persons without risking personal distress and self-censure. By attribution of blame, people view themselves as faultless victims driven to injurious conduct by forcible provocation (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Darley, Klosson, & Zanna, 1978; Ferguson & Rule, 1983; Weiner, 1986). Punitive conduct thus becomes a justifiable defensive reaction to instigations. A number of findings have shown that the above eight mechanisms can be traced back to a common latent variable that makes people more or less inclined to use mechanisms of moral disengagement (Bandura et al., 1996, 2001; Caprara, Bandura,
Barbaranelli, & Vicino, 1996; Pelton, Gound, Forehand, & Brody, 2004). Thus, the proneness to moral disengagement is assessed by the processes through which it is presumed to operate. Appropriate assessment measures have already been developed in order to investigate how the full set of moral disengagement mechanisms operate in concert (Bandura, 2004; Bandura et al., 1996; Caprara et al., 1996). A large body of research has demonstrated the disinhibitory power of moral disengagement in fostering aggressive behavior (Andrus, 1969; Bandura, 1990, 2006; Kelman & Hamilton, 1989; Rapoport & Alexander, 1982; Reich, 1990). In adolescence, different studies have shown strong associations between proneness to moral disengagement and various measures of aggression and violence, as well as other forms of antisocial conduct and bullying (Bandura, Caprara, & Zsolnai, 2000; Bandura et al., 1996, 2001; Caprara et al., 1996; Gini, 2006; Menesini et al., 2003). Longitudinal studies have found that high levels of moral disengagement predict levels of violence, theft, and other forms of antisocial conduct (Bandura et al., 2001; Elliott & Rhinehart, 1995; Pepler, Jiang, Craig, & Connolly, 2008). On the one hand, high moral disengagers tend to be more irritable, more prone to vengeful rumination, more inclined toward physical and verbal aggression, and more frequently involved in violent episodes. On the other hand, high moral disengagers are less troubled by anticipatory feelings of guilt due to injurious conduct, that is, the higher the moral disengagement, the weaker the felt guilt and the lower the need to undo any harm caused by aggressive conduct (Bandura et al., 1996). High moral disengagers not only experience low guilt over injurious conduct but they are also less prosocial and less able to resist peer pressure for transgressive activities (Bandura et al., 1996, 2001; Kwak & Bandura, 1997). Moreover, boys are more likely than girls to become moral disengagers over the course of development, although gender differences do not exist in the earlier years (Bandura, 2004; Bandura et al., 1996). Some findings from cross-cultural studies indicate that some of the gender differences in aggression may reside in the differential proclivity of disengaging moral self-sanctions from injurious conduct (Bandura, 1999, 2004). Aim of Present Study: A Developmental Perspective Our general aim was to examine the predictive power of different moral disengagement developmental trends in adolescence that are conducive to different levels of later aggressive and violent behaviors. To this aim, we used longitudinal structural
1291
equation modeling (i.e., growth latent curve and latent class growth analysis), a procedure not typically used in research on moral development. In particular, we first investigated the development of moral disengagement at a population level using growth latent curve analysis (Duncan & Duncan, 1994, 1995; Duncan, Duncan, & Hops, 1994; McArdle, 1988; McArdle & Anderson, 1989; McArdle & Hamagami, n & Khoo, 1998; 1991; Meredith & Tisak, 1990; Muthe Stoolmiller, 1994) among an Italian adolescent sample from 14 to 20 years old. We hypothesized a decline in moral disengagement due to social, emotional, and cognitive skills that, over the course of development, enhance youths capacities to regulate their own affect, to commit themselves to moral principles that ban aggression and violence, to accord their behavior to social standards that decrease behaviors that offend others, and to interact effectively with others (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Hart & Carlo, 2005; Tangney et al., 2007). A second goal was to identify subgroups of adolescents following distinct developmental patterns of moral disengagement using latent class growth analysis, a semiparametric group-based approach (Nagin, 1999, 2005) that should be seen as a natural extension of growth models (Hoeksma & Kelderman, 2006). We hypothesized four trajectories, in accordance with what has been previously found in the aggression and in the aggressogenic personality factors literature (Barker, Tremblay, Nagin, Vitaro, & Lacourse, 2006; Brame et al., 2001; Broidy et al., 2003; Caprara, te , Tremblay, Paciello, Gerbino, & Cugini, 2007; Co Nagin, Zoccolillo, & Vitaro, 2002; Nagin & Tremblay, 1999; Tremblay & Nagin, 2005). We hypothesized a nondisengaged group whose moral disengagement would start and remain low, a chronic group whose moral disengagement would start and remain high, and two trajectories that could either decrease (desister) or increase (escalator) over the course of adolescence. To validate the trajectory model, the groups were compared on aggressive and violent behavior and a proxy of guilt across time (i.e., need of reparation; see Bandura et al., 1996; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Cermak, & Rosza, 2001; Caprara, Manzi, & Perugini, 1992). We hypothesized that the chronic group would show higher levels of aggressive and violent behavior and lower levels of guilt and that the nondisengaged group would show lower levels of aggressive and violent behavior and higher levels of guilt over time. Our third goal was to explore how gender is associated with moral disengagement development. We hypothesized that boys are more likely to exhibit higher levels of moral disengagement than girls in the
course of development (Bandura et al., 1996) and that the decline in moral disengagement would be stronger in girls than in boys due to the higher resistance of girls to resort to direct aggression (Archer, 2004). As a consequence, we hypothesized that girls would have a higher probability of being members of a nondisengaged group, whereas boys would demonstrate a higher probability of being members of a chronic or escalator group. Our fourth goal was to explore how peer evaluation of aggression in early adolescence is associated with moral disengagement development. Because it is more probable that adolescents who have already shown more aggressive behaviors in early adolescence could have more opportunities to recourse to moral disengagement, we hypothesized that the more preadolescents are evaluated as aggressive by peers, the higher the level of moral disengagement, the less the likelihood of declining during adolescence, and thus, the higher the probability of being a member of a chronic or escalator group and the lower the probability of being a member of a nondisengaged group. Our final goal was to explore the association of moral disengagement development with aggressive and violent conduct in late adolescence, controlling for earlier peer evaluations of aggression. We hypothesized that the earlier preadolescents are inclined to use moral disengagement, and the more persistent recourse to it, the higher the engagement in aggression and violence. As a consequence, adolescents with a chronic high or increasing trajectory would show higher levels of aggression and violence relative to nondisengaged adolescents.
Method Sample and Data Collection The participants were part of an ongoing longitudinal project that began in 1989. We implemented this project to investigate the main determinants and pathways of aggression and successful development and adjustment from late infancy to early adulthood. The longitudinal project followed a staggered, multiple cohort design, with two cohorts assessed at five different time points. The first cohort was age 12 in 1994, the second cohort was age 12 in 1996 (Time 1). These participants were retested at age 14 (Time 2), at age 16 (Time 3), at age 18 (Time 4), and finally, at age 20 (Time 5). Cohort effects were previously tested and were found to be insignificant for sociodemographic and major study variables. Three hundred and sixty-six adolescents (177 boys and 189 girls) were included in the study. Participants
1292
attended sixth grade at Time 1 and eighth grade at Time 2. Most of them attended high school at Times 3 and 4, whereas at Time 5, the majority were college students (71%). At Time 1, the participating adolescents were drawn from two schools in a residential community located near Rome, Italy. The community was composed of families of skilled workers, farmers, professionals, local merchants, and their service staff. Occupational socioeconomic distribution matched the national profile (Istituto Italiano di Statistica, 2002). The composition of the families also matched national data with regards to type of families and number of children. Most subjects were from intact (94.1%) and, on average, one-child families. The participation rate was high during longitudinal data collection, with 84.4% of the original sample (Time 1) returning at the final assessment time (Time 5). In particular, there were three patterns of missing data. Complete data were available for 65% of males and 83% of females. Thirty percent of males and 16% of females had missing data in one of the five waves. Finally, 5% of males and 1% of females had missing data in two of the five waves. Procedures Young adolescents at Times 1 and 2 were administered a set of scales tapping different types of dimensions in their classrooms by two trained female experimenters and were asked to complete the scales individually. Before starting, the experimenters explained that their responses to the questionnaires would be absolutely confidential. When necessary, the experimenters offered the children clarifications on the dimensions being measured. At Times 3, 4, and 5, participants were contacted by phone and invited to participate in the study for which they received a small payment. A stringent consent procedure for the research was followed including at various stages, parents consent and approval from school councils, while letting children decline their participation if they so chose. Measures Moral disengagement (Bandura et al., 1996; Caprara et al., 1996). From Time 2 to Time 5, moral disengagement was assessed by self-report. The scale assesses proneness to moral disengagement of different forms of detrimental conduct in diverse contexts and interpersonal relationships. The full set of 32 items, presented in the Appendix, tap the eight different mechanisms by which moral self-sanctions can be disengaged from transgressive conduct as hypothe-
sized by Bandura (1990, 1999). For each of the 32 items, adolescents rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, their degree of acceptance of moral exonerations for such conduct on an agreement continuum (from 1 5 agree not at all to 5 5 completely agree). Physical and verbal aggression scale (Caprara & Pastorelli, 1993). At Time 1, physical and verbal aggression was assessed by peer nominations. Children made their nominations from the roster of classmates in their classroom. Because this is a highly stable community, children were thoroughly acquainted with each other. Children were provided with a booklet containing all classmates names. The respondents selected the three classmates who most frequently exert each of three different forms of physical and verbal aggression (kick and hit or punch, insult other kids or call them names, and hurt other kids). The numbers of nominations that each child received were summed separately and divided by the number of classmates (as a consequence this variable ranged from 0 5 never nominated by the classmates to 1 5 nominated by all classmates). Cronbachs reliability coefficient was .94. From Time 2 to Time 5 physical and verbal aggression was assessed by self-report. This scale measured behaviors aimed to physically and verbally hurting others. It includes three items for physical aggression (i.e., I hurt others) and three items for verbal aggression (i.e., I say bad things about others kids) using a 3-point scale (from 1 5 never to 3 5 often) at Time 2 and a 5-point scale (from 1 5 never to 5 5 often) from Time 3 to Time 5. Cronbachs reliability coefficients ranged from .74 to .82 for physical aggression and from .68 to .72 for verbal aggression. Violence (Caprara, Mazzotti, & Prezza, 1990). From Time 3 to Time 5, violence was assessed by self-report. This scale included 11 items aimed to assess the extent to which adolescents engage in violent conduct. For each item, adolescents rated how often they have engaged in violent actions, such as fighting, vandalism, or weapon use on a 5-point scale (from 1 5 never to 5 5 often). Have you participated in violent actions of gangs? and Have you ever had the occasion to use violence when there are arguments? are two sample items. Cronbachs reliability coefficients ranged from .87 to .90. Need for reparation (Caprara et al., 1992). From Time 2 to Time 5, need for reparation was assessed by self-report. This scale included five items measuring proneness to experience feelings of remorse, embarrassment, disturbance, tension, and desire for justice that are linked to the need for reparation of guilt-eliciting acts (i.e., I feel that I have to make up for the wrongs that Ive done to others) using
1293
a 6-point scale (from 1 5 completely true for me to 6 5 completely false for me). The Cronbach coefficients for this scale ranged from .65 to .71.
Results Preliminary Analysis: Longitudinal Factorial Analysis As a preliminary analysis, we first examined the dimensionality of the moral disengagement scale by using the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) approach. Second, we examined the longitudinal factorial invariance of moral disengagement to test the degree to which the construct is measured similarly across waves (Hoyle & Smith, 1994; Motl, Dishman, Birnbaum, & Lytle, 2005). In accordance with previous studies on moral disengagement (Bandura et al., 1996; Caprara et al., 1996), two alternative models for each wave were hypothesized: (a) an eight-factor solution, each factor representing a distinct mechanism of moral disengagement, and (b) a one-factor solution, consistent with previous studies. To identify the best solution, we analyzed the eigenvalues (Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977) and considered the standardized root mean square residual reskog & So rbom, 1984) and the root mean (SRMR; Jo square error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980) as indices of goodness of fit. Because several items presented a deviation from a normal distribution, EFA was performed using maximum likelihood parameter estimates with standard errors and the chi-square test statistic, which are robust to nonnormality (MLMV). Factors were rotated using the Promax procedure. For Time 2, the first 10 eigenvalues of the correlation matrix were: 7.19, 2.21, 1.54, 1.36, 1.26, 1.12, 1.02, 0.98, and 0.94. The eight-factor solution did not converge. The analysis of eigenvalues suggested a one-factor solution. This model fit the data (v2 5 1192.19, df 5 464, p , .001, RMSEA 5 .06, SRMR 5 .07), reproducing with a good approximation the intercorrelation among the 32 items of the scale. Cronbachs reliability coefficient for this wave was .87. For Time 3, the first 10 eigenvalues of the correlation matrix were: 10.67, 2.17, 1.68, 1.40, 1.26, 1.07, 0.99, 0.91, 0.88, and 0.82. The eight-factor solution did not converge. The analysis of eigenvalues suggested a onefactor solution. This model fit the data (v2 5 1291.78, df 5 464, p , .001, RMSEA 5 .07, SRMR 5 .07), reproducing with a good approximation the intercorrelation among the 32 items of the scale. Cronbachs reliability coefficient for this wave was .93.
For Time 4, the first 10 eigenvalues of the correlation matrix were: 9.99, 2.20, 1.61, 1.42, 1.31, 1.24, 1.04, 0.99, 0.96, and 0.90. Although the RMSEA and the SRMR of the eight-factor model resulted in a good approximation to the data (RMSEA 5 .03, SRMR 5 .03), the pattern of rotated factor loadings was not interpretable or simple (Thurstone, 1947). The analysis of eigenvalues suggested a one-factor solution. This model fit the data (v2 5 1322.68, df 5 464, p , .001, RMSEA 5 .07, SRMR 5 .07), reproducing with a good approximation the intercorrelation among the 32 items of the scale. Cronbachs reliability coefficient for this wave was .92. For Time 5, the first 10 eigenvalues of the correlation matrix were: 9.15, 2.19, 1.95, 1.51, 1.39, 1.19, 1.08, 1.01, 0.90, and 0.87. Although the RMSEA and the SRMR of the eight-factor model resulted in a good approximation to the data (RMSEA 5 .03, SRMR 5 .03), the pattern of rotated factor loadings was not interpretable or simple (Thurstone, 1947). The analysis of eigenvalues suggested a one-factor solution. This model fit the data (v2 5 1293.32, df 5 464, p , .001, RMSEA 5 .08, SRMR 5 .09). Cronbachs reliability coefficient for this wave was .91. The above findings substantially corroborated previous results (Bandura et al., 1996; Caprara et al., 1996) and attest to a main latent dimension, which includes all the items measuring the eight moral disengagement mechanisms. As a next step, we analyzed the longitudinal factor structure of moral disengagement across the four waves of data (14 20 years) testing a series of nested models, from less to more demanding ones. As Meredith (1993) and Widaman and Reise (1997) have argued, there are different levels of invariance. Configural invariance (Thurstone, 1947) hypothesizes the equality of the overall structure (i.e., same factor and same patterns of fixed and freed parameters) across groups or time. Metric or pattern invariance (Thurstone, 1947) hypothesizes the equality of the factor loadings across time or groups. Strong factorial invariance (Meredith, 1993) hypothesizes the equality of the intercept of the measured variables across time or groups. Strict factorial invariance (Meredith, 1993) hypothesizes the equality of the uniqueness of the measured variables across time or groups. Given the small size of the longitudinal sample and the number of indicators of moral disengagement, the longitudinal invariance was analyzed via item parceling (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hoyle 1995; Martinez, Black, & Starr, 2002). Parceling typically exhibits a distribution that more closely approaches a normal distribution than using the original items as individual indicators (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). Thus, with the aim of reducing the variance covariance
1294
matrix to be analyzed, we built four parcels for each wave. We used item-scale correlation to select items. In particular, items were assigned to parcels so that equivalent parcels in terms of homogeneity were created, and the monodimensionality of each parcel was guaranteed as suggested by Bandalos and Finney (2001). In all models, autocorrelations were estimated among all pairs of uniqueness because the same parcels were used across the four time points (Motl et al., 2005; Pitts, West, & Tein, 1996). To compare the fit of the nested models in the longitudinal invariance sequence, we used the chi-square difference test (Bollen, 1989; Fix, Hodges, & Lehmann, 1959) and the difference in comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1989); as noted by Cheung and Rensvold (2002), a difference larger than .01 in CFI would indicate a meaningful change in model fit. The fit indices for the models tested in the invariance analyses are presented in Table 1. As can be noted, configural and metric invariance were supported by all fit indices. Although full strong invariance was not supported, support for partial strong invariance came from differences in the CFI. Finally, support for a strict factorial invariance only came from differences in the CFI. Because the majority of loadings were invariant, results confirmed that the constructs were measured as comparable over time (Raykov, 2004; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006). Descriptive Statistics Observed means of moral disengagement from Time 2 to Time 5, peer evaluation of physical and
Table 1 Fit Indices for the Model of the Invariance Routine Model Baseline 14 years 16 years 18 years 20 years v2 df p CFI RMSEA
verbal aggression measured at Time 1, and the outcomes (violence and physical and verbal aggression) measured at Time 5, separately for males and females, are reported in Table 2. As shown, there were missing data in all the variables. As noted by Hanson, Tobler, and Graham (1990), in longitudinal research, it is common to have subject attrition, which produces missing values in the data set. In the presence of missing data, estimation of parameters must be adjusted accordingly. Among the different methods used for taking into account missing data, we used the maximum likelihood estimation of parameters, a method widely accepted as appropriate n & Shedden, 1999; for handling missing data (Muthe Schafer & Graham, 2002) under the assumption that the data are missing at random (Arbuckle, 1996; Little, 1995). Before proceeding with the analysis, the normality of the variables was ascertained. Due to the nonnormality of some measures (the skewness and kurtosis varied from 2.23 for physical aggression to 10.79 for violence), we computed the inverse of violence and physical aggression and the root square of peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression to normalize these variables as suggested by Tabachnik and Fidell (1989). The skewness and kurtosis of the computed outcomes varied from .572 for physical aggression to 1.29 for violence. Correlations between moral disengagement across the four time points, peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression, and the three outcomesphysical and verbal aggression and violencefor boys and girls are provided in Table 3. As shown, they attested to a high-medium stability of moral disengagement
SRMR
.806 .877 3.696 1.591
2 2 2 2
.67 .65 .16 .45
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
.00 (.00 .08), p 5 .84 .00 (.00 .08), p 5 .82 .05 (.00 .12), p 5 .40 .00 (.00 .10), p 5 .67
.005 .003 .007 .006 Dv2 df p DCFI
Longitudinal invariance Configural 80.993 Metric 95.223 Full strong 508.925 Partial strong 151.322 Strict 174.952
74 83 95 89 101
.27 .17 .00 .00 .00
1.00 1.00 0.91 0.99 0.98
.02 (.00 .03), p 5 1.00 .02 (.00 .04), p 5 1.00 .11 (.10 .12), .00 .04 (.03 .05), p 5 .80 .04 (.03 .06), p 5 .78
.024 .040 .254 .058 .062
Metric versus configural Full strong versus metric Partial strong versus full strong Strict versus partial strong
14.23 412,80 56.10 23,63
9 12 6 12
.11 .00 .00 02
.00 .09 .01 .01
Note. CFI 5 comparative fit index; RMSEA 5 root mean square error of approximation; SRMR 5 standardized root mean square residual.

Table 2 Observed Descriptive Statistics of Moral Disengagement, Predictor and Outcomes Separately for Gender Males N MD14 MD16 MD18 MD20 AGG_PE PHY VERB VIO 174 168 172 137 166 137 137 136 M 2.68 2.34 2.23 2.11 0.15 1.53 1.97 1.40 SD 0.45 0.63 0.55 0.50 0.19 0.71 0.75 0.52 N 187 178 188 172 188 172 172 170 Females M 2.50 2.02 1.90 1.81 0.05 1.26 1.61 1.11 SD 0.46 0.52 0.50 0.41 0.07 0.50 0.58 0.21
1295
Note. MD14 5 moral disengagement at age 14; MD16 5 moral disengagement at age 16; MD18 5 moral disengagement at age 18; MD20 5 moral disengagement at age 20; AGG_PE 5 physical and verbal aggression peer evaluation at age 12; PHY 5 physical aggression at age 20; VERB 5 verbal aggression at age 20; VIO 5 violence at age 20.
We specified a multigroup growth curve model that simultaneously estimated the same pattern of relationships among variables for males and females. To examine gender differences in the estimated parameters, we constrained all parameters to be equal across groups and used the chi-square difference test to compare nested models. Modification indices were used to assess the tenability of the equality constraint imposed across gender. We defined two latent growth factors from multiple indicators, that is, the four repeated measures of moral disengagement. The first factor was labeled intercept and represents the initial starting point of moral disengagement. The second factor represents the slope or the shape of the trajectory over time. The following equation shows the mathematical representation of the growth model: yt 5 g0 g1 xt et ; where t 5 Times 2; 3; 4; 5; where yt 5 observed score at time t, g0 5 unobserved score for the intercept factor, g1 5 unobserved score for the growth rate factor, and xt 5 factor loading relating yt to latent growth variables. Because the factor loadings of the slope give the shape of the growth, a series of models were tested and compared with each other. In this way, we could determine the parameterization that best fit the data. In all the models tested, we defined the intercept as moral disengagement at age 14 by fixing the factor loading relating this variable to the slope at 0. Following McArdle and Anderson (1989), the first model tested was a no-growth model (only intercept), v2(14, N 5 177, 188) 5 419.497, p , .001, CFI 5 .08, RMSEA 5 .398 (.366, .482), SRMR 5 .779. This model assumed that the level of moral disengagement was stable over time except for a random error component at each time of evaluation. The second was a linear model representing a constant change over time, v2(8, N 5 177, 188) 5 70.668, p , .001, CFI 5 .86, RMSEA 5 .207 (.164, .253), SRMR 5 .077. In this model, we fixed the factor loadings on the slope at 0, 1, 2, and 3. The third model examined a nonlinear growth where the form of the change over time was not specified a priori, v2(6, N 5 177, 188) 5 4.086, p 5 .67, CFI 5 1.00, RMSEA 5 .000 (.000, .077), SRMR 5 .040. Finally, the fourth model was the nonlinear model without the intercept, v2(12, N 5 177, 188) 5 88.738, p , .001, CFI 5 .83, RMSEA 5 .187 (.152, .225), SRMR 5 .230. In particular, we fixed the first factor loadings on the slope and estimated the others. In all the growth models, autocorrelations between the same measures over time were estimated and for model identification, two uniquenesses and two covariances between uniquenesses were constrained to be equal among
over time with lower correlations the longer the distance of time. Finally, peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression and the outcomes were correlated with the moral disengagement variable, especially in boys. Growth Models The analysis of moral disengagement development was carried out within a latent variable framework.
Table 3 Correlations Between Moral Disengagement From Ages 14 to 20, Physical and Verbal Aggression at Age 12, and Aggressive and Violent Conduct at Age 20, Separately for Gender 1 1. AGG_PE 2. MD14 3. MD16 4. MD18 5. MD20 6. VERB 7. PHY 8. VIO 2 .09 .21 .29 .21 .18 .15 .16 .25 .49 .44 .39 .39 .31 .21 3 .11 .51 .58 .37 .25 .32 .32 4 .27 .40 .66 .65 .37 .42 .37 5 .21 .43 .52 .64 .50 .53 .40 6 .12 .11 .17 .22 .41 .67 .45 7 .16 .01 .15 .21 .32 .33 .53 8 .17 .05 .21 .22 .42 .41 .57
Note. Values below the diagonal are for males. Values above the diagonal are for females. All correlation coefficients were significant at least at p , .05, except for those that are in italics, which are not significant. Agg_PE 5 physical and verbal aggression peer evaluation at age 12; MD14 5 moral disengagement at age 14; MD16 5 moral disengagement at age 16; MD18 5 moral disengagement at age 18; MD20 5 moral disengagement at age 20; PHY 5 physical aggression at age 20; VERB 5 verbal aggression at age 20; VIO 5 violence at age 20.
1296

Table 4 Growth Curve Parameters Males Growth parameters Mean Intercepta Slopea Variances Intercept Slope Correlation Intercept4slope Effect t value Females Effect t value
males and females. Because these models are nested, we performed a chi-square differences test to compare the models (Bollen, 1989; Fix et al., 1959). This test revealed that the nonlinear model provided the best fit to the data compared to the no-growth model, Dv2(8) 5 415.41, p , .001; the linear growth model, Dv2(2) 5 66.58, p , .001; and the nonlinear without intercept model, Dv2(6) 5 84.65, p , .001. Then, we tested if there were any differences among males and females on the free factor loadings, constraining these parameters to be equal among the two groups and used the chi-square difference test to compare the constrained model with the nonconstrained one. Results showed that the free factor loadings on the slope (x4 5 1.282, x5 5 1.513) were the same for males and females, Dv2(2) 5 1.57, p 5 .46, and were significantly smaller than the linear loadings (x4 , 2 with p , .001, x5 , 3 with p , .001), indicating that the decrease in moral disengagement from ages 14 to 16 was larger than both the decrease from ages 16 to 18 and the decrease from ages 18 to 20. The results of the final model, v2(9, N = 177) 5 5.096, 188, p 5 .83, CFI 5 1.00, RMSEA 5 .000, CI 5 .000, .050, SRMR 5 .065, summarized in Table 4 and Figure 1, suggest that there were gender differences in the initial level of moral disengagement; that is, males exhibited higher levels of moral disengagement than females at age 14we compared the model with the mean of the intercept constrained to be equal among males and females with the nonconstrained model, Dv2(1) 5 13.03, p , .001. Furthermore, the mean of the slope indicated a significant decrease from ages 14 to 16. In particular, females exhibited a greater decline than maleswe compared the model with the mean of the slope constrained to be equal among males and females with the nonconstrained model, Dv2(1) 5 7.64, p , .001. The variances of the growth factors
2.68 0.36 0.19 0.08 .061
78.25 11.67 3.66 2.61 2.06
2.51 0.46 0.19 0.08 0.61
75.51 13.61 3.66 2.61 2.06
Note. The t values greater than 1.96 (1.65 for variances) in magnitude indicate a parameter estimate that is significantly different from zero (for p , .05). Parameters estimated for correlation (4) are presented in standardized form. All other parameter estimates are presented in unstandardized form. a Parameter is different for males and females.
were also estimated and they suggested that there was a significant variation in individual differences in the initial status and in the growth rate and that these were the same for both males and femaleswe compared the model with the variance of the intercept and the variance of slope constrained to be equal among males and females with the nonconstrained model, Dv2(2) 5 .08, p 5 .96. Finally, results demonstrate that the covariance between the initial level and the slope was significantly negative and equal for males and females, that is, the higher the level of moral disengagement at age 14, the less the change of moral disengagement during adolescencewe compared the model with the covariance among intercept and slope constrained to be equal among males and females with the nonconstrained model, Dv2(1) 5 .59, p 5 .44.
Males 3
Females
2,5
1,5 MD14 MD16 MD18 MD20
Figure 1. Moral disengagement development. Note. MD14 5 moral disengagement at age 14; MD16 5 moral disengagement at age 16; MD18 5 moral disengagement at age 18; MD20 5 moral disengagement at age 20.
1297
After ascertaining the best fitting growth curve, we added the covariate peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression at age 12 and the three outcomes to examine the influence exerted by the covariate on moral disengagement at age 14, on its development during adolescence, and on physical and verbal aggression and violence at age 20 separately for males and females. Furthermore, we examined the influence exerted by moral disengagement at age 14 and its development during adolescence on physical and verbal aggression and violence at age 20. The fit indices of the model suggested a good approximation of the model to the data. In particular, v2(34, N 5 177, 188) 5 28.077, p 5 .75, CFI 5 1, RMSEA 5 .000 (.000 .039), SRMR 5 .082. The results of the regression part of this model, summarized in Table 5, indicate that peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression at age 12 significantly predicted a higher level of moral disengagement at age 14 for both males and females. Peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression at age 12 affected physical and verbal aggression at Time 5 only indirectly through moral
Table 5 The Effect of the Growth Curve of Moral Disengagement on Aggressive Behavior Males Effect Correlation VIO4PHY VIO4VERB VERB4PHYa Regression Agg_Pe/Intercepta Agg_Pe/Slope Agg_Pe/PHY Agg_Pe/VERB Agg_Pe/VIOa Intercept/PHYa Slope/PHY Intercept/VERBa Slope/VERB Intercept/VIO Slope/VIO Agg_Pe/VIO t value Females Effect t value
disengagement at age 14 (intercept; for physical aggression: male, b 5 .17, z 5 3.415; female, b 5 .11, z 5 2.647; for verbal aggression: male, b 5 .18, z 5 3.472; female, b 5 .12, z 5 2.783). Moreover, peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression at age 12 directly affected violence at Time 5 for males only and indirectly through moral disengagement at age 14 (intercept) both for males and females (male: b 5 .11, z 5 3.421; female: b 5 .14, z 5 2.954). Furthermore, moral disengagement measured at age 14 significantly predicted physical and verbal aggression and violent behavior 6 years later for both males and females. In particular, the higher the level of moral disengagement at age 14, the higher the levels of physical and verbal aggression and violence problems at age 20. In addition, results suggested that the more moral disengagement decreased from age 14 to 16, the lower the expected levels of physical and verbal aggression and violence at age 20 for both males and females. The model accounted for 33% and 24% of the variance of verbal aggression, 34% and 25% of the variance of physical aggression, and 28% and 34% of the variance of violence for males and females, respectively. Trajectory Model A semiparametric group-based approach (Nagin, 1999, 2005) was then used to identify developmental trajectories. The Bayesian information criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978) was used to determine the optimal number of groups. This method allows: (a) the identification of subgroups of individuals following distinct developmental trajectories for a given dimension, (b) the estimation of the proportion of individuals following each trajectory, and (c) the estimation of the stability of each subgroup over time (i.e., the shape of each trajectory over time). Censored normal models were estimated. A detailed description of the statistical rationale underlying the trajectory estimation procedure is given elsewhere (e.g., Jones & Nagin, 2007; Jones, Nagin, & Roeder, 2001; Nagin, 1999, 2005). The analysis proceeded in four stages. First, the optimal number of groups was identified and models with various specifications for stable, linear, quadratic, or cubic shapes of the moral disengagement trajectory groups were estimated. In the second stage, after ascertaining the best trajectory model, we tested whether and how much gender and peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression at age 12 affected the probability of group membership. In the third stage, we validated the trajectory model examining
.18 .12 .28 .26 .00 .00 .00 .21 .66 .54 .67 .49 .39 .49 .16
4.17 3.20 3.97 3.98 1.69 0.35 0.01 2.92 6.58 5.42 6.90 5.60 6.54 5.48 2.20
.28 .21 .18 .25 .14 .02 .00 .00 .42 .60 .47 .59 .54 .69 .00
4.17 3.20 2.52 3.33 1.68 0.35 0.01 0.03 4.44 5.42 5.15 5.60 6.54 5.48 0.07
Note. The values greater than 1.96 (1.65 for variances) in magnitude indicate a parameter estimate that is significantly different from zero (for p , .05). Parameters estimated for correlation (4) and regression (predictor / outcome) are presented in standardized form. PHY 5 physical aggression at age 20; VERB 5 verbal aggression at age 20; VIO 5 violence at age 20; Agg_Pe 5 physical and verbal aggression peer evaluation at age 12. a Parameter is different for males and females.
1298

d
the profiles of each group on four correlates across time. In particular, we considered physical aggression, verbal aggression, violence, and need for reparation. Finally, the linkage between trajectories of moral disengagement and aggressive and violent outcomes at age 20 was tested (Nagin, 1999). First stage: Identification of the developmental model. A four-group unconditional model showed the best fit to the data (BIC 5 867.58). The four-group model was respecified considering gender and peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression as predictors of the trajectory group membership probability. The four-group conditional model was confirmed as the best model (BIC 5 832.89). Figure 2 presents the size and the shapes of the trajectory groups. The developmental trajectory model suggested the following groups:
d
Chronic group: composed of 10.7% of the adolescents with constant medium-high levels of moral disengagement.
Nondisengaged group: composed of 37.9% of the adolescents characterized by a quadratic trend with initially low levels of moral disengagement followed by a significant decline; Normative group: composed of 44.5% of the adolescents characterized by a cubic trend with initially moderate levels of moral disengagement followed by a significant decline; Later desister group: composed of 6.9% of the adolescents characterized by a cubic trend with initially high-medium levels of moral disengagement followed by a significant increase from ages 14 to 16 and an even more significant decline from ages 16 to 20;
Table 6 presents the correlations between the actual grouping variables (dichotomous) and the posterior group membership probabilities. With regard to the gender distribution of the group trajectories, there were a higher proportion of boys in the chronic group and a higher proportion of girls in the nondisengaged group (see Figure 2). Second stage: Linking group membership to gender and aggressive predictor. Table 7 presents the results of the multinomial logit regression used to examine whether and how much gender and peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression affected the probability of group; membership. The first panel of Table 4 shows coefficient estimates and t statistics. The normative group served as the contrast group. Relative to the normative group, gender significantly increased the probability of membership in the nondisengaged group; that is, females had a higher probability of being in this group than did males. Furthermore, higher levels of peer evaluation on physical and verbal aggression significantly increased the probability of membership in the chronic and later desister groups (a 5 .05, one-tailed test). The second panel of Table 7 shows the predicted probabilities of group membership based on the coefficient estimates. Both males and females who were never nominated by their classmates had a high probability of belonging to the normative or
Figure 2. Moral disengagement trajectories. Note. The continuous lines represent trajectories of actual moral disengagement calculated as mean scores for adolescents in groups identified by Proc traj procedure. The broken lines represent predicted moral disengagement calculated with models coefficient estimates. Gender distribution in each trajectory group: nondisengaged group: 23.1% male and 76.9% female (of the total sample, 18.7% male and 54.8% female); normative group: 54.7% male and 45.3% female (of the total sample, 52.4 % male and 38.3% female); chronic disengaged group: 89.7% male and 10.3% female (of the total sample, 21.1% male and 2.1% female); later desister group: 59.1% male and 40.9% female (of the total sample, 7.8% male and 4.8% female).

Table 6 Correlation Between the Actual Grouping Variables and the Posterior Group Membership Probabilities Normative PRB Normative Nondisengaged Later desister Chronic disengaged .94 .65 .25 .30 Nondisengaged PRB .62 .95 .23 .32 Later desister PRB .24 .26 .95 .05
1299
Chronic PRB .28 .32 .01 .95
Note. All correlation coefficients were significant at least at p , .05, except for those in italics, which are not significant. PRB 5 posterior probabilities.
nondisengaged groups (.86 and .96, respectively), but while females had a higher probability of being a member of the nondisengaged group (.61), males had a higher probability of being a member of the normative group (.55). Considering a high-risk scenario in which adolescents were nominated by all classmates, the predicted probability for males of being a member of the chronic group was .38, whereas it was .10 in the previous scenario. In a similar way, the predicted probability for females of being a member of the chronic group was .14, whereas it was .02 in the previous scenario. Furthermore, both males and females had a highpredicted probability to belong to the later desister or normative group (.58 and .70, respectively). Finally, the predicted probability of males being a member of the nondisengaged group was .04 instead of .31 in the previous scenario. In a similar way, the predicted probability for females to be a member of the nondisengaged group was .15, whereas it was .61 in the previous scenario. Third stage: Trajectories profiles on aggression, violence and need for reparation. Figure 3 shows the profiles in physical aggression, verbal aggression, violent conduct, and need for reparation for each group across time.
As shown, the four trajectory groups significantly differed on physical aggression (Duncan post hoc test). At ages 14, F(3, 229) = 40.02, p , .000, g2 5 .21, and 16, F(3, 317) = 42.47, p , .001, g2 5 .29, all four groups were different from each other. In particular, the later desister group showed the highest level of physical aggression, whereas the nondisengaged group showed the lowest level. At age 18, F(3, 330) = 44.94, p , .001, g2 5 .29, the nondisengaged group showed the lowest level of physical aggression, whereas the later desister and chronic groups did not differ from each other and showed the highest level. Finally, at age 20, F(3, 299) = 22.02, p , .001, g2 5 .18, the chronic group showed the highest level of physical aggression. With regard to verbal aggression, the four trajectory groups were significantly different (Duncan post hoc test). In particular, at age 14, F(3, 330) = 20.01, p , .000, g2 5 .15, the later desister and chronic groups did not differ from each other and showed the highest level of verbal aggression. At age 16, F(3, 317) = 37.38, p , .001, g2 5 .26, the later desister and chronic groups did not differ from each other and showed the highest level of verbal aggression and the nondisengaged showed the lowest. At age 18, F(3, 330) = 42.53,
Table 7 The Impact of Gender and Physical and Verbal Aggression Peer Evaluated on Group Membership Probabilities Groups Later desister disengaged Chronic disengaged Normative Nondisengaged
Constant Gender Agg_Pe Males and Agg_Pe 5 0 Females and Agg_Pe 5 0 Males and Agg_Pe 5 1 Females and Agg_Pe 5 1
Multinomial logit coefficients (with 6 statistics given in parenthesis) 2.67 (3.87) 2.84 (3.45) 0.05 (0.09) 1.15 (1.37) 2.78 (2.11) 2.01 (1.89) Predicted membership probabilities based on multinomial model coefficient estimates .04 .10 .55 .02 .02 .35 .30 .38 .28 .37 .14 .33
0.56 (1.86) 1.12 (3.38) 1.38 (1.46) .31 .61 .04 .15
Note. Agg_Pe 5 physical and verbal aggression peer evaluation at age 12. Agg_Pe 5 0: never nominated by classmates; Agg_Pe 5 1: nominated by all classmates.
1300

Normative Non-Disengaged Later Desister
2
Chronic Disengaged
2
a a a a
a a
1
1
b c
b a c d
r=.53 3 r= .5 PHY 16
a a b b
a b
b c d b bc c
r=.50
b b
0
d
b bc c
r=.47 r=.4 PHY 20
-1
r=.41
r=.58 =.58
-1
=.34 r=.34
VERB 14
r=.5 r=.51
VERB 16
=.52 r=.52
VERB 18
PHY 14 2
a
PHY 18
VERB 20
a b a b b
r=.48 r=.48
a b b b
a b
a a a
b
0
c d
c c
r=.46 r=.46
-1
b b b
b b c r=-.32 r=-.32 GUILT 18
-1
r=.49 r=.49
r=-.15 r=-.15
r=-.19 r=-.19
VIO 16
VIO 18
VIO 20
GUILT 14
GUILT 16
r=-.32 r=-.32 GUILT 20
Figure 3. Trajectories profiles on aggressive behavior, violence, and need for reparation. Note. PHY14 5 physical aggression at age 14; PHY16 5 physical aggression at age 16; PHY18 5 physical aggression at age 18; PHY20 5 physical aggression at age 20; VERB14 5 verbal aggression at age 14; VERB16 5 verbal aggression at age 16; VERB18 5 verbal aggression at age 18; VERB20 5 verbal aggression at age 20; VIO16 5 violence at age 16; VIO18 5 violence at age 18; VIO20 5 violence at age 20; GUILT14 5 need for reparation at age 14; GUILT16 5 need for reparation at age 16; GUILT18 5 need for reparation at age 18; GUILT20 5 need for reparation at age 20. In each figure correlations between moral disengagement and each variable are reported for each time point.
p , .001, g2 5 .28, all four groups were different from each other. In particular, the chronic group showed the highest level of verbal aggression and the nondisengaged the lowest. Finally, at age 20, F(3, 299) = 21.53, p , .001, g2 5 .18, the chronic group showed the highest level of verbal aggression, whereas the normative and later desister groups did not differ from each other. With regards to violence, the four trajectory groups were significantly different (Duncan post hoc test). In particular, at age 16, F(3, 317) = 48.02, p , .000, g2 5 .31, all four groups were different from each other. In particular, the later desister group showed the highest level of violence. At age 18, F(3, 330) = 24.42, p , .001, g2 5 .18, the chronic and later desister groups did not differ from each other and showed the highest level of violence. Finally, at age 20, F(3, 286) = 27.33, p , .001, g2 5 .22, the chronic group showed the highest level of violence, whereas the later desister group showed higher levels of violence than the normative and nondisengaged groups. Finally, the four trajectory groups significantly differed on need for reparation (Duncan post hoc test). In particular, at ages 14, F(3, 246) = 5.44, p , .000,
g2 5 .05, and 16, F(3, 327) = 8.92, p , .001, g2 5 .08, the nondisengaged group showed the highest level of need for reparation. At age 18, F(3, 342) = 15.02, p , .001, g2 5.12, the nondisengaged group showed the highest level and the chronic showed the lowest. Finally, at age 20, F(3, 299) = 12.60, p , .001, g2 5 .11, the chronic group showed the lowest level of need for reparation, whereas the other three groups did not differ. In each figure, the correlations between moral disengagement and each variable were reported. As shown, moral disengagement was positive and highly correlated with physical and verbal aggression and violence and negatively correlated with need of reparation in each time point. Fourth stage: The impact of moral disengagement trajectories on aggressive and violent conduct. Table 8 presents the correlations between the posterior probabilities of group membership for each individual and aggressive and violent conduct at age 20. As shown, aggressive and violent outcomes were positively and significantly correlated with the posterior probability of being in the chronic or later desister groups. On the contrary, the outcomes were negatively and significantly correlated with the

Table 8 Correlations Between the Posterior Probabilities of Group Membership and Physical and Verbal Aggression and Violence at Age 20 Verbal aggression .07 .35 .10 .39 Physical aggression .04 .33 .17 .36
1301
Posterior probabilities Normative Nondisengaged Later desister Chronic
Violence .10 .42 .20 .39
Note. All correlation coefficients were significant at least at p , .05, except the one that is underlined, which is significant at p , .10, and those that are italics, which are not significant.
posterior probability of being in the nondisengaged group. Moreover, correlations were not significant between outcomes and the posterior probability of being in the normative group. To test the linkage between trajectories of moral disengagement and the three outcomes (i.e., physical aggression, verbal aggression, and violent behaviors at age 20), three hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. In these models, gender, peer evaluation on physical and verbal aggression at age 12, and the posterior probabilities of group membership were considered independent variables. In entering the posterior probabilities, we excluded the probability of group membership for one of the groups because the posterior probabilities of group membership in each group added to 1 for a given individual (e.g., the independent variables would be perfectly correlated). We decided to exclude the probability of being in the normative group. As a preliminary step, we evaluated whether these analyses needed to be conducted separately for males and females. In this regard, the interaction of Gender
Peer Evaluation on Physical and Verbal Aggression and the interaction of Gender The Different Group Membership Probabilities were included as independent variables in the hierarchical regression model. In particular, gender was entered at Step 1, peer evaluation of physical and verbal aggression was entered at Step 2, the interaction of Gender Peer Evaluation of Physical and Verbal Aggression was entered at Step 3, the different group membership probabilities were entered at Step 4, and the interaction of Gender The Different Group Membership Probabilities were entered at Step 5. The analysis revealed no statistically significant interactions; therefore, our subsequent hierarchical regression analyses were performed with gender as a factor rather than separately for the two gender groups. The final hierarchical regression models are presented in Table 9. The results of the three hierarchical models showed that gender significantly predicted the three outcomes, especially violence (17% of explained variance). Moreover, peer nomination of physical and verbal aggression at age 12 significantly predicted higher levels of physical and verbal aggression and violent conduct at age 20 (the explained variance ranged from 2% to 5%). In addition to the contribution of gender and earlier peer evaluations of aggressive behavior, the posterior probability of group membership significantly predicted the three outcomes (the explained variance ranged from 10% to 13%). In particular, the probability of being in the chronic group was positively and significantly linked with verbal aggression, physical aggression, and violence, whereas the probability of being a member of the nondisengaged group was negatively and significantly linked with aggression and violence.
Table 9 Results of Hierarchical Regression of Trajectories on Physical and Verbal Aggression and Violence at Age 20 Verbal aggression Step 1 2 3 b1 b2 b3 R2 change .07*** .02*** .13*** b1 Physical aggression b2 b3 ns .11y .18** .25*** ns R2 change .05*** .04*** .11*** b1 b2 Violence b3 .18*** .16*** .22*** .20** ns R2 change .17*** .05*** .10***
Gender .16*** .19** ns Aggr_Pe .16** ns Nondisengaged .20*** Chronic disengaged .28*** Later desister ns R2
.23*** .15** .20***
.41*** .30*** .25***
.21
.19
.32
Note. b1 5 beta coefficients before entering trajectories probabilities and levels of outcomes at Time 1; b2 5 coefficients before entering trajectories probabilities; b3 5 final beta coefficients; R2 change 5 change in R2for the first step it refers to R2; Agg_Pe 5 physical and verbal aggression peer evaluation at age 12. y Significant at p . 07. **Significant at p . 01. ***Significant at p . 001.
1302
Discussion As previous studies have highlighted (Bandura, 1999; Bandura et al., 1996, 2001; Caprara et al., 1996), the longitudinal findings of the present study attested to the important predictive role that moral disengagement plays in the study of aggressive and violent behaviors. At the population level, for both boys and girls, the developmental model attested to the general tendency of moral disengagement to decline over time. In particular, moral disengagement decreased strongly between ages 14 and 16 and less evidently until age 20. The general decrease in moral disengagement could be specific to the developmental period from early adolescence (junior high school) to adolescence (high school), which is characterized by new challenges related to educational and social role transitions. It could reflect a change in cognitive and social structures and processes through development of the capacity to assign meaning, to anticipate outcomes, to plan actions, and to learn from social experiences the value of assigning different behaviors. Generally, over the course of maturation, individuals social adjustment and self-regulatory abilities improve and their ability to infer the perspective of others increases (Bandura, 1991, 2004), promoting moral reasoning and moral agency (Eisenberg, 2000; Eisenberg et al., 2006). Indeed, adolescents are exposed to novel role-taking opportunities and moral dilemmas with personally relevant consequences to the self and to others (Hart & Atkins, 2002; Hart, Atkins, Markey, & Youniss, 2004). It may be that these refinements in skills are indispensable in preventing disengagement in moral life during adolescence, a time when individuals start to become more responsible and agentic in their social life than was typically possible in childhood (Hart & Carlo, 2005). Furthermore, results attested to the significant variation in individual differences in the initial status and in the general developmental pathway of moral disengagement, supporting the importance of further exploring interindividual differences during development. At this level, the developmental trajectories model confirmed what was found at the population level and provides a more comprehensive picture of the development of moral disengagement. In fact, although distinct groups of adolescents followed different developmental trends, most adolescents (89%) decreased their level of moral disengagement during this time. As expected, the best developmental trajectory model included four different trajectory groups in accordance with the existing aggression literature (Barker et al, 2006; Brame et al., 2001; Broidy te et al., 2002; Nagin & Tremblay, 1999; et al., 2003; Co
Tremblay & Nagin, 2005) and other developmental studies on aggressogenic personality factors such as irritability and hostile rumination, which have been shown to be related to moral disengagement and aggression (Caprara et al., 2007). The largest group may be considered as representing the normative group and started with medium levels of moral disengagement, which subsequently decreased during development. A similar trend was followed by the group called nondisengaged, which started with lower levels of moral disengagement than the normative group. The last two smaller groups started with initial high-medium levels of moral disengagement but followed different developmental trends. The later desister group showed a discontinuous pattern of moral disengagement decrease. In particular, their level of moral disengagement increased from ages 14 to 16 and then strongly decreased from ages 16 to 20. In contrast, the chronic group showed stable levels of moral disengagement during adolescence. Although these two groups demonstrated similar physical and verbal aggression and violence profiles from ages 14 to 16; from ages 18 to 20, they showed different developmental trends: The chronic group maintained their high levels of aggression, whereas the later desister group demonstrated decreasing levels of aggression. These two groups were similar to findings of previous longitudinal studies that have identified a group of youth who show chronically high levels of antisocial and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood (Brame et al., 2001; Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002) and a group that later decrease their level of problematic behaviors during adolescence (Moffitt, 1993; Nagin, Farrington, & Moffit, 1995). Both the later desister and chronic groups call ones attention to two possible developmental trends for adolescents that show high levels of moral disengagement at age 14. Later desister adolescents decrease their level of moral disengagement probably by improving, over the course of maturation, their cognitive and emotional skills, even if they continued to show higher levels of violence than their normative or nondisengaged peers. For chronic disengaged adolescents, moral disengagement could instead reflect a strategy of adaptation that is embedded into a system of beliefs about the self and others and leads to perceive aggression and violence as appropriate means to pursue ones own goals. Adolescents who consider aggression a morally acceptable behavior are more likely to act persistently aggressive (Crane-Ross, Tisak, & Tisak, 1998; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997; rvinen, 2001) and to avoid affective Keltikangas-Ja self-evaluative reactions like guilt (Bandura, 1991;
1303
Bandura et al., 1996). Profile analysis demonstrated that at ages 14 and 16, the chronic group showed the same level of need for reparation as did the normative and the later desister groups. With increasing age, the chronic group decreased their level of need for reparation, whereas the later desister group continued to show the same level as the normative group. These results highlight how affective self-evaluative reactions were associated with different moral disengagement trends. The need for reparation associated with the negative outcomes of guilt-eliciting actions indicated that self-sanctions even existed at age 14, especially for the low disengaged group. During the course of adolescence, the chronic recourse to moral disengagement mechanisms consented people to attenuate self-sanctions and guilt feelings. In accordance with previous findings (Bandura, 1999, 2004; Bandura et al., 1996), boys showed higher levels of moral disengagement than did girls and a lower decline from ages 14 to 16. Furthermore, adolescents in the chronic group were mostly boys, whereas most of nondisengaged group were girls. Several studies have attested that girls have higher moral emotional competence than boys (Eisenberg, 2000; Ferguson & Crowley, 1997; Lennon & Eisenberg, 1987; Mills, Pedersen, & Grusec, 1989) and lower levels of moral disengagement (Bandura, 2004; Bandura et al., 1996; Pelton et al., 2004) and aggressive behaviors (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Knight, Guthrie, Page, & Fabes, 2002). Furthermore, results showed that boys evaluated as aggressive by their peers already in early adolescence were more at risk to recourse to moral disengagement than girls. Moreover, both boys and girls that were never nominated by their classmates had a higher probability of being a member of both the normative and the nondisengaged groups. Thus, it is more probable that adolescents, especially boys, who have already shown aggressive behaviors in early adolescence, have more opportunities to recourse to moral disengagement. Regarding the outcomes, the stability and change of moral disengagement significantly affected aggressive and violent behaviors. In fact, on the one hand, decreasing levels of moral disengagement at the population level were significantly linked with lower levels of physical and verbal aggression and violence in late adolescence. On the other hand, the analysis of the predictive power of moral disengagement trajectories showed that different trends were differently associated with aggressive and violent outcomes. For the nondisengaged youth (above all girls), the decline over time was negatively associated with aggressive and violent behavior. Instead, for the later desister youth, which were more likely to be at risk, the decline
over time was not significantly associated with aggressive and violent outcomes. In this last case (7% of total sample), we cannot exclude the beneficial effect due to a later development of social emotional skills. For the chronic group, who showed high stable levels of moral disengagement over the course of time and the lowest levels of self-sanction for their offensive behaviors in late adolescence, the relation between moral disengagement development and aggressive and violent outcomes was particularly problematic. In fact, the results indicated that adolescents with a high probability of being a member of this group were more likely to show frequent aggressive and violent behavior in late adolescence, controlling for gender and peer nomination of physical and verbal aggression at age 12. For these youth, the stable tendency toward moral disengagement may reflect a crystallization of moral disengagement mechanisms over time that subsequently legitimatizes the recourse to aggressive and violent behaviors. The influence that moral disengagement exerted on engagement in aggression and violent episodes for these adolescence (above boys) calls ones attention to the psychological processes and social models that provide the cognitive framework within which retaliation, revenge, and violence appear appropriate and acquire legitimacy (Arsenio & Lemerise, 2004; Caprara, 1996). In sum, the longitudinal findings of the present study indicated that: (a) most adolescents exhibited declining levels of moral disengagement over time; (b) adolescents who exhibited lower levels of moral disengagement than the normative group were typically girls, less likely to show aggression and violent acts in late adolescence and more likely to feel guilt; (c) adolescents who showed high levels of aggression in early adolescence were more likely to recourse to moral disengagement; (d) adolescents who maintained higher levels of moral disengagement were typically boys, were more likely to show frequent physical and verbal aggression and violent acts, and were less likely to feel guilt in late adolescence; and (e) adolescents who were more likely to exhibit aggression and violent acts in late adolescence were typically boys evaluated as aggressive by peers in early adolescence. Limitations and Future Directions The identification of developmental pathways of moral disengagement represents a first step in understanding the processes that drive some people to resort to aggression and violence more frequently than others in late adolescence. However, clarification of some issues remains necessary. First, our findings
1304
Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: New developments and techniques (pp. 269 296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum . Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1990). Mechanism of moral disengagement. In W. Reich (Ed.), Origin of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind (pp. 161 191). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behaviour and development (Vol. I, pp. 45 103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193 209. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 1 26). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Bandura, A. (2004). Selective exercise of moral agency. In T. A. Thorkildsen & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Nurturing morality (pp. 37 57). Boston: Kluwer Academic. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164 180. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanism of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364 374. Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., & Regalia, C. (2001). Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 125 135. Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., & Zsolnai, L. (2000). Corporate transgressions through moral disengagement. Journal of Human Values, 6, 57 64. Bandura, A., Underwood, B., & Fromson, M. E. (1975). Disinhibition of aggression through diffusion of responsibility and dehumanizaion of victims. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 253 269. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1959). Adolescent aggression: A study of the influence of child-training practices and family interrelationships. Oxford, UK: Ronald Press. Barker, E. D., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D. S., Vitaro, F., & Lacourse, E. (2006). Development of male proactive and reactive physical aggression during adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 783 790. Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Manual for Version 3.0. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software. Bergman, R. (2002). Why be moral? A conceptual model from developmental psychology. Human Development, 45, 104 124. Bettencourt, A. B., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422 447.
call for some caution in light of the possible limitations of the study due to the specific cultural context where the research was conducted and the use of selfreport data. Second, because there are different approaches in studying moral development, future research should combine the study of moral disengagement (see Bandura, 1991) with the examination of moral reasoning and moral judgments (Kochanska & Aksan, 2006; Yau & Smetana, 2003) over the course of development. Third, future studies should examine the role of self-evaluative reactions in preventing the chronic recourse to moral disengagement mechanisms that may get crystallized over time. In this respect, different studies have highlighted the importance of studying affective reactions such as guilt, remorse, and empathy in association with moral development (Eisenberg, 2000; Hoffman, 1979; Kochanska & Aksan, 2006; Tangney et al., 2007). Finally, further studies should clarify how differences in moral disengagement are associated with emotional, cognitive, and social processes implied in moral self-regulation (Hart & Carlo, 2005; Turiel, 2006) and how individual skills and environmental factors could affect both individual differences and aggressive and violent outcomes. In this regard, we believe that it is necessary to combine the systematic study of individual differences with the study of external situational variables within a longitudinal perspective. The study of both internal mechanisms and relevant environmental variables that operate at stimulus, social, contextual, structural, and cultural levels to influence individual, and group behaviors are necessary in designing appropriate interventions aimed at preventing aggressive and violent outcomes. References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411 423. Andrus, B. C. (1969). The infamous of Nuremberg. London: Fravin. Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243 277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in realworld settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291 322. Arsenio, W., & Lemerise, E. (2004). Aggression and moral development: Integrating the social information processing and moral domain models. Child Development, 75, 987 1002.
Moral Disengagement Development Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. W. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 128 139). New York: Wiley. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Bollinger, D. (1982). Language: The loaded weapon. London: Longman. Brame, B., Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Developmental trajectories of physical aggression from school entry to late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 503 512. Brock, T. C., & Buss, A. H. (1962). Dissonance, aggression, and evaluation of pain. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 197 202. Brock, T. C., & Buss, A. H. (1964). Effects of justification for aggression and communication with the victim on postaggression dissonance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 403 412. Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K. A., et al. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222 245. Caprara, G. V. (1996). Structures and processes in personality psychology. European Psychologist, 1, 14 26. Caprara, G. V., Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., & Vicino, S. (1996). La Misura del Disimpegno morale [The assessment of moral disengagement]. Rassegna di Psicologia, 13, 93 105. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Cermak, I., & Rosza, S. (2001). Facing guilt: Role of negative affectivity, need for reparation, and fear of punishment in leading to prosocial behaviour and aggression. European Journal of Personality, 15, 219 237. Caprara, G. V., & Capanna, C. (2005). Moral-civic disengagement and values. Ricerche di Psicologia, 28(1), 67 83. Caprara, G. V., Manzi, J., & Perugini, M. (1992). Investigating guilt in relation to emotionality and aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 519 532. Caprara, G. V., Mazzotti, E., & Prezza, M. (1990). Una scala per la misura dellatteggiamento verso la violenza [A scale for the measurement of attitude toward violence]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 17, 107 120. Caprara, G. V., Paciello, M., Gerbino, M., & Cugini, C. (2007). Individual differences conducive to aggression and violence: Trajectories and correlates of irritability and hostile rumination through adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 359 374. Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1993). Early emotional instability. Prosocial behavior and aggression: Some methodological aspects. European Journal of Personality, 7, 19 36. Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., & Knight, G. P. (1992). An objective measure of adolescents prosocial moral reasoning. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2, 331 349. Cattell, R. B., & Vogelmann, S. (1977). A comprehensive trial of the scree and KG criteria for determining the
1305
number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 289 325. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233 255. Cohen, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1994). Self-protection and the culture of honor: Explaining southern violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 551 567. te , S., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D. S., Zoccolillo, M., & Co Vitaro, F. (2002). Childhood behavioral profiles leading to adolescent conduct disorder: Risk trajectories for boys and girls. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1086 1094. Crane-Ross, D., Tisak, M. S., & Tisak, J. (1998). Aggression and conventional rule violation among adolescents: Social-reasoning predictors of social behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 24, 347 365. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanism in childrens social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74 101. Darley, J. M., Klosson, E. C., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Intentions and their contexts in the moral judgments of children and adults. Child Development, 49, 66 74. Diener, E. (1977). Deindividuation: Causes and consequences. Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 145 156. Diener, E., Dineen, J., Endresen, K., Beaman, A. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1975). Effects of altered responsibility, cognitive set, and modeling on physical aggression and deindividuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 328 337. Dodge, K. A., & Crick, N. R. (1990). Social informationprocessing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 8 22. Duncan, S. C., & Duncan, T. E. (1994). Modeling incomplete longitudinal substance use data using latent variable growth curve methodology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 313 338. Duncan, T. E., & Duncan, S. C. (1995). Modeling the processes of development via latent growth curve methodology. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 187 213. Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Hops, H. (1994). The effects of family cohesiveness and peer encouragement on the development of adolescence alcohol use: A cohortsequential approach to the analysis of longitudinal data. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 588 599. Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665 697. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Elkin, F., & Westley, W. A. (1955). The myth of adolescent culture. American Sociological Review, 20, 680 684. Elliott, D. S., & Rhinehart, M. (1995). Moral disengagement, delinquent peers and delinquent behaviour. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Science.
1306
Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Childrens normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408 419. Istituto Italiano di Statistica. (2002). Annuario statistico Italiano 2000. [Italian yearbook of statistics 2002]. Rome, Italy: Author. Jones, B. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2007). Advances in groupbased trajectory modeling and an SAS procedure for estimating them. Sociological Methods and Research, 35, 542 571. Jones, B. L., Nagin, D., & Roeder, K. (2001). A SAS procedure based on mixture models for estimating developmental trajectories. Sociological Methods and Research, 29, 374 393. reskog, K. G., & So rbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of Jo linear structural relationships by method of maximum likelihood. Chicago: National Educational Resources. Keen, S. (1986). Faces of the enemy. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Kelman, H. C. (1973). Violence without moral restraint: Reflections on the dehumanization of victims and victimizers. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 25 61. Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. rvinen, L. (2001). Aggressive behaviour Keltikangas-Ja and social problem-solving strategies: A review of the findings of a seven-year follow-up from childhood to late adolescence. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 11(4), 236 250. Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2006). Handbook of moral development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Klass, E. T. (1978). Psychological effects of immoral actions: The experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 756 771. Knight, G. P., Guthrie, I. K., Page, M. C., & Fabes, R. A. (2002). Emotional arousal and gender differences in aggression: A meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 366 393. Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (2006). Childrens conscience and self-regulation. Journal of Personality, 74, 1587 1617. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitivedevelopmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: McNally. Kohlberg, L., & Candee, D. (1984). The relationship of moral judgement to moral action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 52 73). New York: Wiley. Krettenauer, T. (2004). Metaethical cognition and epistemic reasoning development in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 461 470.
Emmons, R. A., & Diener, E. (1986). Situation selection as a moderator of response consistency and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1013 1019. Ferguson, T. J., & Crowley, S. L. (1997). Gender differences in the organization of guilt and shame. Sex Roles, 37, 19 43. Ferguson, T. J., & Rule, B. G. (1983). An attributional perspective on anger and aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol. 1, pp. 41 74). New York: Academic Press. Fix, E., Hodges, J. L., & Lehmann, E. L. (1959). The restricted chi-square test. In U. Grenanader (Ed.), Probr volume (pp. 92 97). ability and statistics: The herald Crame New York: Wiley. Gibbs, J. C., Potter, G. B., Barriga, A. Q., & Liau, A. K. (1996). Developing the helping skills and prosocial motivation of aggressive adolescents in peer group programs. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 283 305. Gini, G. (2006). Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: Whats wrong? Aggressive Behavior, 32, 528 539. Hanson, W. B., Tobler, N. S., & Graham, J. W. (1990). Attrition in substance abuse prevention research: A meta analysis of 85 longitudinally followed cohorts. Evaluation Review, 14, 677 685. Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation. Human Development, 48, 232 256. Haritos-Fatouros, M. (1988). The official torturer: A learning model for obedience to the authority of violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1107 1120. Hart, D., & Atkins, R. (2002). Civic competence in urban youth. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 227 236. Hart, D., Atkins, R., Markey, P., & Youniss, J. (2004). Youth bulges in communities: The effects of age structure on adolescent civic knowledge and civic participation. Psychological Science, 15, 591 597. Hart, D., & Carlo, G. (2005). Moral development in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 223 233. Helwig, C. C., & Turiel, E. (2003). Childrens social and moral reasoning. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 476 490). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hoeksma, J. B., & Kelderman, H. (2006). On growth curves and mixture models. Infant and Child Development, 15, 627 634. Hoffman, M. L. (1979). Development of moral thought, feeling, and behavior. American Psychologist, 34, 958 966. Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: A conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 429 440. Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13 24.
Moral Disengagement Development Kwak, K., & Bandura, A. (1997). Role of perceived self-efficacy and moral disengagement in antisocial conduct. Unpublished manuscript, Osan College, Seoul, Korea. Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 195 217). New York: Cambridge University Press. Little, R. J. (1995). Modeling the dropout mechanism in repeated-measures studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 1112 1121. Loeber, R. (1991). Antisocial behavior: More enduring than changeable? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 393 397. Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the development of aggression and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371 410. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common misconceptions and controversies. American Psychologist, 53, 242 259. Lutz, W. D. (1987). Language, appearance, and reality: Doublespeak in 1984. ETC, 44, 382 391. Martinez, M. L., Black, M., & Starr, R. H. (2002). Factorial structure of the perceived neighbourhood scale (PNS): A test of longitudinal invariance. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 23 43. McArdle, J. J. (1988). Dynamic but structural equation modelling of repeated measures data. In R. B. Cattel & J. Nesselroade (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 561 614). New York: Plenum Press. McArdle, J. J., & Anderson, E. R. (1989). Latent growth model for research on aging. In L. E. Biren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), The handbook of the psychology of aging (3rd ed., pp. 21 44). San Diego: Academic Press. McArdle, J. J., & Hamagami, F. (1991). Modeling incomplete longitudinal and cross-sectional data using latent growth structural models. In L. M. Collins & J. C. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change (pp. 276 304). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Menesini, E., Sanchez, V., Fonzi, A., Ortega, R., Costabile, A., & Lo Feudo, G. (2003). Moral emotions and bullying: A cross-national comparison of differences between bullies, victims and outsiders. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 515 530. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525 543. Meredith, W., & Tisak, J. (1990). Latent curve analysis. Psychometrika, 55, 107 122. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row. Mills, R. S., Pedersen, J., & Grusec, J. E. (1989). Sex differences in reasoning and emotion about altruism. Sex Roles, 20, 603 621. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-coursepersistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674 701. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H. L., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course persistent and adolescence-
1307
limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179 207. Motl, R. W., Dishman, R. K., Birnbaum, A. S., & Lytle, L. A. (2005). Longitudinal invariance of the center for epidemiological studies-depression scale among girls and boys in middle school. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 90 108. n, B. O., & Khoo, S. (1998). Longitudinal studies of Muthe achievement growth using latent variable modeling. Learning and Individual Differences, 10, 73 101. n, B., & Shedden, K. (1999). Finite mixture modelMuthe ling with mixture outcomes using the EM algorithm. Biometrics, 6, 463 469. Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories: A semiparametric, group-based approach. Psychological Methods, 4, 139 157. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nagin, D. S., Farrington, D. P., & Moffit, T. E. (1995). Lifecourse trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology, 33, 111 139. Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Trajectories of boys physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70, 1181 1196. Pelton, J., Gound, M., Forehand, R., & Brody, G. (2004). The moral disengagement scale: Extension with an American minority sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 31 39. Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008). Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79, 325 338. Pitts, S. C., West, S. G., & Tein, J. (1996). Longitudinal measurement models in evaluation research: Examining stability and change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19, 333 350. Rapoport, D. C., & Alexander, Y. (1982). The morality of terrorism: Religious and secular justification. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. Raykov, T. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35, 299 331. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reich, W. (1990). Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies, states of mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41, 555 592. Sanford, N., & Comstock, C. (1971). Sanction for evil. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological methods, 7, 147 177. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461 464.
1308
Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara Zimbardo, P. G. (2006). The psychology of power: To the person? To the situation? To the system?. In D. L. Rhode (Ed.), Moral leadership: The theory and practice of power, judgment and policy. Warren Bennis Signatures Series (pp. 129 157). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA. Stoolmiller, M. (1994). Antisocial behavior, delinquent peer association, and unsupervised wandering for boys: Growth and change from childhood to early adolescence. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 263 288. Swanson, L. H., & Hill, G. (1993). Metacognitive aspects of moral reasoning and behavior. Adolescence, 28, 711 736. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row. Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345 372. Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tremblay, R. E. (2000). The development of aggressive behavior during childhood: What have we learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 129 141. Tremblay, R. E., & Nagin, D. S. (2005). The developmental origins of physical aggression in humans. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 83 106). New York: Guilford Press. Turiel, E. (1978). The development of concepts of social structure: Social convention. In J. Glick & K. A. ClarkeStewart (Eds.), The development of social understanding. New York: Gardner Press. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Turiel, E. (2006). Thought, emotions, and social interactional processes in moral development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Yau, J., & Smetana, J. G. (2003). Conceptions of moral, social-conventional, and personal events among Chinese preschoolers in Hong Kong. Child Development, 74, 647 658. Zimbardo, P. G. (1995). The psychology of evil: A situationist perspective on recruiting good people to engage in anti-social acts. Research in Social Psychology, 11, 125 133. Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 21 50). New York: Guilford Press.
Appendix Moral Disengagement Scale 1. It is alright to fly off the handle to protect your friends. 2. Slapping and shoving someone is just a way of joking. 3. Damaging some property is no big deal when you consider that others are beating people up. 4. A member of a group should not be blamed for trouble the group causes. 5. If youth are living under bad conditions in their neighbourhood they cannot be blamed for behaving aggressively. 6. It is not serious to tell small lies because they dont hurt anybody. 7. Some people deserve to be treated like animals. 8. If people fight and misbehave in school or at work it is their teachers /superiors fault. 9. It is alright to beat someone who bad mouths your family. 10. To hit obnoxious friends is just giving them "a lesson." 11. Stealing some money is not too serious compared to those who steal a lot of money. 12. A person who only suggests breaking rules should not be blamed if others go ahead and do it. 13. If youth are not disciplined at home they should not be blamed for misbehaving. 14. People do not mind being teased because it shows interest in them. 15. It is okay to treat somebody badly who behaved like a worm. 16. If people are careless about where they leave their things it is their own fault if they get stolen. 17. It is alright to fight when your groups honour is threatened. 18. Taking someones motorcycle or car without their permission is just borrowing it. 19. It is not serious to insult a friend because beating him/her up is worse. 20. If a group decides together to do something harmful it is unfair to blame a single member of the group for it. 21. Youths cannot be blamed for using bad words when all their friends do it.
1309
22. Teasing someone does not really hurt him/her. 23. Someone who is detestable does not deserve to be treated like a human being. 24. People who get mistreated usually do things that deserve it. 25. It is alright to lie to keep your friends out of trouble. 26. It is not a bad thing to get drunk once in a while. 27. Compared to the illegal things people do, taking some things from a store without paying for them is not very serious. 28. It is unfair to blame a single person who had only a small part in the harm caused by a group. 29. Youth cannot be blamed for misbehaving if their friends pressured them to do it.
30. Insults among peers do not hurt anyone. 31. Some people have to be treated roughly because they lack feelings that can be hurt. 32. Youths are not at fault for misbehaving if their parents are too restrictive (severe, and they dont allow them any freedom). The following items correspond to the various mechanisms of moral disengagement. Moral justification: 1, 9, 17, 25. Euphemistic language: 2, 10, 18, 26. Advantageous comparison: 3, 11, 19, 27. Displacement of responsibility: 5, 13, 21, 29. Diffusion of responsibility: 4, 12, 20, 28. Distorting consequences: 6, 14, 22, 30. Attribution of blame: 8, 16, 24, 32. Dehumanization: 7, 15, 23, 31.

Stability and Change of Moral Disengagement and Its Impact On Aggression and Violence in Late Adolescence

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Stability and Change of Moral Disengagement and Its Impact On Aggression and Violence in Late Adolescence

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Child Development, September/October 2008, Volume 79, Number 5, Pages 1288 1309

Moral Disengagement Development

Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara

Moral Disengagement Development

Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara

Moral Disengagement Development

Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara

.806 .877 3.696 1.591

.67 .65 .16 .45

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

.005 .003 .007 .006 Dv2 df p DCFI

.27 .17 .00 .00 .00

1.00 1.00 0.91 0.99 0.98

.024 .040 .254 .058 .062

14.23 412,80 56.10 23,63

.11 .00 .00 02

.00 .09 .01 .01

Moral Disengagement Development

Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara

2.68 0.36 0.19 0.08 .061

78.25 11.67 3.66 2.61 2.06

2.51 0.46 0.19 0.08 0.61

75.51 13.61 3.66 2.61 2.06

1,5 MD14 MD16 MD18 MD20

Moral Disengagement Development

Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara

Moral Disengagement Development

Chronic PRB .28 .32 .01 .95

Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara

b b c r=-.32 r=-.32 GUILT 18

r=-.32 r=-.32 GUILT 20

Moral Disengagement Development

Posterior probabilities Normative Nondisengaged Later desister Chronic

Violence .10 .42 .20 .39

.23*** .15** .20***

.41*** .30*** .25***

Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, and Caprara

Moral Disengagement Development

Moral Disengagement Development

Вам также может понравиться

.23* .15 .20***

.41* .30* .25***