Environmental agency, moral reasoning, and moral disengagement in adults

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Ethics & Behavior Pub Date : 2023-10-11 DOI:10.1080/10508422.2023.2267705
Giulia Gialdi, Antonella Somma, Sarah Songhorian, Nicole Bergamelli, Claudia Frau, Andrea Fossati
{"title":"Environmental agency, moral reasoning, and moral disengagement in adults","authors":"Giulia Gialdi, Antonella Somma, Sarah Songhorian, Nicole Bergamelli, Claudia Frau, Andrea Fossati","doi":"10.1080/10508422.2023.2267705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTTo assess the relationships between environmental agency, prosocial moral reasoning, and civic moral disengagement, 544 community-dwelling adults were administered the image-based Environmental Agency Scale (EAS), the Prosocial Moral Reasoning Objective Measure (PROM), and the Civic Moral Disengagement Scale (CMDS). The EAS Agentic Self and Agentic Other dimensions proved to be reliable measures and showed adequate factor validity. Mean/median score comparisons between EAS Agentic Self Scale and Agentic Other Scale scores indicated that participants viewed society-level actions as more relevant than individual-level actions when environment defense is at issue. Partial correlation analysis results showed that environmental agentic self was grounded in individual differences in prosocial moral reasoning. Civic moral disengagement yielded negative associations with EAS Agentic Other Scale scores, providing further support to the relevance of moral disengagement process in environmental sensitivity. These results may improve our understanding of environmental agency and its connections with prosocial moral reasoning and moral disengagement.KEYWORDS: Climate changeself-agencyother-agencyimage-based taskprosocial moral reasoningmoral disengagement AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to thank Alice Barchi for her help in collecting data.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Supplementary materialSupplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2023.2267705Data availability statementThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author.","PeriodicalId":47265,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2023.2267705","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTTo assess the relationships between environmental agency, prosocial moral reasoning, and civic moral disengagement, 544 community-dwelling adults were administered the image-based Environmental Agency Scale (EAS), the Prosocial Moral Reasoning Objective Measure (PROM), and the Civic Moral Disengagement Scale (CMDS). The EAS Agentic Self and Agentic Other dimensions proved to be reliable measures and showed adequate factor validity. Mean/median score comparisons between EAS Agentic Self Scale and Agentic Other Scale scores indicated that participants viewed society-level actions as more relevant than individual-level actions when environment defense is at issue. Partial correlation analysis results showed that environmental agentic self was grounded in individual differences in prosocial moral reasoning. Civic moral disengagement yielded negative associations with EAS Agentic Other Scale scores, providing further support to the relevance of moral disengagement process in environmental sensitivity. These results may improve our understanding of environmental agency and its connections with prosocial moral reasoning and moral disengagement.KEYWORDS: Climate changeself-agencyother-agencyimage-based taskprosocial moral reasoningmoral disengagement AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to thank Alice Barchi for her help in collecting data.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Supplementary materialSupplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2023.2267705Data availability statementThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
环境作用、道德推理和成人的道德脱离
摘要以544名社区居民为研究对象,采用基于图像的环境代理量表(EAS)、亲社会道德推理客观测量量表(PROM)和公民道德脱离量表(CMDS)进行环境代理、亲社会道德推理和公民道德脱离之间的关系。EAS的“代理自我”和“代理他人”维度被证明是可靠的测量方法,并显示出足够的因素效度。EAS代理自我量表和代理他人量表得分的平均分/中位数比较表明,在环境保护问题上,参与者认为社会层面的行动比个人层面的行动更相关。偏相关分析结果表明,环境主体自我存在于亲社会道德推理的个体差异中。公民道德脱离与EAS代理其他量表得分呈负相关,进一步支持道德脱离过程与环境敏感性的相关性。这些结果可能会提高我们对环境代理及其与亲社会道德推理和道德脱离的联系的理解。关键词:气候变化自我-主体他人-主体基于图像的任务亲社会道德推理道德脱离作者感谢Alice Barchi帮助收集数据。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。补充材料本文的补充数据可在https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2023.2267705Data网站上获得。支持本研究结果的数据可从通讯作者处获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics & Behavior
Ethics & Behavior Multiple-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
Publication pressure and questionable research practices: a moderated mediation model Exploring educators’ epistemological worldviews and their influence on pedagogical decision-making in scientific ethics education at Malaysian universities Cultural perspectives on academic dishonesty: exploring racial and ethnic diversity in higher education The impact of perception of school moral atmosphere on college students’ moral sensitivity Educator experiences with postgraduate psychology students exhibiting professional competence issues
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1