To develop an organization’s ethics, a warning should be made when people disposed to moral disengagement join it; and it is necessary to create conditions that would not give employees any grounds for finding excuses for their unethical behavior. Propensity to moral disengagement (PMD) should be revealed during selection of new employees, at examination of an organization in order to develop programs aimed to improve its ethical culture. The research goal was to translate the Propensity to Morally Disengage Scale (Moore et al., 2012) into Ukrainian and to adapt it. The Scale has three forms: with 24, 16, and 8 statements.
Translation of the original Scale into Ukrainian was made in several stages: direct translation, expert evaluation of the translation and creation of a preliminary version, reverse translation of the preliminary version, expert evaluation of the reverse translation, creation of the test version of the Scale, pilot survey (N = 32), creation of the final scale version in Ukrainian through specification of the test version (Novik, Ionova, 2007), literary editing. The translation is equivalent to the original; there is direct correlation (р ≤ 0,001) between the PMD figures obtained in one group (N = 58) by two measurements (in Ukrainian and English) with a four-week interval.
The Ukrainian variant of the PMD Scale has shown good reproducibility of its results; the results of two surveys conducted in one group with a four-week interval correlate well (N = 122, age M=19.7; SD=1.4, students of Ivan Franko National University of Lviv): PMD-24 (r = 0.79), PMD-16 (r = 0.82), PMD-8 (r = 0.74), with р ≤ 0.001. In the Ukrainian version, the shorter is the form, the worse is its internal coordination – α-Cronbach factor determined for the first and the second measurements, respectively, 0.82 and 0.86 (PMD-24), 0.77 and 0.8 (PMD-16), 0.54 and 0.56 (PMD-8), N = 122. Thus, a higher number of statements ensures better reliability of the Scale.
The confirmatory analysis has shown that result correspondence to the theoretical model depends on the size of the respondents’ group. With a smaller group (N = 190, 132 women and 58 men aged 18-57, M = 30; SD = 8.93), the shorter scale form gives the result that corresponds the best to the theoretical model: а) PMD-24 results and 8–factor model (interdependent factors): χ²/df = 2.06; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.79; GFI = 0.83; b) PMD-16 results and 8–factor model (independent factors): χ²/df = 2.05; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.87; GFI = 0.91; c) PMD-8 results and 1-factor model: χ²/df = 1.6; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.94; GFI = 0.96. Here is a contradiction: the best internal coordination was obtained for the PMD-24 scale, but the best factor validity was determined for the PMD-8 scale. The sample was enlarged (N = 477, with 277 women and 200 men aged 18-60 – M = 30; SD = 8.85), and the confirmatory analysis was made once again. With the larger group (N = 477) only PMD-24 results corresponded to the theoretical model (eight interrelated factors): χ²/df = 2.76; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.83; GFI = 0.9. The results for the PMD-16 and PMD-8 forms showed insufficient correspondence to the model – χ²/df > 3. Thus, for the Ukrainian variants, the best reliability and factor validity goes to the PMD scale with 24 statements.
To check construct validity, the following techniques were used: 1) The MACH IV Scale (Christie, Geis, 1970), Ukrainian variant (Grebin 2016), 2) Social Well-Being Scales (Keyes, 1998), Ukrainian adaptation (Chetverik-Burchak, 2014), 3) The Big Five Locator (Howard et al., 1996), Ukrainian adaptation (Burlachuk, Korolov, 2000). Significant correlation were obtained (p < 0.001) between PMD-24 and agreeableness (r = -0.18), social actualization (r = -0.21), social contribution (r = -0.15), machiavellianism (r = 0.49); PMD shown by men is higher than that of women (М1 = 81.41, М2 = 71.42, р = 0.000, t = 7.18). This correlates well with the current scientific data and proves construct validity of the scale. Thus, it is suggested to use the PMD scale consisting of 24 statements in the Ukrainian variant as a reliable and valid psycho-diagnostic tool.
Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(2), 39–53. doi:10.5465/ame.2004.13837437
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, 1–52. doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25001-2
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetuation of humanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209.
Bandura, A. (2002). Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119. doi:10.1080/0305724022014322
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1684
Burlachuk L. F. (2000). Adaptatsiya oprosnika dlya diagnostiki pyati faktorov lichnosti. [Adaptation of the questionnaire for questionnaire for the measurement of the Big Five Factor Model] Voprosyi psihologii, 1, 126–134. [In Russian]
Burlachuk, L. F., Morozov, S. M. (2000). Slovar-spravochnik po psiodiagnostike. [Dictionary of Psychodiagnostics] (38–40). Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatelstvo «Piter». [In Russian]
Campbell, D. (1980). Modeli eksperimentov v sotsialnoy psihologii i prikladnyih issledovaniyah. [Models of experiments in social psychology and applied researches]. Red. M. I. Bobnevoy. Moskva : Progress. [In Russian]
Chetverik-Burchak, A. G. (2014). Opis ta adaptatsiya opituvalnika «Shkala sotsIalnogo blagopoluchchya» K. Kiza. [Description and adaptation of Social Well-Being Scales (C. L. M. Keyes)] Visnik Harkivskogo natsIonalnogo unIversitetu. Seriya “PsihologIya”. 1099. 28-33. [In Russian]
Christian, J. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2013). The crucial role of turnover intentions in transforming moral disengagement into deviant behavior at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 193–208. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1631-4
Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Chugh, D., Kern, M. C., Zhu, Z., & Lee, S. (2014). Withstanding moral disengagement: Attachment security as an ethical intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 88–93. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.11.005
Corruption Perceptions Index 2018 – Transparency International. Available at: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374–391. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 453. doi:10.2307/249524
Fehr, R., Fulmer, A., & Keng, F. (2019). How do employees react to leaders’ unethical behavior? The role of moral disengagement. Personnel Psychology. doi:10.1111/peps.12366
Grebin, N. V. (2016) Psihologichni chinniki shilnosti studentskoyi molodi do manipulyuvannya u mizhosobistisniy vzaemodiyi [Psychological factors of students` propensity to manipulate in interpersonal interactions], dis. kand. psih. nauk : 19.00.01. Available at: http://www.ispp.org.ua/backup_ispp/bibl_19.htm. [In Ukrainian]
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M.: Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60. doi: 10.21427/D7CF7R
Howard, P. J., Medina, P. L., & Howard, J. M. (1996). The big-five locator: A quick assessment tool for consultants and trainers. In J. W. Pfeiffer (Ed.), The 1996 Annual (Vol. 1, 1–310). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social Well-Being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61 (2). 121–140. doi: 10.2307/2787065
Keyes, C. L. M., & Shapiro, A. D. (2004). Social Well-Being in the United States: A Descriptive Epidemiology. In O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, & R. C. Kessler (Eds.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on mental health and development. Studies on successful midlife development. How healthy are we?: A national study of well-being at midlife (350–372). University of Chicago Press.
Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1–31. doi:10.1037/a0017103
Kish-Gephart, J., Detert, J., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V., & Martin, S. (2013). Situational мoral Disengagement: Can the Effects of Self-Interest be Mitigated? Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 267–285. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1909-6
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd ed. New York: The Guilford Press.
Knoll, M., Lord, R. G., Petersen, L.-E., & Weigelt, O. (2015). Examining the moral grey zone: The role of moral disengagement, authenticity, and situational strength in predicting unethical managerial behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(1), 65–78. doi:10.1111/jasp.12353
Leidner, B., Castano, E., Zaiser, E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2010). Ingroup Glorification, Moral Disengagement, and Justice in the Context of Collective Violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(8), 1115–1129. doi:10.1177/0146167210376391
Lynn, R., & Martin, T. (1997). Gender Differences in Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism in 37 Nations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(3), 369–373. doi:10.1080/00224549709595447
Martin, S. R., Kish-Gephart, J. J., & Detert, J. R. (2014). Blind forces: Ethical infrastructures and moral disengagement in organizations.. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(4), 295–325. doi:10.1177/2041386613518576
Moore, C. (2008). Moral Disengagement in Processes of Organizational Corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 129–139. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9447-8
Moore, C. (2015). Moral disengagement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 199–204. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.018
Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L., K., Baker, V. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 1–48. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x
Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The Malevolent Side of Human Nature:. A Meta-Analysis and Critical Review of the Literature on the Dark Triad (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183–204. doi:10.1177/1745691616666070
Novik, A. A., Ionova, T. I. (2007). Rukovodstvo po issledovaniyu kachestva zhizni v meditsine [Guide to the study of the quality of life in medicine] (2-e izdanie, 57–63).— Moskva: ZAO «OLMA Media Grupp». [In Russian]
OECD Reviews of Integrity in Education: Ukraine 2017. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/oecd-reviews-of-integrity-in-education-ukraine_9789264270664-en. doi: 10.1787/9789264270664-en
Portela, D. M. P. Contributo das técnicas de análise fatorial para o estudo do programa "ocupação científica de jovens nas férias" [Em linha]. Lisboa : [s.n.], 2012. VII, 77 . Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.2/2536
Samnani, A.-K., Salamon, S. D., & Singh, P. (2014). Negative affect and counterproductive workplace behavior: The moderating role of moral disengagement and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1635-0
Shevlin, M., & Miles, J. N. V. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 85–90. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00055-5
Swickert, R., & Owens, T. (2010). The interaction between neuroticism and gender influences the perceived availability of social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 385–390. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.033
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990. doi:10.1177/0149206306294258
Zhang, T., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2014). Morality rebooted: Exploring simple fixes to our moral bugs. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 63–79. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2014.10.002
Znakov V. V. (2000). Makiavellizm: psihologicheskoe svoystvo lichnosti i metodika ego issledovaniya. [Machiavellianism: psychological personality trait and a scale for the measurement] Psihologicheskiy zhurnal. 5. 16–22. [In Russian]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the Psychological Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License International CC-BY that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. For more detailed information, please, fallow the link - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/