Moral reasoning explained by personality traits and moral disengagement: A study among Dutch nurse practitioners and physician assistants

Abstract

Aim To explore the direct and indirect effect of the personality meta‐traits ‘Stability’ and ‘Plasticity’ on moral reasoning among nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Background Moral reasoning is influenced by being prone to moral disengagement and personality traits. Moral disengagement is observed among professionals in many fields, including healthcare providers. Moral disengagement is known to be provoked by environmental stressors and influenced by certain personality traits. Design A cross‐sectional approach was used including self‐report questionnaires. Methods A convenience sample of Dutch NPs (N = 67) and PAs (N = 88) was surveyed via online questionnaires between January and March 2015, using (a) the Defining Issues Test; (b) the BIG five inventory; and (c) the Moral Disengagement Scale. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed for estimating the construct validity of two meta‐traits of personality and to test unidirectional influences on moral reasoning. Results Only the Stability trait was a direct predictor of moral reasoning whereas both Stability and Plasticity were precursors of moral disengagement. Both personality meta‐traits had statistically significant indirect effects on moral reasoning through a low level of moral disengagement. The influence of both personality traits on the level of moral reasoning was increased by strong self‐censure on entering into morally disengaged interactions. Conclusion The personality meta‐trait ‘Stability’ is an indicator of moral reasoning and is explained by a lower propensity to morally disengage among highly stable people. Although the meta‐trait Plasticity exerts an indirect effect through moral disengagement on moral reasoning, it is not a direct indicator of moral reasoning.

Individual and Classroom Social-Cognitive Processes in Bullying: A Short-Term Longitudinal Multilevel Study

“…Although moral disengagement and DSE tend to be developed into trait-like habitual patterns (Bandura, 1997, 2016), they should not be considered as fixed, stable and static personality traits (cf. Kuilman et al, 2019) like, for instance, callous-unemotional traits (Frick et al, 2018). In line with previous studies of moral disengagement (e.g., Caravita et al, 2014), our findings reveal the changeability of moral disengagement and DSE, which in turn suggests the ability to learn these individual characteristics.…”

Re‐assessing the validity of the Moral Sensitivity Questionnaire (MSQ): Two new scales for moral deliberation and paternalism

“…The dataset in the current study was the same as the one in Kuilman et al (2019) . However, from that pool different, variables were used, focusing on different research questions.…”

“…The dataset in the current study was the same as the one in Kuilman et al (2019). 26 However, from that pool different, variables were used, focusing on different research questions. Only the MDS and the indicator for moral reasoning (DIT-N2) were used in both studies, albeit with different hypotheses and functionality (independent vs dependent variable).…”

Facilitating and motivating factors for reporting reprehensible conduct in care: A study among nurse practitioners and physician assistants in the Netherlands

“…The dataset used in the current study was the same as the one in previous studies by Kuilman and colleagues 18,19 . Different variables were used from that pool, however, the current study focused on different research questions.…”

“…The dataset used in the current study was the same as the one in previous studies by Kuilman and colleagues. 18 , 19 Different variables were used from that pool, however, the current study focused on different research questions. In one previous study (Kuilman et al), the “Ethics Advocacy Scale” (EAS) and the scale for “Behavioral Control targeted at Preventing Harm” (BCPH) were used for the purpose of convergent and discriminant validation.…”