大学生人格特质对道德认同的影响：法律意识的调节作用

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2023.01.018

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为探讨大学生人格特质与道德认同的关系，及其法律意识在二者关系之间的调节作用，采用法律意识量表、道德认同量表和大五人格量表对1878名大学生进行了调查。结果显示：(1) 尽责性、宜人性、开放性和外向性与道德认同、法律意识呈显著的正相关；神经质与道德认同、法律意识呈显著的负相关。(2) 人格特质、道德认同、法律意识表现出了显著的性别差异，同时尽责性对道德认同的影响也存在着显著的性别差异。(3) 法律意识在尽责性与宜人性对大学生道德认同的影响中起着负向调节作用。本研究结果提示，应该尊重人格特质的个体特异性，在高校进行专业的法制教育和法律意识培养，提高个体的道德认同水平。

关键词: 法律意识, 大五人格, 道德认同, 调节作用

Abstract:

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between personality traits and moral identity of college students and the moderating effect of legal consciousness on it. The Legal Consciousness Scale, Moral Identity Scale and Big Five Personality Inventory were surveyed among 1878 college students. The results of the study showed that: 1) Moral identity and legal consciousness were significantly positively correlated with conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness, and extroversion, while significantly negatively correlated with neuroticism. 2) Personality traits, moral identity, and legal consciousness showed significant gender differences. Also, there was a significant gender difference in the influence of conscientiousness on moral identity. 3) Legal consciousness negatively moderated the influence of conscientiousness and agreeableness on college students’ moral identities. Therefore, our findings imply that the individuality of personality traits should be respected; and, professional cultivation of law education and legal consciousness should be implemented in tertiary education to improve an individual’s moral identity.

Key words: legal consciousness, big five personality, moral identity, moderation effect

中图分类号:

B849

陈诚, 王彬洁. 大学生人格特质对道德认同的影响：法律意识的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(1): 123-129.

Cheng CHEN, Binjie WANG. The Influence of College Students’ Personality Traits on Moral Identity: The Moderating Role of Legal Consciousness[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2023, 21(1): 123-129.

图/表 6

参考文献

	陈诚, 张新民大学生法律意识量表的编制和信效度检验. 西南师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 44 (5): 132- 139.
	谷传华, 张文新小学儿童欺负与人格倾向的关系. 心理学报, 2003, 35 (1): 101- 105.
	郭英, 陈灿杰, 胡东, 袁安怡道德认同对大学生亲社会行为倾向的影响: 共情的中介作用和正念的调节作用. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20 (1): 80- 87.
	康平夏. (2021). 激发道德认同的有效生活化法治教育路径探索. 见 2021年基础教育发展研究高峰论坛论文集 (pp.1027–1028), 北京.
	饶芳, 谭菊华, 程术兵道德法律与心理健康教育对大学生成长的重要价值. 中国学校卫生, 2022, 43 (9): 1441- 1442.
	万增奎, 杨韶刚. (2008). 青少年道德自我认同问卷的修订. 社会心理科学, 23(5), 41–45, 77.
	王开琼当代大学生法律意识教育调查研究. 黑龙江高教研究, 2012, 30 (7): 92- 95.
	王孟成, 戴晓阳, 姚树桥中国大五人格问卷的初步编制Ⅲ: 简式版的制定及信效度检验. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2011, 19 (4): 454- 457.
	温忠麟, 侯杰泰, 张雷调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用. 心理学报, 2005, 37 (2): 268- 274.
	祖嘉合 “思想道德修养与法律基础”教学应关注的几个问题. 清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2006, (S2): 79- 85.
	Abdullahi, I. A., & Kumar, P. Gender differences in prosocial behaviour. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 2016, 3 (4): 171- 175.
	Aquino, K., & Reed, A. II. The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, 83 (6): 1423- 1440. DOI
	Bergman, R. Why be moral? A conceptual model from developmental psychology. Human Development, 2002, 45 (2): 104- 124. DOI
	Bock, T., & Samuelson, P. L. Educating for moral identity: An analysis of three moral identity constructs with implications for moral education. Journal of Character Education, 2014, 10 (2): 155- 173.
	Borghuis, J., Denissen, J. J. A., Oberski, D., Sijtsma, K., Meeus, W. H. J., Branje, S., ... Bleidorn, W. Big five personality stability, change, and codevelopment across adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2017, 113 (4): 641- 657. DOI
	Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. Justice and personality: Using integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2006, 100 (1): 110- 127. DOI
	Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1992). Self-understanding and its role in social and moral development. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (pp. 421–464). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
	Gibbs, J. C. (2021). Gender differences in moral judgment and behavior. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. Retrieved November 18, 2022, from https://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-527
	Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1988, 34 (3): 223- 237.
	Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action. Child Development Perspectives, 2011, 5 (3): 212- 218. DOI
	Hill, P. L., & Roberts, B. W. Propositions for the study of moral personality development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2010, 19 (6): 380- 383. DOI
	Kennedy, J. A., Kray, L. J., & Ku, G. A social-cognitive approach to understanding gender differences in negotiator ethics: The role of moral identity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2017, 138, 28- 44. DOI
	Krettenauer, T., Murua, L. A., & Jia, F. L. Age-related differences in moral identity across adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 2016, 52 (6): 972- 984. DOI
	Lapsley, D. K., & Hill, P. L. (2009). The development of the moral personality. In D. Narvaez & D. K. Lapsley (Eds.), Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 185–213). New York: Cambridge University Press.
	Lifton, P. D. Individual differences in moral development: The relation of sex, gender, and personality to morality. Journal of Personality, 1985, 53 (2): 306- 334. DOI
	McAdams, D. P. (2009). The moral personality. In D. Narvaez & D. K. Lapsley (Eds.), Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 11–29). New York: Cambridge University Press.
	McFerran, B., Aquino, K., & Duffy, M. How personality and moral identity relate to individuals’ ethical ideology. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2010, 20 (1): 35- 56. DOI
	Miller, G. F. Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 2007, 82 (2): 97- 125. DOI
	Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007, 92 (6): 1610- 1624. DOI
	Saguy, A. C., & Stuart, F. Culture and law: Beyond a paradigm of cause and effect. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2008, 619 (1): 149- 164. DOI
	Schmitt, D. P., Long, A. E., McPhearson, A., O’Brien, K., Remmert, B., & Shah, S. H. Personality and gender differences in global perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 2017, 52 (S1): 45- 56.
	Tariq, F. T., & Naqvi, I. Relationship between personality traits and prosocial behavior among adolescents. Foundation University Journal of Psychology, 2020, 4 (2): 54- 63.
	Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. Gender differences in the Big Five personality development: A longitudinal investigation from late adolescence to emerging adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 2012, 53 (6): 740- 746. DOI
	Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology, 2011, 2, 178.

变量	M±SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1.法律意识	148.62±14.17
2.道德认同	41.29±5.42	0.51***
3.神经质	26.73±8.21	−0.18***	−0.15***
4.尽责性	34.58±5.80	0.33***	0.37***	−0.20***
5.宜人性	35.92±5.71	0.32***	0.40***	−0.19***	0.47***
6.开放性	34.07±6.20	0.22***	0.21***	−0.14***	0.39***	0.34***
7.外向性	29.75±6.94	0.21***	0.27***	−0.32***	0.30***	0.30***	0.49***

变量	M±SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1.法律意识	148.62±14.17
2.道德认同	41.29±5.42	0.51***
3.神经质	26.73±8.21	−0.18***	−0.15***
4.尽责性	34.58±5.80	0.33***	0.37***	−0.20***
5.宜人性	35.92±5.71	0.32***	0.40***	−0.19***	0.47***
6.开放性	34.07±6.20	0.22***	0.21***	−0.14***	0.39***	0.34***
7.外向性	29.75±6.94	0.21***	0.27***	−0.32***	0.30***	0.30***	0.49***

人格	男(M±SD)	女(M±SD)	t	Cohen’ sd
神经质	26.36±8.03	26.92±8.29	−1.41	−0.07
尽责性	34.13±5.93	34.80±5.73	−2.32*	−0.11
宜人性	34.91±5.82	36.41±5.59	−5.32***	−0.26
开放性	34.18±6.26	34.02±6.17	0.53	0.03
外向性	29.45±7.37	29.90±6.72	−1.33	−0.06

人格	男(M±SD)	女(M±SD)	t	Cohen’ sd
神经质	26.36±8.03	26.92±8.29	−1.41	−0.07
尽责性	34.13±5.93	34.80±5.73	−2.32*	−0.11
宜人性	34.91±5.82	36.41±5.59	−5.32***	−0.26
开放性	34.18±6.26	34.02±6.17	0.53	0.03
外向性	29.45±7.37	29.90±6.72	−1.33	−0.06

自变量		因变量(道德认同)
调节模型		β	SE	t
M1	性别	0.12	0.04	2.70**
	年龄	0.02	0.01	1.76
	神经质	−0.06	0.02	−2.83**
	法律意识	0.50	0.02	24.49***
	神经质×法律意识	−0.01	0.02	−0.32
		ΔR²=0.01
M2	性别	0.10	0.04	2.36*
	年龄	0.02	0.01	1.42
	尽责性	0.23	0.02	11.34***
	法律意识	0.42	0.02	20.30***
	尽责性×法律意识	−0.06	0.02	−3.54***
		ΔR²=0.01
M3	性别	0.06	0.04	1.48
	年龄	0.02	0.01	1.52
	宜人性	0.25	0.20	12.61***
	法律意识	0.42	0.20	20.75***
	宜人性×法律意识	−0.05	0.02	−2.76**
		ΔR²=0.01
M4	性别	0.12	0.04	2.75**
	年龄	0.03	0.01	2.36*
	开放性	0.11	0.02	5.45***
	法律意识	0.48	0.02	23.57***
	开放性×法律意识	0.01	0.02	0.45
		ΔR²=0.01
M5	性别	0.11	0.04	2.54*
	年龄	0.02	0.01	1.71
	外向性	0.17	0.02	8.27***
	法律意识	0.47	0.02	23.31***
	外向性×法律意识	−0.01	0.02	−0.25
		ΔR²=0.01