Moral Disengagement and Generalized Social Trust as Mediators and Moderators of Rule-Respecting Behaviors During the COVID-19 Outbreak

In this study, we tested a theoretical model with moral disengagement, a mediator, and generalized social trust (GST), a mediator and a moderator of the relationship between personality traits and rule-respecting behaviors (i.e., social distancing and stay-at-home), during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Italy. The data were collected on 1520 participants (61% males). General results are threefold: (1) moral disengagement mediated the relationship between emotional stability, narcissism, psychopathy, and social distancing; (2) among components of GST, trust in Government mediated the relationship between psychopathy and social distancing; trust in known others mediated the relationship between emotional stability, agreeableness, and Machiavellianism with total number of exits; trust in unknown others mediated the relationship of emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and psychopathy with average daily number of exits; (3) GST moderated the indirect effect of personality traits on rule-respecting behaviors through moral disengagement. The theoretical and practical importance of these results is discussed

Moral disengagement and generalized social trust as mediators and moderators of rule-respecting behaviors during the COVID-19 outbreak

In this study, we tested a theoretical model with moral disengagement, a mediator,and generalized social trust (GST), a mediator and a moderator of the relationshipbetween personality traits and rule-respecting behaviors (i.e., social distancing andstay-at-home), during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Italy. Thedata were collected on 1520 participants (61% males). General results are threefold: (1) moral disengagement mediated the relationship between emotional stability, narcissism,psychopathy, and social distancing; (2) among components of GST, trust in Governmentmediated the relationship between psychopathy and social distancing; trust in knownothers mediated the relationship between emotional stability, agreeableness, andMachiavellianism with total number of exits; trust in unknown others mediated therelationship of emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and psychopathywith average daily number of exits; (3) GST moderated the indirect effect of personalitytraits on rule-respecting behaviors through moral disengagement. The theoretical andpractical importance of these results is discussed

О становлении трансплантологии в Украине: юридические аспекты

Рассмотрены основные аспекты развития трансплантологии, их положительное и отрицательное влияние на прогресс пересадки органов в странах с различным уровнем развития демократических принципов. Показано значение юридических проблем в развитии клинической и экспериментальной трансплантологии.Main aspects of transplantology development, their favorable and unfavorable influence on the process of organ transplantation in the countries with different level of democracy are featured. Significance of legal problems in clinical and experimental transplantology is shown

Is It Bad to Be Good? An Exploration of Aggressive and Prosocial Behavior Subtypes in Adolescence

Research in aggressive behavior development has distinguished between proactive (i.e., intended to achieve an instrumental goal) and reactive (i.e., emitted as an emotional response to provocation) subtypes of aggression. A similar distinction has not been made with regard to prosocial behavior. In this study, subtypes of both aggressive and prosocial behavior and their relation to aggression-supporting social cognitions were examined in a sample of 250 early and middle adolescents. Adolescents completed behavior rating scales and a measure of their beliefs about the acceptability of responding aggressively. Principal components analysis identified 3 subtypes of aggressive and prosocial behavior: aggressive, prosocial, and proactive prosocial. Proactive prosocial behavior was positively correlated with aggression and aggression-supporting beliefs, while other prosocial behavior was negatively correlated with these constructs. Findings are discussed in the context of aggressive behavior development and with regard to traditional views of prosocial behavior as altruistic.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45296/1/10964_2004_Article_478822.pd

Early Adolescents\u27 Conceptions of Parental and Friend Authority Over Relational Aggression

The purpose of the present research is to compare early adolescents\u27 beliefs about parental and friend jurisdiction over relational aggression to their beliefs about parental and friend jurisdiction over physical aggression and personal behaviors. One hundred three adolescents (̄X age = 12 years, 11 months; SD = 12.46 months) are individually interviewed and asked to evaluate the acceptability of parents and friends negating their physically aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting), relationally aggressive behaviors (e.g., gossiping), and personally aggressive behaviors (e.g., changing hairstyles). They are also asked to justify their responses. Results highlight the complexity in adolescents\u27 thinking about these issues. For example, adolescents believe that parental jurisdiction is more acceptable over physical aggression as compared to relational aggression. However, adolescents do not make this distinction with regard to friend jurisdiction. When justifying their responses for relational aggression, adolescents cite social conventions, personal choice, and relationship maintenance reasons

Mothers\u27 and Teachers\u27 Home and School Rules: Young Children\u27s Conceptions of Authority in Context

Samples of 95 preschoolers, first graders, and third graders responded to questions whereby one authority (mother or teacher) permitted an act (moral or conventional) to occur across contexts (home and school) and the other authority prohibited the act from occurring across contexts. Participants (a) were asked which authority the child should acquiesce to and whether an authority has the right to permit and prohibit the acts across contexts and (b) ranked and rated the seriousness of the acts. The results revealed that children\u27s evaluations were a function of three interrelated factors: the authorities\u27 status, the context, and the domain of the act. Age differences in children\u27s judgments and justifications are discussed

Adolescents\u27 Social Reasoning About Relational Aggression

We examined early adolescents\u27 reasoning about relational aggression, and the links that their reasoning has to their own relationally aggressive behavior. Thinking about relational aggression was compared to thinking about physical aggression, conventional violations, and personal behavior. In individual interviews, adolescents (N = 103) rated the acceptability of relational aggression, physical aggression, conventional violations, and personal behavior, and justified their ratings. Results indicated that adolescents\u27 views about relational aggression are complex. Although gossip was viewed as very wrong (comparable to beliefs about physical aggression), exclusion was perceived to be somewhat acceptable (less wrong than conventional violations, but more wrong than personal behaviors). With regard to associations between beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior, the results indicated that beliefs about gossip were associated with gossiping behavior, and that beliefs about physical aggression were associated with physically aggressive behavior. No links emerged between beliefs about exclusion and exclusionary behavior. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed within the frameworks of social domain theory and social information processing models of aggressive behavior

Adolescents\u27 Outcome Expectancies About Relational Aggression Within Acquaintanceships, Friendships, and Dating Relationships

Adolescents\u27 (N = 292) relational aggression and outcome expectancies for relational aggression in three different relationship contexts (acquaintanceship, friendship, and dating) were assessed. With respect to each type of relationship, adolescents were questioned about the emotional and dyadic consequences of relational aggression, and about whether the victim of relational aggression would retaliate. It was also of interest to assess whether adolescents\u27 personal involvement in relational aggression was associated with these judgments. The results suggest that adolescents\u27 involvement in relational aggression and outcome expectancies for relational aggression often varies by gender, age, relationship context, and type of relational aggression. Additionally, in several instances, adolescents\u27 personal involvement in relational aggression was associated with outcome expectancies for relational aggression. For example, after gender and age had been accounted for, participants\u27 own relational aggression predicted beliefs about whether the victim of relational aggression would want to continue a friendship and a dating relationship. Implications of the results and future directions for research are discussed

Children\u27s Judgements About Common Classroom Punishments

The present study examines children\u27s thinking about common classroom punishments. Participants (45 third- and fifth-grade students) were asked questions pertaining to the frequency and effectiveness of teacher-executed punishments for two types of classroom misbehaviours. One misbehaviour was a moral infraction (stealing), and the other misbehaviour was a conventional transgression (chewing gum in the classroom). Two types of punishments were measured: presentation (presenting child with unpleasant stimuli) and removal (removing pleasant stimuli or taking away a privilege). Results indicate that children perceived presentation punishments, as compared to removal punishments, as occurring more often. Additionally, children rated presentation punishments as being more effective than removal punishments. Children also differed in their judgements about removal punishments depending on whether the invoking behaviour was moral or conventional. For example, children believed removal punishments were more effective in light of a moral violation, as compared to a conventional transgression. Applied and theoretical implications are discussed