Aim was to develop a valid and reliable instrument for PIED use in occupational

environments that not only reflects the multidimensional nature of moral disengagement

but can also inform appropriate public health initiatives

Davis, Paul

Johansen, Michael

Leyland, Sandra

Ling, Jonathan

Sunderland University Institutional Repository

Joha n s e n,  Mich a el,  Leylan d,  S a n d r a ,  Davis,  Pa ul  a n d  Ling,  Jona t h a n  (202 3)  A sc al e  to  m e a s u r e  m o r al  di s e n g a g e m e n t  for  occ u p a tion al  g ain s:  a  sc al e  for  t h e  u s e  in  illicit  d r u g  p u blic  h e al t h  ini ti a tive s  for  voca tion al  pop ula tions .  In:  Socie ty  for  Social M e dicine  a n d  Popula tion  H e al t h  Annu al Confe r e nc e  2 0 2 3,  6-8  S e p  2 0 2 3,  N e w c a s tle  u po n  Tyne.  (In P r e s s) Downloa d e d  fro m: h t t p://su r e . s u n d e rl a n d. ac.uk/id/e p rin t /16 5 2 9/U s a g e  g u i d e l i n e sPle a s e  r ef e r  to  t h e  u s a g e  g uid elines  a t  h t t p://su r e . s u n d e rl a n d. ac.uk/policies.h t ml  o r  al t e r n a tively  con t ac t  s u r e@s u n d e rl a n d. ac.uk.1. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Kurtines, W. M., & Gewirtz, J. L. (Editors). Handbook of moral behaviour anddevelopment: Theory, research and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (pp. 71-129.). Hillsdale, NJ.2. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 71 (2): 364-3743. Boardley, I., & Kavussanu, M. (2007). Development and validation of the moral disengagement in sport scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29: 608-6284. Kavussanu, M., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Elbe, A., & Ring, C. (2016). The moral disengagement in doping scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 24: 188-1985. Ring, C., & Hurst, P. (2019). The effect of moral disengagement mechanisms on doping likelihood are mediated by guilt and moderated by moral traits.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 40: 33-416. Worthington, R., & Whittaker, T. (2006). Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Journal of CounselingPsychology, 34 (6): 806-8387. Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizationalbehaviour. Personnel Psychology, 65 (1): 1- 488. Portney, L., & Watkins, M. (2007). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.ReferencesIntroduction• The Moral Disengagement for Occupational Gains Scale demonstratedpsychometric properties supporting use as a valid and reliable measure ofmoral disengagement for use in public health to support population levelevidence-based initiatives and manage drug misuse at work.A scale to measure moral disengagement for occupational gains: a scale for the use in illicit drug public health initiatives for vocational populations1Johansen, M., 2Leyland, S., 2Davis, P., & 2Ling, J.1Gateshead Council, HDRC, Public Health, United Kingdom2University of Sunderland, Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, United Kingdom.• Illicit drug use in the UK working age population has been deemed aneconomic and public health problem• There is now evidence that illicit drugs used by employees are expandingat populational health level and Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs(PIEDs) are being used by vocational occupations (E.g., Military, policeetc.).• Despite risks to health and moral standing, there is limited evidence ofPIEDs enhancing occupational performance in workplace settings.• Moral Disengagement can explain the mechanisms that perpetuate thistype of workplace misconduct.Aim was to develop a valid and reliable instrument for PIED use inoccupational environments that not only reflects the multidimensional natureof moral disengagement but can also inform appropriate public healthinitiatives.MethodsResultsDiscussionFigure 1. Bandura’s (1991) Social Cognitive Theory of MoralThought and Action1Moral disengagement mechanism α Index of measurement errorN of itemsMoral disengagement (items 01-04) .832 0.32 4Advantageous comparison (items 09-12) .893 0.21 4Diffusion of responsibility (items 15-17) .802 0.32 3Euphemistic labelling (items 05-08) .779 0.41 4Displacement of responsibility (items 13-14) .596 0.36 2Distortion of consequences (items 18-20) .891 0.21 3Note the sample size (n = 84) and Cronbach alpha is denoted by the α symbol. Indexof measurement error was calculated by squaring the correlation and subtracting from1.00.Table 1. Item analysis summaryQuestionnaire items were selected from validated scales2-5 and used a 7-pointLikert scale. Recruitment used snowball sampling (n = 84) and resulting in 10occupations being involved. Data analysis used IBM SPSS (v26.0).Research aim• Scale analysis resulted in 2 items removed and another 4 items removeddue to cross loadings above .15 threshold6. Moral Disengagement forOccupational Gains Scale concluded with 14 items.• Validation of scale with The Propensity to morally disengage scale7 usingPearson’s Product-Moment correlation indicated an ‘excellent’8 rating (r =.462, n = 84, p =.0025).• Independent t-test analysis confirmed that total scores did notsignificantly differ between scales for PIED users and Non-PIED usersbut did for Moral Disengagement for Occupational Gains Scale (t(80) =4.844, p = .000006, 95% CI [.73, 1.75]).Item analysis • Corrected Item-Total Correlationscores assessed for correlations• Cronbach's AlphaPrincipal Component analysis• Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy• Bartlett's test of sphericity• Data extraction via scree plot analysis (Eigenvalues)• Direct Oblimin oblique rotation Stage 1: Scale development Stage 2: Scale validation Validity testing• Pearson’s Product-Moment correlation• Independent t-test• Power analysis using G*Power (Release 3.1.9.6)A scale to measure moral disengagement for occupational gains: a scale for the use in illicit drug public health initiatives for vocational populations1Johansen, M., 2Leyland, S., 2Davis, P., & 2Ling, J.  1 Gateshead Council, HDRC, Public Health, United Kingdom2 University of Sunderland, Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, United Kingdom.• Illicit drug use in the UK working age population has been deemed an economic and public health problem• There is now evidence that illicit drugs used by employees are expanding at populational health level and Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs (PIEDs) are being used by vocational occupations (E.g., Military, police etc.). • Despite risks to health and moral standing, there is limited evidence of PIEDs enhancing occupational performance in workplace settings.• Moral Disengagement can explain the mechanisms that perpetuate this type of workplace misconduct. 1. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Kurtines, W. M., & G wirtz, J. L. (Editors). Handb ok f m al behaviour and development: Theory, research and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (pp. 71-129.). Hillsdale, NJ.2. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2): 364- 743. Boardley, I., & Kavussanu, M. (2007). Development and validation of the moral disengagement in sport scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29: 608-6284. Kavussanu, M., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Elbe, A., & Ring, C. (2016). The moral disengagement in doping scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 24: 188-1985. Ring, C., & Hurst, P. (2019). The effect of moral disengagement mechanisms on doping likelihood are mediated by guilt and moderated by moral traits. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 40: 33-416. Worthington, R., & Whittaker, T. (2006). Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34 (6): 806-8387. Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizational behaviour. Personnel Psychology, 65 (1): 1- 488. Portney, L., & Watkins, M. (2007). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Referenc sIntroductionFigure 1. Bandura’s (1991) Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action1Aim was to develop a valid and reliable instrument for PIED use in occupational environments that not only reflects the multidimensional nature of moral disengagement but can also inform appropriate public health initiatives.Research aimQuestionnaire items were selected from validated scales2-5 and used a 7-point Likert scale. Recruitment used snowball sampling (n = 84) and resulting in 10 occupations being involved. Data analysis used IBM SPSS (v26.0).Methods1. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Kurtines, W. M., & Gewirtz, J. L. (Editors). Handbook of moral behaviour anddevelopment: Theory, research and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (pp. 71-129.). Hillsdale, NJ.2. Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastor lli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of Moral Dis ngagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Per onalityand Social Psychology, 71 (2): 364- 743. Boardley, I., & Kavussanu M. ( 7). Dev lopment and validation of the moral diseng gem nt in sport scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psych logy, 29: 608-6 84. Kavussanu, M. Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Elbe, A., & Ring, C. (2016). The moral disengagem nt in doping scale. Psychology of Sport Ex rcise, 24: 188-1985. Ring, C., & Hurst, P. (2019). The effect of moral disengagement mechanisms on doping likelihood are mediated by guilt and moderated by moral traits.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 40: 33-416. Worthington, R., & Whitt ker, T. (2006). Scale develop ent research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Journal f CounselingPsychology, 34 (6): 806-8387. Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizationalbehaviour. Personnel Psychology, 65 (1): 1- 488. Portney, L., & Watkins, M. (2007). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.ReferencesIntroduction• The Moral Disengagement for Occupational Gains Scale demonstratedpsychometric properties supporting use as a valid and reliable measure ofmoral disengagement for use in public health to support population levelevidence-based initiatives and manage drug misuse at work.A scale to measure moral disengagement for occupational gains: a scale for the use in illicit drug public health initiatives for vocational populations1Johansen, M., 2Leyland, S., 2Davis, P., & 2Ling, J.1Gateshea  Council, HDRC, Public Health, United Kingdom2University of Sunderland, Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, United Kingdom.• Illicit drug use in the UK working age population has been deemed aneconomic and public health problem• There is now evidence that illicit drugs used by employees are expandingat populational health level and Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs(PIEDs) are being used by vocational occupations (E.g., Military, policeetc.).• Despite risks to health and moral standing, there is limited evidence ofPIEDs enhancing occupational performance in workplace settings.• Moral Disengagement can explain the mechanisms that perpetuate thistype of workplace misconduct.Aim was to develop a valid d reliable instrument for PIED use inoccupational environments that not only reflects the multidimensional natureof moral dise gagem nt but can also inform appropriate public h althinitiatives.MethodsResultsDiscussionFigure 1. Bandura’s (1991) Social Cognitive Theory of MoralThought and Action1Moral disengagement mechanism α Index of measurement errorN of itemsMoral disengage ent (items 01-04) .832 0.32 4Advantageous comparison (items 09-12) .893 0.21 4Diffusion of respo sibility (items 15-17) .802 0.32 3Euphemistic labelling (items 05-08) .779 0.41 4Displacement of responsibility (items 13-14) .596 0.36 2Distortion of consequences (items 18-20) .891 0.21 3Note the sample size (n = 84) and Cronbach alpha is denoted by the α symbol. Indexof measurement error was calculated by squaring the correlation and subtracting from1.00.Table 1. Item analysis summaryQuestionnaire items wer selected from validated scales2-5 and used a 7-pointLikert scale. Recruitment used snowball sampling (n = 84) and resulting in 10occupations b ing involv d. Data analysis used IBM SPSS (v26.0).Research aim• S ale analysis re ulted in 2 items removed and another 4 items removeddue o cross loadings above .15 hreshold6. Moral Dis ng gement forOccupational Gains Scale nc uded with 14 items.• Validation of scale with The Propensity to morally disengage scale7 usingP arson’s Product-Moment correlation indic ted an ‘ex ell nt’8 rating (r =.462, n = 84, p =.0025).• Independent t-test analysis c nfirmed that total scores did notsignificantly differ between scales for PIED users and Non-PIED usersbut did for Moral Disengagement for Occupational Gains Scale (t(80) =4.844, p = .000006, 95% CI [.73, 1.75]).Item analysis • Corrected Item-Total Correlationscores assessed for correlations• Cronbach's AlphaPrincipal Component analysis• Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy• Bartlett's test of sphericity• Data extraction via scree plot analysis (Eigenvalues)• Direct Oblimin oblique rotation Stage 1: Scale development Stage 2: Scale validation Validity testing• Pearson’s Product-Moment correlation• Independent t-test• Power analysis using G*Power (Release 3.1.9.6)The Moral Disengagement for Occupational Gains Scale demonstrated psychometric properties supporting use as a valid and reliable measure of moral disengagement for use in public health to support population level evidence-based initiatives and manage drug misus  at work.Discussion• Scale analysis resulted in 2 items removed and another 4 items removed due  to cross loadings above .15 threshold6. Moral Disengagement for Occupational Gains Scale concluded with 14 items.• Validation f scale with The Propensity to morally disengage scale7 using Pearson’s Product-Moment correlation indicated an ‘excellent’8 rating (r = .462, n = 84, p =.0025). • Independe t t-test analysis confirmed that total score  did not significantly differ between scales for PIED us rs a d Non-PIED users but did for Moral Disengagement for Occupational Gains Scale (t(80) = 4.844, p = .000006,  95% CI [.73, 1.75]). Results1. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of oral thought and action. In Kurtines, W. M., & Gewirtz, J. L. (Editors). Handbook of moral behaviour anddevelopment: Theory, resear h and applica ions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associa es (pp. 71-129.). Hillsdale, NJ.2. Ban ra, A., Barbaranelli C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechani ms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of M ral Agency. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 71 (2): 364-3743. Boardley, I., & Kavussanu, M. (2007). Development and validation of the moral disengagement in sport scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29: 608-6284. Kavussanu, M., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Elbe, A., & Ring, C. (2016). The moral disengagement in doping scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 24: 188-1985. Ring, C., & Hurst, P. (2019). The effect of moral disengagement mechanisms o doping likelih od are mediate by uilt and mo erated by moral traits.Psychol gy of Sp rt and Exercise, 40: 33-46. Worthington, R., & Whittaker, T. (2006). Scale development research: a content analysis and recomm ndations for best pr ctices. The Journal of Counselingsych logy, 34 (6): 806-8387. Moore, C., Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., Baker, V., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). Why employees do bad things: moral disengagement and unethical organizationalbehaviour. Personnel Psychology, 65 (1): 1- 488. Portney, L., & Watkins, M. (2007). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.ReferencesIntrod cti n• The Moral Disengagement for Occupati nal Gains Scale demonstratedpsychometric properties upporting us as a valid and reliable measure ofmoral disenga t for use in public health to support po ulati n levelevidence-based initiatives n manage drug misuse at work.A scale to measure m ral disengagement for occupational gains: a scale for the use in illicit drug public healt  initiatives for vocat onal populations1Johansen  M., 2Leyland, ., 2Davis, P., & 2Ling, J.1Gateshead Council, HDRC, Public Health, United Kingdom2University of Sunderland, Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, United Kingdom.• Illicit drug use in the UK working a e population has b en deemed anecon mic and public ealth problem• There is now ev dence that illicit drugs used by employees are expandingat populational health level and Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs(PIEDs) are being used by vocational occupations (E.g., Military, policeetc.).• Despite risks to health and mor l s anding, there i limited evidence ofPIEDs enhancing occupational performance in workplace settings.• Moral Disengagement can explain the mechanisms that perpetuate thistype of workplace misconduct.i t velop a valid and reliable instrument for PIED us inti l viron ents that not only reflects the multidimensional naturel i n age ent but can also inform ap ropriate public healthi .ethodsResultsDiscussiFigure 1. Bandura’s (1991) Social Cognitive Theory of MoralThought and Action1Moral disengagement mechanism α Index of measurement errorN of itemsMoral disengagement (items 01-04) .832 0.32 4Advantageous comparison (items 09-12) .893 0.21 4Diffusion of responsibility (items 15-17) .802 0.32 3Euphemistic labelling (items 05-08) .779 0.41 4Displacement of responsibility (items 13- 4) .596 0.36 2Distortion of consequences (items 18-20) .891 0.21 3Note the sample size (n = 84) and Cronbach alpha is denoted by the α symbol. Indexof measurement erro was calculated by squaring the correlation a d subtracting from1.00.Table 1. Item a alysis ummaryti ir it s ere selec ed from validated scales2-5 and used a 7-pointi rt l . cruit ent used snowball sampling (n = 84) and resulting in 10ti ei g inv lved. Data analysis used IBM SPS (v26.0).esearch ai• Scale analysis resulted in 2 items r moved and another 4 items removeddue to cross lo dings above .15 threshold6. Moral Disengagem nt forOccupational Gains Scal conclude with 14 i ms.• Validation of scale with The Propensity to morally disengage scale7 usingPearso ’s Product-Moment correlation i icated an ‘excellent’8 rating (r =.462, n = 84, p =.0025).• Independent t-test a alysis confirmed that total scores did notsignificantly differ between scales for PIED users and Non-PIED usersbut did for Moral Disengagement for Occupational Gains Scale (t(80) =4.844, p = .000006, 95% CI [.73, 1.75]).Ite  analysis • Corrected Item-Total Correlationscores assessed for correlations• Cronbach's AlphaPrincipal Component analysis• Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy• Bartlett's test of sphericity• Data extraction via scree plot analysis (Eigenvalues)• Direct Oblimin oblique rotation tage 1: cale develop ent Stage 2: Scale validation Validity testing• Pearson’s Product-Moment correlation• Independent t-test• Power analysis using G*Power (Release 3.1.9.6)T ble 1. Ite  analysis summary5477-JH-Aug23

A scale to measure moral disengagement for

occupational gains: a scale for the use in illicit drug

public health initiatives for vocational populations

http://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/id/eprint/16529/1/Johansen%20et%20al%202023%205477-JH-SSM%20Conference%20%20Poster.pdf

A scale to measure moral disengagement for occupational gains: a scale for the use in illicit drug public health initiatives for vocational populations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Sunderland University Institutional Repository