道德推脱对大学生网络攻击行为的影响：一个有调节的中介模型
Effects of Moral Disengagement on College Students’ Aggressive Behavior Online: A Moderated Mediation Model
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2022.1211453, PDF,   
作者: 唐 诗, 张荣华：武汉大学发展与教育心理学研究所，湖北 武汉
关键词: 道德推脱；网络攻击行为；道德认同；Moral Disengagement； Online Aggressive； Moral Identity
摘要: 目的：探讨道德推脱对大学生网络攻击行为的影响机制。方法：采用道德推脱问卷、道德认同问卷以及网络攻击问卷对322名大学生进行调查。结果：1) 道德推脱能显著正向预测网络攻击行为，道德认同显著负向预测网络攻击行为；2) 道德认同在道德推脱对大学生网络攻击的影响中起了部分中介作用；3) 性别调节了道德推脱通过道德认同影响大学生网络攻击这一中介过程的直接路径和后半路径。结论：道德认同在道德推脱和网络攻击行为之间起中介作用，而这一中介作用又受到性别的进一步调节。因此，道德推脱对大学生网络攻击行为的影响是一个有调节的中介模型。
Abstract: The aim of this study is to investigate the mechanism between moral disengagement and online aggressive behavior in college students. Methods: A sample of 322 college students was recruited in the study to complete moral disengagement scale, moral identity scale and online aggressive behavior scale. Results: 1) Moral disengagement was positively correlated with online aggressive behavior, and moral identity was negatively correlated with online aggressive behavior; 2) Moral identity partly mediated the effect of moral disengagement on online aggressive behavior; 3) Gender moderated the mediating effect of moral identity between moral disengagement and online aggressive behavior and also moderated the effect between moral identity and online aggressive behavior in college student. Conclusion: The effect of moral disengagement on online aggressive behavior is mediated by moral identity, which is further moderated by gender. Therefore, the effect of moral disengagement on college students' aggressive behavior online is a moderated mediation model.
文章引用：唐诗, 张荣华 (2022). 道德推脱对大学生网络攻击行为的影响：一个有调节的中介模型. 心理学进展, 12(11), 3740-3748. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2022.1211453

参考文献

[1] 冯莹莹, 程淑华(2022). 大学生特质愤怒与网络偏差行为的关系: 道德推脱的中介作用和道德认同的调节作用. 内江师范学院学报, 37(6), 28-34.
[2] 胡阳, 范翠英, 张凤娟, 谢笑春, 郝恩河(2014). 青少年网络受欺负与抑郁: 压力感与网络社会支持的作用. 心理发展与教育, (2), 177-184.
[3] 金童林(2018). 暴力暴露对大学生网络攻击行为的影响: 反刍思维与网络道德的作用. 硕士学位论文, 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨师范大学.
[4] 金童林, 陆桂芝, 张璐, 乌云特娜, 金祥忠(2018). 暴力环境接触对大学生网络攻击行为的影响: 反刍思维与网络道德的作用. 心理学报, 50(9), 1051-1060.
[5] 梁含雨, 蒋怀滨, 庹安写(2022). 线下受欺负到网络攻击: 相对剥夺感和愤怒反刍的作用. 中国健康心理学杂志, 10, 1-11.
[6] 刘勤学, 陈武, 周宗奎(2015). 大学生网络使用与网络利他行为: 网络使用自我效能和性别的作用. 心理发展与教育, 31(6), 48-56.
[7] 倪林英(2005). 大学生攻击行为及其影响因素的研究. 硕士学位论文, 南昌: 江西师范大学.
[8] 孙丽君, 杜红芹, 牛更枫, 李俊一, 胡祥恩(2017). 心理虐待与忽视对青少年攻击行为的影响: 道德推脱的中介与调节作用. 心理发展与教育, 33(1), 65-75.
[9] 王兴超, 杨继平(2010). 中文版道德推脱问卷的信效度研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 18(2), 177-179.
[10] 王兴超, 杨继平(2013). 道德推脱与大学生亲社会行为: 道德认同的调节效应. 心理科学, (4), 904-909.
[11] 温忠麟, 叶宝娟(2014). 有调节的中介模型检验方法: 竞争还是替补. 心理学报, 46(5), 714-726.
[12] 杨继平, 王兴超(2012). 道德推脱对青少年攻击行为的影响: 有调节的中介效应. 心理学报, 44(8), 1075-1085.
[13] 杨继平, 王兴超(2013). 青少年道德推脱与攻击行为: 道德判断调节作用的性别差异. 心理发展与教育, 29(4), 361-367.
[14] 杨继平, 王兴超, 高玲(2015). 道德推脱对大学生网络偏差行为的影响: 道德认同的调节作用. 心理发展与教育, 31(3), 311-318.
[15] 杨继平, 王兴超, 陆丽君, 张力维(2010). 道德推脱与大学生学术欺骗行为的关系研究. 心理发展与教育, 26(4), 364-370.
[16] 赵锋, 高文斌(2012). 少年网络攻击行为评定量表的编制及信效度检验. 中国心理卫生杂志, 26(6), 439-444.
[17] 郑清, 叶宝娟, 叶理丛, 郭少阳, 廖雅琼, 刘明矾(2016). 道德推脱对大学生网络攻击的影响: 道德认同的中介作用与性别的调节作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 24(4), 714-716.
[18] 周浩, 龙立荣(2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-950.
[19] 朱晓伟, 周宗奎, 褚晓伟, 雷玉菊, 范翠英(2019). 从受欺负到网上欺负他人: 有调节的中介模型. 中国临床心理学杂志, 27(3), 492-496.
[20] Aquino, K., & Reed, A. I. (2002). The Self-Importance of Moral Identity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 1423-1440.[CrossRef] 
[21] Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A. II, Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a Social-Cognitive Model of Moral Behavior: The Interactive Influence of Situations and Moral Identity Centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 123-141.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 12, 169-171.[CrossRef] 
[23] Bandura, A. (1999). Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 3, 193-209.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Barriga, A. Q. et al. (2001). Moral Cognition: Explaining the Gender Difference in Antisocial Behavior. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 47, 532-562.[CrossRef] 
[25] Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging Moral Cognition and Moral Action: A Critical Review of the Literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1-45.[CrossRef] 
[26] Caprara, G. V. et al. (2009). Assessing Civic Moral Disengagement: Dimensionality and Construct Validity. Personality & Individual Differences, 47, 504-509.[CrossRef] 
[27] Chen, Q. Q. et al. (2018). Family Poly-Victimization and Cyberbullying among Adolescents in a Chinese School Sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 77, 180-187.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[28] Chu, X. W. et al. (2018). Cyberbullying Victimization and Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety among Chinese Adolescents: Examining Hopelessness as a Mediator and Self-Compassion as a Moderator. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 377-386.[CrossRef] 
[29] Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51, 335-337.[CrossRef] 
[30] Hayes, A. (2015). An Index and Test of Linear Moderated Mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1-22.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31] Kim, S. et al. (2018). Cyberbullying Victimization and Adolescent Mental Health: Evidence of Differential Effects by Sex and Mental Health Problem Type. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 661-672.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[32] Mulder, L. B., & Aquino, K. (2013). The Role of Moral Identity in the Aftermath of Dishonesty. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 121, 219-230.[CrossRef] 
[33] Orue, I., & Calvete, E. (2019). Psychopathic Traits and Moral Disengagement Interact to Predict Bullying and Cyberbullying among Adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 2313-2332.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34] Wang, X. C. et al (2019). Childhood Maltreatment, Moral Disengagement, and Adolescents’ Cyberbullying Perpetration: Fathers’ and Mothers’ Moral Disengagement as Moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 48-57.[CrossRef] 
[35] Wang, X. C. et al. (2016). Moderating Effects of Moral Reasoning and Gender on the Relation between Moral Disengagement and Cyberbullying in Adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 244-249.[CrossRef]