Page 14

Table 1 Independent t-test of Fraternity and Non-Fraternity Males Groups

Both

Fraternity

Non-Fraternity

t-Test

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

df

t

p

MD

64.92

15.18

67.97

14.14

63.09

15.55

N2 Score

32.56

14.82

29.73

13.61

34.25

15.30

PI Score

29.01

12.07

30.21

11.24

28.29

HazeInt

2.55

1.13

2.76

1.37

BullyInt

2.32

.94

2.55

IntDiff

.63

2.22

.63

d

198

2.22

.014

.32

198

-2.10

.019

-.31

12.54

198

1.09

.139

.17

2.42

.94

198

2.06

.02

.30

.92

2.19

.93

198

2.62

.005

.39

2.60

.63

1.97

198

-.016

.494

0

Note: N = 200, n (fraternity) = 75, n (non-fraternity) = 125

Table 2 Independent Samples t-test of Fraternity and Non-fraternity Members on the Hazing and BullyingVignettes Group

Hazing Vignette

Bullying Vignette

t-Test

M

SD

M

SD

df

Fraternity

4.32

2.76

3.69

1.82

74

.040

2.089

Non-Fraternity

3.65

1.83

3.02

1.69

124

.000

3.587

and 4). For the fraternity sample, there was a significant correlation between moral disengagement and PI score (r = .246, p < .05), indicating that higher levels of moral disengagement correlated with an increased tendency to use personal interest considerations in making moral judgments. Additionally, moral disengagement positively correlated with differences in intervention response time (r = .238, p < .05) between the two vignettes. Higher levels of moral disengagement for fraternity members were related to larger differences between their intervention time in the hazing and bullying scenarios. These relationships were not significant for the overall sample or the non-fraternity sample. For the non-fraternity sample, intervention in the bullying scenario was positively correlated with moral disengagement (r = .438, p < .01) indicating that higher levels of moral disengagement were related to later interventions in the bullying scenario for non-fraternity members. The relationship between these variables was not statistically

t

p

significant among fraternity members. Path Analysis The researchers tested the path model hypothesizing the direct effects of moral judgment and moral disengagement on hazing attitude (specifically, the difference in intervention response time between the hazing vignette and the bullying vignette), as well as the indirect effects of moral judgment on hazing attitude, as mediated through moral disengagement. In all, three different models were tested using the PI (personal interest) score from the DIT-2 as a measure of moral judgment and are listed in Table 4. Although MN (maintaining norms) was the prevailing schema among the sample, previous research (Carroll, 2009) has found that higher PI scores, particularly among college students, create a scenario in which moral judgment fails to buffer moral disengagement. Similarly, in the present study, PI scores were more highly correlated with moral disengagement than the standard N2

Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Vol. 11, Issue 1 â&#x20AC;˘ Fall 2016 7

Profile for Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors

Oracle: Volume 11, Issue 2, Fall 2016  

Articles include: Bad Apples or Bad Barrels? Moral Disengagement, Social Influence, and the Perpetuation of Hazing in the College Fraternity...

Oracle: Volume 11, Issue 2, Fall 2016  

Articles include: Bad Apples or Bad Barrels? Moral Disengagement, Social Influence, and the Perpetuation of Hazing in the College Fraternity...

Profile for afa1976