| Literature DB >> 36012051 |
Qingji Zhang1, Yue Zhou2,3, Ziyuan Chen4, Yanhui Xiang2,3.
Abstract
Although moral disgust is one of the most important moral emotions, there is limited evidence about the antecedents of it in China. This paper aimed to discuss the linkage between childhood maltreatment and moral disgust, and investigated the specific mechanism between these two variables from the perspective of emotional development and moral development, respectively, based on the Tripartite Model. By combining random sampling and cluster sampling, this study recruited 968 participants from college. Then, childhood maltreatment, moral disgust, emotional intelligence, and empathy were measured separately by using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), Moral Disgust Scale (MD), Wong Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS), and Interpersonal Reactivity Index-C (IRI). Additionally, the results of the mediation model analysis show that childhood maltreatment is negatively predictable of moral disgust. In addition, the mechanism by which childhood maltreatment influences moral disgust could be explained by the effect of emotional intelligence on empathy. To sum up, this study explored and explained the specific mechanism between childhood maltreatment and moral disgust, replenishing previous achievements and providing support for the design of intervention on moral disgust by improving emotional intelligence and empathy.Entities:
Keywords: childhood maltreatment; emotional intelligence; empathy; moral disgust; structural equation model
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36012051 PMCID: PMC9407801 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610411
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for all measures.
| M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.CTQ | 36.02 | 9.11 | 1.000 | |||
| 2.WLEIS | 80.37 | 12.20 | −0.198 *** | 1.000 | ||
| 3.IRI | 41.06 | 4.50 | −0.065 ** | −0.213 *** | 1.000 | |
| 4.MD | 53.75 | 10.12 | −0.133 *** | 0.154 *** | 0.185 *** | 1.000 |
Note. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Fit indices of Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3.
| χ2 | df | CFI | RMSEA | SRMR | AIC | ECVI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 483.565 | 71 | 0.856 | 0.078 | 0.067 | 551.565 | 0.570 |
| Model 2 | 485.724 | 73 | 0.856 | 0.076 | 0.067 | 549.724 | 0.568 |
| Model 3 | 344.258 | 71 | 0.905 | 0.063 | 0.058 | 412.258 | 0.426 |
Note. CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual; AIC, Akaike information criterion; ECVI, expected cross-validation index.
Figure 1The standardized mediation model.
Standardized indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals.
| Pathways | Estimate | Lower | Upper |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTQ→WLEIS→IRI | −0.129 | −0.091 | −0.031 |
| WLEIS→IRI→MD | 0.133 | 0.069 | 0.231 |
| CTQ→WLEIS→IRI→MD | −0.078 | −0.138 | −0.041 |