How Everyday Counterfeit Behavior That Disrupts Self Authenticity Might Lead to Corruption Tendencies

Figures & data

Figure 1 Hypothetical model: Study 1 and Study 2.

Abbreviations: CB, counterfeit behavior measured by its tendency; H, hypothesis.

Table 1 Reliability and Validity Indices of Study 1ʹs Instrument

Variable	Total Items (Before; After Validation)	Standardized Cronbach’s Alpha (α)/Internal Consistency Reliability	Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Model Indices/Construct Validity
Guilt-Negative Behavior Evaluation (Guilt-NBE)	4; 4	0.716 (N = 978)	χ^2 = 4.924; df = 2; p = 0.085 SRMR = 0.013 GFI = 0.997 CFI = 0.996
Guilt-Repair (Guilt-REP)	4; 4	0.637 (N = 978)	χ^2 = 3.793; df = 2; p = 0.150 SRMR = 0.015 GFI = 0.998 CFI = 0.996
Shame-Negative Self Evaluation (Shame-NSE)	4; 4	0.697 (N = 978)	χ^2 = 14.371; df = 2; p = 0.000 SRMR = 0.026 GFI = 0.993 CFI = 0.982
Shame-Withdrawal (Shame-WIT)	4; 0 (All items dropped)	0.560 (N = 978)	χ^2 = 8.616; df = 2; p = 0.013 SRMR = 0.023 GFI = 0.996 CFI = 0.979
Moral Disengagement	8; 8	0.737 (N = 978)	χ^2 = 170.337; df = 32; p = 0.000 SRMR = 0.053 GFI = 0.965 CFI = 0.923
Inauthenticity/Counterfeit Self	12; 10 (2 items dropped*)	0.628 (N = 978)	χ^2 = 159.162; df = 20; p = 0.000 SRMR = 0.049 GFI = 0.961 CFI = 0.884

Notes: N = sample size (cf. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5713365).

Table 2 Reliability and Validity Indices of Study 2ʹs Instrument

Variable	Total Items (Before; After Validation)	Standardized Cronbach’s Alpha (α)/Internal Consistency Reliability	Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Model Indices/Construct Validity
Backstabbing	20; 11 (9 items dropped)	0.805 (N = 249)	χ^2 = 107.544; df = 29; p = 0.000 SRMR = 0.079 GFI = 0.924 CFI = 0.898
Plagiarism tendency	22; 15 (7 items dropped)	0.880 (N = 193)	χ^2 = 226.416; df = 101; p = 0.000 SRMR = 0.063 GFI = 0.876 CFI = 0.866
Fake listening	26; 25 (1 item dropped)	0.946 (N = 273)	χ^2 = 799.973; df = 265; p = 0.000 SRMR = 0.060 GFI = 0.811 CFI = 0.877
Religious hypocrisy	25; 13 (12 items dropped)	0.645 (N = 263)	χ^2 = 69.311; df = 34; p = 0.000 SRMR = 0.051 GFI = 0.956 CFI = 0.892

Notes: N = Sample size (cf. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5713365).

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics

	Guilt-NBE	Guilt-REP	Shame-NSE	Moral Disengagement	Inauthenticity	Backstabbing	Plagiarism	Fake Listening	Religious Hypocrisy
N	978	978	978	978	978	249	193	273	263
Mean	5.214	5.305	5.467	2.578	3.268	2.649	3.140	3.163	2.258
Std. Error of Mean	0.038	0.033	0.037	0.026	0.021	0.040	0.062	0.053	0.027
Std. Deviation	1.192	1.030	1.148	0.805	0.643	0.637	0.865	0.872	0.431
Minimum	1.500	1.500	1.000	1.000	1.300	1.000	1.070	1.192	1.230
Maximum	7.000	7.000	7.000	5.750	5.600	4.640	5.200	5.346	4.150

Abbreviations: Guilt-NBE, guilt-negative behavior evaluation; Guilt-REP, guilt-repair; Shame-NSE, shame-negative self evaluation.

Table 4 Pearson Correlation Between Inauthenticity/Counterfeit Self, Moral Disengagement, and Proneness to Various Moral Emotions (N = 978)

		Inauthenticity/Counterfeit Self	Moral Disengagement	Guilt-NBE	Guilt-REP	Shame-NSE
Inauthenticity/ Counterfeit Self	r	—
	p	—
	Upper 95% CI	—
	Lower 95% CI	—
Moral Disengagement	r	0.154***	—
	p	1.356 x 10^−6	—
	Upper 95% CI	0.214	—
	Lower 95% CI	0.092	—
Guilt-NBE	r	0.013	−0.153***	—
	p	0.692	1.481 x 10^−6	—
	Upper 95% CI	0.075	−0.091	—
	Lower 95% CI	−0.05	−0.214	—
Guilt-REP	r	0.042	−0.178***	0.622***	—
	p	0.185	1.941 x 10^−8	1.180 x 10^−105	—
	Upper 95% CI	0.105	−0.117	0.659	—
	Lower 95% CI	−0.02	−0.238	0.582	—
Shame-NSE	r	0.116***	−0.148***	0.676***	0.655***	—
	p	2.770 x 10^−4	3.417 x 10^−6	8.158 x 10^−132	4.429 x 10^−121	—
	Upper 95% CI	0.177	−0.086	0.709	0.69	—
	Lower 95% CI	0.054	−0.209	0.641	0.618	—

Note: ***p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: Guilt-NBE, guilt-negative behavior evaluation; Guilt-REP, guilt-repair; Shame-NSE, shame-negative self evaluation.

Table 5 Mediation Analysis Showing Indirect Prediction of Inauthenticity/Counterfeit Self Towards Proneness to Various Moral Emotions Through Moral Disengagement (N = 978)

					95% Confidence Interval
Mediation Model	Estimate	Std. Error	z	p	Lower	Upper
Inauthenticity/ Counterfeit Self → Moral Disengagement → Guilt-NBE	−0.038	0.011	−3.478	5.047 x 10^−4	−0.059	−0.017
Inauthenticity/ Counterfeit Self → Moral Disengagement → Guilt-REP	−0.045	0.012	−3.770	1.629 x 10^−4	−0.069	−0.022
Inauthenticity/ Counterfeit Self → Moral Disengagement → Shame-NSE	−0.041	0.011	−3.602	3.155 x 10^−4	−0.063	−0.018

Notes: Delta method standard errors, normal theory confidence intervals.

Abbreviations: Guilt-NBE, guilt-negative behavior evaluation; Guilt-REP, guilt-repair; Shame-NSE, shame-negative self evaluation.

Figure 2 Visualization of mediation analysis results predicting moral emotions (N = 978).

Notes: Shame-Withdrawal is eliminated from this model because the Shame-WIT scale is unreliable (Cronbach’s α < 0.600). This is the data analysis output from the free and open-source JASP software.

Abbreviations: INA, inauthenticity/counterfeit self; MOR, moral disengagement (MD); Guilt-N, guilt-negative behavior evaluation (Guilt-NBE); Guilt-R, guilt-repair (Guilt-REP); SHA, shame-negative self evaluation (Shame-NSE)

Table 6 Simple Linear Regressions Predicting Inauthenticity/Counterfeit Self

						95% Confidence Interval		Collinearity Statistics
Predictor	Unstandardized	Standard Error	β	t	p	Lower	Upper	Tolerance	VIF
Backstabbing	0.228	0.060	0.235	3.802	1.808 x 10^−4	0.110	0.346	1.000	1.000
Plagiarism	0.106	0.042	0.182	2.551	0.012	0.024	0.189	1.000	1.000
Fake Listening	0.125	0.036	0.206	3.462	6.224 x 10^−4	0.054	0.196	1.000	1.000
Religious Hypocrisy	0.147	0.070	0.128	2.092	0.037	0.009	0.284	1.000	1.000