Indirect Effects of Executive Planning Functions and Affectivity on the Work Ethic of University Students

TL;DR

This study explores how cognitive and emotional factors indirectly influence university students' work ethic through moral reasoning and intuition.

Contribution

The novel contribution is identifying indirect pathways of executive planning and affectivity on work ethic via moral reasoning and intuition in university students.

Findings

Moral reasoning and moral intuition strongly directly influence work ethic (β = 0.47 and β = 0.85, respectively).

Executive planning functions and affectivity indirectly affect work ethic through moral reasoning and intuition (β = 0.06 and β = 0.46).

The model explains 98% of the variance in work ethic, emphasizing the role of psychological mechanisms.

Abstract

Work ethic represents a key factor for professional performance, as it guides behaviors relevant to the transparency and quality of work practices. Although a wide field of study has been developed, less research has analyzed the indirect influence of affective and cognitive factors involved in work ethic. Therefore, this study aims to assess the indirect effects of executive planning functions and affectivity on the work ethic of Chilean university students. The purpose is to test the following hypotheses: (1) executive planning functions have an indirect effect on work ethic through moral reasoning; (2) affectivity has an indirect effect on work ethic through moral intuition. The participants were a total of 582 Chilean university students from a university in the north (38.5%), one in the center (35.9%), and one in the southern area (25.6%). The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, structural equation models (SEMs), and SEM mediation analysis. The results show the direct effect of moral reasoning (β = 0.47, p < .01) and moral intuition (β = 0.85, p < .01) on work ethic. Furthermore, they support the indirect effect of executive planning functions (β = 0.06, p < .01) and affectivity (β = 0.46, p < .01) on work ethic. The model explains 98% of the variance of work ethic, highlighting the critical roles of moral reasoning and moral intuition as psychological mechanisms that intervene and drive the effect of cognitive and affective factors. Theoretical and practical implications for teaching–learning processes in higher education are discussed.

Figures