Integrity, Generativity and Values: An Examination of the Integrity Scale

Patrick L. Hill, Jessica A. Jimenez, Laura Nawrocki, & Daniel K. LapsleyUniversity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN

Abstract

The Integrity Scale purports to measure a character strength that reflects “steadfast commitment to ethical principles.” We examined its psychometric properties and predictive validity in a sample of 355 adults. Results indicate a reliable (α = .83) single-factor measure. Integrity was a significant predictor of generativity, psychological well-being (personal growth, purpose in life), spirituality and community volunteering, but not satisfaction with life. We discuss the contribution of integrity to eudaimonia and the promise of the Integrity Scale for research in moral psychology.

Predictions

H1: A factor analysis of the Integrity Scale should demonstrate a single, reliable factor.

H2: Integrity scores should positively correlate with psychological well-being

H3: Integrity scores should be related to greater spirituality and community service.

H4: Integrity should not be correlated with one’s satisfaction with life.

Background

Recently, Schlenker (2006) has developed an integrity scale that has shown promising convergent and discriminant validity. It has been previously shown to predict prosocial and antisocial actions, including empathy, volunteering, lying, and cheating. Interestingly, past results suggest that integrity may be unrelated to one’s satisfaction with life. The current study evaluated whether the integrity scale could predict positive psychological outcomes in a sample of mid-life adults. Given the importance of integrity in moral psychology research, finding a reliable measure of integrity would prove very beneficial for future work.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

Correlational AnalysesCorrelations

1 .062 .243** .147** .257** .155** .357**

.256 .000 .008 .000 .007 .000

355 334 324 325 336 296 350

.062 1 .288** .585** .402** .147* .389**

.256 .000 .000 .000 .011 .000

334 342 330 330 324 302 337

.243** .288** 1 .578** .527** .264** .348**

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

324 330 331 323 314 294 327

.147** .585** .578** 1 .565** .254** .395**

.008 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

325 330 323 331 313 292 326

.257** .402** .527** .565** 1 .462** .452**

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

336 324 314 313 359 288 353

.155** .147* .264** .254** .462** 1 .303**

.007 .011 .000 .000 .000 .000

296 302 294 292 288 302 298

.357** .389** .348** .395** .452** .303** 1

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

350 337 327 326 353 298 383

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Integrity

Sat w/ Life

Personal Growth

Purpose in Life

Generativity

CommunityService

Spirituality

IntegritySat w/

LifePersonalGrowth

Purposein Life Generativity

CommunityService Spirituality

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Component Matrixa

.747

.617

.603

.591

.589

.575

.546

.520

.513

.493

.479

.458

.412

.411

.409

.408

.407

.404

integrity17

integrity13

integrity9

integrity12r

integrity8

integrity14

integrity10

integrity15r

integrity2

integrity6

integrity3r

integrity4

integrity7r

integrity1r

integrity16

integrity5r

integrity18

integrity11

1

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Conclusions

Overall, the Integrity Scale provided promise as an instrument for use in future research. First, all items had moderate to high loadings onto a single factor solution. Second, it proved to positively predict psychological well-being. Third, it was positively related to both greater community service and spirituality. Fourth, it was unrelated to satisfaction with life, as suggested by its creators. Therefore, the Integrity Scale appears to be valid and reliable for use with an adult population.

Future Directions

As the data presented was only a subset of our longitudinal study, the following questions will be of interest when evaluating the complete data set.

1. Can integrity in adulthood be predicted by factors in adolescence, such as one’s success in school and college-based service activities?

2. Which family, school, and environmental factors most influence the development of integrity?

3. Can integrity serve to mediate the relationships between other predictor variables and one’s service activities at mid-life?

4.Does one’s level of integrity influence their outlook on life and views of their future?

Limitations

Three possible limitations are of note. First, the population sampled were college alumni, which may restrict generalizability to the overall population of mid-life adults. Second, due to the extended length of the survey, several participants failed to complete all portions. Third, data was collected using an online survey which necessarily neglected those alumni without access to the internet.

Method and Reliabilities

Participants: 399 (57% M), Notre Dame graduates with an average age of 35 years

Procedure: Participants completed an online survey and were allowed to quit at any time; those who completed at least 2/3 of the survey were included in the final analyses.

Reliabilities: Integrity (α = .83), Sat w/ Life (α = .87), Personal Growth (α = .88), Purpose in Life (α = .91), Generativity (α = .86), Community Service (α = .71), Spirituality (α = .76)