Integrity, Generativity and Values:
An Examination of the Integrity Scale
Patrick L. Hill, Jessica A. Jimenez, Laura Nawrocki, & Daniel K. Lapsley
University 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) singlefactor measure. Integrity was a significant
predictor of generativity, psychological wellbeing (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.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Component Matrixa
integrity17
integrity13
integrity9
integrity12r
integrity8
integrity14
integrity10
integrity15r
integrity2
integrity6
integrity3r
integrity4
integrity7r
integrity1r
integrity16
integrity5r
integrity18
integrity11
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.
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)
Conclusions
Correlational
Analyses
Correlations
Integrity
Sat w/ Life
Personal Growth
Purpose in Life
Generativity
Community
Service
Spirituality
Pears on Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pears on Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pears on Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pears on Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pears on Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pears on Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pears on Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Integrity
1
355
.062
.256
334
.243**
.000
324
.147**
.008
325
.257**
.000
336
.155**
.007
296
.357**
.000
350
Sat w/
Life
.062
.256
334
1
Com ponent
1
.747
.617
.603
.591
.589
.575
.546
.520
.513
.493
.479
.458
.412
.411
.409
.408
.407
.404
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?
Extraction Method: Principal Com ponent Anal ys is .
a. 1 com ponents extracted.
Personal
Purpose
Community
Growth
in Life
Generativity
Service
Spirituality
.243**
.147**
.257**
.155**
.357**
.000
.008
.000
.007
.000
324
325
336
296
350
.288**
.585**
.402**
.147*
.389**
.000
.000
.000
.011
.000
342
330
330
324
302
337
.288**
1
.578**
.527**
.264**
.348**
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
330
331
323
314
294
327
.585**
.578**
1
.565**
.254**
.395**
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
330
323
331
313
292
326
.402**
.527**
.565**
1
.462**
.452**
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
324
314
313
359
288
353
.147*
.264**
.254**
.462**
1
.303**
.011
.000
.000
.000
.000
302
294
292
288
302
298
.389**
.348**
.395**
.452**
.303**
1
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
337
327
326
353
298
383
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.