LASA 2: Ethical Profile Paper

What Makes A Hero? The Impact of Integrity on

Admiration and Interpersonal Judgment

Barry R. Schlenker,1 Michael F. Weigold,1 and

Kristine A. Schlenker2

1University of Florida

2Penn State University

ABSTRACT Principled and expedient ideologies affect self-regulation

and guide people along divergent ethical paths. A more principled ideology,

indicative of higher claimed integrity, involves a greater personal

commitment to ethical beliefs, standards, and self-schemas that facilitate

positive social activities and help resist the temptation of illicit activities.

Two studies showed that differences in reported integrity are related to

people’s preferences for and judgments of others. Those higher in integrity

spontaneously described their heroes as more principled, honest,

spiritual, and benevolently oriented toward others (Study 1). In addition,

integrity was related to people’s evaluations of characters who made

ethical or unethical career decisions (Study 2). The judgments of those

higher in integrity were greatly influenced by whether or not the decision

was ethical but were largely unaffected by the consequences (career

success or failure), whereas those lower in integrity were less influenced

by whether the decision was ethical and more influenced by the career

consequences.

Ethical dilemmas pit principles against expediency. Doing the right

thing is a basis for acts of heroism and laudable accomplishment but

often involves personal sacrifice. Doing the expedient thing is a basis

for acts of self-indulgence and opportunism but often at a cost

to others. How people resolve the tension between principles and

expediency tests an individual’s character and a society’s ability to

function effectively. Each path has a certain appeal—the principled

Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Barry R. Schlenker,

Department of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail:

[email protected].

Journal of Personality 76:2, April 2008

r 2008, Copyright the Authors

Journal compilation r 2008, Blackwell Publishing, Inc.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00488.x

path for its integrity and the expedient path for its profits. Informative

glimpses may be gained into the values, aspirations, and ideologies

of individuals and societies by examining whom they admire

and regard as a hero and what criteria they use to praise and condemn

others. The present studies examined individual differences in

whom people regard as their heroes, why they regard them as heroes,

and how they judge others based on how those others resolve

conflicts between principles and expediency.

Principled and Expedient Ideologies: Commitment to Integrity

An ethical ideology is an integrated system of beliefs, values,

standards, and self-definitions that define an individual’s orientation

toward matters of right and wrong or good and evil (Schlenker,

2007). It provides a moral schema for evaluating events and a moral

identity that describes one’s ethical character. Principled ideologies

contain the ideas that ethical principles have a trans-situational

quality, these principles should be followed regardless of personal

consequences or self-serving justifications, and integrity is inherently

valuable and a defining quality of one’s identity. In contrast, expedient

ideologies involve the ideas that moral principles can be flexible,

that it is important to take advantage of profitable opportunities and

foolish to fail to do so, and that what might seem to be deviations

from principles can usually be justified.

Schlenker (2007) proposed that personal commitment to a

principled ideology determines the strength of the relationship between

ethical principles and behavior. Personal commitment links the

self-system to the ethical principles, producing an accompanying

sense of obligation to perform consistently with those principles and

a sense of responsibility for relevant actions (Schlenker, 2007; see also

Schlenker, 1997; Schlenker, Pontari, & Christopher, 2001). There is

then greater difficulty explaining inconsistent conduct and less perceived

flexibility to pursue unprincipled alternatives. This analysis is

consistent with arguments, from several theoretical perspectives, that

people’s moral self-conceptions guide conduct across a range of situations

(Aquino & Reed, 2002; Blasi, 1980, 1983; Narvaez, Lapsley,

Hagele, & Lasky, 2005; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Individual differences in reports of principled commitment can

be assessed with the Integrity Scale (Schlenker, 2007). Principled

ideologies characterize people who regard themselves as having high

324 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

integrity. The first dictionary meaning of integrity is the ‘‘steadfast

adherence to a strict moral or ethical code’’ (American Heritage

Dictionary, 2000), and synonyms include being honest, upright, and

incorruptible. The 18-item scale (see Appendix) focuses on the

strength of people’s claims of being principled (as opposed to expedient),

and items assess the inherent value of principled conduct, the

steadfast commitment to principles despite costs or temptations, and

the unwillingness to rationalize violations of principles. Although

some items include references to truthfulness, lying, and cheating,

which are inherent to definitions of integrity, participants are left to

define principles and right versus wrong for themselves.

Higher scores reflect stronger endorsement of a principled

ideology and the claim that one is a principled person with integrity,

whereas lower scores reflect a more expedient orientation. People’s

ethical ideologies may or may not coincide with their behavior,

of course, so it is an empirical question whether those who express a

commitment to principles actually behave in a principled fashion.

The scale demonstrates acceptable internal-consistency reliability

(Cronbach’s a ranged from .84 to .90 across 6 samples) and testretest

reliability (r5.82 over 2–5 weeks; Schlenker, 2007). Confirmatory

factor analyses supported the view that a single latent integrity

dimension, which appears to reflect the principled-expedient

continuum, along with measurement effects from direct- and reversescored

items, underlies responses ( Johnson & Schlenker, 2007). Social

desirability bias, which is a substantial problem with measures of

overt integrity (i.e., honesty testing) used in business (Sackett &

Wanek, 1996), is small and accounts for under 3% of the common

variance (rs ranged from .05 to .17 in 5 samples; Schlenker, 2007).

Given the conceptual rationale for the scale, integrity scores

should be related to respondents’ moral identities and their prosocial

versus antisocial orientations toward others, and research

shows that they are. In the personality realm, integrity scores are

positively related to scores onmeasures of the purpose and meaning in

life, authenticity, empathy, trust, and self-esteem and negatively related

to scores on Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, cynicism, narcissism,

alienation, and the tendency to rationalize antisocial and

illegal conduct. Integrity scores are unrelated to measures of dogmatism

and the need for closure, indicating that the scale is not simply

assessing closed-mindedness (Schlenker, 2007). Further, integrity

predicts reported helping and volunteering even after controlling for

What Makes a Hero? 325

empathy, as well as antisocial behavior, including lying, cheating,

stealing, and other undesirable behaviors (Schlenker, 2007).

People’s levels of integrity are accurately perceived by their

friends, as evidenced by significant correlations between respondents’

own integrity scores and their friends’ appraisals of their integrity

(Miller & Schlenker, 2007). Higher scorers also prefer to

interact with others to see them as being high in integrity, whereas

those who score lower equally prefer evaluations of being principled

or expedient (Miller & Schlenker, 2007). It is worth noting that virtually

no one claims to be unprincipled. Instead, those who score

lower express more of a balance between principles and expediency,

whereas those who score higher express a stronger commitment to

principles and greater aversion to expediency (e.g., compromising

principles for profit).

Prior research has not examined how integrity is related to social

judgment, particularly to admiration for others. The present studies

addressed evaluative social judgments.

Integrity and Heroes

Why Study Heroes?

Heroes can play important roles in people’s lives. Like any significant

audience or reference group, heroes provide reference points for

goals, standards, and ways to behave. People’s perceptions of their

heroes’ values, standards, and behavioral tendencies are integrated

into cognitive schemas, and these serve as mental templates for desirable

ways to act in various social situations. As such, heroes

function as exemplars or models for desirable conduct as imagined

judges of conduct and as social comparison targets. Although comparing

oneself to heroes can produce a contrast effect and negative

self-evaluations, it can also serve as inspiration to motivate selfimprovement,

produce the glow of basking in their accomplishments,

and even enhance self-evaluation through assimilation (Collins,

1996). Indeed, college students became either more or less likely

to volunteer to help others depending on whether superheroes were

primed in ways that produced assimilation or contrast (Nelson &

Norton, 2005).

People identify with their heroes and try to become more like

them, in their own minds and through their actions. Performance on

a Stroop-like self-description task is affected by whether people

326 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

judge their heroes or comparable nonheroes, suggesting that people

incorporate aspects of their heroes’ qualities into their own self-conceptions

(Sullivan & Venter, 2005). Watching heroes who confront

challenging situations can have powerful emotional consequences,

producing not only shifts in mood and self-esteem but also physiological

changes. For example, men who watched their favorite sports

teams win or lose showed increases or decreases, respectively, in testosterone

(Bernhardt, Dabbs, Fielden, & Lutter, 1998). Thus, heroes

can have an impact on people’s self-concepts, emotional well-being,

and self-regulation.

What Is a Hero?

Heroes are known for their laudable achievements and praiseworthy

personal qualities. According to dictionary usage, the qualities of

heroes involve (1) ‘‘great nobility of purpose’’ and ‘‘sacrifice for

others,’’ (2) ‘‘great courage or strength’’ and being ‘‘celebrated for

bold exploits,’’ or (3) unusual ‘‘special achievements’’ in a field (e.g.,

heroes of sports or science) (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000).

People with such qualities contribute disproportionately to groups,

perhaps increasing the chances of a group’s survival and prosperity.

It is worth noting that these qualities are not invariably associated

with morality. They vary from those that have clear moral relevance

(nobility, self-sacrifice) to those that do not (courage, strength, special

achievements), even though the latter may have implications for

morality under some conditions (e.g., acting on moral convictions

requires courage in the face of adversity).

A Harris Poll (2001) showed that people cite many reasons for

naming someone as a hero. The reasons named by three-fourths or

more of respondents involved ‘‘not giving up until the goal is accomplished’’

(86%), ‘‘doing what’s right regardless of personal consequences’’

(85%), ‘‘doing more than what other people expect of

them’’ (81%), ‘‘staying level-headed in a crisis’’ (79%), ‘‘overcoming

adversity’’ (79%), and ‘‘changing society for the better’’ (77%).

Other frequently listed reasons included the ‘‘willingness to risk personal

safety to help others’’ (72%) and ‘‘not expecting personal recognition’’

(68%). These popular reasons again range from those that

are highly moral (e.g., doing what’s right, willingness to sacrifice for

others) to those that are morally neutral (e.g., perseverance, staying

level-headed).

What Makes a Hero? 327

The Role of Integrity in Selecting Heroes

Although there have been numerous surveys describing whom people

list as their heroes and the qualities they admire in them, there

has been little research on individual differences in the selection of

heroes. Why do different people identify with different heroes? We

propose that people’s integrity is a key predictor of the qualities they

prefer in their heroes.

A principled ideology consists of important moral schemas about

oneself and the world. Important schemas are more likely to be

accessible in memory, to guide social judgment, and to lead to

consistent behavior, and this is especially the case when important

self-schemas are involved (Brown, 1998; Markus & Wurf, 1987;

Moskowitz, 2005). When evaluating others, people tend to use constructs

that are contained in their own self-schemas, both as social

judgment standards and to organize information about others (Dunning,

Krueger, & Alicke, 2005; Moskowitz, 2005). People also are attracted

to others who have personal qualities that are similar to those

they themselves possess (LaPrelle, Hoyle, Insko, & Bernthal, 1990).

As such, those who view themselves as more principled will be

more likely to notice, remember, and admire people who exemplify

high integrity. When asked about their heroes, they will be more

likely to think about people who exemplify integrity, and when asked

to list the qualities possessed by their heroes, they will be more likely

to list characteristics associated with integrity. We predicted that

they would describe their heroes as exemplifying moral conviction,

honesty, authenticity, and the concern for others. Based on research

indicating that integrity is negatively related to materialism and positively

related to spirituality and intrinsic religiosity (Schlenker,

2007) we also predicted that people who scored higher in integrity

would be more likely to describe their heroes as being spiritual and

religious as compared to materialistic. In contrast, those who score

lower in integrity see themselves as having a more balanced mixture

of qualities reflecting principles and expediency (Miller & Schlenker,

2007) and therefore will prefer such a mixture in others. Their

heroes will have a variety of special achievements but without a

comparable moral tone.

Study 1 tests these hypotheses by asking participants to describe

their heroes and the qualities they admire in them. Study 2 uses a

different methodology—evaluating hypothetical characters whose

328 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

actions vary in ethicality and in success—to examine the same fundamental

issue: Will those higher in integrity admire people who

exemplify principled instead of expedient conduct? The method in

Study 1 allows us to address the question in the context of people’s

spontaneous descriptions of those admire; that of Study 2 allows us

to address it by controlling the conduct of characters to determine

how variations in their behavior are related to evaluations.

STUDY 1

Method

Participants

One hundred fifty students (108 females, 42 males) enrolled in a journalism

course at the University of Florida participated for extra credit in their

class. The average age of participants was 20.3 years (SD51.10), with a

range from 18 to 24.

Heroes Survey

The booklet asked participants to list and describe people they regarded

as heroes, with heroes defined broadly. The instructions indicated that

heroes come in many forms and can be real or fictional, living or dead,

and known or unknown to the participants. Heroes were to be people

whom participants admired and regarded as exemplars. It was also noted

that heroes can be influential in helping people deal with a variety of issues,

including the type of person they want to become, the kinds of values

they consider important, and the different strategies they might use to

pursue their goals and dreams or handle specific situations. Participants

were asked to ‘‘list as many or as few heroes as you think appropriate,

since some people have many heroes and others have fewer. For each

hero, list the qualities you admire in this person.’’

Next, participants were asked to ‘‘select the hero who has been the

most influential for you personally, that is, the hero who has had the

greatest impact on you.’’ They were to write the person’s name followed

by a brief description of the person in the event his or her name was

unfamiliar (e.g., movie star, politician, businessperson, musician, policeman,

relative, friend). They then rated this individual on closed-ended

adjective scales.

Finally, they completed Rokeach’s (1973) Value Survey, in which they

rank-ordered 18 terminal values, or values that are important ends in

themselves (e.g., freedom, happiness, pleasure) and 18 instrumental values,

What Makes a Hero? 329

or values that are important means to other ends (e.g., ambitious, helpful,

honest). The value data from 8 participants were unusable (they failed to

complete the items or did not follow the instructions to rank items).

Procedure

On separate days about 2 weeks apart, participants completed (1) the

Heroes Survey and the Value Survey and (2) a copy of the Integrity Scale

(Schlenker, 2007) plus a short version of the Crowne-Marlowe Social

Desirability Scale (Reynolds, 1982). Participants were asked to take the

questionnaires home, complete them in a quiet place where they would

not be bothered or distracted, and return them at their next class. To

ensure anonymity, participants used a code name of their own choosing

to identify their questionnaires.

Dependent Measures: Spontaneous Listing

Coding scheme. A coding scheme was developed to assess important

qualities that might be possessed by heroes. Six categories reflected qualities

associated in the literature with moral identity and character, including being

committed to principles, honest, impartial, beneficent (e.g., caring toward

others), determined, and spiritual. Studies examining people’s everyday conceptions

of morality suggest moral character is organized as a distinct prototype

(Aquino & Reed, 2002; Lapsley & Lasky, 2001; Walker & Hennig,

2004; Walker & Pitts, 1998). Although some of the specific attributes can

vary by culture, historical period, and individual, at the core it includes the

qualities of being principled and having moral convictions, being honest,

and being fair; these are three distinguishable dimensions in naturalistic

conceptions of morality (Walker & Hennig, 2004). Moral prototypes also

can include the three virtues of being caring toward others (caring, kind,

compassionate, loving, unselfish), dependable (dependable, reliable, responsible,

hardworking, determined), and spiritual or religious (Aquino & Reed,

2002; Walker & Pitts, 1998). It is worth noting that scores on the Integrity

Scale are positively correlated with scores on measures of being caring,

helpful toward others, and intrinsically religious (Schlenker, 2007).

Three additional categories reflected fundamental interpersonal qualities

that are not uniquely related to moral prototypes but appear in most personality

and group rating schemes: intelligence, social skills, and power. Perusal

of the qualities spontaneously listed by respondents produced three

additional categories: having a positive attitude or outlook, being forgiving,

and being materialistically successful. Finally, an other category includes

attributes that did not fit elsewhere and appeared infrequently enough so as

to not warrant creation of a new category. Table 1 presents these 13

categories and examples of the qualities that were coded in each.

330 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

Table 1

Study 1: Categories Used for Coding the Spontaneous Descriptions

Category Description and Examples

Commitment to

principles

References to being morally principled: ‘‘principled,’’

‘‘fought for her/his beliefs,’’ ‘‘stands up for what she

believes,’’ ‘‘strong convictions,’’ ‘‘true to morals,’’

‘‘strong moral values,’’ ‘‘morals to live by,’’ ‘‘moral’’

Honesty References to truth-telling: ‘‘honest,’’ ‘‘truthful,’’

‘‘sincere’’

Spirituality References to spirituality, religion, and faith: ‘‘spiritual,’’

‘‘strong faith in God,’’ ‘‘religious’’

Impartiality References to being impartial: ‘‘unbiased,’’ ‘‘fair’’

Beneficence References to altruism, concern for others, and a lack of

self-absorption: ‘‘caring,’’ ‘‘helpful,’’ ‘‘supportive,’’

‘‘considerate,’’ ‘‘devoted to family,’’ ‘‘loyal,’’

‘‘unselfish,’’ ‘‘selfless,’’ ‘‘humble,’’ ‘‘puts others before

self,’’ ‘‘thinks of others before self’’

Determination References to resoluteness, dedication, commitment to

unnamed goals, and perseverance to goals: ‘‘dedicated,’’

‘‘committed,’’ ‘‘goal oriented,’’ ‘‘determined,’’ ‘‘hard

working,’’ ‘‘persevered,’’ ‘‘overcame obstacles,’’ ‘‘neversay-

die attitude’’

Intellectual skill References to wisdom and intelligence: ‘‘smart,’’ ‘‘wise,’’

‘‘creative,’’ ‘‘genius’’

Social skill References to social attributes that make interactions

easier: ‘‘outgoing,’’ ‘‘extraverted,’’ ‘‘good listener,’’

‘‘funny,’’ ‘‘good sense of humor’’

Power References to strength, leadership skills, and the ability

to motivate others: ‘‘leader,’’ ‘‘in control,’’ ‘‘calm,’’

‘‘brave,’’ ‘‘inspirational,’’ ‘‘strong’’

Positive attitude References to being optimistic and confident:

‘‘optimistic,’’ ‘‘upbeat,’’ ‘‘confident’’

Forgiveness References to forgiveness: ‘‘forgiving’’

Materialistic

success

References to materialism: ‘‘materialistic,’’ ‘‘wealthy,’’

‘‘successful’’

Other References to qualities not included in the above:

‘‘speedy’’ described Superman, ‘‘soft’’ described Audrey

Hepburn, ‘‘stylish,’’ ‘‘hot,’’ and ‘‘emotional’’ described

other heroes

What Makes a Hero? 331

Interrater reliability. One of the authors coded all of the respondents’

descriptions of the heroes into the categories. To calculate reliability,

another trained judge randomly selected 20 of the original booklets and

independently coded them. Intraclass correlations (which assumed the

same raters did the coding, were the entire population of raters, and the

ratings were not averaged, see Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) showed acceptable

interrater reliability for the 13 categories (reliabilities4.75 for all categories

except materialistic success, which was .65). There were no significant

differences between the judges’ ratings on any of the 13 categories

(all ps4.16). All of the categories were thus deemed to have acceptable

reliability.

Dependent Measures: Closed-Ended Ratings

Respondents were asked to identify the hero who was most influential to

them and then rate this main hero on 7-point evaluative scales with labeled

end points. Ratings were averaged into groupings that largely corresponded

with the spontaneous-listing categories. A principled grouping

reflected ethical versus unethical conduct (Cronbach’s a5.73; 7 dimensions,

e.g., being principled, high in integrity, moral, trustworthy, honest,

valuing principled conduct [versus valuing personal gratification]); items

assessing honesty and commitment to principles were combined rather

than kept separate because they were highly correlated and showed the

same patterns. An authenticity or true-to-self grouping (a5.60; 3 dimensions:

follows own conscience, is true to own self, speaks own mind) was

included to test hypotheses about the relationship between principled

commitment and authenticity (discussed shortly). A beneficence grouping

reflected items dealing with concerns for others as opposed to oneself

(a5.70; 6 dimensions, e.g., caring for others, altruistic, generous, humble).

An effectiveness grouping reflected determination and power

(a5.77; 9 dimensions, e.g., effective, persevering, determined, powerful,

strong, capable, successful); items assessing effectiveness and power were

combined because they were highly correlated and showed the same patterns.

A likableness grouping included two items (a5.65; likable, would

want as a friend). Finally, single items assessed spirituality (spiritual–

materialistic), intellectual skill (wise–foolish), and similarity to self (similar

to me–different from me).

Results

Integrity Scores and Analyses

The mean integrity score for the sample was 64.9 (SD59.2).

Consistent with prior research (Schlenker, 2007), females scored

332 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

higher than males, F (1, 148)57.38, p5.007, Z25.04 (Females:

M566.1, SD58.29; Males: M561.7, SD510.63).

Unless otherwise noted, analyses of the dependent measures were

conducted using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure in

SAS, with integrity (centered, continuous), sex (effects coded), and

their interaction as predictors. Standard regression, using the same

predictors and coding, was used to calculate the beta weights for

effects (when coded identically, as done here, GLM and standard

regression produce identical common statistics). None of the reported

effects were qualified by sex, which will not be discussed further.

Types of Heroes

Participants named an average of 3.2 heroes (SD51.38). Most of

the heroes were real people (90.8% were classified as real, 4.2% were

fictional, and 5.4% could not be classified) who were personally

known by the respondents (59.2% were personally known, 28.7%

could not have been known personally, and 12.4% could not be

unequivocally classified). The largest single category consisted of

family members (46.2% of all heroes were members of one’s family),

especially one’s mother or father. Friends, star athletes, and religious

or spiritual figures (e.g., Jesus, the Pope, Billy Graham, Mother

Theresa, a pastor) each comprised 5% or more of the respondents’

heroes.

Integrity scores were unrelated to the total number of heroes who

were named (Fo1, p5.52) but were related to types of hero. Higher

integrity was associated with naming a greater number of spiritual or

religious figures as heroes, F (1, 146)512.97, p5.0004, b5.29. To

ensure that a few people did not simply name a large number of such

figures, chi-squares were calculated on whether low versus high integrity

respondents, defined by median split, named none versus one

or more spiritual/religious figures; this measure provides an indication

of whether the category itself is spontaneously salient regardless

of number of such heroes named. One or more religious figures were

named by only 4.2% of those who scored below the median on integrity

but by 26.6% of those who scored above the median in

integrity, w2 (1, N5150)513.91, po.0002. Given that the total

number of heroes was comparable for those high versus low in integrity,

one would expect a compensating difference for other types

of heroes. Although no other effects reached po.05, there was a

What Makes a Hero? 333

marginal negative relationship between integrity and selecting

athletes as heroes, F (1, 146)52.81, p5.10, b5 _.13. One or

more athletes were named by 18.3% of those below the median in

integrity but by 8.9% of those above the median, w2 (1,

N5150)52.89, po.09. Those higher in integrity display a clear

preference for morally notable heroes, whereas those lower in integrity

seem to have a slight preference for those noted for impressive

personal achievements.

Spontaneous Descriptions of Heroes

Respondents spontaneously described the qualities they admired in

each of their heroes. An average of 2.82 qualities were listed per

hero, or 9.12 qualities (SD55.16) possessed by the average set of

heroes.

A dichotomous measure of whether or not respondents listed a

category of qualities to describe one or more of their heroes was

calculated, and chi square analyses were conducted to see if those

high versus low in integrity (median split) used different categories.

As shown in Table 2, participants who were high rather than low in

integrity were more likely to describe their heroes using the categories

of honesty, principled conduct, spirituality, and beneficence. In

fact, more than twice as many respondents who scored high rather

than low in integrity used the categories of honesty, commitment to

principles, and spirituality, and nearly all of those high in integrity

referenced the beneficence of their heroes. There were no other significant

differences involving integrity on the dichotomous measures.

GLM analyses were also conducted on the frequencies with which

respondents used each of the categories. These analyses provided

information about the number of times each category was used

(which can include multiple instances of a category across heroes or

for a specific hero, e.g., helpful, caring, and unselfish reflect three

instances of beneficence), instead of information about whether a

category was used (as in the chi square analyses). Identical results

were obtained, with significant main effects of integrity on references

to honesty, principles, spirituality, and beneficence (all Fs

(1, 146)44.02, pso.05). No other main effects of integrity or interactions

of integrity and sex of respondent were significant. These

results show that those who score higher in integrity are more likely

to access these qualities in memory when thinking about their heroes

334 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

(chi square analyses) as well as to apply these qualities repeatedly to

their heroes (GLM analyses).

Closed-Ended Ratings of the Main Hero

As shown in Table 3, those higher in integrity evaluated their main

hero as more principled, authentic, beneficent, spiritual, and (marginally)

effective. Integrity was unrelated to how likable, similar to

self, and wise the main hero was perceived to be. These patterns are

consistent with those found on the spontaneous descriptions and

with prior research on personal qualities associated with integrity

(Schlenker, 2007). The qualities that those who score higher in

integrity seem to possess are also admired in their heroes.

Authenticity, or being true to self, is often regarded as a facet of

integrity (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Although being true to self

does not have identical implications as being committed to ethical

principles (e.g., a serial killer acts consistently with personal

Table 2

Study 1: Integrity and the Percentage of Respondents Who Used Each

Category to Describe Their Heroes

Attribute X2 (150) p5

Percentage Using Category

Low Integrity High Integrity

Principled 6.42 .01 11.3% 27.9%

Honest 9.66 .002 22.5% 46.8%

Spiritual 6.03 .014 5.6% 19.0%

Beneficent 14.86 .0001 71.8% 94.9%

Determined 0.01 .91 66.2% 67.1%

Intellectually skilled 1.69 .19 45.1% 55.7%

Socially skilled 0.05 .83 22.5% 24.1%

Powerful 0.89 .85 73.2% 79.8%

Attitudinally positive 2.59 .11 12.7% 22.8%

Forgiving 0.23 .63 5.6% 7.6%

Materialistically successful 0.00 .96 9.9% 10.1%

Impartial 0.33 .57 4.2% 3.3%

Other 0.41 .52 19.7% 24.1%

Note: Integrity scores were dichotomized (median splits) to form low and high

integrity groups.

What Makes a Hero? 335

preferences but quite immorally), these constructs are conceptually

and empirically related (Schlenker, 2007). As such, closed-ended

items were selected to assess both the commitment to principles and

authenticity. These groupings were modestly correlated (r5.25,

p5.002) and positively related to scores on the Integrity Scale. Unfortunately,

comparable groupings could not be distinguished in the

spontaneous listings (qualities like ‘‘fought for his beliefs,’’ ‘‘stands

up for what she believes,’’ and ‘‘strong convictions’’ can reflect both

principled commitment and authenticity). When these concepts are

distinguished, as in the closed-ended items, both the adherence to

principles and authenticity are directly related to integrity scores.

Further, authenticity, perhaps because it centers on the self, has

weaker implications for concerns about others than does principled

commitment. Ratings of beneficence were highly correlated with the

commitment to principles (r5.62, po.0001) but modestly correlated

with authenticity (r5.25, p5.002); these correlations differ in magnitude

(po.05). The pattern suggests that principled commitment

subjectively implies concerns for others, at least in the United States.

Values

On Rokeach’s Value Scale (1973), those who scored higher in

integrity ranked higher (closer to 1) the instrumental values honest,

F (1, 138)55.30, p5.02, b5 _.19, and helpful, F (1, 138)58.72,

Table 3

Study 1: Evaluations of Heroes on the Closed-Ended Items

Attribute

Integrity Main Effects

F (1, 146) p5 b

Principled 5.26 .02 .19

Authentic 7.31 .008 .23

Beneficent 4.21 .04 .17

Effective 3.16 .08 .15

Likable o1 .40 _.09

Spiritual 4.08 .05 .17

Intelligent o1 .48 .06

Similar to oneself o1 .52 _.06

336 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

p5.004, b5 _.25, and the terminal value salvation, F (1, 138)5

4.57, p5.03, b5 _.19. Conversely, those higher in integrity

ranked lower (closer to 18) the instrumental values self-controlled,

F (1, 137)512.22, p5.006, b5.29, and polite, F (1, 137)57.97,

p5.006, b5.23, and the terminal values a comfortable life,

F (1, 137)59.49, p5.003, b5.25, and self-respect (self-esteem),

F (1, 137)55.27, p5.02, b5.20. High integrity themes of honesty,

helpfulness, genuine feelings for others, and salvation run consistently

through the data. Further, their lower ranking of a comfortable

life and self-esteem may reflect a disdain those with higher

integrity have for materialism and self-absorption and/or a preference

for these qualities in people who are more expedient. The relationships

thus form converging patterns.

Social Desirability

Consistent with prior findings (Schlenker, 2007), integrity and social

desirability showed only a small, insignificant relationship (r5.14,

p5.08). Analyses that included social desirability revealed only one

main effect (i.e., those higher in social desirability rated their heroes

as more likeable on the closed-ended scales, p5.03) and no interactions

that qualified any of the effects reported.

It is reasonable to ask why the relationship between integrity

scores and social desirability is not larger. Being principled is an inherently

desirable quality, yet so is being flexible, adapting to circumstances,

and taking care of oneself. During scale development,

attempts were made to reduce social desirability bias by selecting

items that presented expediency in a more palatable light (e.g., ‘‘Lying

is sometimes necessary to accomplish important, worthwhile

goals’’) and pairing principled conduct with less desirable concepts

(e.g., ‘‘Being inflexible and refusing to compromise are good if it

means standing up for what is right’’). Although social desirability

bias probably can never be eliminated in self-report measures dealing

with principles and integrity, the small amount of shared variance

(usually less than 3%) suggests this attempt was at least somewhat

successful.

Discussion

Personal integrity predicted respondents’ heroes. Those higher in

integrity spontaneously described their heroes as more principled,

What Makes a Hero? 337

honest, spiritual, and benevolently oriented toward others. Further,

on closed-ended scales, they evaluated their main hero as more principled,

authentic, spiritual (as compared to materialistic), and benevolent

(as compared to selfish and egotistical). On qualities such as

likableness, similarity to oneself, and intelligence, which might be associated

with any hero regardless of morality, there were no integrity

differences. The qualities that were differentially endorsed by those

with higher integrity—principled commitment, authenticity, beneficence

toward others and non-self-absorption, and spirituality are

qualities that people associate with moral exemplars (Aquino & Reed,

2002; Lapsley & Lasky, 2001; Walker & Hennig, 2004) and that

people with high integrity are more likely to possess (Schlenker, 2007).

The strong preference for religious or spiritual heroes (e.g., the

Pope, a pastor, Jesus) by those higher in integrity probably reflects

several considerations. First, although the Integrity Scale does not

contain any items that refer to religion, integrity scores are positively

correlated with intrinsic religiosity (Schlenker, 2007). The association

may be due to the fact that most religions emphasize adherence

to moral laws and personal integrity. Given religious convictions,

people may look to religion for their heroes. Second, religious figures

are generally regarded as exemplars of high integrity, so those for

whom moral exemplarity is a highly valued quality are likely to select

them as heroes.

Further, the category of religious heroes is the only one in which

the prototypic figure is likely to be seen as highly principled. Within

the category of family members, for example, some respondents may

have parents who are exemplars for morality whereas others may

not. Those high versus low in integrity select a parent with equal

frequency, but their choices may be based on different criteria, with

those high in integrity focusing on a parent’s morality and those low

in integrity focusing on a parent’s business success or nurturance.

The pattern of ratings is strongly consistent with such preferences.

For example, those higher in integrity rated their heroes as spiritual

rather than materialistic and tended to select fewer sports figures as

heroes. Sports heroes exemplify stellar personal achievement but are

often noted for materialistic excesses rather than moral excellence.

Study 2 will examine integrity differences in selection criteria by

manipulating the principled or expedient nature of a character’s

conduct, thereby testing directly whether those higher in integrity

show greater admiration for moral principles over expediency.

338 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

STUDY 2

People high in integrity differ from lows in at least three important

ways: (1) they have a relatively coherent code or set of standards for

right and wrong to which they are personally committed, (2) these

standards are accessible in memory and a chronic input to their

choice considerations, and (3) they believe that these standards are

binding, so self-serving rationalizations are unacceptable as ways to

avoid the emotional (e.g., guilty, stress) and social (e.g., condemnation,

disrespect) costs of violations. The fact that integrity predicted

people’s heroes suggests that those who are higher versus lower in

integrity use different criteria and standards to evaluate the actions

of others and to decide whom to admire. It is difficult to argue, given

these patterns, that those who differ in integrity merely perceive

different qualities in precisely the same person regardless of his or

her behavior. However, a stronger, more definitive test of whether

different criteria and standards are used is to manipulate the principled

or expedient conduct of a character and then assess judgments.

Such a test will also permit conclusions to be drawn about the

roles played by ethics versus outcomes during social judgment. If the

same patterns are found after controlling the principled or expedient

properties of the character’s behavior, then the converging data

would confirm the importance of the principled versus expedient dimension

for social judgment and the important role that is played by

integrity in moderating the qualities people admire.

In Study 2, participants judged an individual who confronted an

ethical dilemma while pursuing an important career goal. This character

had to chose between an unprincipled route that seemed to

boost in the chances of personal success and a principled route that

did not. It was hypothesized that integrity will be directly related to

the strength of the preference of principles over expediency. The

critical comparison—which directly contrasts principles and outcomes—

will be between characters who take the ethical route and

fail versus those who take the unethical route and succeed. As compared

to those higher in integrity, those lower will evaluate an unprincipled

but successful character as more of a winner and as

savvier (more effective, intelligent), whereas an unsuccessful but ethical

character will be seen as nice (likable) but ineffective (‘‘Nice guys

finish last’’), lacking the ‘‘street smarts’’ to realize that it is necessary

to bend the rules to be successful. In contrast, those higher in

What Makes a Hero? 339

integrity should more strongly admire a character who upholds high

moral standards, even if it means personal loss, and more strongly

disparage a character who violates ethical standards to accomplish

selfish goals.

Method

Participants

One hundred sixty-two students (115 females, 47 males) enrolled in a

journalism course at the University of Florida participated for extra

credit in their class. The average age of participants was 20.3 years

(SD51.14), with a range of 18 to 24.

Scenario Booklet

The study was described as examining reactions to people who make

important decisions related to their careers. A short passage described a

situation faced by a decision maker, the decision that was made, and the

outcome that followed. Participants were asked to read and give careful

thought to the situation described in the booklet, and then answer the

questions that followed.

The scenarios described a situation in which the central character

could engage in unethical behavior and thereby increase the likelihood of

gaining a desirable career outcome. Participants were randomly assigned

to read one of three behavior-outcome combinations: (a) the central

character took the unethical route and succeeded, (b) the central character

took the ethical route but failed, and (c) the central character took the

ethical route and succeeded. The critical comparison for examining integrity

differences was between the ethical-failure condition and the unethical-

success condition, because these pit a preference for principled

conduct against a preference for expediency. The ethical-success condition

provided a relevant baseline for comparison to see how each group

shifted when compared to this optimally desirable behavior-outcome

combination. An unethical-failure combination was not included because

it was expected that this combination would be universally condemned

and would not distinguish those who score high versus low in integrity

(those high in integrity would condemn the unethical behavior and those

low in integrity would condemn the ineffectiveness). After reading the

scenario, participants were asked to evaluate the behavior, outcome, and

actor on 7-point attribute scales with labeled end points.

To increase generalizability, two scenarios were created and participants

were randomly assigned to read one of them. One scenario described

a businessman who is up for promotion to a desirable executive

340 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

position in his company, with attendant pay and status increases. The

promotion will go to either the central character or a rival about whom

the central character knows some personal gossip. Although the gossip is

irrelevant to the rival’s qualifications for the promotion, the central character

knows that if the company’s board of directors learns the gossip, the

rival will probably be removed from consideration and the promotion will

go to the central character. The central character then decides either not

to spread the gossip, and then gets the position (ethical/success) or does

not (ethical/failure), or to spread the gossip and gets the position (unethical/

success). Another scenario described a young actress in Hollywood

who dreams of being a star. A more experienced actress suggested

that to get a break she will need to ‘‘sleep’’ with important people, such as

producers and directors, in the film business. The central character then

decides either to ignore this advice, and then becomes a star (ethical/success)

or does not get any desirable roles (ethical/failure), or decides to

follow the advice and becomes a star (unethical/success). Although these

scenario types involve ethical decision making and important career

choices, they differ on a variety of dimensions (e.g., nature of the act,

type of career, sex of central character) and therefore provide a reasonable

test of generalizability.1

Procedure

Participants completed (a) the Scenario Booklet, (b) a copy of the

Integrity Scale (Schlenker, 2007), and (c) a short version of the Social

Desirability Scale (Reynolds, 1982).2 They took the materials home, were

asked to complete them in a quiet place where they would not be bothered

or distracted, and returned them at their next class. To ensure anonymity,

participants used a code name of their own choosing to identify their

questionnaires.

1. An attempt was made to manipulate the desirability of the goal (e.g., a promotion

at a smaller company or a Fortune 500 company), but manipulation

checks indicated that the goal was seen comparably in both conditions (e.g., as

equally difficult to achieve). All analyses therefore collapsed across this variable.

2. Preliminary analyses included social desirability as a predictor along with integrity,

event, sex, and their interactions. There were no main effects of social

desirability on any of the dependent variables and fewer interactions than would

be expected by chance, with no consistent or interesting patterns and no qualifications

of any of the reported effects. As in Study 1, social desirability did not aid

in interpreting the results. Social desirability scores again showed only a small

relationship with integrity (r5.16, p5.04), accounting for 2.6% of the common

variance.

What Makes a Hero? 341

Dependent Measures

Participants evaluated the central character and the event on bipolar

scales (1 to 7 with labeled endpoints). Evaluations of the central character

were averaged into the categories used in Study 1. These included assessments

of the extent to which the central character was principled (Cronbach’s

a5.95; 7 items, e.g., principled, high integrity, moral, honest,

trustworthy); authentic (a5.92; 4 items, e.g., true to own self, follows

own conscience); beneficent (a5.88; 4 items, e.g., cares for others, altruistic,

generous); likable (a5.88; 4 items, e.g., likable, would want as a

friend); intelligent (a5.85; 4 items, e.g., wise, knowledgeable, street

smart); and effective (a5.90; 9 items, e.g., effective, persevering, determined,

successful, strong, powerful). Also as in Study 1, two items assessed

the extent to which the central character was judged to be spiritual

and similar to oneself. In addition, items assessed the character’s retrospective

reactions looking back on the decision (a5.89; 5 items: e.g.,

pleased, proud, satisfied). As checks of the ethical event manipulations,

respondents evaluated the valence of the outcome for the central character’s

career-related goals (a5.94; 3 items: good, desirable, a dream) and

the ethicality of the decision (a5.90; 2 items: moral, good).

We expected that those higher in integrity would show more admiration

for the ethical-failure, and more condemnation of the unethicalsuccess,

than those lower in integrity. Those low as compared to high in

integrity would regard the unethical-success as more effective, intelligent,

likable and even moral and the ethical-failure as less effective, intelligent,

and likable. By including the different categories, we could discover if

effects generalized or were related only to specific dimensions (e.g., morality

or effectiveness, which correspond to the ethics and consequences of

the manipulations).

Results

Analyses

There were no effects of the scenario event on integrity scores, so

integrity (M564.9, SD59.3) was used as a predictor in the major

analyses. Females scored higher than males, F (1, 158)510.63,

p5.001, Z25.06 (Ms566.5 and 61.1, SDs58.2 and 10.6). Analyses

were conducted using the SAS GLM procedure; the predictors

in the model were integrity (continuous, centered variable), ethical

event (three levels: ethical decision and successful outcome, ethical

decision and unsuccessful outcome, and unethical decision and

successful outcome), sex of respondent (effects coded), and all

342 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

interactions. The same significant overall effects and patterns described

shortly were obtained if integrity was entered as a dichotomous

variable (median split). None of the reported effects were

qualified by sex.

The major dependent measures are presented in Tables 4 and 5,

which show F and p values for effects and GLM estimates of condition

values, respectively. High and low levels of integrity were

defined as 1 SD above and below the mean (see Cohen, Cohen, West,

& Aiken, 2003). Initial analyses also included scenario type (businessman

or actress) and its interactions. The major results were not

qualified by scenario type, so it was dropped.

Table 4

Study 2: Integrity by Event Interactions on Evaluations

Dependent Variable

Act Main Effect

Integrity by

Act Interaction

Interaction

Contrast of

Integrity by

Ethical Failure/

Unethical

Success

F p F p F p

Principled 263.83 o.0001 16.52 o.0001 29.05 o.0001

Authentic 80.23 o.0001 3.28 .04 6.40 .01

Beneficent 86.17 o.0001 5.60 .005 6.60 .01

Likable 60.99 o.0001 13.02 o.0001 19.62 o.0001

Effective 32.49 o.0001 5.53 .005 7.29 .008

Intelligent 46.18 o.0001 3.95 .02 3.80 .05

Spiritual 97.31 o.0001 8.83 .0002 4.12 .04

Similar to self 83.53 o.0001 13.70 o.0001 16.40 o.0001

Characters’

retrospective

reactions

59.83 o.0001 4.23 .02 8.29 .005

Ethical evaluations

of the act

374.04 o.0001 10.58 .0001 20.61 .0001

Note: Tests of overall effects have 2 and 150 df except for spiritual (2, 148) and

similar (2, 148); interaction contrasts of integrity by ethical failure/unethical success

have 1 and 150 df except for spiritual (1, 148) and similar (1, 148).

What Makes a Hero? 343

Table 5

Study 2: Integrity by Event Interactions on Evaluations

Dependent Measure and

Integrity Level

Event Means

Ethical Act/

Failure

Unethical Act/

Success

Ethical Act/

Success

Principled

Low integrity 5.54a 2.95 5.93ac

High integrity 6.30b 1.98 6.30bc

Authentic

Low integrity 5.44a 3.26d 6.00ac

High integrity 6.29b 2.91d 6.29bc

Beneficent

Low integrity 5.17ad 3.11 5.17ac

High integrity 5.53bd 2.37 5.77bc

Likable

Low integrity 4.69 3.75 5.44

High integrity 5.71a 2.90 6.41a

Effective

Low integrity 5.14 4.54a 5.77

High integrity 5.80 4.16a 6.56

Intelligent

Low integrity 5.14ad 3.75 5.45ac

High integrity 5.47bd 3.21 6.18bc

Spiritual (vs. Materialistic)

Low integrity 4.50ab 2.20 4.32a

High integrity 4.61b 1.43 5.48

Similar to Self

Low integrity 4.98ac 2.89 4.95c

High integrity 5.72ab 1.54 6.14b

Characters’ Retrospective

Reactions

Low integrity 4.22c 4.24bc 6.66a

High integrity 5.00a 3.80b 6.85a

Ethical Evaluations of the Act

Low integrity 6.11 2.60 6.78a

High integrity 6.76b 1.73 6.77ab

Note: Integrity was entered in the analyses as a centered, continuous variable.

Numbers represent GLM estimates of the values of the low (_1 SD) and high (11

SD) integrity within each of the ethical event conditions. Means without a common

letter subscript differ significantly, po.05. Differences between high and low levels

of integrity were based on tests of simple slopes. Within rows, differences between

ethical events within low and high levels of integrity were based on tests of planned

contrasts.

344 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

Manipulation Checks

The outcome and ethicality manipulations were successful. Only a

main effect of condition was found on ratings of success in accomplishing

career-related goals, F (2, 150)567.71, po.0001 (Ms5

2.94, 5.84, and 6.48 for the ethical-failure, unethical-success, and

ethical-success conditions; each success condition differed significantly

from the failure condition, pso.001, and marginally from one

another, p5.06, as the unethical nature of a success may have tarnished

the outcome). A main effect of condition and an interaction

of integrity and condition were found on the ethicality of the conduct

(Table 4). The conduct was seen as unethical when it involved unethical-

success (M52.17) and ethical when it involved either an

ethical-failure or ethical-success (Ms56.44 and 6.77, respectively;

both differ from the unethical-success condition but not from one

another). Those high in integrity evaluated the ethical-success and

ethical-failure equally positively without regard to consequences,

whereas those low in integrity took consequences into account and

preferred the ethical-success to the ethical-failure (Table 5). Those

high in integrity also were more negative toward the unethical-success

and more positive toward the ethical-failure than those low in

integrity.

Evaluations of the Central Character

Consistent patterns emerged on evaluations of the central character.

Overall, the central character was evaluated more positively after an

ethical act that failed than an unethical success, but this distinction

was more pronounced for respondents high rather than low in integrity.

As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the interaction of integrity by

event, and more specifically the key interaction contrast of integrity

by ethical-failure/unethical-success, was significant on all evaluative

ratings. Those higher in integrity showed a stronger preference for an

ethical act that failed over an unethical one that succeeded.

Comparisons of the ethical-success and ethical-failure conditions

provide another way of gauging the impact of the consequences of

the decision on judgments. Those high in integrity generally rated the

central character comparably regardless of whether an ethical act

produced a success or failure. For those high in integrity, the two

ethical-outcome conditions did not differ significantly on any of the

What Makes a Hero? 345

evaluative dimensions except effectiveness and materialism; the

latter realistically acknowledged the success. In contrast, those low

in integrity found the successful ethical character more likable and

effective than the unsuccessful ethical character and also evaluated

the conduct itself as ethically better. These patterns support the hypothesis

that those high in integrity will emphasize the adherence to

principles and largely ignore the consequences of the act, while those

low in integrity take consequences more into account. When ethics

and outcomes conflict, those high in integrity expressed preferences

that primarily reflected ethics whereas those low in integrity reflected

a mix of ethics and expediency.

In the context of an unethical success, being true to self may reflect

getting what one wants regardless of the means, and this should be

an example of a situation in which principles and authenticity diverge.

In support, correlations between ratings of the characters’

commitment to principles and authenticity were insignificant in the

unethical-failure condition (r5.17, p5.21) but were quite significant

in the ethical-success and ethical-failure conditions (rs5.62 and

.68, respectively, pso.0001; the latter correlations differ significantly

from the former, pso.001). Although principles and authenticity

often go together, they become dissociated when people pursue

personal goals that conflict with ethical principles.

Retrospective Reactions of the Central Character

Participants projected their personal evaluations of the conduct onto

the characters. Those high in integrity believed that when the central

characters looked back on the decision, they would be more satisfied

with the ethical-failure than the unethical-success conditions, whereas

those low in integrity believed the character would be equally

satisfied regardless (see Tables 4 and 5).

Discussion

When conduct was both ethical and successful, people usually

evaluated it similarly regardless of their own level of integrity, at

least on measures most relevant to morals. However, when principles

and outcomes were opposed, those higher in integrity were guided by

principles regardless of the outcome. Those lower in integrity were

consistently influenced by the outcome, showing less condemnation

of an unethical act that succeeded, less praise for an ethical act that

346 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

failed, and a smaller distinction between unethical-success and

ethical-failure conditions as compared to those higher in integrity.

These patterns show that integrity is not simply associated with more

or less favorable evaluations across the board. Instead, when actions

are relevant to ethical decision making, those higher in integrity are

more admiring of those who behave ethically and more condemning

of those who behave unethically regardless the outcome.

People who score lower on the Integrity Scale do not regard

themselves as unprincipled or unscrupulous (Miller & Schlenker,

2007; Schlenker, 2007). Instead, they describe themselves as generally

principled but are readily able to provide self-serving rationalizations

for violating ethical and legal codes. They are willing to

excuse and justify a wider range of unethical and illegal behavior

(e.g., lying, stealing, cheating on one’s taxes or one’s spouse) to deflect

morally the blame for transgressions from themselves and to

cheat to perform well on a test even when there are no obvious incentives

for so doing (Schlenker, 2007). In short, they lack the degree

of commitment to ethical principles, with its attendant rejection of

deviations and rationalizations, shown by those who score higher. In

Study 2, those low in integrity did not disregard ethics because they

generally preferred an ethical act that failed to an unethical one that

succeeded; they were just more willing to allow expediency to play a

role in their assessments.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

People’s ethical ideologies play an important role in self-regulation.

People who profess greater commitment to ethical principles have a

more stringent set of standards for right and wrong, chronically access

this information in memory and use it in their choices, and believe

that these standards are binding, and so excuses and

justifications become unacceptable ways to avoid the negative repercussions

of transgressions. The present findings show that integrity

successfully predicts the selection of heroes and the judgment of

others who resolve ethical dilemmas by taking the principled versus

expedient road. These results add to a growing list of studies documenting

integrity’s usefulness in predicting behaviors that are

considered virtues and vices.

What Makes a Hero? 347

Ethical ideologies and heroes go hand in hand and probably

reciprocally influence each other. The heroes people admire can

affect their own ethical ideologies, as people identify with their heroes’

perceived personal qualities and try to emulate their conduct.

As models, heroes play important roles in the development of attitudes

and identity. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) and socioanalytic

theory (Hogan, 1982) document the importance of

significant reference others for forming attitudes and self-schemas.

Lickona (2004) argued that the development of character is accomplished

through positive models who value and exemplify integrity,

responsibility, self-discipline, and other-oriented virtues such as respect,

compassion, and cooperation. Consistent with these lines of

theory and research, one of the stronger predictors of helping in the

real world is having a parent who served as a model for altruism and

instilled the value of doing the right thing (Oliner & Oliner, 1988).

Concomitantly, once ethical ideologies form, they influence the

subsequent selection of new heroes and reactions to old ones. We

hypothesize that people will add or even change heroes based on

whether those heroes live up to their standards. A national survey of

adults indicated that 25% of Americans had dropped someone from

their list of heroes because of that individual’s unethical conduct and

self-absorption (Harris Poll, 2001). For those higher in integrity,

qualities related to integrity should be vital for admiring someone as

a hero.

The concept of principled commitment, as assessed via the Integrity

Scale, converges with the existing literature on moral identity.

Beginning with Blasi’s (1980, 1983) seminal writings, theorists have

focused on moral identity as a link between moral beliefs and

behavior (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Hardy & Carlo, 2005; Lapsley &

Lasky, 2001). In contrast to earlier cognitive development models

that focused on moral reasoning as a determinant of moral behavior

(Kohlberg, 1969), these approaches emphasize the internalization of

moral goals, codes, and traits into the self-concept. Damon and Hart

(1992) proposed, ‘‘there are both theoretical and empirical reasons to

believe that the centrality of morality to self may be the single most

powerful determiner of concordance between moral judgment and

conduct’’ (p. 455). Hardy and Carlo (2005) reviewed evidence suggesting

that people who are highly committed to moral causes are

more likely to describe themselves in moral terms, to regard moral

values as more important to their sense of self, to have greater

348 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

alignment between their personal (self) goals and moral goals, and to

engage in moral behavior.

Broadly, commitment reflects a pledging or binding of the self to

something else, such as a goal (e.g., get a college degree), a set of

ideas (e.g., a political policy or ideology), another person (e.g., a

marriage partner), or a group (e.g., an organization). To say that

people have a commitment means they have selected a particular set

of prescriptions to follow and these prescriptions can be used to

evaluate and sanction their conduct, both by themselves and others

who are aware of the commitment. At the same time, they have rejected

or downgraded alternative prescriptions that accomplish

different goals, take them along different paths, and offer justifications

for their different conduct.

The psychological impact of a moral commitment should be

similar to the impact of commitment on other attitudes and identity

images. Commitment crystallizes and strengthens corresponding

attitudes, making them more accessible in memory, resistant to subsequent

change, and likely to guide future behavior (Kiesler, 1971;

Schlenker, Dlugolecki, & Doherty, 1994; Scholl, 1981). Once people

claim to ‘‘be’’ a particular type of person with specific beliefs, they

have an obligation to behave commensurately. The socialization

process continually emphasizes that people must be who they claim

to be or risk serious interpersonal repercussions.

This view of commitment can be placed in the broader context of

the triangle model of responsibility, which was developed to explain

when and why the self-system becomes engaged by tasks, as well as

how it can be disengaged from undesired events through a variety of

strategic activities and accounts such as excuses and justifications

(Schlenker, 1997; Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty,

1994; Schlenker et al., 2001; Schlenker, Weigold, & Doherty, 1991).

According to the triangle model, the self-system becomes engaged

when (a) a clear, well-defined set of prescriptions is seen as applicable

in the situation (prescription clarity), (b) the actor is perceived to be

bound by the prescriptions (personal commitment), and (c) the actor

appears to have control over relevant events (personal control). It can

be disengaged when confronting undesirable events by attenuating

one or more of the three elements (e.g., claiming unclear or conflicting

prescriptions, claiming not to be bound by the specific prescriptions,

claiming external control of outcomes), with weaker elements

reduced first.

What Makes a Hero? 349

Despite different conceptual origins, this view of commitment

complements analyses of moral identity and moral development

(Blasi, 1980, 1983; Colby & Damon, 1992; Hardy & Carlo, 2005).

Colby and Damon (1992), for example, argue that self-goals and

moral goals become fused during the development of moral identity,

such that moral exemplars regard ethical conduct as expressing identity

rather than following external moral rules. For those with high

integrity, there is a strong linkage between identity and the moral

prescriptions, and it is implied that the prescriptions are generally

clear and well defined. The triangle model adds the element of perceived

personal control to bring about the desired moral outcomes

and additional specific hypotheses about self-engagement and

disengagement.

The concept of principled commitment is also germane to the

organizational behavior literature. Honesty testing, usually called

integrity testing, focuses on identifying attitudes and personality

characteristics that predict desirable employee conduct. Organizational

researchers have identified measures that predict undesirable

job behaviors (e.g., theft, disciplinary actions, absenteeism), good

organizational citizenship, and job performance (Ones, Viswesvaran,

& Schmidt, 1993; Sackett & Wanek, 1996). These include self-reports

of honesty, past inappropriate conduct (e.g., stealing), and attitudes

that justify theft, as well as personality traits relating to the Big Five

clusters of conscientiousness and agreeableness. Although a review is

beyond the scope of the present article, this research tradition converges

on qualities related to moral identity and principled commitment.

The Integrity Scale may be able to contribute to theory and

research in this tradition because it predicts a range of pro-social and

antisocial activities and, unlike some of the scales currently used

(Sackett & Wanek, 1996), it is not proprietary, is short and can be

readily incorporated into research, is not context bound for use only

in the workplace, and is not as highly correlated with measures of

social desirability.

The idea of principled versus expedient ideologies also brings to

mind research on self-monitoring and the principled versus pragmatic

self. Snyder (1987) proposed that high self-monitors are pragmatic

in their interpersonal orientation, being willing and able to

modify their behavior to obtain social rewards, whereas low selfmonitors

are principled, displaying greater consistency between their

attitudes and behaviors. The self-monitoring scale consists of

350 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

components that assess self-reported public performing, e.g., acting

ability, and other directedness, e.g., being different things to different

people (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). The former dimension is irrelevant

to ethical ideology, and the latter dimension is conceptually

closer to authenticity (being true to self) than to integrity (being

committed to moral principles). Indeed, items that assess self-monitoring

are generally neutral with respect to morality. Interestingly, it

has been suggested that low self-monitors want to establish identities

as people who are genuine and act on their beliefs (Gangestad &

Snyder, 2000; Schlenker & Weigold, 1990); this goal may contribute

to some convergence between constructs. As might be expected,

then, self-monitoring and integrity scores show a significant but

modest negative relationship, r (164)5 _.22, p5.004 (Schlenker,

2007).

In conclusion, individual differences in integrity are related to

how people perceive and respond to ethical dilemmas. Study 1 established

the association between integrity and heroes. Study 2

showed that integrity predicted evaluations of characters who behaved

in ethically admirable or condemnable ways. Those high in

integrity prefer evidence of doing the right thing even if it means

failure in a materialistic sense, whereas those low in integrity are

more torn between the right thing and the successful thing. Penn

State football coach Joe Paterno stated, ‘‘Success without honor is

an unseasoned dish. It will satisfy your hunger, but it won’t taste

good.’’ Paterno appears to be more correct when describing those of

higher integrity; the unseasoned dish seems to taste better for those

of lower integrity.

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed.) (2000). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bernhardt, P. C., Dabbs, J. M. Jr., Fielden, J. A., & Lutter, C. D. (1998).

Testosterone changes during vicarious experiences of winning and losing

among fans at sporting events. Physiology and Behavior, 65, 59–62.

Blasi, A. (1980). Building moral conviction and moral action: A critical review of

the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1–45.

What Makes a Hero? 351

Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective.

Developmental Review, 3, 178–210.

Brown, J. D. (1998). The self. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/

correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives of moral

commitment. New York: Free Press.

Collins, R. L. (1996). For better or worse: The impact of upward social comparison

on self-evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 51–69.

Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1992). Self-understanding and its role in social and

moral development. In M. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental

psychology: An advanced textbook (3rd ed., pp. 421–464). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Dunning, D. A., Krueger, J. I., & Alicke, M. D. (2005). The self in social

perceptions: Looking back, looking ahead. In M. D. Alicke, D. A. Dunning, &

J. I. Krueger (Eds.), The self in social judgment. New York: Psychology Press.

Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and

reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530–555.

Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Identity as a source of moral motivation.

Human Development, 48, 232–256.

Harris Poll. (2001). America’s heroes. Harris Interactive Poll #40, August 15,

2001. Retrieved from: www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?

PID=251.

Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. Page (Ed.),

Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 29, pp. 55–89). Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press.

Johnson, R. A., & Schlenker, B. R. (2007). Assessing the commitment to ethical

principles: Psychometric properties of the Integrity Scale. Gainesville, FL:

Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment. New York: Academic Press.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach

to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and

research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

LaPrelle, J., Hoyle, R. H., Insko, C. A., & Bernthal, P. (1990). Interpersonal attraction

and descriptions of the traits of others: Ideal similarity, self similarity,

and liking. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 216–240.

Lapsley, D. K., & Lasky, B. (2001). Prototypic moral character. Identity, 1,

345–363.

Lickona, T. (2004). Character matters. New York: Touchstone.

Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological

perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.

Miller, M. L., & Schlenker, B. R. (2007). Integrity and identity: Triangulating

private and public perceptions of moral identity. Gainesville, FL: Manuscript

submitted for publication, University of Florida.

Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Social cognition: Understanding self and others. New

York: Guilford Press.

352 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

Narvaez, D., Lapsley, D. K., Hagele, S., & Lasky, B. (2005). Moral chronicity

and social information processing: Tests of a social cognitive approach to the

moral personality. Journal of Research in Personality.

Nelson, L. D., & Norton, M. I. (2005). From student to superhero: Situational

primes shape future helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41,

423–430.

Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in

Nazi Europe. New York: Free Press.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive metaanalysis

of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel

selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,

679–703.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues:

A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press.

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38,

119–125.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Sackett, P. R., & Wanek, J. E. (1996). New developments in the use of measures

of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness,

and reliability for personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 49, 787–829.

Schlenker, B. R. (1997). Personal responsibility: Applications of the Triangle

Model. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational

behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 241–301). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Schlenker, B. R. (2007). Integrity, personality, and character: Self-regulatory

implications of principled and expedient ideologies. Gainesville, FL: Manuscript

submitted for publication, University of Florida.

Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J. W., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. J.

(1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101,

632–652.

Schlenker, B. R., Dlugolecki, D. W., & Doherty, K. J. (1994). The impact of

self-presentations on self-appraisals and behaviors: The power of public commitment.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 20–33.

Schlenker, B. R., Pontari, B. A., & Christopher, A. N. (2001). Excuses and

character: Personal and social implications of excuses. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 5, 15–32.

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1990). Self-consciousness and selfpresentation:

Being autonomous versus appearing autonomous. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 820–828.

Schlenker, B. R.,Weigold,M. F., & Doherty, K. (1991). Coping with accountability:

Self-identification and evaluative reckonings. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth

(Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp. 96–115). New York:

Pergamon.

Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy

as a motivating force. Academy of Management Journal, 6, 589–599.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater

reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.

What Makes a Hero? 353

Snyder, M. (1987). Private appearances/public realities: The psychology of

self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.

Sullivan, M., & Venter, A. (2005). The hero within: Inclusion of heroes into the

self. Self and Identity, 4, 101–111.

Walker, L. J., & Hennig, K. H. (2004). Differing conceptions of moral exemplarity:

Just, brave, and caring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,

629–647.

Walker, L. J., & Pitts, R. C. (1998). Naturalistic conceptions of moral maturity.

Developmental Psychology, 34, 403–419.

APPENDIX

Items in the Integrity Scale

1 It is foolish to tell the truth when big profits can be made by lying.

(R)

2 No matter how much money one makes, life is unsatisfactory without

a strong sense of duty and character.

3 Regardless of concerns about principles, in today’s world you have

to be practical, adapt to opportunities, and do what is most advantageous

for you. (R)

4 Being inflexible and refusing to compromise are good if it means

standing up for what is right.

5 The reason it is important to tell the truth is because of what others

will do to you if you don’t, not because of any issue of right and

wrong. (R)

6 The true test of character is a willingness to stand by one’s principles,

no matter what price one has to pay.

7 There are no principles worth dying for. (R)

8 It is important to me to feel that I have not compromised my

principles.

9 If one believes something is right, one must stand by it, even if it

means losing friends or missing out on profitable opportunities.

10 Compromising one’s principles is always wrong, regardless of the

circumstances or the amount that can be personally gained.

(Continued)

354 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker

11 Universal ethical principles exist and should be applied under all

circumstances, with no exceptions.

12 Lying is sometimes necessary to accomplish important, worthwhile

goals. (R)

13 Integrity is more important than financial gain.

14 It is important to fulfill one’s obligations at all times, even when

nobody will know if one doesn’t.

15 If done for the right reasons, even lying or cheating is OK. (R)

16 Some actions are wrong no matter what the consequences or

justification.

17 One’s principles should not be compromised regardless of the

possible gain.

18 Some transgressions are wrong and cannot be legitimately justified

or defended regardless of how much one tries.

Note: Respondents are asked to read each of the statements and indicate the extent

of their agreement or disagreement where 15strongly disagree, 25disagree, 35neither

disagree nor agree, 45agree, and 55strongly agree. Items marked (R) are reverse

scored. Integrity Scale r Barry R. Schlenker, 2006.

APPENDIX (CONT.)

What Makes a Hero? 355

356