• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

对诚信量表结构效度的深入考察。

A Closer Examination of the Integrity Scale's Construct Validity.

作者信息

Hart William, Kinrade Charlotte, Lambert Joshua T, Breeden Christopher J, Witt Danielle E

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.

出版信息

J Pers Assess. 2023 Nov-Dec;105(6):743-751. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2022.2152346. Epub 2022 Dec 12.

DOI:10.1080/00223891.2022.2152346
PMID:36507664
Abstract

People's commitment to moral principles affects how they self-regulate and directs people down different ethical paths. The Integrity Scale was designed to assess the strength of people's commitment to moral principles. Here, we sought to contribute to evaluating the construct validity of the Integrity Scale. We related the scale to various theoretically relevant criteria including low antagonism features, social-cognitive foundations for morality, self-control, rationality, and self-presentation behavior. Suggestive of the scale's construct validity, the present research showed that scores on the Integrity Scale related to (a) reduced antagonistic-personality features relevant to exploitation and dishonesty more so than immodesty, tough-heartedness, fearlessness, or cynicism; (b) enhanced social-cognitive skills (e.g., cognitive empathy processes); (c) enhanced self-control; (d) enhanced capacities for and reliance on rationality in decision making (e.g., intelligence and cognitive-reflection skill); and (e) enhanced reliance on self-presentation tactics that portray an identity based in high levels of integrity.

摘要

人们对道德原则的坚守会影响他们的自我约束方式,并引导人们走上不同的道德道路。正直量表旨在评估人们对道德原则的坚守程度。在此,我们力图为评估正直量表的结构效度做出贡献。我们将该量表与各种理论上相关的标准联系起来,包括低对抗性特征、道德的社会认知基础、自我控制、理性以及自我呈现行为。本研究表明正直量表得分与以下方面相关,这暗示了该量表的结构效度:(a) 与剥削和不诚实相关的对抗性人格特征减少,比与不谦虚、铁石心肠、无畏或愤世嫉俗相关的特征减少得更多;(b) 社会认知技能增强(例如,认知共情过程);(c) 自我控制增强;(d) 决策中理性能力和对理性的依赖增强(例如,智力和认知反思技能);(e) 对基于高度正直的身份呈现策略的依赖增强。

相似文献

1
A Closer Examination of the Integrity Scale's Construct Validity.对诚信量表结构效度的深入考察。
J Pers Assess. 2023 Nov-Dec;105(6):743-751. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2022.2152346. Epub 2022 Dec 12.
2
Human morality and temperament.人类的道德与性情。
Nebr Symp Motiv. 2005;51:1-32.
3
Ethical decision-making confidence scale for nurse leaders: Psychometric evaluation.护理领导者伦理决策信心量表的心理测量学评估。
Nurs Ethics. 2022 Jun;29(4):988-1002. doi: 10.1177/09697330211065847. Epub 2022 Mar 1.
4
Moral foundations theory, political identity, and the depiction of morality in children's movies.道德基础理论、政治认同与儿童电影中的道德描绘。
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 26;16(3):e0248928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248928. eCollection 2021.
5
Strengths and Weaknesses of Two Empathy Measures: A Comparison of the Measurement Precision, Construct Validity, and Incremental Validity of Two Multidimensional Indices.两种同理心测量方法的优缺点:两种多维指数的测量精度、结构有效性和增量有效性比较。
Assessment. 2020 Mar;27(2):246-260. doi: 10.1177/1073191118777636. Epub 2018 May 31.
6
Mapping the moral domain.绘制道德领域图谱。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011 Aug;101(2):366-85. doi: 10.1037/a0021847.
7
Validation of the Dutch-language version of Nurses' Moral Courage Scale.验证荷兰语版护士道德勇气量表。
Nurs Ethics. 2021 Aug;28(5):809-822. doi: 10.1177/0969733020981754. Epub 2021 Jan 11.
8
Moral expansiveness: Examining variability in the extension of the moral world.道德扩展性:审视道德世界外延的变异性。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2016 Oct;111(4):636-53. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000086. Epub 2016 Jan 11.
9
Reliability and validity of the revised Rushton Moral Resilience Scale for healthcare workers.修订版医护人员鲁斯顿道德复原力量表的信度与效度
J Adv Nurs. 2024 Mar;80(3):1177-1187. doi: 10.1111/jan.15873. Epub 2023 Sep 29.
10
Making moral principles suit yourself.随心所欲地制定道德准则。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2021 Oct;28(5):1735-1741. doi: 10.3758/s13423-021-01935-8. Epub 2021 May 4.

引用本文的文献

1
Extending Lawson and Robins' (2021) guideline for the evaluation of jingle and jangle fallacies.扩展劳森和罗宾斯(2021年)关于评估叮当声谬误和刺耳声谬误的指南。
Behav Res Methods. 2025 May 19;57(6):177. doi: 10.3758/s13428-025-02691-6.