Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development and Validation of a Military Integrity Attitude Scale

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Few empirical studies have investigated the issue of integrity in the military. This may be due, in part, to the lack of good measurement instruments. This study addressed this problem by developing a military integrity attitude scale (MIAS). Three studies were conducted to develop and validate the MIAS. A large sample size (N = 2375) was used in an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and the results revealed the stable and good fit of the factor structure, while also demonstrating the scale’s good internal consistency, content validity, criterion-related validity, and discriminant validity. In addition, the MIAS was also shown to be able to effectively distinguish anti-corruption personnel and soldiers in the military; hence, it has good contrast group validity. The implications for future research are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data available upon request.

References

  1. Aquino, K., & Reed, I. I. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bartram, D., Lindley, P. A., Marshall, L., & Foster, J. (1995). The recruitment and selection of young people by small businesses. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Black, J. E., & Reynolds, W. M. (2016). Development, reliability, and validity of the Moral Identity Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 120–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cameron, K. S. (2011). Effects of virtuous leadership on organizational performance. In S. I. Donaldson, M. Csikszentmihalyi, J. Nakamura, S. I. Donaldson, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & J. Nakamura (Eds.), Applied ositive psychology: Improving everyday life, health, schools, work, and society (pp. 171–183). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chen, J. M., & Chen, J. P. (2015). Military personnel assessing anticorruption progress in the Ministry of National Defense. Taiwan: Ministry of National Defense.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, J. P., & Luo, X. X. (2016). The study of the relationship of military personnel work value and integrity attitude. Taiwan: Ministry of National Defense.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Coyne, I., & Bartram, D. (2000). Personnel managers’ perceptions of dishonesty in the workplace. Human Resources Management Journal, 10, 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leader integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of leader integrity. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cropanzano, R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2010). Moral leadership: A short primer on competing perspectives. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality (pp. 21–52). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ficarrotta, J. C. (1997). Are military professionals bound by a higher moral standard? Armed Forces and Society, 24(1), 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hertz, S. G., & Krettenauer, T. (2016). Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior?: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 20(2), 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a Job in General scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment, 25, 543–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lievens, F., De Corte, W., & Schollaert, E. (2008). A closer look at the frame-of-reference effect in personality scale scores and validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marcus, B., Höft, S., & Riediger, M. (2006). Integrity tests and the five-factor model of personality: A review and empirical test of two alternative positions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(2), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Miller, M. L., & Schlenker, B. R. (2011). Integrity and identity: Triangulating private and public perceptions of moral identity. European Journal of Personality, 25, 2–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Robie, C., Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., & Zickar, M. J. (2000). Effects of item context specificity on the measurement equivalence of a personality inventory. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 348–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schlenker, B. R. (2008). Integrity and character: Implications of principled and expedient ethical ideologies. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27(10), 1078–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shaffer, J. A., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 445–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Simons, T. L. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Simons, T., Leroy, H., Collewaert, V., & Masschelein, S. (2015). How leader alignment of words and deeds affects followers: A meta-analysis of behavioral integrity research. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(4), 831–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Simons, T., Tomlinson, E., & Leroy, H. (2011). Research on behavioral integrity: A promising construct for positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), Handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 325–339). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Verhezen, P. (2010). Giving voice in a culture of silence: From a culture of compliance to a culture of integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(2), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by Office of Government Ethics of the Ministry of National Defense, Taiwan (TW) (Grant Recipient: Chih-Long Yen).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Counselling and I/O Psychology, Ming Chuan University, 5 De Ming Rd., Gui Shan District, Taiwan, 333, Taoyuan County, Republic of China

    Chih-Long Yen

  2. Department of Political Science, R.O.C. National Defense University, 70 Sce. 2, Zhongyang N. Rd, Taipei, 11258, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Yi-Ming Yu

Authors
  1. Chih-Long Yen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi-Ming Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-Ming Yu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yen, CL., Yu, YM. Development and Validation of a Military Integrity Attitude Scale. Crime Law Soc Change 75, 397–410 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09935-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-021-09935-4

Search

Navigation