How do Bandura’s and Rotter’s views on cognitive factors differ from Skinner’s views?

How do Bandura’s and Rotter’s views on cognitive factors differ from Skinner’s views?

How do Bandura’s and Rotter’s views on cognitive factors differ from Skinner’s views?

How do Bandura’s and Rotter’s views on cognitive factors differ from Skinner’s views?
How do Bandura’s and Rotter’s views on cognitive factors differ from Skinner’s views?

How is modeling used to change behavior? Give an example.

How do people high in self-efficacy differ from people low in self-efficacy?

Distinguish between self-efficacy and locus of control in terms of their effects on behavior.

What factors impeded the acceptance of Gestalt psychology in the United States?

On what grounds has Gestalt psychology been criticized?

On what grounds did Gestalt psychologists criticize behaviorism?

In what ways did Gestalt psychology affect psychology as a whole?

Discuss three ways in which cognitive psychology differs from behaviorism.

Describe cognitive neuroscience and the techniques used to map the brain.

How does cognitive neuroscience relate to earlier attempts to explain brain functioning?

What is the present status of cognitive psychology?

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 expe-

dient), 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 integri- ty, whereas lower scores reflect a more expedient orientation. Peo-

ple’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 test- retest reliability (r5 .82 over 2–5 weeks; Schlenker, 2007). Confir- matory factor analyses supported the view that a single latent integ-

rity dimension, which appears to reflect the principled-expedient continuum, along with measurement effects from direct- and reverse-

scored items, underlies responses ( Johnson & Schlenker, 2007). So- cial 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 pro- social versus antisocial orientations toward others, and research shows that they are. In the personality realm, integrity scores are

positively related to scores on measures of the purpose and meaning in life, authenticity, empathy, trust, and self-esteem and negatively re-

lated to scores on Machiavellianism, self-monitoring, cynicism, nar- cissism, alienation, and the tendency to rationalize antisocial and

illegal conduct. Integrity scores are unrelated to measures of dogma- tism 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 respon- dents’ own integrity scores and their friends’ appraisals of their in-

tegrity (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 vir- tually 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 signifi- cant 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 de- sirable 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 com-

paring oneself to heroes can produce a contrast effect and negative self-evaluations, it can also serve as inspiration to motivate self- improvement, produce the glow of basking in their accomplish-

ments, and even enhance self-evaluation through assimilation (Col- lins, 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-con- ceptions (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 physio-

logical change