ABC/123 Version X
|Week 5 Review Worksheet
PSY/203 Version 5
University of Phoenix Material
Week 5 Review Worksheet
Answer the following questions in 90 to 175 words each.
1. Select two categories of psychological disorders, and outline the main symptoms associated with each disorder.
2. Choose and describe two treatment options for psychological disorders.
3. What are the components of social perceptions? How do they affect human behavior?
4. What are some effects of group influences on human behavior, especially in the workplace?
5. Describe organizational culture. Why is understanding this important when managing complex organizational problems, including group performance and high-level decision making?
Copyright © XXXX by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2017, 2016, 2015 by University of Phoenix. All rights reserved.
Low integrity 5.44a 3.26d 6.00ac
High integrity 6.29b 2.91d 6.29bc
Low integrity 5.17ad 3.11 5.17ac
High integrity 5.53bd 2.37 5.77bc
Low integrity 4.69 3.75 5.44
High integrity 5.71a 2.90 6.41a
Low integrity 5.14 4.54a 5.77
High integrity 5.80 4.16a 6.56
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
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
344 Schlenker, Weigold, & Schlenker
The outcome and ethicality manipulations were successful. Only a
main effect of condition was found on ratings of success in accom- plishing career-related goals, F (2, 150)5 67.71, po.0001 (Ms5 2.94, 5.84, and 6.48 for the ethical-failure, unethical-success, and
ethical-success conditions; each success condition differed signifi- cantly from the failure condition, pso.001, and marginally from one another, p5 .06, as the unethical nature of a success may have tar- nished 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 un-
ethical-success (M5 2.17) and ethical when it involved either an ethical-failure or ethical-success (Ms5 6.44 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-suc- cess and more positive toward the ethical-failure than those low in
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 in-
tegrity. 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 hy-
pothesis 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 di-
verge. 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 signifi- cant 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, where-
as those low in integrity believed the character would be equally satisfied regardless (see Tables 4 and 5).
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 gener- ally principled but are readily able to provide self-serving rational- izations 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 de-
flect morally the blame for transgressions from themselves and to cheat to perform well on a test even when there are no obvious in-
centives 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.
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 ac-
cess this information in memory and use it in their choices, and be- lieve that these standards are binding, and so excuses and justifications become unacceptable ways to avoid the negative re-
percussions of transgressions. The present findings show that integ- rity 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 doc-
umenting 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 he-
roes’ perceived personal qualities and try to emulate their conduct. As models, heroes play important roles in the development of atti-
tudes and identity. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) and so- cioanalytic 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 accom- plished through positive models who value and exemplify integrity,
responsibility, self-discipline, and other-oriented virtues such as re- spect, 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