10. Integrity is visible in patterns of behavior
Virtues and behavior may be related to one another, but there is no one-to-one correspondence. Virtues may be expressed in behavior, but a person may possess a virtue without it being apparent at a given moment. Behavior must also be interpreted to derive the virtues. Behavior can be more easily attributed to an individual when others behave differently in the same situation (lack of consensus), the individual behaves the same way in different situations (lack of distinctiveness), and the individual behaves differently at different times in the same situation (lack of consistency). To achieve integrity SPs should reflect the desired qualities in their behavioral patterns. So integrity is more than just a snapshot.
Integrity is not only a matter of SPs’ behavior, but also their motives and characters. Behavior and character, however, cannot be separated. People are honest if they tell the truth in concrete situations, and telling the truth in those situations makes them honest people. Nevertheless, the relationship between behavior and virtues is not straightforward. Psychologist Edward Jones calls it a “rocky road”.66
Firstly, the relationship between personal qualities and behavior is not easy to pin down. Qualities only come into being when they are expressed in behavior. People are only honest when they show it in their actions. What use is the quality of honesty if a person proceeds to lie? At the same time a person may possess a quality without it being visible at a given moment in their behavior. Qualities can be latent. They need not be exhibited all the time. A person may be decisive without always showing it, for instance because not all situations require it. Some traits in fact only become visible in exceptional situations. A person can be heroic, but never have been in a situation in which this was required. That is why in crises, for example, people may “suddenly” rise to the occasion with the required qualities.
Secondly, the relationship between behavior and personal qualities cannot be straightforwardly established. Behavior reveals motives and with them virtues or vices. The logic seems simple: a good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree produces bad fruit, so bad fruit means a bad tree and good fruit means a good tree. In actual fact, it is not that simple. One good fruit does not make a good tree, and one bad fruit does not make a bad tree. Even several fruits cannot decisively determine the quality of the tree. Whether a tree produces good or bad fruit depends in part on the tree’s circumstances, such as climate, soil quality, and care, so the fruit does not tell us anything definitive about the quality of the tree.
There are various factors involved in ascribing behavior to a person. Social psychologist Harold Kelley developed the Covariation Model.67 This theory states that in order to ascribe behavior to a person instead of circumstances, the behavior must be compared in different situations and with that of others. This determines the covariation of the behavior. The less the following three factors are present, the more the individual is indicated, rather than the circumstances.
The first factor is consensus, the extent to which other people behave the same way in the same situation. If everyone except Pete refuses Christmas presents, then the consensus is low. The more Pete is an exception with respect to the others, the more it says something about Pete. The second factor is distinctiveness, the extent to which a person behaves the same way in different situations. If Pete only accepts presents at Christmas and not the rest of the year, the distinctiveness of Christmas is high. If Pete accepts presents all year round, the distinctiveness of Christmas is low. In this case the fact that Pete accepts presents at Christmas says less about Christmas as a situation, and more about Pete as a person, because he also accepts presents at other times. The third factor is consistency, the extent to which the person does the same every time the same situation arises. If Pete only accepts Christmas presents this year and not in other years, his consistency is low. The fact that Pete suddenly accepts a present must be down to him as a person, because the situation in other years was the same: it was also Christmas.68 If Pete is the only one who accepts a present at Christmas as well as at other times of the year, and he refuses Christmas presents in other years, then accepting a present at Christmas can be ascribed to Pete (what is termed internal attribution) and not to the situation (external attribution).
The integrity of a person is a matter of behavioral patterns. Patterns indicate regularity and therefore integrity. Whether that regularity can be attributed to a person depends on the extent to which others behave differently in the same situation (lack of consensus), the person behaves the same in other situations (lack of