14. Integrity is how you are perceived by others, not just how you perceive yourself
Beyond definitions, SPs’ integrity depends on their own perceptions and those of others. People tend to judge their own integrity in a more positive light than others do. This is a natural function of the brain and the difference in viewpoint. SPs should therefore be familiar with and manage the perceptions of others on their own integrity.
A difference of opinion on the integrity of an action or person can arise from a difference in definition of integrity, as explained in the previous chapter, but also in the way integrity is perceived given the same definition. Our integrity is not only determined by our own perspective, but also by that of others, and these two perspectives are not necessarily the same; they may be at odds. How people see their own integrity therefore tells us nothing about how others see it.
For various reasons people generally see the integrity of others in a less positive light than their own.
Firstly people have a natural tendency to think positively of themselves.77 This means they take in, store and recall information about themselves in a tinted or distorted fashion. The brain is simply put together that way (making use of strategies known as heuristics). A positive self- image is important for functioning and even survival. We therefore remember good behaviors and traits in ourselves better than bad. On the other hand the human brain is set up so that bad behaviors and traits in others are recalled better than good. This is also important for functioning and survival. Just as people tend to ignore information which does not fit in with their view of things, if people see themselves positively they will be more likely to set aside negative information than if they see themselves less positively, and if they see others in a negative light, they will tend to ignore new positive information.
There is also a difference in position. People only see themselves from the inside, whereas others see them from the outside. Individuals know their own considerations and intentions best. Others see and hear the individual and extrapolate what goes on inside on that basis. Differences in interpretation are therefore possible, especially when others’ interpretations are characterized by what is known as lay psychology.78 The Correspondent Inference Theory, as developed by psychologists Edward Jones and Keith Davis,79 reveals different ways in which people interpret the behavior of others. For instance, the greater the consequences of the behavior for others, the greater the tendency to attribute the behavior to a person’s intentions. Similarly the more disadvantageous the consequences for others the more they are attributed to the individual. The greater the distance between the person and those judging, the more generic the images of the person being judged. People judging from a distance do so in absolutes (behavior is seen as good or bad), whereas those judging from close by have a more nuanced view. We also see this effect over time. The longer it is since an act was committed, the more general the judgments. For that reason history often only recognizes three variants of SPs: SPs with integrity (the heroes), corrupt SPs (power-crazed), and the rest (neutral, insignificant). The attribution of intentions and virtues therefore does not always occur based on pure, balanced considerations.
The difference in position may also lead to a difference in images of integrity. What people know about the situation and circumstances can differ from what bystanders know. Since integrity is context sensitive (what is desirable depends on the situation) another view of the context can lead to a different judgment of a person’s behavior. For instance, SPs might be seen as inconsistent when