Construct · 5 fields · 14 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one word, five constructs Nearest construct by meaningfracturecompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to integrity is fracture.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The property that information has not been altered or destroyed in an unauthorised manner, and that it remains authentic and non-repudiable. FIPS 199 fixed the federal definition in 2004 as one of the three security objectives beside confidentiality and availability. Biba's 1977 model gave it a lattice: a subject may not read data of lower integrity or write data of higher integrity, the exact mirror of the Bell–LaPadula confidentiality rules. Clark and Wilson argued in 1987 that commercial systems care about integrity more than secrecy and borrowed two mechanisms from accounting (well-formed transactions and separation of duties) so that data can be changed only through certified procedures by people who cannot also audit them. What distinguishes this meaning is that integrity is a property of data and of the processes allowed to touch it, and it says nothing about whether the data are true.[1][2][3]
Two constructs share the word inside one discipline. Simons defined behavioral integrity in 2002 as an observer's perception that a manager's words and deeds align (that promises are kept and espoused values are enacted) and made it a perception held by the follower rather than a virtue held by the leader; the eight-item scale appeared in a 2007 study of Black and non-Black employees. The older construct is the integrity test, a pre-employment questionnaire about honesty, rule-following, and attitudes to theft. Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt's 1993 meta-analysis of 665 validity coefficients found such tests predict counterproductive behaviour and overall job performance, with a corrected validity for performance near .41. What distinguishes this meaning is that integrity is either rated in a manager by others or scored in an applicant to predict misconduct; neither asks what the person actually values.[4][5][6]
A person's relation to their own deepest commitments. Williams made the concept central in his 1973 critique of utilitarianism: a theory that asks an agent to treat their own projects as one input among all others attacks their integrity, because it alienates them from the actions and attitudes that make them who they are. McFall set out in 1987 what the identity view requires, commitments the person holds unconditionally, consistency between them and conduct, and commitments a reasonable person could hold. Calhoun objected in 1995 that this makes integrity a purely personal virtue and argued it is a social one: to have integrity is to stand for something before others, taking one's own judgement seriously as a contribution to a shared deliberation about how to live. What distinguishes this meaning is that integrity is a first-person relation to one's own values, and a person can have it while being wrong.[7][8][9]
The conduct of research according to honesty, accountability, professional courtesy, and good stewardship. The Singapore Statement of 2010 fixed those four principles and fourteen responsibilities as the first global statement, and the National Academies' 2017 report Fostering Integrity in Research extended the concern from the individual to the research enterprise (journals, institutions, and funders) and introduced the category of detrimental research practices short of misconduct. Fanelli's 2009 meta-analysis of surveys put numbers on the breach: about two per cent of scientists admitted to fabricating or falsifying data at least once, and about a third to questionable practices. What distinguishes this meaning is that integrity is measured by its absence, through misconduct findings and self-reported violations, and it belongs to a practice rather than a person or a file.[10][11][12]
A structure's capacity to carry its design loads without fracture, excessive deformation, or collapse. Griffith showed in 1921 why glass fails at stresses far below its theoretical strength: a crack grows when the elastic energy released by extending it exceeds the energy needed to create new surface, so strength depends on flaw size, not just material. Irwin's stress-intensity factor and the fracture toughness K_IC turned that insight into a design quantity, and Anderson's textbook sets out the resulting discipline: given a flaw, a load, and a material, will the crack grow, and how fast. What distinguishes this meaning is that integrity is a physical margin between the flaws a structure has and the flaws it can tolerate, and it is lost by a crack, not by a lie.[13][14]
Next
Combine items across the integrity scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct