{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022857142857142857, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013061224489795919, 'mean_word_length': 5.13, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Broad Versus Narrow Facets of Integrity: Predictive Validity and Subgroup Differences

Selection researchers continue to debate the relative value of broad versus narrow personality constructs. We investigated whether broad and narrow dimensions of integrity are differentially related to the performance of customer service managers (N = 152). A judgmental sort of items from a well-known overt integrity test revealed 8 distinct facets of integrity. Facet correlations with supervisor ratings of performance ranged from -.16 to .18. Two facets, honesty image and norms of general dishonesty, had stronger relationship with performance than did the broad integrity scale, and their multiple correlation was about 3 times larger than the validity coefficient of the broad scale. The identified facets of integrity also varied in the subgroup differences they produced (e.g., d = -0.08 to 0.77 for race), with the 2 most predictive facets yielding somewhat larger ethnic group differences than many of the other facets. Overall results suggest that integrity is a multifaceted construct and that the prediction and understanding of behavior at work may be improved by focusing on more narrowly defined dimensions of integrity.