Virtues Scale (VS)
(Cawley, 1997; Cawley et al., 2000 ).
Variable
According to Cawley et al. (2000) , ‘The concept of virtue has been a powerful explanatory term in moral phi-
losophy ( MacIntyre, 1981 )...Nonetheless ...the virtues have been largely ignored in modern personality theory.’
(pp. 997 /C0998). To address this oversight, and following Allport and Odbert’s (1936) lexical methodology, Cawley
(1997; Cawley et al., 2000) identified all virtue terms in The New Merriam /C0Webster Dictionary (1989), using the cri-
terion statements, ‘What ought I to be?’ and ‘What ought I to do?’ ‘The term was recorded as a virtue if it
expressed the concept of arete (virtue or ‘excellence’) when replacing the ellipse in one of the respective responses
to the two questions: ‘Be...’ [which identified adjectival forms of virtue] or ‘Show ...’ [which identified noun
forms of virtue]’ ( Cawley et al., 2000 , p. 1002). Combining adjectives and nouns yielded 140 unique virtue terms.
Cawley et al. also noted that the Five Factor Model includes constructs (agreeableness and conscientiousness)
that could be understood as virtues (cf. McCrae & Costa, 1991 , on ‘adding Liebe und Arbeit’).
Description
Following Goldberg and Kilkowski (1985) , the 140 indicators of moral personality (‘virtues’) were converted
into the VS items, each of which comprised three sentences to describe what a person is, how a person behaves,
and how others view a person with respect to the particular virtue. In contrast to Kohlberg’s moral reasoning
approach, Cawley et al. (2000) described the VS as ‘a psychological measure of the ethic of virtue’ (p. 999). (cf.
dual process models of moral behavior /C0e.g., see Haidt, 2012; Paxton & Greene, 2010 ). Four factor analytically
derived subscales were labeled as follows: Empathy, Order, Resourcefulness, and Serenity, respectively (see
below).
Sample
The initial developmental sample comprised 390 undergraduates ( Cawley et al., 2000 ). Subsequently, two vali-
dation samples were used ( Ns5181 and 143), both of which were also administered the NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI-R), and one ( N5181) also administered Rest’s (1979) Defining Issues Test (DIT) measure of
Kohlbergian moral development to check on personality correlates.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cawley et al. (2000) reported Cronbach alpha coefficients based on the three samples as follows: Empathy (.93
in each sample), Order (.90, .91, .87), Resourceful (.87, .87, .80) and Serenity (.85, .84, .80), respectively. These
alpha coefficients are high, especially for the Empathy and Order subscales (cf. Boyle, 1991 ).
Test/C0Retest
No test /C0retest information for the VS is currently available.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Correlations between the four VS subscales and NEO-PI-R scales were obtained in the second and third sam-
ples. Empathy correlated positively with NEO Agreeableness ( rs5.48 and .48) and NEO Extraversion ( rs5.40
and .26) domains. Order correlated positively with NEO Conscientiousness ( rs5.63 and .53). Resourcefulness
also correlated positively with NEO Conscientiousness ( rs5.49 and .42), while Serenity correlated positively
with NEO Agreeableness ( rs5.45 and .44) ( Cawley et al., 2000 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The VS subscale Resourcefulness correlated negatively with the NEO Neuroticism domain ( rs52.60 and
2.37), respectively. Likewise, the VS subscale Serenity correlated negatively with NEO Neuroticism ( rs52.38,
2.22). No significant correlations were found between any VS subscales and Rest’s Defining Issues Test scores.
Cawley et al. (2000) concluded that, ‘The virtues approach does indeed appear to consider aspects of moral
psychology which are neglected by the Kohlbergian moral development approach’ (p. 1010).510 18. MEASURES OF VALUES AND MORAL PERSONALITY
V. VICES AND VIRTUES