Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates sex differences in the perceived desirability of personality behaviors and beliefs. Men and women (N = 149, Mage = 18.7) judged the social desirability scale values (SDSVs) of 150 personality statements as applied either to a male target or a female target. For comparison, some estimated SDSVs with no target sex specified. A separate sample of 537 respondents endorsed the 150 items via self-report. Raters showed a high consensus in their SDSV judgments within conditions (α = .86 to .90) and no sex-of-rater effects across conditions. Substantial sex-of-target effects (p < .001), however, revealed many behaviors that were viewed as desirable for one sex but not for the other. The behaviors seen as more (less) desirable when applied to men rather than to women were endorsed more (less) by men than by women in the respondent sample. Similar results were found when no target sex was specified for the SDSV ratings, presumably because judges evaluated the behaviors as applied to a target of their own sex. The present results have important implications for the measurement and reporting of SDSVs, the evaluation of substance versus style in self-reports, and the construction of desirability-reduced personality inventories.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".