PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS EXPLAINING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INTEGRITY TESTS AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR: BIG FIVE, OR ONE IN ADDITION?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the criterion‐related validity of integrity tests is well established, there has not been enough research examining which personality constructs contribute to their criterion‐related validity. Moreover, evidence of how well findings on integrity tests in North America generalize to non‐English speaking countries is virtually absent. This research addressed these issues with data obtained from employees and students in Canada and Germany (total N = 853). Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that (a) Honesty–Humility, as specified in the HEXACO model of personality, is relatively more important than the Big 5 dimensions of personality in accounting for the criterion‐related validity of overt integrity tests, whereas (b) the Big 5 are relatively more important in explaining the validity of personality‐based integrity tests. These predictions were tested using 2 criteria (counterproductive work behavior and counterproductive academic behavior) as well as 2 overt and 2 personality‐based integrity tests. We found evidence of the expected differences between types of integrity tests largely regardless of culture of the sample, specific test, criterion, or population under research, pointing to some degree of generalizability of findings in integrity testing research. Implications include theoretical refinements in research on integrity testing and encouragement of practical applications beyond North America.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it