Substance and Style in Socially Desirable Responding
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
The purpose of the present series of studies was to evaluate whether Paulhus's (1991) Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE) and Communion Management (CM) socially desirable responding (SDR) scales should be interpreted as response set measures, response style measures, or measures of substantive individual differences in personality. In Study 1 (N=57) and Study 2 (N=62), army officer trainees were tested as applicants to their program and retested as incumbents 3 years later. Although participants generally responded to the situation by showing higher SDR scores in the applicant conditions, they also showed considerable rank-order stability across time. In Study 3 (N=70), self-reports on both SDR scales were corroborated by spouse reports, and, furthermore, SDE scores correlated with spouse reports of low Neuroticism and high Extraversion. Our data are interpreted as suggesting that both the CM and SDE scales are, in some varying amounts, measures of response set, response style, and substantive individual differences in personality. Implications of our findings for personality assessment and personnel selection are discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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