Impression Management and Self-Report Among Violent Offenders
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
Offenders are assumed by many to employ socially desirable responding (SDR) response styles when completing self-report measures. Contrary to expectations, prior research has shown that accounting for SDR in self-report measures of antisocial constructs does not improve the relationship with outcome. Despite this, many self-report measures reliably predict future criminal outcome criteria. The present research examines the relationship of SDR (self-deception and impression management) with self-reported antisocial attitudes and the outcome of criminal recidivism in a sample of violent offenders. Offenders high on impression management reported lower antisocial attitudes. However, when impression management was statistically partialed from antisocial attitudes, the relationship with recidivism tended to diminish, though not to a statistically significant degree. This finding, though hypothesized based on previous empirical findings, is contrary to the theoretical assumption that controlling for SDR should improve the relationship of self-report with outcome. The discussion centers on the implications of routinely removing impression management from self-report.
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 | 0.001 | 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