MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094835676 · doi:10.1375/twin.13.2.131

No Evidence that Social Desirability Response Set Explains the General Factor of Personality and Its Affective Correlates

2010· article· en· W2094835676 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTwin Research and Human Genetics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Social desirabilityHierarchical structure of the Big FivePersonalityEysenck Personality QuestionnaireSet (abstract data type)Social psychologyScale (ratio)Big Five personality traitsClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyExtraversion and introversion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In two studies, the General Factor of Personality (GFP) remained intact after controlling for the Lie scale from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, despite the Lie Scale showing significant correlations with the GFP defining traits. In Study 1, a re-analysis of 29 self-ratings from 322 pairs of twins (644 individuals) yielded a GFP both before and after controlling for social desirability. In Study 2, four measures of affect in 133 university students loaded on a GFP both before and after controlling for social desirability such that those high on the GFP were high in self-esteem and positive affect and low in depression and negative affect. These results join those from other studies failing to find evidence that the GFP is merely an artifact of evaluative bias.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.348
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it