Self-Promoting and Modest Job Applicants in Different Cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to investigate the influence of the recruiter’s cultural background on the evaluation of a job applicant’s presentation style (self-promoting or modest) in an interview situation. We expected that recruiters from cultures that value self-promotion (e.g., Canada) will be more inclined to hire self-promoting as compared to modest applicants and that recruiters from cultures that value modesty (e.g., Switzerland) will be less inclined to hire self-promoting applicants than recruiters from cultures that value self-promotion. We therefore investigated 44 native French speaking recruiters from Switzerland and 40 native French speaking recruiters from Canada who judged either a self-promoting or a modest videotaped applicant in terms of hireability. Results confirmed that Canadian recruiters were more inclined to hire self-promoting compared to modest applicants and that Canadian recruiters were more inclined than Swiss recruiters to hire self-promoting applicants. Also, we showed that self-promotion was related to a higher intention to hire because self-promoting applicants are perceived as being competent.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".