Self‐presentation style in job interviews: the role of personality and culture
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
Abstract Chronic self‐promoter s may thrive in job interviews where such behavior is encouraged. In Study 1, 72 participants were videotaped as they simulated the job applicant role. Accountability was manipulated by the expectation of expert versus nonexpert interviewers. As accountability increased, self‐promotion tended to decrease among non‐narcissists but increase among narcissists. Ingratiation showed no interaction or main effects. In Study 2, 222 raters evaluated applicant videos varying in narcissism (high vs. low) and ethnicity ( E uropean heritage vs. E ast A sian heritage). Chronic self‐promoters (i.e., E uropean‐heritage narcissists) were given the most positive evaluations. Detailed behavior analyses indicated that the narcissism advantage was derived primarily from frequent self‐praise and the E uropean‐heritage advantage from use of active ingratiation tactics. In sum, self‐presentation styles that pay off in the ( W estern) interview context are highly selective.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it