Predicting integrity with the HEXACO personality model: Use of self‐ and observer reports
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
Recent research has suggested that a six‐dimensional model of personality called the HEXACO framework may have particular value in organizational settings because of its ability to predict integrity‐related outcomes. In this series of studies, the potential value of the HEXACO factor known as Honesty‐Humility was further examined. First, the empirical distinctness of this construct from the other major dimensions of personality was demonstrated in a high‐stakes personnel selection situation. Second, Honesty‐Humility was found to predict scores on an integrity test and a business ethical decision‐making task beyond the level of prediction that was possible using measures based on a traditional Big Five model of personality. This finding was also observed when Honesty‐Humility was assessed by familiar acquaintances of the target persons. The applicability of the HEXACO model within industrial and organizational psychology was then 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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