A Compromise between Self-Enhancement and Honesty: Chinese Self-Evaluations on Social Desirability Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this investigation, 202 Chinese college students were asked to complete the 48-item revised Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) which contains 32 items from the original version for the purpose of rating item desirability and estimating the percentage of others in general who would behave in the manner described by these items. Analysis indicated (a) nearly all original items keyed in the original direction, which suggests similar fundamental values are prevalent among American and Chinese college students; (b) the distribution of Chinese scores on the 32 items was somewhat positively skewed rather than negatively skewed as in some Western studies of American and Canadian college students. Also, (c) Chinese subjects perceived that they did significantly more desirable and slightly fewer undesirable things than others from which one may infer that Chinese college students tended to give both self-enhancing and honest responses to present good images; however, their need for self-enhancement may take precedence over the need to be honest. (d) Subjects chose to give more honest responses to undesirable items than to desirable ones because the more undesirable items were rated as approximately more neutral than were more desirable ones. Hence, endorsing such undesirable items would not threaten their self-esteem or face. It can be seen that Chinese subjects made an intelligent compromise between self-enhancement and honesty.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".