Perceived competence and impression management: Testing the mediating and moderating mechanisms
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
Using a diverse and unique sample of triads (N = 191 self, peer, and supervisor reports) from a field survey of two service sector organisations, this study examined the effects of perceived competence (self-reported) and supervisor-rated performance ratings on peer-rated impression management. The study also tested the mediating role of performance in competence-impression management relationships and the moderating role of job satisfaction (self-reported) in performance-impression management relationships using bootstrapping techniques. The study further examined the conditional indirect effects (i.e., moderated mediation) of perceived competence on impression management. The sample consisted of white collar employees from a government organisation and a leading cellular company in a developing country (i.e., Pakistan). Employees with low perceived competence were more likely to use impression management tactics than were those with high perceived competence. Similarly, poor performance ratings produced high impression management. Moreover, performance mediated the relationship between competence and impression management. The findings also suggest that perceived competence has a negative indirect effect on impression management for those with high levels of job satisfaction. Finally, impression management was highest when performance and satisfaction were low.
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