Be yourself or adapt yourself? Authenticity, self-monitoring, behavioural integrity, and trust
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
Prior work has offered good arguments to trust both authentic and self-monitoring individuals, yet these two constructs have been described as incompatible and even opposite. This tension raises the question of which strategy will best build trust: Be yourself or adapt yourself? Informed by theory on private and public selves at work, this paper argues that both self-monitoring and authenticity behaviours foster trust, but only when not accompanied by the other behaviour. While actors can combine authenticity and self-monitoring in their self-concept, observers see this combination as lacking behavioural integrity (i.e. word-deed misalignment), thus reducing trust. We test these relationships in a time-lagged, multi-source survey study with project teams. Our results support the hypothesis and demonstrate that behavioural integrity mediates the interaction between authenticity and self-monitoring on perceptions of trust. We discuss the implications of our findings for the development and implementation of effective trust-building strategies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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