A comparison of short form Marlowe–Crowne and “best friends” social desirability bias measures
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
Purpose The purpose of this study is to compare two different types of measures of social desirability bias (SDB), a short form of the Marlowe–Crowne measure, a popular direct measure, and an example of a projective technique where half of the respondents record the views of their “best friends”. Design/methodology/approach The data were collected using an online survey of members of a consumer panel. The context chosen to test the SDB measures was that of attitudes toward counterfeit products and xenocentrism in Colombia. Counterfeit proneness, attitude toward counterfeit products and consumer xenocentrism were selected as variables likely to be affected by SDB. Vertical and horizontal collectivism were included as variables likely to influence the first group of variables while not being themselves subject to SDB. Findings The projective technique consistently identified higher levels of SDB effects, as hypothesized. Marked differences emerged in the apparent strength of the relationships between the operational constructs depending upon which measure of SDB was used. At times, whether any such relationship might exist depended on the SDB measure used. Contrary to some prior work, no systematic gender effects were identified using either approach. Originality/value The first study to provide evidence of the comparative effects of different types of measures of SDB in research into ethical issues. One of the few to demonstrate how apparent relationships between variables can be created by SDB.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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