Development, Validation, and Faking-Resistance of an Implicit Measure of Psychopathy in the Workplace
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
Researchers have called for faking-resistant measures of psychopathic personality that can be self-administered in high-stakes contexts (e.g. hiring). We developed and validated an implicit measure of psychopathy contextualized in workplace situations. We first detail how the measure is framed, conceptualized, and rooted in psychopathy literature. We then describe the item development process, and Study 1 involves expert review and refining the item list. In Study 2 (N = 396), we examine internal consistency and factor structure for a 22-item version of the measure. In Study 3 (N = 251), we demonstrate test-retest reliability, construct-related validity, and provide initial evidence for criterion-related validity through a two-wave study. Study 4 analyzes the measure using item response theory, based on a sample of 6,746 job seekers, demonstrating effectiveness for measuring high levels of psychopathy. In Study 5 (N = 219) we provide evidence of faking-resistance and criterion-related validity with behavioral (two weeks later) and self-report (one year later) outcomes. Finally, Study 6 provides promising evidence of incremental validity using an organizational sample (N = 615). Overall, scores on this new implicit measure are reliable, with acceptable construct-related, criterion-related, and incremental validity, while also being faking-resistant. Implications for use in workplace settings are 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 | 0.001 |
| 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