“…Personality research has accumulated a detailed list of different biases and constructirrelevant response styles in (self-and other-)reports, and researchers continuously advance methods to correct for distortion. An illustrative but non-exhaustive list of prominent examples features memory biases, addressed by specifically cued recall (e.g., Golding & MacLeod, 2013, Mary et al, 2020Mather & Sutherland, 2009;Schwarz, 1999;Wilson & Dunn, 2004), reference standards, controlled by specifying the comparison standards explicitly (e.g., Brenner & DeLamater, 2016;Festinger, 1954;Lehnhausen et al, 2022), errors from linguistic complexity, countered by using plain language and simplifying item wording (e.g., Lahmann et al, 2019;Saris, 2013;Saris & Gallhofer, 2014), intentionally adapted responding like faking, assessed by measuring social desirability and response tendencies (e.g., King & Bruner, 2000;Paulhus, 1991;Zickar & Robie, 1999;Ziegler et al, 2011), and unintentional response styles, taken into account when statistically modelling the items' latent constructs (e.g., Danner et al, 2016;Valentini, 2017). Although considerations of self-report biases are abundant and potent theories exist to categorize and explain them (see e.g., Tourangeau et al, 2000), they are mostly limited to effects on respondents during survey participation, with exceptions for the exploration of memory bias (Golding & MacLeod, 2013;Mary et al, 2020;Wilson & Dunn, 2004).…”