Using the BIDR to Distinguish the Effects of Impression Management and Self-Deception on the Criterion Validity of Personality Measures: A Meta-Analysis

Li, Andrew; Bagger, Jessica

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00339.x

Cited by 120 publications

(148 citation statements)

References 84 publications

(116 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The correlation pattern is similar to the meta-analysis of Li and Bagger (2006), where impression management was correlated with all factors except Extraversion and Openness. We tested the differences in correlation size across the groups using Fisher's r-z transformation.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups.

Fetvadjiev

Meiring

Vijver³

et al. 2015

Psychological Assessment

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the development and the underlying structure of a personality inventory for the main ethnocultural groups of South Africa, using an emic-etic approach. The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI) was developed based on an extensive qualitative study of the implicit personality conceptions in the country's 11 official languages (Nel et al., 2012). Items were generated and selected (to a final set of 146) with a continuous focus on cultural adequacy and translatability. Students and community adults (671 Blacks, 198 Coloreds, 104 Indians, and 391 Whites) completed the inventory. A 6-dimensional structure (comprising a positive and a negative Social-Relational factor, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness) was equivalent across groups and replicated in an independent sample of 139 Black and 270 White students. The SAPI correlated highly overall with impression-management aspects, but lower with lying aspects of social desirability. The SAPI socialrelational factors were distinguishable from the Big Five in a joint factor analysis; the multiple correlations with the Big Five were .64 (positive) and .51 (negative social-relational). Implications and suggestions for emic-etic instrument and model development are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups.

Fetvadjiev

Meiring

Vijver³

et al. 2015

Psychological Assessment

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This issue has been tested in a large number of studies and subsequently summarized in meta-analyses. These show unanimously that IM scales fail to moderate criterion-related validities of personality scales (Li & Bagger, 2006;Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998;Ones et al, 1996). Ones et al's (1996) finding that partialing out IM has no effect on the criterionrelated validities of the Big Five traits led them to conclude that the use of IM scales in personnel selection is a red herring.…”

Section: Scope Of the Present Reviewmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…These metaanalyses show that IM is either not correlated with job performance or that it is mildly positively correlated. For example, Moorman and Podsakoff (1992) found a near-zero average correlation (r ¼ .01) in their meta-analysis (k ¼ 7, N ¼ 2392); Ones et al (1996) had a larger sample of studies (k ¼ 14, N ¼ 9966) and their conclusion was identical (r ¼ .01); more recently, Li and Bagger (2006) found a positive correlation (r ¼ .10; 95% CI ¼ .05-.15) between job performance and social desirability across eight studies (N ¼ 1244) once it was specifically defined in terms of the BIDR IM subscale. Taken together, the results are more consistent with the arguments of the adjustment approach than with those of the defensiveness approach.…”

Section: Uzielmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eysenck et al, 1985;Graziano & Tobin, 2002;J. Hogan et al, 2007;Konstabel et al, 2006;Kurtz, Tarquini, & Iobst, 2008;Li & Bagger, 2006;Lönnqvist, Paunonen, et al, 2007;Maltby et al, 2001;McCrae, 1986;McCrae & Costa 1983;McKelvie, 2004;Ones et al, 1996;Paulhus, 1998;Paulhus & Reid, 1991;Pauls & Crost, 2004;Pauls & Stemmler, 2003;D.B. Smith & Ellingson, 2002;H.L.…”

Section: What Impression Management Scales Measure: Empirical Evidencmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rethinking Social Desirability Scales

Uziel

2010

Perspect Psychol Sci

284

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social desirability (specifically, impression management) scales are widely used by researchers and practitioners to screen individuals who bias self-reports in a self-favoring manner. These scales also serve to identify individuals at risk for psychological and health problems. The present review explores the evidence with regard to the ability of these scales to achieve these objectives. In the first part of the review, I present six criteria to evaluate impression management scales and conclude that they are unsatisfactory as measures of response style. Next, I explore what individual differences in impression management scores actually do measure. I compare two approaches: a defensiveness approach, which argues that these scales measure defensiveness that stems from vulnerable self-esteem, and an adjustment approach, which suggests that impression management is associated with personal well-being and interpersonal adjustment. Data from a wide variety of fields including social behavior, affect and wellbeing, health, and job performance tend to favor the adjustment approach. Finally, I argue that scales measuring impression management should be redefined as measures of interpersonally oriented self-control that identify individuals who demonstrate high levels of self-control, especially in social contexts.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, according to some other researchers, deception is not always intentional (e.g., self-deception) (Gardner & Martinko, 1988), (Jones et al, 1962), (A. Li & Bagger, 2006). Regardless of the deception type, successful forensics investigation requires detection of deception.…”

Section: Fake Identity and Messaging Schemementioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of Social Network Forensics

Karabiyik¹,

Canbaz²,

Aksoy³

et al. 2016

JDFSL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social networks in any form, specifically online social networks (OSNs), are becoming a part of our everyday life in this new millennium especially with the advanced and simple communication technologies through easily accessible devices such as smartphones and tablets. The data generated through the use of these technologies need to be analyzed for forensic purposes when criminal and terrorist activities are involved. In order to deal with the forensic implications of social networks, current research on both digital forensics and social networks need to be incorporated and understood. This will help digital forensics investigators to predict, detect and even prevent any criminal activities in different forms. It will also help researchers to develop new models/techniques in the future. This paper provides literature review of the social network forensics methods, models, and techniques in order to provide an overview to the researchers for their future works as well as the law enforcement investigators for their investigations when crimes are committed in the cyber space. It also provides awareness and defense methods for OSN users in order to protect them against to social attacks.

show abstract

Using the BIDR to Distinguish the Effects of Impression Management and Self-Deception on the Criterion Validity of Personality Measures: A Meta-Analysis

Cited by 120 publications

References 84 publications

The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups.

The South African Personality Inventory (SAPI): A culture-informed instrument for the country’s main ethnocultural groups.

Rethinking Social Desirability Scales

A Survey of Social Network Forensics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About