MARC 主機 00000nam  2200289   4500 
001    AAI3247168 
005    20070813114416.5 
008    070813s2007                        eng d 
035    (UMI)AAI3247168 
040    UMI|cUMI 
100 1  Leeds, Jack Peter 
245 10 Ego-defensive and ego-promotional behavior in socially 
       desirable responding and self-assessed job performance 
300    278 p 
500    Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-
       12, Section: B, page: 7414 
500    Adviser: Richard L. Griffith 
502    Thesis (Ph.D.)--Florida Institute of Technology, 2007 
520    Whether conscious or unconscious, the need to influence 
       how we are perceived by others is a central theme in mans'
       evolution and is evidenced across contexts from the need 
       to defend against enemies to the desire to attract mates 
       to the tendency to respond overly favorably on measures of
       non-cognitive ability. Much research has been devoted to 
       the study of socially desirable responding (SDR) on non-
       cognitive measures of job related characteristics (Meehl &
       Hathaway, 1946; Crowne and Marlowe, 1960; Paulhus, 1991; 
       Ones, Viswesveran and Reiss, 1996). However, the egoistic 
       component (ego-promotional and ego-protective) of SDR has 
       not been given enough attention in the literature. Study 1
       investigated ego-promotional behavior (ascribing the self 
       with ego enhancing attributions) and ego-defensive 
       behavior (denying ones possession of ego threatening 
       attributions) as measured by a web based, 72-item bio data
       test with a 7-item Lie Scale, a 20-item experimental 
       egoistic responding (SDR) scale, and a 180 degree self-
       supervisor performance appraisal measuring competence on 
       27 dimensions. The sample consisted of 741 incumbent US 
       Army and Navy civilian employees. Study 1 examined the 
       egoistic component in terms of how it manifests on the SDR
       /Lie scale as SDR and on the self-supervisor assessed job 
       performance appraisal (operationalized as self-supervisor 
       appraisal disparity). It was hypothesized that egoistic 
       behavior is a cross-contextual phenomenon, expressed as 
       SDR in non-cognitive measures and as self-serving bias in 
       self-supervisor performance appraisals. Results show that 
       respondents engaged in more ego promotional SDR than ego 
       defensive SDR and that those high or low on egoistic 
       responding had similar levels of self-supervisor 
       performance appraisal disparity. That is, over (or under) 
       promoting the self on the egoistic SDR scale context did 
       not generalize to the performance appraisal context 
       although several performance dimensions did yield 
       significant correlations. However, the Lie scale showed a 
       significant relationship to self-supervisor disparity. 
       Egoistic SDR scale scores were more related to self than 
       supervisor-assessed performance appraisal. Finally, the 
       interacting pattern of relationships between self and 
       supervisor assessed performance and the egoistic SDR 
       scales suggests (1) that ego promotion is related to high 
       supervisor ratings until performance overestimation 
       reverses that relationship and (2) that ego defensiveness 
       relates to low supervisor ratings until performance 
       overestimation reverses this relationship. In Study 2, a 
       construct validation of the 20-item SDR scale was 
       attempted. A sample of 71 students was led to believe that
       they were applying for an actual job and were asked to 
       complete both the 72-item biodata test and the 20-item SDR
       scale. The students were then informed of the deception 
       and asked to complete the measures a second time under an 
       honest condition. The difference between a student's 
       scores on the 7 scales of the biodata test on the first 
       administration was subtracted from their scores on the 
       second administration to produce a difference score. These
       difference scores were correlated with the 20-item SDR 
       measure and the CLIMB Lie scale. Only the CLIMB Lie Scale 
       correlated significantly to one of the seven the biodata 
       scale difference score (Work Motivation). The failure of 
       the promotional and defensive scales to detect actual 
       faking limits the inferences we can draw with their regard
       to SDR rather than to faking specifically. Moreover, the 
       failure of the SDR/Lie scales to detect observed faking 
       behavior calls into question the validity of SDR 
       instruments and begs the question as to what such scales 
       are really measuring 
590    School code: 0473 
590    DDC 
650  4 Psychology, Industrial 
690    0624 
710 20 Florida Institute of Technology 
773 0  |tDissertation Abstracts International|g67-12B 
856 40 |uhttp://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/
       advanced?query=3247168