No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Psychological assessment relies on accurate and forthright reporting to determine valid clinical presentations. However, it has long been recognized that examinees may be motivated to present a "better picture" through Positive Impression Management (PIM). Within the PIM domain, two distinct motivations (i.e., defensiveness and social desirability) emerge that have not been clearly differentiated in empirical literature. This thesis addressed the research gap for detecting PIM distortion of personality pathology, utilizing the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). In this investigation, 106 psychiatric inpatients were recruited from the adult Co-Occurring Disorders and Trauma Programs at University Behavioral Health. Using a mixed within- and between-subjects design, participants engaged in simulation via scenarios to be considered for a highly valued rehabilitation program (defensiveness) or employment (social desirability). As expected, inpatients showed elevated levels of problematic personality traits when reporting genuinely, but suppressed them under PIM conditions. These findings highlight that the PID-5, like all multiscale inventories, is highly vulnerable to intentional PIM distortion. Interestingly, respondents in the social desirability condition generally engaged in more total denial than those in the defensiveness condition. Empirically- and theoretically-based validity scales were developed to identify simulators and differentiate between conditions. Besides PIM, higher levels of experienced stigma were associated with more personality pathology, particularly the domain of Detachment. In addition, ancillary analyses showed strong convergence of the PID-5 with its hierarchical trait model to the DSM-IV categorical model. Continued research to detect PIM distortion, and more importantly to differentiate between PIM motivations, is essential for accurate clinical assessment of personality disorder traits and effective treatment planning.

S'inscrivant dans la conception évaluative du jugement social (Beauvois et Dubois, 2009), cette thèse a pour objectif de montrer que les deux dimensions du jugement personnologique (utilité et désirabilité sociales) correspondent à deux modes de connaissance évaluative très généraux intervenant dans le jugement de tout objetsocial. De façon plus précise, on se propose de montrer que ces deux modes de connaissance peuvent 1. être induits à partir de pratiques évaluatives faites tantôt sur des personnes, tantôt sur des objets, et 2. être ensuite généralisés à la description d'objets (après induction sur des personnes) ou de personnes (après induction sur des objets).Deux recherches montrent que les adjectifs évaluatifs courants et propres à la description des objets de consommation sont, comme attendu, massivement structurés par deux dimensions analogues à la désirabilité et à l'utilité sociales (respectivement l'agréabilité et la valeur marchande des objets). Six autres expérimentations, destinées à tester la généralisation des deux modes de connaissance évaluative montrent globalement, commeattendu, qu'il est possible d'induire un mode de connaissance évaluative, surtout celui en lien avec l'utilité sociale, et un mode de connaissance descriptive et que le mode de connaissance induit peut effectivement être généralisé à la connaissance d'un autre registre d'objets (du registre des personnes à celui des objets vs du registre des objets à celui des personnes).Nos résultats suggèrent donc que la désirabilité sociale et l'utilité sociale semblent bien fonctionner comme deux modes de connaissance évaluative généraux tant des personnes que des objets de consommation. Ils confirment aussi que la mobilisation de ces deux dimensions relève bien des pratiques sociales d'évaluation et non de la réalité psychologique des personnes. Les apports théoriques à la conception évaluative, les perspectives de recherches, ainsi qu'une application potentielle à la psychologie du consommateur, sont discutées. / Following evaluative framework of social judgment (Beauvois and Dubois, 2009), this thesis aims at showing that the two dimensions of persons judgment (the so called : "social utility" and "social desirability") correspond to two evaluative knowledge's modes that can be applied to common objects judgment. More precisely, we propose to demonstrate that these two evaluative modes can be 1. induced from evaluativepractices made either into the person register, or into the object register, and 2. then generalized to objects descriptions (following induction into person register) or to persons descriptions (following induction into object register).Two researches started with showing that current and evaluative adjectives that are suitable for objects description are massively structured by two dimensions similar to social desirability and social utility (respectively "agreeableness" and "market value"). Six other experiments intended to test the generalization of the two evaluative modes. As predicted, results showed that it is possible to induce the two evaluative knowledgemodes, especially that which pertains to persons social utility and market value, and another descriptive knowledge mode, and that these induced modes can be generalized from persons to objects and conversely from objects to persons.Thus, these findings suggest that the social desirability and the social utility traits dimensions function like two general modes of evaluative knowledge that can be applied to any social object. They also confirm that the mobilization of these two modes is not a consequence of psychological realism, but result of evaluative social practices. Theoretical implications for the evaluative framework as well as directions for future work and apotential application for consumer psychology are discussed.

L'objectif de cette thèse était de montrer que les autodescriptions dans les inventaires de personnalité expriment la connaissance que les individus ont de valeur sociale qu'il convient d'exprimer selon les contextes de passation. Nous nous sommes principalement appuyés sur la littérature relative au jugement social, qui définit la valeur sociale à partir de deux dimensions fondamentales : la désirabilité sociale et l'utilité sociale. La première, la désirabilité sociale, exprime la réputation des personnes à susciter des affects positifs dans les relations sociales. La seconde, l'utilité sociale, exprime la réputation à performer dans un système social. Dans ce cadre, nous avons examiné l'hypothèse générale selon laquelle les réponses données à un inventaire de personnalité reposent davantage sur la valeur d'utilité et/ou de désirabilité des items (information évaluative) que sur les facteurs de personnalité qu'ils sont censés mesurer (information descriptive). Nous avons d'abord montré que les individus attribuent plus ou moins de désirabilité et d'utilité sociale aux différents items des inventaires de personnalité. Nous avons ensuite mis en évidence que la prise en compte de cette information évaluative permet aux répondants de mieux faire correspondre leurs réponses aux prescriptions sociales (explicites ou implicites). Dans un troisième ensemble d'études, nous avons étudié le rôle des informations descriptives et des informations évaluatives dans les inférences de performance professionnelle. Les données ont mis en évidence que les individus utilisent davantage l'information évaluative lorsqu'ils doivent pronostiquer la performance professionnelle. Enfin, les deux dernières études montrent que les facteurs de personnalité prédisent la performance essentiellement à travers les items dont la valeur sociale est congruente avec la valeur mobilisée par le critère de performance (sélection, relations sociales). Pris ensemble, nos résultats soutiennent notre hypothèse générale et indiquent que les individus expriment une connaissance intuitive de leur valeur sociale dans les inventaires. / Our aim was to show that self-description in personality inventories communicate individuals' self-knowledge about their social value. Following social judgment framework, social value is defined around two fundamental dimensions: social desirability and social utility. The former refers to the individuals' reputation to elicit positive affects in interpersonal relations. The latter refers to the individuals' reputation to perform in social systems. We postulated that self-description in personality inventories rely more on the social utility and social desirability of the items (evaluative information) than on the personality factors they are supposed to measure (descriptive information). We first showed that personality items could cover more or less social desirability or social utility. Then, we showed that these two components serve the malleability of self-descriptions according to explicit or implicit social exigencies. In a third set of studies, we studied the role of descriptive and evaluative information on performance inferences. Results showed the primacy of evaluative over descriptive information for professional performance inferences. Finally, the last two studies show that personality factors predict performance primarily through the items whose social value is congruent with the value mobilized by the performance criterion (selection, social relations). Taken together, the results support our hypothesis and indicate that individuals express an intuitive knowledge of their social value in personality inventories.

The current dissertation had three primary objectives, categorized into two MTurk studies with capital juror-eligible community members: (a) cross-validate the psychometric properties of the JQVV, (b): explore the role of legal attitudes via the JQVV in mock capital sentencing decisions, and (c): examine the JQVV's ability to detect juror social desirability in capital voir dire. Impressively, Study 1 (N = 552) and Study 2 (N = 313) provided strong and consistent evidence for the JQVV's reliability and construct validity. In the mock juror paradigm, punitive legal attitudes on the JQVV (i.e., Crime-Neg, Convict, and Death-Pos), did not directly affect sentencing decisions, however they indirectly influenced the perception of nearly all other legally relevant variables (e.g., evidence type). For example, participants with more punitive criminal justice attitudes evaluated aggravating evidence more favorably which, in turn, increased death sentence verdicts. Study 1 also underscored the concerningly low levels of comprehension jurors have regarding judicial instructions and other relevant legal knowledge (e.g., the definition of aggravating). In Study 2, the support-life and support-death groups evidenced divergent patterns of social desirability, although support-death participants did not dramatically alter their scores between the genuine and social desirability condition. Additionally, the JQVV Pros-Cyn and Justice-Pos scales were moderately effective at identifying social desirability, marking the first ever questionnaire to examine juror response styles. Implications for research, professional practice in capital jury selection, and legal policy are discussed.

Faking in applications was found to be an important issue in which social desirability plays a relevant role. The present study brings Social Desirability Responding, Honesty-Humility, and different stakes of situations into relation. Social Desirability Responding, i.e. Communion Management and Self-Deceptive Enhancement, operationalized by the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) and Honesty-Humility (HEXACO-60) are analysed regarding their relationships and differences in and between high-stake, low-stake, and high-stake-low-framed situations. Relationships between Honesty-Humility and Communion Management were significantly positive, while no relationship between Honesty-Humility and Self-Deceptive Enhancement was found. There were also no significant differences in the constructs across situations. It was further investigated whether individuals scoring low in Honesty-Humility show different responding behaviour dependent on situational frames compared to individuals scoring high in Honesty-Humility. No significant differences were found. Results imply that Social Desirable Responding scales do not measure what they intent to, hence further research is needed. The tested high-stake-low-framed situational instruction did not significantly reduce faking. However, exploring the option of framing application situations is recommended for organizations. Further, the problematic nature of measuring Social Desirability Responding is considered.