{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021756647864625302, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.016949152542373, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Impression Management and Self-Report Among Violent Offenders

Offenders are assumed by many to employ socially desirable responding (SDR) response styles when completing self-report measures. Contrary to expectations, prior research has shown that accounting for SDR in self-report measures of antisocial constructs does not improve the relationship with outcome. Despite this, many self-report measures reliably predict future criminal outcome criteria. The present research examines the relationship of SDR (self-deception and impression management) with self-reported antisocial attitudes and the outcome of criminal recidivism in a sample of violent offenders. Offenders high on impression management reported lower antisocial attitudes. However, when impression management was statistically partialed from antisocial attitudes, the relationship with recidivism tended to diminish, though not to a statistically significant degree. This finding, though hypothesized based on previous empirical findings, is contrary to the theoretical assumption that controlling for SDR should improve the relationship of self-report with outcome. The discussion centers on the implications of routinely removing impression management from self-report.