Cilj istraživanja bio je ispitati povezanost dimenzija socijalno poželjnog odgovaranja s osobinama ličnosti i inteligencijom u realnoj selekcijskoj situaciji. Polazeći od Paulhusova modela (1984) socijalno poželjnog odgovaranja ispitali smo povezanost upravljanja dojmovima i samozavaravanja s općom inteligencijom i tri dimenzije ličnosti – ekstraverzijom, neuroticizmom i psihoticizmom. Istraživanje je provedeno na kandidatima koji su se natjecali za prijem u obrazovni program Ministarstva obrane Republike Hrvatske. U skladu s polaznom hipotezom, dvije su komponente socijalne poželjnosti imale različite obrasce povezanosti s dimenzijama ličnosti i općom inteligencijom. Samozavaravanje je bilo u pozitivnoj korelaciji s neuroticizmom i ekstraverzijom, a upravljanje dojmovima u negativnoj korelaciji s psihoticizmom i općom inteligencijom. Razlike u dobivenom sklopu korelacija podržavaju tezu da samozavaravanje i upravljanje dojmovima predstavljaju dva različita oblika socijalno poželjnog odgovaranja. Međutim, suprotno osnovnoj pretpostavci modela, komponente se razlikuju po sadržaju samoprezentacije, a ne po stupnju svjesnosti.The aim of this study was to examine the relationship of a socially desirable response with personality traits and intelligence in a real selection situation. Starting from the Paulhus’ (1984) social desirability model, we examined a relationship of impression management and self-deception with general cognitive ability and three personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism) on a sample of applicants competing for the Ministry of Defense’s educational program (N=602). In accordance with the hypothesis, two social desirability components showed different correlations with personality traits and intelligence. Self-deception correlated positively with emotional stability and extraversion, and impression management negatively with psychoticism and intelligence. Differences in correlation patterns supported the thesis that self-deception and impression management represent two different forms of socially desirable response. Contrary to the basic hypothesis of Paulhus’ model, it seems that the difference between components is not in their level of consciousness but in manner of self-presentation
