Social Desirability Responding: Conceptual Dimensions, Impacts and Challenges in Measurement
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In research that measures affective domains using self-reports as the primary data collection inventory, self-reports are often found to be either under- or over-reported especially in some matters that are considered sensitive, such as taboo matters, revealing illegal behavior, or expressing antisocial attitudes, etc. The main problem with this inaccurate self-reporting is that social desirability has a serious impact on the validity and reliability of the data. The key components of social desirability responding include impression management and self-deception. Although several social desirability scales exist, such as the Marlowe-Crowne (MC) scale and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR), recent meta-research questions the reliability and validity of these scales. It was found that the social desirability score does not explicitly measure bias or specific characteristics, but rather combines both dimensions. Therefore, it is imperative that researchers be aware of this social desirability and employ appropriate techniques to minimize response errors and bias. This article aims to provide readers with knowledge and understanding about social desirability responding in the following topics: 1) Concepts about social desirability responding; 2) The impact of social desirability on data validity and analysis; 3) Empirical evidence of data distortion in various fields; 4) Tools and strategies for measuring and controlling social desirability; 5) The conceptual debate on form versus substance; 6) Researcher limitations in dealing with social desirability; 7) Recommendations for the use of social desirability scales and 8) Challenges in measuring social desirability.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The content and information contained in the published article in the Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University represent the opinions and responsibilities of the authors directly. The editorial board of the journal is not necessarily in agreement with or responsible for any of the content.
The articles, data, content, images, etc. that have been published in the Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University are copyrighted by the journal. If any individual or organization wishes to reproduce or perform any actions involving the entirety or any part of the content, they must obtain written permission from the Journal of Educational Measurement Mahasarakham University.
References
Adida, C. L., Ferree, K. E., Posner, D. N., & Robinson, A. L. (2016). Who’s asking? Interviewer co-ethnicity effects in African survey data. Comparative Political Studies, 49(12), 1630–1660.
Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(2), 167–175.
Basow, S. A., & Martin, J. L. (2012). Bias in student evaluations. In M. E. Kite (Ed.), Effective evaluation of teaching: A guide for faculty and administrators (pp. 40–49). Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, L. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495–517.
Brener, N. D., McManus, T., Galuska, D. A., Lowry, R., & Wechsler, H. (2003). Reliability and validity of self-reported height and weight among high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32(4), 281–284.
Buchanan, T. (2000). Potential of the internet for personality research. In M. H. Birnbaum (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the internet (pp. 121–140). Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012099980-4/50006-X
Caputo, A. (2017). Social desirability bias in self-reported wellbeing measures: Evidence from an online survey. Universitas Psychologica, 16(2), e1622. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-2.sdsw
Clark, J., & Tifft, L. (1966). Polygraph and interview validation of self-reported deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 31(4), 516–523.
Clark, L. R., Brasseux, C., Richmond, D., Getson, P., & D’Angelo, L. J. (1997). Are adolescents accurate in self-report of frequencies of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies? Journal of Adolescent Health, 21(2), 91–96.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Valentine, B. A. (2011). Women, men, and the bedroom: Methodological and conceptual insights that narrow, reframe, and eliminate gender differences in sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 296–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411418467
Connelly, B. S., & Chang, L. (2016). A meta-analytic multitrait multirater separation of substance and style in social desirability scales. Journal of Personality, 84(3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12161
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.
Cuevas-Molina, I. (2023). Response latencies as evidence of social desirability bias in voter turnout overreports. American Politics Research, 51(5), 670–680.
Dalal, D. K., & Hakel, M. D. (2016). Experimental comparisons of methods for reducing deliberate distortions to self-report measures of sensitive constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(3), 475–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116639131
Durant, L. E., & Carey, M. P. (2000). Self-administered questionnaires versus face-to-face interviews in assessing sexual behavior in young women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(4), 309–322.
Durant, L. E., & Carey, M. P. (2002). Reliability of retrospective self-reports of sexual and nonsexual health behaviors among women. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 28(4), 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926230290001457
Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(4), 349–354.
Enamorado, T., & Imai, K. (2019). Validating self-reported turnout by linking public opinion surveys with administrative records. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(4), 723–748.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.
Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 321–331.
Gnambs, T., & Kaspar, K. (2015). Socially desirable responding in web-based questionnaires: A meta-analytic review of the candor hypothesis. Assessment, 24(6), 746–762.
He, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2013). Assessment of the General Response Style: A Cross-Cultural Study. Redalyc.org. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/3589/358971648003/html/
Hébert, J. R., Peterson, K. E., Hurley, T. G., Stoddard, A. M., Cohen, N., Field, A. E., & Sorensen, G. (2001). The effect of social desirability trait on self-reported dietary measures among multi-ethnic female health center employees. Annals of epidemiology, 11(6), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1047-2797(01)00212-5
Höglinger, M., & Diekmann, A. (2017). Uncovering a blind spot in sensitive question research: False positives undermine the crosswise-model RRT. Political Analysis, 25(1), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2016.5
Holden, R. R., & Passey, J. (2009). Social desirability. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.),Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 441–454). The Guilford.
Huang, C. Y., Liao, H. Y., & Chang, S. H. (1998). Social desirability and the clinical self-report inventory: methodological reconsideration. Journal of clinical psychology, 54(4), 517–528.
Jackman, S., & Spahn, B. (2019). Why does the American national election study overestimate voter turnout? Political Analysis, 27(2), 193–207.
Johnson, T. P., & Fendrich, M. (2002). A validation of the Crowne–Marlowe social desirability scale. Proceedings of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, 1661–1666.
King, B. M. (2022). The influence of social desirability on sexual behavior surveys: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(3), 1495–1501.
King, B. M. (2024). Social desirability biased responding: Are researchers listening? Psychology Behavioral Science International Journal, 21(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.19080/PBSIJ.2024.21.556075
King, B. M., Duncan, L. M., Clinkenbeard, K. M., Rutland, M. B., & Ryan, K. M. (2019). Social desirability and young men’s self-reports of penis size. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 45(5), 452–455.
King, M., & Bruner, G. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 79–103.
Klar, S., Weber, C. R., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016). Social desirability bias in the 2016 presidential election. The Forum, 14(4), 433–443.
Lanz, L., Thielmann, I., & Gerpott, F. (2021). Are social desirability scales desirable? A meta‐analytic test of the validity of social desirability scales in the context of prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12662
Lavidas, K., Papadakis, S., Manesis, D., Grigoriadou, A. S., & Gialamas, V. (2022). The effects of social desirability on students’ self-reports in two social contexts: Lectures vs. lectures and lab classes. Information, 13(10), 491–501. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13100491
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358.
Lee, R. M., & Renzetti, C. M. (1990). The problems of researching sensitive topics: An overview and introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 33(5), 510–528.
Meehl, P. E., & Hathaway, S. R. (1946). The K factor as a suppressor in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Schedule. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30(5), 525–564. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053634
Nauta, M. M. (2007). Assessing college students’ satisfaction with their academic majors. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(4), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072707305762
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 17–59). Academic.
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Manual for Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR-7). Multi-Health Systems.
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. In P. P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. 7, pp. 49–107). Plenum.
Pedersen, W. C., Miller, L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula, A. D., & Yang, Y. (2002). Evolved sex differences in the number of partners desired? The long and the short of it. Psychological Science, 13(2), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00428
Powell, R. J. (2013). Social desirability bias in polling on same-sex marriage ballot measures. American Politics Research, 41(6), 1052–1070.
Schaeffer, N. C. (2000). Asking questions about threatening topics: A selective overview. In A. A. Stone (Ed.), The science of self-report: Implications for research and practice (pp. 105–121).
Silver, B. D., Anderson, B. A., & Abramson, P. R. (1986). Who overreports voting? American Political Science Review, 80(2), 613–624.
Singh, P. K., Jain, P., Singh, N., Singh, L., Kumar, C., Yadav, A., Subramanian, S. V., & Singh, S. (2022). Social desirability and under-reporting of smokeless tobacco use among reproductive-age women: Evidence from the National Family Health Survey. SSM – Population Health, 19, Article 101257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101257
Stöber, J., Dette, D. E., & Musch, J. (2002). Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the balanced inventory of desirable responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(2), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7802_10
Sundström, A., & Stockemer, D. (2020). Measuring support for women’s political leadership: Social desirability and gendered interviewer effects among African respondents (QoG working paper series, No. 8). Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg.
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883.
Van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self-report research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(4), 40–48.
Van Vaerenberg, Y., & Thomas, T. D. (n.d.). Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. Purdue University iData. https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article-abstract/25/2/195/692958
Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized response: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60(309), 63–69.
Weijters, B., & Baumgartner, H. (2012). Response styles in survey research. In W. F. van Raaij, M. Laroche, & A. C. T. Strazzieri (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior, consumer services, and marketing psychology. ESIC Editorial.
Wiggins, J. S. (1964). Convergences Among Stylistic Response Measures from Objective Personality Tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(3), 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446402400310
Yang, J., Ming, X., Wang, Z., & Adams, S. M. (2017). Are sex effects on ethical decision-making fake or real? A meta-analysis on the contaminating role of social desirability response bias. Psychological Reports, 120(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116682945
Jantawarn, S. (2013). Development of a Social Desirability Scale for Thai Students [Doctoral Dissertation]. Chulalongkorn University. (in Thai)
Khamson. R. (2007). Application of the random response technique to study the sexual behavior of high school students in Uttaradit Province [Master’s Thesis]. Chiang Mai University. (in Thai)
Srichom, P. (2014). A Comparison of the Effects of Measurement Methods on Mental Health Measures Derived from Social Needs Response: Application of CEUL and CEML [Master's Thesis]. Chulalongkorn University. (in Thai)
Wora-in, C. (2011). Development measurement and evaluation test. http://elearning.psru.ac.th (in Thai)
