A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which the computer administration of a measure influences socially desirable responding. Social desirability was defined as consisting of two components: impression management and self-deceptive enhancement. A small but statistically significant effect (d = -0.08) was found for impression management, with impression management being lower when assessed by computer. Correlational analysis revealed, however, that the strength of the effect of computer administration on impression management appeared to diminish over time such that more recent studies have found small or no effects. Consistent with its conceptualization, reports of self-deceptive enhancement did not differ by testing format. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of how they contribute to the explication of the construct of social desirability and cross-mode equivalence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association , American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
American Psychological Association . (1986). Guidelines for computer-based tests and interpretations. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Baydoun, R. B. , & Emperada, T. K. (1995, April). Equivalence of computer vs. paper-and-pencil administered attitude instruments. Paper presented at the conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
4.
Booth-Kewley, S. , Edwards, J. E., & Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference?Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 562-566.
5.
Burke, M. J. (1993). Computerized psychological testing, impacts on measuring predictor constructs and future job behavior. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 203-239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Dahl, R. E. (1992). Response bias, interactive effects of interview method, social desirability, evaluation apprehension of self reported data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
8.
Dahlstrom, W. G. , Welsh, G. S., & Dahlstrom, L. E. (1972). An MMPI handbook. Volume II: Research applications. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
9.
Davis, C. , & Cowles, M. (1989). Automated psychological testing, method of administration, need for approval, and measures of anxiety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, 311-320.
10.
Elwood, D. L. (1969). Automation of psychological testing. American Psychologist, 24, 287-289.
11.
Evan, W. M. , & Miller, J. R., III. (1969). Differential effects on response bias of computer vs. conventional administration of a social science questionnaire: An exploratory methodological experiment. Behavioral Science, 14, 216-227.
12.
Finnegan, J. E. , & Allen, N. J. (1994). Computerized and written questionnaires: Are they equivalent?Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 483-496.
13.
Follette, W. C. (1984). A computer administered MMPI and a study of response latency and social desirability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington.
14.
Ganster, D. C. , Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 321-331.
15.
Gough, H. G. (1987). Manual: The California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
16.
Hart, R. R. , & Goldstein, M. A. (1985). Computer-assisted psychological assessment. Computers in Human Services, 1, 69-75.
17.
Hedges, L. , & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
18.
Hedl, J. J. , O’Neil, H. F., & Hansen, D. H. (1973). Affective reactions toward computer-based intelligence testing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 217-222.
19.
Honaker, L. M. , Harrell, T. H., & Buffaloe, J. D. (1988). Equivalency of microtest computer MMPI administration for standard and special scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 323-327.
20.
Hough, L. M. (1998). Effects of intentional distortion in personality measurement and evaluation of suggested palliatives. Human Performance, 11, 209-244.
21.
Hough, L. M. , Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
22.
Huffcut, A. I. , & Arthur, W., Jr. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327-334.
23.
Jackson, D. N. (1976). Jackson Personality Inventory manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.
24.
Johnson, B. T. (1993). DSTAT 1.10: Software for the meta-analytic review of research literatures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Jones, E. E. , & Sigall, H. (1971). The bogus pipeline, a new paradigm for measuring affect and attitudes. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 349-364.
26.
Kantor, J. (1991). The effects of computer administration and identification on the Job Descriptive Index (JDI). Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 309-323.
27.
Katz, L. , & Dalby, J. T. (1981). Computer and manual administration of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 586-588.
28.
King, W. C. , & Miles, E. W. (1995). A quasi-experimental assessment of the effect of computerizing non-cognitive paper and pencil measurements: A test of measurement equivalence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 643-651.
29.
Kosen, D. , Kitchen, C., Kochen, M., & Stodolosky, D. (1970). Psychological testing by computer: Effect on response bias. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 803-810.
30.
Lambert, M. E. , Andrews, R. H., Rylee, K., & Skinner, J. R. (1987). Equivalence of computerized and traditional MMPI administration with substance abusers. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 139-143.
31.
Lautenschlager, G. J. , & Flaherty, V. L. (1990). Computer administration of questions, more desirable or more social desirability?Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 310-314.
32.
Lindell, B. J. (1988). Interactive effects of interview method, self-deception and impression management on self-reported data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, New York.
33.
Lowderback-Mitchell, D. (1993). A multivariate analysis of the effects of gender and computer vs. paper/pencil modes of administration on survey results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana Tech University.
34.
Lushene, R. E. , O’Neil, H. F., & Dunn, T. (1974). Equivalent validity of a completely computerized MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 353-361.
35.
Martin, C. L. , & Nagao, D. H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 72-80.
36.
McCrae, R. R. , & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888.
37.
Mead, A. D. , & Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 449-458.
38.
Milo, K. M. (1993). A comparison between computer and clinician administered psychological assessment interview: Effects on social desirability response bias. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
39.
Nicholson, R. A. , & Hogan, R. (1990). The construct validity of social desirability. American Psychologist, 45, 290-292.
40.
Ones, D. S. , Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.
41.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
42.
Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 143-165). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
43.
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 (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
44.
Paulhus, D. L. , & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307-371.
45.
Potosky, D. , & Bobko, P. (1997). Computer versus paper-and-pencil administration mode and response distortion in non-cognitive selection tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 293-299.
46.
Ridgway, J. , MacCulloch, M. J., & Mills, H. E. (1982). Some experiences in administering a psychometric test with a light pen and microcomputer. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 17, 265-278.
47.
Rosenfeld, P. , & Booth-Kewley, S. (1996). Impression management and computer surveys in organizations. In J. W. Beard (Ed.), Impression management and information technology (pp. 119-131). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
48.
Sanitioso, R. , & Reynolds, J. H. (1992). Comparability of standard and computerized administration of two personality questionnaires. Person, Individual Differences, 13, 899-907.
49.
Schuldberg, D. (1988). The MMPI is less sensitive to the automated testing format than it is to repeated testing: Item and scale effects. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 285-298.
50.
Scissons, E. H. (1976). Computer administration of the California Psychological Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 9, 22-25.
51.
Skinner, H. A. , & Allen, B. A. (1983). Does the computer make a difference? Computerized versus face-to-face versus self-report assessment of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 267-275.
52.
Smiley, D. S. (1991). The effects of the computer assessor on social desirability response bias. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.
53.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
54.
Toppins, J. D. (1985). Automated administration of the MMPI with a psychiatric population, equivalence validity considerations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
55.
Watson, C. G. , Manifold, V., Klett, W. G., Brown, J., Thomas, D., & Anderson, D. (1990). Comparability of computer and booklet administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventories among primarily chemically dependent patients. Psychological Assessment, 2, 276-280.
56.
White, D. M. , Clements, C. B., & Fowler, R. D. (1985). A comparison of computer administration with standard administration of the MMPI. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 153-162.
57.
Whitener, E. M. , & Klein, H. J. (1995). Equivalence of computerized and traditional research methods: The roles of scanning, social environment, and social desirability. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 65-75.
58.
Wilson, F. R. , Genco, K. T., & Yager, G. G. (1985). Assessing the equivalence of paper-and-pencil vs. computerized tests: Demonstration of a promising methodology. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 265-275.
59.
Zerbe, W. J. , & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250-264.
60.
Zinnes, J. L. , & Rezmovic, V. (1977). Session VII computer-based testing and measurement: The effects of computerized experimentation on response variance. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 9, 144-147.
