The present research investigated the cognitive processes involved in responding to self-report items under varying conditions of social desirability. Participants in three experiments judged the extent to which a set of items (personality traits in Experiments 1 and 2; behaviors in Experiment 3) described them under instructions that either increased or decreased concerns with social desirability. Under most conditions, instructions that produced the greatest concern with social desirability resulted in the longest response times. This finding is consistent with the view that social desirability operates as an editing process; participants retrieve the requested information and then evaluate it before responding. There was also some evidence for individual differences in social desirability; participants scoring high on the trait of self-deception were generally faster at making these judgments than were participants scoring low on self-deception.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arkin, R., & Lake, E. (1983). Plumbing the depths of the bogus pipeline: A reprise. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 81-88.
2.
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.
3.
Couch, A., & Keniston, K. (1961). Agreeing response set and social desirability. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 175-179.
4.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
5.
Derry, P. A., & Kuiper, N. A. (1981). Schematic processing and self-reference in clinical depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 286-297.
6.
Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden.
7.
Fekken, G. C., & Holden, R. R. (1992). Response latency evidence for viewing personality traits as schema indicators. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 103-120.
8.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
9.
Goode, W. J., & Hatt, P. K. (1952). Methods in social science. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10.
Gough, H. G. (1952). The adjective check list. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
11.
Hadaway, C. K., Marler, P. L., & Chaves, M. (1993). What the polls don’t show: A closer look at U.S. church attendance. American Sociological Review, 58, 741-752.
12.
Holden, R. R., Fekken, G. C., & Cotton, D. H. G. (1991). Assessing psychopathology using structured test-item response latencies. Psychological Assessment, 3, 111-118.
13.
Holden, R. R., Kroner, D. G., Fekken, G. C., & Popham, S. M. (1992). Amodel of personality test itemresponse dissimulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 262-279.
14.
Holden, R. R., Wood, L. L., & Tomashewski, L. (2001). Do response time limitations counteract the effect of faking on personality inventory validity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 160-169.
15.
Hsu, L. M., Santelli, J., & Hsu, J. R. (1989). Faking detection validity and incremental validity of response latencies toMMPI subtle and obvious items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 278-295.
16.
Klein, S., & Loftus, J. (1993). Behavioral experience and trait judgments about the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 740-745.
17.
Knowles, E. S., & Condon, C. A. (1999). Why people say “yes”: A dualprocess theory of acquiescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 379-386,
18.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567.
19.
Lautenschlager, G. J., & Flaherty, V. L. (1990). Computer administration of questions: More desirable or more social desirability? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 310-314.
20.
Leary, M. R.,& Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.
21.
Locander, W. B., Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. (1976). An investigation of interview method, threat and response distortion. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71, 269-275.
22.
McCrae, R. R. (1986). Well being scales do not measure social desirability, Journal of Gerontology, 41, 390-392.
23.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888.
24.
Mensch, B. S., & Kendel, D. B. (1988). Underreporting of substance use in a national longitudinal youth cohort: Individual and interviewer effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 100-124.
25.
Nowakowska, M. (1970). A model of answering to a questionnaire item. Acta Psychologica, 34, 420-439.
26.
Paulus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
27.
Paulus, D. L. (1993). Bypassing the will: The automatization of affirmations. In D. W. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental control(pp. 573-587). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28.
Shoben, E. J. (1982). Semantic and lexical decisions. In C. R. Puff (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in human memory and cognition(pp. 287-314). New York: Academic Press.
29.
Silver, D. B., Anderson, B. A., & Abramson, P. R. (1986). Who overreports voting? American Political Science Review, 80, 613-624.
30.
Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application off cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31.
Tschanz, B., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Autobiography, reputation, and the self: On the role of evaluative valence and self-consistency of the self-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 32-48.
32.
Wiggins, J. S. (1964). Convergence among stylistic responsemeasures from objective personality tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24, 551-562.
33.
Zuckerman, M., Knee, C. R., Hodgins, H. S., & Miyake, K. (1995). Hypothesis confirmation: The joint effect of positive test strategy and acquiescent response set. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 52-60.
