This article looks at paradata in the form of response latencies to identify socially desirable response behaviour. Response latencies are used as proxies to infer information processing modes. So far, evidence is conflicted as to whether socially desirable responding is indicated by shorter or longer response latencies. Our results show that faster responses are associated with the reporting of desirable attitudes and behaviour while slower responses are linked with those that are undesirable. Trait desirability measures that do not take this difference in direction into account may be responsible for the often contradictory results of various researchers who have employed the method in the past.
AmelangMMüllerJ (2001) Reaktionszeit-Analysen der Beantwortung von Eigenschaftswörtern (Reaction time analyses of responses to attribute words). Psychologische Beiträge43(4): 731–750.
2.
BassiliJFletcherJ (1991) Response-time measurement in survey research – A method for CATI and a new look at nonattitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly55: 331–346.
3.
BelliRTraugottMBeckmannM (2001) What leads to voting overreports? Contrasts of overreports to validated votes and admitted nonvoters in the American Election Studies. Journal of Official Statistics17: 479–498.
4.
CarlstonDSkowronskiJ (1986) Trait Memory and Behavior Memory - The Effects of Alternative Pathways on Impression Judgment Response Times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50(1): 5–13.
5.
ChaikenSTropeY (1999) Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York, London: Guilford Press.
6.
CouperMKreuterF (2013) Using Paradata to Explore Item Level Response Times in Surveys. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society176(1): 271–286.
7.
CrowneDMarloweD (1960) A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology24(4): 349–354.
8.
DeMaioT (1984) Social Desirability and Survey Measurement - A Review. In: Turner CFand MartinE (eds) Surveying Subjective Phenomena. New York: Russel Sage.
9.
ElsterJ (1989) The Cement of a Society - A Study of Social Order. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
10.
EsserH (2000) Normen als Frames - Das Problem der “Unbedingtheit” des normativen Handelns (Norms as frames - The problem of the “absoluteness” of normative behaviour). In: MetzeRMühlerKOppKD (eds) Normen und Institutionen - Entstehung und Wirkungen. Leipzig: Universitätsverlag.
11.
EsserH (2010) Das Modell der Frame-Selektion - Eine allgemeine Handlungstheorie für die Sozialwissenschaften? (The model of frame selection - A general theory of action for the social sciences?) In: AlbertGSigmundS (eds) Soziologische Theorie kontrovers. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft50: 45–62.
12.
FazioR (1989) On the Power and Functionality of Attitudes: The Role of Attitude Accessibility. In: PratkanisABrecklerSGreenwaldA (eds), Attitude, Structure and Function. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
13.
FazioR (1990) Multiple Processes by which Attitudes Guide Behavior - The MODE Model as an Integrative Framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology23: 75–109.
14.
GibbonsHRammsayerT (1999) Auswirkung der Vertrautheit mit einer Reizdimension auf Entscheidungsprozesse - Der modulierende Einfluss kontrollierter vs. automatischer Informationsverarbeitung (Influence of familiarity with a stimulus dimension on decision making processes - The modal influence of controlled vs. automatic information processing). In: WachsmuthIJungB (eds) KogWis99, Proceedings der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaft. Bielefeld/ St. Augustin: Bielefeld University Press.
15.
HerltSSchaarschmidtU (2007) Fit für den Lehrerberuf?! (Prepared for the teaching career?!) In: SchaarschmidtUKieschkeU (eds) Gerüstet für den Schulalltag - Psychologische Unterstützungsangebote für Lehrerinnen und Lehrer. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz Verlag.
16.
HolbrookAKrosnickJ (2010a) Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports - Tests Using the Item Count Technique. Public Opinion Quarterly74(1): 37–67.
17.
HolbrookAKrosnickJ (2010b): Measuring Voter Turnout by Using the Randomized Response Technique - Evidence Calling into Question the Method’s Validity. Public Opinion Quarterly74(2): 328–343.
18.
HoldenRHibbsN (1995) Incremental Validity of Response Latencies for Detecting Fakers on a Personality Test. Journal of Research in Personality29(3): 362–372.
19.
HoltgravesT (2004) Social Desirability and Self-Reports - Testing Models of Socially Desirable Responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin30(2): 161–172.
20.
HoxJ (2010) Multilevel Analysis - Techniques and Applications, Second Edition. New York: Routledge.
21.
KaminskaOFoulshamT (2016) Eye-Tracking Social Desirability Bias. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology130: 73–89.
22.
KohlerASchneiderJ (1995) Einfluss der Kenntnis der Gruppennorm auf die Beantwortungszeit von Persönlichkeitsfragebogen-Items (The influence of the knowledge of group norms on the response time in personality related questionnaire items). Arbeiten der Fachrichtung Psychologie, Universität des Saarlandes179.
23.
KrosnickJ (1991) Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology5: 213–236.
24.
MayerlJ (2009) Kognitive Grundlagen sozialen Verhaltens - Framing, Einstellungen und Rationalität (The cognitive basis of social behaviour - Framing, attitudes and rationality) Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
25.
MayerlJ (2013) Response Latency Measurement in Surveys - Detecting Strong Attitudes and Response Effects. Survey Methods - Insights from the Field. Available at: http://surveyinsights.org/?p=1063
26.
MayerlJUrbanD (2008) Antwortreaktionszeiten in Survey-Analysen - Messung, Auswertung und Anwendungen (Response times in survey analyses - Measurement, evaluation and applications). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
27.
OlsonKSmythJ (2015) The Effect of CATI Questions, Respondents, and Interviewers on Response Time. Sociology Department, Faculty Publications. Paper 268. Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub/268.
28.
PaulhusD (2002) Socially Desirable Responding - The Evolution of a Construct. In: BraunHIJacksonDNWileyDE (eds) The Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational Measurement. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 49–69.
29.
PreisendörferPWolterF (2014) Who is Telling the Truth? A Validation Study on Determinants of Response Behavior in Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly78(1): 126–46.
30.
SchaefferN (2000) Asking Questions about Threatening Topics – A Selective Overview. In: StoneATurkkanJSBachrachCAJobeJBKurtzmanHSCainV (eds) The Science of Self-Report - Implications for Research and Practice. Erlbaum: Mahwah, New Jersey.
31.
SchaffnerBRocheC (2016) Misinformation and Motivated Reasoning Responses to Economic News in a Politicized Environment. Public Opinion Quarterly, First published online 8: December 2016. DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfw043.
32.
SheppardLTeasdaleJ (2000) Dysfunctional Thinking in Major Depressive Disorder - A Deficit in Metacognitive Monitoring?Journal of Abnormal Psychology109(4): 768–776.
33.
ShivBFedorikhinA (2002) Spontaneous versus Controlled Influences of Stimulus-based Affect on Choice Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes87(2): 342–70.
34.
SilberHLischewskiJLeiboldJ (2013) Comparing Different Types of Web Surveys - Examining Drop-Outs, Non-Response and Social Desirability. Metodolški zvezki10(2): 121–143.
35.
SmithEDeCosterJ (2000) Dual-process Models in Social and Cognitive Psychology - Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying Memory Systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review4(2): 108–131.
36.
StockéV (2004) Entstehungsbedingungen von Antwortverzerrungen durch soziale Erwünschtheit - Ein Vergleich der Prognosen der Rational-Choice Theorie und des Modells der Frame-Selektion (Necessary conditions for answer biases through social desirability - A comparison of prognoses of the rational choice theory and the model of frame selection). Zeitschrift für Soziologie33(4): 303–320.
37.
StrackFMartinL (1987) Thinking, Judging, and Communicating - A Process Account of Context Effects in Attitude Surveys. In: HipplerHJSchwarzNSudmanS (eds) Social Information Processing and Survey Methodology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
38.
SudmanSBradburnN (1974) Response Effects in Surveys - A Review and Synthesis. Chicago: Aldine.
39.
TourangeauR (1984) Cognitive Sciences and Survey Methods. In: JabineTBStrafMLTanurJMTourangeauR (eds) Cognitive Aspects of Survey Methodology - Building a Bridge Between Disciplines. Washington: National Academy Press.
TourangeauRYanT (2007) Sensitive Questions in Surveys. Psychological Bulletin133(5): 859–83.
42.
WigginsJ (1964) Convergences among Stylistic Response Measures from Objective Personality Tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement24(3): 551–562.
43.
WolterFPreisendörferP (2013) Asking Sensitive Questions - An Evaluation of the Randomized Response Technique Versus Direct Questioning Using Individual Validation Data. Sociological Methods and Research42: 321–353.
44.
YanTTourangeauR (2008) Fast Times and Easy Questions - The Effects of Age, Experience and Question Complexity on Web Survey Response Times. Applied Cognitive Psychology22(1): 51–68.
