Numerous researchers have noted that, instead of response sets or styles, most social desirability scales seem to measure personality traits instead. In two studies, we investigated the substantive interpretation of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding in terms of the HEXACO model of personality. Because of its focus on honesty and integrity, the Impression Management (IM) scale was hypothesized to be mainly related to HEXACO Honesty-Humility. In the main study among 1,106 students and well-acquainted others (friends, family, or partners), positive self–other agreement correlations were found for both IM (r = .45) and Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE; r = .34), supporting a trait conception of IM and SDE. In both self- and other ratings, the most important predictors of SDE were (low) Emotionality, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness. IM was associated with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, but Honesty-Humility was by far its most important predictor. In a subsample (n = 465), Honesty-Humility and IM were unrelated to GPA.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150-166.
2.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2008). The prediction of Honesty-Humility-related criteria by the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1216-1228.
3.
AshtonM. C.LeeK.PeruginiM.SzarotaP.De VriesR. E.Di BlasL.. . . De RaadB. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356-366.
4.
BarrickM. R.MountM. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261-272.
5.
BartelsJ. M.Magun-JacksonS. (2009). Approach-avoidance motivation and metacognitive self-regulation: The role of need for achievement and fear of failure. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 459-463.
6.
BernreuterR. G. (1933). Validity of the Personality Inventory. Personnel Journal, 11, 383-386.
7.
CrockerJ.LuhtanenR. K. (2003). Level of self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth: Unique effects on academic, social, and financial problems in college students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 701-712.
8.
CrowneD. P.MarloweD. A. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 4, 349-354.
9.
CunninghamM. R.WongD. T.BarbeeA. P. (1994). Self-presentation dynamics on overt integrity tests: Experimental studies of the Reid Report. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 643-658.
10.
De VriesA.De VriesR. E.BornM. Ph. (2011). Broad versus narrow traits: Conscientiousness and honesty-humility as predictors of academic criteria. European Journal of Personality, 25, 336-348.
11.
De VriesR. E.AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2009). De zes belangrijkste persoonlijkheidsdimensies en de HEXACO Persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst [The six most important personality dimensions and the HEXACO Personality Inventory]. Gedrag & Organisatie, 22, 232-274.
12.
De VriesR. E.LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2008). The Dutch HEXACO Personality Inventory: Psychometric properties, self-other agreement, and relations with psychopathy among low and high acquaintanceship dyads. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 142-151.
13.
De VriesR. E.Van GelderJ. L. (2013). Tales of two self-control scales: Relations with Five-Factor and HEXACO traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 756-760.
14.
EdwardsA. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 90-93.
15.
GannonT. A.BarrowcliffeE. (2012). Firesetting in the general population: The development and validation of the Fire Setting and Fire Proclivity scales. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 105-122.
16.
GoffinR. D.ChristiansenN. D. (2003). Correcting personality tests for faking: A review of popular personality tests and an initial survey of researchers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 340-344.
17.
HilbigB. E.ZettlerI.LeistF.HeydaschT. (2013). It takes two: Honesty-Humility and agreeableness differentially predict active versus reactive cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 598-603.
18.
HoldenR. R. (2007). Socially desirable responding does moderate personality scale validity both in experimental and in nonexperimental contexts. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39, 184-201.
19.
HoldenR. R.PasseyJ. (2010). Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Not necessarily faking and not necessarily substance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 446-450.
20.
HurtzG. M.DonovanJ. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.
21.
JohnsonJ. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1-19.
22.
JohnsonM. K.RowattW. C.PetriniL. (2011). A new trait on the market: Honesty-Humility as a unique predictor of job performance ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 857-862.
23.
JudgeT. A.BonoJ. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92.
24.
KonstabelK.AavikT.AllikJ. (2006). Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20, 549-566.
25.
KurtzJ. E.TarquiniS. J.IobstE. A. (2008). Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Still more substance than style. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 22-27.
26.
KwanV. S. Y.JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.KuangL. L. (2008). Conceptualizing and assessing self-enhancement bias: A componential approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1062-1077.
27.
KwanV. S. Y.KuangL. L.HuiN. H. H. (2009). Identifying the sources of self-esteem: The mixed medley of benevolence, merit, and bias. Self & Identity, 8, 176-195.
28.
LeBretonJ. M.TonidandelS. (2008). Multivariate relative importance: Extending relative weight analysis to multivariate criterion spaces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 329-345.
29.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329-358.
30.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18, 182-191.
31.
LeeK.AshtonM. C.De VriesR. E. (2005). Predicting workplace delinquency and integrity with the HEXACO and Five-Factor Models of personality structure. Human Performance, 18, 179-197.
32.
LeeK.AshtonM. C.WittshireJ.BourdageJ. S.VisserB. A.GallucciA. (2013). Sex, power, and money: Prediction from the Dark Triad and Honesty-Humility. European Journal of Personality, 27, 169-184.
33.
LeeK.GizzaroneM.AshtonM. C. (2003). Personality and the likelihood to sexually harass. Sex Roles, 49, 59-69.
34.
LiA.BaggerJ. (2006). Using the BIDR to distinguish the effects of impression management and self-deception on the criterion validity of personality measures: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 131-141.
35.
LoganD. E.ClaarR. L.ScharffL. (2008). Social desirability response bias and self-report of psychological distress in pediatric chronic pain patients. Pain, 136, 366-372.
36.
LönnqvistJ.-E.PaunonenS.Tuulio-HenrikssonA.LönnqvistJ.VerkasaloM. (2007). Substance and style in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality, 75, 291-322.
37.
MarcusB.LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2007). Personality dimensions explaining relationships between integrity tests and counterproductive behavior: Big Five, or one in addition?Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 1-34.
38.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888.
39.
OnesD. S.ViswesvaranC. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245-269.
40.
OnesD. S.ViswesvaranC.ReissA. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.
41.
OnesD. S.ViswesvaranC.SchmidtF. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.
42.
PaulhusD. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43.
PaulhusD. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing?Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208.
44.
PaulhusD. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In BraunH. I.JacksonD. N.WileyD. E. (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45.
PaulhusD. L.BruceM. N.TrapnellP. D. (1995). Effects of self-presentation strategies on personality profiles and their structure. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 100-108.
46.
PaulsC. A.CrostN. W. (2004). Effects of faking on self-deception and impression management scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1137-1151.
47.
PaulsC. A.StemmlerG. (2003). Substance and bias in social desirability responding. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 263-275.
48.
PaunonenS. V.LeBelE. P. (2012). Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 158-175.
49.
PetersonC. H.CasillasA.RobbinsS. B. (2006). The Student Readiness Inventory and the Big Five: Examining social desirability and college academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 663-673.
50.
RobieC.KomarS.BrownD. J. (2010). The effects of coaching and speeding on Big Five and Impression Management scale scores. Human Performance, 23, 446-467.
51.
RobinsR. W.BeerJ. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short-term benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 340-352.
52.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.
53.
StöberJ.DetteD. E.MuschJ. (2002). Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 370-389.
54.
UzielL. (2010). Rethinking Social Desirability scales. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 243-262.
55.
Van GelderJ. L.De VriesR. E. (2012). Traits and states: Integrating personality and affect into a model of criminal decision making. Criminology, 50, 637-671.
56.
VernonP. E. (1934). The attitude of the subject in personality testing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 18, 165-177.
57.
ZettlerI.FriedrichN.HilbigB. E. (2011). Dissecting work commitment: The role of Machiavellianism. Career Development International, 16, 20-35.
