Social desirability bias can change the results from marketing experiments and surveys. However, there are few illustrations that show how serious social desirability bias can be. This research starts by reviewing the options for identifying and reducing social desirability bias in experiments and surveys and for controlling its effects. Then two examples that use a social desirability bias scale or a transformation of it (that may improve its utility) as control variables are described. Data from a national panel survey in the United States is used to show that controlling social desirability bias can change the set of demographic variables that are judged to be statistically significant and can have important effects on coefficient sizes. These illustrations will hopefully stimulate more consideration of social desirability bias, more use of bias measures in marketing studies, and more research on the control options.
AbbeyJ. D.MeloyM. G. (2017). Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations Research, 53–56, 63–70.
2.
AntonettiP.MaklanS. (2016). Hippies, greenies, and tree huggers: How the “warmth” stereotype hinders the adoption of responsible brands. Psychology & Marketing, 33, 796–813.
3.
AzziC.EhrenbergR. (1975). Household allocation of time and church attendance. Journal of Political Economy, 83(1), 27–56.
4.
BackstromM.BjorklundF. (2014). Social desirability in personality inventories. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 144–157.
5.
BlakeB. F.ValdiserriJ.NeuendorfK. A.NemethJ. (2006). Validity of the SDS-17 measure of social desirability in the American context. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1625–1636.
6.
BlasbergS. A.RogersK. H.PaulhusD. L. (2014). The Bidimensional Impression Management Index (BIMI): Measuring agentic and communal forms of impression management. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 523–531.
7.
BrennerP. S. (2011a). Exceptional behaviour or exceptional identity? Overreporting of church attendance in the US. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 19–41.
8.
BrennerP. S. (2011b). Identity importance and the overreporting of religious service attendance: Multiple imputation of religious attendance using the American Time Use Study and the General Social Survey. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50, 103–115.
9.
BrennerP. S. (2012). Identity as a determinant of the overreporting of church attendance in Canada. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51, 377–385.
10.
BrennerP. S. (2017). Narratives of response error from cognitive interviews of survey questions about normative behaviour. Sociological Methods & Research, 46, 540–564.
11.
BrennerP. S.DeLamaterJ. (2016). Lies, damned lies, and survey self-reports? Identify as a cause of measurement bias. Social Psychology Quarterly, 79, 333–354.
12.
BrownbackA.NovotnyA. (2018). Social desirability bias and polling errors in the 2016 presidential election. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 74, 38–56.
13.
BryanC. J.AdamsG. S.MoninB. (2013). When cheating would make you a cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1001–1005.
14.
CaskieG. I. L.SuttonM. C.EckhardtA. G. (2014). Accuracy of self-reported college GPA: Gender-moderated differences by achievement level and academic self-efficacy. Journal of College Student Development, 55, 385–390.
15.
ClarkW. (2000). Patterns of religious attendance. Canadian Social Trends, 59, 23–27.
16.
ComsaM.PostelnicuC. (2013). Measuring social desirability effects on self-reported turnout using the item count technique. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25, 153–172.
17.
ConnellyB. S.ChangL. (2016). A meta-analytic multitrait multirater separation of substance and style in social desirability scales. Journal of Personality, 84, 319–334.
18.
ConnollyJ. J.KavanaghE. J.ViswesvaranC. (2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 110–117.
19.
CoteS.GyurakA.LevensonR. W. (2010). The ability to regulate emotion is associated with greater well-being, income, and socioeconomic status. Emotion, 10, 923–933.
20.
CrowneD. P.MarloweD. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
21.
De VriesR. E.ZettlerI.HilbigB. E. (2014). Rethinking trait conceptions of social desirability scales: Impression management as an expression of honesty-humility. Assessment, 21, 286–299.
22.
DiamantopoulosA.SchlegelmilchB. B.SinkovicsR. R.BohlenG. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56, 465–480.
23.
DodouD.De WinterJ. C. F. (2014). Social desirability is the same in offline, online, and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 487–495.
24.
DuffB.HanmerM. J.ParkW.WhiteI. K. (2007). Good excuses: Understanding who votes with an improved turnout question. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 67–90.
25.
DurraniA. S.RajagopalL. (2016). Restaurant human resource managers’ attitudes towards workplace diversity, perceptions and definition of ethical hiring. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53, 145–151.
26.
EagleD. E. (2011). Changing patterns of attendance at religious services in Canada, 1986–2008. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50, 187–200.
27.
EhrenbergR. G. (1977). Household allocation of time and religiosity: Replication and extension. Journal of Political Economy, 85, 415–423.
28.
EnglertC.RummelJ. (2016). I want to keep on exercising but I don’t: The negative impact of momentary lacks of self-control on exercise adherence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 26, 24–31.
29.
FernandesM. F.RandallD. M. (1992). The nature of social desirability response effects in ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 183–205.
30.
FerrandoP. J.Lorenzo-SevaU.ChicoE. (2009). A general factor-analytic procedure for assessing response bias in questionnaire measures. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 364–381.
31.
FischerD. G.FickC. (1993). Measuring social desirability: Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 417–424.
32.
FisherR. J.KatzJ. E. (2000). Social desirability bias and the validity of self-reported values. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 105–120.
33.
FisherR. J.TellisG. J. (1998). Removing social desirability bias with indirect questioning: Is the cure worse than the disease. In AlbaJ. W.HutchinsonJ. W. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 25, pp. 563–567). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
34.
FluckingerC. D. (2014). Big five measurement via q-sort: An alternative method for constraining socially desirable responding. SAGE Open, 4(3), 1–8.
35.
GallardoR. K.WangQ. (2013). Willingness to pay for pesticides’ environmental features and social desirability bias: The case of apple and pear growers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 38(1), 1–16.
36.
GamberiniL.SpagnolliA.CorradiN.SartoriG.GhirardiV.JacucciG. (2014). Combining implicit and explicit techniques to reveal social desirability bias in electricity conservation self-reports. Energy Efficiency, 7, 923–935.
37.
GignacG. E. (2013). Modeling the balanced inventory of desirable responding: Evidence in favor of a revised model of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 645–656.
38.
GittelmanS.LangeV.CookW. A.FredeS. M.LavrakasP. J.PierceC.ThomasR. K. (2015). Accounting for social-desirability bias in survey sampling: A model for predicting and calibrating the direction and magnitude of social-desirability bias. Journal of Advertising Research, 55, 242–254.
39.
GlynnA. N. (2013). What can we learn with statistical truth serum? Design and analysis of the list experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(Suppl. 1), 159–172.
40.
GoetzkeB.NitzkoS.SpillerA. (2014). Consumption of organic and functional food. A matter of well-being and health?Appetite, 77, 96–105.
41.
GruberJ. (2004). Pay or pray? The impact of charitable subsidies on religious attendance. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2635–2655.
42.
HadawayC. K.MarlerP. L.ChavesM. (1998). Overreporting church attendance in America: Evidence that demands the same verdict. American Sociological Review, 63, 122–130.
43.
HaririJ. G.LassenD. D. (2017). Income and outcomes: Social desirability bias distorts measurements of the relationship between income and political behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81, 564–576.
44.
HeerweghD.LoosveldtG. (2007). Personalizing e-mail contacts: Its influence on web survey response rate and social desirability response bias. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 258–268.
45.
HeerweghD.LoosveldtG. (2011). Assessing mode effects in a national crime victimization survey using structural equation models: Social desirability bias and acquiescence. Journal of Official Statistics, 27(1), 49–63.
46.
HolbrookA. L.KrosnickJ. A. (2010). Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 37–67.
47.
JoM.NelsonJ. E.KieckerP. (1997). A model for controlling social desirability bias by direct and indirect questioning. Marketing Letters, 8, 429–437.
48.
JonesA. E.ElliottM. (2017). Examining social desirability in measures of religion and spirituality using the bogus pipeline. Review of Religious Research, 59, 47–64.
49.
KaiserF. G.WolfingS.FuhrerU. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1–19.
50.
KamC. (2013). Probing item social desirability by correlating personality items with Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): A validity examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 513–518.
51.
KamC.RisavyS. D.PerunovicW. Q. E. (2015). Using over-claiming technique to probe social desirability ratings of personality items: A validity examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 177–181.
52.
KaminskaO.FoulshamT. (2013, March). Understanding sources of social desirability bias in different modes: Evidence from eye-tracking (Report No. 2013–04). Institute for Social and Economic Research. Colchester, UK: University of Essex.
53.
KaminskaO.FoulshamT. (2016). Eye-tracking social desirability bias. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, 130(1), 73–89.
54.
KonstabelK.AavikT.AllikJ. (2006). Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20, 549–566.
55.
KovacicM. P.GalicZ.JerneicZ. (2014). Social desirability scales as indicators of self-enhancement and impression management. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 532–543.
56.
KreuterF.PresserS.TourangeauR. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: The effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 847–865.
57.
KuokkanenH.SunW. (2016). Social desirability and cynicism: Bridging the attitude-behavior gap in CSR surveys In AshkanasyN. M.ZerbeW. J.HartelC. E. J. (Eds.), Emotions and organizational governance (pp. 217–247). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
58.
LalwaniA. K. (2009). The distinct influence of cognitive busyness and need for closure on cultural differences in socially desirable responding. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 305–316.
59.
LanyonR. I.CarleA. C. (2007). Internal and external validity of scores on the balanced inventory of desirable responding and the Paulhus deception scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 859–876.
60.
LarsonR. B. (2018). Examining consumer attitudes toward genetically modified and organic foods. British Food Journal, 120, 999–1014.
61.
LeeZ.SargeantA. (2011). Dealing with social desirability bias: An application to charitable giving. European Journal of Marketing, 45, 703–719.
62.
LeiteW. L.CooperL. A. (2010). Detecting social desirability bias using factor mixture models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 271–293.
63.
LiA.BaggerJ. (2007). The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): A reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 525–544.
64.
LippittM.MastersonA. R.SierraA.DavisA. B.WhiteM. A. (2014). An exploration of social desirability bias in measurement of attitudes toward breastfeeding in public. Journal of Human Lactation, 30, 358–366.
65.
LongS. H.SettleR. F. (1977). Household allocation of time and church attendance: Some additional evidence. Journal of Political Economy, 85, 409–413.
66.
MaleszaM.OstaszewskiP. (2016). Dark side of impulsivity–Associations between the dark triad, self-report and behavioral measures of impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 197–201.
67.
MartinD.SchoutenJ. (2012). Sustainable marketing. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
68.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882–888.
69.
McFarlandL. A.RyanA. M. (2006). Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 979–1016.
70.
MuschJ.OstapczukM.KlaiberY. (2012). Validating an inventory for the assessment of egoistic bias and moralistic bias as two separable components of social desirability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 620–629.
71.
NederhofA. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263–280.
72.
NorwoodF. B.LuskJ. L. (2011). Social desirability bias in real, hypothetical, and inferred valuation experiments. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93, 528–534.
73.
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.
74.
PaulhusD. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
75.
PaulhusD. L.JohnO. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, 1025–1059.
76.
PaulhusD. L.ReidD. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307–317.
77.
PaulhusD. L.TrapnellP. D. (2008). Self-presentation of personality: An agency-communion framework. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W.PervinL. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 492–517). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
78.
PaunonenS. V. (2016). Sex differences in judgments of social desirability. Journal of Personality, 84, 423–432.
79.
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.
80.
PerinelliE.GremigniP. (2016). Use of social desirability scales in clinical psychology: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72, 534–551.
81.
PerssonM.SolevidM. (2014). Measuring political participation—Testing social desirability bias in a web-survey experiment. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26, 98–112.
82.
PolonskyM. J.VocinoA.GrimmerM.MilesM. P. (2014). The interrelationship between temporal and environmental orientation and pro-environmental consumer behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 612–619.
83.
PresserS.StinsonL. (1998). Data collection mode and social desirability bias in self-reported religious attendance. American Sociological Review, 63, 137–145.
84.
RichmanW. L.KieslerS.WeisbandS.DrasgowF. (1999). A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754–775.
85.
RobertsJ. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217–231.
86.
RoeseN. J.JamiesonD. W. (1993). Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 363–375.
87.
RossiM.ScappiniE. (2014). Church attendance, problems of measurement, and interpreting indicators: A study of religious practice in the United States, 1975-2010. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53, 249–267.
88.
ScholzU.BerliC.GoldammerP.LuscherJ.HornungR.KnollN. (2013). Social control and smoking: Examining the moderating effects of different dimensions of relationship quality. Families, Systems, & Health, 31, 354–365.
89.
SosikJ. J.AvolioB. J.JungD. I. (2002). Beneath the mask: Examining the relationship of self-presentation attributes and impression management to charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 217–242.
90.
SteenkampJ. E. M.DeJongM. G.BaumgartnerH. (2010). Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 199–214.
91.
StoberJ. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222–232.
92.
StoberJ.DetteD. E.MuschJ. (2002). Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the balanced inventory of desirable responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 370–389.
93.
StodelM. (2015). But what will people think? Getting beyond social desirability bias by increasing cognitive load. International Journal of Market Research, 57, 313–321.
94.
StrahanR.GerbasiK. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.
95.
StraughanR. D.RobertsJ. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 558–575.
96.
TatmanA. W.KreamerS. (2014). Psychometric properties of the Social Desirability Scale-17 with individuals on probation and parole in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 9, 122–130.
97.
TellisG. J.ChandrasekaranD. (2010). Extent and impact of response biases in cross-national survey research. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 329–341.
98.
TomassettiA. J.DalalR. S.KaplanS. A. (2016). Is policy capturing really more resistant than traditional self-report techniques to socially desirable responding?Organizational Research Methods, 19, 255–285.
99.
TourangeauR.YanT. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859–883.
100.
TraceyT. J. G. (2016). A note on socially desirable responding. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 224–232.
101.
UzielL. (2010). Rethinking social desirability scales: From impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 243–262.
102.
UzielL. (2014). Impression management (“lie”) scales are associated with interpersonally oriented self-control, not self-deception. Journal of Personality, 82, 200–212.
103.
ZettlerI.HilbigB. E.MoshagenM.De VriesR. E. (2015). Dishonest responding or true virtue? A behavioral test of impression management. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 107–111.
104.
ZieglerM.BuehnerM. (2009). Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 548–565.
