Socially desirable responding (SDR) has been of long-standing interest to the field of marketing. Unfortunately, the construct has not always been well understood by marketing researchers. The authors provide a review of the SDR literature organized around three key issues—the conceptualization and measurement of SDR; the nomological constellation of personality traits, values, sociodemographics, and cultural factors associated with SDR; and the vexing issue of substance versus style in SDR measures. The authors review the current “state of the literature,” identify unresolved issues, and provide new empirical evidence to assess the generalizability of existing knowledge, which is disproportionately based on U.S. student samples, to a global context. The new evidence is derived from a large international data set involving 12,424 respondents in 26 countries on four continents.
BarrickMurray R., and MountMichael K., (1996), “Effects of Impression Management and Self-Deception on the Predictive Validity of Personality Constructs,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261–72.
2.
ChurchA. Timothy, (2000), “Culture and Personality: Toward an Integrated Cultural Trait Psychology,”Journal of Personality, 68(August), 651–703.
3.
CrowneDouglas P., and MarloweDavid, (1964), The Approval Motive.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
4.
De JongMartijn G., PietersRik, and FoxJean-Paul, (2010), “Reducing Social Desirability Bias Through Item Randomized Response: An Application to Measure Underreported Desires,”Journal of Marketing Research, 47(February), 14–27.
5.
De JongMartijn G., SteenkampJan-Benedict E.M., and VeldkampBernard, (2009), “A Model for the Construction of Country-Specific, Yet Internationally Comparable Short-Form Marketing Scales,”Marketing Science, 28(4), 674–89.
6.
DigmanJohn, M., (1990), “Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model,”Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–40.
7.
DigmanJohn, M., (1997), “Higher-Order Factors of the Big Five,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1246–56.
8.
FisherRobert, J., (1993), “Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning,”Journal of Consumer Research, 20(September), 303–315.
9.
HeineSteven J., and LehmanDarrin R., (1995), “Social Desirability Among Canadian and Japanese Students,”Journal of Social Psychology, 135(December), 777–79.
10.
HelmesEdward, and HoldenRonald R., (2003), “The Construct of Social Desirability: One or Two Dimensions?”Personality and Individual Differences, 34(6), 1015–1023.
HoltgravesThomas, (2004), “Social Desirability and Self-Reports: Testing Models of Socially Desirable Responding,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(February), 161–72.
13.
KonstabelKenn, AavikToivo, and AllikJüri, (2006), “Social Desirability and Consensual Validity of Personality Traits,”European Journal of Personality, 20(7), 549–66.
14.
KurtzJohn E., TarquiniSarah J., and IobstEmily A., (2008), “Socially Desirable Responding in Personality Assessment: Still More Substance Than Style,”Personality and Individual Differences, 45(1), 22–27.
15.
KwanVirginia S. Y., JohnOliver P., KennyDavid A., and BondMichael H., (2004), “Reconceptualizing Individual Differences in Self-Enhancement Bias: An Interpersonal Approach,”Psychological Review, 111(1), 94–110.
16.
LalwaniAshok K., ShavittSharon, and JohnsonTimothy, (2006), “What Is the Relation Between Cultural Orientation and Socially Desirable Responding,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165–78.
McCraeRobert R., and CostaPaul T.Jr., (1983), “Social Desirability Scales: More Substance Than Style,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(December), 882–88.
19.
McFarlandLynn A., and RyanAnn Marie, (2006), “Toward an Integrated Model of Applicant Faking Behavior,”Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 979–1016.
20.
MestonCindy, HeimanJulia, TrapnellPaul, and PaulhusDelroy L., (1998), “Socially Desirable Responding and Sexuality Self-Reports,”Journal of Sex Research, 35(May), 148–57.
21.
MickDavid, G., (1996), “Are Studies of Dark Side Variables Confounded by Socially Desirable Responding? The Case of Materialism,”Journal of Consumer Research, 23(September), 106–119.
22.
PaulhusDelroy, L., (1991), “Measurement and Control of Response Bias,” in Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, RobinsonJohn P., ShaverPhillip R., and WrightLawrence S., eds. San Diego: Academic Press, 17–59.
23.
PaulhusDelroy, L., (2002), “Socially Desirable Responding: The Evolution of a Construct,” in The Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational Measurement, BraunH.I., JacksonD.N., and WileyD.E., eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 49–69.
24.
PaulhusDelroy L., HarmsP.D., Nadine BruceM., and LysyDaria C., (2003), “The Over-Claiming Technique: Measuring Self-Enhancement Independent of Ability,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 890–904.
25.
PaulhusDelroy L., and JohnOliver P., (1998), “Egoistic and Moralistic Biases in Self-Perception: The Interplay of Self-Deceptive Styles with Basic Traits and Motives,”Journal of Personality, 66(December), 1025–1060.
26.
PaulhusDelroy L., and ReidDouglas B., (1991), “Enhancement and Denial in Socially Desirable Responding,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(February), 307–317.
27.
PaulsCornelia A., and CrostNicolas W., (2004), “Effects of Faking on Self-Deception and Impression Management Scales,”Personality and Individual Differences, 37(6), 1137–51.
28.
PaulsCornelia A., and CrostNicolas W., (2005), “Effects of Different Instructional Sets on the Construct Validity of the NEO-PI-R,”Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 297–308.
29.
PaulsCornelia A., and StemmlerGerhard, (2003), “Substance and Bias in Social Desirability Responding,”Personality and Individual Differences, 35(2), 263–75.
30.
RaudenbushStephen W., and BrykAnthony S., (2002), Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
31.
Reid-SeiserH.L., and FritzscheB.A., (2001), “The Usefulness of the NEO PI-R Positive Presentation Management Scale for Detecting Response Distortion in Employment Contexts,”Personality and Individual Differences, 31(4), 639–50.
32.
RindfleischAric, MalterAlan J., GanesanShankar, and MoormanChristine, (2008), “Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal Survey Research: Concepts, Findings, and Guidelines,”Journal of Marketing Research, 45(June), 261–79.
33.
RoeseNeal J., and JamiesonDavid W., (1993), “Twenty Years of Bogus Pipeline Research: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis,”Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 363–75.
34.
RothMarcus, and HerzbergPhilipp Y., (2007), “The Resilient Type: ‘Simply the Best’ or Merely an Artifact of Social Desirability?”Psychology Science, 49(2), 150–67.
35.
SchwartzShalom, H., (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, ZannaMark, ed. Orlando: Academic Press, 1–65.
36.
SedikidesConstantine, GaertnerLowell, and ToguchiYoshiyasu, (2003), “Pancultural Self-Enhancement,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 60–79.
37.
ShavittSharon, LalwaniAshok K., ZangJing, and TorelliCarlos J., (2006), “The Horizontal/Vertical Distinction in Cross-Cultural Consumer Research,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 325–56.
38.
StrackFritz, and DeutschRoland, (2004), “Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior,”Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(August), 220–47.
39.
TourangeauRoger, and YanTing, (2007), “Sensitive Questions in Surveys,”Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–83.
40.
Van de VijverFons J.R., Van HemertDianne A., and PoortingaYpe H., eds., (2008), Multilevel Analysis of Individuals and Cultures.New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41.
Van HemertDianne A., Van deVijverFons J.R., PoortingaYpe H., and GeorgasJames, (2002), “Structural and Functional Equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Within and Between Countries,”Personality and Individual Differences, 33(December), 1229–49.
42.
WilsonTimothy D., and SchoolerJonathan W., (1991), “Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 181–92.
43.
YikM.S.M., BondM.H., and PaulhusD.L., (1998), “Do Chinese Self-Enhance or Self-Efface? It's a Matter of Domain,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(April), 399–406.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
