This study examined the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) with one-, two-, three-, and four-dimensional models and tested the BIDR's discriminant validity with personality variables. A confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis of responses from 600 Chinese university students (314 men, 282 women, 4 missing; M age = 20.0 yr.) provided results indicating that the four-factor model fit the data best; i.e., self-deception and impression management split into denial and enhancement. The Denial and Enhancement subscales with personality variables show significant differences, confirming the four-factor model. The cultural differences as a possible reason for the split were discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArndtJ. E.HoglundW. L. G.FujiwaraE. (2013) Desirable responding mediates the relationship between emotion regulation and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 147–151.
2.
BaileyK. D. (1994) Methods of social research. (4th ed.) New York: Free Press.
3.
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.
4.
BoucherH. C.PengK.ShiJ.WangL. (2009) Culture and implicit self-esteem: Chinese are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ at the same time. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 24–45.
5.
CialdiniR. B.WosinskaW.BarrettD. W.ButnerJ.Gornik-DuroseM. (1999) Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1242–1253.
6.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1989) The NEO–PI/NEO–FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
7.
DigmanJ. M. (1997) Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.
8.
FanJ.WongC. C.CarrollS. A.LopezF. J. (2008) An empirical investigation of the influence of social desirability on the factor structure of the Chinese 16PF. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 790–795.
9.
FlemingP.ZizzoD. J. (2011) Social desirability, approval and public good contribution. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 258–262.
10.
GravdalL.SandalG. M. (2006) The two-factor model of social desirability: Relation to coping and defense, and implications for health. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1051–1061.
11.
GreenbergerE.ChenC.DmitrievaJ.FarruggiaS. P. (2003) Item-wording and the dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Do they matter?Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1241–1254.
12.
HelmesE.HoldenR. R. (2003) The construct of social desirability: One or two dimensions?Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1015–1023.
13.
HoldenR. R.PasseyJ. (2010) Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Not necessarily faking and not necessarily substance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 446–450.
14.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
15.
HullD. M.BeaujeanA. A. (2011) Higher order factors of personality in Jamaican young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 878–882.
KimY.PengS.Chi-YueC. (2008) Explaining self-esteem differences between Chinese and North Americans: Dialectical self (vs. self-consistency) or lack of positive self-regard. Self & Identity, 7, 113–128.
18.
KronerD. G.WeekesJ. R. (1996) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 323–333.
19.
LalwaniA. K.ShrumL. J.ChiuC. (2009) Motivated response styles: The role of cultural values, regulatory focus, and self-consciousness in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 870–882.
20.
LeiteW. L.BeretvasS. N. (2005) Validation of scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 65, 140–154.
21.
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.
22.
LiA.RebJ. (2009) A cross-nations, cross-cultures, and cross-conditions analysis on the equivalence of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 214–233.
23.
LiF.LiY. J. (2008) The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): A factor analysis. Psychological Reports, 103, 727–731.
24.
LiW.QianM. (1995) The norm of the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory in Chinese undergraduates. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Pekinensis, 31, 108–114.
25.
LoehlinJ. C. (2004) Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis. (4th ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
PaulhusD. L. (1984) Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
27.
PaulhusD. L. (1991) Measurement and control of response bias. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 17–59.
28.
PaulhusD. L. (2002) Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In BraunH.JacksonD. N.WileyD. E. (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 49–69.
29.
PaulhusD. L.ReidD. B. (1991) Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307–317.
30.
RosenbergM. (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer. Press.
31.
RothD. L.SnyderC. R.PaceL. M. (1986) Dimensions of favorable self-presentation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 867–874.
32.
SchimmackU.OishiS.DienerE. (2002) Cultural influences on the relation between pleasant emotions and unpleasant emotions: Asian dialectic philosophies or individualism-collectivism?Cognition and Emotion, 16, 705–719.
33.
SliterK. A.ZickarM. J. (2014) An IRT examination of the psychometric functioning of negatively worded personality items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74, 214–226.
34.
Spencer-RodgersJ.BoucherH. C.MoriS. C.WangL.PengK. (2009) The dialectical self-concept: Contradiction, change, and holism in East Asian cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 29–44.
35.
Spencer-RodgersJ.PengK.WangL.HouY. (2004) Dialectical self-esteem and east-west differences in psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1416–1432.
36.
SpielbergerC. D. (1983) Manual for the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
37.
SteigerJ. H. (1980) Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.
38.
StöberJ.DetteD. E.MuschJ. (2002) Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 370–389.
39.
WuC. (2008) An examination of the wording effect in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale among culturally Chinese people. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 535–551.
40.
YaoR.LiangL. (2010) Analysis of the application of simplified NEO-FFI to undergraduates. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 457–459.
