A confirmatory factor analysis of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding based on a sample of 683 Chinese undergraduate and graduate students did not support the 2-factor (Paulhus) or 3-factor (Paulhus & Reid) models reported for Canadian samples. A follow-up principal components factor analysis yielded four factors, suggesting that both items on self-deception and impression management were split into enhancement and denial and that the structure of the inventory might vary across nations or cultures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BondM. H.LeungK.WanK. (1982) The social impact of self-effacing attributions: the Chinese case. Journal of Social Psychology, 118, 137–166.
2.
CheungF. M.LeungK.FanR. M.SongW.ZhangJ.ZhangJ. (1996) Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 181–199.
3.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2000) Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 187–212.
4.
HeineS. J.HamamuraT. (2007) In search of East Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 4–27.
5.
HofstedeG. (1980) Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad?Organizational Dynamics, 9, 42–63.
6.
KeillorB.OwensD.PettijohnC. (2001) A cross-cultural/cross-national study of influencing factors and socially desirable response biases. International Journal of Market Research, 43, 63–84.
7.
LaiwaniA. K.ShavittS.JohnsonT. (2006) What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 163–178.
8.
LeiteW. L.BeretvasS. N. (2003) Validation of scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 140–134.
9.
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.
10.
LiA.BaggerJ. (2007) The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): a reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 323–344.
11.
LiuC. X.XiaoJ.YangZ. E. (2003) A compromise between self-enhancement and honesty: Chinese self-evaluations on social desirability scales. Psychological Reports, 92, 291–298.
12.
MiddletonK. L.JonesJ. L. (2000) Social desirable response sets: the impact of country culture. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 149–163.
13.
PaulhusD. L. (1984) Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 398–609.
14.
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. 17–39.
15.
PaulhusD. L.ReidD. B. (1991) Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307–317.
16.
RandallD. M.HuoY. P.PawelkP. (1993) Social desirability bias in cross-cultural ethics research. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1, 183–202.
17.
TrafimowD.ArmendarizM. L.MadsonL. (2004) A test of whether attributions provide for self-enhancement or self-defense. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 433–463.
18.
WenZ.HauK.MarshH. W. (2004) Structural equation model testing: cutoff criteria for goodness of fit indices and chi-square test. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 186–194.
19.
ZwickW. R.VelicerW. F. (1986) Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432–442.
