This study showed that the frequently found negative correlation between social desirability (SD) and the so-called “acquiescence response set” (ARS) is not an artifact of contaminated scales as its presence in two unconcaminated instruments was demonstrated. A theoretically consistent explanation of this relationship based on a reinterpretation of the ARS variable is suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarthelC. E.CrowneD. P.The need for approval, task categorization, and perceptual defense. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1962, 26, 547–555.
2.
ChristieR.LindauerF.Personality structure. Annual Review of Psychology, 1963, 14, 201–230.
3.
CrowneD. P.MarloweD.A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 349–354.
4.
CruseD. B.Some relations between minimal content, acquiescent-dissentient, and social desirability scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 112–119.
5.
FordL. H.Jr.Acquiescence and the true-false consistency of three social desirability scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1964, 24, 301–308.
6.
HandJ.BrazzellC. O.Contamination in measures of acquiescence and social desirability. Psychological Reports, 1965, 16, 759–760.
7.
HusekT. R.Acquiescence as a response set and as a personality characteristic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1961, 21, 295–307.
8.
JacksonD. N.MessickS.Acquiescence and desirability as response determinants on the MMPI. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1961, 21, 771–792.
9.
McGeeR. K.The relationship between response style and personality variables: I. The measurement of response acquiescence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 229–233.
10.
MiklichD. R.Item characteristics and agreement response set. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer. of Colorado, 1965.
11.
MiklichD. R.Peabody's agreement response set measure: reply to Samelson. Psychological Reports, 1966, 18, 200–202.
12.
PeabodyD.Attitude content and agreement set in scales of authoritarianism, dogmatism, anti-semitism, and economic conservatism. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 1–11.
13.
RokeachM.The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Boob, 1960.
14.
RorerL. G.The great response-style myth. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 63, 129–156.
15.
SamelsonF.Agreement set and anticontent attitudes in the F scale: a reinterpretation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, 338–342.
16.
SillerJ.ChipmanA.Response set paralysis: implications for measurement and control. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27, 432–438.
17.
SolomonL.KleinE.The relationship between agreeing response set and social desirability. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 176–179.
18.
StrickerL. J.Acquiescence and social desirability response styles, item characteristics, and conformity. Psychological Reports, 1963, 12, 319–341.
19.
StricklandB. R.CrowneD. P.Need for approval and the premature termination of psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27, 95–101.
20.
WebsterH.Acquiescence, social desirability and inhibition reflected by “response set” scales. Psychological Reports, 1962, 10, 789–790.
