Social desirability dimensionality: one or two continua?

Autor

  • Krzysztof Fronczyk Uniwersytet Warszawski
  • Ewa Witkowska Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej im. Marii Grzegorzewskiej

Słowa kluczowe:

factor analysis, social desirability, acquiescence, balanced scale, inductive strategy

Abstrakt

Background
The objective of this paper is to examine the structure of social desirability. This variable is important in self-report question-naires. Theoretical analyses indicate the existence of at least two dimensions of this construct, but there is no unambiguous empirical evidence for such a structure of social desirability. The present research aimed to determine the factor structure of the social desirability construct and the number of its dimensions.

Participants and procedure
The inductive research strategy was applied and a new pool of questionnaire items was generated. This approach allows for detachment from the existing social desirability assessment instruments. This study focuses on the concepts of social desirability that examinees have, rather than on the content of existing items measuring social desirability. The verification of the social desirability structure was performed in three stages. At each stage, the number of items was gradually reduced. The successive phases of the study involved three different samples, respectively, consisting of 657, 415, and 1,709 examinees.

Results
Initially, at the first stage of the study, two dimensions were detected, but in the two subsequent stages, the second dimension represented acquiescence. The procedure of partialling the mean out of the correlation matrix was applied to eliminate acquiescence. This dimension is related, as expected, to agreeableness and conscientiousness. It also appeared that the social desirability structure can be confounded by acquiescence in longer questionnaires.

Conclusions
It is concluded that every item reflects both social desirability and acquiescence, albeit to different extents. A one-dimensional construct of social desirability was finally obtained.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Bibliografia

Bishop, G. F. (1987). Experiments with the middle response alternative in survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1086/269030.

Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1992). Social desirability scales as moderator and suppressor variables. European Journal of Personality, 6, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410060303.

Burisch, M. (1986). Methods of personality inventory development – a comparative analysis. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 109–120). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Cattel, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the numbers of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245– 276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10.

Cervellione, K. L., Lee, Y. S., & Bonanno, G. A. (2009). Rasch modeling of the self-deception scale of the balanced inventory of desirable responding. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 438–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408322020.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.

Espinosa, A. D. C., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2014). An Indigenous Social Desirability Scale. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 47, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175614522267.

Ferrando, P. J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Chico, E. (2009). A general factor-analytic procedure for assessing response bias in questionnaire measures. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510902751374.

Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26.

Greenwald, H. J., & Clausen, J. D. (1970). Test of relationship between yeasaying and social desirability. Psychological Reports, 27, 139–141. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1970.27.1.139.

He, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2013). A general response style factor: Evidence from a multi-ethnic study in the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 794–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.017.

He, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Espinosa, A. D., Abubakar, A., Dimitrova, R., Adams, B. G., ...Villieux, A. (2015). Socially desirable responding: Enhancement and denial in 20 countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 49, 227–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397114552781.

Helmes, E., & Holden, R. R. (2003). The construct of social desirability: One or two dimensions? Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1015–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00086-7.

Hofstee, W. K. B., Ten Berge, J. M. F., & Hendricks, A. A. J. (1998). How to score questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 897–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00086-5.

Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1989). Three common social desirability scales: Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(89)90022-6.

Holden, R. R., & Passey, J. (2009). Social desirability. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 441–454). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/B.F.02289447.

Jackson, D. N. (1975). The relative validity of scales prepared by naive item writers and those based on empirical methods of personality scale construction1. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447503500214.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116.

Kalton, G., Roberts, J., & Holt, D. (1980). The effects of offering a middle response option with opinion questions. Statistician, 29, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/2987495.

Knowles, E. S., & Condon, C. A. (1999). Why people say “yes”: a dual-process theory of acquiescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.379.

Kroner, D. G., & Weekes, J. R. (1996). The balanced inventory of desirable responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 323–333. nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00079-7.

Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537.

Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9.

Lanyon, R. I., & Carle, A. C. (2007). Internal and external validity of scores on the balanced inventory of desirable responding and the Paulhus deception scales. nEducational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 859–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406299104.

Leary, M. R., & Toner, K. (2015). Self-processes in the construction and maintenance of personality. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 447–467). Washington, DC: APA Publishing.

Leite, W. L., & Beretvas, S. N. (2005). Validation of scores on the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale and the balanced inventory of desirable responding. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404267285.

Li, F., & Li, Y. (2008). The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): a factor analysis. Psychological Reports, 103, 727–731. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.103.3.727–731.

Li, F., Li, Y., & Wang Y. (2015). Socially desirable responding in Chinese university students: Denial and enhancement? Psychological Reports, 116, 409–421. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.07.pr0.116k18w8.

Loo, R., & Loewen, P. (2004). Confirmatory factor analyses of scores from full and short versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2343–2352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb01980.x.

Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the full and short versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 628–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600503.

Malham, P. B., & Saucier, G. (2016). The conceptual link between social desirability and cultural normativity. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 474–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12261.

Marín, G., Triandis, H. C., Kashima, Y., & Betaneourt, H. (1983). Ethnic affirmation versus social desirability: Explaining discrepancies in bilinguals’ responses to a questionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14, 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002183014002003.

Martin, J. (1964). Acquiescence – measurement and theory. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 3, 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1964.tb00430.x.

Moral de la Rubia, J., García-Cadena, C. H., & Antona Casas, C. J. (2012). Traducción y validación del inventario balanceado de deseabilidad social al. responder en una muestra probabilística de estudiantes universitarios mexicanos [Translation and validation of the balanced inventory of desirable responding in a probability sample of Mexican university students]. Revista de Psicología GEPU, 3, 54–72.

Musch, J., Brockhaus, R., & Bröder, A. (2002). Ein inventar zur erfassung von zwei faktoren sozialer erwünschtheit [An inventory for the assessment of two factors of social desirability]. Diagnostica, 48, 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.48.3.121.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.81.6.660.

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598.

Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in tests responses. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaire (pp. 143–165). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307.

Pearson, P. R., & Francis, L. J. (1989). The dual nature of the Eysenckian lie scales: Are religious adolescents more truthful? Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1041–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(89)90255-9.

Ramanaiah, N. V., Schill, T., & Leung, L. S. (1977). A test of the hypothesis about the two-dimensional nature of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(77)90022-8.

Ramanaiah, N. V., & Martin, H. J. (1980). On the two-dimensional nature of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4405_11.

Ray, J. J. (1983). Reviving the problem of acquiescent response bias. Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1983.9924470.

Reyment, R. A., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1996). Applied factor analysis in the natural sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Studying values: Personal adventure, future directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110396925.

Shultz, K. S., & Chávez, D. V. (1994). The reliability and factor structure of a social desirability scale in English and in Spanish. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 935–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054004009.

Stöber, J. (1999). Die Soziale-Erwünschtheits-Skala-17 (SES-17): Befunde zu Reliabilität und Validität [The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Development and first results on reliability and validity]. Diagnostica, 45, 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.45.4.173.

Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222.

Stricker, L. J. (1963). Acquiescence and social desirability response styles, item characteristics, and conformity. Psychological Reports, 12, 319–341. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1963.12.2.319.

Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowiński, T. (2014). Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza IPIP-BFM-50 do pomiaru pięciu cech osobowości w ujęciu leksykalnym [Polish adaptation of IPIP-BFM-50 measuring five personality traits in a lexical approach]. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 17, 327–366.

Ten Berge, J. M. F. (1999). A legitimate case of component analysis of ipsative measures, and partialling the mean as an alternative to ipsatization. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3401_4.

Ventimiglia, M., & MacDonald, D. A. (2012). An examination of the factorial dimensionality of the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 487–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.016

Opublikowane

2020-10-21

Jak cytować

Fronczyk, K., & Witkowska, E. . (2020). Social desirability dimensionality: one or two continua?. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 8(3), 229–242. Pobrano z https://czasopisma.bg.ug.edu.pl/index.php/CIiPP/article/view/5309

Numer

Dział

Artykuły