Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding

Last updated

The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) is a psychometric tool that serves as a 40-item self-report questionnaire. BIDR assesses the potential social desirability bias in respondents' answers and further shows the composition of impression management (IM) and self-deception enhancement (SDE) within that bias. [1]

Contents

BIDR was developed by Paulhus in 1988 based on his Two-Component Model of social desirability, [2] with the aim of addressing the dispute regarding whether social desirability should be controlled in research. [3] This work primarily served as a summary of research findings at the time on social desirability in psychometrics . Specifically, the existence of the two factors was proved by statistical factor regression analysis of a large number of preliminary studies, [4] [5] and the conceptualization of the two factors was based on experimental verification of multiple hypotheses from various fields of psychology. [2] BIDR updated the measurement of social desirability from a one-dimensional measurement of behavior to a measurement of a composite concept that includes both 'substantive' and 'stylistic' component, and further advocated caution in controlling social desirability bias under different situations. [3]

BIDR has been applied in various scenarios since its establishment. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Several studies suggested that BIDR is the first choice for measuring social desirability. [14] [15] [16] [17] However, BIDR has limitations in terms of convenience and item size. [17] [18] In current practice, the primary tool for measuring social desirability is still the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale(MC-SDS). [19]

History

The early work of BIDR reviewed psychological studies around social desirability during that time and integrated insights from various other psychological fields including psychoanalysis, personality psychology, cognitive psychology, and statistical psychology. [20] With the theoretical updates of social desirability, BIDR advocated for a balanced measurement of SDE and IM content to predict social desirability. [3] This approach enables BIDR to demonstrate better adaptability in predicting the respondents' social desirability in different situations. [13] BIDR also requires the evaluator to handle the results more cautiously. [3] In the dispute over controlling social desirability, BIDR offered a moderate perspective, which to some extent alleviated the controversy at the time. [21]

Social desirability bias in psychometrics

In psychometrics, social desirability bias represents response biases that are triggered by social cues. [22] The concept of social desirability in psychometrics can be traced back to Bernreuter's research published in 1933. [23] Edwards introduced this concept formally into psychometrics during 1953-1957 and developed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-L to control possible social desirability in self-report. [24] [25] Social desirability has then always been an important topic in psychometrics, as psychometricians believed that it could seriously undermine the validity of results. [21]

The Stylistic vs. Substantive Debate

Early psychologists primarily viewed social desirability as an instrumental behavior serving a purpose in social circumstances. [25] Based on this perspective, psychologists agreed to remove the content distorted by social desirability from self-reports to protect the validity of self-report results. Some pathological cases at that time reported unintentional social role-playing behavior, which indicated a connection between social desirability and personality. [26] Earlier research suggested that social desirability was substantially more substantive than stylistic in the non-pathological field. [4] [27] [28]

The contradictory outcome of Social Desirability . The dispute of Social desirability in personality and behavior123.webp
The contradictory outcome of Social Desirability .

Hogan's work in Socioanalytic Theory offered a perspective that emphasizes the stylistic content of social desirability. [29] This perspective posited that social desirability originates beneath the self-images and is driven by an unconscious process, indicating that social desirability may not always involve conscious fraudulent behavior. [30] [31] Meanwhile, research from the field of personality psychology reported that social desirability was highly correlated with a range of prosocial personality traits, including agreeableness, conscientiousness, and self-esteem, [32] [4] [33] and negatively correlated with the Beck Depression Inventory. [34] A serious problem emerged as psychologists questioned whether existing social desirability scales were actually filtering out liars or filtering out venerable people. [3] Psychometricians began to argue about whether they should develop psychometric tools aim at strictly controlling social desirability. [33]

Psychometricians with differing viewpoints used different methodologies to develop psychometric tools for social desirability bias. Those tools often showed minimal correlations with each other. [35] Additionally, some psychometric tools of other fields reported a great loss of their predictive effect after controlling social desirability. [36] [37] [38] Some psychologists suggested that these problems indicated a systematic problem between the objects that social desirability scale aimed to capture and the dimensions contained within social desirability. [28] Psychologists began to try to further explore the dimensions of social desirability.

Two factors of social desirability

The Alpha and Gamma factors, two distinct factors that measure different content of social desirability were found in some comprehensive review study of social desirability. [39] [4] Scales that could be highly loaded onto the Alpha factor include Edward's Social Desirability Scale(SDS) [25] and Ullmann's MMPI, [40] while scales highly loaded onto the Gamma factor include Wiggins' SDS [5] and the MMPI-K. [41] After the two factors was discovered, Damarin and Messick proposed the Two-Component Theory of social desirability and advocated conceptualising of the two factors. [42]

The two factors were conceptualized as attribution and denial in early conceptualization. [43] The attribution represented attributing the desirable qualities desired by society to self, while denial represented rejecting attributing undesirable concepts to self. [43] However, a study showed that the intercorrelation of MC-SDS subscale that conceptualized two factors based on attribution and denial was significantly lower than that of MC-SDS. [44] Millham himself also found that the significant differences in the performance of Alpha and Gamma factors under the Bogus Pipeline Condition could not be well loaded onto attribution and denial. [45]

Paulhus organized the conceptual research at the time and pointed out that self-deception and IM were most suitable as the conceptual basis for the two factors. [2] [3] [20] The final version of BIDR identified two components of social desirability as the personality structure (i.e., stylistic content) SDE and the behavioral substrate structure (i.e., substantive content) IM, and suggested that both parts jointly predicted the overall behavior of social desirability. [2] This joint effect (i.e., the Balance) was one of the guiding principles in the development of BIDR. [2]

The Dimension of Social Desirability in BIDR Output (1).png
The Dimension of Social Desirability in BIDR

Impression Management and Self-Deception

Impression management (IM) in social desirability research was mainly characterised by the manipulation of others' perceptions in social environments, and it was generally considered that IM should be controlled as a contaminating factor in self-reporting. [46] The measurement of IM can be traced back to Ruch's (1941) Honesty Scale. [47] The development of IM psychometric tools primarily involved the measurement of two types of IM: strategic IM (i.e., for achieving a certain goal) and motivational IM (i.e., for maintaining a positive self-image). [3] The former includes MMPI-Lie, [41] Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Lie [48] and 16PF-Lie. [49] The latter includes MC-Need for Approval scale [50] and Self-Monitoring Scale. [51]

The Philosophical foundation of Self-deception: holds both beliefs P and Not-P. (Gur&Sackeim,1979) Self-deception:The colleague holds both beliefs P and Not-P.webp
The Philosophical foundation of Self-deception: holds both beliefs P and Not-P. (Gur&Sackeim,1979)

Self-deception (SD) in social desirability research is characterised by the maintenance of one's self-image, and there has been debate over whether SD should be controlled in self-report. [9] The earliest measurement of SD can be traced back to Frenkel-Brunswik's research in 1939. [52] In a study on autistic traits conducted by Cattell, a highly self-enhancing characteristic was discovered, which was highly confused with self-deception. [53] Gur and Sackeim took a definitive step in clarifying the definition of Self-deception from a psycho-philosophical and psychoanalytic perspective, and developed the Self-Deception Questionnaire (SDQ) and Other-Deception Questionnaire (ODQ), which provided valuable contributions in the development of BIDR. [54]

Paulhus tested self-deception denial (SDD) and self-deception enhancement (SDE) based on Gur & Sackeim (1979)'s work. SDD represents denying the attributes that do not meet social desired, while self-deception enhancement represents emphasizing the assets that meet social expectations. The results showed that the content of SDE measurement was independent of other content, while the content of SDD largely overlapping with IM to a great extent. [20]

Development of items in BIDR

The main items of the SDE section of BIDR were made through the conceptual reversal of items in SDQ, and avoided the use of negative vocabulary. Due to the differences between SDE and SDD trait that had been previously validated, Paulhus suggested that the threatening items in SDQ (e.g., 'Are you enjoying your bowel movements?') involved stimulating individuals' defenses from a psychoanalytic perspective, which was inconsistent with the concept of SDE. [20] Therefore, the SDE section of BIDR used positive language overall. The main contents aimed to be capture in SDE section were as follows: [1]

(i) Self-serving bias in the face of failure.

(ii) Control illusion.

(iii) Excessive memory confidence.

(iv) Familiarity claims for non-existent things.

The items of BIDR's IM-section came from a series of traditional scales, with some balancing adjustments made (e.g., balancing the motivational perspective and the skill-based perspective of IM). [1]

Further developments

Researchers from multiple countries have developed their own culturally adapted versions of BIDR, including Japan, [55] China. [56]

Different versions of BIDR have developed for different populations, with some publicly available versions available for free. [57] [58] [59]

The streamlining of the public version of BIDR is ongoing. In 2015, Hart and his colleagues developed BIDR-16, which is a publicly available shortened version of BIDR. [60] In their original study, the correlation between BIDR-40 and BIDR-16 was approximately 0.84-0.87, but the internal consistency hovered around 0.70. Recent efforts have aimed to further reduce the number of items. Many studies have reported the progress of the BIDR-6 with varying results. [61] [62] [63]

In 1998, Paulhus developed the commercial version of BIDR, named the Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS). [64]

Scale

BIDR consists of 40 questions that measures and differentiates the trait structure and the behavioral structure of respondents' social desirability. The 40 questions are divided into two groups. The first 20 questions are used to assess the existing trait structure: self-deception enhancement trait. The second 20 questions are used to assess the behavioral structure: impression management behaviors. In each group, there are ten positive scoring questions and ten negative scoring (i.e., reverse scoring) questions.

Each response to a question contains seven response options, ranging from 1 (not true) to 7 (very true), and only responses of 6-7 will be added 1 point. The overall score ranges from minimum=0 to maximum=20. Depending on the situation, responses that are more than one standard deviation above the mean can be considered to be a high score.

High scores in the SDE section indicates that the respondent may be unconsciously glorifying themselves, while high score in the IM section indicates that the individual has manipulated the answer to fit social circumstances.

Paulhus suggested that two sections of BIDR could be used separately. [1] This suggestion has also been supported by some current research. [65] There are also some studies that suggest this could lead to a loss of overall effectiveness. [18]

Reliability

In Paulhus's original study, [1] the overall internal consistency of BIDR was 0.83. The internal consistency of the SDE section was 0.68-0.80, and the internal consistency of the IM section was 0.75-0.86.

The correlation between the BIDR results and the MC-SDS was r=0.71, and the correlation between the BIDR and the Social Desirability Inventory [44] was r=0.80. The test-retest reliability of BIDR over a five-week follow-up period was 0.65-0.69.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that BIDR has a good reliability. [13]

Applications

Research of psychology

BIDR has been adopted by multiple psychological fields to collect research data. Those fields include Sport Psychology, [12] Personality Psychology, [11] Health Psychology, [10] and Clinical Psychology. [9]

Identifying fake responses

BIDR is widely used in different scenarios to identify and manage fake responses. The usage scenarios include Job Interviews, [8] academic settings, [13] treatment, [7] and Criminal Investigation. [6]

Criticism

BIDR's original version had a large number of items with complex scoring rules, which was considered difficult to apply in practice. Additionally, the interpretation of BIDR's results requires certain skills from the user, which may result in additional usage costs. [61]

A study suggested that using the IM section of BIDR alone in identifying fake scenarios is less effective than using MC-SDS. [18]

Some psychologists suggested that the cases and endorsements of BIDR public version are fewer than MC-SDS, and the commercial version of BIDR is considered too expensive. [66]

The original BIDR has cross-cultural applicability issues, [67] it is therefore recommended to use versions that have been developed for particular cultures.

See also

Related Research Articles

Psychometrics is a field of study within psychology concerned with the theory and technique of measurement. Psychometrics generally covers specialized fields within psychology and education devoted to testing, measurement, assessment, and related activities. Psychometrics is concerned with the objective measurement of latent constructs that cannot be directly observed. Examples of latent constructs include intelligence, introversion, mental disorders, and educational achievement. The levels of individuals on nonobservable latent variables are inferred through mathematical modeling based on what is observed from individuals' responses to items on tests and scales.

Psychological testing refers to the administration of psychological tests. Psychological tests are administered or scored by trained evaluators. A person's responses are evaluated according to carefully prescribed guidelines. Scores are thought to reflect individual or group differences in the construct the test purports to measure. The science behind psychological testing is psychometrics.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a standardized psychometric test of adult personality and psychopathology. A version for adolescents also exists, the MMPI-A, and was first published in 1992. Psychologists and other mental health professionals use various versions of the MMPI to help develop treatment plans, assist with differential diagnosis, help answer legal questions, screen job candidates during the personnel selection process, or as part of a therapeutic assessment procedure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personality test</span> Method of assessing human personality constructs

A personality test is a method of assessing human personality constructs. Most personality assessment instruments are in fact introspective self-report questionnaire measures or reports from life records (L-data) such as rating scales. Attempts to construct actual performance tests of personality have been very limited even though Raymond Cattell with his colleague Frank Warburton compiled a list of over 2000 separate objective tests that could be used in constructing objective personality tests. One exception, however, was the Objective-Analytic Test Battery, a performance test designed to quantitatively measure 10 factor-analytically discerned personality trait dimensions. A major problem with both L-data and Q-data methods is that because of item transparency, rating scales, and self-report questionnaires are highly susceptible to motivational and response distortion ranging from lack of adequate self-insight to downright dissimulation depending on the reason/motivation for the assessment being undertaken.

In social science research, social-desirability bias is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting "good behavior" or under-reporting "bad", or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious problem with conducting research with self-reports. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences.

A self-report inventory is a type of psychological test in which a person fills out a survey or questionnaire with or without the help of an investigator. Self-report inventories often ask direct questions about personal interests, values, symptoms, behaviors, and traits or personality types. Inventories are different from tests in that there is no objectively correct answer; responses are based on opinions and subjective perceptions. Most self-report inventories are brief and can be taken or administered within five to 15 minutes, although some, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), can take several hours to fully complete. They are popular because they can be inexpensive to give and to score, and their scores can often show good reliability.

The Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSES), developed by the sociologist Morris Rosenberg, is a self-esteem measure widely used in social science research. It uses a scale of 0–30, where a score less than 15 may indicate problematic low self-esteem. Although the instrument was developed for use with adolescents, it has been widely used in research on adults.

Psychological evaluation is a method to assess an individual's behavior, personality, cognitive abilities, and several other domains. A common reason for a psychological evaluation is to identify psychological factors that may be inhibiting a person's ability to think, behave, or regulate emotion functionally or constructively. It is the mental equivalent of physical examination. Other psychological evaluations seek to better understand the individual's unique characteristics or personality to predict things like workplace performance or customer relationship management.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dark triad</span> Offensive personality types

The dark triad is a psychological theory of personality, first published by Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams in 2002, that describes three notably offensive, but non-pathological personality types: Machiavellianism, sub-clinical narcissism, and sub-clinical psychopathy. Each of these personality types is called dark because each is considered to contain malevolent qualities.

Sexuality can be inscribed in a multidimensional model comprising different aspects of human life: biology, reproduction, culture, entertainment, relationships and love.

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory is a personality inventory that assesses an individual on five dimensions of personality. These are the same dimensions found in the Big Five personality traits. These traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion(-introversion), agreeableness, and neuroticism. In addition, the NEO PI-R also reports on six subcategories of each Big Five personality trait.

The Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire was designed by Arnold H. Buss and Mark Perry, professors from the University of Texas at Austin in a 1992 article for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Because of the substantial benefits available to individuals with a confirmed PTSD diagnosis, which causes occupational impairment, the distinct possibility of false diagnoses exist, some of which are due to malingering of PTSD. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental disorder that may develop after an individual experiences a traumatic event. Malingering of PTSD consists of one feigning the disorder. In the United States, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs each offer disability compensation programs that provide benefits for qualified individuals with mental disorders, including PTSD. These benefits can be substantial, making them attractive for those seeking financial gain. Concerns about individuals exploiting benefits can lead to restricted access to these resources, inadvertently making it more difficult for those with PTSD who genuinely need assistance to receive it. Malingering can lead to a decline in research and subsequent treatment for PTSD as it interferes with true studies. False data skews findings, making it more difficult to develop effective treatments. Insurance fraud may also come about through malingering, burdening the economy, healthcare systems, and taxpayers.

The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) is a public domain collection of items for use in personality tests. It is managed by the Oregon Research Institute.

Delroy L. Paulhus is a personality psychology researcher and professor. He received his doctorate from Columbia University and has worked at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Davis. Currently, Paulhus is a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses. He is best known for being the co creator of the dark triad, along with fellow researcher Kevin Williams.

Starke R. Hathaway was an American psychologist who co-authored the psychological assessment known as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). He was a longtime faculty member of the Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota.

Ulrich Trautwein is a German psychologist and education researcher. He has been a Full Professor of Education Science at the University of Tübingen, Germany, since October 2008. In addition, he has been director of LEAD Graduate School & Research Network at Tübingen University since 2012. Since 2014, he has also headed the Hector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology in Tübingen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Machiavellianism (psychology)</span> Personality construct

In the field of personality psychology, Machiavellianism is the name of a personality trait construct characterized by interpersonal manipulation, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest. Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis created the construct and named it after Niccolò Machiavelli, as they used truncated and edited statements similar to his writing style to study variations in human behaviors. The construct's relation to the thinker himself is exclusively nominal. Their Mach IV test, a 20-question, Likert-scale personality survey, became the standard self-assessment tool and scale of the Machiavellianism construct. Those who score high on the scale are more likely to have a high level of manipulativeness, deceitfulness and a cynical, unemotional temperament.

J. Gayle Beck is a licensed clinical psychologist who specializes in trauma stress disorders and anxiety disorders. She is the Lillian and Morrie Moss Chair of Excellence in the Department of Psychology at the University of Memphis.

The MACH-IV is a 20 question Likert scale psychometric designed to test levels of Machiavellianism in individuals. In personality psychology, Machiavellianism refers to a personality construct which comprises manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and a callous, calculating orientation. It is the most widely used Machiavellianism test by researchers.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Balanced inventory of desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/t08059-000
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(3), 598. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-17817-001
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In Personality assessment via questionnaires: Current issues in theory and measurement (pp. 143-165). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-70751-3_8
  4. 1 2 3 4 Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets: Unconfounding meaning, acquiescence, and social desirability in the MMPI. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1966-02934-000
  5. 1 2 Wiggins, J. S. (1959). Interrelationships among MMPI measures of dissimulation under standard and social desirability instruction. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23(5), 419. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1960-05643-001
  6. 1 2 Kroner, D. G., & Weekes, J. R. (1996). Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(3), 323-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00079-7
  7. 1 2 Anderson, K., Rieger, E., & Caterson, I. (2006). A comparison of maladaptive schemata in treatment-seeking obese adults and normal-weight control subjects. Journal of psychosomatic research, 60(3), 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.08.002
  8. 1 2 Preiss, M., Mejzlíková, T., Rudá, A., Krámský, D., & Pitáková, J. (2015). Testing the level of social desirability during job interview on white-collar profession. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 1886. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01886
  9. 1 2 3 Zemore, S. E. (2012). The effect of social desirability on reported motivation, substance use severity, and treatment attendance. Journal of substance abuse treatment, 42(4), 400-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2011.09.013
  10. 1 2 Boulanger, B., Bédard, A., Carbonneau, É., Pelletier, L., Robitaille, J., Lamarche, B., & Lemieux, S. (2023). Social desirability, dietary intakes, and variables related to attitudes and behaviours towards eating among French-speaking adults from Quebec, Canada: The PREDISE study. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 49(2), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2023-0261
  11. 1 2 Holden, R. R., Starzyk, K. B., McLeod, L. D., & Edwards, M. J. (2000). Comparisons among the holden psychological screening inventory (HPSI), the brief symptom inventory (BSI), and the balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR). Assessment, 7(2), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319110000700208
  12. 1 2 Bourgeois, A. E., Loss, R., Meyers, M. C., & LeUnes, A. D. (2003). The athletic coping skills inventory: Relationship with impression management and self-deception aspects of socially desirable responding. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(2), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00024-3
  13. 1 2 3 4 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. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(5), 859-876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406299104
  14. ↑ Gittelman, S., Lange, V., Cook, W. A., Frede, S. M., Lavrakas, P. J., Pierce, C., & Thomas, R. K. (2015). Accounting for social-desirability bias in survey sampling: a model for predicting and calibrating the direction and magnitude of social-desirability bias. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(3), 242-254. DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2015-006
  15. ↑ Kam, C. (2013). Probing item social desirability by correlating personality items with Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): A validity examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(4), 513-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.017
  16. ↑ Mikulic, I. M., Crespi, M., & Caballero, R. (2016). Estudio psicométrico del inventario balanceado de respuesta deseable. Anuario de Psicología, 46(2), 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anpsic.2016.07.002
  17. 1 2 Steenkamp, J. B. E., De Jong, M. G., & Baumgartner, H. (2010). Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(2), 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.2.199
  18. 1 2 3 Lambert, C. E., Arbuckle, S. A., & Holden, R. R. (2016). The Marlowe–Crowne social desirability scale outperforms the BIDR impression management scale for identifying fakers. Journal of Research in Personality, 61, 80-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.004
  19. ↑ Kwak, D. H., Holtkamp, P., & Kim, S. S. (2019). Measuring and controlling social desirability bias: Applications in information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(4),
  20. 1 2 3 4 Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of personality and social psychology, 60(2), 307.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-18338-001
  21. 1 2 Larson, R. B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305
  22. ↑ Grimm, Pamela (2010-09-30). "Social Desirability Bias". Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057. ISBN   978-1-4051-6178-7.
  23. ↑ Bernreuter, R. G. (1933). Validity of the personality inventory. Personnel Journal. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1933-03588-001
  24. ↑ Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of applied Psychology, 37(2), 90. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1954-00551-001
  25. 1 2 3 Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1958-00464-000
  26. ↑ Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser?. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 108(4), 441. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-02686-001
  27. ↑ Heilbrun, A. B. (1964). Social-learning theory, social desirability, and the MMPI. Psychological Bulletin, 61(5), 377. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1965-01835-001
  28. 1 2 Messick, S. (1960). Dimensions of social desirability. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 279. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1961-02211-001
  29. ↑ Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1983-32712-001
  30. ↑ Wiggins, J. S. (1966). Substantive dimensions of self-report in the MMPI item pool. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(22), 1. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-19293-001
  31. ↑ Rogers, T. B. (1974). An analysis of two central stages underlying responding to personality items: The self-referent decision and response selection. Journal of Research in Personality, 8(2), 128-138.https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(74)90014-2
  32. ↑ Taylor, J. B., Carithers, M., & Coyne, L. (1976). MMPI performance, response set, and the" self-concept hypothesis.". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44(3), 351. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-20061-001
  33. 1 2 Strosahl, K. D., Linehan, M. M., & Chiles, J. A. (1984). Will the real social desirability please stand up? Hopelessness, depression, social desirability, and the prediction of suicidal behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52(3), 449. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-23406-001
  34. ↑ Roth, D. L., & Ingram, R. E. (1985). Factors in the Self-Deception Questionnaire: Associations with depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 243. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-17551-001
  35. ↑ Millham, J., & Kellogg, R. W. (1980). Need for social approval: impression management or self-deception?. Journal of research in Personality, 14(4), 445-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(80)90003-3
  36. ↑ Amelang, M., & Bartussek, D. (1970). Research on validity of a new lie scale. Diagnostica. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-31582-001
  37. ↑ Edwards, A. L. (1970). The measurement of personality traits by scales and inventories. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-01072-000
  38. ↑ McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 51(6), 882. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-05649-001
  39. ↑ Wiggins, J. S. (1964). Convergences among stylistic response measures from objective personality tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(3), 551-562. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446402400310
  40. ↑ Ullmann, L. P. (1962). An empirically derived MMPI scale which measures facilitation-inhibition of recognition of threatening stimuli. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18(2). https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1964-08535-001
  41. 1 2 Meehl, P. E., & Hathaway, S. R. (1946). The K factor as a suppressor variable in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Journal of applied psychology, 30(5), 525. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053634
  42. ↑ Damarin, F., & Messick, S. (1965). RESPONSE STYLES AS PERSONALITY VARIABLES: A THEORETICAL INTEGRATION OF MULTIVARIATE RESEARCH 1. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 1965(1), i-116. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1965.tb00967.x
  43. 1 2 Millham, J., & Jacobson, L. I. (1978). The need for approval. Dimensions of personality, 365-390.
  44. 1 2 Jacobson, L. I., Kellogg, R. W., Cauce, A. M., & Slavin, R. S. (1977). A multidimensional social desirability inventory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9, 109-110. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336944
  45. ↑ Millham, J. (1974). Two components of need for approval score and their relationship to cheating following success and failure. Journal of Research in Personality, 8(4), 378-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(74)90028-2
  46. ↑ Uziel, L. (2010). Rethinking social desirability scales: From impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological science, 5(3), 243-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369465
  47. ↑ Ruch, F. L. (1941). The problem of measuring morale. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 15(4), 221-228. https://doi.org/10.2307/2262468
  48. ↑ Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. (1976). Eysenck personality questionnaire. Educational and industrial testing service.
  49. ↑ Cattell, R. B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. World Book. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1947-00501-000
  50. ↑ Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of consulting psychology, 24(4), 349. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
  51. ↑ Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 30(4), 526.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1975-03047-001
  52. ↑ Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1959). Meaning of Psychoanalytic Concepts and Confirmation of Psychoanalytic Theories. In M. Levitt (Ed.), Readings in psychoanalytic psychology (pp. 29–42). Appleton-Century-Crofts. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-10192-003
  53. ↑ Cattell, R. B., Horn, J. L., & Sweney, A. B. (1964). Motivation analysis test. Institute for personality and ability testing.
  54. ↑ Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1979). Self-deception, other-deception, and self-reported psychopathology. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 47(1), 213. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1979-26213-001
  55. ↑ Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Social desirability among Canadian and Japanese students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(6), 777-779. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-02880-012
  56. ↑ Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R. M., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (1996). Development of the Chinese personality assessment inventory. Journal of Cross-cultural psychology, 27(2), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022196272003
  57. ↑ Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (2003). Can we trust self-reports of driving? Effects of impression management on driver behaviour questionnaire responses. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 6(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(03)00008-1
  58. ↑ Risko, E. F., Quilty, L. C., & Oakman, J. M. (2006). Socially desirable responding on the web: Investigating the candor hypothesis. Journal of personality assessment, 87(3), 269-276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_08
  59. ↑ Stevens, C. D., Tan, L., & Grace, R. C. (2016). Socially desirable responding and psychometric assessment of dynamic risk in sexual offenders against children. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(5), 420-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1120868
  60. ↑ Hart, C. M., Ritchie, T. D., Hepper, E. G., & Gebauer, J. E. (2015). The balanced inventory of desirable responding short form (BIDR-16). Sage Open, 5(4),https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621113
  61. 1 2 Bobbio, A., & Manganelli, A. M. (2011). Measuring social desirability responding. A short version of Paulhus' BIDR 6. Testing, Psychometrics Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18(2), 117-135. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-12907-004
  62. ↑ Subotić, S., Dimitrijević, S., & Radetić-Lovrić, S. (2016). Psychometric evaluation and short form development of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR-6). psihologija, 49(3), 263-276.
  63. ↑ Asgeirsdottir, R. L., Vésteinsdóttir, V., & Thorsdottir, F. (2016). Short form development of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: Applying confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory, and cognitive interviews to scale reduction. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 212-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.083
  64. ↑ Paulhus, D. L. (2012). Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS).
  65. ↑ Gignac, G. E. (2013). Modeling the balanced inventory of desirable responding: Evidence in favor of a revised model of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 645-656. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.816717
  66. ↑ Stöber, J. 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://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/90978
  67. ↑ Li, A., & Reb, J. (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(2), 214-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022108328819
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.