-
Psychology Science, Volume 48, 2006 (3), p. 336-356
Social desirability: the role of over-claiming, self-esteem, and
emotional intelligence
JESSICA MESMER-MAGNUS1, CHOCKALINGAM VISWESVARAN, SATISH
DESHPANDE & JACOB JOSEPH
Abstract Socially desirable responding (SDR) has been widely
studied with regards to personality
assessment due to fears it may attenuate the predictive validity
of decisions made using such assessments (e.g., in personnel
selection). A number of scales have been employed to assess
individual differences in response distortion. We expand the
nomological net for a popular measure of social desirability the
Marlowe-Crowne scale by correlating individual dif-ferences in SDR
to measures of over-claiming, self-esteem, and emotional
intelligence. Survey results (n = 198) yielded a significant
positive correlation between SDR and both self-esteem and emotional
intelligence. Over-claiming was found to be negatively related to
self-deceptive enhancement, a form of SDR, but not to SDR overall.
Regression analyses revealed emotional intelligence explains
significant variance in SDR, over and above that which is explained
by self-esteem and over-claiming alone (R2 = .16, p < .01).
Implications for personality assessment are discussed.
Key words: social desirability response distortion,
marlowe-crowne, self-deceptive de-
nial, self-deceptive enhancement
1 Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, Department of Management &
Marketing, University of North Carolina Wil-
mington; Chockalingam Viswesvaran, Department of Psychology,
Florida International University; Satish Deshpande, Department of
Management, Western Michigan University; Jacob Joseph, Department
of Man-agement, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to
Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, Department of Management & Marketing,
UNC-Wilmington, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403;
Email: [email protected] or to Chockalingam Viswesvaran, Department
of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199;
Email:[email protected]
-
Social desirability 337
The use of personality variables to explain individual behavior
has increased in the 1990s (Hough & Ones, 2001). Personality
variables are increasingly employed to predict outcomes in
high-stakes situations such as personnel selection in organizations
(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado,
1997; Tett, Rothstein, & Jackson, 1991). This in-creased use is
probably due to the meta-analytic findings suggesting that
personality vari-ables have considerable validity and utility for
prediction of behavior across a variety of contexts (cf. Murphy
& Dzieweczynski, 2005; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert,
2005). Nev-ertheless, the potential for test-takers to fake their
responses (in order to garner a valued outcome; e.g., a job offer)
to a personality test through socially desirable responding (SDR)
have led some to question the construct and criterion-related
validity of such tests. Research exploring SDR suggests there may
be individual differences in this form of response distor-tion
(e.g., Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996). The purpose of this
study is to expand our understanding of the role of individual
differences in SDR by expanding the nomological net surrounding a
widely used measure of social desirability. In the next sections,
we review (1) some major issues associated with SDR for personality
and high-stakes testing, (2) the con-tent domain of social
desirability, and (3) the potential role of individual difference
vari-ables, self-esteem, over-claiming tendency, and emotional
intelligence, to predict SDR.
Major issues associated with socially desirable responding in
high-stakes testing
Substantial evidence suggests that personality variables
correlate with a number of per-
formance measures of importance to organizations (e.g., job
performance, training perform-ance, absenteeism, organizational
commitment, etc.; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Ones, Viswes-varan,
& Schmidt, 1993; Tett et al., 1991). In addition, personality
variables have been found to correlate with several important life
outcomes such as occupational status, health out-comes and healthy
lifestyle behaviors, managerial ability, and leadership
effectiveness. As such, the assessment of personality has become a
central and important function for psy-chologists. Assessments of
personality in high-stakes situations (both for the individual
assessed and other stakeholders) have raised concerns about
motivations for socially desir-able responding and whether such
socially desirable responding affects the decisions made on the
basis of these scores (Mueller-Hanson, Heggstad, & Thornton,
2003). Broadly de-fined, socially desirable responding constitutes
attempts by test-takers to answer test items in such a way as to
obtain more desirable scores (whether better or worse) than would
be achieved through honest responding (Paulhus, 1981; Viswesvaran
& Ones, 1999). A critical assumption in psychological and
personality testing is that test-takers accurately recollect
relevant information assessed in test items and attempt to provide
honest responses (McIntire & Miller, 2001). To the extent
individuals provide socially desirable responses (rather than
honest responses), the predictive validity of the scores could be
affected.
It is important to note, however, that socially desirable
responding becomes a problem for making decisions more so when
there are individual differences in the ability and motiva-tion to
respond in a socially desirable manner. If all test-takers engage
in socially desirable responding by an equal amount, all scores
will be elevated to the same extent. The relative rank-ordering of
individuals on the personality trait being measured will not be
affected.
-
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph
338
Similarly, the correlation between personality scores and
outcome variables will also remain unaffected. The only issue will
be the need to revise cut-scores in light of the elevation in
scores due to socially desirable responding (Ones, Viswesvaran,
& Reiss, 1996). Therefore, the issue of social desirability
response bias in personality assessment boils down to potential
individual differences in the ability and motivation to distort
responses in a socially desirable way.
When there are individual differences in the ability and/or
motivation to provide socially desirable responses (cf. McFarland,
& Ryan, 2000), the relative rank ordering of the test-takers on
the trait may be altered. In this case, the change is due to the
correlation between personality scores and relevant outcomes as
well as to the impact of socially desirable re-sponding. The
validity and utility of personality assessments for predicting
outcomes will be affected such that criterion-related validity data
collected in experimental conditions may not be applicable to
high-stakes situations (where there will likely be a greater
motivation to engage in socially desirable responding). Similar
concerns have been raised about the inter-pretability of the role
of SDR from concurrent-validity designs as compared with true
predic-tive-validity designs. Recognizing these psychometric
realities, several test publishers have attempted to assess and
control for individual differences in socially desirable
responding. Scales are embedded in commercial personality
inventories (e.g., the MMPI and CPI) to assess individual
differences in socially desirable responding (SDR).
Importantly, current research evidence suggests personality test
validities do not seem to be largely affected by SDR. Specifically,
although Barrick and Mount (1996) found appli-cants did distort
their responses to personality assessments through SDR (both via
self-deception and impression management), these forms of
distortion did not attenuate the pre-dictive validity of
conscientiousness or emotional stability in personnel selection
contexts. Similarly, using meta-analysis, Ones, Viswesvaran and
Reiss (1996) concluded that statisti-cally controlling for SDR in
assessments of the Big Five personality does not diminish their
criterion-related validity for predicting job performance. Finally,
Hough et al. (1990) found that when respondents were instructed to
fake, this distortion was captured by validity scales, but the
criterion-related validity of the personality constructs remained
unchanged.
The content domain of SDR Early researchers believed SDR
reflected a response style wherein test takers would alter
their answers to personality inventories in an effort to make
themselves look better to others. However, Crowne and Marlowe
(1964) conceptualized SDR as a substantive personality construct
rather than simply a response style. Testing the distinction
between substance and style, McCrae and Costa (1983) compared
personality reports (on traits like neuroticism, agreeableness,
extraversion, and openness to experience) made by individuals and
their spouses. When corrected for SDR, correlations between spouse
and respondent ratings (va-lidity coefficients) decreased.
Similarly, Pauls and Stemmler (2003) found evidence support-ing the
existence of both conscious and unconscious forms of response
distortion. Piedmont, McCrae, Riemann, and Angleitner (2000) found
correlations of self-other personality ratings were not improved
with the statistical control of SDR. In sum, these studies suggest
SDR should be given substantive consideration.
-
Social desirability 339
Several researchers have attempted to delineate the content
domain of SDR. Paulhus (1984) argues for two underlying factors of
social desirability: self-deception and impression management. Self
deception refers to the positive view (even if inflated) that
individuals have of themselves; impression management refers to the
conscious effort by individuals to dissimulate and alter the
opinions that others have of them (Paulhus & Reid, 1991).
Specifi-cally, evidence suggests impression management is akin to a
response style in low anonym-ity conditions whereas self-deception
is response distortion motivated unconsciously because the
individual actually believes in the high self-evaluation. This
finding has led to the rec-ommendation that the effects of
impression management should be statistically controlled while the
effects of self-deception should not (Paulhus, 1981).
Self-deception has been termed an egoistic bias; impression
management a moralistic bias (Paulhus & John, 1998).
Specifically, self-deception is characterized by an overconfidence
in ones social and intellectual abilities; impression management by
claims of a heightened conformity to socie-tal and moral norms and
a rejection of deviant impulses (Paulhus & John, 1988; Peterson
et al., 2003). Paulhus (1984) and Paulhus and Reid (1991) further
differentiated the self-deception response style into two
components: (1) one component relates to the attribution of
positive attributes (self-deceptive enhancement; SDE) and (2) the
other component relates to the denial of negative attributes
(self-deceptive denial; SDD). Subsequent factor analyses of these
items confirmed a two-factor model for self-deception, with an
intercorrelation be-tween factors ranging from .10 to .19 (Kroner
& Weekes, 1996; Paulhus & Reid, 1991; Pauls & Stemmler,
2003; Roth, Harris, & Snyder, 1988). Self-deceptive denial has
been found to correlate strongly with the impression management
scale of the Balanced Inventory of De-sirable Responding (BIDR;
Kroner & Weekes, 1996; Paulhus & John, 1998).
Factor analytic studies of social desirability scales have
supported the partitioning of so-cial desirable responses styles
into two clusters: Alpha (Block, 1965) and Gamma (Wiggins, 1964).
Alpha, the general adjustment factor of the MMPI, represents the
tendency to give desirable self-reports on measures of personality
(Edwards, 1957). Gamma, the factor asso-ciated with propagandistic
bias (Damarin & Messick, 1965), represents the distortion of
self-descriptions to be consistent with those expected by a
specific audience. Gough (1996; 1987) notes, however, that it may
be difficult to differentiate between a profile that reflects
exceptional psychological adjustment and one that is indicative of
respondent faking. Mon-tross, Neas, Smith, and Hensley (1988)
instructed volunteers to role play a higher level of gender
identification than their honest profiles indicated (males were
instructed to fake higher masculinity; females were instructed to
fake higher femininity). Neither the Good Impression nor the Sense
of Well-Being scales were able to detect this form of SDR.
How-ever, research suggests that these scales are able to detect
more general forms of respondent SDR (e.g., Dicken, 1960; Sandal
& Enresen, 2002).
Consider some of the items used to assess the above described
dimensions of SDR. The most current form of the BIDR (BIDR-7;
Paulhus & John, 1998) uses items such as I am a completely
rational person. to assess Self-Deceptive Enhancement, I never read
sexy books or magazines. to assess Impression Management, and Once
Ive made up my mind, other people can seldom change my opinion. to
assess Self-Deceptive Denial. The Mar-lowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (MC-SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) uses items
like I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in
trouble, My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in
a restaurant, and No matter who Im talking to, Im always a good
listener. The validity scales embedded within the MMPI assess the
extent to
-
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph
340
which respondents agree with relatively unrealistic or unusual
statements (e.g., I never get angry, It would be better if most
laws were thrown away). Similarly, the Good Impres-sion Scale
embedded within the CPI assesses the extent to which the respondent
exaggerates positive points and minimizes negative qualities.
Specifically, items included require respon-dents to indicate the
extent to which they have a high level of confidence, are
self-assured, always behave in a socially approved manner,
experience harmonious relationships with others, have few
complaints about accomplishments, and minimal insecurities and
anxieties. Clearly, high agreement on all positive attributes and
low agreement with all negative attrib-utes would flag potential
response distortion.
Individual differences potentially associated with socially
desirable responding Our primary objective in this paper is to
expand the nomological net of a popular and
widely used measure of SDR by relating scores of potentially
associated individual differ-ence variables. Researchers have
reported correlations between SDR and personality con-structs (cf.
Furnham, 1986; Messick, 1960). For example, Pauls and Stemmler
(2003) found positive correlations between respondent emotional
stability, extraversion, and openness to experience, and
unconscious response distortion (self-deceptive enhancement), and
negative correlations between respondent agreeableness and
conscientiousness, and conscious re-sponse distortion (impression
management and self-deceptive denial). Ones et al. (1996) reported
estimated population correlations of .18 and .13 between SDR and
emotional stabil-ity and conscientiousness, respectively. Others
(McCrae & Costa, 1983; Nicholson & Ho-gan, 1990) have
argued these covariations indicate an overlap between SDR scales
and per-sonality assessments. To the extent SDR is a personality
trait rather than a response style, the practice of treating SDR
variance as error is questionable (Ellingson et al., 1999). In this
study, we examine scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scale (MCSDS) in relation to other potentially related individual
difference measures, over-claiming, self-esteem, and emotional
intelligence. We elaborate on these variables below.
Over-claiming. Over-claiming is a tendency to claim knowledge of
impossible topics or events (Paulhus, Harms, Bruce, & Lysy,
2003), and is thought to be an automatic process, much like SDR,
that is influenced independently by personality and cognitive
elements (Williams, Paulhus, & Nathanson, 2002). Over-claiming
may also result in part from a memory bias, wherein some
individuals have a tendency to believe everything is familiar
(Williams et al., 2002). Research suggests over-claiming may be a
substantive personality trait as it appears to occur on an
unconscious level. Over-claiming has been found to corre-late with
neuroticism, cognitive ability, openness to experience, but not
self-esteem or per-fectionism (Paulhus, Harns, Bruce, & Lysy,
2004; Schoderbek & Deshpande, 1996; Wil-liams et al., 2002).
Over-claiming indexes an individuals threshold for claiming general
knowledge, such that higher scores on measures of over-claiming
indicate a lower threshold for claiming recognition of general
knowledge concepts; Paulhus et al., 2004).
A review of the items included in scales that assess socially
desirable responding and those that assess over-claiming suggests a
common underlying theme. Specifically, respon-dents who obtain high
scores on these measures are likely exaggerating their image in the
eyes of others, or, in other words, are over-claiming what they are
and what they are not. Research suggests some respondents are
unwilling to admit ignorance to a topic about which
-
Social desirability 341
they feel they have (or should have) some expertise (Bradley,
1981). Specifically, individu-als who over-claim tend to indicate a
high level of agreement with statements that are virtu-ally
impossible or claim to have knowledge about topics that are, in
reality, fictitious. Meas-ures of over-claiming ask respondents to
indicate their degree of familiarity with (non-existent) items
related to well-known or popular topics (e.g., movies, television
programs, product labels, etc.; cf. Paulhus & Bruce, 1990;
Phillips & Clancy, 1972; Randall & Fernan-dez, 1991) hence
implying these individuals should have some knowledge about them.
Indi-viduals who purport to know a great deal about a non-existent
product, for example, are said to be over-claiming. It seems that
the tendency to over-claim (or exaggerate ones knowl-edge) would be
highly related to ones tendency to distort others impressions via
socially desirable responding. Thus, we hypothesize that measures
of SDR and each of its sub dimen-sions (self-deceptive enhancement
and self-deceptive denial) and over-claiming will be
correlated.
Hypothesis 1a. Socially desirable responding and over-claiming
will be significantly and positively correlated. Hypothesis 1b.
Self-deceptive enhancement and over-claiming will be significantly
and positively correlated. Hypothesis 1c. Self-deceptive denial and
over-claiming will be significantly and positively correlated.
Self-esteem. Socially desirable responding is also related to
the self-esteem of the test-
takers. Self-esteem refers to how much value people place on
themselves (Baumeister, 1993), and has been referred to as the
evaluative component of self-knowledge. Researchers (e.g., Brown,
1986) have found that individuals high on self-esteem rated
themselves higher than they rated others on a wide variety of
personality traits, potential for superior perform-ance, level of
motivation, ability, and social skill. Krueger (1998) argues that
high self-esteem is influenced by deliberate or unwitting
self-enhancement. In fact, one strategy used to measure self-esteem
is to assess the narcissism of respondents (Emmons, 1984; Williams
et al., 2002). The narcissism construct involves highly favorable
view of oneself, which is likely to result in over-claiming and
socially desirable responding by claiming unlikely vir-tues. It
would be rare to find someone low on self-esteem to score high on a
scale of SDR.
Not surprisingly, researchers have also found that individuals
high on self-esteem rate themselves high on physical
attractiveness. Importantly, there is no correlation between
self-esteem and objective measures of physical attractiveness (cf.
Harter, 1993). Similarly, posi-tive correlations have been found
between self-esteem and self-reports of health (e.g., Glend-inning,
1998) job performance (e.g., Brockner, 1983), etc., but not between
self-esteem and more objective measures of health, job performance,
etc. Thus, we hypothesize that meas-ures of SDR and each of its sub
dimensions (self-deceptive enhancement and self-deceptive denial)
and self-esteem will be correlated.
-
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph
342
Hypothesis 2a. Socially desirable responding and self-esteem
will be significantly and posi-tively correlated. Hypothesis 2b.
Self-deceptive enhancement and self-esteem will be significantly
and posi-tively correlated. Hypothesis 2c. Self-deceptive denial
and self-esteem will be significantly and positively
correlated.
Emotional intelligence. Another variable included in our
nomological net for social de-
sirability was emotional intelligence (Salovey & Mayer,
1990). Emotional intelligence (EI), also referred to as emotional
literacy, the emotional quotient, and personal, social, or
inter-personal intelligence (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000), has
received increasing attention since the 1995 publication of the
Goleman book popularizing the construct. Emotional intelligence
refers to the ability to perceive emotions and regulate them
appropriately, and may be de-fined as the set of verbal and
non-verbal abilities that enable a person to generate, recognize,
express, understand, and evaluate their own and others emotions, in
order to guide the nec-essary thinking and action to successfully
cope with environmental demands and pressures (Law, Wong, &
Song, 2004; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004).
Individuals high in EI are able to effectively understand and
perceive emotion within themselves and others, and successfully
regulate and utilize their emotions for purposeful action (Law et
al., 2004). Emotional intelligence is known to be predictive of
successful performance across employment, academic, and life
settings (VanRooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). High EI individuals are
more adept at reasoning through the (emotional) antecedents of
their own and others behavior and using this information to guide
thinking and action (Mayer & Salovey, 1993). Might emotional
intelligence also have value for predicting ten-dency toward
socially desirable responding? To the extent that tendency toward
SDR stems from an individuals ability to regulate, recognize, and
utilize emotion and emotion-focused behavior (c.f., Hoffman, 1984),
emotional intelligence will be related to SDR. Specifically, it
seems individuals high in EI would be likely to attend to aspects
of measures and situations wherein a socially desirable response
would be valuable (to gaining outcomes of interest, for example).
Thus, we hypothesize that measures of SDR and EI will be
correlated. Further, since EI governs emotions and emotion-focused
behaviors in socially desirable ways (e.g., temper regulation,
self-motivation, goal-orientation, etc.), we suspect that emotional
intelli-gence will explain variance in social desirability above
and beyond that which can be ex-plained by self-esteem and
over-claiming. A consistent relationship is expected for each of
the sub dimensions of social desirability, self-deceptive
enhancement and self-deceptive denial.
Hypothesis 3a. Socially desirable responding and emotional
intelligence will be significantly and positively correlated.
Hypothesis 3b. Self-deceptive enhancement and emotional
intelligence will be significantly and positively correlated.
Hypothesis 3c. Self-deceptive denial and emotional intelligence
will be significantly and positively correlated.
-
Social desirability 343
Hypothesis 4a. Emotional intelligence will add significant
incremental variance to prediction of socially desirable
responding, over and above that which can be explained by
over-claiming and self-esteem. Hypothesis 4b. Emotional
intelligence will add significant incremental variance to
prediction of self-deceptive enhancement, over and above that which
can be explained by over-claiming and self-esteem. Hypothesis 4c.
Emotional intelligence will add significant incremental variance to
prediction of self-deceptive denial, over and above that which can
be explained by over-claiming and self-esteem.
Methods Participants & Procedure
To examine these hypotheses, we surveyed 198 undergraduate
students (45% male, 55%
female) solicited from undergraduate business administration and
psychology courses in two mid-size universities located in the mid-
and north-western regions of the United States and participated in
this study in exchange for course credit. Participant age averaged
24 years old, and ranged from 17-52. Seventy-three percent were
Caucasian, 4% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 6% Asian/Pacific
Islander, 10% Alaska Native/American Indian. Thirty-seven percent
were currently employed on a full-time basis; the remaining were
currently not em-ployed (31%) or employed on a part-time basis
(31%). Participants reported having worked an average of 7.7 years,
at least on a part-time basis (84% of the sample had worked for 10
or fewer years). Eighty-one participants (41%) reported having
taken a college-level course in business ethics. Participants were
asked to be candid when answering the survey, and were assured of
their anonymity and confidentiality.
Measures Surveys included measures of social desirability,
self-esteem, over-claiming, emotional
intelligence, and sample demographics. Scale reliabilities
(coefficient alpha) for this sample are reported in Table 1.
Social desirability. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scale (MC-SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) was used to assess SDR.
Beretvas, Meyers, and Leite (2002) identified over 1,000 articles
and dissertations that had employed the MC-SDS since its inception.
The full version of the MC-SDS is comprised of 33-items.
Respondents rate the extent to which items are relatively
consistent with their typical behaviors, attitudes, or actions. An
example item is I never hesitate to go out of my way to help
someone in trouble. Items were scaled on a 4-point likert-type
scale (4 = mostly agree; 1 = mostly disagree). Higher scores on
this scale indicate greater socially desirable responding.
In addition to the global assessment of social desirability, we
partitioned the MC-SDS into subscales reflecting the two sub
dimensions of social desirability: self-deceptive en-
-
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph
344
hancement and self-deceptive denial (Paulhus, 1984; Paulhus
& Reid, 1991). This was ac-complished using guidelines
established by Millham (1974) and Ramanaiah and Martin (1980).
Specifically, social desirability sub-dimensions were formed by
summing items representing attribution of socially desirable
characteristics (self-deceptive enhancement; SDR-SDE) and those
representing denial of socially undesirable characteristics
(self-deceptive denial; SDR-SDD) as two separate scales. Items
assessing the tendency toward self-deceptive denial have been found
to strongly correlate with items assessing impression management,
an overlapping element of social desirability (Paulhus & Reid,
1991).
Over-claiming. Over-claiming was assessed using a 10-item
measure published by Ran-dall and Fernandes (1991) which was based
on previous work on over-claiming by Paulhus (1989), Paulhus and
Bruce (1990), and Phillips and Clancy (1972). Respondents are asked
to indicate the extent to which they are familiar with each of 10
fabricated items associated with five categories of potentially
well-known topics/items (e.g., How familiar are you with each of
the following designer labels? Ocean City, Jones L.A.). Categories
included newly released movies, products, music albums, television
programs, and designer label clothing. Items were scaled on a
three-point scale, 3 = Very Familiar and 1 = Not at All Familiar.
Scores ranged from 10-30. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency
toward over-claiming.
Self-Esteem. Self-esteem was assessed using the 10-item
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965). Items were scaled on a 4-point
likert-type scale (4 = mostly agree; 1 = mostly disagree). An
example item is I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an
equal basis with others.
Emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence was assessed
using a 16-item measure published by Law et al. (2004). The
emotional intelligence scale purports to measure four components of
emotional intelligence (i.e., self-emotion appraisal, other-emotion
appraisal, use of emotion, and regulation of emotion). Sample items
for each of the sub-scales are I have a good sense of why I have
certain feelings most of the time (self-emotion appraisal), I am a
good observer of others emotions (other-emotion appraisal), I am a
self-motivating person (use of emotion), and I am quite capable of
controlling my own emo-tions (regulation of emotion). Items were
scaled on a 4-point likert-type scale (4 = mostly agree; 1 = mostly
disagree). Descriptive statistics and scale reliability for each
subscale are also reported.
In addition to the above three variables, we also collected
demographic data as potential control variables. Given research
(cf. Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998; Sutton & Farrall, 2005)
suggesting gender differences in SDR, we controlled for gender of
the test takers. Since our participants were college students who
may have been exposed to courses in ethics wherein social
desirability, faking, or related topics were potentially discussed,
we controlled for whether students had ever taken such an ethics
class. Finally, given empirical research sug-gesting age-related
differences in impulsivity, we controlled for respondent age (e.g.,
Ray & Lovejoy, 2003; Thomsen, Mehlsen, Vidik, Sommerlund, &
Zachariae, 2005).
-
Social desirability 345
Results Correlation and regression analyses were employed to
test the hypotheses of interest.
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and scale reliabilities
for the study variables are presented in Table 1. Scale
reliabilities for the measured variables ranged from .74 for the
MC-SDS to .91 for over-claiming. Correlations suggest females are
somewhat more likely to engage in self-deceptive enhancement
(SDR-SDE), older individuals are more likely to engage in denial of
socially undesirable characteristics (SDR-SDD), and individuals who
have taken a course in ethics are less likely to engage in
enhancement but not denial. SDR was signifi-cantly and positively
correlated with age, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence, but
not with over-claiming. The correlation between over-claiming and
SDR was r = -.05 (p > .05). However, over-claiming and SDR-SDE
were significantly, negatively related, suggesting individuals high
in SDE were actually less likely to overclaim. Thus, we found
partial sup-port for our hypothesis that over-claiming is an
underlying factor in SDR. The correlation between self-esteem and
SDR was .20 (p < .01), providing support for hypothesis 2 which
suggested individuals high in self-esteem are somewhat more likely
to engage in SDR. Inter-estingly, it appears high self-esteem
individuals are somewhat more likely to engage in de-nial (SDD)
than enhancement (SDE). Finally, the correlation between SDR and
emotional intelligence was .44 (p < .01), suggesting high EI
individuals are also more likely to engage in SDR. This pattern was
seen for each sub-dimension of SDR. However, the correlation
between EI and SDE was stronger than with SDD (r = .48 and .23,
respectively). Each sub-dimension of emotional intelligence yielded
similar positive correlations with social desir-ability. Thus,
hypothesis 3 was supported. Importantly, the sub dimensions of SDR
(denial and enhancement) share only a small portion of overlapping
variance (r = .24), providing support for Paulhus and Reids (1991)
argument for two underlying dimensions of social desirability,
attribution and denial.
Not only was over-claiming not correlated with SDR, it was also
not significantly corre-lated with emotional intelligence (nor with
any sub-dimensions of EI) suggesting EI has no bearing on an
individuals tendency or decision to over-claim. An interesting
finding was the negative correlation between over-claiming and
self-esteem (r = -.16, p < .05), suggesting individuals low in
self-esteem are somewhat more likely to over-claim. This
relationship is opposite that of SDR and self-esteem, wherein
individuals with high self-esteem were found to be more likely to
engage in SDR. In other words, high self-esteem individuals appear
to be less likely to overclaim but more likely to engage in SDR,
particularly denial of socially undesirable characteristics.
Self-esteem and EI were significantly and positively correlated,
suggesting individuals high in EI also tend to be high in
self-esteem.
Hypothesis 4 proposed that EI would explain significant variance
in socially desirable re-sponding, over and above that which can be
explained by over-claiming and self-esteem. Hierarchical regression
analysis was employed to test this proposition. The results of this
analysis for overall SDR are presented in Table 2. Tables 3 and 4
summarize the results for each sub-dimension of SDR. In the first
step, respondent age and ethics course history were entered as
control variables. (Respondent sex was omitted as a control
variable as it was not found to correlate with SDR). These
variables explained 7% of the variance in SDR (p < .01).
Self-esteem and over-claiming were added in the second step. These
variables ex-
-
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph
346
Tabl
e 1:
D
escr
iptiv
e St
atis
tics a
nd C
orre
latio
ns fo
r Stu
dy V
aria
bles
Not
e. N
=19
8;
indi
cate
s cor
rela
tions
sign
ifica
nt a
t the
.10
leve
l; *
indi
cate
s cor
rela
tion
is si
gnifi
cant
at t
he .0
5 le
vel;
** in
dica
tes c
orre
latio
n is
si
gnifi
cant
at .
01 le
vel.
The
vari
able
se
x w
as c
oded
1 fo
r mal
e an
d 2
for f
emal
e. E
thic
s cou
rse
ever
take
n w
as c
oded
0 fo
r no
and
1 fo
r yes
.
-
Social desirability 347
plained an additional 6% variance in SDR (p < .01). In the
final step, emotional intelligence was added to assess incremental
variance in SDR over self-esteem, over-claiming, and the control
variables. This model explained 28% of the variance in SDR (p <
.01), for a change in explained variance of 16% attributable to EI
(p < .01). Thus, hypothesis 4 was supported.
Table 2: Hierarchical regression results for socially desirable
responding using key study variables
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Age .20** .21** .20** Ethics course taken?
-.19* -.17* -.18** Self-esteem .23** .02 Over-claiming .13 .06
Emotional Intelligence .45** Total R2 .07** .13** .28** R2 .06**
.16** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. p <
.10; * p < .05; ** p < .01
Table 3: Hierarchical regression results for SDR self-deceptive
enhancement using key study variables
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Age .13 .14 .13 Ethics course taken? -.23**
-.22** -.24** Self-esteem .10 -.13 Over-claiming .16* .08 Emotional
Intelligence .49** Total R2 .07** .09** .28** R2 .03 .19** Note.
All regression coefficients are standardized. p < .10; * p <
.05; ** p < .01
Table 4: Hierarchical regression results for SDR self-deceptive
denial using key study variables
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Age .21** .22** .22** Ethics course taken?
-.09 -.07 -.08 Self-esteem .26** .14 Over-claiming .08 .04
Emotional Intelligence .27** Total R2 .05* .11** .17** R2 .07**
.06** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. p <
.10; * p < .05; ** p < .01
-
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph
348
Importantly, when EI was added to the equation, self-esteem and
over-claiming were no longer significant predictors of SDR.
Hierarchical regression results reveal similar findings for the
role of EI in enhancement and denial forms of social desirability
(i.e., the change in explained variance attributable to EI was
equal to 19% for SDE and 6% for SDD, both sig-nificant at the p
< .01 level).
Since emotional intelligence was a significant predictor of
social desirable responding over and above self-esteem and
over-claiming, we conducted a subsequent hierarchical re-gression
analysis to examine the effects of the sub-dimensions of emotional
intelligence on social desirable responding (and its
sub-dimensions), controlling for the effects of age and ethics
courses taken. In the first step, age and ethics course taken were
added as controls. In the second step, the sub-dimensions of EI
(self-emotions appraisal, other-emotions appraisal, use of emotion,
and regulation of emotion) were added. The sub-dimensions of EI
explained 22% additional variance over the control variables (p
< .01) for socially desirable respond-ing. This model accounts
for a total of 29% of the variance in SDR (p < .01), with the
most important dimensions being emotion regulation, use of emotion,
and other-emotions ap-praisal. Similar patterns were found for the
role of EI sub-dimensions in explaining the self-deceptive
enhancement and self-deceptive denial forms of social desirability.
The detailed results of these analyses are reported in Tables
5-7.
Discussion
In this paper we investigated the nomological net of a popular
measure of socially desir-
able responding. Specifically, we investigated the correlates of
social desirability with the constructs of over-claiming,
self-esteem, and emotional intelligence. Results suggested
emo-tional intelligence, over-claiming, and self-esteem are
potentially valuable predictors of socially desirable responding.
Interestingly, while EI was found to be positively correlated with
both sub-dimensions of SDR, over-claiming and self-esteem were each
related to only one element of socially desirable responding.
Specifically, high self-esteem individuals were more likely to deny
socially undesirable characteristics than low self-esteem
individuals, but were no more likely to claim they engaged in
socially desirable behaviors. However, indi-viduals high in
over-claiming were found to be less likely to engage in
self-deceptive en-hancement. This suggests individuals likely to
engage in over-claiming of knowledge are less likely to claim
socially desirable attributes. Since social desirability,
over-claiming, and self-esteem have been found to correlate with
scores on personality and ability tests (cf. Barrick & Mount,
1996; Hough et al., 1990; Paulhus et al., 2003; Paulhus &
Harms, 2004; Williams et al., 2002), our findings suggest it may be
important to assess each factor in high-stakes testing
situations.
Socially desirable responding and emotional intelligence
Emotional intelligence is known to be a valuable predictor of
job performance, academic
achievement, burnout, and stress (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran,
2004). Regression results sug-gest it may also be a valuable
predictor of individual tendency toward socially desirable
responding. If this is the case, what might be the implication of
this finding for personnel
-
Social desirability 349
Table 5: Hierarchical regression results for socially desirable
responding using emotional intelligence
sub-dimensions
Step 1 Step 2 Age .20** .19** Ethics course taken? -.18* -.18**
EI Self Emotions Appraisal .03 EI Other Emotions Appraisal .17* EI
Use of Emotion .18* EI Regulation of Emotion .29** Total R2 .07**
.29** R2 .22** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized.
p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01
Table 6: Hierarchical regression results for SDR self-deceptive
enhancement using emotional
intelligence sub-dimensions
Step 1 Step 2 Age .13 .13 Ethics course taken? -.23** -.23** EI
Self Emotions Appraisal .07 EI Other Emotions Appraisal .15* EI Use
of Emotion .15* EI Regulation of Emotion .27** Total R2 .06** .26**
R2 .20** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. p <
.10; * p < .05; ** p < .01
Table 7: Hierarchical regression results for SDR self-deceptive
denial using emotional intelligence
sub-dimensions
Step 1 Step 2 Age .21** .21** Ethics course taken? -.08 -.09 EI
Self Emotions Appraisal -.02 EI Other Emotions Appraisal .14 EI Use
of Emotion .16* EI Regulation of Emotion .22** Total R2 .05* .17**
R2 .12** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. p <
.10; * p < .05; ** p < .01
-
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph
350
selection and other high-stakes testing contexts? Specifically,
it seems that high EI individu-als are likely to be valuable
contributors to an organization (Goleman, 1995; Van Rooy &
Viswesvaran, 2004), but they may also be inclined to engage in SDR,
response distortion, and faking on measures of personality, ability
tests, interviews, etc. An appealing explana-tion for this tendency
is that individuals high in EI know when, how, and where to engage
in SDR in order to exact desirable outcomes. The EI sub-dimensions
that explain the most variance in SDR, emotion regulation, use of
emotions, and other-emotion appraisal, describe individuals who are
able to make use of their emotions by controlling and directing
them toward constructive activities (Law et al., 2004). These
aspects of an emotionally intelligent individual would logically be
related to socially desirable behavioral tendencies. For exam-ple,
consider the following items from the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale: I have never intensely disliked someone, There
have been times when I feel like rebelling against people in
authority, even though I knew they were right (reverse scored), I
dont find it particularly difficult to get along with loud-mouthed,
obnoxious people, I am al-ways courteous, even to people who are
disagreeable, I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone
off, I have never deliberately said something that hurt someones
feelings. A person high in EI, particularly one who is adept at
using and regulating emotion would be inclined to agree with these
statements either because (1) they believe they behave in
consis-tent ways or (2) they know better than low EI individuals
that affirmative responses to these items are more desirable.
Importantly, when the EI sub-dimensions were used to predict SDR
and its sub-dimensions, EI Self-Emotions Appraisal was not found to
significantly predict any aspect of SDR. Although this is an
interesting finding, as one would expect a high EI individual would
be more self-aware with regards to self-deceptive tendencies, it
does make sense in light of Paulhus and Johns (1991) argument that
self-deceptive tenden-cies occur at an unconscious level, such that
individuals engaging in self-deception actually believe their
responses.
On the other hand, it may be that high EI individuals actually
do tend to behave in more socially desirable ways. If this is the
case, and high EI individuals actually behave in a more socially
desirable manner (than low EI individuals), then these individuals
high scores on social desirability measures may not actually
indicate an instance of response distortion. An important finding
with relation to this point, however, was that high EI individuals
were more likely to engage in self-deceptive enhancement. Past
research results suggest the ten-dency to falsely attribute
socially desirable characteristics may operate at an unconscious
level, rather than deliberately (e.g., Pauls & Stemmler, 2003).
If this is the case, and high EI individuals are unknowingly
self-deceiving with regards to positive attributes, the possibility
they actually behave in more socially desirable ways than low EI
individuals seems less likely. Future research might make use of
objective measures of socially desirable behavior and emotional
intelligence to address this research question.
An alternate explanation for the correlations between EI and SDR
and its sub-dimensions is that EI is susceptible to social
desirability response bias, and that an individual who tends to
respond in a socially desirable manner will inflate their responses
to measures of emo-tional intelligence. However, respondents in
this study were given no motivation to distort their responses to
emotional intelligence items. Specifically, they were guaranteed
anonym-ity and were promised no reward for appearing to be more
emotionally intelligent. Hough et al. (1990) found personality
traits were more likely altered by social desirability bias when
social desirability pressures were high. Also, the correlations
between EI and sub dimensions
-
Social desirability 351
of SDR were different in magnitude such that deceptive
enhancement was more strongly correlated with EI than deceptive
denial. Research suggests individuals who engage in de-ceptive
enhancement actually believe their responses to be true (Pauls
& Stemmler, 2003). This taken in concert with meta-analytic
evidence supporting a correlation between EI and performance
outcomes (VanRooy & Viswesvaran, 2004), suggests the impact of
social de-sirability bias on predictive validity of EI is
relatively small.
Socially desirable responding, over-claiming, and self-esteem It
is interesting to note the pattern of correlations between SDR,
over-claiming, and self-
esteem. Specifically, individuals high in self-esteem are more
likely to engage in SDR (par-ticularly, deceptive denial of
socially undesirable characteristics); individuals low in
self-esteem are more likely to engage in over-claiming. This
pattern raises the potential that socially desirable responding and
over-claiming (both of which are arguably forms of re-sponse
distortion) are motivated by different aspects of personality or
cognition. An individ-ual high in self-esteem has a high opinion of
themselves and probably of their abilities. In a high-stakes
assessment situation (as in personnel selection, for example) this
individual would feel confident that others (e.g., interviewers)
would recognize their superior knowl-edge and ability (from a
resume, application blank, or interview), and thus they would not
feel the need to exaggerate in this area. Rather, they would focus
on demonstrating their potential for being a good organizational
citizen, team player, etc. (which are less easily discernible from
the more objective selection tools), and may therefore exaggerate
their socially desirable tendencies, or at least deny socially
undesirable ones. Low self-esteem individuals, however, have a low
opinion of themselves and of their abilities. They may fear their
inferiority will be very visible to others by their responses
regarding knowledge and ability in resumes, application blanks, and
interviews. Therefore, they may try to pad their responses by
over-claiming their knowledge. So, for example, in an interview, if
they are asked about the extent of their knowledge of some
job-related topic, they would hesitate to reveal lack of knowledge,
and would instead over-claim.
Another possibility is that since emotional intelligence and
over-claiming are not related (yet EI and SDR are related),
over-claiming may be a tactic more readily adopted by indi-viduals
who are relatively unskilled in the technique or benefits of
socially desirable re-sponding. Specifically, SDR yields
perceptions that an individual operates within the ex-pected social
norms of a population, which is arguably an impression that an
emotionally intelligent individual would like to present; whereas
over-claiming yields perceptions that the individual has a great
wealth of knowledge, an impression that would be comparatively less
relevant/important to the emotionally intelligent individual.
Finally, a recent meta-analysis reported a correlation between
self-esteem and emotional stability of .66 (Judge & Bono,
2001), suggesting emotionally stable individuals typically have
higher self-esteem. Further, emotional stability has been found to
correlate with decep-tive self-enhancement, a form of socially
desirable responding (Pauls & Stemmler, 2003). However, it is
interesting to note that in our study, self-esteem and deceptive
self-enhancement were not correlated, though self-esteem and
deceptive denial were related. This finding lends support to the
notion that emotional stability and social desirability have unique
underpinnings.
-
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph
352
Limitations and directions for future research Clearly,
over-claiming has implications for the predictive validity of
personnel selection
methods (i.e., application blanks, interviews, resumes). Future
research might examine the potential for individual differences in
SDR and over-claiming to be used in concert within personnel
selection systems. Further, other measures of over-claiming exist
in the extant literature (e.g., Phillips & Clancy, 1972;
Paulhus et al., 2003). Future research may benefit from a
triangulation of over-claiming measures and a replication of our
findings using alter-nate over-claiming scales.
An important point drawn from this study is that individuals who
are high in emotional intelligence may be likely to respond in a
socially desirable manner in high-stakes personal-ity assessments.
While this is relatively disconcerting, it is important to note
that the predic-tive validity of EI for job performance has been
replicated in a number of studies (VanRooy & Viswesvaran,
2004). Further, our results suggest high EI and high self-esteem
individuals are not likely to over-claim their job relevant
knowledge or ability. Since job-relevant knowledge is an important
predictor of job performance, this finding offers additional
com-fort to those concerned about the effects of response
distortion in EI and personality assess-ments.
A key limitation of this study is that our database was
comprised of undergraduate stu-dents with little incentive to fake
their responses to survey items. It certainly could be argued that
there will be greater pressure to provide socially desirable
responding in high-stakes testing such as personnel selection.
Although such increased pressure for providing SDR will affect the
mean scores in SDR scales, it is not clear how the correlations
with external vari-ables will be affected. On one hand, the
correlations could be reduced due to greater range restriction in
scores compared to the correlations reported here. Alternately, the
correlations could be larger since the possibility of random error
is likely to be reduced in high-stakes assessment. However, it is
also pertinent to note that the reliabilities of assessments in
this study was respectable, with reliability values ranging from
.74 for assessing SDR to .91 for assessing over-claiming.
Another potential limitation is relative lack of variability in
over-claiming by respon-dents in our sample. Specifically, few
respondents claimed to have very high levels of fa-miliarity with
all of the fabricated items. This finding may be a function of our
study popula-tion or survey contents. For example, Schoderbeck and
Deshpande (1996) reported a correla-tion between SDR and
over-claiming of .17 in their study of the ethical characteristics
of 174 managerial employees of a non-profit organization. This
larger correlation may have been a function of the differences
between student and working samples. Future research on the
nomological net of SDR should attempt to replicate our findings
using different sample types.
Another avenue fruitful for future research involves replicating
our results in other cul-tures. Social desirability in an
individualistic culture such as the United States may correlate
with claiming unlikely virtues and high levels of (narcissistic)
self-esteem, but this pattern may differ in other countries,
especially those with more a collectivistic outlook (Hofstede,
1980). The pattern of relationships may also depend on the role of
power distance, mascu-linity/femininity differences, uncertainty
avoidance, etc.
-
Social desirability 353
Conclusion In this paper, we investigated the correlations
between several constructs and an overall
score of social desirability. We found self-esteem and emotional
intelligence are potentially valuable predictors of socially
desirable responding as they shared common variance in our study.
Further, we found that over-claiming, a tendency toward
over-emphasizing expertise and familiarity with topics, is not
correlated with social desirability. Rather, results suggest
individual differences in social desirability and over-claiming
tendencies may play a unique role in high-stakes personality
assessments.
Researchers (cf. Paulhus, 1984) have argued for more nuanced
approach to understand-ing the construct of social desirability.
Although we acknowledge the value of assessing the distinct facets
of socially desirable responding, for practical applications such
as personality assessment in the workplace, our emphasis was on the
global individual differences in the ability and motivation to
provide socially desirable responding. Nevertheless, future
research needs to consider the nomological net of the different
facets of socially desirable responding. Our findings suggest that
a valid nomological net of SDR will include not only the micro
focus of correlations between constructs measured at the individual
level but also a more meso-level approach.
References
Barrick, M. R, & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression
management and self-deception on the predictive validity of
personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3),
261-272.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five
personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self
regard. Plenum Press: New York. Beretvas, S. N., Meyers, J. L.,
& Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability generalization study of
the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 62, 570-589.
Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets. New York:
Appleton. Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999).
Diagnostic test usage by forensic psychologists in
emotional injury cases. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 30, 252-259. Bradley, J. V. (1981). Overconfidence in
ignorant experts. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
17(2), 82-84. Brockner, J., & Guare, J. (1983). Improving
the performance of low self-esteem individuals: An
attributional approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4),
642-656. Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of the self and others:
Self-enhancing biases in social
judgments. Social Cognition, 4, 353-376. Crowne, D. P., &
Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent
of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Dicken, C. F. (1960). Simulated patterns on the California
Psychological Inventory. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 7(1), 24-31. Dulewicz, W., & Higgs,
M. (1999). Can emotional intelligence be measured and
developed?
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 20,
242-252.
-
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph
354
Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variables in
personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden Press.
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of
the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 48, 291-300.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter
more than IQ. New York: Bantam.
Gough, H. G. (1996). California Psychological Inventory Manual.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory:
Administrators guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Groth-Marnat, G. (1999). Handbook of Psychological Assessment,
3rd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in
children and adolescents. In R. F. Baumeister, Self-esteem: The
puzzle of low self-regard. Plenum Press: New York.
Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Empathy, its limitations, and its role in
a comprehensive moral theory. In J. Gewirtz & W. Kurtines
(Eds.), Morality, moral development, and moral behavior (pp.
283-302). New York: Wiley.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences: International
Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., &
McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validity of personality
constructs and the effect of response distortion on those
validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
Hough, L.M. , & Ones, D. S. (2001). The Structure,
Measurement, Validity, and Use of Personality Variables in
Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology. In N. Anderson, D.
S. Ones, H. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.) Handbook of
Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology: Vol. 1 (pp.
233-277), London, UK: Sage.
Hurtz, G. M; & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job
performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 869-879.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core
self-evaluations traits self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,
locus of control, and emotional stability with job satisfaction and
job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(1), 80-92.
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.
Krueger, J. (1998). Enhancement bias in descriptions of self and
others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,
505-516.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct
and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential
utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(3), 483-496.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of
emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442.
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking
across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
812-821.
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, 378-392.
Montross, J. F., Neas, F., Smith, C. L., & Hensley, J. H.
(1988). The effects of role-playing high gender identification on
the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 44(2), 160-164.
-
Social desirability 355
Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggstad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. III
(2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality
from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(2), 348-355.
Murphy, K. R., & Dzieweczynski, J. L. (2005). Why dont
measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as
predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18(4),
343-357.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social
desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for
personnel selection. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 245-269.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005).
Personality at work: Raising awareness and correcting
misconceptions. Human Performance, 18(4), 389-404.
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.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993).
Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings
and implications for personnel selection and theories of job
performance [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
679-703.
Paulhus, D. L. (1981). Control of social desirability in
personality inventories: Principal-factor deletion. Journal of
Research in Personality, 15, 383-388.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially
desirable responding. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 46, 598-609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1989). Interpersonal and intrapsychic
adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197-1208.
Paulhus, D. L., & Bruce, N. (1990). Validation of the OCQ:
An initial study. Presented at the meeting of Canadian
Psychological Association, Ottawa.
Paulhus, D. L., & Harms, P. D. (2004). Measuring cognitive
ability with the over-claiming technique. Intelligence, 32,
297-314.
Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Bruce, M. N., & Lysy, D. C.
(2003). The over-claiming technique: Measuring self-enhancement
independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(4), 890-904.
Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and
moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of
self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of
Personality, 66(6), 1025-1060.
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial
in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 307-317.
Pauls, C. A., & Stemmler, G. (2003). Substance and bias in
social desirability responding. Personality and Individual
Differences, 35, 263-275.
Pedhauzer, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement,
Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Peterson, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Driver-Linn, E., Seguin, J. R.,
Higgins, D. M., Arseneault, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (2003).
Self-deception and failure to modulate responses despite accruing
evidence of error. Journal of Research in Personality, 37,
205-223.
Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J. (1972). Some effects of
social desirability in survey studies. American Journal of
Sociology, 77(5), 921-940.
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner,
A. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from
self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582-593.
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.
-
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph
356
Randall, D. M., & Fernandez, M. F. (1991). The social
desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business
Ethics, 10, 805-817.
Ray, J. J., & Lovejoy, F. H. (2003). Age-related social
desirability responding among Australian women. Journal of Social
Psychology, 143(5), 669-671.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Roth, D.L., Harris, R. N., & Snyder, C. R. (1988). An
individual differences measure of attributive and repudiative
tactics of favorable self-presentation. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 6(2), 159-170.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and
job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 30-43.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence:
Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Sandal, G. M., & Endresen, I. M. (2002). The sensitivity of
the CPI Good Impression Scale for detecting faking good among
Norwegian students and job applicants. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 10(4), 304-311.
Schoderbeck, P. P., & Deshpande, S. P. (1996). Impression
management, over-claiming, and perceived unethical conduct: The
role of male and female managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15,
409-414.
Sutten, R. M., & Farrall, S. (2005). Gender, social
desirable responding, and the fear of crime: Are women really more
anxious about crime? British Journal of Criminology, 45(2),
212-224.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991).
Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A
meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Thomsen, D. K., Mehlsen, M. Y., Vidik, A., Sommerlund, B., &
Zachariae, R. (2005). Age and gender differences in negative affect
Is there a role for emotion regulation? Personality and Individual
Differences, 38(8), 1935-1946.
VanRooy, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional
intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity
and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71-95.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analysis of
fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 197-210.
Wiggins, J. S. (1964). Convergences among stylistic response
measures from objective personality tests. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 24(3), 551-562.
Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Nathanson, C. (2002). The
nature of over-claiming: Personality and cognitive factors. A
poster presented to the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.