Social-Desirability Bias and the Validity of Self-Reported Values

By R. Fisher, James E. Katz. 2000

608 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4f1dba9e78d42f8703bb18702903ce774fc460b7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Values and collective self‐esteem as predictors of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence among university students (2005, methodology): “(1985) Individuation scale. Although there is little work using the CSE scale after the initial validation of the instrument, a few researchers have identified other personality aspects that are associated with CSE. For example, McFarland and Buehler (1995) examined how CSE relates to the “frog-pond”
Money can’t buy love: Asymmetric beliefs about gift price and feelings of appreciation (2009, result): “First, the responses provided by participants in two of our studies were anonymous, which previous research indicates can mitigate social desirability bias (Fisher & Katz, 2000).”
Predicting Wine Tourism Intention: Destination Image and Self-congruity (2014, background): “Response bias in the form of social desirability bias has been found to affect measures such as personality variables and attitudes, where upward and downward adjustments may occur (Fisher & Katz, 2000), particularly with respect to self-image and self-identity issues.”
Basic human values: Inter-value structure in memory (2007, methodology): “For example, just as self-report measures of attitudes and personality can be aVected by socially desirable response biases, so too can reports of values (Feather, 1975; Fisher & Katz, 2000; Schwartz, Verkasalo, Antonovsky, & Sagiv, 1997).”
Controlling social desirability bias (2018, background): “Fisher and Katz (2000) suggested that correlations between SDB and value questions may be measuring cultural information and not bias.”
The Prevalence of Lying in America: Three Studies of Self-Reported Lies (2010, background): “A second answer can be obtained through the use of additional measures in order to assess the social desirability bias (SDB) in the self-report measures (Fisher & Katz, 2000).”
Revisiting the Retrospective Pretest (2005, background): “People asked to rate personal change retrospectively report greater improvement for themselves than for others in similar circumstances and greater improvement on attributes that matter more to them (Fisher & Katz, 2000; Wilson & Ross, 2001).”
Perceived leader integrity and ethical intentions of subordinates (2004, methodology): “As in previous studies, a seven-point response scale was used to avoid the high level of non-response associated with the yes/no format of the questionnaire ( Fisher and Katz, 2000”
Validity of the SDS-17 measure of social desirability in the American context (2006, background): “Beyond reflecting just SDB, SDR may represent the internalization of cultural values (Fisher & Katz, 2000), the expression of ongoing personality traits like emotional stability and conscientiousness (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996), or an overly favorable but honest self-evaluation devised to…”
Understanding student behavioral engagement: Importance of student interaction with peers and teachers (2018, background): “…of student engagement are limited by other properties well documented in survey methodology literature, such as the limited ability of individuals to recall information and social desirability bias (Fisher & Katz, 2008; Greene, 2015; Kreuter, Presser, & Tourangeau, 2008; Presser & Stinson, 1998).”
Customers behaving badly: a state of the art review, research agenda and implications for practitioners (2010, background): “In addition, given that the respondent’s home address is known to the researcher, postal questionnaires may suffer socially desirable reporting (Fisher and Katz, 2000).”
Diversity Training: Analysis of the Impact of Self-Efficacy (2007, background): “The follow-up assessment required participants to again complete the DEQ, respond to specific questions on training effectiveness, and again assess their performance on the set of intentions statements.”