Socially Desirable Responding: The Evolution of a Construct

By H. Braun, D. Jackson, D. Wiley. 2001

787 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Public Administration, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ac9cb6159604b1cddb9756ed637777263ddbd696

How researchers see this paper

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

In Global and Planetary Change

In Public Administration

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Revisiting the Retrospective Pretest (2005, background): “Some of these motivational factors fall under the category of socially desirable or impressionmanagement responses (Paulhus, 2002; Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1971).”
Implicit measures for preschool children confirm self-esteem's role in maintaining a balanced identity (2016, background): “This transparency can cause these measures to function more to reveal impression management strategies than to reveal selfesteem (Paulhus, 2002).”
The Magnitude and Extent of Cheating and Response Distortion Effects on Unproctored Internet-Based Tests of Cognitive Ability and Personality (2010, background): “On the other hand, response distortion, which is associated with non-cognitive measures, refers to deliberately falsifying one’s responses as in faking, impression management, and other forms of socially desirable responding (Paulhus, 2002).”
Separating Fact From Fiction: An Examination of Deceptive Self-Presentation in Online Dating Profiles (2008, neutral): “The social desirability response bias might have prevented both men and women from acknowledging the full extent of their lies (Paulhus, 2002), although this seems unlikely given the significant correlations between Toma et al.”
Using skin conductance and facial electromyography to measure emotional responses to tourism advertising (2018, methodology): “Compared with self-report methods, psychophysiological measures are not influenced by socially desirable responses (Paulhus, 2002).”
Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality (2006, background): “…have recently argued that it is not necessary to control for response bias in studies in which participants are likely to respond honestly (Paulhus, 2002; Piedmont, McCrae, Riemann, & Angleitner, 2000), as they usually are in conWdential Internet studies like ours (Gosling, Vazire,…”
The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form (BIDR-16) (2015, methodology): “Finally, we used the alternative model strategy, to test whether the proposed twofactor model fit better than a one-factor model, consistent with SDR theory (Paulhus, 1984, 2002).”
Psychometric Properties of the Social Desirability Scale-17 with Individuals on Probation and Parole in the United States (2014, background): “5 India License 123 Theory driving the use of a measure of social desirability concurrent with clinical interviews or psychological assessments asserts that such instruments provide supporting evidence for the validity of results obtained from simultaneously administered interviews and testing tools”
Putting Your Best Face Forward: The Accuracy of Online Dating Photographs (2009, neutral): “This effect is consistent with the social desirability bias (Paulhus, 2002), which refers to participants’ tendency to provide responses that create a favorable impression.”
Predicting creativity and academic success with a “Fake-Proof” measure of the Big Five (2008, background): “When individuals are asked to rate themselves on a series of personality dimensions, they sometimes exaggerate their positive and downplay their negative qualities (Paulhus, 2002).”
Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey (2017, background): “It is typically characterized by the tendency of respondents using self-report questionnaires to answer in such a way as to make themselves look good, to give positive self-descriptions, often at the expense of honesty and/or accuracy (Holtgraves, 2004; Paulhus, 2002).”
When does a social norm catch the worm? Disentangling social normative influences on sustainable consumption behaviour (2020, background): “…literature (Steenkamp, de Jong, & Baumgartner, 2010), they are often contested because of difficulties in separating valid personality content in the SDR measures from the bias that they intend to measure due to its reliance on ex post analysis (de Jong, Pieters, & Fox, 2010; Paulhus, 2002).”
Validation of Scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (2005, background): “It has not been consistently established whether SDB is one, two, or more constructs; or what is their nature; or the relationship between the most commonly used measures thereof (Barger, 2002; Marlowe & Crowne, 1964; Paulhus, 2002).”
The self-report method. (2007, background): “Selfpresentation can be negative, as in malingering (Morey & Lanier, 1998), but the more common concern in personality research has been with positive biases such as SDR (Paulhus, 2002).”
Validity of the SDS-17 measure of social desirability in the American context (2006, methodology): “One of the closest constructs is the Impression Management dimension of Paulhus’s Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1984, 1994, 2002); this refers to the enhanced positivity of one’s self-presentation resulting from situational demands or temporary inclinations to describe…”