The social desirability of toughmindedness: A study among undergraduates

Irish Journal of Psychology

Volumn 19, Issue 2-3, 1998, Pages 400-403

  Francis, Leslie J ^a   Jackson, Chris J ^b  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032223265     PISSN: 03033910     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03033910.1998.10558200     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Braun, J.R. & Gomez, B.J. (1966). Effects of faking instructions on the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 19, 388-390.
2. Cowles, M., Darling, M. & Skanes, A. (1992). Some characteristics of the simulated self. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 501-510.
3. Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, M.W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press.
4. Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1991). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
5. Eysenck, S.B.G., Eysenck, H.J. & Shaw, L. (1974). The modification of personality and lie scale scores by special 'honesty' instructions. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 41-50.
6. Eysenck, S.B.G., Nias, D.K.B. & Eysenck, H.J. (1971). Interpretation of children's lie scale scores. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 41, 23-31.
7. Eysenck, S.B.G., Syed, I.A. & Eysenck, H.J. (1965). Desirability response set in children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 36, 87-90.
8. Farley, F.H. & Goh, D.S. (1976). PENmanship: faking the P-E-N. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 139-148.
9. Furnham, A. & Henderson, M. (1982). The good the bad and the mad: Response bias in self-report measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 311-320.
10. Gomez, B.J. & Braun, J.R. (1967). Effects of 'salesman candidate' sets on the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 20, 192.
11. Granleese, J., Trew, K. & Turner, I. (1988). Social dissimulation, perceived competence and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 565-570.
12. Levin, J. & Montag, I. (1987). The effect of testing instructions for handling social desirability on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 163-167.
13. McKenzie, J. (1988). An item-factor analysis of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ): Will the real personality factor stand up. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 801-810.
14. Michaelis, W. & Eysenck, H.J. (1971). The determinants of personality inventory factor patterns and intercorrelations by changes in real-life motivation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 118, 223-234.
15. Nias, D.K.B. (1972). The effects of providing a warning about the lie scale in a personality inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 308-312.
16. O'Donovan, D. (1969). An historical review of the lie scale with particular reference to the Maudsley Personality Inventory. Papers in Psychology, 3, 13-19.
17. Rump, E.E. & Court, J. (1971). The Eysenck Personality Inventory and social desirability response set with student and clinical groups. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 42-54.
18. Waters, T.J. (1968). The validity of the Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory lie scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28, 1197-1206.