Socially desirable responding does moderate personality scale validity both in experimental and in nonexperimental contexts

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 184-201

  Holden, Ronald R ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34648860566     PISSN: 0008400X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/cjbs2007015     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. 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, 261-272.
2. Brown, R., & Barrett, P. (1999, June). Differences between applicant and non-applicant personality questionnaire data. British Psychological Society Test User Conference. In published Conference Proceedings, pp. 76-86. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
3. Butcher, J. N., Morfitt, R. C., Rouse, S. V., & Holden, R. R. (1997). Reducing MMPI-2 defensiveness: The effect of specialized instructions on retest validity in a job applicant sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 385-401.
4. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
5. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265.
6. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
7. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1991). NEO Five-Factor Inventory - Form S. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
8. Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
9. Cunningham, M. R., Wong, D. T., & Barbee, A. P. (1994). Self-presentation dynamics on overt integrity tests: Experimental studies of the Reid Report. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 643-658.
10. Douglas, E. F., McDaniel, M. A., & Snell, A. F. (1996). The validity of non-cognitive measures decays when applicants fake. In J. B. Keyes & L. N. Dosier (Eds.), Proceedings of the Academy of Management (pp. 127-131). Madison, WI: Omnipress.
11. Dunnette, M. D., McCartney, J., Carlson, H. C., & Kirchner, W. K. (1962). A study of faking behavior on a forced-choice self-description checklist. Personnel Psychology, 15, 13-24.
12. Edwards, A. L. (1990). Construct validity and social desirability. American Psychologist, 45, 287-289.
13. Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the influence of socially desirable responding on personality factor structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 122-133.
14. Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A neo-Allportian approach to personality. Psychological Science, 2, 31-39.
15. Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149-158.
16. Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409-418.
17. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
18. Holden, R. R., Book, A. S., Edwards, M. J., Wasylkiw, L., & Starzyk, K. B. (2003). Experimental faking in selfreported psychopathology: Unidimensional or multidimensional? Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1197-1117.
19. Holden, R. R., & Evoy, R. A. (2005). Personality inventory faking: A four-dimensional simulation of dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1307-1318.
20. Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1989). Three commonsocially desirable responding scales: Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 180-191.
21. 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, 163-175.
22. Holden, R. R., Wood, L. L., & Tomashewski, L. (2001). Do response time limitations counteract the effect of faking on personality inventory validity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 160-169.
23. Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
24. Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future - remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 631-664.
25. Jackson, D. N., Wroblewski, V. R., & Ashton, M. C. (2000). The impact of faking on employment test validity: Does forced-choice offer a solution? Human Performance, 13, 371-388.
26. MacNeil, B., & Holden, R. R. (2005, June). Detecting faking in self-report personality assessment: A comparison of validity indices. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association Annual Convention, Montréal, Canada.
27. Marshall, M. B., De Fruyt, F., Rolland, J.-P., & Bagby, R. M. (2005). Socially desirable responding and the factorial stability of the NEO PI-R. Psychological Assessment, 17, 379-384.
28. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376-390.
29. Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. The Journal of Sex Research, 35, 148-157.
30. Nicholson, R. A., & Hogan, R. (1990). The construct validity of social desirability. American Psychologist, 45, 290-292.
31. O'Grady, K. E. (1988). The Marlowe-Crowne and Edwards socially desirable responding scales: A psychometric perspective. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 87-101.
32. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of socially desirable responding and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245-269.
33. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of socially desirable responding in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.
34. Paulhus, D. L. (1984), Two-component model of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
35. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds,), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, Vol. 1 (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
36. Paulhus, D. L. (1993). Bypassing the will: The automatization of affirmations. In. D. M. Wegner & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of mental control (pp. 573-587). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
37. Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS) user's manual. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems
38. Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Paulhus, D. L., Bruce, M. N., & Trapnell, P. D. (1995). Effects of self-presentation strategies on personality profiles and their structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 100-108.
40. Pauls, C. A., & Crost, N. W. (2004). Effects of faking on self-deception and impression management scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1137-1151.
41. Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (1985). Idiographic measurement strategies for personality and prediction: Some unredeemed promissory notes. Psychological Review, 92, 486-511.
42. 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.
43. Rees, C. J., & Metcalfe, B. (2003). The faking of personality questionnaire results: Who's kidding whom? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 156-165.
44. Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta analysis:Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59-82.
45. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2002). Contrasts and correlations in theory assessment. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 59-66.
46. Rosse, J. G., Stecher, M. D., Miller, J. L., & Levin, R. A. (1998). The impact of response distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 634-644.
47. Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966-974.
48. Schmitt, N., & Oswald, F. L. (2006). The impact of corrections for faking on the validity of noncognitive measures in selection setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 613-621.
49. Seto, M. C., Khattar, N. A., Lalumiere, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1997). Deception and sexual strategy in psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 301-307.
50. Smith, D. B., & Ellingson, J. E. (2002). Substance versus style: A new look at socially desirable responding in motivating contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 211-219.
51. Stark, S., Chernyshenko, O. S., Chan, K.-Y., Lee, W. C., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Effects of the testing situation on item responding: Cause for concern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 943-953.
52. Topping, G. D., & O'Gorman, J. G. (1997). Effects of faking set on validity of the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 117-124.
53. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analyses of fakability estimates: Implications for personality assessment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 197-210.