Social desirability and self-reports: Testing a content and response-style model of socially desirable responding

Europe's Journal of Psychology

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 651-666

  Dodaj, Arta ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MOSTAR   (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Author keywords

Egoistic bias; Impression management; Moralistic bias; Personality; Self deception

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870740560     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18410413     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5964/ejop.v8i4.462     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity of assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2. Galić, Z., & Jerneić, Ž. (2006). Socially desirable responding in various motivational contexts: A test of Paulhus' model of social desirability. Suvremena Psihologija, 9, 155-170.
3. Galić, Z., Jerneić, Ž., & Belavić, M. (2009). On saints and superheroes: Testing Paulhus' model of social desirability. Društvena istraživanja, 6, 977-997.
4. Goffin, R. D., & Christiansen, N. D. (2003). Correcting personality tests for faking: A review of popular personality tests and an initial survey of researchers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 340-344. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00256.x
5. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
6. Jerneić, Ž., Galić, Z., & Parmač, M. (2007). Translation and adaptation of Paulhus' "Comprehensive Inventory of Desirable Responding". Zagreb: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy.
7. Judge, T. A., Klinger, R., Simon, L. S., & Yang, I. W. F. (2008). The contributions of personality to organizational behavior and psychology: Findings, criticisms, and future research directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 1982-2000. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00136.x
8. Luther, N. J., & Thornton, G. C., III. (1999). Does faking on employment tests matter? Employment Testing Law and Policy Reporter, 8, 129-136.
9. Lönnqvist, J. E., Paunonen, S., Tulio-Henriksson, A., Lönnqvist, J., & Verksalo, M. (2007). Substance and style in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality, 75, 291-322. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00440.x
10. McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812-821. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812
11. Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683-729. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x
12. Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1995, May). Social desirability in personality testing: The red herring. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
13. Pauls, C. A., & Crost, N. W. (2004). Effects of faking on self-deception and impression management scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1137-1151. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.018
14. Pauls, C. A., & Crost, N. W. (2005). Effects of different instructional sets on the construct validity of the NEO-PI-R. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 297-308. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.003
15. Pauls, C. A., & Stemmler, G. (2003). Substance and bias in social desirability responding. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 263-275. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00187-3
16. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
17. 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 psychology attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18. Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Social desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Brown, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49-69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Paulhus, D. L. (2006). A Comprehensive Inventory of Desirable Responding (CIDR). Poster presented at the meeting of the Association for Research in Personality, New Orleans.
20. 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, 1025-1060. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00041
21. Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307-317. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307
22. Peterson, M. H., & Griffith, R. L. (2006). Faking and job performance: A multifaceted issue. In R. L. Griffith & M. H. Peterson (Eds.), A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 233-263). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
23. Salgado, J. F. (2005). Personality and social desirability in organizational settings: Practical implications for work and organizational psychology. Papeles del Psycologico, 26, 115-128.
24. Stöber, J., Dette, D. E., & Musch, J. (2002). Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 370-389. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7802_10
25. 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. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00696.x
26. Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 87-162). New York: Guilford Press.