Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Do Social Desirability Scales Measure Dishonesty?

A Think-Aloud Study

Published Online:October 19, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000607

Abstract

Abstract. Social Desirability (SD) scales are sometimes treated, by researchers, as measures of dishonesty and, by practitioners, as indicators of faking on self-report assessments in high-stakes settings, such as personnel selection. Applying SD scales to measure dishonesty or faking, however, remains a point of contention among the scientific community. This two-part study investigated if SD scales, with a True/False response format, are valid for these purposes. Initially, 46 participants completed an SD scale and 12 personality items while under instruction to “think aloud”, that is, to verbalize all the thoughts they had. These spoken thoughts were recorded and transcribed. Next, 175 judges rated the participants’ honesty in relation to each SD item, based on the participants’ transcribed spoken thoughts and their selected response to the item. The results showed that responses keyed as “socially desirable responding” were judged as significantly less honest than those not keyed as such. However, the effect size was very small, and the socially desirable responses were still being judged as somewhat honest overall. Further, participants’ SD scale sum scores were not related to the judges’ ratings of participant honesty on the personality items. Thus, overall, SD scales appear to be a poor measure of dishonesty.

References

  • Brauer, M., & Curtin, J. J. (2018). Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000159 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bürkner, P.-C., & Vuorre, M. (2019). Ordinal regression models in psychology: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(1), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918823199 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Burns, G., & Christiansen, N. (2006). Sensitive or senseless: On the use of social desirability measures in selection and assessment. In R. L. GriffithM. PetersonEds., A closer examination of applicant faking behavior (pp. 113–148). Information Age. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(24), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Darker, C. D., & French, D. P. (2009). What sense do people make of a Theory of Planned Behaviour Questionnaire? A think-aloud study. Journal of Health Psychology, 14(7), 861–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309340983 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • De Vries, R. E., Hilbig, B. E., Zettler, I., Dunlop, P. D., Holtrop, D., Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2018). Honest people tend to use less – not more – profanity: Comment on Feldman et al.’s (2017) Study 1. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5), 516–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617714586 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dunlop, P. D., Morrison, D. L., Koenig, J., & Silcox, B. (2012). Comparing the Eysenck and HEXACO models of personality in the prediction of adult delinquency. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.824 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). MIT Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eysenck, S. B., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the Psychoticism Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90026-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Feldman, G. (2019). What is honesty? Laypersons interpret high lie scale scores as reflecting intentional dishonesty: Rejoinder to de Vries et al.’s (2017) Comment on Feldman et al. (2017). Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617737141 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Feldman, G., Lian, H., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2017). Frankly, we do give a damn: The relationship between profanity and honesty. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(7), 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616681055 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Goffin, R. D., & Boyd, A. C. (2009). Faking and personality assessment in personnel selection: Advancing models of faking. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 50, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015946 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0965-075X.2003.00256.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Griffith, R. L., Chmielowski, T., & Yoshita, Y. (2007). Do applicants fake? An examination of the frequency of applicant faking behavior. Personnel Review, 36(3), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710731310 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hauenstein, N. M., Bradley, K. M., O’Shea, P. G., Shah, Y. J., & Magill, D. P. (2017). Interactions between motivation to fake and personality item characteristics: Clarifying the process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 138, 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.11.002 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Huang, J. L., Curran, P. G., Keeney, J., Poposki, E. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9231-8 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • König, C. J., Merz, A. S., & Trauffer, N. (2012). What is in applicants’ minds when they fill out a personality test? Insights from a qualitative study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12007 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kulas, J. T., & Stachowski, A. A. (2013). Respondent rationale for neither agreeing nor disagreeing: Person and item contributors to middle category endorsement intent on Likert personality indicators. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.014 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lambert, C. E., Arbuckle, S. A., & Holden, R. R. (2016). The Marlowe–Crowne social desirability scale outperforms the BIDR impression management scale for identifying fakers. Journal of Research in Personality, 61, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.02.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 882–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.6.882 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. III (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.348 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Müller, S., & Moshagen, M. (2019). True virtue, self-presentation, or both? A behavioral test of impression management and overclaiming. Psychological Assessment, 31(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000657 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Newman, M. L., Groom, C. J., Handelman, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45, 211–236. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. BraunD. N. JacksonD. E. WileyEds., The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 51–69). Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Robie, C., Brown, D. J., & Beaty, J. C. (2007). Do people fake on personality inventories? A verbal protocol analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 489–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9038-9 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stewart, G. L., Darnold, T. C., Zimmerman, R. D., Parks, L., & Dustin, S. L. (2010). Exploring how response distortion of personality measures affects individuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 622–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.035 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.17.3.222 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Uziel, L. (2014). Impression management (“lie”) scales are associated with interpersonally oriented self‐control, not other‐deception. Journal of Personality, 82, 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12045 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical approach to modelling cognitive processes, Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zettler, I., Hilbig, B. E., Moshagen, M., & De Vries, R. E. (2015). Dishonest responding or true virtue? A behavioral test of impression management. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.007 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ziegler, M., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2011). New perspectives on faking in personality assessment, Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar