Social Desirability Scales as Indicators of Self-Enhancement and Impression Management

References

• Burns, G.N., & Christiansen, N.D. (2011). Methods of measuring faking behavior. Human Performance, 24, 358–372. doi:10.1080/08959285.2011.597473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, B.S., & Ones, D.S. (2010). Another perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. doi:10.1037/a0021212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, P.T., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Damarin, F., & Messick, S. (1965). Response styles as personality variables: A theoretical investigation (Report No. ETS RB 65-10). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, A.L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York, NY: Dryden.
   Google Scholar
• Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B. G. (1964). The manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London, England: University of London Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London, England: Hodder & Stoughton.
   Google Scholar
• Eysenck, H.J., & Eysenck, S.B. G. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. London, England: Routledge & Kegan.
   Google Scholar
• Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. doi: 10.1037//1082-989X.4.3.272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galić, Z., & Jerneić, Ž. (2006). Socijalno poželjno odgovaranje u različitim motivacijskim kontekstima: Provjera Paulhusova modela socijalne poželjnosti [Social desirable responding in different motivational contexts: A test of Paulhus's model of social desirability]. Suvremena Psihologija, 9, 155–170.
   Google Scholar
• Galić, Z., Jerneić, Ž., & Belavić, M. (2009). O svecima i superherojima: Provjera Paulhusovog modela socijalne poželjnosti [About saints and superheroes: A test of Paulhus's model of social desirability]. Društvena Istraživanja, 18, 977–997.
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L.R. (n.d.-a). Big-Five factor markers. International Personality Item Pool. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/newBigFive5broadKey.htm
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L.R. (n.d.-b). Big-Five factor markers. International Personality Item Pool. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/newNEODomainsKey.htm
   Google Scholar
• Goldberg, L.R., Johnson, J.A., Eber, H.W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M.C., Cloinger, 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heggestad, E.D., Morrison, M., Reeve, C.L., & McCloy, R.A. (2006). Forced-choice assessments of personality for selection: Evaluating issues of normative assessment and faking resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 9–24. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenrick, D.T., & Funder, D.C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–34. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.43.1.23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krahé, B., Becker, J., & Zollter, J. (2008). Contextual cues as a source of response bias in personality questionnaires: The case of the NEO–FFI. European Journal of Personality, 22, 655–673. doi:10.1002/per.695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuncel, N.R., & Tellegen, A. (2009). A conceptual and empirical re-examination of the measurement of the social desirability of items: Implications for detecting desirable response style and scale development. Personnel Psychology, 62, 201–228. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01136.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurt, A., & Paulhus, D.L. (2008). Moderators of the adaptiveness of self-enhancement: Operationalization, motivational domain, adjustment facet, and evaluator. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 839–853. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.11.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, A., & Bagger, J. (2007). The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR):A reliability generalization study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 525–544. doi:10.1177/0013164406292087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lönnqvist, J.E., Paunonen, S.V., Tuulio-Henriksson, A., Lönnqvist, J., & Verkasalo, M. (2007). Substance and style in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality, 75, 291–322. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00440.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meston, C.M., Heiman, J.R., Trapnell, P.D., & Paulhus, D.L. (1998). Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 148–157. doi:10.1080/00224499809551928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh, I.-S., Wang, G., & Mount, M.K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the Five-Factor Model of personality: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 762–773. doi:10.1037/a0021832
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D.L. (1984). Two-component models of social desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.46.3.598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D.L. (1998). Manual for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR–7). Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D.L. (2006, January). A Comprehensive Inventory of Desirable Responding (CIDR). Poster presented at the meeting of the Association for Research in Personality, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D.L., Harms, P.D., Bruce, M.N., & Lysy, D.C. (2003). The over-claiming technique: Measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 890–904. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.890
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D.L., & John, O.P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic bias 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D.L., & Trapnell, P.D. (2008). Self-presentation of personality: An agency–communion framework. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 492–517). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Pauls, C.A., & Crost, N.W. (2004). Effects of faking in self-deception and impression management scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1137–1151. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauls, C.A., & Stemmler, G. (2003). Substances and bias in social desirability responding. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 263–275. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00187-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackeim, H.A., & Gur, R.C. (1978). Self-deception, other deception and consciousness. In G.E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research (Vol. 2, pp. 139–197). New York, NY: Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Uhlmann, E.L., Leavitt, K., Menges, J.I., Koopman, J., Howe, M., & Johnson, R.E. (2012). Getting explicit about the implicit: A taxonomy of implicit measures and guide for their use in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 553–601. doi:10.1177/1094428112442750
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiggins, J.S. (1959). Interrelationship among MMPI measures of dissimulation under standard and social desirability instructions. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23, 419–427. doi:10.1037/h0047823
   Google Scholar
• Zerbe, W.J., & Paulhus, D.L. (1987). Social desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250–264. doi:10.5465/AMR.1987.4307820
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar