socially desirable response tendencies in survey research jan-benedict e.m. steenkamp martijn g. de...

Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research

Jan-Benedict E.M. SteenkampMartijn G. de JongHans Baumgartner

Socially desirable response tendencies

SDR and survey research a frequently noted concern about self-reports collected

through surveys is that respondents may not respond truthfully but simply provide answers that make them look good;

this phenomenon is called socially desirable responding or SDR (Paulhus 2002; Tourangeau and Yan 2007);

SDR has been called “one of the most pervasive response biases” in survey data (Mick 1996, p. 106), but it is often misunderstood and/or not dealt with correctly;


Four common misconceptions SDR can be validly conceptualized as a unidimensional

construct; any of the SDR scales available in the literature can be

used to assess SDR because they all measure the same construct;

the goal is to avoid a significant correlation between substantive constructs and SDR scales because such an association always implies contamination;

the biasing influence of SDR can be removed simply by including a measure of SDR as a control variable.


Three key issues to be addressed How should SDR be conceptualized and measured? What is the nomological constellation of personality

traits, values, sociodemographics and cultural factors associated with SDR?

Do ratings on SDR scales represent substance or style, and how should researchers interpret and deal with an association of SDR with a substantive marketing construct?


Global study data from 26 countries around the world

(Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, UK, and U.S);

country samples broadly representative of the total population in terms of region, age, education, and gender;

data collection via web surveys or mall intercepts (laptops or hard copy);

12, 424 total respondents (355 to 640; 1181 in the US);


The construct of SDR originally, SDR was conceptualized as a unidimensional

construct (a person’s enduring tendency to provide overly positive self-descriptions);

two-factor conceptualizations:□ based on degree of awareness (Paulhus 1991)

exaggerated but honestly held self-view (alpha bias, self-deception, self-deceptive enhancement);

deliberate attempt to project a favorable self-image (gamma bias, other-deception, impression management)

□ based on domain of content (Paulhus and John 1998) agency-related contexts involving dominance, assertiveness, autonomy,

influence, control, mastery, uniqueness, power, status, and independence (egoistic response tendencies);

communion-related contexts associated with affiliation, belonging, intimacy, love, connectedness, approval, and nurturance (moralistic response tendencies);


The construct of SDR (cont’d) four-factor conceptualizations (Paulhus 2002):

(cross-classification by degree of awareness and domain of content)

Self-deception (unconscious)

Impression management (conscious)

Egoistic bias(superhero)

Self-deceptive enhancement

Agency management

Moralistic bias(saint)

Self-deceptive denial

Communion management


Self-report measures of SDR Unidimensional scales:

□ Edwards SD scale (→ SDE)□ Wiggins Sd scale, EPI Lie scale (→ IM)□ Marlowe-Crowne SD scale (confounds SDE and IM)

Multidimensional scales:□ Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR;

Paulhus 1991) Self-deceptive enhancement (SDE)

(e.g., I always know why I like things); Impression management (IM)

(e.g., I always obey laws, even if I’m unlikely to get caught); Self-deceptive denial (SDD)

(e.g., I have never felt joy over someone else's failure)


Prior use of SDR scales in Marketing

Marlowe-Crowne scale: used in 26 articles in JMR, JM, and JCR between 1968 and 2008;□ in 23 cases as a check for response bias in a construct of

interest or to control for response bias when investigating the relationship between substantive constructs;

□ In 3 cases, it served as a measure of a substantive construct (e.g., social approval);

BIDR: used in only 7 articles between 1996 and 2008;□ 4 IM, 1 BIDR overall, 2 both SDE and IM;□ with one exception, the BIDR was used to control for

response bias;


Evidence from the global study

10 SDE and 10 IM items (5 positively and 5 negatively keyed, rated on 5-point Likert scales);

ERT and MRT scores and reliabilities estimated using a hierarchical IRT approach;

average reliabilities for ERT and MRT of .67 and .73; average correlation between ERT and MRT of .31;


Country scores for ERT and MRT


SDR and personality traits correspondence between the Big Five (OCEAN) and the

motives underlying SDR:□ ERT (which satisfies power and achievement strivings as

well as needs for mastery and control) is consistent with behavioral regularities reflective of openness to experience and extraversion;

□ MRT (which entails an avoidance of disapproval by conforming to social norms and a positive valuation of relationships and intimacy) is consistent with behavioral regularities reflective of conscientiousness and agreeableness;

□ issue of emotional stability and conscientiousness;


Prior research on SDR and personalityStudy Egoistic Response Tendencies (ERT) Moralistic Response Tendencies (MRT)

O E ES C A O E ES C A

Barrick and Mount (1996; n=147) .32 .25 .54 .29 .24 .25 .01 .43 .26 .23

Barrick and Mount (1996; n=139) .17 .22 .35 .24 .17 .39 .12 .44 .39 .42

Konstabel et al. (2006; n =210-217) .09 .42 .64 .45 -.03 -.15 -.02 .27 .46 .58

McFarland and Ryan (2006; n=547) .21 .24 .36 .25 .06 .13 .16 .29 .27 .31

Meston et al. (1998; females, n=296) .26 .21 .40 .37 .17 -.01 -.00 .13 .28 .36

Meston et al. (1998; males, n=208) .19 .21 .32 .30 .10 -.06 .05 .13 .22 .12

Paulhus and Reid (1991; n=137) .09 .29 .30 .05 .11 .01 .04 .07 .08 .18

Pauls and Stemmler (2003; n=67) .02 .36 .39 .23 .05 -.19 -.06 .12 .41 .30

Pauls and Crost (2005; n=155) -.08 .23 .56 .34 -.02 -.06 .03 .24 .33 .27

Reid-Seiser and Fritzsche (2001; n=72-75) .17 .27 .58 .52 - .06 .07 .07 .27 .25 .30

Roth and Herzberg (2007; n=326) -.11 .27 .66 .42 .18 -.11 .02 .13 .21 .36

Average correlation .13 .26 .46 .32 .10 .03 .05 .23 .28 .32

95% confidence interval (.05, .21)

(.23, .30)

(.38, .54)

(.26, .38)

(.04, .15)

(-.06, .11)

(.00, .09)

(.16, .29)

(.23, .33)

(.26, .39)


SDR and values

Self-transcendence

Conservation

Openness to change

Self-enhancement

Universalism

Benevolence

ConformityTradition

SecurityPower

Achievement

Hedonism

Stimulation

Self-direction

MRTERT


Prior research on SDR and values

Lalwani et al. (2006; see also Shavitt et al. 2006) studied cultural dimensions at the individual level and found, based on research with U.S. respondents, that □ horizontal individualism (horizontal collectivism) was

consistently positively correlated with ERT (MRT);□ vertical individualism and vertical collectivism were not

consistently related to either ERT and MRT;


SDR and national culture since agency (communion) traits are socially desirable in

individualistic (collectivistic) cultures, exaggerated self-perceptions on these qualities are likely to be beneficial; therefore, ERT (MRT) should be higher in individualistic (collectivistic) cultures;

masculine cultures, which value assertiveness, achievement, and success, should be more likely to exhibit ERT, whereas feminine cultures, which value relationships, nurturance, and the welfare of people and nature, should be more likely to exhibit MRT;


Prior research on SDR and national culture

some evidence that MRT is higher in collectivistic countries than in individualistic countries (Van Hemert et al. 2002); the findings about the relationship between ERT and individualism are equivocal;

Van Hemert et al. (2002) reported a nonsignificant correlation of -.17 between masculinity/femininity and MRT;


Evidence from the global study hierarchical IRT modeling was used to compute latent

scores for ERT/MRT and the personality and value constructs; dimensions of cultural variation based on Hofstede;

the hypotheses were tested based on the following multi-level model:

Level 1: SDRij = 0j + 1jOij + 2jEij + 3j ESij + 4jCij + 5jAij + 6j SEij +

7j OPENij + 8j STij + 9j CONSij + 10jGENDERij +

11jAGEij + 12jEDUCij + 13jSocClassij + rij

Level 2: 0j = 00 + 01 IND/COLj + 02 MAS/FEMj + u0j

qj = q0 + uqj for q = 1, …, 13


Evidence from the global study based on a model with a random intercept but no

individual-level or country-level covariates, 32 (13) percent of the variation in ERT (MRT) was between countries;

the individual-level covariates explained 27 (25) percent of individual differences in ERT (MRT);

the cultural variables explained 29 (18) percent of the cross-national variation in ERT (MRT);


Evidence from the global studyEgoistic response tendencies Moralistic response tendencies

Estimate t-value p Estimate t-value p

Intercept .5083 21.34 <.01 .5772 20.65 <.01

Openness .0258 6.58 <.01 .0188 1.92 n.s.Extraversion .0181 5.25 <.01 -.0202 -2.24 <.05Emotional Stability .0491 7.64 <.01 .0210 3.10 <.01Conscientiousness .0694 7.73 <.01 .1714 18.60 <.01Agreeableness .0011 .24 n.s. .1226 11.12 <.01

Self-enhancement .0061 2.79 <.01 -.0609 -12.34 <.01Openness to Change .0060 3.11 <.01 -.0557 -12.03 <.01Self-transcendence .0029 1.07 n.s. .1010 15.60 <.01Conservation .0023 1.15 n.s. .0519 9.05 <.01

Gender (1=women) -.0131 -4.37 <.01 .0281 2.70 <.01Age .0006 3.75 <.01 .0038 9.57 <.01Education -.0044 -2.29 <.05 .0095 1.96 <.05Social Class -.0005 -.21 n.s. -.0014 -.37 n.s.

Ind/Coll -.0016 -2.05 <.05 -.0020 -2.49 <.05Mas/Fem .0005 1.42 <.10 -.0007 -1.48 <.10


Sociodemos + Big Five + ValuesStep 1: SociodemographicsStep 2: Big FiveStep 3: Value Domains

Sociodemos + Values + Big Five Step 1: SociodemographicsStep 2: Value DomainsStep 3: Big Five

Range in explained varianceBig FiveValue Domains

Variance explained by psychological makeup (personality and values)

Δ in explained variance of ERT

2.4%22.5%1.9%

2.4%5.1%19.5%

19.5-22.5%1.9-5.1%

24.6%

Δ in explained variance of MRT

5.7%13.9%5.7%

5.7%9.5%10.1%

10.1-13.9%5.7-9.5%

19.6%

Evidence from the global study


Do SDR scales capture substance or style?

a high score on an SDR scale may indicate one or more of the following (see Tourangeau and Yan 2007) : □ although the self-descriptions given are seemingly overly

positive, the respondent actually engages in the socially desirable behaviors, and refrains from engaging in the socially undesirable behaviors, reported;

□ the respondent provides exaggerated self-descriptions, but the self-reports are sincere; and

□ the respondent deliberately presents an inflated self-view in order to manage a certain impression;


Prior correlational attempts to separate

substance from style Criterion-discrepancy measures:

if an SDR scale assesses distortion, it should be positively correlated with the extent to which a self-report exceeds a hypothesized unbiased criterion for the self-report;

S = a0 + a1 O + a2 SDR

Problems:□ truly objective criteria are rare or cumbersome to collect□ observer ratings may not be unbiased□ positively biased self-ratings may not indicate self-favoring

Socially desirable response tendenciesPrior correlational attempts to separate

substance from style criterion-related validity of S for predicting O:

O = b0' + b1' S

O = b0 + b1 S + b2 SDR

a significant relationship between S and SDR is attributed to style or substance by comparing b1' with b1 :

if b1 > b1' , SDR measures primarily style if b1 < b1', SDR measures primarily substance

research has usually shown that the coefficient of S remains unchanged or decreases in magnitude when SDR is included as a control (e.g., McCrae and Costa 1983);

if the association between S and O is influenced by style, this method is problematic;


Prior correlational attempts to separate

substance from style if partial correlation approaches are used to check whether

relationships between different constructs are influenced by socially desirable responding, the problems are exacerbated:□ O is no longer a (presumably unbiased) criterion but now refers

to a measure of another construct collected from the same respondent;

□ if one assumes that the association between O and S is due to substance and SDR measures substance, b1 < b1' implies that SDR incorrectly removed substantive variance from S and O;

□ if one assumes that the initial association between O and S was inflated by style and SDR measures style, b1 < b1' suggests that controlling for SDR successfully removed the confounding effect of stylistic variance;


Prior experimental attempts to separate substance from style

the degree of demand for self-presentation is manipulated and respondents’ scores in “standard” (low demand) and “fake good” (high demand) conditions are compared (see Paulhus 2002);

asking respondents to “fake good” should encourage deliberate misrepresentation, so if scores on socially desirable constructs increase relative to the “standard” (control) condition, this provides evidence that conscious SDR can contaminate scores;

in particular, prior research has shown that SDR scales are sensitive to demand manipulations, which suggests that they can capture deliberate distortion;


Is the relationship between ERT/MRT and

the substantive marketing scale statistically and practically significant?

no →

There is no SDR problem (at least under conditions

similar to those characterizing the current study)

↓ yes

Was the significant relationship obtained in a high-demand situation? (i.e., questions about sensitive topics, possible public disclosure of

responses, important outcomes at stake)

Yes ↓

↓ No

There are two potential sources of SDR bias:

Deliberate impression management Unconscious self-deception

Most likely, deliberate impression management will be of primary concern in this case. To determine whether deliberate impression management is in fact a problem, the behavior of respondents who are relatively high on SDR (ERT or MRT) in the high-demand situation has to be investigated in more detail. Specifically, the distribution of their scores on the substantive marketing scale of interest should be compared between low vs. high demand conditions. If the scores are higher (lower) for socially desirable (undesirable) characteristics in the high-demand (relative to the low-demand) condition, stylistic responding is a likely (deliberate) biasing influence on scale scores. If it is also of interest to determine whether unconscious self-deception is a problem, the procedure on the right can be used, except that respondents who are relatively high on SDR in the high-demand situation are selected.

If there is SDR bias, it is most likely due to unconscious self-deception. To determine whether unconscious self-deception is indeed a problem, the behavior of respondents who are relatively high on SDR (ERT or MRT) in the low-demand situation has to be investigated in more detail. Specifically, the distribution of their scores on the substantive marketing scale of interest should be compared between low-demand and reflective mindset conditions. In the reflective mindset condition, respondents should be encouraged to be more mindful of their possibly automatic responses. If the scores are higher (lower) for socially desirable (undesirable) characteristics in the low-demand (relative to the reflective mindset) condition, stylistic responding is a likely (unconscious) biasing influence on scale scores. In those research settings where there is an objective truth (e.g., consumption versus attitude measurement), an alternative is to offer incentives for accurate responding.

Socially desirable response tendenciesEffects of ERT and MRT on

ethnocentrism


Conclusions SDR should be assessed using separate scales for ERT

and MRT; ERT and MRT are nomologically related to certain

personality traits, values, and sociodemographics, as well as dimensions of cultural variation;

the assumption that a correlation between a marketing scale and an SDR measure invariably indicates contamination is unwarranted;

for certain scales and certain countries, relationships with ERT or MRT are nontrivial; whether this reflects SDR bias is less clear;


Universal value types (Schwartz 1992)

broadminded

equality

innerharmony

socialjustice

world atpeace

protectingenvironment

unity withnature

world ofbeauty

wisdom

UNIVERSALISM freedom

creativity curiousindependent

choosing own goals

self-respect

SELF-DIRECTION

exciting life

varied lifedaring

STIMULATION

enjoying life

pleasure HEDONISM

loyal responsibletrue friend-

shipmeaningin life

maturelove

honest

helpfulforgiving

spirituallife

BENEVOLENCE

humbledetachment

devoutrespect for

tradition

moderate

acceptingportion in life

TRADITION obedient

politenessself-

discipline

honorparents

CONFORMITY

family securitysocial order

cleanhealthy

nationalsecurity

sense ofbelonging

reciprocation of favors

SECURITY preservingpublic image

authority wealth

social power

socialrecognition

POWER

intelligentcapable

successful

ambitiousinfluential

ACHIEVEMENT

socially desirable response tendencies in survey research jan-benedict e.m. steenkamp martijn g. de...

Documents

sdr paulhus

association of sdr

measure of sdr

construct of sdr contd

sdr scales available

biasing influence of

common misconceptions

desirable responding