social desirability
TRANSCRIPT
Social desirability – the empirical modeling of a standardized questionnaire
Andreea Tansanu, Alexandra Macarie, Alexandra Condur,
Ioana Simona Boghiţoiu, Lăcrămioara Elena Tudose
Universitatea ”Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, IAŞI
Facultatea de Psihologie şi Ştiinţe ale Educaţiei
Summary
The study’s objective was to build a standardized questionnaire to evaluate social desirability. The
composed questionnaire proposes to identify apparent tendencies in filling out personality evaluation
tests, used in professional selection situations.
The theoretical concepts used in establishing and supporting this test were adjacent to the concept of
social desirability and its two main factors: impression management and self deception. The methods
utilized were those specific to the construction and initial validation of such a test: those of defining and
describing the key dimensions, item modeling, content validity checking (experts' task), etc.
The resulting questionnaire was first tested on a group of 511 subjects, members of the general
population. The results thus obtained confirm the identification of the two main factors of social
desirability: impression management and self deception, both relating to concepts described in the field’s
literature. In order to check the validity of the questionnaire, it was applied alongside an honesty scale,
thus being analyzed the relations between the two tests. There are also described the differences between
the results obtained in the two dimensions by variables such as age, sex, level of education and levels of
income.
The main conclusions of this study insist on outlining the usefulness of such a local, valid, test, in
identifying the validity of the answers given by subjects to personality evaluation tests, in the
organizational context.
Key words: social desirability, impression management, self deception, apparent tendencies, social utility.
1. Definitions and history
Social desirability is a concept mostly
encountered and studied in scientific areas such
as organizational-industrial psychology,
personality psychology, social psychology and
health psychology. It was first defined in 1960
by Crowne and Marlowe who considered social
desirability to be ’’the subject’s need to obtain
the approval by giving answers in a socially and
culturally accepted manner’’.
Therefore, social desirability represents
a problem of the subjects in giving answers
related to social customs, rather than their own
personal beliefs and values (Gravdal & Sandal,
2006).
We can find information regarding the
conflict between ’’to desire VS should’’ in the
literature of the field. When evaluating our
behaviors we talk more about how we should
behave instead of how we would like to behave.
Epley and Dunning, (2000), specified that
people tend to predict how they will behave in
the future, most times overestimating the fact
that they will behave in a socially desirable way
(Tenbrunsel et al., 2007).
Over the time, the concept of social
desirability was described in multiple ways, but
never precisely defined. DeMaio (1984)
suggested that social desirability is the tendency
to present a favorable image of one’s self.
Phillips and Clancy (1972) proclaimed that
social desirability refers to people's tendency to
deny socially undesirable features and
characteristics and to recognize and accept only
the desirable ones. Paulhus (1991) considers that
social desirability is the subject’s tendency to
give answers in a manner that is favorable to the
subject. These authors consider that social
desirability means that people are trying to make
themselves appear more in accordance with
social standards. (Laughland et al., 1994).
Considering this array of definitions, we thought
appropriate for the investigation process
presenting social desirability as the tendency of
an individual to present himself in a favorable
way to others, in order to hide certain flaws or
accentuate certain qualities.
Phillips and Clancy (1972) claim that
social desirability is composed of two aspects,
social desirability, as a personality trait, and the
need for social approval. As a personality trait,
social desirability relates to those behaviors
performed by people in order to make a good
impression about themselves (for example, in a
job interview situation, a person, even though it
doesn't know much about the rain forest, might
declare that he/she is a supporter of saving it,
only to make a good impression).
The need for social approval relates to
presenting a culturally desirable response. This
attribute is encountered in individuals who wish
to project an image of being a part of the
majority. Recent work suggests that this is more
a need of avoiding disapproval. ( Laughland et
al., 1994).
Analyzing some definitions presented
by authors such as DeMaio (1984, as cited in
Laughland et al., 1994), Paulhus (1991, as cited
in Laughland et al., 1994), Philips and Clancy
(1972, as cited in Laughland et al., 1994), we
can say that social desirability is a concept that
concentrates the idea that people want to present
themselves in a good light in front of their peers,
thus integrating themselves in the social norm.
In the past years, social desirability has been
defined as being a sum of two components: self
deception and impression management. By the
fact that each component could be separately
defined, it could also be defined this wide
phenomenon of social desirability.
2. Self deception
The concept of self deception presents
itself as being quite obscure, and constitutes a
relevant area for empirical research. What is self
deception? It is the process by which an
individual cheats himself into considering true
what is in fact false. Otherwise put, it is a way
for us to justify our false beliefs to ourselves.
When philosophers and psychologists
talk about self deception, they insist on
unconscious intentions and motivations,
considering it to be a bad thing. To explain how
self deception works, theorists consider self-
interest, desire, insecurity and other
psychological unconscious factors that
negatively affect our desire to believe. A
common example would be that of a parent that
believes that his/her child is telling the truth
even when facts show that he is lying. In this
case, the parent is lying to himself, because
he/she wants his/her child to tell the truth. It is
mainly considered a moral defect, lack of
honesty and irrational. It is also considered a
matter of destiny: some people are just not
capable of deducting properly from perception
and experience. Anyhow, it is possible that the
parent of the above mentioned child has faith in
his offspring because of the relationship between
them and the experience that it has with the kid,
which would constitute sound reasons to believe
the child’s claims of innocence. To summarize,
an apparent act of self deception can be
explained in cognitive terms without referring to
irrational thinking or unconscious reasoning.
Self deception can be neither immoral, nor an
intellectual defect. It could be that an intelligent
person has sound information about their child,
knowledge that things aren’t always as they
seem, insufficient information about the
accusers, so not enough reasons to doubt the
child. If another person analyses the situation
and agrees that the evidence incriminates the
child and the parent was mistaken, we would say
that he was merely wrong and not self deceived.
We consider he was deceived because we
assume he was irrational, instead of just wrong.
Either way, if cognitive competence is allowed
as an explanation for certain irrational beliefs,
then resorting to unconscious psychological
mechanisms are not thought of as being
necessary.
A better understanding of the dynamics
of self deception might be offered by common
practice. Plate wrote that ’’nothing is worse than
self deception – when the deceived one is
always at home with you’’ (Cratylus as cited in
Mele, 1997). Others sustain that self deception is
a good thing, but matters concerning cheating
one’s self remain up for debate. In any case,
ideally, a complete understanding of the
semantics of self deception would help reduce
the harm caused by it. (Mele, 2001)
Traditionally, self deception has been
defined in relation to deception amongst
individuals, where person A intentionally makes
person B believe sentence p, although person A
knows or believes otherwise. Such deception is
intentional and requires that the person
deceiving know sentence p and the person being
deceived believe it. Because of the connection to
deception amongst individuals, we can make the
distinction between error and self deception,
because of the fact that acquiring and
maintaining false beliefs is done intentionally
and not by accident. If self deception is modeled
similar to deception amongst individuals, then
the person deceiving makes it so he believes
sentence ’p’ while honestly believing sentence
’p’ to be true. In this traditional model, those
deceiving themselves apparently hold
contradictory beliefs and intentionally force
themselves to believe something they know to
be actually false. (Standford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, 2008)
This traditional model of self deception
emphasizes two paradoxes: one concerning the
mental state of the person who deceives– called
the static paradox. How can a person hold
contradictory beliefs at the same time? The other
paradox relates to the process or dynamics of
self deception – also called the dynamic or
strategic paradox. How can a person deceive
himself without interpreting their inefficient
intentions? A person cannot at the same time
believe a sentence and it’s negation as well, this
thing being an impossible state of mind, thus,
self deception as it has been traditionally
understood and defined is impossible. (Mele,
1987, as cited in Standford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, 2008)
These paradoxes have led certain
philosophers to doubt the actual existence of self
deception. (Paluch 1967; Height 1980, as cited
in Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008).
Considering the empirical evidence proves that
self deception is not only possible but also
omnipresent (Sahdra & Thagard 2003), many
have looked to resolve these paradoxes. These
approaches can be organized into two main
groups: those claiming that these self deception
paradigm cases are intentional, and those
denying it, or as they are also called, the
intentional and non-intentional approaches.
Followers of the first approach support the
intentionally interpersonal deceiving capacity
model, as it helps explain the apparent
responsibility towards self deception of the self-
deceived, the selectivity and the differences
between other motivated beliefs, such as
illusions. Followers of the non-intentional
approach are impressed by the static and
dynamic paradoxes involved in self deception,
concerning the intentional interpersonal
deception model. In their opinion, psychological
models used to avoid these paradoxes are
useless, such as autonomous subsystems,
unconscious beliefs or intentions, and others
similar. (Chalmers & Bourget, 2006).
If the radical models of self deception
prove that our very own desires and emotions,
colliding with social pressures, determine us to
maintain our beliefs as far as self deception is
concerned, and to encourage our self deception
habits, that are unaware of consciously, and that
we cannot expect to escape on our own; self
deception would still undermine our
independence, would manifest itself by means of
flaws of character, would remove us from moral
commitments and pleasure. For this reason
Rorty (1994) emphasizes the importance of the
relationship we maintain with our friends, for
they might not share our desires and emotions,
often times in a better position. With the help of
these friends, the self deceived, with a bit of
luck, can recognize and correct the distorted
image they have formed.
Trivers and Ramachandran (1976, 1985)
(as cited in Moomal & Henzi, 2000) are two
other authors attempting to present the evolution
of self deception. Robert Trivers’s original
research was based on the evolving relation
between human deception and self deception
found in the opening of Richard Dawkins’s
book, another evolutionary biologist: ’’There
has to be a narrow selection in order to follow
deception, and this is required to choose a
degree of self deception, redoing some facts and
unconscious reasons, in order to not be betrayed
by subtle signs of self knowledge – deception
being practiced (Trivers, 1976 as cited in
Moomal & Henzi, 2000). Later he developed
this hypothesis in a book, starting from
empirical research to sustain his ideas,
essentially as follows: if the ability to deceive
overpowers one’s ability, and if self deceived
improves the ability to deceive others, then we
are talking about selective advantages of one’s
self. (Trivers, 1985 as cited in Moomal & Henzi,
2000).
An interesting part of the empirical
research that Trivers (1985 as cited in Moomal
& Henzi, 2000) proposes in support of this
thesis constitutes an experiment using the
galvanic response of skin (GSR). When people
listen to a recorded voice, the GSR rises, and if
the voice they hear is their own, even more so.
In this experiment, once their self esteem has
been lowered by means of a made-up task, they
exhibited the tendency to deny the voice they
heard was theirs, although the GSR was
testament to that effect. Once their self esteem
was heightened, they exhibited a tendency to
claim that other voices were also their own,
contradicting the GSR again. Without their
knowledge, subjects were engaging in self
deception, in order to paint a better picture of
themselves. (Trivers, 1985 as cited in Moomal
& Henzi, 2000)
Ramachandran (1996 as cited in
Moomal & Henzi, 2000) contradict Trivers’s
claims with a counter-example, the protagonists
of which were two monkeys. Monkey A and
monkey B, placed in a location where a large
quantity of bananas was available. Subsequently
monkey A directed monkey B to a false location,
in order to keep the bananas for itself. The point
of the author is that Trivers were correct then
monkey A, wanting to deceive monkey B, would
engage in self deception, convincing itself that
the bananas are in the wrong location. So
monkey A would go to the false location as well,
thus defeating the point of the original
deception. Ramachandran, in the same article,
proceeds by constructing a new theory or
explanation for the evolutionary origins of self
deception, different from that of Trivers. This
new explanation is based on clinical data for
patients with an affected right brain hemisphere,
which denied the paralysis, by invoking
exaggerated reasons such as severe arthritis. It is
worth noting that this phenomenon is very rarely
encountered when the left part of the brain is
deteriorated, resulting in the belief that this
affliction is more neurological than
psychological. In view of such clinical evidence,
Ramachandran continues by saying that the
biological function (localized in the left part of
the brain), for which self deception has evolved,
was to impose consistency, continuity, stability
and cohesion over an individual perception of
reality. (Ramachandran, 1996 as cited in
Moomal & Henzi, 2000)
The evaluation of self deception and it’s
consequences on us and others is a difficult task.
It requires, among other things, the
determination of the degree of control that the
people deceiving themselves have; about what it
means to deceive one’s self (is it important
morally or not ?), about it’s significance (is it for
mental health or to cover up moral mistakes ?),
how often does self deception appear (can it be
avoided ?). These are some of the questions
science needs to focus on. (Boncu, 2008)
3. Impression management
Impression management relates to
controlling the information transmitted to the
outside, for the purpose of improving the
perception of others, to gain an advantage or to
reach certain social goals. People can control
impressions about almost anything (brands of
clothes, political views), but the most important
and most common form of impression
management is that concerning one’s own image
– presentation of self, as Goffman calls it in The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Goffman,
1961 as cited in Dunn & Forrin 2000)
Schlenker (1980, Wate 2000) defines
impression management as the conscious or
unconscious attempt to control the image
projected in real or imaginary social
interactions. When these images concern one’s
self, they are called presentation of self.
Over time, many writers and
philosophers talked about tactics people use to
control the impression others form of them.
Shakespeare wrote that ˮ life is a scene, and men
and women are actors. They enter and exit the
scene, and one man can play more than one part
in his life ˮ. Erving Goffmann presented the idea
of life as a show, backing up his claims with
research showing that ordinary people act in
such a manner as to create the desired
impression to those around them, as actors do
when playing on stage. Also Goffman stated that
these impressions are used with a precise
purpose in mind. These objectives can be social,
psychological or material (Leary & Kowalski,
1990). Impression management can constitute
the basis for achieving the desired social image,
by both verbal and non-verbal behavior.
(Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997).
The resemblance between impression
management and acting (actors pretending to be
what they are not), shows the intentional and
duplicitous character of the former. Older
research has confirmed this fact, while more
recent research and observation show that cases
exist where people engage in impression
management without being aware that they are
doing so. For example, although amongst family
and close friends we might think that we can be
ourselves, we may discover that we have
different behaviors (or present twisted versions
of ourselves), without thinking about this in
advance. This different behavior can be
explained not only by wanting to be perceived
differently by those around us, but also by others
having certain expectations of us. So practicing
impression management favors the development
of social relations.
As social psychology evolves, it
proposes a more dynamic vision on human
behavior. Currently the idea that people do not
passively react to their environment has become
a proven fact. Individuals try to structure and
model the environment they live in, and try to
remove any threats within this environment.
Concepts such as impression adjustment,
impression management, presentation of self,
relate to the intentional or unintentional control
people exert on the information presented to
those around them, especially those they come
into close contact with (Boncu, 2008).
Impression management can be a
conscious, controlled activity, premeditated
behavior, or, on the contrary, an automatic
process. Controlled self adjustment mainly
appears when performing is very important to an
actor, or when the actor encounters or
anticipates problems receiving positive feedback
(for example when having concerns about the
opinions of other people). It has been proven
that automatic self-presentation, without a
conscious control from the individual, provides
more positive information than conscious self-
presentation.
If initial research started by
investigating impression management from the
point of view of the individual, later
investigations have taken the route of
researching impression management from an
organizational point of view. Thus the idea has
appeared that a basic motivation, both internal
and external to the organization, is to be seen by
others in a favorable manner, and to keep from
sight certain negative aspects. (Diana Nae, 2006)
Also, Jones and Pittman in 1982 (as
cited in Jeffrey et al., 2007) identified five other
tactics of self-presentation that a person might
use: insinuation, intimidation, self-promotion,
begging and exemplification.
As far as nonverbal impression
management tactics are concerned, things
seemed a lot clearer and easier to catalogue, this
way identifying and testing several such tactics
proved efficient. Following a study by R.A.
Baron in 1989, it was concluded that women
that used perfume in preparation for an interview
where evaluated more favorably than the ones
that didn’t. These results were also confirmed
for other nonverbal tactics such as smiling or
affirmative head movements by candidates
during interviews (Baron, 1989). As far as
nonverbal tactics used during interviews,
research is a lot more abundant and detailed, in
an attempt to resolve issues with interview
validity. Researchers (Stevens, Kristof, 1995)
have concluded that there are two main classes
of verbal impression management tactics:
assertive tactics and defensive tactics. Within
the assertive tactics category we have self-
promotion, mentioning achievements or
qualities, attributing certain deserved or
undeserved results, ingratiation. Among
defensive tactics we have excuses, justifications,
acknowledgement of blame, etc.
Although someone might use all five
tactics depending on different situations, some
people will focus on one or two of these. Self-
presentation tactics seem to accentuate the
selection of certain characteristics and omitting
others, rather than deliberate deception. Some
people might use a particular tactic so much that
it becomes a consistent trait of that person’s
personality.
The theoretical field of self-presentation
has become quite vast and varied in the last 20
years. Recent concepts describe impression
management as a fundamental component of
social interaction. In order to communicate,
individuals must select a huge amount of
information themselves, analyzing and
transmitting to others only what the particular
situation or relationship requires. This
presentation of information about one’s self is
influenced by the individual’s goals and by the
type of audience. It requires automatic or
controlled activities and composes of self-
descriptive assertions more or less truthful.
Impression management is present in all stages
of a relationship, both short and long term.
(Boncu, 2008)
4. Usefulness and desirability
The idea that social thinking is not one-
dimensional is not recent. As far back as five
decades ago, many social psychology studies
have shown that there are two dimensions which
compose our perception about people and
personality traits (Dompnier, Pansu, Bressoux,
2007). To Beauvois (2003, 2005), the social
value of a person includes at least two elements:
social desirability and social usefulness.
Early research considered that socially
desirable answers related to a behavior in which
the individual has the tendency to react in such a
manner as to make himself look good to another
individual. Afterwards was presented the idea
that social desirability is a style or type of
personality (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, as cited
in Dubois, 2008).
These two dimensions also play an
essential part in the perception of other people
and in evaluation practices. This idea is
sustained by Beauvois, (Dubois, 2006), who
considers that personality traits are constructs
designed to communicate a person’s value to a
given social context.
Social desirability is defined as a
concept that focuses on the idea that people
adapt to the events with which they are faced, to
the presence of people in accordance with the
motivations of a social group. It is practically
the ability of individuals to make themselves
liked in a social collective. At the same time,
social usefulness represents the measure to
which an event, person or object is adequate
with the options describing the social workings
of a system to which the collective belongs. It
has an almost economical, financial meaning,
because it indicates the profit obtained by the
social organization with the help of that
respective person or object.
The distinction between the two can also
be made from the point of view of social
desirability being a characteristic of dominant
social groups, and social usefulness one of
dominated social groups.
What is social usefulness?
According to the dictionary, usefulness
is a need, a necessity, a service someone or
something can obtain or provide for one.
In a broader sense, usefulness is a
generic concept which describes the possibility
to satisfy a human need. Necessity is a
conditioning of the individual, a metabolically
dependency, which is physical, informational or
affective, and usefulness is the object, process,
property, service or function that resolves a
necessity, that offers the body, mind or
emotional side of the subject with that certain
something which at some point is needed or
wanted.
The concept of social norm is often
associated with the idea of social value. Still,
this association has been often criticized,
because of the ambiguity of the idea of social
value, and it’s simple interpretation.
A study made by Laurent Cambon,
Aicha Djouari and Jean-Léon Beauvois, in 2006,
brings to front this very difference between two
dimensions of the value that people or objects
may possess, and it is interesting how the
concepts are presented as personality traits such
as social desirability and social usefulness. The
former will correspond to an affective action or
a motivation to be liked and sympathized, and
social usefulness underlines the very idea of
potential for success for people which present
themselves as dynamic and competent when
face with the requirements of a certain social
group.
In an article from 2009, Damon and his
collaborators sustained the value of these
dimensions in predicting performance within the
academic environment. So, being liked by others
also has social benefits, one presented here
being the promotion in the university.
More recent studies (Cambon, 2006)
have shown that the distinction between social
desirability and social usefulness seems to
influence social identity. This idea is also
presented in the studies of Stefan Boncu, it’s
form and content depending on factors
belonging to the actor (self awareness, values),
the audience (its expectations), or the situation
(relevant social roles), and that these are
desirable if they fulfill the condition of being
trustworthy (accepted by the audience), and
beneficial (facilitate the achievement of certain
goals, purposes).
Also, it has to be mentioned that during
the 1980’s it has been ascertained that social
desirability is connected to comparative
optimism (the tendency to perceive one’s future
in a self-advantageous manner). Comparative
optimism is conceived as a desirable response,
also connected to a positive self image.
Recently though, in 2006, it was
concluded that social entities which show signs
of comparative optimism are considered to be
more useful than desirable (Cambon, 2006).
Viewing social usefulness separately, it
represents the measure in which an object is
useful to an individual. In other words, it is a
matter of the value associated to the object by an
individual. The social usefulness of an object
may differ from individual to individual, by
means of one’s values, of the social context in
which they’ve grown, and of the resources they
control.
The need for the concept of usefulness
was required when it was established that the
monetary value of all goods does not always
equal the value which individuals place on these
goods. As Adam Smith noted in ’’Treasure of
Nations’’, the word value has two different
meanings, sometimes it express the usefulness
of a certain object, other times the buying power
of other objects. The first can be called
utilization value, while the second, exchange
value.
There are also authors which contest the
importance of the concept of usefulness, such as
Paul Samuelson, to which approaching
behaviour in terms of preference is sufficient. In
return, theorists of rational choice, such as
Harsanyi, (Selten, 1992), argue the fact that
rational individuals look to maximize their
expected usefulness, thus succeeding in
satisfying the functional requests of a social or
organizational environment.
So, in psychology, social usefulness is a
relatively recent concept (Dubois, Beauvois,
2005), but which manages to impose itself more
and more in the fields literature, making it
almost impossible to neglect in the context of
social desirability.
5. Scales of measurement for Social
Desirability
5.1. The Crowne–Marlow scale
Within the organizational context, some
individuals, while filling out personality, temper
or conduct evaluation questionnaires, tend to
present themselves in a positive manner. They
tend to exaggerate or over evaluate their
qualities and achievements, and often they deny
or minimize their failures and deficiencies. It is
practically an attempt to present one’s self as
being in accordance with social standards and
patterns, or that which is called social
desirability in psychology, a concept for which
great efforts have been made towards building a
measurement scale for, ever since the end of the
first world war. (Paulhus, 1991, as citit în
Dwight A., Feigelson S.M., 2000).
The term social desirability was first
tied to the work of Edwards (1957), who
examined it’s effects at the MMPI (Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory). Step by
step, this concept determined the tendency of
distorting social relations in a favorable manner.
Wiggins(1968, as cited in McCrae & Costa,
1983) brings the idea that this concept has two
acceptations: it can be seen as a property of
scales, or as a differentiating individual variable.
This way, one of the most known scales
was built in 1960 by Crowne and Marlowe
(Social Desirability or Need for Approval Scale,
CM). This scale’s purpose was to identify this
particular tendency of individuals to project a
favorable image towards the outside, for the
purpose of social interactions.
The belief that the CM scale is able to
identify this tendency is sustained by numerous
empirical studies (as cited in Johnson, 2005).
Some research has shown that there is a
significant positive connection between the CM
scale and self-favorable evaluations, including
happiness and satisfaction in life (Carstensen
and Cone, 1983; Kozma and Stones, 1987, as
cited in Johnson, 2005).
5.2. The Balanced Inventory of Desirable
Responding (BIDR), Paulhus (1984, 1988)
Paulhus (1984) proposes a different
model for social desirability. In the author’s
vision, it comprises of two factors: self
deception (an honest opinion about one’s self,
but over-evaluated) and impression management
(a favorable presentation of self to others).
Paulhus and John, 1998, claim that the reasons
behind self deception and impression
management are different. Self deception tends
to be stable, as the person actually believes what
they say about themselves, and it represents an
unconscious motivation of self deficiency.
Impression management, on the other hand, is
considered to imply a tendency of presenting
responses to create a positive social image.
Furthermore, impression management depends
on the situation of the person, and their
respective reasons.
In the case of impression management,
the individual is motivated by social approval
and by the desire to present himself in a positive
and conventional social light. Self deception
however, would be motivated by the need to
present one’s self positively from the point of
view of certain dominant traits, emotional
stability and intelligence. (Booth-Kewley et al,
2005).
The Balanced Inventory of Desirable
Responding is a descendant from the tool built
by Sackheim and Gur in 1978, Self-and-Other
Deception Questionnaires. In this last variant
self deception was defined as people having a
tendency to deny certain feelings and
threatening thoughts about their own person.
This definition contradicts that of Paulhus, more
recent (1988), which underlines the fact that self
deception constitutes the ensemble of
exaggerated assertions about the positive
cognitive attributes of one’s self (an increased
confidence in own thought), and which in fact
represents a self-defense mechanism, a
glorification of self, or ego-enhancement (as
cited in Robinson, Shaver, Lawrence, 1991).
Examples of items built on self
deception are: I am a completely rational person,
I never regret the decisions I make, and ones
based on impression management: I rarely tell
lies, There are times when I take advantage of
others (as cited in Robinson, Shaver, &
Lawrence, 1991).
BIDR contains 40 items in the form of
statements. The subjects must choose the
appropriate statement from a 7 step scale. This
instrument is used in both clinical context and
personnel selection.
6. Constructing the DS08 questionnaire
The process of creating the DS08
questionnaire began in March of 2008 during the
E-team collective group. The questionnaire was
conceived to be applied in an organizational
environment, to identify those people whose
deceiving tendency is high, who greatly
exaggerate their qualities, and hide a lot of their
defects.
During the E-team project several stages
were followed in order to reach the current
version of the DS08 questionnaire. Things
started by analyzing theories, models and
existing research on social desirability. As we
were unable to find a model to use for the
construction of the items, it was decided to
proceed in a different manner. A pre-test was
conducted during which each team member had
to identify 5 people which would name 3
socially desirable behaviors. These behaviors
were sorted by frequency, and a final list of 71
behaviors was obtained. We composed items for
each of these 71 behaviors identifying the two
components: impression management and self
deception. The generated items were discussed
during the E-team sessions, and it was decided
which would be kept and which removed. We
used the following criteria in item selection: the
items had to be clear (not use words certain
people might not understand), to present as well
as possible the concept of social desirability, to
be as short and to not contain negations or
double sentences.
After numerous meetings an initial
questionnaire was composed which contained
126 items. This questionnaire was applied on
511 subjects of the general population. After
applying the questionnaires a database was
created and statistical analysis was carried out.
Consulting the works of Jean Leon Beauvois
and Nicole Dubois, the questionnaire items that
defined the usefulness dimension were
identified.
After the analysis of the internal
consistency of the questionnaire, the existence
of the two components was confirmed:
impression management and self deception.
Following meetings focused on removing
redundant items, items that lower internal
consistency or which negatively impacted the
rest of the test. Finally 91 items were obtained,
with the following note: ˮ Read each
affirmation carefully and decide if it is true (A)
or false (B) as far as you are concerned. Circle
one of the options. ˮ
The items were built on a dichotomy
scale of: true (T) or false (F), showing the two
components of social desirability: impression
management and self deception, as well as the
concept of usefulness.
Examples of items:
1 Impression management :
1. I am particularly concerned with
what others think of me.A F
1 Self deception :
26. I’m always fair in my actions. A F
2 Usefulness :
6. I am someone appreciated for
efficiency in my work.A F
6.1. Research design
The DS08 questionnaire, defined above,
was applied on a batch of 511 subjects in order
to test internal consistency and to analyze the
significant relations social desirability
establishes with other variables.
The subjects of this research had the age
between 15 and 77, with an average age of 34.2
years and a standard deviance of 11.18. Out of
all the subjects, 53.5% are women and 46.5%
are men. Concerning the level of education,
2.3% of the subjects had middle level education,
54.6% had high school level and 42.9% had
graduated university. Regarding income levels,
most had an income between 200 and 500 €
monthly. Employment wise, 14.6% worked in
production, 68.4% in services and 16.3% in
retail.
After analyzing internal consistency the
following Alpha Cronbach coefficients were
obtained:
Impression management = 0.801
Self deception = 0.884
Usefulness = 0.727
As illustrated in the below tables:
Reliability Statistics
.801 47
Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items
Impression management
Reliability Statistics
.884 48
Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items
Self deception
Reliability Statistics
.727 22
Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items
Usefulness
Fig. 1. The internal consistency of the
questionnaire
6.2. Data analysis and interpretation
Analyzing the connections and
differences between the score average for self
deception, impression management or
usefulness for various kinds of subjects, by
gender, age, education, or income levels, several
effects of the social and demographic variable
were identified from a statistical point of view.
Self deception is negatively affected by
age, as a subject’s age increase, they start to
build a self-image more in tune with reality.
During their existence people gain a certain
experience as far as life and relations with others
are concerned. This way the self-image is
constructed based on feedback from the outside,
and not based on what they would want to be.
We also found a negative relation between age
and a subject’s score for usefulness, which
means that as one progresses in age, they tend to
feel less competent, young people having a more
developed sense of purpose.
Elderly subjects are involved in fewer
activities than when they were young which
makes their perceived usefulness to diminish as
time passes. Being more active and in an almost
continual learning process, young people tend to
feel more useful in their respective environment.
The T test (independent samples T test)
by organization type (company or public
institution) brought to light differences between
all three dimensions analyzed, showing that
employees of the private sector (companies):
Have a significantly higher level of self
deception t(303) = -2.613, p = 0.009
Perform impression management a lot
more often t(307) = -2.429, p = 0.016
Have a significantly higher sense of
usefulness t(330) = -1.990, p = 0.047
Privately employed subjects are
motivated in their role by the possibility of
promotions or career advancement more than
subjects employed in the public sector, which
may explain the higher level of practicing
impression management and the raised level of
self deception. Also, in the private field
employee performance is constantly verified
which determines the high level of usefulness
exhibited by these subjects.
The three dimensions of social
desirability do not seem however to show
significant differences when put side by side
with the subject’s gender, level of education,
field of work (services, retail, production) or
level of income.
7. Conclusions and strategies for
optimizations
Following the testing of questionnaire
DS08 on a number of 511 subjects, it has proven
to be a valid questionnaire, proposing to identify
the deception tendencies exhibited when filling
out personality evaluation tests, in situations of
professional evaluation and selection. Obtaining
high scores on the desirability scale can indicate
a tendency for the subject to falsify (consciously
or unconsciously) answers to tests or hiring
interview questions.
In future, the questionnaire will be
applied in the test-retest phase in order to
ascertain fidelity, then the construct’s validity
will be tested by building experimental
situations. Also, future research will attempt to
analyze the prediction power of social
desirability as far as performance in various
areas of activity is concerned. We wish to
explore whether social desirability is something
to avoid in candidates or if it is a component of
social intelligence. We will also apply the
designed test along with the Crowne-Marlowe
and BIDR scales in order to analyze concurrent
validity.
8. Reference List
1. Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and
Organizational Conflict: Effects of the Type A
Behavior Pattern and Self-Monitoring.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, vol. 44, no. 2, p. 281-296.
2. Boncu, Ș., „Auto-prezentarea”,
Psihologie (învătământ la distanța), Editura
Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iași.
3. Booth-Kewley, S., Larson, G.E., &
Miyoshi, D.K. (2007). Social desirability effects
on computerized and paper-and-pencil
questionnaires, Journal Computers in Human
Behavior, vol. 23, p.463-477.
4. Bozeman, D. P. & Kacmar, K. M.
(1997). A cybernetic model of impression
management processes in organizations în
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, vol. 69, p. 9 – 30.
5. Cambon, L., (2006). The evaluative
function of personality traits: Towards the focus
on the two value dimensions of social
desirability and social utility, Psychologie
française vol. 51, p. 285-305.
6. Cambon, L., Djouari, A., & Beauvois,
J.-L. (2006). Social Judgment Norms and Social
Utility: When It Is More Valuable to Be Useful
Than Desirable, Swiss Journal of Psychology
65, 2006, 167–180.
7. Chalmers, D., & Bourget, D. (2006).
Self-deception, Standford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Australian National University.
8. Damon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F.,
Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Achievement
Goal Promotion at University: Social
Desirability and Social Utility of Mastery and
Performance Goal, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology .vol. 96, no. 1, p. 119–134.
9. Dompnier, B., Pansu, P., & Bressoux, P.
(2007). Social utility, social desirability and
scholastic judgments: Toward a personological
model of academic evaluation, European Journal
of Psychology of Education, vol. 3, p. 333-350.
10. Dubois, N., & Beauvois, J.-L. (2005).
Normativeness and individualism, European
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol.
35, p. 123-146.
11. Dunn, E.W. & Forrin, N., Impression
Management
12. Dwight, S.A., Feigelson, M.E.,
(2000). A quantitative review of the effect of
computerized testing on the measurement of
social desirability în Educational and
Psychological Measurement, vol. 60, p. 340-
360.
13. Gravdal, L., & Sandal, G.M. (2006).
The two-factor model of social desirability:
Relation to coping and defense, and implications
for health, Journal of Personality and Individual
Differences, vol. 40, p. 1051-1061.
14. Jeffrey, S.A., Webb, A., & Schulz, A.
(2007). The Use of Self-Set Goals as an
Impression Management Tactic: Antecedents
and Consequences..
15. Johnson, T.P., & Fendrich, M. (2005). A
validation of the Crowne-Marlow social
desirability.
16. Laughland, A.S., Musser, W.N., &
Musser, L.M. (1994). An Experiment in
Contingent Valuation and Social Desirability,
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Review, vol. 23, p. 30-36.
17. Mele, A.R. (1997b). Real self-deception,
Department of Philosophy, Davidson College.
18. Mele, A.R. (2001). Self-Deception
Unmasked. books.google.com.
19. Moomal, Z., & Henzi, S.P. (2000). The
Evolutionary Psychology of Deception and Self-
Deception, Errata, vol 30, no. 1, p. 45-46.
20. Nae, D. (2006). „Managementul
impresiei” în Piața muncii –
http://www.sfin.ro/articol_7240/
managementul_impresiei.html
21. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and
control of response bias, J. P. Robinson, P. R.
Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes
(pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
Inc.
22. Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998).
Egoistic and moralistic bias in self-
perceptions: the interplay of self-deceptive
styles with basic traits and motives. Journal
of personality, vol. 66, p. 1024-1060.
23. Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J.
(1972). Some effects of “social desirability”
in survey studies, American Journal of
Sociology, vol. 77, p. 921–940.
24. Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R.,
Wrightsman, L.S., (1991). Measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes,
Elsevier, vol. 1, p. 27-30, 37-51.
25. Rorty, A. O. (1994). User-Friendly Self-
Deception, Philosophy, vol. 69, p. 211-228.
26. Standford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, (2008). Self deception
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-
deception/
27. Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L.
(1995). Making the right impression: A field
study of applicant impression management
during job interviews, Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 80, p. 587–606.
28. Tenbrunsel, A.E., Diekmann, K.A.,
Wade-Benzoni, K.A., & Bazerman, M.H.
(2007). The ethical mirage: a temporal
explanation as to why we aren’t as ethical as we
think we are, Research in Organizational
Behavior.
29. Wata, A. (2000). Impression
Management, Social Psychology,
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/social_psychology/53283/2