fisher 1993 jcr

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

1/14

ocial esirability

Indirect Questioning

and the Validity of

ROBERT J. FISHER

Indirect i.e., structured projective) questioning has been employed frequently in

marketing and other social sciences to reduce social desirability bias, that is, sys-

tematic error in self-report measures resulting from the desire of respondents to

avoid embarrassment and project a favorable image to others. Yet little is known

about the validity of indirect questioning in reducing social desirability bias. This

article reports on three studies that examine indirect questioning as a technique to

reduce social desirability bias on self-report measures. The effects of asking indirect

i.e., structured, projective) questions were compared with direct i.e., structured,

personal) questions. The pattern of results indicates that indirect questioning reduces

social desirability bias on variables subject to social influence and has no significant

effect on socially neutral variables. The social nature of the differences between

direct and indirect questioning groups, and the attribution of an undesirable trait to

an out-group but not an in-group target, supports the view that subjects projected

their beliefs and evaluations in the indirect response situation. These results are

consistent across several product categories and indirect question wordings.

M

uch of what we think we know about human

behavior comes from self-report measures (Pe-

terson and Kerin 1981). Unfortunately, the basic hu-

man tendency to present oneself in the best possible

light can significantly distort the information gained

from self-reports. Respondents are often unwilling or

unable to report accurately on sensitive topics for ego-

defensive or impression management reasons. The re-

sult is data that are systematically biased toward re-

spond ents' perceptions of what is cor rec t or socially

acceptable (Maecoby and Maccoby 1954). This phe-

nomenon is called social desirability bias and has been

found to occur in virtually all types of self-report mea-

sures and across nearly all social sciences literatures

(e.g.. Levy 1981; Peltier and Walsh 1990; Robinette

1991; Simon and Simon 1975; Zerbe and Paulhus

1987).

Not only is social desirability bias pervasive, but it

can lead to the reporting of spurious or misleading re-

search results. Prior studies have found that social de-

sirability bias can attenuate, inflate, or moderate vari-

able relationships (Zerbe and Paulhus 1987); increase

measurement error (cf. Cote and Buckley 1988); and

*Robert J. Fisher is assistant professor of marketing. School of

Business Adm inistration. U niversity of Southern C alifornia. Los An-

geles. CA. 90089-1421. The author would like to thank Valerie S.

Folkes. Jill A. Grace. J. Jeffrey Inma n. Kent Naka moto. Linda L.

Price. Dennis W. Rook, and David W. Stewart for comments on

earlier versions of this article. The author also benefited from dis-

cussions with Stephen J. Hoch and com ments by the editor and three

reviewers.

affect variable means (Peterson and Kerin 1981), Re-

search that does not recognize and compensate for social

desirability bias may lead to unwarranted theoretical

or practical conclusions about consumers' psychological

traits (e.g.. Cam pbell 1950; Peltier and Walsh 1990);

purchase motivations (e.g.. Levy 1981); and attitudes,

intentions, and behaviors (e.g., Mensch and Kandel

1988).

An important technique used by researchers to mit-

igate the effects of social desirability bias is indirect (i.e.,

structured, projective) questioning.' Indirect question-

ing is a projective technique that asks subjects or re-

spondents to answer structured questions from the per-

spective of another person or group (Anderson 1978;

Calder and Burnkrant 1977; Robertson and Joselyn

1974). For example, marketing researchers have asked

subjects to predict the types of people m ost likely to eat

hot cereal (Westfall. Boyd, and Campbell 1957); to in-

dicate the extent to which a con sum er would react

to reference group influence (Bearden and Etzel 1982;

Brinberg and Plim pton 1986; Park and Lessig 1977);

to identify the emotional responses of the anonymous

author of

story describing a past consumption expe-

rience (Havlena and Holbrook 1986); and to state the

'In ma rketing research the emph asis has been on »/istructured pro-

jective methods such as thematic apperception tests, sentence com-

pletion , and word associa tion (e.g., Levy 1981; Rook 1985; for a

review see Kassarjian [1974]). Unlike the structured approach iden-

tified here, unstructured metJiods allow subjects m uch greater freedom

in organizing and responding to the projective stimulus. Conse-

quently, unstructured projective questioning is particularly valuable

in helping subjects express latent m otivations.

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

2/14

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

3/14

305

hese outcomes. This component reflects the extent to

which individuals are m otivated by the expectations of

another person or group. The individual, by fulfilling

(or acting contrary to) the expectations of others, an-

ticipates socially mediated rewards (or punishments).

The individual does what a referent wants him or her

to do because it is instrumental in achieving a social

purpose.

Social desirability b ias is likely to affect self-rep orted

normative outcomes because the pursuit of social ap-

proval as a purchase motivation is inconsistent with

social norms and expectations. For example, shopping

list research by Haire (1950) and replications or ex-

tension s by othe rs (e.g., Robertson and Joselyn 1974)

suggest that consumers are unable or unwilling to ex-

press the extent to which they are motivated by social

factors. When asked directly, consumption motivations

tend to focus on the functional aspects of a product

such as taste or gas mileage (Haire 1950). Con sum ption

motivations such as social positioning and the approval

of others are revealed only with indirect questioning.

Research on American values also indicates that the

overt pursuit of social approval through consumption

is undesirable. Am ericans consistently assign a low rank

to social recognition (the respect and admiration of

others) and a high rank to independence as cultural

values (Rokeach 1979, p. 133: Rokeach and Ba ll-Ro-

keach 1989, p. 778). Of 18 termina l v alues, social rec-

ognition was ranked 17th in 1971 and 18th in 1974 and

1981,

while independe nce was ranked third in all three

studies. Given that self-reported values represent cul-

turally desirable ideals (Rokeach 1979), these rankings

imply that expressing one's desire for social approval

is inappropriate in American culture.

Accordingly, socially desirable responding behavior

should cause normative outcomes to be understated

with direct questioning because subjects are inclined to

present themselves in a way that

is

consistent with social

expectations. Under indirect questioning, however,

subjects are able to disengage themselves from the social

implications of their responses, leading to larger esti-

mates of normative beliefs and evaluations. Subjects

should most actively engage in impression management

when they believe their responses will be used as evi-

dence about themselves and not as objective statements

about the real wo rld.

The anonymity of the research setting should interact

with questioning method to have a differential effect on

self-reported normative outcomes. Removal of ano-

nymity should cause subjects answering direct questions

to feel greater pressure to make their responses consis-

tent with social expectations. These responses are most

likely to have symbolic or comm unication al properties

because they represent the personal thoughts and feel-

ings of the subject on a socially sensitive topic and the

responses are visible to others. However, eliminating

anonymity is not expected to have the same effect on

subjects answering indirect questions because they are

distanced from their responses by the projective

method. A summary of study hypotheses related to the

effects of questioning method and anonymity on mean

scores follows:

Hla:

Method of question ing has no effect on mean

personal outcomes because of the social

neutrality of this variable.

, Hlb: Indirect questioning reduces social desir-

ability bias, resulting in higher mean nor-

mative outcomes.

H2a: Anonymity has no effect on mean personal

outcomes because of the social neutrality of

this variable.

H2b: Removing anonymity increases social desir-

ability bias, resulting in lower mean nor-

mative outcomes under direct que stioning.

M e t h o d

A 2 (questioning method)

X

2 (anonymity) between-

subjects experiment was performed to test the hy-

potheses. convenience sample of 184 male and female

undergraduate students was selected and randomly as-

signed to the con ditions (46 per cell). A student sample

was selected because of the widespread study of this

population in consumer research on normative influ-

ence and other socially sensitive topics. Subjects were

contacted within a normal classroom situation and told

that the purpose of the study was to generate infor-

mation to be used in the advertising campaign for a

new produ ct targeted at college stud ents. A fictional

new product was selected to avoid the influence of prior

beliefs on subjects' responses. A pretest indicated the

new product, an innovative stereo headphone designed

for use with Walkman-type cassette or compact-disc

players, was believable and of interest to those in the

target market. Moreover, the pretest indicated that

students perceived that adoption of the new product

had significant social implications because of its visi-

bility and innovative features. To enhance involvement,

subjects were shown a mock-up of the new product, a

professionally designed brochure layout, and entered

in a drawing for three $50 prizes for participating in

the study.

The experimental manipulations took the form of

instructions to subjects and question wording.-* In the

direct questioning co ndition, subjects were asked to re-

spond to a series of items in terms of their own beliefs

and evaluations. In the indirect questioning condition,

subjects were asked to predict the likely responses of

a typical college stu de nt. Item wording differed be-

^The new headphone design was described as similar in size and

weight lo those currently used with portable stereo systems, except

that the new design does not require wires connecting the headp hone

set to the player unit.

'All manipulations and measures

are available from the author

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

4/14

306

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEAR

Iween conditions only to the extent that third-person

wording was substituted for first-person wording in the

indirect cond ition. For example, the words the typical

college student will . . . were substituted for I

will . . . in the indirect condition . The items mea-

suring the constructs of interest were randomly mixed

with other items unrelated to this study.

Anonymity was manipulated with information about

the likelihood subjects would be asked to discuss their

responses with a researcher after com pleting the instru-

ment. Subjects in the unanonymous condition were

told, You may be asked to discuss your responses with

a researcher when you have finished. In addition, sub-

jects in this condition were asked to include their stu-

dent identification num ber on the first page of the in-

strument. Subjects in the anonymous condition were

told. Yo ur responses are completely ano nym ous, and

they were not asked to include their student identifi-

cation number.

Measurement

After a review of the relevant literatures, 10 items

were generated to measure the personal and normative

outcome constructs. The items, worded in the first per-

son {i.e., directly), were administered as part of a larger

data collection efi'ort to 90 gradua te and undergra duate

students at another university. Two items were deleted

by corrected item-to-total correlations and principal

axis factor analysis with varimax rotation . The analyses

resulted in eight items measuring the two constructs of

interest.

Measures of the con struc ts were designed specifically

for the student sample and new headphone product.

For personal outcom es, a pretest on an unrelated sample

indicated that one of the new product's key advantages

was the increased freedom of movement it afforded.

This attribute was identified by pretest respondents as

being intrinsically valued, that is. desirable regardless

of the social aspects of cons um ption . C onseque ntly, be-

liefs and evaluations of personal outcomes were mea-

sured with items such as the new headpho nes provide

more freedom of movement than other headphones.

For normative outcomes, subjects were asked to indi-

cate their beliefs and evaluations of statements such as

students I know would have a favorable reaction if I

bought one of the new prod ucts . The belief com po-

nents of the outcome variables were measured with

seven-point highly likely to not at all likely scales.

The evaluation comp onents were measured with seven-

point very imp ortan t to very unim porta nt scales.

For hypothesis testing, the multi-item scales were sum-

mated to form a single indicator of each construct.

Results

Measurement. Confirmatory factor analyses were

conducted for the individual two-factor models within

TABLE

SCALE CHARACTERISTICS STUDY

Group measure

Direct

{ = 92):

Personal outcomes

Beliefs only

Evaluations only

Normative outcomes

Beliefs only

Evaluations only

Indirect {

^ 92):

Personal outcomes

Beliefs only

Evaluations only

Normative outcomes

Beliefs orly

Evaluations only

No,

of

items

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Actual

scale

range

47-144

12-24

15-24

0-105

0 -22

0 -24

42-144

9 -24

11-24

0-132

5-22

0-24

Scale

mean

109,4

20,4

21.3

36,4

12.7

9 2

111.8

20.6

21.4

65.8

15.9

15.3

SD

23.2

2.9

2.6

29.6

5.8

6.4

27.1

3.3

2.9

31.6

4.0

5.2

A

7

.

.

.

.

.

,

.

.

.

.

NOTE,—Personal

outcomes

and

normative outcomes were measured

as

sum of the

product

of

beliefs

(i.e.. no t at all likely to

'highly likely )

evaluations

(i,e.,

very unimportant

to

very important').

A ll

scales were sco

from zero

to six.

Higher numbers indicate higher levels

of

each variable.

the direct and indirect que stioning groups. Both mod

have acceptable internal and external consistency giv

an overall X of 34.25 df^ 19, p = .017) with a go

ness-of-fit index (GFI) ^ .92 for the direct group and

X̂

of

33 45

{df= 19. p = .021) with a GFI = .92 for

indirect group. The normed-fit index (Bentler and B

nett 1980) indicates that 91 percent of the observe

measure covariation is explained in each of the me

surement models.

The internal consistency of the m easures is support

by three additiona l tests. First, the scales exhibited go

internal consistency with coefficient alphas for person

outcomes of .79 (direct) and .81 (indirect) and forno

mative outcomes of 91 (direct) and .89 (indirec t). S

ond, variance-extracted estimates reflect the amount

variance captured by a measure relative to rando

mea surem ent e rror (Fornell and L arcker 1981). A

measures had variance-extracted estimates that a

proached or exceeded the .50 level with values of .

(direct) and .53 (indirect) for personal outcomes an

.71 (direct) and .66 (indirect) for normative outcome

Finally, all indicator /-values in the confirmatory fac

analysis exceeded 5.0 p

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

5/14

3 7

the unanonymous mean X = 10.96). No unin-

or interaction effects were found. Second,

y manipulation may have caused subjects

for their responses than stu-

in the

unanonymous condition, thus causing

in this group to respond more carefully (cf.

and Kim 1987). To evaluate this possible con-

a summ ated four-item man ipulation check was

to measure subjects' perceptions about the care

1

w as care-

I answered the questions on this survey. No

(/? > .10) were found for anonymity,

or

anonymity

X

questioning

on response care.

Tests of Hypotheses. Hypothesis la was supported

no main effect of questioning method on personal

^ .43, NS),

with similar means

in

the direct

{X =

109.4) and indirect (A = 111.8)

lb was

supported with

a

main

of questioning method on normative outcomes

F{ 1.180) = 43.15, /J

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

6/14

308

J O U R N A L O F C O N S U M E R R E S E A R

Measure and source

Personal outcome:

Beliefs X evaluations

Anon

Oues

Anon X ques

Beliefs only:

Anon

Ques

Anon X ques

Evaluations only:

Anon

Ques

Anon X ques

Normative outcomes:

Beliefs X evaluations

Anon

Ques

Anon X ques

Beliefs only:

Anon

Ques

Anon X ques

Evaluations only:

Anon

Ques

Anon X ques

df

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

t

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

TABLE 2

ANQVA RESULTS: STUDY 1

Sum of

squares

13.6

272.7

869.6

.2

2 2

26.6

1.4

.2

.2

115.8

39.619.6

5 544 0

1.6

453.9

35.7

52 2

1 704 4

244.3

F

.02

.43

1.37

.02

.23

2.81

.18

.03

.03

.13

4 3 . 1 5

6.04-

.06

18 .30

1.44

1.62

5 2 . 7 7 -

7 . 5 6

18

02

09

21

.03

Anonymous

and direct

110.3

109.4

20.5

20,4

21.3

21.3

51.9

36.4

14.2

12.7

12.8

9 2

Means

Unanonym

and indire

110.8

111.8

20.4

20.6

21.4

21.4

' •

• I

50.3

65,8

14.4

15.9

11.7

15.3

NOTE.— n

= 184 for Study 1. The independent variables are the djchotomous manipulations while the dependent variables are the continuous manipulatjon che

Anon, manipulated anonymity: ques, manipulated questioning method. Although the hypotheses relate to the overall personal outcome and normative outco

variables, the effects of the manipulations on the individual belief and evaluation components are included to provide additional detail.

•p < .05.

" p <

.01.

' '

to manage their responses when answering directly

worded questions on a socially sensitive variable in an

unanonymous situation.

STUDY 2

A second experim ent was designed to investigate the

effects of indirect questioning on the relationships be-

tween personal and norm ative outcomes and intentions.

This study was undertaken for two reasons. First, many

consumer researchers on socially sensitive topics are

interested in structural orassociational evidence rather

than mean scores {e.g., Alpert 1971; Fishbein and Ajzen

1975). This investigation could not be carried out in

study because a Box's M-test revealed significant dif-

ferences in the covariance matrices across anonymity

conditions within the indirect group (X" ^ 13.67, f

= 3, /? < .01). As a consequence, it would be inappro-

priate to pool the anonymous and unanonymous co-

variance matrices within each questioning group. Sec-

ond, it is desirable to establish the reliability of the key

findings of study through a partial replication.

Consistent with study I, social desirability bias shou

differentially affect variables that are neutral and se

sitive to social influence. Again using the Miniard a

Cohen (1983) model of behavioral intentions, the

lationship between personal outcomes and intentio

is expected to be unaffected by questioning me tho

Subjects should not be motivated to "manage" the

lationship between persona outcom es and intentio

because their responses are independent of social e

pectations. In the present context, there appear to

no relevant norms governing beliefs and evaluations

the freedom of movement offered by the new hea

phones. No differences should exist in the relationsh

between personal outcom es and intentions across qu

tioning methods.

The estimated effect of normative outcomes on

tentions, however, should be attenuated by social d

sirability bias when direct qu estioning is used. Subje

may consciously or unconsciously engage in ima

managem ent by distorting the association between th

normative ou tcome and intention scores. For examp

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

7/14

FIGURE 1

PERSONAL AND NORMATIVE OUTCOME BY OUESTIONING METHOD AND ANONYM ITY

Anonymity

150-

140-

130-

ersonai

Outcomes n o -

100-

9 0 -

BO-

7 0 -

6 0 -

0

Ye s

Indirect

—

Direct

I

No

Anonymity

ects may lower normative outcom e scores when in-

H3a : T he association between persona outcom es

and intentions is the same with direct and

indirect questioning because the variance

common to these variables is not subject to

social desirability bias.

H b Indirect questioning removes social desir-

ability variance from normative outcomes,

resulting in a stronger association between

normative outcomes and intentions under

this form of questioning.

A two-group experiment was conduc ted in which the

{u =

170)

n =

182) groups. This sample was drawn

easurement

Measures of persona and normative ou tcomes were

early were measured with one indicator composed of

the summation of four self-report items. The four-item

directly worded scale included items such as "I will

probably purchase one ofthe new products soon after

they are on the market," measured on a seven-point

"strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" scale. The in-

direct scale asked subjects to respond in terms of the

typical stud ent. The coefficient alphas for this scale were

.93 (direct) and .81 (indirect). The means were 13.5

(direct) and 14.9 (indirect).

Results

Before testing the formal hypotheses, an analysis of

personal and normative outcome mean scores reveals

the same pattern of differences between groups found

in study

1.

Specifically, the means for personal outcomes

are not significantly different across the direct and in-

direct questioning groups (A dircci = 96.7 , .findireci

=

101.2,

t =

1.5. NS), while the mean for normative outcomes

is significantly higher in the indirect group

Xa.tcci

=

39.4, X.̂ direa ^ 63.2 , / - 8.72. /J < .00 1, one-ta iled

test).

As in study I. these results suggest a systematic

social desirability effect on normative outcome mean

scores with direct questioning.

Tests of differences in the estimated effects of personal

and normative outcomes on intentions in study 2 were

undertaken in two ways. First, given differences in the

ratio of the standard deviations for the predictor and

criterion variables across questioning groups, the ap-

propriate test of differences in the relationsh ip between

outcomes and intentions is a comparison of product-

moment correlations across subgroups (Arnold 1982).

On the basis of Fisher's Z-transform ation, Hypothesis

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

8/14

310


3a is supported with no significant difference in the cor-

relation between personal outcomes and intentions

across groups

rawca =

-432, r.ndirect = -493, z = .77, NS).

Hypothesis 3b is supported with a significantly higher

correlation between norm ative outcomes and intentions

in the indirect group (rdirea

=

-269. rindireci ^ -442, z

= 1.81, ;? < .05. one-tailed test). Second, an ordinary

least squares path analysis model was run for each

questioning-method group in which intention to early

adopt was regressed on personal and normative out-

comes. This analysis was performed to compa re the pa-

rameter estimates that might result from path-analytic

studies und er different questioning me thods (see Table

3).

Congruent with the study's hypotheses, the stan-

dardized beta weight for normative outcomes on inten-

tions is higher in the indirect (/? = .332, / = 5.19, p

< .001) compared to the direct (^ = .205, t - 2.94, p

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

9/14

OCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS

311

self

and purchases

nfluenced only by othe rs ^ were selected for inclusion

usic, hairstyle, and cologne/perfume.

A convenience sample of 75 male and female un-

ents were randomly assigned to one of

nly in the source of influence identified in the ques-

ions.

Subjects in groups 1, 2, and 3 answered questions

hat identified the source of influence as others, friends,

nd their best friend, respectively. Subjects \yilhin each

luations of the im portance of social

pproval for themselves, their best friend, and the typ-

ical student in the purchase of each of the five products

idenlitied in the pretest. For example, the following

hree question stems were used in group 1:

It's very important

TO ME

that OTHERS approve

f . . .

It's very important TO MY BEST FRIEND that

THERS approve of . . .

It's very important TO THE TYPICAL STUDENT

hat OTHERS approve of . . .

Questions were randomized within the groups to avoid

order bias.

Measurement

Items for the five expressive products were summed

to form a single indicator of the importance of social

influence for expressive products to simplify the pre-

sentation of the results and provide more reliable mea-

sures. *

Scale characteristics are presented in Table 4.

As indicated, the internal consistency of the scales is

acceptable given that all alphas exceed .70 with only

one exception (.67).

The tendency to respond in a socially desirable man-

ner was measured with Reynolds's (1982) short form

of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. The

scale comprises 13 culturally approved behaviors (five

worded positively and eight worded negatively) that

have a low probability of occurrence. The scale is ad-

^This approach dratnatically reduces the number of significance

tests but does not materially affect the overall results. Spiecifically,

using summated scales reduced the number of Ntests from 30 to six

and the number of associational tests from 45 to nine. Nevertheless,

the mean and associational results using summated scales are con-

sistent with the individual results. For the mean contrasts, 29 of 30

individual tests were consistent with the results reported for the sum -

mated scales. Of the nine associational tests, five results held for all

five products, two for four of five products, and two for three of five

products. Individual test results are available from the author.

TABLE 4

SCALE CHARACTERISTICS: STUDY 3

Source of influence

and measure

Others

{n

25):

SELF

BEST

TS

Friends n = 26):

SELF

BEST

TS

Best friend n = 24):

SELF

BEST

TS

Overall n 75):

S D R

No.

of

items

5

5

5

5

5

S

5

5

5

13

Actual

scale

range

0-24

2-25

9-30

1-22

0-26

6-30

0-20

0-20

0-27

0-11

Scale

mean

13.0

12.8

21.7

9.6

10.7

17.8

10.8

11.3

17.5

4.49

SD

6. 4

6.1

5.6

5.9

7.1

6.9

6 .5

6.4

6 .3

2.78

Alpha

.67

.72

,85

.78

.82

.73

.7 8

.82

.7 3

.69

NOTE.—Abbreviations are as follows: SELF, predictions about self; BEST,

predictions about biest

friend: TS,

predictions about typical student

SDR, the

tendency to respond in a soctally desirat>le manner as measursd by the Marlowe-

Crowne short form.

ministered in a true or false format, and a high score

on the scale indicates the subject's tendency to present

himself or herself in a socially favorable manner. Scale

characteristics are consistent with prior studies (e.g.,

Reyn olds 1982; see Table 4).

Results

An examination of mean scores for the importance

of social approval in the purchase of expressive p roducts

reveals the same pattern of results as studies I and 2.

Specifically, subjects consistently indicated that the

typical student is more m otivated by social approval in

consumption behavior than they are themselves.

Through dependent /-tests, this difference was found

when the source of influence was others (A's^f = 13.0,

t̂ypical studeni = 21.7, / = 5.11, /? < .001); friends {A'^cif

= 9.8, X,,pie,u,,den. =

17._8,

t = 5.47, p < Mi): an d

best friend (X^^K = 10.8. -V,ypjeaismdcm = 17.5, / - 5.36 ,

p< .001

). The results for th e three groups are also clear

when the projective target was the subject's best friend.

Predictions for the best friend were not significantly

different from the means for the self when the source

of influence was others X^^ij = 13.0, Xbejifnend = 12 .8,

t = - .26 , p > . 10); friends ,̂eif = 9-8, X ^ ,,

u,.r.A_=

10.7

t = .86, p > .10); and best (ncnd {X^^it = 10.8, Xbesi friend

=

11.3,/

= .61,/?> .10).

The effects of social desirability bias on self-reports

and pre dictions abou t o thers were evaluated by regress-

ing the direct and indirect scales on the tendency to

respond in a socially desirable manner. All hypotheses

were directional, and thus all relational tests are one-

tailed. As summarized in Table 5, response tendency

was significantly associated with direct questions on so-

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

10/14

312


TABLE 5

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS ON

PREDICTIONS ABOUT SELF, BEST FRIEND,

AND TYPICAL OTHER: STUDY 3

Source of influence and dependent variable

Independent

variable

(SDR)

Others {n = 25):

SELF

BEST

TS

Friends {n = 26):

SELF

BEST

TS

Best friend

n

= 24):

SELF

BEST

TS

.37-

.49 '

.10

.32

.34

.16

.47

.10

.06

NOTE.—Abbreviations

are as follows: SELF,

predictions about self;

BEST,

predictions about best

friend; TS,

predictions about typical student;

SDR, the

tendency

to

respond

in a

soaally desiraWe manner

as

measured

by th Marlowe-

Growne short form.

p < .05 one-tailed test).

p <

.01

one-tailed

test).

cial approval tnotives when the source of influence was

others(/3 = -. 3 7 , / = - 1 . 9 1 , p < .05); friends /3 - - . 32 ,

t =

-\

.68,

p

.10); friends ()3 = - .1 6 , f

= - . 80 , p > .10); and best friend {0 = --06 , / = - .27 ,

p> .10). The results are less straightforward when the

predictive target was the subject's best friend, with a

significant relationship when the source of influence was

others (^ = - .49 , / = -2 .74 , p .10).

Overall, the results support the hypotheses. For Hy-

pothesis 4a . the pattern of effects for direct and typical

student indirect questions is the same as was found in

the first wo studies for a functional innovation. Subjects

in all three groups indicated that social approval for

expressive prod ucts was more im portan t for the typical

student than for themselves. Also, the tendency to re-

spond in a socially desirable manner was significant for

ail direct questions and nonsignificant for all indirect

questions in which the typical student was the projective

target. Hypothesis 4b is supported because the mean

and structural results supporting Hypothesis 4a were

consistent across all three sources of influence, namely,

others, friends, and best friend. Hypothesis 5a is sup-

ported with a significantly higher mean importan ce rat-

ing for the out-group rating compared to the self-rating.

Finally, Hypothesis 5b is supported given no significant

difference in the mean importance of social appro

between self and best friend reports. The combinat

of the results of Hypothesis a and b suggests that

jects engaged in classical projection when making p

dictions about a typical other.

Discussion

Study 3 reveals a pattern of results similar to t

found in studies I and 2 for mean scores on the i

portance of social approval as a consumption moti

Individuals consistently evaluated themselves as l

motivated by social approval than typical others. C

sidering all three studies, the mean results are com

rable across influence sources (i.e., others, friends, a

best friend), between- and within-subject designs, a

product categories. The results suggest predictable me

differences between direct and indirect questions

socially sensitive variables and no differences for socia

neutral variables.

The associationai tests in study 3 support the abo

interpretation. First, the tendency to respond in a

cially desirable m ann er was significantly associated w

direct measures of the influence of others, friends, a

best friend. In each case the inclination to bias respon

toward social norms resulted in lower self-reports

social approval as a purchase motive. Second, respon

tendency was not significantly associated with pred

tions about the importance of social approval for

typical student, regardless of the source of influence

Analysis of the mean scores and social desirabil

effects on indirect questions in which the predictive t

get was the subject's best friend suggests that the

sponses w ere affected by social desirab ility bias in

same direction and degree as direct questions. First,

differences were found in the mean scores between s

and best friend predictions across the three influen

sources. Second, the tendency to respond in a socia

desirable manner was found to have a significant n

ative effect on best friend predictions when the sou

of influence was others and friends. T hese findings su

port the proposition that subjects engaged in classi

projection by denying an undesirable trait in themsel

and their best friend but attributing it to a socially d

tant other.

The one inconsistency in study 3 results

is

the find

of no significant effect of response tendency on b

friend predictions when the source of influence was

best friend's best friend. This result may have occurr

because of the unique nature of the prediction requ ir

for this question. To simplify the indirect wording

was assumed that the best friend's best friend was

subject. On this basis, the question stem was It's ve

important to MY BEST FRIEND that / appro

of . . . The anoma lous finding may have occurr

because the social norms governing the subject's inf

ence over his or her best friend are different than t

norms affecting other influence sources. Specifically

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

11/14

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

12/14

31 4

JOURN L OF CONSUMER RESE R

sociations between variables. Fourth, the studies pro-

vide insights into the generality of effects across product

categories, influence sources, and experimental designs.

Overall, the research contributes to our understanding

of the validity of indirect questioning as a technique

for reducing social desirability bias and insights into

how consumers make predictions about others.

[Received August 1992. Revised February 1993 ]

REFERENCES

Alpert. Mark 1. (1971). Identification of Dete rmin ant At-

tributes: A Comparison of Methods,

Journal of

Mar

keting Re.search. 8 (May).

184-191.

Anderson. James

C

(1978), The V alidity of Haire's Shopping

List Projective Technique.

Journal of Marketing Re-

search.

15 (November). 64 4-64 9.

Arnold. Hugh J. (1982), Mo derator Variables: Clarification

of Conceptual. Analytic, and Psychometric Issues,

Or-

ganizational Behavior and Human Performance. 29

(April). 143-174.

Bagozzi. Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1991), M ultitra it-M ul-

timethod Matrices In Consumer Research. Journal of

Consumer Re.search.

17 (March). 426 -439 .

Bearden. William O, and M ichael J. Etzel (1982). Reference

Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Deci-

sions. Journal of Consumer Research. 9

(September).

183-194.

Bentler. P. M. and Douglas G. Bonett (1980), Significance

Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance

Structures,

Psychological Bulletin.

88 (November), 588 -

606.

Brinberg. David and Linda Plimpton (1986). Self-Mon itor-

ing and Product Conspicuousness on Reference Group

Influence. in

Advances in Consutner Reseatch.

Vol. 13,

ed. Richard J. Lutz. Provo. UT: Association for Con-

sumer Research. 297-300.

Calder, Bobby J. and Robert E. Burn krant (1977 ). Inte r-

personal Influence on Consumer Behavior: An Attribu-

tion Theory Approach.

Journal of Consumer Research.

4 (June). 29-38.

Camp bell, Donald T. (1950). Th e Indirect Assessment of

Social Attitudes,

Psychological

Bulletin. 47 (January),

15-38.

Conger, Anthony J. (1974), A Revised Definition for Sup-

pressor Variables: A Guid e to their Identification and

Interpretation. Educational and Psychological Mea-

suretnent.

34 (Spring). 35-46 .

Cote.

Joseph A. and M. Ronald Buckley (1988). Me asure-

ment Error and Theory Testing in Consumer Research:

An Illustration of the Importance of Construct Valida-

tion.

Journat of Consumer Research.

14 (March). 57 9-

582.

Davis, Harry L., Stephen J. Hoch. and E. K. Easton Ragsdale

(1986),

An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of

Spousal Predictions. Journal of Consumer Research. 13

(June).

25-37.

Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief Attitude, In-

tention, and

Behavior.

Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fornell. Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), Evalu ating

Structural Equ ation Models with Unobservable Variables

and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketitig R

search. 18 (February). 39-50.

Haire, Mason (1950). Projective Techn iques in Market

Research.

Journal of M arketing.

14 (April). 649-65

Haviena . William J. and Mo rris B. Holbrook (1986). T

Varieties of Consumption Experience: Comp aring T

Typologies of Emotion in Consumer Behavior.

Jour

of Consumer Research. 13 (December). 394-404.

Holmes. David S, (1968), Dimen sions of Projection.

P

chological Bulletin.

69 (April), 248-268.

Kassarjian, Harold H. (1974), Projective Meth od s.

Ilatidhook of Marketing Research,

ed. Rob ert Ferb

New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 3-85 to 3-100.

Kelman. Herbert C. (1961). Process of Opinion C hang

Public Opinion Qttarterly.

25 (Spring). 57-78.

Levy. Sidney J. (1981). Interp reting Consu mer M ytholo

A Structural Approach to Consumer Behavior, Jour

of M arketing.

45 (Summer).

49-61.

Maccoby, Eleanor E. and Nathan Maccoby (1954), Th e

terview: Tool of Social Science. in Handhook of So

Psychology. Vol. I, ed. Gardiner Lindzey. Cambrid

MA: Addison-Wesley. 4 49-4 87.

Mensch. Barbara S. and Denisc B. Kandel (1988), Un der

porting of Substance Use in a National Longitudi

Youth Cohort.

Public Opinion Q uarterly.

52 (Sprin

100-124.

Min iard, Paul W. and Joel B. Cohen (198 3). Mo deling P

sonal and Normative Influences on Behavior.

Jour

of Consumer Research.

10 (September), 169-180.

Park. C. Whan and V. Parker Lessig (1977), Stu den ts a

Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Referen

Group Influence.

Journal of Consumer Re.warch

(September). 102-110.

Paulhus. Delroy L. (1984), Two-C ompo nent Models of S

cially Desirable Respon ding.

Journal of Personality

Social

Psychology.

46 (March). 598-609.

Peltier, B. David and James A. Walsh (1990 ). An Inve

gation of Response Bias in the Chapman Scales.

Ed

cational and Psychological Measurement. 50 (Wint

803-815.

Peterson. Robert A. and Roger A. Kerin (198 1). Th e Qua

of Self-Report Data: Review and Synth esis, in

Rev

of M arketing, ed. Ben M. Enis and Kenneth J. Roeri

Chicago: American Marketing Association. 5-20.

Reyn olds. William M. (1982). Dev elopm ent of Reliable a

Valid Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social D

sirability

Sca\c. Journal of Clinical Psychology.

38 (

uary), l ' l9-125.

Robertson. Dan H. and R obert W. Joselyn (1974), Project

Techniques in Research.

Journal of Advertising R

.search.

14 (Octob er).

27-31.

Robinette, Randy L. (1991). Th e Relationship between

Marlowe-Crowne Form C and the Validity Scales of

MMPl,

Journal of Clinical Psychology.

47 (May).

399.

Rokeaeh. Milton (1979),

Understanding Human Values.

York: Free Press.

and Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach (1989), Stability a

Change in American Value Priorities,

American P

chologist. 44 (May). 775-784.

Rook. Dennis (1985). The Ritual Dimension of Consum

Behavior, Joutnal of Consumer Research. 12 (Dec

ber),

251-264.

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

13/14

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS 315

Sherwood. Gregory G. ( 98 I). "Self-serving Biases in Person and Judg em ent Processes in a Persona lity Predictio n

Perception: A Reexam ination of Projection as a Mech- i Ta sk," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52

anism of Defense." Psychological Bulletin, 90 (Novem- (April), 700-7 09.

her). 445-4 59. Westfall. Ralph L.. Harper W. Boyd. Jr.. and Donald T.

imon. Julian and Rita Simon (1975). "Th e Effect of Money Campbell (1957), "T he Use of Structured Techniques in

Incentives on Family Size: A Hypothetical-Question Motivation Rese arch," Journal of Marketing, 22 (Oc-

Study." Public pinion Quarterly. 38 (Winter). 585-595 . tober). 134-139.

teele. Howard (1964), "On the Validity of Indirect Que s- Zerb e. Wilfred J, and Delroy L, Pau lhus (1987). "Socially

uons.,' Journal of Mark eting Re.search, 2S (Augusi), 46- Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A

49 . Reconception." Academy of Management Review, 12

Ietlock, Phillip E, and Jae il Kim (1987), "Acco untability (April), 250-2 64.

8/9/2019 Fisher 1993 Jcr

14/14

fisher 1993 jcr

Documents