social desirability: the role of over-claiming, self ... · psychology science, volume 48, 2006...

Psychology Science, Volume 48, 2006 (3), p. 336-356

Social desirability: the role of over-claiming, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence

JESSICA MESMER-MAGNUS1, CHOCKALINGAM VISWESVARAN, SATISH DESHPANDE & JACOB JOSEPH

Abstract Socially desirable responding (SDR) has been widely studied with regards to personality

assessment due to fears it may attenuate the predictive validity of decisions made using such assessments (e.g., in personnel selection). A number of scales have been employed to assess individual differences in response distortion. We expand the nomological net for a popular measure of social desirability – the Marlowe-Crowne scale – by correlating individual dif-ferences in SDR to measures of over-claiming, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence. Survey results (n = 198) yielded a significant positive correlation between SDR and both self-esteem and emotional intelligence. Over-claiming was found to be negatively related to self-deceptive enhancement, a form of SDR, but not to SDR overall. Regression analyses revealed emotional intelligence explains significant variance in SDR, over and above that which is explained by self-esteem and over-claiming alone (∆R2 = .16, p < .01). Implications for personality assessment are discussed.

Key words: social desirability response distortion, marlowe-crowne, self-deceptive de-

nial, self-deceptive enhancement

1 Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, Department of Management & Marketing, University of North Carolina – Wil-

mington; Chockalingam Viswesvaran, Department of Psychology, Florida International University; Satish Deshpande, Department of Management, Western Michigan University; Jacob Joseph, Department of Man-agement, University of Alaska – Fairbanks.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, Department of Management & Marketing, UNC-Wilmington, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403; Email: [email protected] or to Chockalingam Viswesvaran, Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199; Email:[email protected]

Social desirability 337

The use of personality variables to explain individual behavior has increased in the 1990s (Hough & Ones, 2001). Personality variables are increasingly employed to predict outcomes in high-stakes situations such as personnel selection in organizations (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Rothstein, & Jackson, 1991). This in-creased use is probably due to the meta-analytic findings suggesting that personality vari-ables have considerable validity and utility for prediction of behavior across a variety of contexts (cf. Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert, 2005). Nev-ertheless, the potential for test-takers to fake their responses (in order to garner a valued outcome; e.g., a job offer) to a personality test through socially desirable responding (SDR) have led some to question the construct and criterion-related validity of such tests. Research exploring SDR suggests there may be individual differences in this form of response distor-tion (e.g., Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996). The purpose of this study is to expand our understanding of the role of individual differences in SDR by expanding the nomological net surrounding a widely used measure of social desirability. In the next sections, we review (1) some major issues associated with SDR for personality and high-stakes testing, (2) the con-tent domain of social desirability, and (3) the potential role of individual difference vari-ables, self-esteem, over-claiming tendency, and emotional intelligence, to predict SDR.

Major issues associated with socially desirable responding in high-stakes testing

Substantial evidence suggests that personality variables correlate with a number of per-

formance measures of importance to organizations (e.g., job performance, training perform-ance, absenteeism, organizational commitment, etc.; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Ones, Viswes-varan, & Schmidt, 1993; Tett et al., 1991). In addition, personality variables have been found to correlate with several important life outcomes such as occupational status, health out-comes and healthy lifestyle behaviors, managerial ability, and leadership effectiveness. As such, the assessment of personality has become a central and important function for psy-chologists. Assessments of personality in high-stakes situations (both for the individual assessed and other stakeholders) have raised concerns about motivations for socially desir-able responding and whether such socially desirable responding affects the decisions made on the basis of these scores (Mueller-Hanson, Heggstad, & Thornton, 2003). Broadly de-fined, socially desirable responding constitutes attempts by test-takers to answer test items in such a way as to obtain more desirable scores (whether better or worse) than would be achieved through honest responding (Paulhus, 1981; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). A critical assumption in psychological and personality testing is that test-takers accurately recollect relevant information assessed in test items and attempt to provide honest responses (McIntire & Miller, 2001). To the extent individuals provide socially desirable responses (rather than honest responses), the predictive validity of the scores could be affected.

It is important to note, however, that socially desirable responding becomes a problem for making decisions more so when there are individual differences in the ability and motiva-tion to respond in a socially desirable manner. If all test-takers engage in socially desirable responding by an equal amount, all scores will be elevated to the same extent. The relative rank-ordering of individuals on the personality trait being measured will not be affected.

J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph 338

Similarly, the correlation between personality scores and outcome variables will also remain unaffected. The only issue will be the need to revise cut-scores in light of the elevation in scores due to socially desirable responding (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996). Therefore, the issue of social desirability response bias in personality assessment boils down to potential individual differences in the ability and motivation to distort responses in a socially desirable way.

When there are individual differences in the ability and/or motivation to provide socially desirable responses (cf. McFarland, & Ryan, 2000), the relative rank ordering of the test-takers on the trait may be altered. In this case, the change is due to the correlation between personality scores and relevant outcomes as well as to the impact of socially desirable re-sponding. The validity and utility of personality assessments for predicting outcomes will be affected such that criterion-related validity data collected in experimental conditions may not be applicable to high-stakes situations (where there will likely be a greater motivation to engage in socially desirable responding). Similar concerns have been raised about the inter-pretability of the role of SDR from concurrent-validity designs as compared with true predic-tive-validity designs. Recognizing these psychometric realities, several test publishers have attempted to assess and control for individual differences in socially desirable responding. Scales are embedded in commercial personality inventories (e.g., the MMPI and CPI) to assess individual differences in socially desirable responding (SDR).

Importantly, current research evidence suggests personality test validities do not seem to be largely affected by SDR. Specifically, although Barrick and Mount (1996) found appli-cants did distort their responses to personality assessments through SDR (both via self-deception and impression management), these forms of distortion did not attenuate the pre-dictive validity of conscientiousness or emotional stability in personnel selection contexts. Similarly, using meta-analysis, Ones, Viswesvaran and Reiss (1996) concluded that statisti-cally controlling for SDR in assessments of the Big Five personality does not diminish their criterion-related validity for predicting job performance. Finally, Hough et al. (1990) found that when respondents were instructed to fake, this distortion was captured by validity scales, but the criterion-related validity of the personality constructs remained unchanged.

The content domain of SDR Early researchers believed SDR reflected a response style wherein test takers would alter

their answers to personality inventories in an effort to make themselves look better to others. However, Crowne and Marlowe (1964) conceptualized SDR as a substantive personality construct rather than simply a response style. Testing the distinction between substance and style, McCrae and Costa (1983) compared personality reports (on traits like neuroticism, agreeableness, extraversion, and openness to experience) made by individuals and their spouses. When corrected for SDR, correlations between spouse and respondent ratings (va-lidity coefficients) decreased. Similarly, Pauls and Stemmler (2003) found evidence support-ing the existence of both conscious and unconscious forms of response distortion. Piedmont, McCrae, Riemann, and Angleitner (2000) found correlations of self-other personality ratings were not improved with the statistical control of SDR. In sum, these studies suggest SDR should be given substantive consideration.


Several researchers have attempted to delineate the content domain of SDR. Paulhus (1984) argues for two underlying factors of social desirability: self-deception and impression management. Self deception refers to the positive view (even if inflated) that individuals have of themselves; impression management refers to the conscious effort by individuals to dissimulate and alter the opinions that others have of them (Paulhus & Reid, 1991). Specifi-cally, evidence suggests impression management is akin to a response style in low anonym-ity conditions whereas self-deception is response distortion motivated unconsciously because the individual actually believes in the high self-evaluation. This finding has led to the rec-ommendation that the effects of impression management should be statistically controlled while the effects of self-deception should not (Paulhus, 1981). Self-deception has been termed an “egoistic bias”; impression management a “moralistic bias” (Paulhus & John, 1998). Specifically, self-deception is characterized by an overconfidence in one’s social and intellectual abilities; impression management by claims of a heightened conformity to socie-tal and moral norms and a rejection of deviant impulses (Paulhus & John, 1988; Peterson et al., 2003). Paulhus (1984) and Paulhus and Reid (1991) further differentiated the self-deception response style into two components: (1) one component relates to the attribution of positive attributes (self-deceptive enhancement; SDE) and (2) the other component relates to the denial of negative attributes (self-deceptive denial; SDD). Subsequent factor analyses of these items confirmed a two-factor model for self-deception, with an intercorrelation be-tween factors ranging from .10 to .19 (Kroner & Weekes, 1996; Paulhus & Reid, 1991; Pauls & Stemmler, 2003; Roth, Harris, & Snyder, 1988). Self-deceptive denial has been found to correlate strongly with the impression management scale of the Balanced Inventory of De-sirable Responding (BIDR; Kroner & Weekes, 1996; Paulhus & John, 1998).

Factor analytic studies of social desirability scales have supported the partitioning of so-cial desirable responses styles into two clusters: Alpha (Block, 1965) and Gamma (Wiggins, 1964). Alpha, the general adjustment factor of the MMPI, represents the tendency to give desirable self-reports on measures of personality (Edwards, 1957). Gamma, the factor asso-ciated with “propagandistic bias” (Damarin & Messick, 1965), represents the distortion of self-descriptions to be consistent with those expected by a specific audience. Gough (1996; 1987) notes, however, that it may be difficult to differentiate between a profile that reflects exceptional psychological adjustment and one that is indicative of respondent faking. Mon-tross, Neas, Smith, and Hensley (1988) instructed volunteers to role play a higher level of gender identification than their “honest profiles” indicated (males were instructed to fake higher masculinity; females were instructed to fake higher femininity). Neither the Good Impression nor the Sense of Well-Being scales were able to detect this form of SDR. How-ever, research suggests that these scales are able to detect more general forms of respondent SDR (e.g., Dicken, 1960; Sandal & Enresen, 2002).

Consider some of the items used to assess the above described dimensions of SDR. The most current form of the BIDR (BIDR-7; Paulhus & John, 1998) uses items such as “I am a completely rational person.” to assess Self-Deceptive Enhancement, “I never read sexy books or magazines.” to assess Impression Management, and “Once I’ve made up my mind, other people can seldom change my opinion.” to assess Self-Deceptive Denial. The Mar-lowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC-SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) uses items like “I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble,” “My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant,” and “No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener.” The validity scales embedded within the MMPI assess the extent to


which respondents agree with relatively unrealistic or unusual statements (e.g., “I never get angry”, “It would be better if most laws were thrown away”). Similarly, the Good Impres-sion Scale embedded within the CPI assesses the extent to which the respondent exaggerates positive points and minimizes negative qualities. Specifically, items included require respon-dents to indicate the extent to which they have a high level of confidence, are self-assured, always behave in a socially approved manner, experience harmonious relationships with others, have few complaints about accomplishments, and minimal insecurities and anxieties. Clearly, high agreement on all positive attributes and low agreement with all negative attrib-utes would flag potential response distortion.

Individual differences potentially associated with socially desirable responding Our primary objective in this paper is to expand the nomological net of a popular and

widely used measure of SDR by relating scores of potentially associated individual differ-ence variables. Researchers have reported correlations between SDR and personality con-structs (cf. Furnham, 1986; Messick, 1960). For example, Pauls and Stemmler (2003) found positive correlations between respondent emotional stability, extraversion, and openness to experience, and unconscious response distortion (self-deceptive enhancement), and negative correlations between respondent agreeableness and conscientiousness, and conscious re-sponse distortion (impression management and self-deceptive denial). Ones et al. (1996) reported estimated population correlations of .18 and .13 between SDR and emotional stabil-ity and conscientiousness, respectively. Others (McCrae & Costa, 1983; Nicholson & Ho-gan, 1990) have argued these covariations indicate an overlap between SDR scales and per-sonality assessments. To the extent SDR is a personality trait rather than a response style, the practice of treating SDR variance as error is questionable (Ellingson et al., 1999). In this study, we examine scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) in relation to other potentially related individual difference measures, over-claiming, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence. We elaborate on these variables below.

Over-claiming. Over-claiming is a tendency to claim knowledge of impossible topics or events (Paulhus, Harms, Bruce, & Lysy, 2003), and is thought to be an automatic process, much like SDR, that is influenced independently by personality and cognitive elements (Williams, Paulhus, & Nathanson, 2002). Over-claiming may also result in part from a memory bias, wherein some individuals have a tendency to believe everything is familiar (Williams et al., 2002). Research suggests over-claiming may be a substantive personality trait as it appears to occur on an unconscious level. Over-claiming has been found to corre-late with neuroticism, cognitive ability, openness to experience, but not self-esteem or per-fectionism (Paulhus, Harns, Bruce, & Lysy, 2004; Schoderbek & Deshpande, 1996; Wil-liams et al., 2002). Over-claiming indexes an individuals threshold for claiming general knowledge, such that higher scores on measures of over-claiming indicate a lower threshold for claiming recognition of general knowledge concepts; Paulhus et al., 2004).

A review of the items included in scales that assess socially desirable responding and those that assess over-claiming suggests a common underlying theme. Specifically, respon-dents who obtain high scores on these measures are likely exaggerating their image in the eyes of others, or, in other words, are “over-claiming” what they are and what they are not. Research suggests some respondents are unwilling to admit ignorance to a topic about which


they feel they have (or should have) some expertise (Bradley, 1981). Specifically, individu-als who over-claim tend to indicate a high level of agreement with statements that are virtu-ally impossible or claim to have knowledge about topics that are, in reality, fictitious. Meas-ures of over-claiming ask respondents to indicate their degree of familiarity with (non-existent) items related to well-known or popular topics (e.g., movies, television programs, product labels, etc.; cf. Paulhus & Bruce, 1990; Phillips & Clancy, 1972; Randall & Fernan-dez, 1991) hence implying these individuals should have some knowledge about them. Indi-viduals who purport to know a great deal about a non-existent product, for example, are said to be over-claiming. It seems that the tendency to over-claim (or exaggerate one’s knowl-edge) would be highly related to one’s tendency to distort others’ impressions via socially desirable responding. Thus, we hypothesize that measures of SDR and each of its sub dimen-sions (self-deceptive enhancement and self-deceptive denial) and over-claiming will be correlated.

Hypothesis 1a. Socially desirable responding and over-claiming will be significantly and positively correlated. Hypothesis 1b. Self-deceptive enhancement and over-claiming will be significantly and positively correlated. Hypothesis 1c. Self-deceptive denial and over-claiming will be significantly and positively correlated.

Self-esteem. Socially desirable responding is also related to the self-esteem of the test-

takers. Self-esteem refers to how much value people place on themselves (Baumeister, 1993), and has been referred to as the evaluative component of self-knowledge. Researchers (e.g., Brown, 1986) have found that individuals high on self-esteem rated themselves higher than they rated others on a wide variety of personality traits, potential for superior perform-ance, level of motivation, ability, and social skill. Krueger (1998) argues that high self-esteem is influenced by deliberate or unwitting self-enhancement. In fact, one strategy used to measure self-esteem is to assess the narcissism of respondents (Emmons, 1984; Williams et al., 2002). The narcissism construct involves highly favorable view of oneself, which is likely to result in over-claiming and socially desirable responding by claiming unlikely vir-tues. It would be rare to find someone low on self-esteem to score high on a scale of SDR.

Not surprisingly, researchers have also found that individuals high on self-esteem rate themselves high on physical attractiveness. Importantly, there is no correlation between self-esteem and objective measures of physical attractiveness (cf. Harter, 1993). Similarly, posi-tive correlations have been found between self-esteem and self-reports of health (e.g., Glend-inning, 1998) job performance (e.g., Brockner, 1983), etc., but not between self-esteem and more objective measures of health, job performance, etc. Thus, we hypothesize that meas-ures of SDR and each of its sub dimensions (self-deceptive enhancement and self-deceptive denial) and self-esteem will be correlated.


Hypothesis 2a. Socially desirable responding and self-esteem will be significantly and posi-tively correlated. Hypothesis 2b. Self-deceptive enhancement and self-esteem will be significantly and posi-tively correlated. Hypothesis 2c. Self-deceptive denial and self-esteem will be significantly and positively correlated.

Emotional intelligence. Another variable included in our nomological net for social de-

sirability was emotional intelligence (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Emotional intelligence (EI), also referred to as emotional literacy, the emotional quotient, and personal, social, or inter-personal intelligence (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000), has received increasing attention since the 1995 publication of the Goleman book popularizing the construct. Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to perceive emotions and regulate them appropriately, and may be de-fined as the set of verbal and non-verbal abilities that enable a person to generate, recognize, express, understand, and evaluate their own and others’ emotions, in order to guide the nec-essary thinking and action to successfully cope with environmental demands and pressures (Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004).

Individuals high in EI are able to effectively understand and perceive emotion within themselves and others, and successfully regulate and utilize their emotions for purposeful action (Law et al., 2004). Emotional intelligence is known to be predictive of successful performance across employment, academic, and life settings (VanRooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). High EI individuals are more adept at reasoning through the (emotional) antecedents of their own and others’ behavior and using this information to guide thinking and action (Mayer & Salovey, 1993). Might emotional intelligence also have value for predicting ten-dency toward socially desirable responding? To the extent that tendency toward SDR stems from an individual’s ability to regulate, recognize, and utilize emotion and emotion-focused behavior (c.f., Hoffman, 1984), emotional intelligence will be related to SDR. Specifically, it seems individuals high in EI would be likely to attend to aspects of measures and situations wherein a socially desirable response would be valuable (to gaining outcomes of interest, for example). Thus, we hypothesize that measures of SDR and EI will be correlated. Further, since EI governs emotions and emotion-focused behaviors in socially desirable ways (e.g., temper regulation, self-motivation, goal-orientation, etc.), we suspect that emotional intelli-gence will explain variance in social desirability above and beyond that which can be ex-plained by self-esteem and over-claiming. A consistent relationship is expected for each of the sub dimensions of social desirability, self-deceptive enhancement and self-deceptive denial.

Hypothesis 3a. Socially desirable responding and emotional intelligence will be significantly and positively correlated. Hypothesis 3b. Self-deceptive enhancement and emotional intelligence will be significantly and positively correlated. Hypothesis 3c. Self-deceptive denial and emotional intelligence will be significantly and positively correlated.


Hypothesis 4a. Emotional intelligence will add significant incremental variance to prediction of socially desirable responding, over and above that which can be explained by over-claiming and self-esteem. Hypothesis 4b. Emotional intelligence will add significant incremental variance to prediction of self-deceptive enhancement, over and above that which can be explained by over-claiming and self-esteem. Hypothesis 4c. Emotional intelligence will add significant incremental variance to prediction of self-deceptive denial, over and above that which can be explained by over-claiming and self-esteem.

Methods Participants & Procedure

To examine these hypotheses, we surveyed 198 undergraduate students (45% male, 55%

female) solicited from undergraduate business administration and psychology courses in two mid-size universities located in the mid- and north-western regions of the United States and participated in this study in exchange for course credit. Participant age averaged 24 years old, and ranged from 17-52. Seventy-three percent were Caucasian, 4% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 10% Alaska Native/American Indian. Thirty-seven percent were currently employed on a full-time basis; the remaining were currently not em-ployed (31%) or employed on a part-time basis (31%). Participants reported having worked an average of 7.7 years, at least on a part-time basis (84% of the sample had worked for 10 or fewer years). Eighty-one participants (41%) reported having taken a college-level course in business ethics. Participants were asked to be candid when answering the survey, and were assured of their anonymity and confidentiality.

Measures Surveys included measures of social desirability, self-esteem, over-claiming, emotional

intelligence, and sample demographics. Scale reliabilities (coefficient alpha) for this sample are reported in Table 1.

Social desirability. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC-SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) was used to assess SDR. Beretvas, Meyers, and Leite (2002) identified over 1,000 articles and dissertations that had employed the MC-SDS since its inception. The full version of the MC-SDS is comprised of 33-items. Respondents rate the extent to which items are relatively consistent with their typical behaviors, attitudes, or actions. An example item is “I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble.” Items were scaled on a 4-point likert-type scale (4 = “mostly agree”; 1 = “mostly disagree”). Higher scores on this scale indicate greater socially desirable responding.

In addition to the global assessment of social desirability, we partitioned the MC-SDS into subscales reflecting the two sub dimensions of social desirability: self-deceptive en-


hancement and self-deceptive denial (Paulhus, 1984; Paulhus & Reid, 1991). This was ac-complished using guidelines established by Millham (1974) and Ramanaiah and Martin (1980). Specifically, social desirability sub-dimensions were formed by summing items representing attribution of socially desirable characteristics (self-deceptive enhancement; SDR-SDE) and those representing denial of socially undesirable characteristics (self-deceptive denial; SDR-SDD) as two separate scales. Items assessing the tendency toward self-deceptive denial have been found to strongly correlate with items assessing impression management, an overlapping element of social desirability (Paulhus & Reid, 1991).

Over-claiming. Over-claiming was assessed using a 10-item measure published by Ran-dall and Fernandes (1991) which was based on previous work on over-claiming by Paulhus (1989), Paulhus and Bruce (1990), and Phillips and Clancy (1972). Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which they are familiar with each of 10 fabricated items associated with five categories of potentially well-known topics/items (e.g., “How familiar are you with each of the following designer labels? Ocean City, Jones L.A.”). Categories included newly released movies, products, music albums, television programs, and designer label clothing. Items were scaled on a three-point scale, 3 = “Very Familiar” and 1 = “Not at All Familiar”. Scores ranged from 10-30. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency toward over-claiming.

Self-Esteem. Self-esteem was assessed using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965). Items were scaled on a 4-point likert-type scale (4 = “mostly agree”; 1 = “mostly disagree”). An example item is “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others.”

Emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence was assessed using a 16-item measure published by Law et al. (2004). The emotional intelligence scale purports to measure four components of emotional intelligence (i.e., self-emotion appraisal, other-emotion appraisal, use of emotion, and regulation of emotion). Sample items for each of the sub-scales are “I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time” (self-emotion appraisal), “I am a good observer of other’s emotions” (other-emotion appraisal), “I am a self-motivating person” (use of emotion), and “I am quite capable of controlling my own emo-tions” (regulation of emotion). Items were scaled on a 4-point likert-type scale (4 = “mostly agree”; 1 = “mostly disagree”). Descriptive statistics and scale reliability for each subscale are also reported.

In addition to the above three variables, we also collected demographic data as potential control variables. Given research (cf. Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998; Sutton & Farrall, 2005) suggesting gender differences in SDR, we controlled for gender of the test takers. Since our participants were college students who may have been exposed to courses in ethics wherein social desirability, faking, or related topics were potentially discussed, we controlled for whether students had ever taken such an ethics class. Finally, given empirical research sug-gesting age-related differences in impulsivity, we controlled for respondent age (e.g., Ray & Lovejoy, 2003; Thomsen, Mehlsen, Vidik, Sommerlund, & Zachariae, 2005).


Results Correlation and regression analyses were employed to test the hypotheses of interest.

Descriptive statistics, correlations, and scale reliabilities for the study variables are presented in Table 1. Scale reliabilities for the measured variables ranged from .74 for the MC-SDS to .91 for over-claiming. Correlations suggest females are somewhat more likely to engage in self-deceptive enhancement (SDR-SDE), older individuals are more likely to engage in denial of socially undesirable characteristics (SDR-SDD), and individuals who have taken a course in ethics are less likely to engage in enhancement but not denial. SDR was signifi-cantly and positively correlated with age, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence, but not with over-claiming. The correlation between over-claiming and SDR was r = -.05 (p > .05). However, over-claiming and SDR-SDE were significantly, negatively related, suggesting individuals high in SDE were actually less likely to overclaim. Thus, we found partial sup-port for our hypothesis that over-claiming is an underlying factor in SDR. The correlation between self-esteem and SDR was .20 (p < .01), providing support for hypothesis 2 which suggested individuals high in self-esteem are somewhat more likely to engage in SDR. Inter-estingly, it appears high self-esteem individuals are somewhat more likely to engage in de-nial (SDD) than enhancement (SDE). Finally, the correlation between SDR and emotional intelligence was .44 (p < .01), suggesting high EI individuals are also more likely to engage in SDR. This pattern was seen for each sub-dimension of SDR. However, the correlation between EI and SDE was stronger than with SDD (r = .48 and .23, respectively). Each sub-dimension of emotional intelligence yielded similar positive correlations with social desir-ability. Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported. Importantly, the sub dimensions of SDR (denial and enhancement) share only a small portion of overlapping variance (r = .24), providing support for Paulhus and Reid’s (1991) argument for two underlying dimensions of social desirability, attribution and denial.

Not only was over-claiming not correlated with SDR, it was also not significantly corre-lated with emotional intelligence (nor with any sub-dimensions of EI) suggesting EI has no bearing on an individual’s tendency or decision to over-claim. An interesting finding was the negative correlation between over-claiming and self-esteem (r = -.16, p < .05), suggesting individuals low in self-esteem are somewhat more likely to over-claim. This relationship is opposite that of SDR and self-esteem, wherein individuals with high self-esteem were found to be more likely to engage in SDR. In other words, high self-esteem individuals appear to be less likely to overclaim but more likely to engage in SDR, particularly denial of socially undesirable characteristics. Self-esteem and EI were significantly and positively correlated, suggesting individuals high in EI also tend to be high in self-esteem.

Hypothesis 4 proposed that EI would explain significant variance in socially desirable re-sponding, over and above that which can be explained by over-claiming and self-esteem. Hierarchical regression analysis was employed to test this proposition. The results of this analysis for overall SDR are presented in Table 2. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results for each sub-dimension of SDR. In the first step, respondent age and ethics course history were entered as control variables. (Respondent sex was omitted as a control variable as it was not found to correlate with SDR). These variables explained 7% of the variance in SDR (p < .01). Self-esteem and over-claiming were added in the second step. These variables ex-


Tabl

e 1:

D

escr

iptiv

e St

atis

tics a

nd C

orre

latio

ns fo

r Stu

dy V

aria

bles

Not

e. N

=19

8; †

indi

cate

s cor

rela

tions

sign

ifica

nt a

t the

.10

leve

l; *

indi

cate

s cor

rela

tion

is si

gnifi

cant

at t

he .0

5 le

vel;

** in

dica

tes c

orre

latio

n is

si

gnifi

cant

at .

01 le

vel.

The

vari

able

“se

x” w

as c

oded

1 fo

r mal

e an

d 2

for f

emal

e. E

thic

s cou

rse

ever

take

n w

as c

oded

0 fo

r no

and

1 fo

r yes

.


plained an additional 6% variance in SDR (p < .01). In the final step, emotional intelligence was added to assess incremental variance in SDR over self-esteem, over-claiming, and the control variables. This model explained 28% of the variance in SDR (p < .01), for a change in explained variance of 16% attributable to EI (p < .01). Thus, hypothesis 4 was supported.

Table 2: Hierarchical regression results for socially desirable responding using key study variables

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Age .20** .21** .20** Ethics course taken? -.19* -.17* -.18** Self-esteem .23** .02 Over-claiming .13† .06 Emotional Intelligence .45** Total R2 .07** .13** .28** ∆ R2 .06** .16** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Table 3: Hierarchical regression results for SDR – self-deceptive enhancement using key study variables

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Age .13† .14† .13† Ethics course taken? -.23** -.22** -.24** Self-esteem .10 -.13† Over-claiming .16* .08 Emotional Intelligence .49** Total R2 .07** .09** .28** ∆ R2 .03† .19** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Table 4: Hierarchical regression results for SDR – self-deceptive denial using key study variables

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Age .21** .22** .22** Ethics course taken? -.09 -.07 -.08 Self-esteem .26** .14† Over-claiming .08 .04 Emotional Intelligence .27** Total R2 .05* .11** .17** ∆ R2 .07** .06** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01


Importantly, when EI was added to the equation, self-esteem and over-claiming were no longer significant predictors of SDR. Hierarchical regression results reveal similar findings for the role of EI in enhancement and denial forms of social desirability (i.e., the change in explained variance attributable to EI was equal to 19% for SDE and 6% for SDD, both sig-nificant at the p < .01 level).

Since emotional intelligence was a significant predictor of social desirable responding over and above self-esteem and over-claiming, we conducted a subsequent hierarchical re-gression analysis to examine the effects of the sub-dimensions of emotional intelligence on social desirable responding (and its sub-dimensions), controlling for the effects of age and ethics courses taken. In the first step, age and ethics course taken were added as controls. In the second step, the sub-dimensions of EI (self-emotions appraisal, other-emotions appraisal, use of emotion, and regulation of emotion) were added. The sub-dimensions of EI explained 22% additional variance over the control variables (p < .01) for socially desirable respond-ing. This model accounts for a total of 29% of the variance in SDR (p < .01), with the most important dimensions being emotion regulation, use of emotion, and other-emotions ap-praisal. Similar patterns were found for the role of EI sub-dimensions in explaining the self-deceptive enhancement and self-deceptive denial forms of social desirability. The detailed results of these analyses are reported in Tables 5-7.

Discussion

In this paper we investigated the nomological net of a popular measure of socially desir-

able responding. Specifically, we investigated the correlates of social desirability with the constructs of over-claiming, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence. Results suggested emo-tional intelligence, over-claiming, and self-esteem are potentially valuable predictors of socially desirable responding. Interestingly, while EI was found to be positively correlated with both sub-dimensions of SDR, over-claiming and self-esteem were each related to only one element of socially desirable responding. Specifically, high self-esteem individuals were more likely to deny socially undesirable characteristics than low self-esteem individuals, but were no more likely to claim they engaged in socially desirable behaviors. However, indi-viduals high in over-claiming were found to be less likely to engage in self-deceptive en-hancement. This suggests individuals likely to engage in over-claiming of knowledge are less likely to claim socially desirable attributes. Since social desirability, over-claiming, and self-esteem have been found to correlate with scores on personality and ability tests (cf. Barrick & Mount, 1996; Hough et al., 1990; Paulhus et al., 2003; Paulhus & Harms, 2004; Williams et al., 2002), our findings suggest it may be important to assess each factor in high-stakes testing situations.

Socially desirable responding and emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence is known to be a valuable predictor of job performance, academic

achievement, burnout, and stress (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). Regression results sug-gest it may also be a valuable predictor of individual tendency toward socially desirable responding. If this is the case, what might be the implication of this finding for personnel


Table 5: Hierarchical regression results for socially desirable responding using emotional intelligence

sub-dimensions

Step 1 Step 2 Age .20** .19** Ethics course taken? -.18* -.18** EI – Self Emotions Appraisal .03 EI – Other Emotions Appraisal .17* EI – Use of Emotion .18* EI – Regulation of Emotion .29** Total R2 .07** .29** ∆ R2 .22** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Table 6: Hierarchical regression results for SDR – self-deceptive enhancement using emotional

intelligence sub-dimensions

Step 1 Step 2 Age .13† .13† Ethics course taken? -.23** -.23** EI – Self Emotions Appraisal .07 EI – Other Emotions Appraisal .15* EI – Use of Emotion .15* EI – Regulation of Emotion .27** Total R2 .06** .26** ∆ R2 .20** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Table 7: Hierarchical regression results for SDR – self-deceptive denial using emotional intelligence

sub-dimensions

Step 1 Step 2 Age .21** .21** Ethics course taken? -.08 -.09 EI – Self Emotions Appraisal -.02 EI – Other Emotions Appraisal .14† EI – Use of Emotion .16* EI – Regulation of Emotion .22** Total R2 .05* .17** ∆ R2 .12** Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. † p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01


selection and other high-stakes testing contexts? Specifically, it seems that high EI individu-als are likely to be valuable contributors to an organization (Goleman, 1995; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004), but they may also be inclined to engage in SDR, response distortion, and faking on measures of personality, ability tests, interviews, etc. An appealing explana-tion for this tendency is that individuals high in EI know when, how, and where to engage in SDR in order to exact desirable outcomes. The EI sub-dimensions that explain the most variance in SDR, emotion regulation, use of emotions, and other-emotion appraisal, describe individuals who are able to make use of their emotions by controlling and directing them toward constructive activities (Law et al., 2004). These aspects of an emotionally intelligent individual would logically be related to socially desirable behavioral tendencies. For exam-ple, consider the following items from the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale: “I have never intensely disliked someone”, “There have been times when I feel like rebelling against people in authority, even though I knew they were right (reverse scored)”, “I don’t find it particularly difficult to get along with loud-mouthed, obnoxious people”, “I am al-ways courteous, even to people who are disagreeable”, “I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off”, “I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings”. A person high in EI, particularly one who is adept at using and regulating emotion would be inclined to agree with these statements either because (1) they believe they behave in consis-tent ways or (2) they know better than low EI individuals that affirmative responses to these items are more desirable. Importantly, when the EI sub-dimensions were used to predict SDR and its sub-dimensions, EI – Self-Emotions Appraisal was not found to significantly predict any aspect of SDR. Although this is an interesting finding, as one would expect a high EI individual would be more self-aware with regards to self-deceptive tendencies, it does make sense in light of Paulhus and John’s (1991) argument that self-deceptive tenden-cies occur at an unconscious level, such that individuals engaging in self-deception actually believe their responses.

On the other hand, it may be that high EI individuals actually do tend to behave in more socially desirable ways. If this is the case, and high EI individuals actually behave in a more socially desirable manner (than low EI individuals), then these individuals’ high scores on social desirability measures may not actually indicate an instance of response distortion. An important finding with relation to this point, however, was that high EI individuals were more likely to engage in self-deceptive enhancement. Past research results suggest the ten-dency to falsely attribute socially desirable characteristics may operate at an unconscious level, rather than deliberately (e.g., Pauls & Stemmler, 2003). If this is the case, and high EI individuals are unknowingly self-deceiving with regards to positive attributes, the possibility they actually behave in more socially desirable ways than low EI individuals seems less likely. Future research might make use of objective measures of socially desirable behavior and emotional intelligence to address this research question.

An alternate explanation for the correlations between EI and SDR and its sub-dimensions is that EI is susceptible to social desirability response bias, and that an individual who tends to respond in a socially desirable manner will inflate their responses to measures of emo-tional intelligence. However, respondents in this study were given no motivation to distort their responses to emotional intelligence items. Specifically, they were guaranteed anonym-ity and were promised no reward for appearing to be more emotionally intelligent. Hough et al. (1990) found personality traits were more likely altered by social desirability bias when social desirability pressures were high. Also, the correlations between EI and sub dimensions


of SDR were different in magnitude such that deceptive enhancement was more strongly correlated with EI than deceptive denial. Research suggests individuals who engage in de-ceptive enhancement actually believe their responses to be true (Pauls & Stemmler, 2003). This taken in concert with meta-analytic evidence supporting a correlation between EI and performance outcomes (VanRooy & Viswesvaran, 2004), suggests the impact of social de-sirability bias on predictive validity of EI is relatively small.

Socially desirable responding, over-claiming, and self-esteem It is interesting to note the pattern of correlations between SDR, over-claiming, and self-

esteem. Specifically, individuals high in self-esteem are more likely to engage in SDR (par-ticularly, deceptive denial of socially undesirable characteristics); individuals low in self-esteem are more likely to engage in over-claiming. This pattern raises the potential that socially desirable responding and over-claiming (both of which are arguably forms of re-sponse distortion) are motivated by different aspects of personality or cognition. An individ-ual high in self-esteem has a high opinion of themselves and probably of their abilities. In a high-stakes assessment situation (as in personnel selection, for example) this individual would feel confident that others (e.g., interviewers) would recognize their superior knowl-edge and ability (from a resume, application blank, or interview), and thus they would not feel the need to exaggerate in this area. Rather, they would focus on demonstrating their potential for being a good organizational citizen, team player, etc. (which are less easily discernible from the more objective selection tools), and may therefore exaggerate their socially desirable tendencies, or at least deny socially undesirable ones. Low self-esteem individuals, however, have a low opinion of themselves and of their abilities. They may fear their inferiority will be very visible to others by their responses regarding knowledge and ability in resumes, application blanks, and interviews. Therefore, they may try to “pad” their responses by over-claiming their knowledge. So, for example, in an interview, if they are asked about the extent of their knowledge of some job-related topic, they would hesitate to reveal lack of knowledge, and would instead over-claim.

Another possibility is that since emotional intelligence and over-claiming are not related (yet EI and SDR are related), over-claiming may be a tactic more readily adopted by indi-viduals who are relatively unskilled in the technique or benefits of socially desirable re-sponding. Specifically, SDR yields perceptions that an individual operates within the ex-pected social norms of a population, which is arguably an impression that an emotionally intelligent individual would like to present; whereas over-claiming yields perceptions that the individual has a great wealth of knowledge, an impression that would be comparatively less relevant/important to the emotionally intelligent individual.

Finally, a recent meta-analysis reported a correlation between self-esteem and emotional stability of .66 (Judge & Bono, 2001), suggesting emotionally stable individuals typically have higher self-esteem. Further, emotional stability has been found to correlate with decep-tive self-enhancement, a form of socially desirable responding (Pauls & Stemmler, 2003). However, it is interesting to note that in our study, self-esteem and deceptive self-enhancement were not correlated, though self-esteem and deceptive denial were related. This finding lends support to the notion that emotional stability and social desirability have unique underpinnings.


Limitations and directions for future research Clearly, over-claiming has implications for the predictive validity of personnel selection

methods (i.e., application blanks, interviews, resumes). Future research might examine the potential for individual differences in SDR and over-claiming to be used in concert within personnel selection systems. Further, other measures of over-claiming exist in the extant literature (e.g., Phillips & Clancy, 1972; Paulhus et al., 2003). Future research may benefit from a triangulation of over-claiming measures and a replication of our findings using alter-nate over-claiming scales.

An important point drawn from this study is that individuals who are high in emotional intelligence may be likely to respond in a socially desirable manner in high-stakes personal-ity assessments. While this is relatively disconcerting, it is important to note that the predic-tive validity of EI for job performance has been replicated in a number of studies (VanRooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). Further, our results suggest high EI and high self-esteem individuals are not likely to over-claim their job relevant knowledge or ability. Since job-relevant knowledge is an important predictor of job performance, this finding offers additional com-fort to those concerned about the effects of response distortion in EI and personality assess-ments.

A key limitation of this study is that our database was comprised of undergraduate stu-dents with little incentive to fake their responses to survey items. It certainly could be argued that there will be greater pressure to provide socially desirable responding in high-stakes testing such as personnel selection. Although such increased pressure for providing SDR will affect the mean scores in SDR scales, it is not clear how the correlations with external vari-ables will be affected. On one hand, the correlations could be reduced due to greater range restriction in scores compared to the correlations reported here. Alternately, the correlations could be larger since the possibility of random error is likely to be reduced in high-stakes assessment. However, it is also pertinent to note that the reliabilities of assessments in this study was respectable, with reliability values ranging from .74 for assessing SDR to .91 for assessing over-claiming.

Another potential limitation is relative lack of variability in over-claiming by respon-dents in our sample. Specifically, few respondents claimed to have very high levels of fa-miliarity with all of the fabricated items. This finding may be a function of our study popula-tion or survey contents. For example, Schoderbeck and Deshpande (1996) reported a correla-tion between SDR and over-claiming of .17 in their study of the ethical characteristics of 174 managerial employees of a non-profit organization. This larger correlation may have been a function of the differences between student and working samples. Future research on the nomological net of SDR should attempt to replicate our findings using different sample types.

Another avenue fruitful for future research involves replicating our results in other cul-tures. Social desirability in an individualistic culture such as the United States may correlate with claiming unlikely virtues and high levels of (narcissistic) self-esteem, but this pattern may differ in other countries, especially those with more a collectivistic outlook (Hofstede, 1980). The pattern of relationships may also depend on the role of power distance, mascu-linity/femininity differences, uncertainty avoidance, etc.


Conclusion In this paper, we investigated the correlations between several constructs and an overall

score of social desirability. We found self-esteem and emotional intelligence are potentially valuable predictors of socially desirable responding as they shared common variance in our study. Further, we found that over-claiming, a tendency toward over-emphasizing expertise and familiarity with topics, is not correlated with social desirability. Rather, results suggest individual differences in social desirability and over-claiming tendencies may play a unique role in high-stakes personality assessments.

Researchers (cf. Paulhus, 1984) have argued for more nuanced approach to understand-ing the construct of social desirability. Although we acknowledge the value of assessing the distinct facets of socially desirable responding, for practical applications such as personality assessment in the workplace, our emphasis was on the global individual differences in the ability and motivation to provide socially desirable responding. Nevertheless, future research needs to consider the nomological net of the different facets of socially desirable responding. Our findings suggest that a valid nomological net of SDR will include not only the micro focus of correlations between constructs measured at the individual level but also a more meso-level approach.

References

Barrick, M. R, & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261-272.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self regard. Plenum Press: New York. Beretvas, S. N., Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability generalization study of the

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 570-589.

Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets. New York: Appleton. Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Diagnostic test usage by forensic psychologists in

emotional injury cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 252-259. Bradley, J. V. (1981). Overconfidence in ignorant experts. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,

17(2), 82-84. Brockner, J., & Guare, J. (1983). Improving the performance of low self-esteem individuals: An

attributional approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 642-656. Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of the self and others: Self-enhancing biases in social

judgments. Social Cognition, 4, 353-376. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of

psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. Dicken, C. F. (1960). Simulated patterns on the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 7(1), 24-31. Dulewicz, W., & Higgs, M. (1999). Can emotional intelligence be measured and developed?

Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 20, 242-252.


Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variables in personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden Press.

Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291-300.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam.

Gough, H. G. (1996). California Psychological Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory: Administrator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Groth-Marnat, G. (1999). Handbook of Psychological Assessment, 3rd Ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and adolescents. In R. F. Baumeister, Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard. Plenum Press: New York.

Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Empathy, its limitations, and its role in a comprehensive moral theory. In J. Gewirtz & W. Kurtines (Eds.), Morality, moral development, and moral behavior (pp. 283-302). New York: Wiley.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validity of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.

Hough, L.M. , & Ones, D. S. (2001). The Structure, Measurement, Validity, and Use of Personality Variables in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology: Vol. 1 (pp. 233-277), London, UK: Sage.

Hurtz, G. M; & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92.

Kroner, D. G., & Weekes, J. R. (1996). Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(3), 323-333.

Krueger, J. (1998). Enhancement bias in descriptions of self and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 505-516.

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483-496.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442.

McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812-821.

Millham, J. (1974). Two components of need for approval score and their relationship to cheating following success and failure. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 378-392.

Montross, J. F., Neas, F., Smith, C. L., & Hensley, J. H. (1988). The effects of role-playing high gender identification on the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 160-164.


Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggstad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. III (2003). Faking and selection: Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 348-355.

Murphy, K. R., & Dzieweczynski, J. L. (2005). Why don’t measures of broad dimensions of personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18(4), 343-357.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 245-269.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Personality at work: Raising awareness and correcting misconceptions. Human Performance, 18(4), 389-404.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.

Paulhus, D. L. (1981). Control of social desirability in personality inventories: Principal-factor deletion. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 383-388.

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.

Paulhus, D. L. (1989). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197-1208.

Paulhus, D. L., & Bruce, N. (1990). Validation of the OCQ: An initial study. Presented at the meeting of Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa.

Paulhus, D. L., & Harms, P. D. (2004). Measuring cognitive ability with the over-claiming technique. Intelligence, 32, 297-314.

Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Bruce, M. N., & Lysy, D. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique: Measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 890-904.

Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1025-1060.

Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307-317.

Pauls, C. A., & Stemmler, G. (2003). Substance and bias in social desirability responding. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 263-275.

Pedhauzer, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Peterson, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Driver-Linn, E., Seguin, J. R., Higgins, D. M., Arseneault, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (2003). Self-deception and failure to modulate responses despite accruing evidence of error. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 205-223.

Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J. (1972). Some effects of social desirability in survey studies. American Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 921-940.

Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582-593.

Ramanaiah, N.V., & Martin, H. J. (1980). On the two-dimensional nature of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 507-514.


Randall, D. M., & Fernandez, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 805-817.

Ray, J. J., & Lovejoy, F. H. (2003). Age-related social desirability responding among Australian women. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(5), 669-671.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Roth, D.L., Harris, R. N., & Snyder, C. R. (1988). An individual differences measure of attributive and repudiative tactics of favorable self-presentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6(2), 159-170.

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence: Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.

Sandal, G. M., & Endresen, I. M. (2002). The sensitivity of the CPI Good Impression Scale for detecting “faking good” among Norwegian students and job applicants. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(4), 304-311.

Schoderbeck, P. P., & Deshpande, S. P. (1996). Impression management, over-claiming, and perceived unethical conduct: The role of male and female managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 409-414.

Sutten, R. M., & Farrall, S. (2005). Gender, social desirable responding, and the fear of crime: Are women really more anxious about crime? British Journal of Criminology, 45(2), 212-224.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.

Thomsen, D. K., Mehlsen, M. Y., Vidik, A., Sommerlund, B., & Zachariae, R. (2005). Age and gender differences in negative affect – Is there a role for emotion regulation? Personality and Individual Differences, 38(8), 1935-1946.

VanRooy, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71-95.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analysis of fakability estimates: Implications for personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 197-210.

Wiggins, J. S. (1964). Convergences among stylistic response measures from objective personality tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(3), 551-562.

Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Nathanson, C. (2002). The nature of over-claiming: Personality and cognitive factors. A poster presented to the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

social desirability: the role of over-claiming, self ... · psychology science, volume 48, 2006...

Documents