PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES
‘Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding
Delroy L. Paulhus
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
‘A recent two-factor model of socially desirable responding based on denial and
attribution components was reviewed and disputed. A second model distinguishing
self-deception and impression management components as reviewed and shown
10 be related to early factorsanalytic work on desirability scales. Two studies were
‘conducted to test the model. A factor analysis of commonly used desirability scales
revealed that the two major factors were best interpreted as Self-Deception and
Impression Management. A second study employed confirmatory factor analysis
to show that the attrbution/denial model does not fit the data as well as the selF-
eration in foreed compliance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psjchlogy 43, 838-852,
Pauthus, D.L. (1983). Spherespeciic measures of per-
‘ezied contol, Journal of Personality and Social Psy=
chology 44, 1333-1265.
Pauthus, D.L., & Campbell, J. (1983). The assessment
“of individual ferences in seldeeption and impression
‘management. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Brish Columbia, Vancouver
Paulus, D-L., & Christi, R. (1981). Spheres of contrat
609
‘A interactionist approach to assessment of perceived
control in H. M. Lefeourt (Ed), Research with the
Toes of coniral construct (Nol. , pp. 161-188). Now
York: Academic Press.
Ramanaiah, N.V, & Martin, H. J. (1980) On the t90-
‘dimensions nature of the Markwe-Crowne soil de
‘icabiiy scale, Journal of Personality Assessment, 44,
507-515
Rogers, TB. (1974). An analysis of two central stages
‘underlying responding to personality items: The sel
‘ferent decision and response selection. Journal of Re-
search in Prsonaiy 8. 128-138.
Sackeim, H. A. (1983). Sel-deception, self-esteem, and
‘depression: The adaptive value offing to oneself. In
51 Masing (Ed), Empncal studies of pechoanastical
theories (Val. pp. 101-187), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
Suckeim, H. A, & Gus, RC. (1978), Self-dception, sel
‘xnfronation, and consciousness In G.E, Sehwarte &
. Shapiro (E45). Consciousness and seffreglaion
“Advances in research (Val. 2, pp. 139-197). New York
Plenum Pres
Sackeim, H. A, & Gur, R. (1979). Se-dception, other
‘deception, and self-reported psychopathology. Journal
of Consuling and Clinical Pychology. 47, 213-215.
Schlenker, BR (1980) epresion management The sl
cancep, socal ideity and intemersonal relations
Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
‘Snyder M1974), Sel monitoring of expressive behaviog
Journal of Personality and Socal Psychology, 30,526
337,
Strickland, B.R. (1977). Approval motivation, In, Blas
(Ed), Personality variables m socal behavior (pp. 315-
356), New York: Ertbaum,
‘Taylor J.B. Carihers, M., & Coyne, L (1976). MMPI
Performance, response Set, and the “self-concept” y-
pothesis, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycho
14, 331-362,
Test A.,& Paulhus, DL (1983). The definition of set
Private and pubis