See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230034577

Social Desirability Bias: A Neglected Aspect of Validity Testing

Article  in  Psychology and Marketing · February 2000

DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200002)17:2<79::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-0

CITATIONS READS

564 18,794

2 authors:

Maryon F. King Gordon C. Bruner

Southern Illinois University Carbondale Southern Illinois University Carbondale
9 PUBLICATIONS   695 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   3,977 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marketing Scales Handbook - Volume 9 View project

Dr. Bruner's Pet Peeve Posts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maryon F. King on 07 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text

Top of CT
Social Desirability Bias:
A Neglected Aspect of
Validity Testing
Maryon F. King and Gordon C. Bruner
Southern Illinois University

ABSTRACT

A tremendous growth in the use of multi-item scales in marketing

research has occurred over the past two decades. Concurrently,
there is increasing concern about the quality of these measures.
Although the majority of marketing-related articles now discuss the
reliability of the scales administered, few address the issue of scale
validity. One aspect of scale validity, which should be of particular
concern to marketing researchers, is the potential threat of
contamination due to social-desirability response bias. However, a
careful review of nearly 20 years of published research suggests that
social-desirability bias has been consistently neglected in scale
construction, evaluation, and implementation. The purpose of this
article is to discuss the nature of such a bias, methods for
identifying, testing for and/or preventing it, and how these methods
can and should be implemented in consumer-related research.
䉷 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

As the field of marketing matures there is increasing attention focused

upon the quality of research being conducted by marketing researchers
(Arndt, 1985; Brinberg & Hirschman, 1987; Hunt, 1990; Jacoby, 1978;
Muncy & Fisk, 1987; Skipper & Hyman, 1987; 1990). In turn, the valid-
ity of the operational measures used to generate research data largely
determines the validity of the findings reported in that research
(Abrams, 1971; Churchill, 1979; Malholtra, 1988; Peter, 1979; Rentz, Base of text

Psychology & Marketing Vol. 17(2):79–103 (February 2000)

䉷 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0742-6046/00/020079-25
79 Base of DF
MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
1988). Among the most widely used measurement techniques in mar- Base of text
keting is the multi-item summated scale. In order to be effective in the
generation of interpretable research data, such scales must, at a mini-
mum, be unidimensional, reliable, and internally valid. Most research-
ers would readily acknowledge their desire for, and commitment to, the
implementation of valid measures; yet previous reviews of scale usage
in the marketing literature suggest that little effort is typically ex-
pended to assess scale validity (Bruner, 1993; Peter, 1981; Peter &
Churchill, 1986).
One potentially important threat to the validity of research employ-
ing multi-item scales is social desirability bias. The pervasive tendency
of individuals to present themselves in the most favorable manner rel-
ative to prevailing social norms and mores has threatened to compro-
mise research findings in the social sciences for more than 50 years.
Provision of socially desirable responses in self-report data may lead to
spurious correlations between variables as well as the suppression or
moderation of relationships between the constructs of interest (Ganster,
Hennesey, & Luthans, 1983). To the extent that the effects of social
desirability bias represent a source of influence which obscures mea-
surement of the primary relationships under investigation, validity may
be compromised (Malhotra, 1988). Hence, it is incumbent upon re-
searchers to identify situations in which data may be systematically
biased toward respondents’ perceptions of what is socially acceptable,
to determine the extent to which this represents contamination of the
data, and to implement the most appropriate methods of control.
Social-desirability bias (SDB) is considered to be one of the most com-
mon and pervasive sources of bias affecting the validity of experimental
and survey research findings in psychology and the social sciences (Ned-
erhof, 1985; Paulhus, 1991; Peltier & Walsh, 1990). Although identifi-
cation and control of SDB has presented an ongoing challenge for re-
searchers in most social science disciplines (cf. Fisher, 1993), only a
handful of articles published in marketing research journals have re-
ported attempts to systematically identify contamination from this
source. Considering the frequent use of self-report measures in mar-
keting research, as well as the social and normative implications inher-
ent in many marketing investigations, the low incidence of routine test-
ing for this potential confound may indicate that marketing researchers
have underestimated the importance of SDB in interpretation and ap-
plication of research findings.
Clearly, a prima fascia case may be made to argue the importance of
identifying and controlling for SDB in marketing research. The purpose
of this article is to facilitate systematic consideration of this issue in
future research activities by exploring the nature of social desirability
bias within the context of marketing. After reviewing the historical de-
velopment of the SDB construct, situations in which SDB may pose a short
significant threat and methods for managing SDB are examined. The standard

80 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
few occasions on which tests for SDB have been conducted in the mar- Base of text
keting discipline are discussed, and the role of social desirability bias
within the marketing domain is evaluated. Finally, recommendations
for improving the quality of psychometric measures employed in future
marketing research are identified.

REVIEW OF THE SOCIAL-DESIRABILITY BIAS CONCEPT

Identification and Development of the SDB Construct

in Psychology
It has long been recognized that the manner in which subjects respond
to experimental stimuli may be influenced by non-test-relevant re-
sponse determinants (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell,
1979; Nunnally, 1967). This problem has particularly plagued person-
ality researchers in the field of psychology. A major source of response
distortion identified early on by researchers in this area is the tendency
for subjects to “fake good” or “fake bad” responses to personality test
items (Meehl & Hathaway, 1946), a tendency which has also been re-
ferred to as a “lying factor” (Edwards, Diers, & Walker, 1962).1
The presence of such a factor was initially considered to be a function
of the subjects’s test behavior rather than the tendency of the test items
to elicit particular responses. To overcome the effects of this behavioral
response on the part of the subject, personality researchers constructed
special scales to detect and/or suppress these faking tendencies. In an
attempt to broaden the application of this concept to include response
bias evoked both by the actual test items as well as by the test behavior
of the subject, Edwards (1957) proposed the concept of social-desirability
bias. Social-desirability bias is the tendency of subjects to respond to
test items in such a way as to present themselves in socially acceptable
terms in order to gain the approval of others. Such a response tendency
may be evoked by the nature of the experimental or testing setting, the
individual subject’s motives (e.g., achievement, approval, or dependence
goals), or the subjects’ expectancies regarding the evaluative conse-
quences of their behavior.
The role played by SDB in suppressing or obscuring relationships
among variables and in producing artificial relationships among inde-
pendent and dependent variables has been widely established in psy-
chological literature (Ballard, Crino, & Rubenfeld, 1988; Crino, Sro-

1
Although SD bias is the focus of this article, it is not the only methodological check needed to
assess the internal validity of measures. Admittedly, social-desirability bias is but one of many
response biases that may affect behavioral measures (cf. Paulhus, 1991). However, SD bias has
proven to be particularly troublesome in behavioral sciences research and has received more
attention than any other potential source of bias. Moreover, it is a particularly salient concern short
when assessing the validity of consumer-behavior measures. standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 81 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
bada, Rubenfeld, & White, 1983; Dicken, 1963; Ganster et al., 1983). Base of text
Investigators have variously addressed the question of data contami-
nation from both the perspective of SDB as a behavioral correlate, as in
studies on personality (Edwards, 1957) and psychopathy (Meehl &
Hathaway, 1946), as well as a threat to the validity of the scales mea-
suring constructs of primary interest, as in studies of the MMPI (Robi-
nette, 1991) and the Chapman scales (Peltier & Walsh, 1990). Of par-
ticular importance to marketing researchers are studies published in
the psychology literature that have found significant relationships be-
tween the SDB scales and attitudes (Lenski & Leggett, 1960), attitude
change (Bagozzi, 1985; Buckhout, 1965a, 1966; Goldsmith, 1989; Green-
baum, 1966; Miller, Doob, Butler, & Marlowe), consumer satisfaction
(Sabourin, Bourgeois, Gendreau, & Morval 1989), dyadic interactions
(Buckhout, 1965b), innovativeness (Goldsmith, 1987), and risk-taking
behavior (Kogan, 1964; Kogan & Wallach, 1967). Hence, it is reasonable
to expect that many areas of marketing, particularly topics in consumer
behavior, would subject to social desirability bias.
Today, SDB is considered to be one of the most common and pervasive
sources of bias affecting the validity of experimental and survey re-
search findings in psychology (Nederhof, 1985; Paulhus, 1991; Peltier &
Walsh, 1990). In fact, the vast majority of research investigations of
attitudes, opinions, and personality that have been reported in psy-
chology journals in the last four decades have simultaneously admin-
istered social-desirability scale items as part of the validation process.
A recently published monograph on scale development for applied social
research recommends routinely testing for SDB during scale construc-
tion (DeVellis, 1991). The widespread use of SD scales is based on the
belief of psychology researchers that it is “essential to discriminate be-
tween the effects of item content and the needs of subjects to present
themselves in a socially desirable (or undesirable) light” (Crowne &
Marlowe, 1960, p. 21).

Measurement of Social-Desirability Bias

Although a number of social-desirability (SD) scales were initially de-
veloped by various researchers (Cofer, Chance, & Judson, 1949; Ed-
wards, 1957; Wiggins, 1959), the measures that have gained the most
widespread acceptance and use throughout psychology and the social
sciences is the original Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
(MCSDS) a 33-item, true – false summated rating scale (Crowne & Mar-
lowe, 1960, 1964) and its short forms (e.g., Ballard, 1992; Greenwald &
Satow, 1970; Reynolds, 1982; Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972). Social-desir-
ability scales are administered as an aid in establishing the discrimi-
nant validity of the primary test instrument being employed (Campbell
& Fisk, 1959). A low intercorrelation between the target scale and the short
SD scale would indicate that the content instrument is not confounded standard

82 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
with SDB (Paulhus, 1991). If a significant correlation is found, regres- Base of text
sion analysis may be used to determine the proportion of variance at-
tributable to SDB, with an ensuing correction for this distortion by use
of either partial correlations (McNemar, 1969) or canonical correlation
analysis (Greenblatt, Mozdzierz, & Murphy, 1984).
In more recent years, challenges regarding the unidimensionality of
the MCSDS have been voiced (cf. Ballard et al., 1988; Paulhus 1984,
1986; Robinson & Shaver, 1973). Low intercorrelations among the orig-
inal MCSDS and several of its short forms prompted factor analysis of
the various instruments, revealing two primary factors (Borkenau &
Ostendorf, 1989). Zerbe and Paulhus (1987) have concluded that these
two factors include self-deception, “the conscious tendency to see oneself
in a favorable light,” and impression management, “the conscious pre-
sentation of a false front, such as deliberately falsifying test responses
to create favorable impressions” (p. 253). They argue that the former
dispositional tendency is a relatively invariant personality trait and
thus should not be considered a contaminant per se, whereas the latter
factor, impression management, is the culprit in confounding research
data. To assist in individually assessing the effects of these two factors,
Paulhus (1992) has offered the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Re-
sponding (BIDR), a 40-item scale that reportedly offers minimal corre-
lation between impression management and self-deception. Despite its
theoretical advantages over the MCSDS, this scale has not been widely
adopted or reported in published research (cf. Moorman & Podsakoff,
1992). Hence, there is little empirical evidence to date that this scale
represents a significant advance in identifying and interpreting the ef-
fects of socially desirable responding.2
Other scales that have been used to identify SDB include the Martin-
Larsen Approval Motivation Scale (Larsen, Martin. Ettinger, & Nelson,
1976), a desirability scale based on attitude opinion items that is par-
ticularly intended for use in survey research (Schuessler, Hittle, & Car-
dascia, 1978); the Other-Deception Questionnaire (ODQ) and the Self-
Deception Questionnaire (SDQ), both developed by Sackeim and Gur
(1978, 1979); and (as previously noted) the Balanced Inventory of De-
sirable Responding (Paulhus, 1992). Although these scales have not
been tested or validated as extensively as the MCSDS, administration
of any SD scale represents an effort to detect and measure SDB in col-
lected data. Selection of an appropriate test instrument depends, in
part, on the projected role of SDB. That is, if SDB is considered to be a
contaminant that confounds responses to target variable scales, the in-
vestigator might choose the MCSDS, Other-Deception Questionnaire or
the impression management items from the BIDR. Conversely, if the
2
Other measures developed expressly to test for SD bias will be discussed later in this article. At
this juncture, the primary focus will remain on the Marlowe– Crowne SD scale (and its varia-
tions) as well as the BIDR, because these were the scales primarily employed in the marketing short
research discussed herein. standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 83 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
tendency to respond in socially desirable ways is considered within the Base of text
research context to be a variable of theoretical interest, the Martin-
Larsen Approval Motivation Scale, the Self-Deception Questionnaire
(SDQ), or the self-deception items from the BIDR may be more appro-
priate.
Administration of a scale to detect patterns of socially desirable re-
sponses has several practical applications in theoretical research. First,
pretesting of new content scales while the scales are in their develop-
mental stages permits detection of items that are significantly corre-
lated with SDB measures, providing the opportunity to modify or elim-
inate content items prior to scale administration. Second, simultaneous
administration of a scale to detect SDB in conjunction with target con-
tent scales may reveal the presence of individual differences in response
styles. This type of systematic response bias can confound content with
style, and interfere with the accurate assessment of content variables.
Identification of SDB as a behavioral covariate can afford the investi-
gator the opportunity to accommodate the findings (e.g., partial out the
effects of the SD). (For a more complete review of this subject, see Gans-
ter, Hennessey, & Luthans, 1983.) Hence, determination of SDB is an
equally important validity test for both newly constructed and estab-
lished measures (Fraboni & Cooper, 1989). Finally, administration of
SD scale items can assist in identification of situational demands that
may evoke socially desirable responding. For example, enlightened a
priori evaluation of testing methods (e.g., computerized testing, ques-
tion format), research contexts (e.g., degree of anonymity), interviewer
characteristics, and other issues involved in research design will serve
to minimize SDB contamination in the target study. These issues will
be revisited later in this article.

IMPORTANCE OF SDB IN MARKETING RESEARCH

It is evident that SDB measures provide researchers in psychology and

other social sciences with an invaluable tool for establishing the validity
of their test instruments. Because much of the marketing literature,
particularly in the area of consumer behavior, reports the use of multi-
item, summated measures to assess attitudinal, personality, and be-
havior-related constructs similar to those employed in other social sci-
ences, marketing research should benefit by using this tool to help
establish the validity of its scale measures. In his suggested procedure
for developing better measures of marketing constructs, Churchill
(1979, p. 68) addresses the problem of SDB in marketing research when
he admonishes the researcher to “(refine) those questions which contain
an obvious ‘socially acceptable’ response.” Accomplishing this suggested
refining necessitates testing for, controlling for, and interpreting the short
existence of SDB. standard

84 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
Marketing’s long-standing preoccupation with self-reports of poten- Base of text
tially sensitive topics related to information search patterns, product
attitudes, purchase behaviors, and persuasion, coupled with the fact
that much of this research involves survey data collection techniques,
would suggest that SDB testing is generally a good idea. Moreover, SDB
testing would seem not only to be warranted, but mandatory within the
rapidly growing body of literature in ethics and ethical behavior in mar-
keting situations (Randall & Fernandes, 1991). Research involving self-
reports of the behavioral aspects of consumers or marketers in conjunc-
tion with multi-item, summated scales should be suspect with respect
to SDB, and hence it is appropriate to investigate for SDB effects.
The twin concerns of conducting research involving sensitive topics
that could arguably elicit SDB as well as continued interest in producing
and refining valid scales suggests that efforts should be redoubled on
this front. However, before recommendations can be made regarding the
measurement and control of SDB, past efforts in this regard must be
assessed. Accordingly, the following review of efforts to isolate the ef-
fects of SDB in the marketing literature focuses on answering three
broad questions: How have marketers viewed the role of SDB in their
discipline? How and why have they tested for its presence in past stud-
ies? What impact has evidence of SDB had on research practices and
data interpretation?

PRIOR EVALUATION OF SDB IN MARKETING RESEARCH

Given the desire of marketing researchers to implement valid measures

in combination with the availability of an appropriate validating tool,
it is reasonable to expect that much of the research conducted in this
area would have adopted this validation technique. To investigate test-
ing for SDB, marketing research published in six rigorous marketing
journals (Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal
of Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Journal of Advertising, and Journal of Advertising Research) were re-
viewed for the period of 1980 – 1997. Of the hundreds of articles and
notes published during that time period, only 13 reported testing for
SDB.3 Considering the fact that the majority of these articles directly
examined some aspect of consumer behavior in conjunction with the
convenient accessibility of a well-established SDB instrument, this lack
of validity testing is surprising.
One explanation for the lack of emphasis on identification of SDB is

3
The research reviewed here includes only those studies that employed SD testing in conjunction
with the use of multiitem, summated scales. It is also possible that potential SD bias was as-
sessed during the construction of some multi-item scales, but the authors chose not to report the short
findings. standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 85 Base of RF

86

MAR
WILEJ
Table 1. Summary of Articles Reporting Social Desirability Bias (JCR, JMR, JM, JAMS: 1980–1997)
Correlation
Coefficients
Type of Use (Content/SDB Source of Content
Author(s) Source Reported SDB Scale Scales) Scales Interpretation
Carlson & JCR (1988) Behavioral bias 19 item version Not reported Several existing scale Correlation was statistically
Grossbart of MCSDS items summative in- significant; authors con-
(⫽0.71) dices of general so- cluded that the magni-
cialization tendencies tude was too small to rep-
resent a relevant effect
Childers et JCR (1985) Scale construc- MCSDS ⫽ ⫺0.03 to 0.20 VVIQ (Marks 1973) Authors report that correla-
al. tion tion coefficients indicate
that no SDB is present
Fisher JCR (1993) Situational Reynolds (13 ⫽ ⫺0.49 to 0.10 New scale; multiple Use of indirect questioning
analysis items) items measuring per- techniques reduces so-
⫽0.69) sonal and normative cially desirable respond-
outcomes ing

LEFT INTERACTIVE
Friedman & JCR (1987) Scale construc- MCSDS ⫽ ⫺0.02 to 0.06 New scale; multi-item No significant SDB noted
Churchill tion measures of satisfac-
tion, compliance and

KING AND BRUNER

consequences
Mick JCR (1996) Situational MCSDS ⫽ ⫺0.40 to 0.26 Several existing multi- SDB impacts subjects’ self-
analysis BIDR ⫽ ⫺0.46 to 0.53 item scales reports on materialism
and related constructs
Moore et al. JCR (1985) Behavioral bias MCSDS None reported Items similar to existing Authors report that low in-
scales on altruism significant correlations
self-esteem moral suggest no significant
norms and guilt SDB

Base of RF

Base of text
Top of text
standard
short
SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS

MAR
Raju JCR (1980) Scale construc- MCSDS None reported Arousal seeking tend- Several items eliciting SDB
tion ency (Robinson & were eliminated
Shaver 1973)
Richins JCR (1983) Scale construc- MCSDS ⫽ ⫺0.28 to 0.13 New and purified scales; Correlations were statisti-

WILEJ
tion multi-item measures cally significant; author
of assertiveness and concluded that the mag-
aggressiveness nitude was too small to
represent a relevant ef-
fect
Richins & JCR (1992) Behavioral bias Ballard et al. ⫽ ⫺0.12 to New and existing scale Authors report that low in-
Dawson short form ⫺0.03 items that were previ- significant correlations
(10 items) ously purified (Ri- suggest no significant
chins & Dawson SDB
1990)
Saxe & JCR (1982) Scale construc- MCSDS None reported New scale; multi-item Authors report that low in-
Weitz tion selling orientation significant correlations
scale suggest no significant
SDB
Unger & JCR (1983) Scale construc- MCSDS None reported New scale; multi-item Some evidence of the pres-
Kernan tion measures of leisure ence of SDB; interpreted
determinants as situation specific
Westbrook JCR (1980) Behavioral bias MCSDS ⫽ ⫺0.13 to 12 Several preexisting No significant SDB noted

RIGHT INTERACTIVE
scales
Westbrook JCR (1987) Behavioral bias MCSDS None reported DES-II (Izard 1977) No significant SDB noted;
pilot study scale was purified by orig-
inal author

87
Base of RF

Base of text
Top of text
standard
short
MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
that individuals conducting research in consumer behavior may not be Base of text
aware that such a scale exists or under what circumstances adminis-
tration of such an instrument could be beneficial. Furthermore, there
may be some confusion regarding interpretation of results obtained from
administration of the MCSDS. A review and discussion of the few in-
stances in which testing for SDB has been conducted will illustrate con-
ditions under which marketers have previously identified this as a po-
tential threat to the validity of the research, and how SDB instruments
have been administered and results interpreted. An overview of each
study is presented below; a summary of articles is presented in Table 1.
In each of these studies an SD scale was self-administered, along with
scales measuring constructs of theoretical interest. All studies incor-
porated items from the MCSDS; in some cases an abbreviated version
of the MCSDS was employed in order to prevent task overload. The
BIDR scale was administered in only one instance. As previously noted,
a significant correlation between scores on the SD scale and a target
construct scale suggests that the data are confounded because of the
respondent’s desire to answer in socially desirable ways, thereby seri-
ously weakening the validity of the findings. Conversely, a low corre-
lation suggests that the measure is relatively free of SDB.
A collective evaluation of these studies provides insight into how mar-
keters have historically viewed the role of SDB in their discipline. SDB
testing was performed for three distinct reasons across these studies.
First, some studies sought to confirm the discriminant validity of pro-
posed items for summated measures during the construction of their
scales. In this case, authors were attempting to eliminate any items that
were identified as potential sources of contamination via an SD response
bias in order to purify their measures. Second, some studies used the
MCSDS responses as a correlate to their primary scale of interest. Here,
testing for SDB was performed in conjunction with a previously devel-
oped primary scale (rather than one in the developmental stages) in
order to identify behavioral tendencies of the subjects that might con-
taminate the study’s findings. Finally, two recent studies recognized the
broader importance of SDB across marketing contexts. Rather than ad-
ministering social-desirability scale items as part of a limited validation
process for a single content instrument, these investigations have em-
braced SDB as their core concern, engaging in situational analysis to
highlight and evaluate broad methodological and conceptual applica-
tions of this construct. In the ensuing discussion, studies are grouped
into categories by the intended role of SDB testing and presented in
chronological order.

Testing for SDB During Scale Construction

The first research to employ the MCSDS during scale construction in short
the reviewed domain was an examination of the relationships between standard

88 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
optimum stimulation levels and exploratory behavior, and personality Base of text
and demographic traits (Raju, 1980). The MCSDS was administered to
prescreen 90 statements to ensure selection of items with low correla-
tion with social desirability. Although no actual correlation coefficients
or significance levels were reported, several items eliciting SDB were
eliminated, leaving a pool of items that exhibited little or no SDB.
The MCSDS was administered during only one stage of a large study
reported by Unger and Kernan (1983). The study examined dimensions
of the subjective leisure experience in six different scenarios. During the
initial construction of a six-dimensional scale of leisure, the MCSDS was
included as one of several measures of reliability and internal consist-
ency. As in the previous study reviewed, no correlation coefficients or
significance levels were reported. Unlike the previous study, however,
the authors indicated that there was some evidence that SDB might be
present when using the scales. However, the authors chose to interpret
the bias as being situation specific and not necessarily inherent in the
scales themselves.
Saxe and Weitz (1982) administered the MCSDS to salespeople rep-
resenting a wide variety of sales positions. The purpose of this study
was to construct a scale for measuring a salesperson’s customer orien-
tation. Each item on the primary scale of interest was correlated with
the MCSDS scores. Although no actual correlation coefficients or sig-
nificance levels were reported, the authors indicated that all correla-
tions were small and insignificant and concluded that the items were
not contaminated by a SD factor.
The construction of two new scales, one for assertiveness and one for
aggressiveness, was the focus of a study by Richins (1983). SDB was
evaluated in two ways. First, during initial screening of proposed Lik-
ert-type scale items, those which appeared to have a strong potential
for eliciting a socially desirable response were removed. Respondents
completed both the assertiveness and aggressiveness scales along with
a shortened version of the MCSDS. The correlations between the SD
scale and assertiveness and aggressiveness were 0.13 (p ⬎ .10) and
⫺0.28 (p ⬍ .01), respectively. Although the latter correlation is statisti-
cally significant, the author concluded that the magnitude was too small
to represent a relevant effect.
Childers, Houston, and Heckler (1985) examined several measures of
visual and verbal mental imagery. The MCSDS was administered in
order to test the discriminant validity of the primary scale of interest
during the scale development process. Unlike the studies summarized
earlier, Childers et al. (1985) reported coefficient alphas for each of two
groups of subjects. Although prior studies have suggested that individ-
ual difference measures may be correlated with social desirability
(White, Sheehan, & Ashton, 1977), none of the scales proposed by Chil-
ders et al. were correlated with the social-desirability measure. short
The final instance of the administration of the MCSDS during scale standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 89 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
construction was the only time it was employed in marketing outside Base of text
the arena of consumer behavior. The purpose of a study by Friedman
and Churchill (1987) was to examine how social power behaviors can be
effectively employed by physicians. Again, the MCSDS was used during
the scale construction phase of the study in order to assess the discrim-
inant validity of the dependent measures of satisfaction and compliance.
Individual, pairwise correlation coefficients were reported, with all val-
ues evidencing insignificant correlations ranging from negative to very
low positive levels.

Testing for SDB as a Behavioral Covariate

From 1980 through 1997, only five studies reported employing the
MCSDS in an attempt to identify potential SD response bias when ad-
ministering scales that had not used the MCSDS during scale construc-
tion. The first of these was a study of the impact of intrapersonal influ-
ences on satisfaction/dissatisfaction conducted by Westbrook (1980).
The results of testing for SDB were used in a regression model along
with affective and attitudinal variables to assess their explanatory
power on satisfaction. Hence, the statistics regarding the application of
the MCSDS reported in the study were standardized beta coefficients
and an adjusted R2 for the whole model. The beta coefficient associated
with the SD factor was not significant, indicating that SDB was not an
explanatory factor in the model (i.e., did not affect subjects’ responses).
The influence of labeling (e.g., “helpful people like yourself”) and de-
pendency (e.g., “depend upon individual contributions”) on potential do-
nor attitudes were examined by Moore, Bearden, and Teel (1985). The
study was based upon complete responses received over three time pe-
riods from members of a consumer panel. Correlations of the primary
research measures with the MCSDS were evidently computed, but the
actual correlation coefficients were not reported. The authors stated
that low, nonsignificant Pearson correlations between the MCSDS and
each of the covariates and dependent measures indicated that these
measures were unaffected by SDB.
A similar use of the MCSDS is reported in a study by Westbrook
(1987), which examined consumer affective responses to product/con-
sumption experiences and their relationship to various aspects of post-
purchase processes. This study employed a preexisting scale of discreet
emotional experiences (DES-II), which had been developed for use in
psychological studies. SDB was assessed during a pilot study prior to
administration of the final field study. Although no statistics were re-
ported, the author indicates that “none of the six subscales were corre-
lated with the social desirability response set” (Westbrook, 1987, p. 262).
However, it should be noted here that the author of the DES-II scale
indicated that the scale was purified during original scale construction short
by using the MCSDS. standard

90 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
Carlson and Grossbart (1988) investigated the relationship between Base of text
parental styles and their effects on the manner in which children are
socialized with respect to consumption behavior. The primary research
instrument included 11 summative indices extracted from prior studies
predominantly reported in psychological journals. A shortened (19 item)
version of the MCSDS was used to identify any SD behavioral response
tendencies that might exist in the subject pool. Both alpha and beta
coefficients were reported, as well as some factor scores from the cluster
analysis indicating the presence, direction, and strength of the relation-
ship between SDB and group classification. Although some significant
but weak relationships between SD and factor scores existed, the au-
thors concluded that SD did not have a major influence on group clas-
sification.
Finally, Richins and Dawson (1992) incorporated a short form of the
MCSDS as a covariate in a study of the materialism construct. The
authors reported that their 18-item materialism scale was uncorrelated
with SDB items. This finding is in contrast to later evidence presented
by Mick (1996) that SDB negatively correlates with the materialism
scale, systematically lowering materialism scores. This contradiction in
findings will be more fully explored in the discussion section.

Testing for Situational Effects of SDB

Only two studies published in the domain of interest have focused on
SDB as the variable of interest rather than as a technique to validate
findings regarding other construct variables. The pioneering efforts of
these authors to systematically identify situational effects of SDB
should be applauded. In the earlier of these two articles, Fisher (1993)
examined the effect of questioning method on the level of SDB on both
socially sensitive and socially neutral measures. With the use of the
Reynolds (1982) short form of the MCSDS, the author found significant
levels of SDB on direct measures (i.e., self-reports) of a sensitive con-
struct, and no SDB on indirect measures (i.e., projective or third-person
wordings) of a sensitive construct, or on measures of a socially neutral
construct. Fisher concluded that “indirect questioning operates to miti-
gate SDB (for variables that are subject to social norms and expecta-
tions) and does not systematically affect the means of variables that are
independent of social influence” (p. 307).
In an ambitious study evaluating the confounding effects of socially
desirable responding, Mick (1996) investigated both context- and in-
strument-related issues. In an effort to broadly identify the sensitivity
of dark side topics to socially desirable responding, Mick explored the
contaminating effects of social desirability bias on subject responses re-
garding materialism, self-esteem, and compulsive and impulsive buying
behaviors. Although correlational evidence indicates that SDB impacts short
subjects’ self-reports of these variables, the author suggests that the standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 91 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
explanatory power of this bias is “neither dramatic nor comprehensive” Base of text
(p. 116). The author cautions, however, that “. . . it would be unfor-
tunate if these results invited continued complacency about SDR among
consumer researchers . . .” (p. 116).
This research also addressed two measurement-related issues. First,
the original MCSDS was administered in conjunction with materialism
and compulsive buying instruments. As previously noted, in contrast to
the Richins and Dawson study (1992), materialism was significantly
related to socially desirable responding, as were other content variables
of interest (self-esteem and compulsive buying). Next, the newer BIDR
scale was incorporated into a study of consequences of materialism (i.e.,
neuroticism, self-actualization, and impulse buying). To date, this ap-
pears to be the only instance in which this reconceptualized scale has
been administered in published marketing research. Although the
BIDR scale was administered primarily to identify covariation of SDB
with the content variables, it was also expressly selected for use to pro-
vide evidence of its discriminant validity in partialling out the effects
of the self-deception and impression management SDB components. The
data indicate that impression management influenced the measure-
ment of several content variables; however, only two of the theoretically
proposed relationships appeared to be artifacts of this response bias.

Discussion of Findings
Although the preceding review is limited in terms of numbers of studies,
a wide range of topical areas in marketing research is represented. Of
the six studies involving scale construction, half provided evidence of
significant correlations between target construct items and the MCSDS.
Of these three studies, only one author chose to use evidence of an SD
bias to eliminate confounded scale items (Raju, 1980); in both of the
other studies (Richins, 1983; Unger & Kernan, 1983) the authors did
not modify their scales even though a significant relationship between
their content scales and SDB scales was noted. (This issue will be re-
visited shortly.) Although Westbrook (1987) found no significant rela-
tionship between the MCSDS and the DES-II, it should be noted that
the DES-II scale was purified with the use of the MCSDS during its
original construction. Hence, four instances of significant relationships
between construct scales and social-desirability scales are evident in
seven studies, providing compelling evidence for further investigation
of potential contamination due to response bias during marketing scale
construction.
Although less evidence of a response bias was apparent in the five
research studies involving the administration of the MCSDS (or one of
its shortened forms) as a behavioral covariate, two of these studies are
worthy of closer examination. First, Carlson and Grossbart (1988) iden- short
standard

92 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
tified significant contamination effects, but suggested that elicited SDB Base of text
did not have a major influence on group classification. Even though the
content scales were initially developed in psychology (where they were
presumably covaried with an SD scale during development), the signif-
icant relationships identified suggest that residual bias may be obscur-
ing accurate assessment of the content variables. More perplexing is the
discrepancy between the findings of the Richins and Dawson (1992)
study and Mick’s (1996) study in assessing the potential response bias
contamination of the materialism scale. Identical content and SDB in-
struments were administered in both studies, with dramatically differ-
ing results. Although it has been suggested that “the norms guiding the
acceptability of materialism (when the data was collected in the 1980s)
may have been quite different from the norms of the 1990s” (Mick, 1996,
p. 108), other variables such as data collection methods or subject pop-
ulations should be scrutinized to identify any context or situational ef-
fects present in these studies. Other situational factors that could have
produced this effect are discussed later.
It is troublesome that in the majority of cases where SDB was re-
ported at significant levels the authors chose to disregard this potential
threat to the discriminant validity of the content scales. Although in-
terpreting the conceptual relevance of the bias remains in the domain
of the investigator (and those reviewing his or her work), every observed
correlation between the two instruments leaves the data open to at least
two possible explanations. Regardless of whether SDB is viewed as a
contaminant in self-assessment (the historical perspective) or as a sta-
ble individual difference variable (e.g., Paulhus’s self-deception factor),
it should be identified and controlled or explained. Furthermore, it has
been suggested that reliance upon differences in mean SD scale scores
or simple correlations between SD and content scales may result in un-
derestimating the extent of contamination (Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987).
When evidence of such a systematic bias is evident, it is paramount to
acknowledge that the bias exists and to take steps to partition out its
effects, rather than relying on post hoc explanations. Otherwise, inter-
pretation of results remains open to question.
Regardless of how the effect of SDB has been interpreted or con-
trolled, more than half of the studies examined herein have provided
evidence of response bias. Hence, it is reasonable to expect that other
studies in these areas of research could be biased by the subject’s desire
to respond in a socially desirable manner. In fact, it has recently been
suggested that “although the routinization of checking for social desir-
ability bias is much greater in psychology, it has been identified as being
potentially more problematic in marketing research than in psychology”
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994, p. 315). To encourage and facilitate sys-
tematic assessment of this response bias in future research, several is-
sues involved in controlling SDB are examined in the ensuing section. short
standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 93 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
IDENTIFYING AND CONTROLLING THE INFLUENCE Base of text
OF SDB

Situations that Foster SDB

A primary approach that may assist researchers in their efforts to con-
trol the effects of SDB is to recognize and anticipate conditions under
which SDB is particularly likely to occur. Several conditions that tend
to enhance the possibility of response bias include: research designs that
incorporate self-report measures (Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987); investiga-
tions involving highly sensitive constructs (i.e., topics that are personal
or socially sensitive) (Fisher, 1993; Goode & Hart, 1952; Mick, 1996);
situations in which subject anonymity is compromised; and instances
when subjects anticipate responses will result in normatively influenced
or evaluative consequences. Moreover, confluence of two or more of these
conditions in a single research design could result in profound SDB con-
tamination of the data. For example, Goode and Hart (1952) voiced con-
cerns about the potential effects of socially desirable responding on self-
reports of sensitive behaviors, a concern that is echoed in the literature
four decades later (Fisher, 1993). Thomas and Kilmann (1975) suggest
that the contaminating influence of response biases should be expected
to operate wherever ratings are used to assess variables with evaluative
overtones.
Conversely, there are a number of situations in which one would not
expect to encounter socially desirable responding behavior. Perhaps the
most obvious would involve measures of objective knowledge in which
responses could not be faked. Additionally, situations in which re-
sponses are based on salient personal outcomes that have intrinsic
worth to the individual are not expected to be indexed by the respondent
against prevailing social norms, an hence are not subject to contami-
nation by SDB (Fisher, 1993). Finally, some authors suggest that the
probability of encountering socially desirable responding is somewhat
dependent upon the population under consideration. For example, Park
and Lessig (1977) suggest that social influence decreases with age;
hence, the tendency to present oneself in the most favorable light may
be mitigated in older subject groups.

Methods of Controlling SDB

Several methods of reducing or eliminating the contaminating effects of
SDB are evident in the research previously reviewed, including elimi-
nating content scale items that correlate significantly with SD scale
items as well as partialling out the effects of this response bias. These
and other methods of SDB control are discussed in greater detail in the
following. short
standard

94 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
Scale Selection. The use of preexisting content scales that have been Base of text
examined for evidence of SDB may aid in reducing the likelihood of
encountering a response bias. Although selection of such scales does not
guarantee freedom from SDB in ensuing studies (e.g., the Richins &
Dawson vs. Mick controversy), there is evidence that such a strategy
may be beneficial (e.g., Westbrook’s 1987 application of the DES-II
scale).

Instrument Construction. Nederhof (1985) has suggested that scale

items may individually contain elements of social desirability and hence
elicit a socially desirable response regardless of whether the subject has
a prevailing tendency to respond in such a fashion. In other words, the
phrasing of a questionnaire item may cue subjects as to the expectations
of the researcher, creating a demand effect (Orne, 1969). Insightful eval-
uation of research conditions and questionnaire items can result in a
priori elimination or revision of those measures that could reasonably
be expected to elicit socially desirable responding, such as in the Richins
(1983) study.
Other techniques for controlling SDB involve construction of rational
self-report instruments that prevent subjects from responding in a so-
cially desirable manner. The objective here is to incorporate measures
that are neutral with respect to social desirability, that force a choice
between two statements that are equally desirable, or that have high
“content saturation,” where the influence of content dominates desir-
ability. Forced-choice items and neutral questions were among the ear-
liest methods developed for coping with SD bias (Edwards, 1957, 1970;
Humm & Wadsworth, 1939) and, although criticized by some (e.g.,
Block, 1965), remain popular with researchers today. A randomized re-
sponse technique, which allows the subject to answer one of two ran-
domly selected items, is another technique that was developed to reduce
response distortion associated with threatening questions, that is, items
that are particularly susceptible to SD bias (Sudman & Bradburn,
1974). In addition, the use of indirect questioning or other projective
techniques do that not significantly elicit socially desirable responses
have been shown to be very beneficial in studying socially sensitive var-
iables in consumer research (Fisher, 1993). Once instrument items have
been tentatively selected, the use of factor analysis may be conducted
to ensure that content measures are not confounded with a principal
component representing SDB (Paulhus, 1991).

Instrument Administration. As previously noted, an important strat-

egy for controlling for SDB is to identify and modify situations that may
foster its presence (e.g., maximize subject anonymity) (Sudman & Brad-
burn, 1974). When an anonymous administration is not possible, the
use of a pseudo – lie detector called the bogus pipeline may be used to short
standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 95 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
convince subjects that the equipment can determine whether or not the Base of text
subject is telling the truth (Jones & Sigall, 1971). In this rather extreme
and costly measure, subjects are hooked up to electronic equipment that
reputedly can physiologically assess their attitudes and determine if
their responses are consistent with their feelings. A simpler, albeit less
effective method is to warn subjects that the test instrument contains
methods for detecting faking. Additionally, the interviewer selected can
strongly affect the amount of SD bias evoked, because results of an in-
terview are more likely to be biased when subjects and interviewers are
similar with respect to social distance (e.g., Dohrenwend, Colombotos,
& Dohrenwend, 1968). These are but a few of the many available meth-
ods for reducing elicitation of socially desirable responding; a more com-
plete review of demand-reduction techniques is presented by Paulhus
(1991).

Statistical Control Techniques. Once contamination of the data has

been identified, steps must be taken to isolate or eliminate the effects
of the response bias. Individuals scoring high on SD scales are assumed
to be faking good, so reports of these individuals are considered to be
invalid. One of the simplest methods for dealing with this problem is to
eliminate or disregard the self-reports of respondents whose scores on
SD scales exceed some predetermined value (Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987).
If data elimination is not feasible or appropriate, identification of the
role played by SDB in suppressing or obscuring relationships among
variables and in producing artificial relationships among independent
and dependent variables requires particular attention.
Ganster et al. (1983) have identified three classes of effects due to
socially desirable responding: spuriousness, the creation of misleading
correlations between variables; suppression, the masking of relation-
ships between variables; and moderation, the tempering relationships
between other variables. They suggest that spuriousness should be
tested and controlled for by partialling out the effect of SD with the use
of multiple regression or partial correlations. In the case of suppression,
it has been suggested that partialling SDB out of the relationship would
change the correlation from zero to nonzero or strengthen any nonzero
relationship (Conger, 1974). When SDB is suspected to play a moder-
ating role, Arnold (1982) and others (Arnold, Feldman, & Purbhoo,
1984) recommend testing for the significance of the interaction between
it and any independent variable of interest with the use of product terms
in hierarchical multiple regression.

New Methods. An entirely new approach to controlling SDB in exper-

imental research is administration of the Implicit Association Test (IAT)
(Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, in press). Implicit attitudes are “in-
trospectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past ex- short
perience that mediate favorable or unfavorable feeling, thought or ac- standard

96 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
tion toward social objects” (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995, p. 8). Because Base of text
implicit attitudes are under the control of “automatically activated eval-
uation,” the IAT has the potential to measure socially significant auto-
matic associations without relying on the veracity or objectivity of the
respondent. Because the IAT may have the ability to “resist self-pres-
entational forces that can mask personally or socially undesirable eval-
uative associations” (Greenwald et al., in press), it may prove be a valu-
able addition to the repertoire of tools in future investigations of socially
sensitive topics.

INSIGHTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR MANAGING

FUTURE RESEARCH

The question of whether SDB is actually a threat to the interpretation

of research results in the marketing discipline is still debatable. De-
pending upon one’s theoretical position, support may be garnered from
published literature in the social sciences to defend either of the com-
peting conclusions (a) that concern with SDB as a contaminant or con-
struct is warranted or, conversely, (b) that concern with this response
is overstated or misplaced. However, the collective wisdom of many psy-
chologists has resulted in routine testing for social-desirability bias,
during both the construction and implementation of psychometric
scales. Even so, testing for SDB has been routinely neglected in con-
sumer research.
Many questions regarding this response bias remain to be answered.
Several instances were noted when marketing researchers identified
significant correlations between SD scales and content measures, yet
these findings were dismissed as inconsequential. The question is: How
small is too small? Many authors have acknowledged the fact that when-
ever such correlations are present, there are at least two possible ex-
planations of the data. Routine examination of the phenomenon with
the use of procedures beyond simple correlations would provide insight
into the nature and magnitude of its effect in future studies.
Furthermore, it seems equally important to explain why constructs
of interest do not appear to be confounded with this response bias. Iden-
tifying factors that tend to mitigate elicitation of SDB — such as ele-
ments within the experimental setting, wording of items on test instru-
ments, and inclusion of controls to reduce demand bias — would
positively benefit investigators in their efforts to formulate more con-
taminant-free experimental designs. Authors’ introspection regarding
this phenomenon, even as a footnote within their reports, could provide
valuable insight for shaping future investigations.
The debate continues over the extent to which social desirability bias
represents an experimental contaminant whose effects must be par- short
tialled out versus the alternative view of SDB as a variable of theoretical standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 97 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
interest in its own right. Prediction and treatment of socially desirable Base of text
responding within an experimental design will largely depend upon
theoretical evaluation of SDB relative to the nomological network of
interest. However, emerging interest in the dimensionality of SDB may
contribute to future research in this regard. Recent identification and
clarification of the self-deception and impression-management dimen-
sions of SDB have substantially contributed to the conceptual develop-
ment of this issue. Although development of the BIDR scale has signif-
icantly advanced knowledge, much investigative work remains to refine
the conceptual dimensions as well as to construct and test appropriate
scales.
Although there may be valid reasons why social-desirability bias
should not be examined in some cases, such cases would seem, from this
vantage, to be the exception rather than the rule. It is evident that social
desirability influences the responses of consumers to many kinds of
measures; to be unaware of the presence, direction, and extent of such
a bias represents a highly risky endeavor. Instead of ignoring the pos-
sibility of a confounding response bias in a scale, testing should be rou-
tinely performed in order to purify the measure and aid in its future
usage. Therefore, until such time when testing for SD bias is routine,
the findings in much of the marketing research literature will have to
be accepted with caution.

REFERENCES

Abrams, J. (1971). An evaluation of alternative rating devices for consumer

research. In G. Aubaum & M. Venkatesan (Eds.), Scientific marketing re-
search. New York: The Free Press.
Arndt, J. (1985). On making marketing science more scientific: Role of orien-
tations, paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving. Journal of Marketing, 49,
11 – 23.
Arnold, H. J. (1982). Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual, analytic
and psychometric issues. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
29, 143 – 174.
Arnold, H. J., Feldman, D. C., & Purbhoo, M. (1985). The role of social desir-
ability response bias in turnover research. Academy of Management Journal,
28, 955 – 966.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1985). Social contingencies in the attitude model: A test of cer-
tain interaction hypotheses. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 366 – 373.
Ballard, R. (1992). Short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale.
Psychological Reports, 71, 1155 – 1160.
Ballard, R., Crino, M. D., & Rubenfeld, S. (1988). Social desirability response
bias and the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Psychological Re-
ports, 63, 227 – 237.
Block, J. M. (1965). The challenge of response set: Unfounding meaning, ac-
quiescence, and social desirability in the MMPI. New York: Appleton-Cen- short
tury-Crofts. standard

98 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1989). Descriptive consistency and social desir- Base of text
ability in self- and peer-reports. European Journal of Personality, 3, 31 – 45.
Brinberg, D., & Hirschman, E. C. (1987). Multiple orientations for the conduct
of marketing research: An analysis of the academic/practitioner distinction.
Journal of Marketing, 50, 161 – 173.
Bruner, G. C. II. (1993). A census of multi-item scales used in marketing re-
search (Technical Report No. 9305). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Uni-
versity, Office of Scale Research.
Buckhout, R. (1965a). Need for social approval and attitude change. Journal of
Psychology, 60, 123 – 128.
Buckhout, R. (1965b). Need for social approval and dyadic verbal behavior.
Psychological Reports, 16, 1013 – 1016.
Buckhout, R. (1966). Changes in heart rate accompanying attitude change.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 695 – 699.
Campbell, D. R., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81 – 105.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental style and consumer socialization
of children. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 77 – 94.
Childers, T. L., Houston, M. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1985). Measurement of indi-
vidual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12, 125 – 134.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of mar-
keting constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64 – 73.
Cofer, C. N., Chance, J., & Judson, A. J. (1949). A study of malingering on the
MMPI. Journal of Psychology, 27, 491 – 499.
Conger, A. J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to
their identification and interpretation. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 34, 35 – 46.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and anal-
ysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Crino, M. D., Svoboda, M., Rubenfeld, S., & White, M. C. (1983). Data on the
Marlowe – Crowne and Edwards social desirability scales. Psychological Re-
ports, 53, 963 – 968.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability inde-
pendent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349 – 354.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
De Vellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. London:
Sage Publications.
Dicken, C. (1963). Good impression, social desirability and acquaintance as
suppressor variables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 699 –
720.
Dohrenwend, B. S., Colombotos, J., & Dorhenwend, B. P. (1968). Social distance
and interviewer effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 410 – 422.
Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assess-
ment and research. New York: Dryden Press.
Edwards, A. L. (1970). The measurement of personality traits by scales and short
inventories. New York: Dryden Press. standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 99 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
Edwards, A. L., Diers, C. J., & Walker, J. N. (1962). Response sets and factor Base of text
loadings on sixty-one personality scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46,
220 – 225.
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect ques-
tioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 303 – 315.
Fraboni, M., & Cooper, D. (1989). Further validation of three short forms of the
Marlowe – Crowne scale of social desirability. Psychological Reports, 65, 595 –
600.
Friedman, M. L., & Churchill, G. A. (1987). Using consumer perceptions and a
contingency approach to improve health care delivery. Journal of Consumer
Research, 13, 492 – 510.
Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability
response effects: Three different models. Academy of Management Journal,
26, 955 – 966.
Goldsmith, R. E. (1987). Self-monitoring and innovativeness. Psychological Re-
ports, 60, 1017 – 1018.
Goldsmith, R. E. (1989). A validity study of the affect intensity measure. Jour-
nal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 133 – 140.
Goode, W. J., & Hart, P. K. (1952). Methods in social science. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill.
Greenbaum, C. W. (1966). Effect of situational and personality variables on
improvisation and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 4, 260 – 269.
Greenblatt, R. L., Mozdzierz, G. J., & Murphy, T. J. (1984). Content and re-
sponse-style in the construct validation of self-report inventories: A canonical
analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 40, 1414 – 1420.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (in press). Measuring
individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes,
self-esteem, and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102, 4 – 27.
Greenwald, H. J. Satow, Y. (1970). A short social desirability scale. Psycholog-
ical Reports, 27, 131 – 135.
Humm, D. G., & Wadsworth, G. W., Jr. (1939). The Humm-Wadsworth tem-
perament scale. Los Angeles: Doncaster G. Humm.
Hunt, S. D. (1990). Truth in marketing theory and research. Journal of Mar-
keting, 54, 1 – 15.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotion. New York: Plenum Press.
Jacoby, J. (1978). Consumer research: A state of the art review. Journal of
Marketing, 42, 87 – 96.
Jones, E. E., & Sigall, H. (1971). The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for mea-
suring affect and attitude. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 349 – 364.
Kogan, N. (1964). Risk taking: A study in cognition and personality. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1967). Group risk taking as a function of members’
anxiety and defensiveness levels. Journal of Personality, 35, 50 – 63.
Larsen, K. S., Martin, H. J., Ettinger, R. H., & Nelson, J. (1976). Approval
seeking, social cost and aggression: A scale and some dynamics. Journal of short
Psychology, 94, 3 – 11. standard

100 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
Lenski, G. E., & Leggett, J. C. (1960). Caste, class, and deference in the research Base of text
interview. American Journal of Sociology, 65, 463 – 467.
Malhotra, N. K. (1988). Some observations on the state of the art in marketing
research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 4 – 24.
Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British
Journal of Psychology, 64, 17 – 24.
McNemar, Q. (1969). Psychological statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Meehl, P. E., & Hathaway, S. R. (1946). The k factor as a suppressor variable
in the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 525 – 564.
Mick, D. G. (1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially
desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 23, 106 – 119.
Miller, N., Doob, A. N., Butler, D. C., & Marlowe, D. (1965). The tendency to
agree: Situational determinants and social desirability. Journal of Experi-
mental Research in Personality, 1, 78 – 83.
Moore, E. M., Bearden, W.O., & Teel, J. E. (1985). Use of labeling and assertions
of dependency in appeals for consumer support. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 12, 90 – 96.
Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta-analytic and empirical test
of the potential confounding effect of social desirability response sets in or-
ganizational behavior research Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 56, 131 – 149.
Muncy, J. A., & Fisk, R. P. (1987). Cognitive relativism and the practice of
marketing science. Journal of Marketing, 51, 20 – 33.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263 – 280.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill
Orne, M. T. (1969). Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls.
In R. Rosenthal & R. L. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research
(pp.143 – 179). New York: Academic Press.
Park, C. W., & Lessig, V. P. (1977). Students and housewives: Differences in
susceptibility to reference group influence. Journal of Consumer Research,
4, 102 – 110.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In John P.
Robinson et al. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological at-
titudes, (Vol. 1, pp. 17 – 59.). New York: Academic Press.
Paulhus, D. L. (1992). Assessing self-deception and impression management in
self-reports: The balanced inventory of desirable responding (Reference man-
ual, version 6). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirability respond-
ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598 – 609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in test re-
sponses. In A. Angleitner & J.S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via
questionnaire (pp. 143 – 165). New York: Springer.
Peltier, B. D., & Walsh, J. A. (1990). An investigation of response bias in the
Chapman Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 803 – 815.
Peter, P. J. (1979). Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent mar- short
keting practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 6 – 17. standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 101 Base of RF

MAR WILEJ LEFT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
Peter, P. J. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues of marketing Base of text
and practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 133 – 145.
Peter, P. J., & Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1986). Relationships among research design
choices and psychometric properties of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 23, 1 – 10.
Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum stimulation level: Its relationship to personality,
demographics, and exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 7,
272 – 282.
Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias
in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 805 – 817.
Rentz, J. O. (1988). An exploratory study of the generalizability of selected
marketing measures. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 141 –
150.
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the
Marlowe – Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Phsychology,
38, 119 – 125.
Richins, M. L. (1983). An analysis of consumer interaction styles in the mar-
ketplace. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 73 – 82.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1990). Measuring material values: A preliminary
report of scale development. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W. Pollay (Eds.)
Advances in consumer research (Vol. 17, pp. 169 – 175). Provo, UT: Associa-
tion for Consumer Research.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for mate-
rialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of
Consumer Research, 19, 303 – 316.
Robinette, R. L. (1991). The relationship between the Marlowe – Crowne Form
c and the validity scales of the MMPI. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47,
396 – 399.
Robinson, J. P., & Shaver. P. R. (1973). Measures of social psychological atti-
tudes. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Sabourin, S., Bourgeois, L., Gendreau, P., & Morval, M. (1989). Self-deception,
impression management, and consumer satisfaction with mental health
treatment. Psychological Assessment, 1, 126 – 229.
Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1978). Self-deception, self-confrontation and con-
sciousness. In G. E. Schwartz & D. Shapero (Eds.) Consciousness and self-
regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 2, pp. 139 – 197). New York:
Plenum.
Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1979). Self-deception, other-deception and self-
reported psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47,
213 – 215.
Saxe, R., & Weitz, B, A. (1982). The SOCO scale: A measure of the customer
orientation of salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 343 – 351.
Schuessler, K. F., Hittle, D., & Cardascia, J. (1978). Measuring responding
desirability with attitude-opinion items. Social Psychology, 41, 224 – 235.
Skipper, R., & Hyman, M. R. (1987). Evaluating and improving argument-cen-
tered works in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 51, 60 – 75.
Skipper, R., & Hyman, M. R. (1990). Marketing and logical thought. Journal
of Marketing, 54, 89 – 92.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogenous versions of the Mar- short
standard

102 KING AND BRUNER Base of RF

 MAR WILEJ RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Top of text
lowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, Base of text
191 – 193.
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1974). Response effects in surveys. Chicago:
Aldine.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1975). The social desirability variable in
organizational research: An alternative explanation for reported findings.
Academy of Management Journal, 18, 741 – 752.
Unger, L. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1983). On the meaning of leisure: An investi-
gation of some determinants of the subjective experience. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 9, 381 – 391.
Westbrook, R. A. (1980). Intrapersonal affective influences on consumer satis-
faction with products. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 49 – 54.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption based affective responses and
postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258 – 270.
White, K., Sheehan, P. W., & Ashton, R. (1977). Imagery assessment: A survey
of self-report measures. Journal of Mental Imagery, 1, 145 – 170.
Wiggins, J. S. (1959). Interrelationships among MMPI measures of dissimu-
lation under standard and social desirability instructions. Journal of Con-
sulting Psychology, 23, 419 – 427.
Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in orga-
nizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12,
250 – 264.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Maryon F. King, De-
partment of Marketing, College of Business and Administration, Southern Il-
linois University, Rehn Hall, Room 229, Mail: Code:4629, Carbondale, IL
62901-4629.

short
standard

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONSE BIAS 103 Base of RF

View publication stats