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

net/publication/232602824

Computer Administration of Questions: More Desirable or More Social

Desirability?

Article in Journal of Applied Psychology · June 1990

DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.310

CITATIONS READS

182 672

2 authors, including:

Gary J. Lautenschlager
University of Georgia
63 PUBLICATIONS 4,832 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Criteria for the number of factors to retain View project

Cognition & Aging View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary J. Lautenschlager on 13 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journalof AppliedPsychology Copyright1990by the AmericanPsychologicalAssociation,Inc.
1990,Vol,75, No. 3, 310-314 0021-9010/90/$00.75

Computer Administration of Questions:

More Desirable or More Social Desirability?

G a r y J. L a u t e n s c h l a g e r a n d Vicki L. F l a h e r t y
The University of Georgia

Investigated the effect of computer vs. paper-and-pencil administration on 2 components of so-

ciaUy desirable responding (SDR), impression management (IM), and self-deception (SD). Ss'
degree of anonymity was also manipulated. Independent variables were expected to affect only 1M
scores, with the computer anonymous condition resulting in the least amount of IM. Results
indicated that IM and SD scores were influenced by main effects of both administration and
anonymity manipulations. In contrast to previous research, computer administration produced the
greatest amount of IM. The findings are discussed relative to results reported by Martin and Nagao
(1989) on the impact of computer administration of interviews and recent research on the dimen-
sions of SDR,

With the widespread popularity of microcomputers today,
computer administration of tests has become very common
(Lee, 1986), computerized selection and training systems are
increasing in use (Feuer, 1986), and, in clinical settings, comput-
erized personality assessment and diagnostic interviewing are
also commonplace (Butcher, 1987). Practitioners have been
quick to adopt computer administration of tests because of
several advantages, including increased objectivity, reliability,
and cost effectiveness; however, research examining possible
response differences when computerized testing is used in
place of paper-and-pencil administration has been limited
(Greaud & Green, 1986; Lee, Moreno, & Sympson, 1986).
Socially desirable responding is a major concern in personal-
ity assessment and organizational research (Zerbe & Paulhus,
1987). However, explorations on socially desirable responding
have not been without critics, or at least those who believe that
clarification is needed regarding the various meanings used for
this construct label (R. Hogan & Nicholson, 1988; Nunnally,
1978). Many researchers view social desirability contamination
as a potential problem whenever self-report inventories are
used to assess emotional, attitudinal, or other personal charac-
teristics. Items on such inventories have one answer that is rec-
ognizably more socially desirable than the others, and a respon-
This article is based in part on Vicki L. Flaherty's master's thesis,
completed at the Universityof Georgia, May 1988.
Portions of this article were presented at the 4th annual meeting of
the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology,Boston, April
1989.
We wish to thank Del Paulhus, Bill Graziano, Jim Hogan, and three
anonymous reviewers for helpful comments regarding this research.
Wealso thank Kim Wilson, Natalie Milton, Tim McCall, Chin-Chi
Lu, and Barbara Gore for their help with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Gary J. Lautenschlager, Department of Psychology,The Universityof
Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602.
dent may be motivated to choose answers that create a favorable
impression, as when applying for a job (Anastasi, 1982).
Ostensible Benefits o f Computer Administration
Researchers have hypothesized that computer administra-
tion of noncognitive instruments containing sensitive and per-
sonal items may reduce socially desirable responding, as it
might offer greater anonymity and might be perceived as im-
personal and nonjudgmental (Evan & Miller, 1969; Koson, Kit-
chen, Kochen, & Stodolosky, 1970; Martin & Nagao, 1989; Rez-
movie, 1977; Smith, 1963). For example, for very personal and
embarrassing material, an individual might respond less truth-
fully to another person but more freely to an impartial ma-
chine.
Additionally, the increased standardization that computer
administration affords may also reduce socially desirable re-
sponding (Elwood, 1969; Feuer, 1986; Hedl, O'Neil, & Hansen,
1973). That is, socially desirable responding may be reduced by
controlling the respondent's ability to preview, review, or skip
items and change responses such that exposure to items is con-
sistent for all respondents. The greater structure imposed on
responding by increased standardization may operate to fore-
stall respondent dissimulation.
Recent work by Martin and Nagao (1989) has examined how
simulated applicant interview responses were influenced by
different administration modes, including paper-and-pencil
and computer administrations of the interview. Two separate
methods were used to measure socially desirable responding as
a dependent variable, namely the Marlowe-Crowne Social De-
sirability Scale and several forms of verifiable self-reports. Mar-
tin and Nagao found that the least amount of socially desirable
responding occurred for the computer interview format and
the most occurred for the face-to-face interview format. A po-
tential explanation for their findings focused on voluntary state-
ments provided by the participants that suggested the opera-
tion of a "big brother effectY The findings were generally con-

310
 COMPUTER ADMINISTRATION
sistent with the expectations cited previously and lend support
to those benefits o f the computerized interview format, within
some boundary conditions noted by Martin and Nagao (1989).
The Dimensionality of Socially Desirable Responding
Recently, Paulhus (1984, 1986) examined the dimensionality
o f the socially desirable responding construct and determined
that available measures o f socially desirable responding, such as
the Marlowe-Crowne scale, may confound two distinct forms
of socially desirable responding bias. These two structures have
been identified and labeled as impression management and
self-deception. Impression management refers to "lying; the
conscious, purposeful deception of others. Impression manage-
ment is situation specific and, therefore, should be heavily in-
fluenced by contextual factors. Indeed, Paulhus (1984) found
that individuals use significantly more impression manage-
ment in a group testing situation under public (identified) con-
ditions than under anonymous conditions.
On the other hand, self-deception refers to a lack of self-
knowledge or protection of self-beliefs, including maintenance
o f self-esteem. In effect, a subject actually believes in his or her
positive self-reports in contradiction to objective reality. Self-
d e c e p t i o n is viewed as a stable p e r s o n a l i t y trait, and thus
should not be easily influenced by contextual factors. Paulhus
(1984) reported that self-deception may show slight but nonsig-
nificant increases in group testing situations under public
(identified) conditions. These two forms of response bias are
consistent with distinctions that have been presented by Nun-
nally (1978) regarding a respondent's frankness versus level o f
self-knowledge.
Zerbe and Paulhus (1987) have raised concerns regarding the
use o f methods to control socially desirable responding in orga-
nizational research. Because central dimensions of personality,
such as adjustment and achievement motivation, also involve a
c o m p o n e n t o f self-deception, any a t t e m p t to control self-
deception in measuring these personality constructs may un-
dermine predictive power. Impression management, however,
may be viewed as a potential contaminating factor, and it may
be desirable to control this factor (see Z,erbe & Paulhus, 1987,
for possible exceptions).
T h e Influence o f A n o n y m i t y
In real-world settings, such as in selection situations, a job
applicant's identity is known and the applicant stands to gain
by responding in a favorable manner. This may be especially
true for questions o f a nonverifiable nature. On the other hand,
many research studies are conducted in laboratory settings
where subjects are assured of their anonymity and have little or
no incentive for behaving in any certain fashion. Previous re-
search indicates that observed levels o f socially desirable re-
sponding vary as a function of anonymity level. That is, as
anonymity seems more assured, generally less socially desirable
responding is present (Bradburn & Sudman, 1979; Nederhof,
1984; Wiseman, 1972).
The Present Study
We focused on the use of different questionnaire administra-
tion modes under conditions where the respondents were either
311
anonymous or identified. These factors should produce testing
conditions similar to those that exist in organizational settings
for various t y p e s o f selection and organizational research
(Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987).
Impression management (IM) and self-deception (SD) were
assessed by means of Paulhus's 0986) Balanced Inventory of
Desirable Responding (BIDR). Differences in the effects of ad-
ministration mode and anonymity level on socially desirable
responding were predicted for the BIDR-IM and BIDR-SD
measures as follows:
1. Significantly lower BIDR-IM scores would occur in the com-
puter administration mode than in the paper-and-penciladminis-
tration modes.
2. Significantly lower BIDR-IM scores would occur in the anony-
mous conditions than in the identified conditions.
3. No significant differences in BIDR-SD scores would occur as a
result of the administration mode or anonymity manipulations.
Method
Subjects
Psychology students (N = 241) taking an introductory psychology
course at the University of Georgia participated in the study. All sub-
jects received credit toward fulfillment of a course requirement. Fe-
male students composed 70% of the sample, and the average age was
18.8 years.
Materials
Paulhus's (I 986) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
(BIDR) was used to measure the self-deception and impression man-
agement variables. The instrument comprises 20 self-deception
(BIDR-SD) and 20 impression management (BIDR-IM) items, with
responses made on a 7-point scale ranging from not true(l) to verytrue
(7). The BIDR-IM items refer to desirable but statistically infrequent
behavior and undesirable but common behavior. A sample item from
this measure is "I have taken sick leave from work or school even
though I wasn't really sickY The BIDR-SD items refer to psychologi-
cally threatening thoughts and feelings that are assumed to be experi-
enced universally. A sample item is "I could easily quit any of my bad
habits if I wanted to" In scoring the BIDR, equal numbers of items
were keyed positively and negatively. BIDR-IM and BIDR-SD scores
were obtained by reversing the ratings on the negatively keyed items
and then summing responses. Higher total scores represent greater
amounts of impression management and self-deception, respectively.
Procedure
The two independent variables were administration mode and ano-
nymity level. The three levels of administration mode employed were
group paper-and-pencil, individual paper-and-pencil, and individual
computer. The two levels of anonymity were anonymous and identi-
fied. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of six treatment condi-
tions as follows: (a) group paper-and-pencil anonymous (n = 39), (b)
group paper-and-pencil identified (n = 40), (c) individual paper-and-
pencil anonymous (n = 40), (d) individual paper-and-pencil identified
(n = 38), (e) computer anonymous (n = 43), and (f) computer identified
(n= 41).
Subjects were informed that the experiment was titled "Question-
naire Use in Personnel Selection" and were told that they would be
completing a series of questionnaires. Prior to the completion of the
312 GARY J. LAUTENSCHLAGER AND VICKI L. FLAHERTY

BIDR, subjects completed two sets of preexperiment questions de- Table 1

signed to assess their prior computer experience and general attitude Mean Impression Management and Self-Deception Scores
toward computers. The preexperiment questions were completed by Broken Down by Experimental Condition
all subjects using the same paper-and-pencil format across all condi-
tions. Anonymitylevel
In the paper-and-pencil administration modes, subjects were free to
preview, review, or skip items, as well as change responses. For the Administration mode Anonymous Identified Overall
group paper-and-pencil mode, subjects were tested in groups of 18 to
24 in a 300-sq-ft group testing room. For the individual paper-and- Impression management
pencil administrations, subjects were tested at a table in a 150-sq-ft Computer
furnished office. M 84.93 86.61 85,75
In the computer administrationmode, the items were presented on a SD 12.16 13.18 12,62
computer monitor, and subjects responded using a standard IBM- Individual paper-and-pencil
compatible computer keyboard. Subjects in the computer conditions M 76.39 85.49 80.83
could not previe~ review, or skip items or change responses to items. SD 13.51 18.72 16.79
Group paper-and-pencil
Instructionsrelating to the computer operating procedures were given M 79.90 81,70 80.81
in the computer administration mode. Otherwise, instructionsto sub- SD 13.21 13.01 13.05
jects were the same in all six conditions. No time limit for completion Overall
of the BIDR was imposed in any condition. M 80,52 84.60 82.54
In the identified conditions subjects were asked to provide identify- SD 13.33 15.14 14.37
ing information (name, social security number, home address, and
telephone number) and were told that, dependingon their responses to Self=deception
the questionnaire, they might qualify to participate in future research Computer
(cf. Paulhus, 1984, p. 605). We assumed that the likelihood of future M 95.37 99.37 97.32
contact implied by this statement would strengthen the press for im- SD 11.03 12.74 12.00
pression management in the identified conditions. Subjects in the Individual paper-and-pencil
anonymousconditions were not asked to provide any identifying infor- M 92.62 98.76 95.62
mation and were explicitly assured of their anonymity. SD 12.67 12.08 12.68
Upon completion of the BIDR, subjects completed a set of post- Group paper-and-pencil
experiment questions that assessed their reactions to the experiment M 85.80 88.08 86.95
SD 13.99 15.36 14.65
and provided manipulation checks. The postexperiment questions Overall
were completed using the same paper-and-pencil format in all condi- M 91.41 95.38 93.37
tions. SD 13.10 14.36 13.85

Note. Higher values indicate greater socially desirable responding.

Results

Responses to the preexperiment questionnaire indicated

that subjects did not differ across conditions in their levels of
prior computer experience or general attitude toward com-
puters. They had moderate levels of computer experience and
moderately positive attitudes toward computers.
The conceptual distinction between the two dependent mea-
sures, as provided by Paulhus (1986), argued against consider-
ing them as a joint system of variables (Huberty & Morris,
1989). Collapsing across all conditions, internal consistency
measures were computed for the BIDR-IM and BIDR-SD
items; values of coefficient alpha were .72 and .68, respectively
The correlation between the two subscales, r = .43, was moder-
ate. Therefore, a separate 3 × 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA)was
conducted for each dependent variable rather than a single mul-
tivariate analysis.
The results using the BIDR-IM scores revealed a significant
main effect of administration mode, F(2,235) = 3.32, p < .04, a
significant main effect of anonymity level, F(1,235) = 5.35, p <
.02, and no interaction effect, F(2, 235) = 1.80, ns. There was a
significant main effect of administration mode for the BIDR-
SD scores, F(2,235) = 14.82, p <.005, a main effect for anonym-
ity level, F(I, 235) = 6.06, p < .02, and no significant interaction
effect, F(2, 235) = 0.43, ns.
Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for the
BIDR-IM and BIDR-SD scores by experimental condition.
Bonferroni adjusted tests (effect-wide a = .05) for the adminis-
tration mode effect on BIDR-IM scores indicated that the corn-
puter administration mode was significamly different from
both paper-and-pencil administration modes, but opposite the
hypothesized direction. BIDR-IM scores were higher for the
computer a d m i n i s t r a t i o n mode than for either paper-and-
pencil administration mode. The main effect for anonymity
level was in the predicted direction for the BIDR-IM scores.
No administration mode effects were expected for the BIDR-
SD scores, yet scores were significantly higher in the computer
administration mode than in the group paper-and-pencil con-
dition. Scores were not significantly different when comparing
the computer administration mode with the individual paper-
and-pencil condition. The main effect of anonymity level on
the BIDR-SD scores was in the same direction as for the BIDR-
IM scores, with lower scores in the anonymous condition.
Responses to the postexperiment questionnaire revealed that
subjects in the anonymous conditions felt more anonymous
than subjects in the identified conditions, F(1,239) = 22.83,
p < .001, indicating that the anonymity manipulation was suc-
cessful. Subjects in both the computer and individual paper-
and-pencil administration modes indicated a greater concern
that the experimenter might evaluate their responses immedi-
ately upon their completion of the BIDR than did subjects in
the group paper-and-pencil administration mode, F(1,239) =
16.81, p < .001.
A separate questionnaire was used only in the computer ad-
ministration conditions to assess unique aspects of that mode.
 COMPUTER ADMINISTRATION
The only difference on these items was that subjects in the
anonymous condition felt more strongly that giving their re-
sponses to the computer helped preserve their anonymity, F(I,
239) = 4.40, p < .04, and this was consistent with findings from
the anonymity manipulation check across all conditions. How-
ever, subjects in the computer administration mode reported
very little to moderate concern (M = 2.4, SD = 1.0 on a 5-point
scale) with the computer's ability to immediately evaluate their
BIDR responses once the responses had been entered into the
computer, and there were no differences between anonymity
conditions within the computer administration condition on
this item. This finding suggests that the subjects in the com-
puter conditions were not overly concerned about the "big
brother effect" In general, these subjects indicated that the
computer administration was moderately to extremely enjoy-
able. They also reported very little concern with pressing the
wrong key and indicated that they did not find the computer
difficult, confusing, or frightening to use.
Discussion
The findings of the present study run counter to results ob-
tained by Martin and Nagao (1989) and to a widely held belief
that computer administration of questionnaires should tend to
reduce socially desirable responding. Greater levels of impres-
sion management were observed in the computer administra-
tion mode than in either o f the paper-and-pencil administra-
tion modes. Also contrary to previous research (Evan & Miller,
1969; Koson et al, 1970; Rezmovic, 1977; Smith, 1963), the
computer administration mode did not appear to enhance re-
spondents' feelings o f anonymity. It is interesting to note here
that had one-tailed directional tests been strictly adhered to,
the conclusions drawn would have indicated no significant dif-
ferences for administration modes. The alternative hypothesis
for BIDR-IM scores was based on the ostensive impartiality
that has generally been assumed o f the computer administra-
tion condition.
Potential reasons for the divergence o f the present results
from those of Martin and Nagao (1989) relate to the use of
different procedures and questionnaires. In the present study,
subjects were informed that the experiment involved question-
naire use in personnel selection, which was vague compared to
the more focused role-playing situation used by Martin and
Nagao (1989). Their procedures were unclear as to whether
respondents could preview, review, or skip items or change re-
sponses in the computer condition. In the present study respon-
dents assigned to the computer administration mode did not
have available any of these options. Yet another difference was
that the present study used the BIDR, whereas Martin and
Nagao (1989) used the Marlowe-Crowne scale to measure so-
cial desirability.
Neither the administration mode nor anonymity manipula-
tions were expected to influence self-deception, yet greater lev-
els o f self-deception were observed in the computer and individ-
ual paper-and-pencil administration modes than in the group
paper-and-pencil administration mode. Additionally, greater
levels of self-deception were observed in the identified condi-
tions.
The similarity o f findings for the BIDR-IM and BIDR-SD
measures would seem to indicate that the scales are redundant.
However, the moderate correlation between the scales suggests
313
they tap different constructs. This alone does not explain why
the BIDR-SD score was affected by the experimental manipula-
tions. Clearly, the BIDR-SD construct could stand further clari-
fication. To this end, Paulhus and Reid (in press) have indicated
that a large number o f the BIDR-SD items on the version o f the
BIDR used in the present study were confounded with impres-
sion management and other traits. A rescoring o f the smaller
subset o f the I0 BIDR-SD items that better represent the self-
deception construct resulted in no significant differences for
administration mode, anonymity condition, or their interac-
tion effects, and this new scale only correlated r = .24 with the
BIDR-IM scores. The most recent version o f the BIDR is pre-
sented in Paulhus (in press) and contains a redefined BIDR-SD
subscale.
Results from a study by Allred and Harris (198.8) suggest that
the structured nature o f the computer administration mode
used in the present study may account for the higher BIDRdM
scores. Allred and Harris compared the equivalence of com-
puter and paper-and-pencil administrations of Gough's Adjec-
tive Checklist. Subjects in the computer condition were re-
quired to respond to each item before the next item appeared
on the screen, whereas subjects in the paper-and-pencil condi-
tion were able to visually scan the page before making re-
sponses. The subjects endorsed significantly more favorable ad-
jectives in the computer administration condition. Without visi-
ble feedback to provide a check and balance regarding how
much one has already distorted responses in certain situations,
one may be more prone to further distort on any given item.
Thus, being primed for a situation requiring impression man-
agement and not being able to scan over either the answers to
questions already given or the questions yet to be asked may
result in greater consistency in managing one's impression. On
the other hand, when the context does not evoke impression
management, the computer administration o f questionnaires
may reduce other undesirable response tendencies. More re-
search focused on such factors is clearly needed to help define
the most beneficial combinations o f computerized question-
naire administration with types o f organizational research con-
texts.
If computer administration leads to increases in the impres-
sion m a n a g e m e n t c o m p o n e n t o f o b s e r v e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e
scores, it is likely that this will have implications for the psycho-
metric properties o f the questionnaire(s) used. One reviewer
speculated that increased motivation to appear socially desir-
able would probably lead to increased interitem correlations as
well as increased interscale correlations, if the present results
are generalizable. This would suggest a source o f common vari-
ance that might underlie data gathered by use of a computer,
affecting the structure o f a given measure and potentially in-
creasing correlations among a set o f measures. Whether to con-
sider such changes in the impression management component
of scores as a contaminating influence or an important compo-
nent o f a given measure is still a matter o f some debate (R.
Hogan & Nicholson, 1988; Paulhus, 1986), and both the context
and purposes of the measurement would seem important con-
siderations in making this distinction.
On the practical side, the ability to manage one's impression
may be quite valuable as a variable in its own right, especially in
contexts where either social influence or conformity is impor-
tant, such as in sales settings (cf. Kirchner, 1962). For example,
L B. Hogan (1988) found that a social desirability score ob-
314 GARY J. LAUTENSCHLAGER AND VICKI L. FLAHERTY
tained from biographical data items used to select salespersons
was predictive of a turnover criterion. Computer administra-
tion of those same questions might produce better discrimina-
tion of individual differences in impression management, per-
haps enhancing the validity o f inferences made from those
scores. In other selection contexts, increases in the impression
management component of questionnaire scores may be con-
sidered a contaminant. This would seem important for ques-
tionnaires that contain personal or sensitive items (e.g., biodata
or honesty tests) where job candidates are not anonymous and
are likely to be motivated to enhance how they are perceived.
Impression management would operate at cross-purposes with
any test intended to measure honesty. In addition, the adminis-
tration of job satisfaction, organizational climate, and other
attitude questionnaires in organizational research may be ad-
versely affected when converted from paper-and-pencil format.
Increases due to impression management on such diagnostic
measures may produce inaccurate and potentially misleading
results.
At the same time, additional basic research is needed to in-
vestigate the effects of using computer administration in place
of traditional paper-and-pencil or face-to-face data collection
formats. Intraindividual differences might be examined using
within-subjects designs while a l t e r n a t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
modes. In addition to examining changes in the rank ordering
of individuals' scores due to administration mode differences,
consideration should be given to the use o f intraindividual
measures of response changes where feasible (cf. Lautenschla-
ger, 1986). The goal here would be to investigate whether and
how administration mode differences affect respondents and,
in turn, influence the internal structure o f a measure. Any such
influences will have implications for validity.
To conclude, the long-accepted belief that computer adminis-
tration of sensitive questionnaire items would generally tend to
reduce socially desirable responding has been called into ques-
tion by the present findings. Thus, computer questionnaire ad-
ministration may or may not be a more desirable method of
administration, depending on whether or not socially desirable
responding is considered a contaminant or a focal variable of
interest. Relative comparisons of the internal structure and the
validity of computer administration of measures vis-h-vis other
administration modes are clearly needed.
References
Allred, L. J., & Harris, W. G. (1988, March). Computerized vs. paper-
and-pencil forms of the adjective checklist. Paper presented at the
annual Southeastern Psychological Association Convention, New
Odeans.
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan.
Bradburn, N. M., & Sudman, S. (1979). Improving interview methods
and questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Butcher, J. N. (Ed.). (1987). Computerized psychological assessment.
New York: Basic Books.
Elwood, D. L. (1969). Automation of psychological testing. American
Psychologist, 24, 287-289.
Evan, W. M., & Miller, J. R. II1. (1969). Differential effects on response
bias of computer vs. conventional administration of a social science
questionnaire: An exploratory methodological experiment. Behav-
ioral Science, 14. 216-227.
View publication stats
Feuer, D. (1986). Computerized testing: A revolution in the making.
7~aining, 23, 80-86.
Greaud, V. A., & Green, B. E (1986). Equivalence of conventional and
computer presentation of speed tests. Applied Psychological Mea-
surement, 10(l), 23-34.
Hedl, J. L, O'Neil, H. E Jr., & Hansen, D. N. (1973). Affective reactions
toward computer-based intelligence testing. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 40, 217-222.
Hogan, J. B. (1988). The influence of socially desirable responding on
biographical data of applicant versusincumbent samples: Implications
for predictive and concurrent research designs. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Hogan, R., & Nicholson, R. A. 0988). The meaning of personality test
scores. American Psychologist, 43, 621-626.
Huberty, C. J., & Morris, J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multi-
ple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302-308.
Kirchner, W. K. (1962). "Real life" faking on the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule by sales applicants. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 46, 128-130.
Koson, D., Kitchen, C., Kochen, M., & Stodolosky, D. (1970). Psycholog-
ical testing by computer: Effect on response bias. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 30, 803-810.
Lautenschlager, G. J. (1986). Within-subject measures for the assess-
ment of individual differences in faking. EducationalandPsycholog-
ical Measurement, 46, 309-316.
Lee, L A. (1986). The effects of past computer experience on computer-
ized aptitude test performance. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 46, 727-733.
Lee, J. A, Moreno, K. E., & Sympson, J. B. (1986). The effects of mode
of test administration on test performance. EducationalandPsycho-
logical Measurement, 46, 467-474.
Martin, C. L, & Nagao, D H. 0989). Some effects of computerized
interviewing on job applicant responses. JournalofApplied Psychol-
ogy, 74, 72-80.
Nederhof, A. J. (1984). Visibility of response as a mediating factor in
equity research. Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 211-215.
Nunnally, J. C. 0978). Psychometric theory New York: McGraw-Hill.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable
responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46,
598-609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in
test responses. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality
assessment via questionnaires (pp. 143-165). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Paulhus, D. L. (in press). Measures of personalityand social psychologi-
cal attitudes. In L P Robinson, P R. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.),
Measures of social-psychological attitudes. New York: Academic
Press.
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (in press). Attribution and denial in so-
ciallydesirableresponding. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychol-
ogy
Rezmovic, V. (1977). The effects of computerized experimentation on
response variance. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation,
9, 144-147.
Smith, R. E. (1963). Examination by computer. Behavioral Science, 8,
76-79.
Wiseman, E (1972). Methodological bias in public opinion surveys.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 105-108.
Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in
organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management
Review, 12, 250-264.
Received May 1, 1989
Revision received January 2, 1990
Accepted January 2, 1990 •