Do Social Desirability Scales Measure Dishonesty?

Abstract

Abstract. Social Desirability (SD) scales are sometimes treated, by researchers, as measures of dishonesty and, by practitioners, as indicators of faking on self-report assessments in high-stakes settings, such as personnel selection. Applying SD scales to measure dishonesty or faking, however, remains a point of contention among the scientific community. This two-part study investigated if SD scales, with a True/ False response format, are valid for these purposes. Initially, 46 participants completed an SD scale and 12 personality items while under instruction to “think aloud”, that is, to verbalize all the thoughts they had. These spoken thoughts were recorded and transcribed. Next, 175 judges rated the participants’ honesty in relation to each SD item, based on the participants’ transcribed spoken thoughts and their selected response to the item. The results showed that responses keyed as “socially desirable responding” were judged as significantly less honest than those not keyed as such. However, the effect size was very small, and the socially desirable responses were still being judged as somewhat honest overall. Further, participants’ SD scale sum scores were not related to the judges’ ratings of participant honesty on the personality items. Thus, overall, SD scales appear to be a poor measure of dishonesty.

Are social desirability scales desirable? A meta‐analytic test of the validity of social desirability scales in the context of prosocial behavior

“…The validity of SD scales as faking detectors has, however, been heavily criticized in recent years (e.g., Connelly & Chang, 2016;Holtrop et al, 2020;Uziel, 2010;Ward & King, 2018). For example, scholars (e.g., de Vries et al, 2014;Uziel, 2010) argued that SD scores reflect substantive (socially desirable) traits rather than a general response style.…”

Religiosity predicts prosociality, especially when measured by self-report: A meta-analysis of almost 60 years of research.

“…One common method of dealing with selfenhancement and socially desirable responding is the inclusion of a self-enhancement scale like the Marlowe Crowne scale (Reynolds, 1982) or the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1998) as a control variable. However, substantial criticism has been leveled against the validity of these measures (de Vries et al, 2014;Holtrop et al, 2021;Uziel, 2010), and it is unlikely that these scales measure the construct with enough resolution to be viable statistical controls. Therefore, rather than relying on a statistical control, we recommend addressing the problem of self-enhancement with study design.…”

A Framework for Understanding Mental Imagery in Design Cognition Research

“…In psychology, so-called "social desirability measurements" have been suggested to minimise the subjective nature of mental imagery questionnaires. Social desirability scales are a psychological measure that were designed to test whether individuals answer self-response tests in what is seen as a culturally approved way by presenting questions and scenarios that intend to describe improbable or negative behaviours (Holtrop et al, 2021). It is believed that if a person responds to many of these claims in a way that depicts them as an overly virtuous person, they are more than likely lying or answering in what they deem to be a socially desirable way (Holtrop et al, 2021).…”

“…Social desirability scales are a psychological measure that were designed to test whether individuals answer self-response tests in what is seen as a culturally approved way by presenting questions and scenarios that intend to describe improbable or negative behaviours (Holtrop et al, 2021). It is believed that if a person responds to many of these claims in a way that depicts them as an overly virtuous person, they are more than likely lying or answering in what they deem to be a socially desirable way (Holtrop et al, 2021). Whilst still lacking in evidence, other measures of imagery vividness have been suggested which could provide a more objective form of measurement (Bainbridge et al, 2021).…”