Social Desirability and Undesirability Effects on Survey Response latencies

Abstract

This article looks at paradata in the form of response latencies to identify socially desirable response behaviour. Response latencies are used as proxies to infer information processing modes. So far, evidence is conflicted as to whether socially desirable responding is indicated by shorter or longer response latencies. Our results show that faster responses are associated with the reporting of desirable attitudes and behaviour while slower responses are linked with those that are undesirable. Trait desirability measures that do not take this difference in direction into account may be responsible for the often contradictory results of various researchers who have employed the method in the past.

Parental Depression Predicts Child Body Mass via Parental Support Provision, Child Support Receipt, and Child Physical Activity: Findings From Parent/Caregiver–Child Dyads

“…First, the reliability of the applied MVPA measures was not high, yet similar to the reliability obtained in other studies (see Horodyska et al, 2018;Zarychta et al, 2019). Moreover, MVPA was measured with a self-report which may have limited validity due to the accuracy of the recall and social desirability effects (Andersen and Mayerl, 2017). Preferably, objective accelerometer-based measurement should be used (Dragsted et al, 2018); however, the feasibility of its use in large samples is limited.…”

Effectiveness of Clinical Nurses’ interventions in reducing medication errors in a paediatric ward

“…Socially desirable responses are most likely to occur to socially sensitive questions (Andersen & Mayerl, 2017). To minimise bias, this study used multiple data sets (audit, IIMS and SAQ) across different timescales.…”

The Effects of Corruption in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems on Entrepreneurial Intentions

“…This astonishing result led the scholars to propose that corruption might be identified as a cultural phenomenon able to influence people's ideas and behaviors (Barr and Serra 2010). However, the experimental approach to corruption has two possible flaws: One linked specifically to the illegal nature of corrupt behaviors; people might avoid behaving corruptly in fear of being discovered or being seen as someone who justify corruption (Johnson and Van de Vijver 2003;Andersen and Mayerl 2017;Moreno 2002). The other one is connected to the fact that laboratories cannot fully duplicate natural environments; thus, this approach may suffer from weak external validity (Levitt and List 2007;Barr and Serra 2010).…”