1983
DOI: 10.5465/255979
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social Desirability Response Effects: Three Alternative Models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
97
0
2

Year Published

1985
1985
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
3
97
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Several measures were taken to overcome this issue: (1) influence tactics were captured from different sources; (2) sources for socially desirable responses were captured-project manager and team member knowledge about the project, level of interpersonal trust between the project manager and team member, project manager and team members involvement in the project, and project complexity-and was tested for any possible effect on influence tactics; and (3) anonymity of responses was assured. These measures were consistent with the suggestions provided by Ganster et al [14] and Podsakoff et al [49]. More details are listed in Appendix C.…”
Section: Measuring Congruencesupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Several measures were taken to overcome this issue: (1) influence tactics were captured from different sources; (2) sources for socially desirable responses were captured-project manager and team member knowledge about the project, level of interpersonal trust between the project manager and team member, project manager and team members involvement in the project, and project complexity-and was tested for any possible effect on influence tactics; and (3) anonymity of responses was assured. These measures were consistent with the suggestions provided by Ganster et al [14] and Podsakoff et al [49]. More details are listed in Appendix C.…”
Section: Measuring Congruencesupporting
confidence: 78%
“…Participants may fail to report their attitudes and behaviors accurately with self-report measures, due, in part, to social desirability effects, which describes the tendency for participants to present themselves in a favorable light, regardless of their feelings (Ganster, Hennessey, & Luthans, 1983). Self-reports also raise questions about common method bias because the same person is providing the measure of the independent and dependent variable (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, concerning the assessment of smoking-related cognitions, it is possible that adolescents reported more negative prototypes and attitudes towards smoking than they actually had, as they were aware of the social desirability of non-smoking. Social desirability may thus have had an impact on data (Ganster, Hennessey, & Luthans, 1983).…”
Section: Limitations and Strengthsmentioning
confidence: 99%