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

被引:52
作者
Lanz, Lukas [1 ]
Thielmann, Isabel [2 ]
Gerpott, Fabiola H. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] WHU Otto Beisheim Sch Management, Erkrather Str 224a, D-40233 Dusseldorf, Germany
[2] Univ Koblenz Landau, Landau, Germany
[3] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
economic games; meta-analysis; prosocial behavior; social desirability; social desirability scales; IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT; SELF-DECEPTION; STAKE SIZE; PUBLICATION BIAS; DICTATOR GAMES; ULTIMATUM GAME; HONEST PEOPLE; RESPONSE BIAS; AL.S; 2017; PERSONALITY;
D O I
10.1111/jopy.12662
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Social desirability (SD) scales have been used for decades in psychology and beyond. These scales are sought to measure individuals' tendencies to present themselves overly positive in self-reports, thus allowing to control for SD biases. However, research increasingly questions the validity of SD scales, proposing that SD scales measure substantive trait characteristics rather than response bias. To provide a large-scale empirical test of the validity of SD scales, we conducted a meta-analysis (k = 41; N = 8980) on the relation between SD scale scores and prosocial behavior in economic games (where acting in a prosocial manner is highly socially desirable). If SD scales measure what they are supposed to (namely, SD bias), they should be negatively linked to prosocial behavior; if SD scales measure socially desirable traits, they should be positively linked to prosocial behavior. Unlike both possibilities, the meta-analytic correlation between SD scores and prosocial behavior was close to zero, suggesting that SD scales neither clearly measure bias nor substantive traits. This conclusion was also supported by moderation analyses considering differences in the implementation of games and the SD scales used. The results further question the validity of SD scales with the implication that scholars and practitioners should refrain from using them.
引用
收藏
页码:203 / 221
页数:19
相关论文
共 132 条
[21]   A Meta-Analytic Multitrait Multirater Separation of Substance and Style in Social Desirability Scales [J].
Connelly, Brian S. ;
Chang, Luye .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, 2016, 84 (03) :319-334
[22]   An experiment on individual 'parochial altruism' revealing no connection between individual 'altruism' and individual 'parochialism' [J].
Corr, Philip J. ;
Heap, Shaun P. Hargreaves ;
Seger, Charles R. ;
Tsutsui, Kei .
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2015, 6
[23]  
Cribari-Neto F, 2010, J STAT SOFTW, V34, P1
[24]   A NEW SCALE OF SOCIAL DESIRABILITY INDEPENDENT OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY [J].
CROWNE, DP ;
MARLOWE, D .
JOURNAL OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGY, 1960, 24 (04) :349-354
[25]   SELF-PRESENTATION DYNAMICS ON OVERT INTEGRITY TESTS - EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF THE REID REPORT [J].
CUNNINGHAM, MR ;
WONG, DT ;
BARBEE, AP .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 1994, 79 (05) :643-658
[26]   The role of the justice motive in economic decision making [J].
Dalbert, Claudia ;
Umlauft, Soeren .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 30 (02) :172-180
[27]   Honest People Tend to Use LessNot MoreProfanity: Comment on Feldman et al.'s (2017) Study 1 [J].
de Vries, Reinout E. ;
Hilbig, Benjamin E. ;
Zettler, Ingo ;
Dunlop, Patrick D. ;
Holtrop, Djurre ;
Lee, Kibeom ;
Ashton, Michael C. .
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PERSONALITY SCIENCE, 2018, 9 (05) :516-520
[28]   Rethinking Trait Conceptions of Social Desirability Scales: Impression Management as an Expression of Honesty-Humility [J].
de Vries, Reinout E. ;
Zettler, Ingo ;
Hilbig, Benjamin E. .
ASSESSMENT, 2014, 21 (03) :286-299
[29]   Does Power Corrupt or Enable? When and Why Power Facilitates Self-Interested Behavior [J].
DeCelles, Katherine A. ;
DeRue, D. Scott ;
Margolis, Joshua D. ;
Ceranic, Tara L. .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2012, 97 (03) :681-689
[30]   A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis [J].
Duval, S ;
Tweedie, R .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2000, 95 (449) :89-98