Social desirability – the empirical modeling of a standardized questionnaire

Andreea Tansanu, Alexandra Macarie, Alexandra Condur,

Ioana Simona Boghiţoiu, Lăcrămioara Elena Tudose

Universitatea ”Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, IAŞI

Facultatea de Psihologie şi Ştiinţe ale Educaţiei

Summary

The study’s objective was to build a standardized questionnaire to evaluate social desirability. The

composed questionnaire proposes to identify apparent tendencies in filling out personality evaluation

tests, used in professional selection situations.

The theoretical concepts used in establishing and supporting this test were adjacent to the concept of

social desirability and its two main factors: impression management and self deception. The methods

utilized were those specific to the construction and initial validation of such a test: those of defining and

describing the key dimensions, item modeling, content validity checking (experts' task), etc.

The resulting questionnaire was first tested on a group of 511 subjects, members of the general

population. The results thus obtained confirm the identification of the two main factors of social

desirability: impression management and self deception, both relating to concepts described in the field’s

literature. In order to check the validity of the questionnaire, it was applied alongside an honesty scale,

thus being analyzed the relations between the two tests. There are also described the differences between

the results obtained in the two dimensions by variables such as age, sex, level of education and levels of

income.

The main conclusions of this study insist on outlining the usefulness of such a local, valid, test, in

identifying the validity of the answers given by subjects to personality evaluation tests, in the

organizational context.

Key words: social desirability, impression management, self deception, apparent tendencies, social utility.

1. Definitions and history

Social desirability is a concept mostly

encountered and studied in scientific areas such

as organizational-industrial psychology,

personality psychology, social psychology and

health psychology. It was first defined in 1960

by Crowne and Marlowe who considered social

desirability to be ’’the subject’s need to obtain

the approval by giving answers in a socially and

culturally accepted manner’’.

Therefore, social desirability represents

a problem of the subjects in giving answers

related to social customs, rather than their own

personal beliefs and values (Gravdal & Sandal,

2006).

We can find information regarding the

conflict between ’’to desire VS should’’ in the

literature of the field. When evaluating our

behaviors we talk more about how we should

behave instead of how we would like to behave.

Epley and Dunning, (2000), specified that

people tend to predict how they will behave in

the future, most times overestimating the fact

that they will behave in a socially desirable way

(Tenbrunsel et al., 2007).

Over the time, the concept of social

desirability was described in multiple ways, but

never precisely defined. DeMaio (1984)

suggested that social desirability is the tendency

to present a favorable image of one’s self.

Phillips and Clancy (1972) proclaimed that

social desirability refers to people's tendency to

deny socially undesirable features and

characteristics and to recognize and accept only

the desirable ones. Paulhus (1991) considers that

social desirability is the subject’s tendency to

give answers in a manner that is favorable to the

subject. These authors consider that social

desirability means that people are trying to make

themselves appear more in accordance with

social standards. (Laughland et al., 1994).

Considering this array of definitions, we thought

appropriate for the investigation process

presenting social desirability as the tendency of

an individual to present himself in a favorable

way to others, in order to hide certain flaws or

accentuate certain qualities.

Phillips and Clancy (1972) claim that

social desirability is composed of two aspects,

social desirability, as a personality trait, and the

need for social approval. As a personality trait,

social desirability relates to those behaviors

performed by people in order to make a good

impression about themselves (for example, in a

job interview situation, a person, even though it

doesn't know much about the rain forest, might

declare that he/she is a supporter of saving it,

only to make a good impression).

The need for social approval relates to

presenting a culturally desirable response. This

attribute is encountered in individuals who wish

to project an image of being a part of the

majority. Recent work suggests that this is more

a need of avoiding disapproval. ( Laughland et

al., 1994).

Analyzing some definitions presented

by authors such as DeMaio (1984, as cited in

Laughland et al., 1994), Paulhus (1991, as cited

in Laughland et al., 1994), Philips and Clancy

(1972, as cited in Laughland et al., 1994), we

can say that social desirability is a concept that

concentrates the idea that people want to present

themselves in a good light in front of their peers,

thus integrating themselves in the social norm.

In the past years, social desirability has been

defined as being a sum of two components: self

deception and impression management. By the

fact that each component could be separately

defined, it could also be defined this wide

phenomenon of social desirability.

2. Self deception

The concept of self deception presents

itself as being quite obscure, and constitutes a

relevant area for empirical research. What is self

deception? It is the process by which an

individual cheats himself into considering true

what is in fact false. Otherwise put, it is a way

for us to justify our false beliefs to ourselves.

When philosophers and psychologists

talk about self deception, they insist on

unconscious intentions and motivations,

considering it to be a bad thing. To explain how

self deception works, theorists consider self-

interest, desire, insecurity and other

psychological unconscious factors that

negatively affect our desire to believe. A

common example would be that of a parent that

believes that his/her child is telling the truth

even when facts show that he is lying. In this

case, the parent is lying to himself, because

he/she wants his/her child to tell the truth. It is

mainly considered a moral defect, lack of

honesty and irrational. It is also considered a

matter of destiny: some people are just not

capable of deducting properly from perception

and experience. Anyhow, it is possible that the

parent of the above mentioned child has faith in

his offspring because of the relationship between

them and the experience that it has with the kid,

which would constitute sound reasons to believe

the child’s claims of innocence. To summarize,

an apparent act of self deception can be

explained in cognitive terms without referring to

irrational thinking or unconscious reasoning.

Self deception can be neither immoral, nor an

intellectual defect. It could be that an intelligent

person has sound information about their child,

knowledge that things aren’t always as they

seem, insufficient information about the

accusers, so not enough reasons to doubt the

child. If another person analyses the situation

and agrees that the evidence incriminates the

child and the parent was mistaken, we would say

that he was merely wrong and not self deceived.

We consider he was deceived because we

assume he was irrational, instead of just wrong.

Either way, if cognitive competence is allowed

as an explanation for certain irrational beliefs,

then resorting to unconscious psychological

mechanisms are not thought of as being

necessary.

A better understanding of the dynamics

of self deception might be offered by common

practice. Plate wrote that ’’nothing is worse than

self deception – when the deceived one is

always at home with you’’ (Cratylus as cited in

Mele, 1997). Others sustain that self deception is

a good thing, but matters concerning cheating

one’s self remain up for debate. In any case,

ideally, a complete understanding of the

semantics of self deception would help reduce

the harm caused by it. (Mele, 2001)

Traditionally, self deception has been

defined in relation to deception amongst

individuals, where person A intentionally makes

person B believe sentence p, although person A

knows or believes otherwise. Such deception is

intentional and requires that the person

deceiving know sentence p and the person being

deceived believe it. Because of the connection to

deception amongst individuals, we can make the

distinction between error and self deception,

because of the fact that acquiring and

maintaining false beliefs is done intentionally

and not by accident. If self deception is modeled

similar to deception amongst individuals, then

the person deceiving makes it so he believes

sentence ’p’ while honestly believing sentence

’p’ to be true. In this traditional model, those

deceiving themselves apparently hold

contradictory beliefs and intentionally force

themselves to believe something they know to

be actually false. (Standford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, 2008)

This traditional model of self deception

emphasizes two paradoxes: one concerning the

mental state of the person who deceives– called

the static paradox. How can a person hold

contradictory beliefs at the same time? The other

paradox relates to the process or dynamics of

self deception – also called the dynamic or

strategic paradox. How can a person deceive

himself without interpreting their inefficient

intentions? A person cannot at the same time

believe a sentence and it’s negation as well, this

thing being an impossible state of mind, thus,

self deception as it has been traditionally

understood and defined is impossible. (Mele,

1987, as cited in Standford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, 2008)

These paradoxes have led certain

philosophers to doubt the actual existence of self

deception. (Paluch 1967; Height 1980, as cited

in Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008).

Considering the empirical evidence proves that

self deception is not only possible but also

omnipresent (Sahdra & Thagard 2003), many

have looked to resolve these paradoxes. These

approaches can be organized into two main

groups: those claiming that these self deception

paradigm cases are intentional, and those

denying it, or as they are also called, the

intentional and non-intentional approaches.

Followers of the first approach support the

intentionally interpersonal deceiving capacity

model, as it helps explain the apparent

responsibility towards self deception of the self-

deceived, the selectivity and the differences

between other motivated beliefs, such as

illusions. Followers of the non-intentional

approach are impressed by the static and

dynamic paradoxes involved in self deception,

concerning the intentional interpersonal

deception model. In their opinion, psychological

models used to avoid these paradoxes are

useless, such as autonomous subsystems,

unconscious beliefs or intentions, and others

similar. (Chalmers & Bourget, 2006).

If the radical models of self deception

prove that our very own desires and emotions,

colliding with social pressures, determine us to

maintain our beliefs as far as self deception is

concerned, and to encourage our self deception

habits, that are unaware of consciously, and that

we cannot expect to escape on our own; self

deception would still undermine our

independence, would manifest itself by means of

flaws of character, would remove us from moral

commitments and pleasure. For this reason

Rorty (1994) emphasizes the importance of the

relationship we maintain with our friends, for

they might not share our desires and emotions,

often times in a better position. With the help of

these friends, the self deceived, with a bit of

luck, can recognize and correct the distorted

image they have formed.

Trivers and Ramachandran (1976, 1985)

(as cited in Moomal & Henzi, 2000) are two

other authors attempting to present the evolution

of self deception. Robert Trivers’s original

research was based on the evolving relation

between human deception and self deception

found in the opening of Richard Dawkins’s

book, another evolutionary biologist: ’’There

has to be a narrow selection in order to follow

deception, and this is required to choose a

degree of self deception, redoing some facts and

unconscious reasons, in order to not be betrayed

by subtle signs of self knowledge – deception

being practiced (Trivers, 1976 as cited in

Moomal & Henzi, 2000). Later he developed

this hypothesis in a book, starting from

empirical research to sustain his ideas,

essentially as follows: if the ability to deceive

overpowers one’s ability, and if self deceived

improves the ability to deceive others, then we

are talking about selective advantages of one’s

self. (Trivers, 1985 as cited in Moomal & Henzi,

2000).

An interesting part of the empirical

research that Trivers (1985 as cited in Moomal

& Henzi, 2000) proposes in support of this

thesis constitutes an experiment using the

galvanic response of skin (GSR). When people

listen to a recorded voice, the GSR rises, and if

the voice they hear is their own, even more so.

In this experiment, once their self esteem has

been lowered by means of a made-up task, they

exhibited the tendency to deny the voice they

heard was theirs, although the GSR was

testament to that effect. Once their self esteem

was heightened, they exhibited a tendency to

claim that other voices were also their own,

contradicting the GSR again. Without their

knowledge, subjects were engaging in self

deception, in order to paint a better picture of

themselves. (Trivers, 1985 as cited in Moomal

& Henzi, 2000)

Ramachandran (1996 as cited in

Moomal & Henzi, 2000) contradict Trivers’s

claims with a counter-example, the protagonists

of which were two monkeys. Monkey A and

monkey B, placed in a location where a large

quantity of bananas was available. Subsequently

monkey A directed monkey B to a false location,

in order to keep the bananas for itself. The point

of the author is that Trivers were correct then

monkey A, wanting to deceive monkey B, would

engage in self deception, convincing itself that

the bananas are in the wrong location. So

monkey A would go to the false location as well,

thus defeating the point of the original

deception. Ramachandran, in the same article,

proceeds by constructing a new theory or

explanation for the evolutionary origins of self

deception, different from that of Trivers. This

new explanation is based on clinical data for

patients with an affected right brain hemisphere,

which denied the paralysis, by invoking

exaggerated reasons such as severe arthritis. It is

worth noting that this phenomenon is very rarely

encountered when the left part of the brain is

deteriorated, resulting in the belief that this

affliction is more neurological than

psychological. In view of such clinical evidence,

Ramachandran continues by saying that the

biological function (localized in the left part of

the brain), for which self deception has evolved,

was to impose consistency, continuity, stability

and cohesion over an individual perception of

reality. (Ramachandran, 1996 as cited in

Moomal & Henzi, 2000)

The evaluation of self deception and it’s

consequences on us and others is a difficult task.

It requires, among other things, the

determination of the degree of control that the

people deceiving themselves have; about what it

means to deceive one’s self (is it important

morally or not ?), about it’s significance (is it for

mental health or to cover up moral mistakes ?),

how often does self deception appear (can it be

avoided ?). These are some of the questions

science needs to focus on. (Boncu, 2008)

3. Impression management

Impression management relates to

controlling the information transmitted to the

outside, for the purpose of improving the

perception of others, to gain an advantage or to

reach certain social goals. People can control

impressions about almost anything (brands of

clothes, political views), but the most important

and most common form of impression

management is that concerning one’s own image

– presentation of self, as Goffman calls it in The

Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Goffman,

1961 as cited in Dunn & Forrin 2000)

Schlenker (1980, Wate 2000) defines

impression management as the conscious or

unconscious attempt to control the image

projected in real or imaginary social

interactions. When these images concern one’s

self, they are called presentation of self.

Over time, many writers and

philosophers talked about tactics people use to

control the impression others form of them.

Shakespeare wrote that ˮ life is a scene, and men

and women are actors. They enter and exit the

scene, and one man can play more than one part

in his life ˮ. Erving Goffmann presented the idea

of life as a show, backing up his claims with

research showing that ordinary people act in

such a manner as to create the desired

impression to those around them, as actors do

when playing on stage. Also Goffman stated that

these impressions are used with a precise

purpose in mind. These objectives can be social,

psychological or material (Leary & Kowalski,

1990). Impression management can constitute

the basis for achieving the desired social image,

by both verbal and non-verbal behavior.

(Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997).

The resemblance between impression

management and acting (actors pretending to be

what they are not), shows the intentional and

duplicitous character of the former. Older

research has confirmed this fact, while more

recent research and observation show that cases

exist where people engage in impression

management without being aware that they are

doing so. For example, although amongst family

and close friends we might think that we can be

ourselves, we may discover that we have

different behaviors (or present twisted versions

of ourselves), without thinking about this in

advance. This different behavior can be

explained not only by wanting to be perceived

differently by those around us, but also by others

having certain expectations of us. So practicing

impression management favors the development

of social relations.

As social psychology evolves, it

proposes a more dynamic vision on human

behavior. Currently the idea that people do not

passively react to their environment has become

a proven fact. Individuals try to structure and

model the environment they live in, and try to

remove any threats within this environment.

Concepts such as impression adjustment,

impression management, presentation of self,

relate to the intentional or unintentional control

people exert on the information presented to

those around them, especially those they come

into close contact with (Boncu, 2008).

Impression management can be a

conscious, controlled activity, premeditated

behavior, or, on the contrary, an automatic

process. Controlled self adjustment mainly

appears when performing is very important to an

actor, or when the actor encounters or

anticipates problems receiving positive feedback

(for example when having concerns about the

opinions of other people). It has been proven

that automatic self-presentation, without a

conscious control from the individual, provides

more positive information than conscious self-

presentation.

If initial research started by

investigating impression management from the

point of view of the individual, later

investigations have taken the route of

researching impression management from an

organizational point of view. Thus the idea has

appeared that a basic motivation, both internal

and external to the organization, is to be seen by

others in a favorable manner, and to keep from

sight certain negative aspects. (Diana Nae, 2006)

Also, Jones and Pittman in 1982 (as

cited in Jeffrey et al., 2007) identified five other

tactics of self-presentation that a person might

use: insinuation, intimidation, self-promotion,

begging and exemplification.

As far as nonverbal impression

management tactics are concerned, things

seemed a lot clearer and easier to catalogue, this

way identifying and testing several such tactics

proved efficient. Following a study by R.A.

Baron in 1989, it was concluded that women

that used perfume in preparation for an interview

where evaluated more favorably than the ones

that didn’t. These results were also confirmed

for other nonverbal tactics such as smiling or

affirmative head movements by candidates

during interviews (Baron, 1989). As far as

nonverbal tactics used during interviews,

research is a lot more abundant and detailed, in

an attempt to resolve issues with interview

validity. Researchers (Stevens, Kristof, 1995)

have concluded that there are two main classes

of verbal impression management tactics:

assertive tactics and defensive tactics. Within

the assertive tactics category we have self-

promotion, mentioning achievements or

qualities, attributing certain deserved or

undeserved results, ingratiation. Among

defensive tactics we have excuses, justifications,

acknowledgement of blame, etc.

Although someone might use all five

tactics depending on different situations, some

people will focus on one or two of these. Self-

presentation tactics seem to accentuate the

selection of certain characteristics and omitting

others, rather than deliberate deception. Some

people might use a particular tactic so much that

it becomes a consistent trait of that person’s

personality.

The theoretical field of self-presentation

has become quite vast and varied in the last 20

years. Recent concepts describe impression

management as a fundamental component of

social interaction. In order to communicate,

individuals must select a huge amount of

information themselves, analyzing and

transmitting to others only what the particular

situation or relationship requires. This

presentation of information about one’s self is

influenced by the individual’s goals and by the

type of audience. It requires automatic or

controlled activities and composes of self-

descriptive assertions more or less truthful.

Impression management is present in all stages

of a relationship, both short and long term.

(Boncu, 2008)

4. Usefulness and desirability

The idea that social thinking is not one-

dimensional is not recent. As far back as five

decades ago, many social psychology studies

have shown that there are two dimensions which

compose our perception about people and

personality traits (Dompnier, Pansu, Bressoux,

2007). To Beauvois (2003, 2005), the social

value of a person includes at least two elements:

social desirability and social usefulness.

Early research considered that socially

desirable answers related to a behavior in which

the individual has the tendency to react in such a

manner as to make himself look good to another

individual. Afterwards was presented the idea

that social desirability is a style or type of

personality (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, as cited

in Dubois, 2008).

These two dimensions also play an

essential part in the perception of other people

and in evaluation practices. This idea is

sustained by Beauvois, (Dubois, 2006), who

considers that personality traits are constructs

designed to communicate a person’s value to a

given social context.

Social desirability is defined as a

concept that focuses on the idea that people

adapt to the events with which they are faced, to

the presence of people in accordance with the

motivations of a social group. It is practically

the ability of individuals to make themselves

liked in a social collective. At the same time,

social usefulness represents the measure to

which an event, person or object is adequate

with the options describing the social workings

of a system to which the collective belongs. It

has an almost economical, financial meaning,

because it indicates the profit obtained by the

social organization with the help of that

respective person or object.

The distinction between the two can also

be made from the point of view of social

desirability being a characteristic of dominant

social groups, and social usefulness one of

dominated social groups.

What is social usefulness?

According to the dictionary, usefulness

is a need, a necessity, a service someone or

something can obtain or provide for one.

In a broader sense, usefulness is a

generic concept which describes the possibility

to satisfy a human need. Necessity is a

conditioning of the individual, a metabolically

dependency, which is physical, informational or

affective, and usefulness is the object, process,

property, service or function that resolves a

necessity, that offers the body, mind or

emotional side of the subject with that certain

something which at some point is needed or

wanted.

The concept of social norm is often

associated with the idea of social value. Still,

this association has been often criticized,

because of the ambiguity of the idea of social

value, and it’s simple interpretation.

A study made by Laurent Cambon,

Aicha Djouari and Jean-Léon Beauvois, in 2006,

brings to front this very difference between two

dimensions of the value that people or objects

may possess, and it is interesting how the

concepts are presented as personality traits such

as social desirability and social usefulness. The

former will correspond to an affective action or

a motivation to be liked and sympathized, and

social usefulness underlines the very idea of

potential for success for people which present

themselves as dynamic and competent when

face with the requirements of a certain social

group.

In an article from 2009, Damon and his

collaborators sustained the value of these

dimensions in predicting performance within the

academic environment. So, being liked by others

also has social benefits, one presented here

being the promotion in the university.

More recent studies (Cambon, 2006)

have shown that the distinction between social

desirability and social usefulness seems to

influence social identity. This idea is also

presented in the studies of Stefan Boncu, it’s

form and content depending on factors

belonging to the actor (self awareness, values),

the audience (its expectations), or the situation

(relevant social roles), and that these are

desirable if they fulfill the condition of being

trustworthy (accepted by the audience), and

beneficial (facilitate the achievement of certain

goals, purposes).

Also, it has to be mentioned that during

the 1980’s it has been ascertained that social

desirability is connected to comparative

optimism (the tendency to perceive one’s future

in a self-advantageous manner). Comparative

optimism is conceived as a desirable response,

also connected to a positive self image.

Recently though, in 2006, it was

concluded that social entities which show signs

of comparative optimism are considered to be

more useful than desirable (Cambon, 2006).

Viewing social usefulness separately, it

represents the measure in which an object is

useful to an individual. In other words, it is a

matter of the value associated to the object by an

individual. The social usefulness of an object

may differ from individual to individual, by

means of one’s values, of the social context in

which they’ve grown, and of the resources they

control.

The need for the concept of usefulness

was required when it was established that the

monetary value of all goods does not always

equal the value which individuals place on these

goods. As Adam Smith noted in ’’Treasure of

Nations’’, the word value has two different

meanings, sometimes it express the usefulness

of a certain object, other times the buying power

of other objects. The first can be called

utilization value, while the second, exchange

value.

There are also authors which contest the

importance of the concept of usefulness, such as

Paul Samuelson, to which approaching

behaviour in terms of preference is sufficient. In

return, theorists of rational choice, such as

Harsanyi, (Selten, 1992), argue the fact that

rational individuals look to maximize their

expected usefulness, thus succeeding in

satisfying the functional requests of a social or

organizational environment.

So, in psychology, social usefulness is a

relatively recent concept (Dubois, Beauvois,

2005), but which manages to impose itself more

and more in the fields literature, making it

almost impossible to neglect in the context of

social desirability.

5. Scales of measurement for Social

Desirability

5.1. The Crowne–Marlow scale

Within the organizational context, some

individuals, while filling out personality, temper

or conduct evaluation questionnaires, tend to

present themselves in a positive manner. They

tend to exaggerate or over evaluate their

qualities and achievements, and often they deny

or minimize their failures and deficiencies. It is

practically an attempt to present one’s self as

being in accordance with social standards and

patterns, or that which is called social

desirability in psychology, a concept for which

great efforts have been made towards building a

measurement scale for, ever since the end of the

first world war. (Paulhus, 1991, as citit în

Dwight A., Feigelson S.M., 2000).

The term social desirability was first

tied to the work of Edwards (1957), who

examined it’s effects at the MMPI (Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory). Step by

step, this concept determined the tendency of

distorting social relations in a favorable manner.

Wiggins(1968, as cited in McCrae & Costa,

1983) brings the idea that this concept has two

acceptations: it can be seen as a property of

scales, or as a differentiating individual variable.

This way, one of the most known scales

was built in 1960 by Crowne and Marlowe

(Social Desirability or Need for Approval Scale,

CM). This scale’s purpose was to identify this

particular tendency of individuals to project a

favorable image towards the outside, for the

purpose of social interactions.

The belief that the CM scale is able to

identify this tendency is sustained by numerous

empirical studies (as cited in Johnson, 2005).

Some research has shown that there is a

significant positive connection between the CM

scale and self-favorable evaluations, including

happiness and satisfaction in life (Carstensen

and Cone, 1983; Kozma and Stones, 1987, as

cited in Johnson, 2005).

5.2. The Balanced Inventory of Desirable

Responding (BIDR), Paulhus (1984, 1988)

Paulhus (1984) proposes a different

model for social desirability. In the author’s

vision, it comprises of two factors: self

deception (an honest opinion about one’s self,

but over-evaluated) and impression management

(a favorable presentation of self to others).

Paulhus and John, 1998, claim that the reasons

behind self deception and impression

management are different. Self deception tends

to be stable, as the person actually believes what

they say about themselves, and it represents an

unconscious motivation of self deficiency.

Impression management, on the other hand, is

considered to imply a tendency of presenting

responses to create a positive social image.

Furthermore, impression management depends

on the situation of the person, and their

respective reasons.

In the case of impression management,

the individual is motivated by social approval

and by the desire to present himself in a positive

and conventional social light. Self deception

however, would be motivated by the need to

present one’s self positively from the point of

view of certain dominant traits, emotional

stability and intelligence. (Booth-Kewley et al,

2005).

The Balanced Inventory of Desirable

Responding is a descendant from the tool built

by Sackheim and Gur in 1978, Self-and-Other

Deception Questionnaires. In this last variant

self deception was defined as people having a

tendency to deny certain feelings and

threatening thoughts about their own person.

This definition contradicts that of Paulhus, more

recent (1988), which underlines the fact that self

deception constitutes the ensemble of

exaggerated assertions about the positive

cognitive attributes of one’s self (an increased

confidence in own thought), and which in fact

represents a self-defense mechanism, a

glorification of self, or ego-enhancement (as

cited in Robinson, Shaver, Lawrence, 1991).

Examples of items built on self

deception are: I am a completely rational person,

I never regret the decisions I make, and ones

based on impression management: I rarely tell

lies, There are times when I take advantage of

others (as cited in Robinson, Shaver, &

Lawrence, 1991).

BIDR contains 40 items in the form of

statements. The subjects must choose the

appropriate statement from a 7 step scale. This

instrument is used in both clinical context and

personnel selection.

6. Constructing the DS08 questionnaire

The process of creating the DS08

questionnaire began in March of 2008 during the

E-team collective group. The questionnaire was

conceived to be applied in an organizational

environment, to identify those people whose

deceiving tendency is high, who greatly

exaggerate their qualities, and hide a lot of their

defects.

During the E-team project several stages

were followed in order to reach the current

version of the DS08 questionnaire. Things

started by analyzing theories, models and

existing research on social desirability. As we

were unable to find a model to use for the

construction of the items, it was decided to

proceed in a different manner. A pre-test was

conducted during which each team member had

to identify 5 people which would name 3

socially desirable behaviors. These behaviors

were sorted by frequency, and a final list of 71

behaviors was obtained. We composed items for

each of these 71 behaviors identifying the two

components: impression management and self

deception. The generated items were discussed

during the E-team sessions, and it was decided

which would be kept and which removed. We

used the following criteria in item selection: the

items had to be clear (not use words certain

people might not understand), to present as well

as possible the concept of social desirability, to

be as short and to not contain negations or

double sentences.

After numerous meetings an initial

questionnaire was composed which contained

126 items. This questionnaire was applied on

511 subjects of the general population. After

applying the questionnaires a database was

created and statistical analysis was carried out.

Consulting the works of Jean Leon Beauvois

and Nicole Dubois, the questionnaire items that

defined the usefulness dimension were

identified.

After the analysis of the internal

consistency of the questionnaire, the existence

of the two components was confirmed:

impression management and self deception.

Following meetings focused on removing

redundant items, items that lower internal

consistency or which negatively impacted the

rest of the test. Finally 91 items were obtained,

with the following note: ˮ Read each

affirmation carefully and decide if it is true (A)

or false (B) as far as you are concerned. Circle

one of the options. ˮ

The items were built on a dichotomy

scale of: true (T) or false (F), showing the two

components of social desirability: impression

management and self deception, as well as the

concept of usefulness.

Examples of items:

1 Impression management :

1. I am particularly concerned with

what others think of me.A F

1 Self deception :

26. I’m always fair in my actions. A F

2 Usefulness :

6. I am someone appreciated for

efficiency in my work.A F

6.1. Research design

The DS08 questionnaire, defined above,

was applied on a batch of 511 subjects in order

to test internal consistency and to analyze the

significant relations social desirability

establishes with other variables.

The subjects of this research had the age

between 15 and 77, with an average age of 34.2

years and a standard deviance of 11.18. Out of

all the subjects, 53.5% are women and 46.5%

are men. Concerning the level of education,

2.3% of the subjects had middle level education,

54.6% had high school level and 42.9% had

graduated university. Regarding income levels,

most had an income between 200 and 500 €

monthly. Employment wise, 14.6% worked in

production, 68.4% in services and 16.3% in

retail.

After analyzing internal consistency the

following Alpha Cronbach coefficients were

obtained:

Impression management = 0.801

Self deception = 0.884

Usefulness = 0.727

As illustrated in the below tables:

Reliability Statistics

.801 47

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

Impression management

Reliability Statistics

.884 48

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

Self deception

Reliability Statistics

.727 22

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

Usefulness

Fig. 1. The internal consistency of the

questionnaire

6.2. Data analysis and interpretation

Analyzing the connections and

differences between the score average for self

deception, impression management or

usefulness for various kinds of subjects, by

gender, age, education, or income levels, several

effects of the social and demographic variable

were identified from a statistical point of view.

Self deception is negatively affected by

age, as a subject’s age increase, they start to

build a self-image more in tune with reality.

During their existence people gain a certain

experience as far as life and relations with others

are concerned. This way the self-image is

constructed based on feedback from the outside,

and not based on what they would want to be.

We also found a negative relation between age

and a subject’s score for usefulness, which

means that as one progresses in age, they tend to

feel less competent, young people having a more

developed sense of purpose.

Elderly subjects are involved in fewer

activities than when they were young which

makes their perceived usefulness to diminish as

time passes. Being more active and in an almost

continual learning process, young people tend to

feel more useful in their respective environment.

The T test (independent samples T test)

by organization type (company or public

institution) brought to light differences between

all three dimensions analyzed, showing that

employees of the private sector (companies):

Have a significantly higher level of self

deception t(303) = -2.613, p = 0.009

Perform impression management a lot

more often t(307) = -2.429, p = 0.016

Have a significantly higher sense of

usefulness t(330) = -1.990, p = 0.047

Privately employed subjects are

motivated in their role by the possibility of

promotions or career advancement more than

subjects employed in the public sector, which

may explain the higher level of practicing

impression management and the raised level of

self deception. Also, in the private field

employee performance is constantly verified

which determines the high level of usefulness

exhibited by these subjects.

The three dimensions of social

desirability do not seem however to show

significant differences when put side by side

with the subject’s gender, level of education,

field of work (services, retail, production) or

level of income.

7. Conclusions and strategies for

optimizations

Following the testing of questionnaire

DS08 on a number of 511 subjects, it has proven

to be a valid questionnaire, proposing to identify

the deception tendencies exhibited when filling

out personality evaluation tests, in situations of

professional evaluation and selection. Obtaining

high scores on the desirability scale can indicate

a tendency for the subject to falsify (consciously

or unconsciously) answers to tests or hiring

interview questions.

In future, the questionnaire will be

applied in the test-retest phase in order to

ascertain fidelity, then the construct’s validity

will be tested by building experimental

situations. Also, future research will attempt to

analyze the prediction power of social

desirability as far as performance in various

areas of activity is concerned. We wish to

explore whether social desirability is something

to avoid in candidates or if it is a component of

social intelligence. We will also apply the

designed test along with the Crowne-Marlowe

and BIDR scales in order to analyze concurrent

validity.

8. Reference List

1. Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and

Organizational Conflict: Effects of the Type A

Behavior Pattern and Self-Monitoring.

Organizational Behavior & Human Decision

Processes, vol. 44, no. 2, p. 281-296.

2. Boncu, Ș., „Auto-prezentarea”,

Psihologie (învătământ la distanța), Editura

Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iași.

3. Booth-Kewley, S., Larson, G.E., &

Miyoshi, D.K. (2007). Social desirability effects

on computerized and paper-and-pencil

questionnaires, Journal Computers in Human

Behavior, vol. 23, p.463-477.

4. Bozeman, D. P. & Kacmar, K. M.

(1997). A cybernetic model of impression

management processes in organizations în

Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, vol. 69, p. 9 – 30.

5. Cambon, L., (2006). The evaluative

function of personality traits: Towards the focus

on the two value dimensions of social

desirability and social utility, Psychologie

française vol. 51, p. 285-305.

6. Cambon, L., Djouari, A., & Beauvois,

J.-L. (2006). Social Judgment Norms and Social

Utility: When It Is More Valuable to Be Useful

Than Desirable, Swiss Journal of Psychology

65, 2006, 167–180.

7. Chalmers, D., & Bourget, D. (2006).

Self-deception, Standford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, Australian National University.

8. Damon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F.,

Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Achievement

Goal Promotion at University: Social

Desirability and Social Utility of Mastery and

Performance Goal, Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology .vol. 96, no. 1, p. 119–134.

9. Dompnier, B., Pansu, P., & Bressoux, P.

(2007). Social utility, social desirability and

scholastic judgments: Toward a personological

model of academic evaluation, European Journal

of Psychology of Education, vol. 3, p. 333-350.

10. Dubois, N., & Beauvois, J.-L. (2005).

Normativeness and individualism, European

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol.

35, p. 123-146.

11. Dunn, E.W. & Forrin, N., Impression

Management

12. Dwight, S.A., Feigelson, M.E.,

(2000). A quantitative review of the effect of

computerized testing on the measurement of

social desirability în Educational and

Psychological Measurement, vol. 60, p. 340-

360.

13. Gravdal, L., & Sandal, G.M. (2006).

The two-factor model of social desirability:

Relation to coping and defense, and implications

for health, Journal of Personality and Individual

Differences, vol. 40, p. 1051-1061.

14. Jeffrey, S.A., Webb, A., & Schulz, A.

(2007). The Use of Self-Set Goals as an

Impression Management Tactic: Antecedents

and Consequences..

15. Johnson, T.P., & Fendrich, M. (2005). A

validation of the Crowne-Marlow social

desirability.

16. Laughland, A.S., Musser, W.N., &

Musser, L.M. (1994). An Experiment in

Contingent Valuation and Social Desirability,

Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Review, vol. 23, p. 30-36.

17. Mele, A.R. (1997b). Real self-deception,

Department of Philosophy, Davidson College.

18. Mele, A.R. (2001). Self-Deception

Unmasked. books.google.com.

19. Moomal, Z., & Henzi, S.P. (2000). The

Evolutionary Psychology of Deception and Self-

Deception, Errata, vol 30, no. 1, p. 45-46.

20. Nae, D. (2006). „Managementul

impresiei” în Piața muncii –

http://www.sfin.ro/articol_7240/

managementul_impresiei.html

21. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and

control of response bias, J. P. Robinson, P. R.

Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of

personality and social psychological attitudes

(pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press,

Inc.

22. Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998).

Egoistic and moralistic bias in self-

perceptions: the interplay of self-deceptive

styles with basic traits and motives. Journal

of personality, vol. 66, p. 1024-1060.

23. Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J.

(1972). Some effects of “social desirability”

in survey studies, American Journal of

Sociology, vol. 77, p. 921–940.

24. Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R.,

Wrightsman, L.S., (1991). Measures of

personality and social psychological attitudes,

Elsevier, vol. 1, p. 27-30, 37-51.

25. Rorty, A. O. (1994). User-Friendly Self-

Deception, Philosophy, vol. 69, p. 211-228.

26. Standford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, (2008). Self deception

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-

deception/

27. Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L.

(1995). Making the right impression: A field

study of applicant impression management

during job interviews, Journal of Applied

Psychology, vol. 80, p. 587–606.

28. Tenbrunsel, A.E., Diekmann, K.A.,

Wade-Benzoni, K.A., & Bazerman, M.H.

(2007). The ethical mirage: a temporal

explanation as to why we aren’t as ethical as we

think we are, Research in Organizational

Behavior.

29. Wata, A. (2000). Impression

Management, Social Psychology,

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/social_psychology/53283/2