Social desirability bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In social science research, social desirability bias is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting "good behavior" or under-reporting "bad," or undesirable behavior; the tendency poses a serious problem with conducting research with self-reports, especially questionnaires. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences.

Topics where socially desirable responding (SDR) is of special concern are self-reports of abilities, personality, sexual behavior, and drug use; when confronted with the question "How often do you masturbate?," for example, respondents may be pressured by the societal taboo against masturbation, and either under-report the frequency or avoid answering the question. Therefore, the mean rates of masturbation derived from self-report surveys are likely to be severe underestimates.

When confronted with the question, "Do you use drugs/illicit substances?" the respondent may be influenced by the fact that controlled substances, including the more commonly used marijuana, are generally illegal. Respondents may feel pressured to deny any drug use or rationalize it, e.g. "I only smoke marijuana when my friends are around." The bias can also influence reports of number of sexual partners. In fact, the bias may operate in opposite directions for different subgroups: Whereas men tend to inflate the numbers, women tend to underestimate theirs. In either case, the mean reports from both groups are likely to be distorted by social desirability bias.

Other topics that are sensitive to social desirability bias include:

  • Self-reported personality traits will correlate strongly with social desirability bias[1]
  • Personal income and earnings, often inflated when low and deflated when high
  • Feelings of low self-worth and/or powerlessness, often denied
  • Excretory functions, often approached uncomfortably, if discussed at all
  • Compliance with medicinal dosing schedules, often inflated
  • Family planning, including use of contraceptives and abortion.[2]
  • Religion, often either avoided or uncomfortably approached [3]
  • Patriotism, either inflated or, if denied, done so with a fear of other party's judgment
  • Bigotry and intolerance, often denied, even if it exists within the responder
  • Intellectual achievements, often inflated
  • Physical appearance, either inflated or deflated
  • Acts of real or imagined physical violence, often denied
  • Indicators of charity or "benevolence," often inflated
  • Illegal acts, often denied
  • Voter turnout[4][5][6][7]

Individual differences[edit]

In 1953, Allen L. Edwards introduced the notion of social desirability to psychology, demonstrating the role of social desirability in the measurement of personality traits, he demonstrated that social desirability ratings of personality trait descriptions are very highly correlated with the probability that a subsequent group of people will endorse these trait self-descriptions. In his first demonstration of this pattern, the correlation between one group of college students’ social desirability ratings of a set of traits and the probability that college students in a second group would endorse self-descriptions describing the same traits was so high that it could distort the meaning of the personality traits. In other words, do these self-descriptions describe personality traits or social desirability?[8]

Edwards subsequently developed the first Social Desirability Scale, a set of 39, true-false questions extracted from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), questions that judges could, with high agreement, order according to their social desirability;[1] these items were subsequently found to be very highly correlated with a wide range of measurement scales, MMPI personality and diagnostic scales.[9] The SDS is also highly correlated with the Beck Hopelessness Inventory.[10]

The fact that people differ in their tendency to engage in socially desirable responding (SDR) is a special concern to those measuring individual differences with self-reports. Individual differences in SDR make it difficult to distinguish those people with good traits who are responding factually from those distorting their answers in a positive direction.

When SDR cannot be eliminated, researchers may resort to evaluating the tendency and then control for it. A separate SDR measure must be administered together with the primary measure (test or interview) aimed at the subject matter of the research/investigation.The key assumption is that respondents who answer in a socially desirable manner on that scale are also responding desirably to all self-reports throughout the study.

In some cases the entire questionnaire package from high scoring respondents may simply be discarded. Alternatively, respondents' answers on the primary questionnaires may be statistically adjusted commensurate with their SDR tendencies. For example, this adjustment is performed automatically in the standard scoring of MMPI scales.

The major concern with SDR scales is that they confound style with content. After all, people actually differ in the degree to which they possess desirable traits (e.g. nuns versus criminals). Consequently, measures of social desirability confound true differences with social-desirability bias.

Standard measures[edit]

Until the 1990s, the most commonly used measure of socially desirable responding was the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale;[11] the original version comprised 33 True-False items. A shortened version, the Strahan–Gerbasi only comprises ten items, but some have raised questions regarding the reliability of this measure.[12]

In 1991, Delroy L. Paulhus published the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): a questionnaire designed to measure two forms of SDR.[13] This forty-item instrument provides separate subscales for "impression management," the tendency to give inflated self-descriptions to an audience; and self-deceptive enhancement, the tendency to give honest but inflated self-descriptions; the commercial version of the BIDR called "Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS)."[14]

Non-English measures[edit]

Scales designed to tap response styles are available in all major languages, including Italian[15] and German.[16]

Another measure has been used in surveys or opinion polls carried out by interviewing people face-to-face or through the telephone.[17]

Other response styles[edit]

"Extreme response style" (ERS) takes the form of exaggerated extremity preference, e.g. for '1' or '7' on 7-point scales. Its converse, 'moderacy bias' entails a preference for middle range (or midpoint) responses (e.g. 3–5 on 7-point scales).

"Acquiescence" (ARS) is the tendency to respond to items with agreement/affirmation independent of their content ("yea"-saying).

These kinds of response styles differ from social desirability bias in that they are unrelated to the question's content and may be present in both socially neutral and in socially favorable or unfavorable contexts, whereas SDR is, by definition, tied to the latter.

Anonymity and confidentiality[edit]

When the subjects' details are not required, as in sample investigations and screenings, anonymous administration is preferably used as the person does not feel directly and personally involved in the answers he or she is going to give.

Anonymous self-administration provides neutrality, detachment and reassurance. An even better result is obtained by returning the questionnaires by mail or ballot boxes so as to further guarantee anonymity and the impossibility to identify the subjects who filled in the questionnaires.

A further method to assess the prevalence of socially sensitive issues is the so-called randomized response technique. Therein, for example, respondents secretly throw a coin and respond “yes” if it comes up heads, and are instructed to respond truthfully (e.g. drug abuse) if it comes up tails. This enables the researcher to estimate the actual prevalence of the given behavior without needing to know the true state of an individual respondent.

Neutralized administration[edit]

SDR tends to be reduced by wording questions in a neutral fashion. Another is to use forced-choice questions where the two options have been equated for their desirability.

One approach is to administer tests through a computer (self-administration software).[18] A computer, even compared to the most competent interviewer, provides a higher sense of neutrality as it does not appear judgmental.

Behavioral measurement[edit]

The most recent approach—the over-claiming technique—assesses the tendency to claim knowledge about non-existent items. More complex methods to promote honest answers include the randomized response and unmatched count techniques, as well as the bogus pipeline technique.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b Edwards, Allen (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: The Dryden Press.
  2. ^ Stuart, Gretchen S.; Grimes, David A. (2009). "Social desirability bias in family planning studies: A neglected problem". Contraception. 80 (2): 108–112. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2009.02.009.
  3. ^ Presser, Stanley; Stinson, Linda (1998). "Data Collection Mode and Social Desirability Bias in Self-Reported Religious Attendance". American Sociological Review. 63 (1): 137–145. doi:10.2307/2657486. JSTOR 2657486.
  4. ^ Brian, Duff; Hanmer, Michael J.; Park, Won-Ho; White, Ismail K. (2007). "Good Excuses: Understanding Who Votes With An Improved Turnout Question". Public Opinion Quarterly. 71 (1): 67–90. doi:10.1093/poq/nfl045.
  5. ^ Hanmer, Michael J.; Banks, Antoine J.; White, Ismail K. (2013). "Experiments to reduce the over-reporting of voting: A pipeline to the truth". Political Analysis. 22 (1): 130–141. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt027.
  6. ^ Morin-Chassé, Alexandre; Bol, Damien; Stephenson, Laura B.; Labbé St-Vincent, Simon (2017). "How to survey about electoral turnout? The efficacy of the face-saving response items in 19 different contexts" (PDF). Political Science Research and Methods. 5 (3): 575–584. doi:10.1017/psrm.2016.31.
  7. ^ Morin-Chassé, Alexandre (2018). "How to Survey About Electoral Turnout? Additional Evidence". Journal of Experimental Political Science. 5 (3): 230–233. doi:10.1017/XPS.2018.1.
  8. ^ Edwards, Allen (1953). "The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed". Journal of Applied Psychology. 37 (2): 90–93. doi:10.1037/h0058073.
  9. ^ Fordyce, William (1956). "Social desirability in the MMPI". Journal of Consulting Psychology. 20 (3): 171–175. doi:10.1037/h0048547.
  10. ^ Linehan, Marsha (1981). "Assessment of suicide ideation and parasuicide: Hopelessness and social desirability". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 49 (5): 773–775. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.49.5.773.
  11. ^ Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
  12. ^ Thompson, E. R. & Phua, F. T. T. 2005. Reliability among senior managers of the Marlowe-Crowne short-form social desirability scale, Journal of Business and Psychology, 19, 541-554.
  13. ^ Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response biases. In J.P. Robinson et al. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press
  14. ^ Paulhus D.L., (1998) Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS) is published by Multi-Health Systems of Toronto.
  15. ^ Roccato M., (2003) Desiderabilità Sociale e Acquiescenza. Alcune Trappole delle Inchieste e dei Sondaggi. LED Edizioni Universitarie, Torino. ISBN 88-7916-216-0
  16. ^ Stoeber, J. (2001). The social desirability scale-17 (SD-17). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222-232.
  17. ^ Corbetta P., (2003) La ricerca sociale: metodologia e tecniche. Vol. I-IV. Il Mulino, Bologna.
  18. ^ McBurney D.H., (1994) Research Methods. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, California.