Social Desirability

Indirect Questioning

and the Validity of

ROBERT J. FISHER
Indirect (i.e., structured projective) questioning has been employed frequently in
marketing and other social sciences to reduce social desirability bias, that is, systematic error in self-report measures resulting from the desire of respondents to
avoid embarrassment and project a favorable image to others. Yet little is known
about the validity of indirect questioning in reducing social desirability bias. This
article reports on three studies that examine indirect questioning as a technique to
reduce social desirability bias on self-report measures. The effects of asking indirect
(i.e., structured, projective) questions were compared with direct (i.e., structured,
personal) questions. The pattern of results indicates that indirect questioning reduces
social desirability bias on variables subject to social influence and has no significant
effect on socially neutral variables. The social nature of the differences between
direct and indirect questioning groups, and the attribution of an undesirable trait to
an out-group but not an in-group target, supports the view that subjects projected
their beliefs and evaluations in the indirect response situation. These results are
consistent across several product categories and indirect question wordings.

affect variable means (Peterson and Kerin 1981), Research that does not recognize and compensate for social
desirability bias may lead to unwarranted theoretical
or practical conclusions about consumers' psychological
traits (e.g.. Campbell 1950; Peltier and Walsh 1990);
purchase motivations (e.g.. Levy 1981); and attitudes,
intentions, and behaviors (e.g., Mensch and Kandel
1988).
An important technique used by researchers to mitigate the effects of social desirability bias is indirect (i.e.,
structured, projective) questioning.' Indirect questioning is a projective technique that asks subjects or respondents to answer structured questions from the perspective of another person or group (Anderson 1978;
Calder and Burnkrant 1977; Robertson and Joselyn
1974). For example, marketing researchers have asked
subjects to predict the types of people most likely to eat
hot cereal (Westfall. Boyd, and Campbell 1957); to indicate the extent to which "a consumer" would react
to reference group influence (Bearden and Etzel 1982;
Brinberg and Plimpton 1986; Park and Lessig 1977);
to identify the emotional responses of the anonymous
author of a story describing a past consumption experience (Havlena and Holbrook 1986); and to state the

uch of what we think we know about human

behavior comes from self-report measures (Peterson and Kerin 1981). Unfortunately, the basic human tendency to present oneself in the best possible
light can significantly distort the information gained
from self-reports. Respondents are often unwilling or
unable to report accurately on sensitive topics for egodefensive or impression management reasons. The result is data that are systematically biased toward respondents' perceptions of what is "correct" or socially
acceptable (Maecoby and Maccoby 1954). This phenomenon is called social desirability bias and has been
found to occur in virtually all types of self-report measures and across nearly all social sciences literatures
(e.g.. Levy 1981; Peltier and Walsh 1990; Robinette
1991; Simon and Simon 1975; Zerbe and Paulhus
1987).
Not only is social desirability bias pervasive, but it
can lead to the reporting of spurious or misleading research results. Prior studies have found that social desirability bias can attenuate, inflate, or moderate variable relationships (Zerbe and Paulhus 1987); increase
measurement error (cf. Cote and Buckley 1988); and
*Robert J. Fisher is assistant professor of marketing. School of
Business Administration. University of Southern California. Los Angeles. CA. 90089-1421. The author would like to thank Valerie S.
Folkes. Jill A. Grace. J. Jeffrey Inman. Kent Nakamoto. Linda L.
Price. Dennis W. Rook, and David W. Stewart for comments on
earlier versions of this article. The author also benefited from discussions with Stephen J. Hoch and comments by the editor and three
reviewers.

'In marketing research the emphasis has been on /istructured projective methods such as thematic apperception tests, sentence completion, and word association (e.g., Levy 1981; Rook 1985; for a
review see Kassarjian [1974]). Unlike the structured approach identified here, unstructured metJiods allow subjects much greater freedom
in organizing and responding to the projective stimulus. Consequently, unstructured projective questioning is particularly valuable
in helping subjects express latent motivations.
303
1993 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 20 September 1993
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/94/2002-0010$2.00

304

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

importance of various attributes in determining the

choices of "most people" (Alpert 1971).
Indirect questioning is thought to reduce the distortion of "private" opinions that are revealed to the researcher by asking respondents to "report on the nature
of the external world" rather than about themselves
(Westfall et al. 1957. p. 138). It is expected that respondents project their unconscious biases into ambiguous response situations and reveal their own attitudes
(Campbell 1950; Holmes 1968; Sherwood 1981). For
example, if a respondent predicts that "other people"
drink and drive under certain circumstances the answer
would be interpreted to mean that the respondent is
likely to behave in this manner. Indirect questioning
allows respondents to "describe their own feelings behind a facade of impersonality" (Simon and Simon
1975. p. 586).
Despite good theoretical reasons to believe that indirect questioning compensates for social desirability
bias, empirical research on the subject is limited and
inconclusive. Only one prior study in marketing has
empirically examined the validity of indirect questioning as a technique to reduce social desirability bias. Unfortunately, this study used unstructured indirect
measures and structured direct measures, making interpretation ofthe results problematic (see Steele 1964).
Other researchers have focused on topics such as the
predictive validity of direct versus indirect methods
(Alpert 1971) or methodological studies related to the
design of projective stimuli (Anderson 1978; Robertson
and Joselyn 1974).
Beyond the lack of empirical verification to support
the use of indirect questioning as a means of reducing
social desirability bias, the extent to which indirect
questioning provides information about the respondent
is unclear. Rather than provide insights into the self,
indirect questions may actually reveal what respondents
predict a "typical other" might do or think (Maccoby
and Maccoby 1954). For example, an adolescent might
predict that his or her peers will shoplift under certain
circumstances on the basis of knowledge of peer shoplifting and not because s/he is likely to shoplift him- or
herself. The adolescent's response is an objective judgment that is independent of his or her own intentions
and behaviors.
The objectives ofthe three studies reported here are
to evaluate indirect questioning as a means of reducing
social desirability bias, to explore the potential for this
method to add other forms of systematic error to selfreport measures, and to gain insights into the extent to
which indirect questioning reveals information about
the self. The following sections develop the research
hypotheses, specify the research designs, present the
findings, and discuss the results and implications of
these experiments.

STUDY 1
The effects of questioning method on social desirability bias depend on the constructs under investigation

and the social expectations perceived by the respondent

(Paulhus 1984). On this basis, hypotheses must be developed within a conceptual context that specifies the
likely nature and direction of these effects. The present
study employs the Miniard and Cohen (1983) model of
behavioral intentions for this purpose because it partitions the determinants of behavioral intentions into
variables that are likely to be differentially affected by
social desirability bias.
The Miniard and Cohen model specifies that behavioral intentions are a function of individuals' expectations about the personal and normative consequences
of undertaking a behavior (see Miniard and Cohen
[1983] for more details on this model). The personal
component ofthe model is composed of an individual's
beliefs about the likelihood that a behavior leads to salient personal outcomes and an evaluation of these outcomes. Salient personal outcomes may be positive or
negative and are valued as ends in themselves, that is,
they have intrinsic worth to the individual. These consequences are perceived without reference to the visibility of the considered behavior, the subsequent approval or disapproval of referent others, or the extent
to which the behavior serves to affiliate one with a social
group.
Social desirability bias is unlikely to distort self-report
measures of personal outcomes because this type of
outcome is based on internalized values that are independent of social considerations. For example, the purchase of a new compact-disc player might be motivated
by personal outcomes related to the durability of the
compact disc's recording medium. This product characteristic provides both financial and psychological
benefits or outcomes because valued recordings deteriorate less quickly than is the case with other media.
The likelihood and importance of these outcomes do
not depend on what others might think or do. Accordingly, self-reported personal outcomes should not be
affected by social desirability bias because respondents
are unlikely to feel threatened or embarrassed about
accurately reporting their views. If personal outcomes
are independent of social desirability bias, significant
differences should not exist between direct and indirect
measures of this variable.
A test ofthe independence of personal outcomes to
social expectations is achieved by an examination of
the variable's behavior under anonymous and unanonymous response conditions. Removing anonymity increases the pressure on subjects to respond in a socially
acceptable manner (cf. Kelman 1961). Given that personal outcomes are socially neutral, the anonymity of
the research setting should not affect responses under
either direct or indirect questioning. In both cases, subjects are reporting beliefs and evaluations that are independent of social influence.
The normative component ofthe model is composed
of individuals' beliefs about the likelihood a behavior
leads to salient social outcomes and an evaluation of

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS .

these outcomes. This component reflects the extent to

which individuals are motivated by the expectations of
another person or group. The individual, by fulfilling
(or acting contrary to) the expectations of others, anticipates socially mediated rewards (or punishments).
The individual does what a referent wants him or her
to do because it is instrumental in achieving a social
purpose.
Social desirability bias is likely to affect self-reported
normative outcomes because the pursuit of social approval as a purchase motivation is inconsistent with
social norms and expectations. For example, "shopping
list" research by Haire (1950) and replications or extensions by others (e.g., Robertson and Joselyn 1974)
suggest that consumers are unable or unwilling to express the extent to which they are motivated by social
factors. When asked directly, consumption motivations
tend to focus on the functional aspects of a product
such as taste or gas mileage (Haire 1950). Consumption
motivations such as social positioning and the approval
of others are revealed only with indirect questioning.
Research on American values also indicates that the
overt pursuit of social approval through consumption
is undesirable. Americans consistently assign a low rank
to social recognition (the respect and admiration of
others) and a high rank to independence as cultural
values (Rokeach 1979, p. 133: Rokeach and Ball-Rokeach 1989, p. 778). Of 18 terminal values, social recognition was ranked 17th in 1971 and 18th in 1974 and
1981, while independence was ranked third in all three
studies. Given that self-reported values represent culturally desirable ideals (Rokeach 1979), these rankings
imply that expressing one's desire for social approval
is inappropriate in American culture.
Accordingly, socially desirable responding behavior
should cause normative outcomes to be understated
with direct questioning because subjects are inclined to
present themselves in a way that is consistent with social
expectations. Under indirect questioning, however,
subjects are able to disengage themselves from the social
implications of their responses, leading to larger estimates of normative beliefs and evaluations. Subjects
should most actively engage in impression management
when they believe their responses will be used as evidence about themselves and not as objective statements
about the "real world."
The anonymity of the research setting should interact
with questioning method to have a differential effect on
self-reported normative outcomes. Removal of anonymity should cause subjects answering direct questions
to feel greater pressure to make their responses consistent with social expectations. These responses are most
likely to have symbolic or communicational properties
because they represent the personal thoughts and feelings of the subject on a socially sensitive topic and the
responses are visible to others. However, eliminating
anonymity is not expected to have the same effect on
subjects answering indirect questions because they are

305
distanced from their responses by the projective
method. A summary of study hypotheses related to the
effects of questioning method and anonymity on mean
scores follows:
Hla: Method of questioning has no effect on mean
personal outcomes because of the social
neutrality of this variable.
, Hlb: Indirect questioning reduces social desirability bias, resulting in higher mean normative outcomes.
H2a: Anonymity has no effect on mean personal
outcomes because of the social neutrality of
this variable.
H2b: Removing anonymity increases social desirability bias, resulting in lower mean normative outcomes under direct questioning.
Method
A 2 (questioning method) X 2 (anonymity) betweensubjects experiment was performed to test the hypotheses. A convenience sample of 184 male and female
undergraduate students was selected and randomly assigned to the conditions (46 per cell). A student sample
was selected because of the widespread study of this
population in consumer research on normative influence and other socially sensitive topics. Subjects were
contacted within a normal classroom situation and told
that the purpose of the study was to generate information to be used in the advertising campaign for a
new product targeted at college students. A fictional
new product was selected to avoid the influence of prior
beliefs on subjects' responses. A pretest indicated the
new product, an innovative stereo headphone designed
for use with Walkman-type cassette or compact-disc
players, was believable and of interest to those in the
target market." Moreover, the pretest indicated that
students perceived that adoption of the new product
had significant social implications because of its visibility and innovative features. To enhance involvement,
subjects were shown a mock-up of the new product, a
professionally designed brochure layout, and entered
in a drawing for three $50 prizes for participating in
the study.
The experimental manipulations took the form of
instructions to subjects and question wording.-* In the
direct questioning condition, subjects were asked to respond to a series of items in terms of their own beliefs
and evaluations. In the indirect questioning condition,
subjects were asked to predict the likely responses of
"a typical college student." Item wording differed be^The new headphone design was described as similar in size and
weight lo those currently used with portable stereo systems, except
that the new design does not require wires connecting the headphone
set to the player unit.
'All manipulations and measures are available from the author.

306

Iween conditions only to the extent that third-person

wording was substituted for first-person wording in the
indirect condition. For example, the words "the typical
college student will . . ." were substituted for "I
will . . ." in the indirect condition. The items measuring the constructs of interest were randomly mixed
with other items unrelated to this study.
Anonymity was manipulated with information about
the likelihood subjects would be asked to discuss their
responses with a researcher after completing the instrument. Subjects in the unanonymous condition were
told, "You may be asked to discuss your responses with
a researcher when you have finished." In addition, subjects in this condition were asked to include their student identification number on the first page of the instrument. Subjects in the anonymous condition were
told. "Your responses are completely anonymous," and
they were not asked to include their student identification number.

Measurement
After a review of the relevant literatures, 10 items
were generated to measure the personal and normative
outcome constructs. The items, worded in the first person {i.e., directly), were administered as part of a larger
data collection efi'ort to 90 graduate and undergraduate
students at another university. Two items were deleted
by corrected item-to-total correlations and principal
axis factor analysis with varimax rotation. The analyses
resulted in eight items measuring the two constructs of
interest.
Measures of the constructs were designed specifically
for the student sample and new headphone product.
For personal outcomes, a pretest on an unrelated sample
indicated that one of the new product's key advantages
was the increased freedom of movement it afforded.
This attribute was identified by pretest respondents as
being intrinsically valued, that is. desirable regardless
of the social aspects of consumption. Consequently, beliefs and evaluations of personal outcomes were measured with items such as "the new headphones provide
more freedom of movement than other headphones."
For normative outcomes, subjects were asked to indicate their beliefs and evaluations of statements such as
"students I know would have a favorable reaction if I
bought one of the new products." The belief components of the outcome variables were measured with
seven-point "highly likely" to "not at all likely" scales.
The evaluation components were measured with sevenpoint "very important" to "very unimportant" scales.
For hypothesis testing, the multi-item scales were summated to form a single indicator of each construct.

Results
Measurement. Confirmatory factor analyses were
conducted for the individual two-factor models within

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 1
SCALE CHARACTERISTICS: STUDY 1

Group measure
Direct {n = 92):
Personal outcomes
Beliefs only
Evaluations only
Normative outcomes
Beliefs only
Evaluations only
Indirect {n ^ 92):
Personal outcomes
Beliefs only
Evaluations only
Normative outcomes
Beliefs orly
Evaluations only

No,
of
items

Actual
scale
range

Scale
mean

SD

Alpha

4
4
4
4
4
4

47-144
12-24
15-24
0-105
0-22
0-24

109,4
20,4
21.3
36,4
12.7
92

23.2
2.9
2.6
29.6
5.8
6.4

79
.68
.73
.91
.91
.92

4
4
4
4
4
4

42-144
9-24
11-24
0-132
5-22
0-24

111.8
20.6
21.4

27.1
3.3
2.9
31.6
4.0
5.2

,81
.75
.79
.89
.82

65.8
15.9
15.3

,88

NOTE,Personal outcomes and normative outcomes were measured as the

sum of the product of beliefs (i.e.. "not at all likely" to 'highly likely") and
evaluations (i,e., "very unimportant" to "very important'). All scales were scored
from zero to six. Higher numbers indicate higher levels of each variable.

the direct and indirect questioning groups. Both models

have acceptable internal and external consistency given
an overall X" of 34.25 (df^ 19, p = .017) with a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) ^ .92 for the direct group and a
X^ of 33.45 {df= 19. p = .021) with a GFI = .92 for the
indirect group. The normed-fit index (Bentler and Bonett 1980) indicates that 91 percent of the observedmeasure covariation is explained in each of the measurement models.
The internal consistency of the measures is supported
by three additional tests. First, the scales exhibited good
internal consistency with coefficient alphas for personal
outcomes of .79 (direct) and .81 (indirect) and fornormative outcomes of .91 (direct) and .89 (indirect). Second, variance-extracted estimates reflect the amount of
variance captured by a measure relative to random
measurement error (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Ail
measures had variance-extracted estimates that approached or exceeded the .50 level with values of .48
(direct) and .53 (indirect) for personal outcomes and
.71 (direct) and .66 (indirect) for normative outcomes.
Finally, all indicator /-values in the confirmatory factor
analysis exceeded 5.0 (p < .001) in both groups. See
Table 1 for a summary of scale characteristics.
Manipulation Checks. Data from the experiment
were analyzed with an ANOVA. First, the anonymity
manipulation was evaluated via a summated four-item
manipulation check on perceived anonymity. Items included "My responses on this survey can be traced back
to me" (reverse scored). The manipulation was successful given a significant main effect of the manipulation on perceptions of anonymity (/^( 1,180) ^ 90.42,
p< .001) with the anonymous mean {X = 17.17) higher

307

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS

than the unanonymous mean (X = 10.96). No unintended main or interaction effects were found. Second,
the anonymity manipulation may have caused subjects
to feel more accountable for their responses than students in the unanonymous condition, thus causing
subjects in this group to respond more carefully (cf.
Tetlock and Kim 1987). To evaluate this possible confound, a summated four-item manipulation check was
used to measure subjects' perceptions about the care
with which they responded. Items included "1 was careful when I answered the questions on this survey." No
significant effects (/? > .10) were found for anonymity,
questioning method, or anonymity X questioning
method on response care.
Tests of Hypotheses. Hypothesis la was supported
with no main effect of questioning method on personal
outcomes (F(l,180) ^ .43, NS), with similar means in
both the direct {X = 109.4) and indirect (A' = 111.8)
conditions. Hypothesis lb was supported with a main
effect of questioning method on normative outcomes
(F{ 1.180) = 43.15, /J < .01), with the indirect questioning mean (A* = 65.8) higher than the direct questioning
mean {X = 36.4). These two results indicate that subjects
made the same evaluations for a socially neutral variable
across questioning conditions but reported significantly
lower evaluations for a socially sensitive (undesirable)
purchase motivation when asked directly.
The lack of a main effect for anonymity on personal
outcomes with indirect questioning predicted in Hypothesis 2a was supported (F(M80) = .02, NS), with
similar mean scores across the anonymous {X = 110.3)
and unanonymous (A' = 110.8) conditions. This result
suggests that personal outcomes are independent of social influence because subjects made the same evaluations for themselves as for others, regardless of the anonymity of their responses. Hypothesis 2b stated that
a reduction in anonymity will lower mean normative
outcomes only in the direct questioning condition. A
simple-effects test revealed a significant reduction
(F( I. i 80) = 3.97, p < .05) in mean normative outcome
scores in the direct questioning condition (.^anonymous
- 42.7 and .V^n^inonymoas ^ 30.1), but not in the indirect questioning condition (JC^^^nymous ^ 61.1 and
Vunanonymous = 70.5). These differences were also reflected in a significant anonymity X questioning method
interaction (/( 1,180) ^ 6.04, p < .05). There was no main
effect of anonymity on normative outcomes (F( 1,180)
= . 13, NS), with similar means across the anonymous
{X = 51.9) and unanonymous (A" = 50.3) conditions.
These results indicate the social sensitivity of normative
outcomes given the lower mean scores that occurred in
the unanonymous, direct cell. The results are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 1. Table 2 also includes the
effects of the manipulations on the individual beWei' and
evaluation components of the outcome variables. In
terms of the individual components. Table 2 reveals
significant effects for questioning method on normative

beliefs and evaluations and the anonymity X questioning method interaction only for evaluations. The larger
effect for the evaluations component suggests it is more
acceptable to predict that others are likely to approve
of a consumption behavior than it is to indicate that
this outcome is important.

Discussion
The results of this experiment suggest that indirect
questioning operates to mitigate social desirability bias
and does not systematically affect the means of variables
that are independent of social influence. Overall, the
pattern of effects implies that subjects projected their
beliefs and evaluations when responding to indirect
questions. The specific findings of study 1 are discussed
below.
The lack of questioning method and anonymity effects on self-reported personal outcomes is evidence that
personal outcomes are independent of social influence
and that indirect questioning does not systematically
bias mean scores of variables of this type. First, the lack
of an anonymity effect indicates that subjects* self-reports of personal outcomes were not influenced by the
threat of social pressure. This finding is consistent with
the asocial nature of personal outcomes and demonstrates that subjects were not concerned about the symbolic or communicational aspects of their responses (cf.
Miniard and Cohen 1983). Second, subjects made very
similar predictions in the direct and indirect questioning
groups for personal outcomes. The lack of a main effect
for questioning method on personal outcomes suggests
that subjects projected their own beliefs and evaluations
into the ambiguous response situation. That is, no systematic upward or downward bias resulted from asking
subjects to make predictions about typical others as op'
posed to making evaluations in the first person.
Indirect questioning, by contrast, produces a very different pattern of responses for self- and typical-other
questions. Mean estimates of normative outcomes varied across questioning-method conditions, and removing response anonymity lowered mean normative outcomes with direct questioning. The main effect of
questioning method on normative outcomes combined
with the absence of a main eflect for personal outcomes
implies that social desirability bias is operating on selfreported normative outcomes. The sociai nature of the
effect is evidence that the results are not due to global
variations in how subjects evaluated these outcomes
for themselves and others. If subjects simply make different self- versus other predictions, mean differences
should result for both personal and normative outcomes
across questioning methods. The significantly lower
normative outcome mean in the unanonymous. direct
questioning cell supports this interpretation because
removing anonymity only affected the mean of the socially sensitive variable. Subjects evidently felt the need

308

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 2
ANQVA RESULTS: STUDY 1
Means

Measure and source

Personal outcome:
Beliefs X evaluations
Anon
Oues
Anon X ques
Beliefs only:
Anon
Ques
Anon X ques
Evaluations only:
Anon
Ques
Anon X ques
Normative outcomes:
Beliefs X evaluations
Anon
Ques
Anon X ques
Beliefs only:
Anon
Ques
Anon X ques
Evaluations only:
Anon
Ques
Anon X ques

df

1
1

Sum of
squares

Anonymous
and direct

Unanonymous
and indirect

13.6
272.7
869.6

.02
.43
1.37

110.3
109.4

110.8
111.8

.2

2.2

20.5
20,4

20.4
20.6

26.6

.02
.23
2.81

1.4
.2
.2

.18
.03
.03

21.3
21.3

21.4
21.4

1
1

' "

1
t
1

115.8
39.619.6
5,544,0

.13
43.15"
6.04-

1
1
1

1.6
453.9
35.7

.06
18.30"
1.44

.09

52 2
1,704.4
244.3

1.62
52.777.56"

.21

1
1

.18
.02

'I

51.9
36.4

50.3
65,8

14.2
12.7

14.4
15.9

12.8

11.7
15.3

9,2

.03

NOTE.n = 184 for Study 1. The independent variables are the djchotomous manipulations while the dependent variables are the continuous manipulatjon checks.
Anon, manipulated anonymity: ques, manipulated questioning method. Although the hypotheses relate to the overall personal outcome and normative outcome
variables, the effects of the manipulations on the individual belief and evaluation components are included to provide additional detail.

p < .05.
"p < .01.

'

to manage their responses when answering directly

worded questions on a socially sensitive variable in an
unanonymous situation.

STUDY 2
A second experiment was designed to investigate the
effects of indirect questioning on the relationships between personal and normative outcomes and intentions.
This study was undertaken for two reasons. First, many
consumer researchers on socially sensitive topics are
interested in structural orassociational evidence rather
than mean scores {e.g., Alpert 1971; Fishbein and Ajzen
1975). This investigation could not be carried out in
study 1 because a Box's M-test revealed significant differences in the covariance matrices across anonymity
conditions within the indirect group (X" ^ 13.67, df
= 3, /? < .01). As a consequence, it would be inappropriate to pool the anonymous and unanonymous covariance matrices within each questioning group. Second, it is desirable to establish the reliability of the key
findings of study 1 through a partial replication.

'

Consistent with study I, social desirability bias should

differentially affect variables that are neutral and sensitive to social influence. Again using the Miniard and
Cohen (1983) model of behavioral intentions, the relationship between personal outcomes and intentions
is expected to be unaffected by questioning method.
Subjects should not be motivated to "manage" the relationship between persona! outcomes and intentions
because their responses are independent of social expectations. In the present context, there appear to be
no relevant norms governing beliefs and evaluations of
the freedom of movement offered by the new headphones. No differences should exist in the relationship
between personal outcomes and intentions across questioning methods.
The estimated effect of normative outcomes on intentions, however, should be attenuated by social desirability bias when direct questioning is used. Subjects
may consciously or unconsciously engage in image
management by distorting the association between their
normative outcome and intention scores. For example,

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS

FIGURE 1
PERSONAL AND NORMATIVE OUTCOME BY OUESTIONING METHOD AND ANONYMITY

150140130'ersonai
Outcomes n o -

Indirect

= = 2Direct

10090BO7060-

No

Yes

Anonymity

Anonymity

subjects may lower normative outcome scores when intentions are high to avoid giving the impression they
are motivated by social approval. The relationship between normative outcomes and intentions is suppressed
because social desirability bias adds systematic variance
to the normative outcome variable that is unrelated to
behavioral intentions (cf. Conger 1974). Formally,
H3a: The association between persona! outcomes
and intentions is the same with direct and
indirect questioning because the variance
common to these variables is not subject to
social desirability bias.
H3b: Indirect questioning removes social desirability variance from normative outcomes,
resulting in a stronger association between
normative outcomes and intentions under
this form of questioning.

Method
A two-group experiment was conducted in which the
single factor was questioning method. Data collection
procedures, the new product example, and the manipulation of questioning method remained the same as
in study 1. Male and female undergraduate students
were randomly assigned to either the direct {u = 170)
or indirect (n = 182) groups. This sample was drawn
from a different university than that of study 1.

Measurement
Measures of persona! and normative outcomes were
the same as those used in study 1. Intentions to adopt

early were measured with one indicator composed of

the summation of four self-report items. The four-item
directly worded scale included items such as "I will
probably purchase one ofthe new products soon after
they are on the market," measured on a seven-point
"strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" scale. The indirect scale asked subjects to respond in terms of the
typical student. The coefficient alphas for this scale were
.93 (direct) and .81 (indirect). The means were 13.5
(direct) and 14.9 (indirect).

Results
Before testing the formal hypotheses, an analysis of
personal and normative outcome mean scores reveals
the same pattern of differences between groups found
in study 1. Specifically, the means for personal outcomes
are not significantly different across the direct and indirect questioning groups (A'dircci = 96.7, .findireci = 101.2,
t = 1.5. NS), while the mean for normative outcomes
is significantly higher in the indirect group (Xa.tcci
= 39.4, X.^direa ^ 63.2, / - 8.72. /J < .001, one-tailed
test). As in study I. these results suggest a systematic
social desirability effect on normative outcome mean
scores with direct questioning.
Tests of differences in the estimated effects of personal
and normative outcomes on intentions in study 2 were
undertaken in two ways. First, given differences in the
ratio of the standard deviations for the predictor and
criterion variables across questioning groups, the appropriate test of differences in the relationship between
outcomes and intentions is a comparison of productmoment correlations across subgroups (Arnold 1982).
On the basis of Fisher's Z-transformation, Hypothesis

310

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

3a is supported with no significant difference in the correlation between personal outcomes and intentions
across groups (rawca = -432, r.ndirect = -493, z = .77, NS).
Hypothesis 3b is supported with a significantly higher
correlation between normative outcomes and intentions
in the indirect group (rdirea = -269. rindireci ^ -442, z
= 1.81, ;? < .05. one-tailed test). Second, an ordinary
least squares path analysis model was run for each
questioning-method group in which intention to early
adopt was regressed on personal and normative outcomes. This analysis was performed to compare the parameter estimates that might result from path-analytic
studies under different questioning methods (see Table
3). Congruent with the study's hypotheses, the standardized beta weight for normative outcomes on intentions is higher in the indirect (/? = .332, / = 5.19, p
< .001) compared to the direct (^ = .205, t - 2.94, p
<.OO1) groups. Additionally, the standardized beta
weights for personal outcomes on intentions are highly
similar across the indirect (,8 ^ .402, / = 6.30,/?< .001)
and direct (^ - .399,/ = 5.73, p < .001) groups.

Discussion
Study 2 replicates the mean score results of study 1
with a significantly lower normative outcome mean in
the direct condition but no mean difference between
groups for personal outcomes. These results provide
further evidence of the effect of indirect questioning on
variables that are subject to social norms and expectations. Further, subjects appear to make similar predictions for themselves and others about the likelihood
and importance of factors that are socially neutral. Together, these results support the view that indirect questioning operates to reduce social desirability bias and
has no additional systematic effects on mean scores.
The results of this study also provide insights into
the effects of questioning method on relations between
variables that are socially sensitive and those that are
socially neutral. First, the absence of differences in the
association between personal outcomes and intentions
across the direct and indirect groups supports the argument that indirect questioning does not systematically bias relationships between socially neutral variables. The covariation between personal outcomes and
intentions was not significantly affected by questioning
method. Second, subjects appear to have systematically
understated the role of socially undesirable motivations
for consumption when questioned directly.

STUDY 3
The first objective of study 3 was to examine the robustness of the earlier results across product categories
and variations in question wordings. First, the norm
against social approval as a behavioral motivation operates at a cultural level and so the tendency to underreport the influence of others should not be product

TABLE 3
REGRESSION MODELS FOR DIRECT AND
INDIRECT GROUPS: STUDY 2
Independent variables

Group
Direct (n = 170)
Indirect (n = 182)

Dependent
variable

Personal
outcome

Normative
outcome

INT
INT

.399"*
.402"*

.205'"
.332"*

NOTE,Abbreviation as follows: INT, Intentions.

p < .001,

specific. The effects observed in studies 1 and 2 for a

functional innovation (i.e., the new headphone product)
are therefore likely to exist for more expressive products
such as clothing and music. Second, the reluctance to
express one's desire for the approval and recognition
of others should not depend on the source of influence
(i.e., referent). Although it is perhaps more socially acceptable to seek approval from family members, friends,
or co-workers than from "others in general," it is still
contrary to a favorable representation of the self. Formally,
H4: Social desirability bias operates to reduce direct questioning estimates of the importance
of social approval across both (a) product categories and (h) influence sources.
The second objective of study 3 was to evaluate the
extent to which classical projection theory is able to
explain the results of the first two studies. Classical projection occurs when the individual denies possessing a
negative trait that is projected toward an out-group
rather than in-group target (Sherwood 1981). The individual distances himself or herself from the undesirable trait by attributing it to those who are socially distant rather than to the self or similar others. Results of
the first two studies are consistent with a classic projection interpretation insofar as subjects understated
(i.e., denied) the importance of social approval for
themselves and assigned significantly higher importance
levels to a typical other. Nevertheless, a complete test
of the classical projection hypothesis requires that subjects not only attribute higher levels of social approval
as a purchase motivation to an out-group target but
also deny the importance of social approval for an ingroup target. Formally,
H5: Compared to self-ratings of the importance of
social approval as a consumption motivation,
subjects will predict that it is (a) more important to an out-group target and (h) of equal
importance to an in-group target.

Method
A pretest was undertaken to identify expressive
products that would be widely accessible within the stu-

311

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS

dent population. Twelve undergraduate students were

asked to rate the importance of social approval in the
brand decisions for a list of 25 products thought to be
relevant to this population. The five products with the
highest mean scores on a zero-to-six scale anchored by
"purchases influenced only by self" and "purchases
influenced only by others'^ were selected for inclusion
in the main experiment. The five product categories
were athletic shoes, spring-break vacation destination,
music, hairstyle, and cologne/perfume.
A convenience sample of 75 male and female undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one of
three groups (from 24 to 26 per group) that differed
only in the source of influence identified in the questions. Subjects in groups 1, 2, and 3 answered questions
that identified the source of influence as others, friends,
and their best friend, respectively. Subjects \yilhin each
group provided evaluations of the importance of social
approval for themselves, their best friend, and the typical student in the purchase of each of the five products
idenlitied in the pretest. For example, the following
three question stems were used in group 1:

TABLE 4
SCALE CHARACTERISTICS: STUDY 3

Source of influence
and measure
Others {n = 25):
SELF
BEST
TS
Friends (n = 26):
SELF
BEST
TS
Best friend (n = 24):
SELF
BEST
TS

No.
of
items

Actual
scale
range

Scale
mean

5
5

0-24
2-25
9-30

13.0
12.8
21.7

6.1
5.6

.67
.72
,85

1-22
0-26
6-30

9.6
10.7
17.8

5.9
7.1
6.9

.78
.82
.73

10.8

6.5

.78

11.3

6.4

.82

0-20
0-20
0-27

17.5

6.3

.73

13

0-11

2.78

.69

5
5

5
S
5

SD

6.4

Alpha

Overall (n = 75):
SDR

4.49

NOTE.Abbreviations are as follows: SELF, predictions about self; BEST,

predictions about biest friend: TS, predictions about typical student: SDR, the
tendency to respond in a soctally desirat>le manner as measursd by the MarloweCrowne short form.

"It's very important TO ME that OTHERS approve

of . . ."

"It's very important TO MY BEST FRIEND that

OTHERS approve of . . ."
"It's very important TO THE TYPICAL STUDENT
that OTHERS approve of . . ."

ministered in a true or false format, and a high score

on the scale indicates the subject's tendency to present
himself or herself in a socially favorable manner. Scale
characteristics are consistent with prior studies (e.g.,
Reynolds 1982; see Table 4).

Questions were randomized within the groups to avoid

order bias.

Results

Measurement
Items for the five expressive products were summed
to form a single indicator of the importance of social
influence for expressive products to simplify the presentation of the results and provide more reliable measures."* Scale characteristics are presented in Table 4.
As indicated, the internal consistency of the scales is
acceptable given that all alphas exceed .70 with only
one exception (.67).
The tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner was measured with Reynolds's (1982) short form
of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. The
scale comprises 13 culturally approved behaviors (five
worded positively and eight worded negatively) that
have a low probability of occurrence. The scale is ad^This approach dratnatically reduces the number of significance
tests but does not materially affect the overall results. Spiecifically,
using summated scales reduced the number of Ntests from 30 to six
and the number of associational tests from 45 to nine. Nevertheless,
the mean and associational results using summated scales are consistent with the individual results. For the mean contrasts, 29 of 30
individual tests were consistent with the results reported for the summated scales. Of the nine associational tests, five results held for all
five products, two for four of five products, and two for three of five
products. Individual test results are available from the author.

An examination of mean scores for the importance

of social approval in the purchase of expressive products
reveals the same pattern of results as studies I and 2.
Specifically, subjects consistently indicated that the
typical student is more motivated by social approval in
consumption behavior than they are themselves.
Through dependent /-tests, this difference was found
when the source of influence was others (A's^f = 13.0,
-^typical studeni = 21.7, / = 5.11, /? < .001); friends {A'^cif
= 9.8, X,,pie,u,,den. = 17._8, t = 5.47, p < Mi): and
best friend (X^^K = 10.8. -V,ypjeaismdcm = 17.5, / - 5.36,
p< .001). The results for the three groups are also clear
when the projective target was the subject's best friend.
Predictions for the best friend were not significantly
different from the means for the self when the source
of influence was others (X^^ij = 13.0, Xbejifnend = 12.8,
t = -.26, p > . 10); friends (^,eif = 9-8, X^,, u,.r.A_= 10.7,
t = .86, p > .10); and best (ncnd {X^^it = 10.8, Xbesi friend
= 11.3,/ = .61,/?> .10).
The effects of social desirability bias on self-reports
and predictions about others were evaluated by regressing the direct and indirect scales on the tendency to
respond in a socially desirable manner. All hypotheses
were directional, and thus all relational tests are onetailed. As summarized in Table 5, response tendency
was significantly associated with direct questions on so-

312

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 5

difference in the mean importance of social approval

between self and best friend reports. The combination
of the results of Hypothesis 5a and 5b suggests that subjects engaged in classical projection when making predictions about a typical other.

EFFECTS OF SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS ON

PREDICTIONS ABOUT SELF, BEST FRIEND,
AND TYPICAL OTHER: STUDY 3

Source of influence and dependent variable

Others {n = 25):
SELF
BEST
TS
Friends {n = 26):
SELF
BEST
TS
Best friend (n = 24):
SELF
BEST
TS

Independent
variable
(SDR)

.37.49'
.10

.32*
.34*
.16
.47'
.10
.06

NOTE.Abbreviations are as follows: SELF, predictions about self; BEST,

predictions about best friend; TS, predictions about typical student; SDR, the
tendency to respond in a soaally desiraWe manner as measured by the MarloweGrowne short form.
"p < .05 (one-tailed test).
"p < .01 (one-tailed test).

cial approval tnotives when the source of influence was

others(/3 = -.37, / = -1.91, p < .05); friends (/3 - -.32,
t = -\.68,p < .05); and best friend (/3 = -.47. / - -2.51,
p < .01). No significant association was found between
the tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner
and the indirect measures when the predictive target
was the typical student and the source of influence was
others ()3 = .10,/ = .47, ;? > .10); friends ()3 = -.16, f
= -.80, p > .10); and best friend {0 = --06, / = -.27,
p> .10). The results are less straightforward when the
predictive target was the subject's best friend, with a
significant relationship when the source of influence was
others (^ = -.49, / = -2.74, p < .01) and friends {0
= -.34, t = -1.78, p < .05) but not best friend ((3
= -.10,/ = -.46, p> .10).
Overall, the results support the hypotheses. For Hypothesis 4a. the pattern of effects for direct and typical
student indirect questions is the same as was found in
thefirsttwo studies for a functional innovation. Subjects
in all three groups indicated that social approval for
expressive products was more important for the typical
student than for themselves. Also, the tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner was significant for
ail direct questions and nonsignificant for all indirect
questions in which the typical student was the projective
target. Hypothesis 4b is supported because the mean
and structural results supporting Hypothesis 4a were
consistent across all three sources of influence, namely,
others, friends, and best friend. Hypothesis 5a is supported with a significantly higher mean importance rating for the out-group rating compared to the self-rating.
Finally, Hypothesis 5b is supported given no significant

Discussion
Study 3 reveals a pattern of results similar to that
found in studies I and 2 for mean scores on the importance of social approval as a consumption motive.
Individuals consistently evaluated themselves as less
motivated by social approval than typical others. Considering all three studies, the mean results are comparable across influence sources (i.e., others, friends, and
best friend), between- and within-subject designs, and
product categories. The results suggest predictable mean
differences between direct and indirect questions for
socially sensitive variables and no differences for socially
neutral variables.
The associationai tests in study 3 support the above
interpretation. First, the tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner was significantly associated with
direct measures of the influence of others, friends, and
best friend. In each case the inclination to bias responses
toward social norms resulted in lower self-reports of
social approval as a purchase motive. Second, response
tendency was not significantly associated with predictions about the importance of social approval for the
typical student, regardless of the source of influence.
Analysis of the mean scores and social desirability
effects on indirect questions in which the predictive target was the subject's best friend suggests that the responses were affected by social desirability bias in the
same direction and degree as direct questions. First, no
differences were found in the mean scores between selfand best friend predictions across the three influence
sources. Second, the tendency to respond in a socially
desirable manner was found to have a significant negative effect on best friend predictions when the source
of influence was others and friends. These findings support the proposition that subjects engaged in classical
projection by denying an undesirable trait in themselves
and their best friend but attributing it to a socially distant other.
The one inconsistency in study 3 results is the finding
of no significant effect of response tendency on best
friend predictions when the source of influence was the
best friend's best friend. This result may have occurred
because of the unique nature of the prediction required
for this question. To simplify the indirect wording it
was assumed that the best friend's best friend was the
subject. On this basis, the question stem was "It's very
important to MY BEST FRIEND that / approve
of . . ." The anomalous finding may have occurred
because the social norms governing the subject's influence over his or her best friend are different than the
norms affecting other influence sources. Specifically, it

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS

may be more acceptable for you to influence your best

friend than vice versa.

OVERALL DISCUSSION
Overall, it appears that indirect questions can be
constructed that are not significantly affected by social
desirability bias. All three studies produced results consistent with the theory underlying indirect questioning.
First, responses to indirect questions in which the projective target is a typical other appear to reflect the self
as predicted by classical projection theory. Studies 1
and 2 found that subjects made systematically different
predictions for themselves and typical others for the
socially sensitive variable but not for the socially neutral
variable. The lack of systematic differences in both
variables for self- versus other predictions suggests that
the effect is not related to global subject-target differences. Additional support for the projection hypothesis
was found in study 3. Consistent with classical projection theory, subjects attributed an undesirable trait to
a typical other and denied the trait for themselves and
their best friend.
Second, the research provides some guidance as to
the use of indirect questions to measure socially sensitive variables in consumer research. Although they
are not a measurement panacea, indirect methods may
increase our knowledge of the social context of purchase
behaviors when used in conjunction with direct questions. Specifically, using both types of measures should
increase our understanding of the significance and direction of social norms governing a behavior. Also, the
use of two measurement approaches is consistent with
the recent call for multitrait-multimethod (MTMM)
matrices in consumer research (Bagozzi and Yi 1991).
The MTMM approach enables researchers to partition
systematic variance into its trait and nontrait components, providing more rigorous evaluations of construct
validity and increasing the reliability of parameter estimates.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR

EUTURE RESEARCH
The three studies reported here are subject to the same
limitations as other experimental designs using student
samples and cannot be generalized beyond the present
context. Social desirability bias may be of varying importance depending on the population under consideration (Park and Lessig 1977). Although the use of a
student sample in the present study is appropriate insofar as a large percentage of consumer research is based
on student samples, research on other populations
would be useful. Moreover, the present study only considers a motivation that is contrary to social norms. It
would be worthwhile to investigate the effects of social
desirability bias and questioning method on socially
acceptable attitudes and behaviors such as charity giving
and blood donation.

313

The social desirability effects found in this study may

be much stronger in other research contexts. First, my
findings point out that a relatively weak manipulation
of anonymity (i.e.. the threat of possible follow-up) can
have a significant effect on subjects' perceptions and
responses under direct questioning. Face-to-face interviews, focus groups, or even telephone interviews may
induce feelings of low anonymity that exert a strong
bias on directly worded questions. While more research
is needed on this subject, the result implies that academic and applied marketing researchers must be sensitive to this issue in the design and execution of research
studies. Second, the subject matter is relatively benign
compared with a variety of recent investigations in consumer behavior such as drug use and sexuality, plastic
surgery, and adolescent shoplifting. The stronger the
social norms governing the topic under investigation,

the more likely social desirability bias is to occur. The

combination of unanonymous research settings and socially sensitive topics may be particularly troublesome.
Additionally, individual differences in subjects' susceptibility to social influence may cause systematic
variations in perceived anonymity and the strength of
social norms governing a behavior. For example, because drinking and drug use norms are likely to vary
by sex within the undergraduate population, research
on this topic may find very different results depending
on whether a same- or opposite-sex interviewer is used.
Also, since susceptibility to social influence decreases
with age (Park and Lessig 1977), the bias may vary systematically from juniors to seniors in the undergraduate
population. Longitudinal research or designs that use
age as a predictor may reach false conclusions because
the systematic effects of social desirability bias are exacerbated by the research design.
Further research is needed to examine the distinction
between projection and prediction more closely. Despite
the methodological difliculties associated with the task
(Holmes 1968). research is needed to distinguish between variance related to the self and variance related
to the predictive target in indirect questioning. Also,
future research is needed to investigate the impact of
factors such as information availability (Davis. Hoch.
and Ragsdale 1986). task involvement and accountability (Tetlock and Kim 1987), and explicit instructions to make objective predictions about others.

CONCLUSION
The three studies reported here differ significantly
from prior research on social desirability bias and indirect questioning. First, the experiments provide a
comparison of direct and indirect methods through
structured measures that difltr only in wording "directness." Second, the studies incorporate variables that
are a priori designated as either socially neutral or sensitive. Third, the studies provide evidence of the effects
of social desirability bias on both mean scores and as-

314

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

sociations between variables. Fourth, the studies provide insights into the generality of effects across product
categories, influence sources, and experimental designs.
Overall, the research contributes to our understanding
of the validity of indirect questioning as a technique
for reducing social desirability bias and insights into
how consumers make predictions about others.
[Received August 1992. Revised February 1993.]

REFERENCES
Alpert. Mark 1. (1971). "Identification of Determinant Attributes: A Comparison of Methods," Journal of Marketing Re.search. 8 (May). 184-191.
Anderson. James C. (1978), "The Validity of Haire's Shopping
List Projective Technique." Journal of Marketing Research. 15 (November). 644-649.
Arnold. Hugh J. (1982), "Moderator Variables: A Clarification
of Conceptual. Analytic, and Psychometric Issues," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 29
(April). 143-174.
Bagozzi. Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1991), "Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices In Consumer Research." Journal of
Consumer Re.search. 17 (March). 426-439.
Bearden. William O, and Michael J. Etzel (1982). "Reference
Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions." Journal of Consumer Research. 9 (September).
183-194.
Bentler. P. M. and Douglas G. Bonett (1980), "Significance
Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance
Structures," Psychological Bulletin. 88 (November), 588606.
Brinberg. David and Linda Plimpton (1986). "Self-Monitoring and Product Conspicuousness on Reference Group
Influence." in Advances in Consutner Reseatch. Vol. 13,
ed. Richard J. Lutz. Provo. UT: Association for Consumer Research. 297-300.
Calder, Bobby J. and Robert E. Burnkrant (1977). "Interpersonal Influence on Consumer Behavior: An Attribution Theory Approach." Journal of Consumer Research.
4 (June). 29-38.
Campbell, Donald T. (1950). "The Indirect Assessment of
Social Attitudes," Psychological Bulletin. 47 (January),
15-38.
Conger, Anthony J. (1974), "A Revised Definition for Suppressor Variables: A Guide to their Identification and
Interpretation." Educational and Psychological Measuretnent. 34 (Spring). 35-46.
Cote. Joseph A. and M. Ronald Buckley (1988). "Measurement Error and Theory Testing in Consumer Research:
An Illustration of the Importance of Construct Validation." Journat of Consumer Research. 14 (March). 579582.
Davis, Harry L., Stephen J. Hoch. and E. K. Easton Ragsdale
(1986), "An Anchoring and Adjustment Model of
Spousal Predictions." Journal of Consumer Research. 13
(June). 25-37.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell. Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating
Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables

and Measurement Error." Journal of Marketitig Research. 18 (February). 39-50.

Haire, Mason (1950). "Projective Techniques in Marketing
Research." Journal of Marketing. 14 (April). 649-656.
Haviena. William J. and Morris B. Holbrook (1986). "The
Varieties of Consumption Experience: Comparing Two
Typologies of Emotion in Consumer Behavior." Journal
of Consumer Research. 13 (December). 394-404.
Holmes. David S, (1968), "Dimensions of Projection." Psychological Bulletin. 69 (April), 248-268.
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1974), "Projective Methods." in
Ilatidhook of Marketing Research, ed. Robert Ferber.
New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 3-85 to 3-100.
Kelman. Herbert C. (1961). "Process of Opinion Change."
Public Opinion Qttarterly. 25 (Spring). 57-78.
Levy. Sidney J. (1981). "Interpreting Consumer Mythology:
A Structural Approach to Consumer Behavior," Journal
of Marketing. 45 (Summer). 49-61.
Maccoby, Eleanor E. and Nathan Maccoby (1954), "The Interview: A Tool of Social Science." in Handhook of Social
Psychology. Vol. I, ed. Gardiner Lindzey. Cambridge,
MA: Addison-Wesley. 449-487.
Mensch. Barbara S. and Denisc B. Kandel (1988), "Underreporting of Substance Use in a National Longitudinal
Youth Cohort." Public Opinion Quarterly. 52 (Spring).
100-124.
Miniard, Paul W. and Joel B. Cohen (1983). "Modeling Personal and Normative Influences on Behavior." Journal
of Consumer Research. 10 (September), 169-180.
Park. C. Whan and V. Parker Lessig (1977), "Students and
Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference
Group Influence." Journal of Consumer Re.warch. 4
(September). 102-110.
Paulhus. Delroy L. (1984), "Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 46 (March). 598-609.
Peltier, B. David and James A. Walsh (1990). "An Investigation of Response Bias in the Chapman Scales." Educational and Psychological Measurement. 50 (Winter).
803-815.
Peterson. Robert A. and Roger A. Kerin(1981). "The Quality
of Self-Report Data: Review and Synthesis," in Review
of Marketing, ed. Ben M. Enis and Kenneth J. Roering,
Chicago: American Marketing Association. 5-20.
Reynolds. William M. (1982). "Development of Reliable and
Valid Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Sca\c." Journal of Clinical Psychology. 38 (January), l'l9-125.
Robertson. Dan H. and Robert W. Joselyn (1974), "Projective
Techniques in Research." Journal of Advertising Re.search. 14 (October). 27-31.
Robinette, Randy L. (1991). "The Relationship between the
Marlowe-Crowne Form C and the Validity Scales of the
MMPl," Journal of Clinical Psychology. 47 (May). 396399.
Rokeaeh. Milton (1979), Understanding Human Values. New
York: Free Press.
and Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach (1989), "Stability and
Change in American Value Priorities," American Psychologist. 44 (May). 775-784.
Rook. Dennis (1985). "The Ritual Dimension of Consumer
Behavior," Joutnal of Consumer Research. 12 (December), 251-264.

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS

Sherwood. Gregory G. (!98I). "Self-serving Biases in Person

Perception: A Reexamination of Projection as a Mech- i
anism of Defense." Psychological Bulletin, 90 (Novemher). 445-459.
Simon. Julian and Rita Simon (1975). "The Effect of Money
Incentives on Family Size: A Hypothetical-Question
Study." Public Opinion Quarterly. 38 (Winter). 585-595.
Steele. Howard (1964), "On the Validity of Indirect Quesuons.,'" Journal of Marketing Re.search, 2S (Augusi), 4649.
Ietlock, Phillip E, and Jae il Kim (1987), "Accountability

315

and Judgement Processes in a Personality Prediction

Task," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52
(April), 700-709.
Westfall. Ralph L.. Harper W. Boyd. Jr.. and Donald T.
Campbell (1957), "The Use of Structured Techniques in
Motivation Research," Journal of Marketing, 22 (October). 134-139.
Zerbe. Wilfred J, and Delroy L, Paulhus (1987). "Socially
Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A
Reconception." Academy of Management Review, 12
(April), 250-264.