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 consequences on us and others is a difficult task.
claims with a counter-example, the protagonists It requires, among other things, the
of which were two monkeys. Monkey A and determination of the degree of control that the
monkey B, placed in a location where a large people deceiving themselves have; about what it
quantity of bananas was available. Subsequently means to deceive one’s self (is it important
monkey A directed monkey B to a false morally or not ?), about it’s significance (is it for
location, in order to keep the bananas for itself. mental health or to cover up moral mistakes ?),
The point of the author is that Trivers were how often does self deception appear (can it be
correct then monkey A, wanting to deceive avoided ?). These are some of the questions
monkey B, would engage in self deception, science needs to focus on. (Boncu, 2008)
convincing itself that the bananas are in the
wrong location. So monkey A would go to the 3. Impression management
false location as well, thus defeating the point of
the original deception. Ramachandran, in the Impression management relates to
same article, proceeds by constructing a new controlling the information transmitted to the
theory or explanation for the evolutionary outside, for the purpose of improving the
origins of self deception, different from that of perception of others, to gain an advantage or to
Trivers. This new explanation is based on reach certain social goals. People can control
clinical data for patients with an affected right impressions about almost anything (brands of
brain hemisphere, which denied the paralysis, by clothes, political views), but the most important
invoking exaggerated reasons such as severe and most common form of impression
arthritis. It is worth noting that this phenomenon management is that concerning one’s own image
is very rarely encountered when the left part of – presentation of self, as Goffman calls it in The
the brain is deteriorated, resulting in the belief Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Goffman,
that this affliction is more neurological than 1961 as cited in Dunn & Forrin 2000)
psychological. In view of such clinical evidence, Schlenker (1980, Wate 2000) defines
Ramachandran continues by saying that the impression management as the conscious or
biological function (localized in the left part of unconscious attempt to control the image
the brain), for which self deception has evolved, projected in real or imaginary social
was to impose consistency, continuity, stability interactions. When these images concern one’s
and cohesion over an individual perception of self, they are called presentation of self.
reality. (Ramachandran, 1996 as cited in Over time, many writers and
Moomal & Henzi, 2000) philosophers talked about tactics people use to
The evaluation of self deception and it’s control the impression others form of them.
Shakespeare wrote that ˮ life is a scene, and men of social relations.
and women are actors. They enter and exit the As social psychology evolves, it
scene, and one man can play more than one part proposes a more dynamic vision on human
in his life ˮ. Erving Goffmann presented the idea behavior. Currently the idea that people do not
of life as a show, backing up his claims with passively react to their environment has become
research showing that ordinary people act in a proven fact. Individuals try to structure and
such a manner as to create the desired model the environment they live in, and try to
impression to those around them, as actors do remove any threats within this environment.
when playing on stage. Also Goffman stated that Concepts such as impression adjustment,
these impressions are used with a precise impression management, presentation of self,
purpose in mind. These objectives can be social, relate to the intentional or unintentional control
psychological or material (Leary & Kowalski, people exert on the information presented to
1990). Impression management can constitute those around them, especially those they come
the basis for achieving the desired social image, into close contact with (Boncu, 2008).
by both verbal and non-verbal behavior. Impression management can be a
(Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997). conscious, controlled activity, premeditated
The resemblance between impression behavior, or, on the contrary, an automatic
management and acting (actors pretending to be process. Controlled self adjustment mainly
what they are not), shows the intentional and appears when performing is very important to an
duplicitous character of the former. Older actor, or when the actor encounters or
research has confirmed this fact, while more anticipates problems receiving positive feedback
recent research and observation show that cases (for example when having concerns about the
exist where people engage in impression opinions of other people). It has been proven
management without being aware that they are that automatic self-presentation, without a
doing so. For example, although amongst family conscious control from the individual, provides
and close friends we might think that we can be more positive information than conscious self-
ourselves, we may discover that we have presentation.
different behaviors (or present twisted versions If initial research started by
of ourselves), without thinking about this in investigating impression management from the
advance. This different behavior can be point of view of the individual, later
explained not only by wanting to be perceived investigations have taken the route of
differently by those around us, but also by others researching impression management from an
having certain expectations of us. So practicing organizational point of view. Thus the idea has
impression management favors the development 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
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
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,
glorification of self, or ego-enhancement (as
cited in Robinson, Shaver, Lawrence, 1991).
Examples of items built on
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.
and 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
of 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
a conducted during which each team member had
to identify 5 people which would name 3
socially desirable behaviors. These behaviors
self 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
A F
what others think of me.
1 Self deception :
26. I’m always fair in my actions.
A F
2 Usefulness :
6. I am someone appreciated for
A F
efficiency in my work.
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: were identified from a statistical point of view.
Impression management = 0.801 Self deception is negatively affected by
Self deception = 0.884 age, as a subject’s age increase, they start to
Usefulness = 0.727 build a self-image more in tune with reality.
During their existence people gain a certain
As illustrated in the below tables: experience as far as life and relations with others
are concerned. This way the self-image is
Reliability Statistics
constructed based on feedback from the outside,
Cronbach's and not based on what they would want to be.
Alpha N of Items
.801 47 We also found a negative relation between age
and a subject’s score for usefulness, which
Impression management
means that as one progresses in age, they tend to

Reliability Statistics feel less competent, young people having a more

developed sense of purpose.
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items Elderly subjects are involved in fewer
.884 48 activities than when they were young which
makes their perceived usefulness to diminish as
Self deception
time passes. Being more active and in an almost
Reliability Statistics continual learning process, young people tend to
Cronbach's feel more useful in their respective environment.
Alpha N of Items The T test (independent samples T test)
.727 22
by organization type (company or public
Usefulness institution) brought to light differences between
Fig. 1. The internal consistency of the all three dimensions analyzed, showing that
questionnaire employees of the private sector (companies):
Have a significantly higher level of self
6.2. Data analysis and interpretation deception t(303) = -2.613, p = 0.009
Perform impression management a lot
Analyzing the connections and more often t(307) = -2.429, p = 0.016
differences between the score average for self Have a significantly higher sense of
deception, impression management or usefulness t(330) = -1.990, p = 0.047
usefulness for various kinds of subjects, by
gender, age, education, or income levels, several Privately employed subjects are
effects of the social and demographic variable motivated in their role by the possibility of
promotions or career advancement more than desirability as far as performance in various
subjects employed in the public sector, which areas of activity is concerned. We wish to
may explain the higher level of practicing explore whether social desirability is something
impression management and the raised level of to avoid in candidates or if it is a component of
self deception. Also, in the private field social intelligence. We will also apply the
employee performance is constantly verified designed test along with the Crowne-Marlowe
which determines the high level of usefulness and BIDR scales in order to analyze concurrent
exhibited by these subjects. validity.
The three dimensions of social
desirability do not seem however to show 8. Reference List
significant differences when put side by side
with the subject’s gender, level of education, 1. Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and
field of work (services, retail, production) or Organizational Conflict: Effects of the Type
level of income. A Behavior Pattern and Self-Monitoring.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
7. Conclusions and strategies for Processes, vol. 44, no. 2, p. 281-296.
optimizations 2. Boncu, Ș., „Auto-prezentarea”, Psihologie
(învătământ la distanța), Editura
Following the testing of questionnaire Universității „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iași.
DS08 on a number of 511 subjects, it has proven 3. Booth-Kewley, S., Larson, G.E., &
to be a valid questionnaire, proposing to identify Miyoshi, D.K. (2007). Social desirability
the deception tendencies exhibited when filling effects on computerized and paper-and-
out personality evaluation tests, in situations of pencil questionnaires, Journal Computers in
professional evaluation and selection. Obtaining Human Behavior, vol. 23, p.463-477.
high scores on the desirability scale can indicate 4. Bozeman, D. P. & Kacmar, K. M.
a tendency for the subject to falsify (consciously (1997). A cybernetic model of
or unconsciously) answers to tests or hiring impression management processes in
interview questions.
organizations în Organizational
In future, the questionnaire will be
Behavior and Human Decision
applied in the test-retest phase in order to
Processes, vol. 69, p. 9 – 30.
ascertain fidelity, then the construct’s validity
5. Cambon, L., (2006). The evaluative function
will be tested by building experimental
of personality traits: Towards the focus on
situations. Also, future research will attempt to
the two value dimensions of social
analyze the prediction power of social
 desirability and social utility, Psychologie Educational and Psychological
française vol. 51, p. 285-305. Measurement, vol. 60, p. 340-360.
6. Cambon, L., Djouari, A., & Beauvois, J.-L. 13.Gravdal, L., & Sandal, G.M. (2006). The
(2006). Social Judgment Norms and Social two-factor model of social desirability:
Utility: When It Is More Valuable to Be Relation to coping and defense, and
Useful Than Desirable, Swiss Journal of implications for health, Journal of
Psychology 65, 2006, 167–180. Personality and Individual Differences, vol.
7. Chalmers, D., & Bourget, D. (2006). Self- 40, p. 1051-1061.
deception, Standford Encyclopedia of 14.Jeffrey, S.A., Webb, A., & Schulz, A.
Philosophy, Australian National University. (2007). The Use of Self-Set Goals as an
8. Damon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F., Impression Management Tactic:
Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Antecedents and Consequences..
Achievement Goal Promotion at University: 15.Johnson, T.P., & Fendrich, M. (2005). A
Social Desirability and Social Utility of validation of the Crowne-Marlow social
Mastery and Performance Goal, Journal of desirability.
Personality and Social Psychology .vol. 96, 16.Laughland, A.S., Musser, W.N., & Musser,
no. 1, p. 119–134. L.M. (1994). An Experiment in Contingent
9. Dompnier, B., Pansu, P., & Bressoux, P. Valuation and Social Desirability, Journal
(2007). Social utility, social desirability and of Agricultural and Resource Economics
scholastic judgments: Toward a Review, vol. 23, p. 30-36.
personological model of academic 17.Mele, A.R. (1997b). Real self-deception,
evaluation, European Journal of Psychology Department of Philosophy, Davidson
of Education, vol. 3, p. 333-350. College.
10.Dubois, N., & Beauvois, J.-L. (2005). 18. Mele, A.R. (2001). Self-Deception
Normativeness and individualism, European
Unmasked. books.google.com.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
19.Moomal, Z., & Henzi, S.P. (2000). The
vol. 35, p. 123-146.
Evolutionary Psychology of Deception and
11.Dunn, E.W. & Forrin, N., Impression
Self-Deception, Errata, vol 30, no. 1, p. 45-
Management
46.
12. Dwight, S.A., Feigelson, M.E., (2000).
20.Nae, D. (2006). „Managementul impresiei”
A quantitative review of the effect of în Piața muncii –
computerized testing on the http://www.sfin.ro/articol_7240/managementul_
measurement of social desirability în 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
psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.
22. Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998).
28.Tenbrunsel, A.E., Diekmann, K.A., Wade-
Benzoni, K.A., & Bazerman, M.H. (2007).
The ethical mirage: a temporal explanation
social as to why we aren’t as ethical as we think
we are, Research in Organizational
Behavior.
29.Wata, A. (2000). Impression Management,

Egoistic and moralistic bias in self- Social Psychology,

perceptions: the interplay of self- http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/social_psy

chology/53283/2
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.