See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229067970

Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding

Article  in  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · March 1984

DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598

CITATIONS READS
1,754 1,449

1 author:

Delroy Paulhus
University of British Columbia - Vancouver
133 PUBLICATIONS   17,151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Internet Trolling and Everyday Sadism: Parallel Effects on Pain Perception and Moral Judgment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Delroy Paulhus on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES

Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding

Delroy L. Paulhus
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

A recent two-factor model of socially desirable responding based on denial and

allribution components was reviewed and disputed. A second model distinguishing
self-deception and impression management components was reviewed and shown
to be related to early factor-analytic work on desirability scales. Two studies were
conducted to test the model. A factor analysis ofcommonly used desirability scales
revealed thai the two major factors were best interpreted as self.Deception and
Impression Management. A second study employed confirmatory factor analysis
to show that the attribution/denial model does not fil the data as well as the self-
deception/impression management model. A third sludy compared scores on de-
sirability scales under anonymous and public conditions. Results showed that those
scales that had loaded highest on the Impression Management factor showed the
greatcst mean increase from ilnonymous 10 public conditions. It is recommended
that impression management, but not self-deception, be controlled in self-reports
of personality.

Over the last 25 years a variety of instru-
ments have been designed to assess individual
differences in socially desirable responding.
Wiggins (1968) cited references to at least 12
such scales. Other scales introduced since that
time include the Approval~Motivation scale
(Larsen, Martin, Ettinger, & Nelson, 1976),
the Self~ and Other-Deception Questionnaires
(Sackeim & Gur, 1978), and the Social De-
sirability Inventory (Jacobson, Kellogg, Cauce,
& Slavin, 1977). Evidence has been accu-
mulating that the various measures of socially
desirable responding can be incorporated
within a two-factor model. This article reviews
several such approaches and reports some new
evidence concerning the underlying structure
of social desirability.
Attribution Versus Denial
One approach has focused on the distinction
between attribution and denial responses to
The author would like 10 thank Jerry Wiggins. Harold
Sackeim, and two anonymous reviewers for comments on
an earlier draft.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Delroy L. PaUl-
hus, Department of Psychology, Universily of British Co-
lumbia. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T IWS.
J""mal of ''''ItOOalily &1Id Social l's)"ChotolY. 198&. Vol. #, No, J. S98-609
COPl"i&h' 1980t by ,"" Am<rian PI}'Ohoia&i<aI Associalion. Inc.
self-report items (see Millham & Jacobson,
1978). Attribution responses involve claiming
socially desirable characteristics for the self;
denial responses involve disclaiming that un-
desirable characteristics apply to the self. To
assess these cornJXInents Millharn (1974) par-
titioned the items ofthe Marlowe-erowne scale
into attribution and denial subscales. He found
mixed evidence that the two comJXInents were
differentially related to cheating behavior. Ja~
cobson et a1. (1977) used a larger item pool
to develop a social desirabiJity inventory that
explicitly separated attribution and denial
subscales. They found that the subscale in-
tercorrelations (average, .60) were substantially
lower than the correlations of the subscales
with total scores (average, .82) and concluded
that tbe subscales tapped different constructs.
This conclusion, however, was not justified by
their data. The subscaJe intercorrelations must
be stepped up to the total test length and then
compared with the observed reliability of the
total test. Indeed, after being stepped up with
the Spearman.Brown formula, the subscale
intercorrelations range from .85 to .89, figures
very close to the observed reliability of the
whole test (Kuder-Richardson 20 "" .90).
Therefore, a more appropriate conclusion

'"
 SOCIALLY DESIRABLE RESPONDING
would be that tbe attribution and denial com-
ponents are equivalent measures of the same
construct. A similar conclusion was drawn by
Ramanaiah and Martin (1980). After balanc-
ing for direction of keying, they found that
the attribution and denial subscales of the
Marlowe-Crowne scale correlated at the same
level as the individual scale reljabilities. As a
whole, tben, the case for separate attribution
and denial components of social desirability
is weak.
Self-Deception Versus
Impression Management
A second approach to partitioning socially
desirable responding centers on distinguishing
self-deception. where the respondent actually
beljeves his or her positive self-reports, from
impression management, where the respon-
dent consciously dissembles. This distinction
was articulated in early articles by Frenkel-
Brunswik (1939) and Meehl and Hathaway
(1946). Several subsequent researchers have
made similar distinctions but have applied dif-
ferent labels to the constructs. For instance,
Sackeim and Gur (1978) preferred the terms
"self-deception" and "other-deception." Mill-
ham and Kellogg (1980) used both sets of
terms interchangeably. In a similar distinction,
Damann and Messick (1965) contrasted "au-
tistic bias in self-regard" with "propagandistic
bias." Kusyszyn and Jackson (1968) compared
"desirability" with "defensiveness." The dis-
tinctions made by all of these writers are con-
sistent with the terms, Je/fdeception (in self-
regard) and impresJion management. which
are used in this article.
This two-factor model of socially desirable
responding can be linked to a venerable series
of factor-analytic studies showing that social
desirability scales tend to cluster around two
distinct factors, termed the Alpha and Gamma
factors (Block, 1965; Wiggins, 1964). The Al-
pba factor is usually well-marked by Edwards's
(1957) Social Desirability (SO) scale and
Byrne's (1961) Repression-Sensitization scale.
Other instruments falling within this cluster
include Ullmann's (1962) facilitation-inhibi-
tion index and the Minnesota Multiphasic
per.;onality Inventory (MMPI) Test-Taking
Attitude (K) scale (Meehl & Hathaway, 1946).
The Gamma factor is typically defined by
599
Wiggins's (1959) Social Desirability (Sd) scale,
the Positive Malingering scale (Cofer, Chance,
& Judson, 1949), and, to a lesser extent, by
the MMPI Lie (L) scale (Meehl & Hathaway.
1946).
Damann and Messick (1965) were the first
to argue that the Alpha factor represented an
unconscious evaluative bias in self-reports.
They agreed with others in interpreting the
Gamma factor as deliberate falsification I (Ed-
wards, Diers, & Walker, 1962; Jackson & Mes-
sick, (962). Subsequently, Jackson and Mes-
sick developed scales to index each of these
factors (Jackson, 1967; Kusyszyn & Jackson,
1968). In the latter study, the two measures
were shOwn to form distinct factors in a large-
scale factor analysis. 2 No validation studies
have been reported for these scales.
Another approach to constructing separate
measures of self-deception and impression
management was recently described by Mill-
ham and Kellogg (1980). They compared sub-
jects' responses under standard and bogus
pipeline conditions to yield separate measures
of self-deception and impression management.
The utility of the separate indexes was then
demonstrated by showing an appropriate pat-
tern ofcorrelations in a subsequent laboratory
study ofthesame subjects. In particular, recall
of negative information about the self was
positively related to impression management
scores but negatively related to self-deception
scores. This research approach appears prom-
ising, although administration of the elaborate
bogus pipeline technique as a standard prelude
to laboratory experiments is clearly imprac-
tical.
Self-report instruments designed specifically
for measuring self- and other deception have
recently been developed by Sackeim and Gur
(1978). The Self-Deception Questionnaire
(SDQ) and the Other-Deception Questionnaire
(ODQ) are rationally developed scales, each
, The Damario aDd Messick model also iocorporates a
third component. namely. the accurale reporting ofone's
attributes..
l To further confuse the issue, the term difnuiwnn5
has been applied 10 bolh of the faclors. KuS)'Sl)'ll and
Jackson (1968) applied the term 10 the Gamma factO£ in
lhe sense of naive test-taking defensiveness.. Olhen bao.~
applied lhe term to the Alpha-fac1.or scales (e.g., Liberty
et al .• 1964).
600 DELROY L. PAULHUS
Table I
Interscale Corrdalions/rom Study I
2 3
I. Ma~-Crowne .24
2. Edwards SO .24
3. SOQ .29 AI
4. ODQ .SO .01
S. Wiggins Sd .40 -.12
6. MMPI Lie .60 .IS
Noll'. SO and Sd - SoriaI de:sirabililyscaie; SIX) ~ Sdf·Dcceplion Quc:stionnaire:ODQ "" Other-Deception Q\K'stioonaire;
MMPI "" Minnesota Multiphask Perwnality In~tory. 11 - 425.
with 20 Likert-type items. The SDQ items are
statements judged to be univeJSaUy true but
psychologically threatening. The ODQ items
are questions about socially desirable but sta-
tistically infrequent behaviors. The convergent
and divergent validity of the scales have been
suppOrted in a series of experimental and cor-
relational studies (Gur & Sackeim, 1979;
Paulhus, 1982; Sackeim & Gur, 1978, 1979).
By determining the relationship ofthese two
scales to the Alpha and Gamma factors, the
nature of this two-factor model may be clar-
ified. Irthe Alpha factor truly represents self-
deceptive responding, then the SDQ should
load highly on that factor. Similarly, if the
Gamma factor represents impression man~
agement, then the 000 should load highly
on that factor.
Accordingly, the first study reported in the
prescnt article was designed as (a) a factor-
analytic replication ofthe AJpha-Gamma two-
factor structure and (b) an attempt to clarify
the meaning of the two factors by relating them
to the SDQ and 000 instruments. The second
study is a confirmatory factor analysis in-
volving a direct comparison of the attributionl
denial model with the self-deception/impres-
sion management model.
The third study reported here is an exper~
imental study of the impact of instructional
sets on six commonly used social desirability
scales. To the extent that a scale measures dif-
ferences in impression management, scores
under public-disclosure conditions should be
higher than scores under totally anonymous
conditions. In contrast, scores on measures of
self-deception should be relatively unaffected
by this manipulation. Thus the degree of im-
pact of impression management cues on the
4 , 6
.29 .50 .40 .60
.41 .07 -.12 .IS
.13 -.04 .31
.13 48 .39
-.04 .48 .54
.31 .39 .54
mean scale scores should provide an index of
the degree to which each instrument is tapping
impression management.
Study I
Method
Subjects were 425 undergraduates participating for
course credit (205 males and no females). In a group-
testing situation, subjects completed a battery ofsix scales:
the J9·item SDscale(Edwards, 1951); the IS-item MMPI
Lie scale (Meehl &. Hathaway, 1946); the 4Q.item Sd scale
(Wiggins, 1959); the JJ·itcm Marlowe-Crowne (Mq scale
(Crowne &. Marlowe, 1964); the SDQ and the ODQ, 20
items each (Sackeim &. Gur. 1918). The first four scales
are in true/false format. The latter tWQ scales are presented
as 7-point Likert items but are scored dichotomously: Only
extreme responses (lor 2 on SDQ items, 6 or 7 on ODQ
items) count as socially desirable responses.
Reslills and Discussion
The 6 X 6 matrix of interscale correlations
in Table I was subjected to a principal-factor
extraction followed by varimax rotation. In
addition, the items were separated into 84 odd
and 83 even items. To test the stability of the
solution,) each interitem correlation matrix
(phi coefficients) was factor analyzed separately
using a principal-factor extraction, again fol-
lowed by a varimax rotation. The six scale
totals were also included in each analysis-
the small amount of item overlap introduced
should not noticeably affect the results.
•
) It seemed worthwhile 10 evaluate the stability of the
.solution because some statisticians suggr:st a minimum of
five respondents per variabk eveo wben the total sampk
islafllil= (Gorsuch. 1914). The present sample size of 425
barely CJlceeds this minimum for the largr::st number of
variables submitted (84).
 SOCIALLY DESIRABLE RESPONDING 601

Table 2 from the Edwards scale. Many of the high-

Faclor Loadings 011 Six Scales FrOln Three loading items refer to sexual and parental con-
Factor Analyses flicts and other deep personal concerns. These
FactCM'" analysis kinds of conflicts playa primary role in the

S<ak
, '"
FI
.. F2 FI
Odd
items

F2 FI
E~
items

F2
psychoanalytic conceptions underlying Sack-
eim and Gur's view of selfodeception. The item
results, along 'Nith the fact that the SDQ was
the best overall marker of the factor, argue
strongly for a self-deception interpretation of
Mariowe-Crowne 68 the first factor.
Edwards SO
!kIf-Deception
02 '"
61
74
02
27
81
79
09
45
66 On the second factor, five of the 10 highest
Other-Deception
Wiggins Sd
14
61
79 -23
"
08
06
80
61
64
--<J6
-II " 23"
11

64
-14
-II
loading items originate from the 000. These
items generally involve socially desirable but
MMPI Lie 72 27 69 28 77 relatively infrequent oven behaviors. More·
over, the items generally concern matters of
Nolt. Decimal points have been omiued. Fl and F2 - fact whose truth or falsity is known to the
Factor 1 and Factor 2, respect.ivdy. SO and Sd - Social
dr:sirabiJity scak; MMPI - Minnesol3 Multiphasic Per-
correspondent. For instance, the best single
sonality In\'tntory. item is 'T>O you tell the truth?" Another strong
item is "When you take sick leave, are you
always as sick as you say you are'!" Note that
they do not have the personal threat Quality
In the factor analysis of the scale totals the typical of the items loading on Factor I. Fi-
first three factors explained 43%, 24%, and nally, the ODQ is the best marker variable,
10% of the total variance. In the analysis of providing further evidence that the second
the odd items, the first three factors explained factor represents impression management. ~
15%, 13%, and 7% of the total variance. For
the even items, the comparable figures were Study 2
16%, 13%, and 5%. Because the same "elbow"
appeared in all three analyses, only the first Although the factor pattern of the SDQ and
two factors were retained for rotation. The 000 on the Alpha and Gamma factors sup-
factor loadings of the six scale totals from the ports the self-deception/impression manage·
three analyses are presented in Table 2. ment model, the attribution/denial model is
The configuration of the six total scales was not entirely ruled out. An ambiguity arises
very similar whether or not the individual from the method of keying the SDQ and ODQ
items were included in the factor analysis. The scales. Specifically, the SDQ contains only
correlations of their factor loadings across the negatively keyed items and the ODQ contains
three analyses were above .90 for both Factor only positively keyed items. Thus the SDQ
1 and Factor 2. It is clear from Figure I that items are primarily denials of negative attri·
the pattern of loadings is quite consistent with butes: The scale confounds self-deception with
previous factor-analytic studies: Edwards's SO denial. Similarly, the ODQ scale confounds
scale loads strongly on the first factor; Wiggins' impression management with attribution.
Sd scale has its highest loading on the second Note that in Study I, an examination of the
factor; and the Marlowe-Crowne scale loads items loading on Alpha and Gamma indicated
highly on both factors. Results for the SIX2 that the factors were not fuUy confounded 'Nith
and ODQ were even more cleareut. The SDQ positive and negative keying: Items of both
is the highest loading scale on the first factor,
the ODQ is the purest marker of the second • The complele list of items and their factor 1oadi~ is
factor. available from the author.
The highest loading items on each factor4 , Neither factor seems to be related to the oonstruCi of
are listed in Table 3. An examination of the .self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974), which appears to tap skill
highest loading items on Factor I aids in its I3.tberthan motivation in impression ~t (Collins,
Paulhus, &: Grariano, 1983; Danheiser &: Paulhus, 19111).
interpretation. Five of the top 10 items are The correlations of .self·monitoring witb the SDQ and
drawn from the SDQ, and the other five are ODQ v.oer't -.10 and .23, respectively.
 602 DELROY L PAULHUS
SELF-DECEPTION
.'"
----;,.,.,--7''''---,.,.,---!----,.,.,---.,..---..--
•• 7~ -.50 -.25
·.25
-. '"
·,75
Figure 1. fu of foctor loadings of six social desirability scales.
valences showed up on each factor. Nonethe-
less, a clear separation of keying direction and
content in the SDQ and ODQ would facilitate
a comparison of the two models of socially
desirable responding.
In the present study, the items from the
SDQ and 000 were rewritten so that (a) all
items were worded as statements rather than
Questions, (b) all statements were worded as
trait affirmations (I am nice); negations (I am
not nice) were eliminated; and (e) equal num·
bers of attribution and denial items appear on
each scale.' For instance. the ODQ item, "I
am honest," was changed to '" sometimes tell
lies if I have to," The SDQ item, "Is it im-
portant to you that others think highly of you,"
was changed to ..It's alright with me if others
happen to dislike me." To get a perfect score
on either scale, the respondent must now en·
co.
.25.50.75
IMPRESSION
lUNAGEM[NT
,.
000* Ott,... -Oec;ept Ion OUest lonna t.-.
50·Edwards social de.I.-abl' ltv scal.
dorsc 10 socially desirable attributes and deny
10 socially undesirable attributes. The overall
• There is an ambiguity in operationaliring lhe ami·
bution/denial model. Millham (1914, p. 382) partitioned
the 33 Maf1owe.Crownc items into positMlyand ncgatiYdy
keyed statemellts. Theaunbutton toore "''3Sdefinc:d as the
number of agrccmenlS with positively keyed items; the
denial score was the number of disagreemenlS wilh neg-
atively ke~ items.. Thus the items '" am a saine and
") am not a crool: would both be considered attribution
M
item$. The items "I am I crook and "I am 001 a saint"
M
would be denial items because disagreemenl, is the socially
desirable response, ~ Millham (1974, p, 380) and
Millham and KdklI& (1980, P. )71) ddined the altributiOll
compQQent u a .. tendency to attribute KJciaIIy dc:sirabIe
Slltement5 to one's selr and denial as a -tendency to
deny undesirable charactcristics." This definition of al_
tribution implies that the: attributioo items ~ "1 am a
saint" and"l am nota saine because agreement with the
 SOCIALLY DESIRABLE RESPONDING 603

Table 3
Highest Loading Items on FaclOrs J and 1 From Separate Factor Analyses a/Odd and Even Items
Loadings

Ilem II

Faclor I; Self-Deoeption
I. H.Ye you e-u aljoycd your bowel trIO'"'C'menlS? (SDQI
2. HlIYC' you e-u been uncenain as 10 .....bether or not you are OOmose.o;uaf? (SDQ)
3. ~ often disappoinl me. (SO)
4. Life is • Slrain for me Il'105l of the time. (SO)
.
61

63
63
36
20
-IS
-18

.,"
5. HlIYC' you e-u doubted your sexual adequacy? (SDQ) 62 12
6. I worry quite a bil OYC'I" possibJe misl"OI1UIlC'$. (SO) 62
,. HlIYC' you e-u thou&hl thai your parenlS haled you? (5DQ) 61 16
8. I have several times Pveo up doinc something because I thoupl too linle of my ability. (SO) 61
9. In I IJ'llUp of people I have trouble lhinkins of the rilhl thinss 10 talk about. (SO)
10. HlIYC' you eYer thoughl of eommiltilll suicide in orde!" to It' black al SOInC'OIlC'? (500) "
60
28
I.

Factor 2; Impressioo Manatemenl

I. Do you tell the truth? (ODQ) 25 63

2. When you take sick-leave ff'OOl work or school•• re you as sick as you say you are? (ODQ) 14 60
3. I 1m always couneous. even 10 peopk .....ho are disagreeabk. (Me) -18
4. Ooce in • while I laugh .1 • dirty joke. (Sd)
5. I iOO1C'Iimes try 10 Jel even, rathc:f than forgive and fOJ'lC'l. (Me)
6. I always apolo&ize 10 others for my mistakes.. (OOQ)
" "
-<)7
-18
-57
-55
54
7. Would you deelare everythifl3 at customs, even if you knew thaI you cook! never be found
out? (ODQ) --D4 54
8. I never .nC'nd a sexy show if I can avotd iL (Sd) -33 54
9. Sometimes at ekctions J VOle for candidates I know linle about. (Sd) 12 -53
10. J am 5OIJlC'times irriuted by peopk who asIc f2V0f'5 of me. (Mq 21 -52
elll.
Nou. Decimal poinlS have been omiued. 1be source of each hem is in parenllx:scs after the ilem. n .. 425. SDQ ..
selll. Self-Deception Queslionnaire; O[XJ .. Other-Deception Questionnaire; SO and Sd .. Edwards Social Desirability and
Wigins Social desirability scales respectively; Me ... Mariowe-Crowne Scale.

set of 40 items was labeled the Balanced in- All subjcclS completed the BIDR. the Marlowe-oowne
ventory of Desirable Responding (OIOR). scale and the Edwards SO seaJe.
'I deny To compare the relative utility of the self.
l'Ierall dcceptionfimprcssion management and attri- Results
bution/denial models, a series of confirmatory
factor analyses were performed. Responses on the BIDR were categorized
and summed to yield four composites: (a) at-
e ann-
Method tribution/impression management items, (b)
ilioned attribution/self-deception items, (c) denial/
~tiYely
Subjects were 86 undergraduales (38 males and 48 fe- impression management items, and (d) denial/
l ti ' " males) who volunleered to participate in a class setting. self-deception items. The correlations among
~'"
!II neg- these four measures, the Edwards SD scale,
""
,"bution and the Marlowe-Crowne scale are given in
Table 4.
sainI" first and denial of the secood would both imply that the
rc::sp;)l'ldenl has the socially dc:sirable aunbute ofsainthood. A series ofconfirmatory factor analyses were
.,""
""'"
...., This ambiJuity is avoided in the pre5enl5ludy by usina
only assertions (c-&.. "11m I saint." "1 am a sinner").
performed on this correlation matrix. Three
hypothesized factor patterns are depicted in

"' ..
tinbl< UnfOflunately this means thaI agrttmenl acquiesttnce Table 5. A "0" indicates a factor loading fixed
will be ooafounded with aettptance acquiescence. This

-.
~.l-

,,'"
should not be I serious probkm because ~ment ac--
quie:scmce has bu-n shown 10 be of minor importance
(8en~ Jackson. &: Messick, 1971).
at zero; a "I" indicates a factor loading that
was lert free to be estimated by the program_
Each factor pattern was submitted to two stan-
604 DELROY L. PAULHUS

Table 4
Imercorrelmiolls ofSlIbscoks in SllIdy 2

L
Subscale
SO-attribution
2
.51
3
.31 A3
4

.41
5
.46
•
2. SO-denial .51 .18 .36 .42 A5
3. OD-attribulion .31 .18 A8 .40 .02
4. OJ).{lenial A3 .36 A8 A9 .04
5. Marlowe-Crownc .41 A2 .40 .49 .25
6. Edwards A' AS .02 .04 .25
Nore. SD .. Self-Deception; 00 '" Other Deception; n .. 86.

dard computer programs designed for the On the basis of several different statistical
analysis of covariance structures: (a) L1SREL indexes, it is clear that the self-deception/
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1978), and (b) COSAN impression management model provides a
(Fraser, 1979; McDonald, 1978). In all cases better fit to the data than the attribution/denial
both programs yielded identical estimates. model or a single-factor model.
Also given in Table 5 are the test statistics
based on each model. It is clear from the table Study 3
that Model 2 shows the best fit of the three
models. Only Model 2 shows nonsignificant Another valuable source of information
chi-squares for both orthogonal and oblique about social desirability scales is their perfor-
versions. All other chi·squares are significant, mance under different instructional sets.
indicating that the badness of fit is significantly Scores on impression management scales (e.g.,
worse than a fully unconstrained model. Be-
cause it has more degrees of freedom, Model
I can be tested against Model 2 (oblique) by Table 5
testing the differenee in chi-squares, (33.7 - Confirmatory Factor Analyses of
12.4) = 21.3, using the difference in degrees SlIbJ'cale Correlmions
offreedom, (9 - 7) = 2. This comparison is
highly sigDjficant (p < .(01). A similar com- M<Xkl 2: Self-
Modell: Deception! Model 3:
parison of Model I against Model 3 was not Single Impression Attribution!
significant. A comparison of Model I against Denial
Model 2 (orthogonal) also showed a signifi-
cantly better fit for Model 2, chi-square dif-
"""
S[)..atuibution
factor

'0
Management

,0 '0
SD-denial to ,0 0'
ference was 19.3 (p < .001). QD-attribution '0 0' '0
Programs L1SREL and COSAN also provide OD-denial to 0' 0'
an estimate ofthe correlation between the two
factors in the oblique case. For Model 3 this
Marlowe-
Crowne ,0 ,, ,,
Edwards ,0 ,0 01
estimate was 1.017, clearly out of range and
indicating an iIl·fitting model. For Model 2 Oblique model
the correlation was .502-high but certainly
not out of range. Chi·square 33.7 12.38 33.26
dJ 9 7 7
Another indication that Model 2 is superior Probability .000' .09 .000'
is the pattern of root meaD square residuals RMS .12 .07 .12
(RMS). This measure indexes the degree offit
of the original correlation matrilt to the cor- Orthogonal model
relation matrix reproduced from the model Chi-square 14.4 53.3
estimates. From Table 5 it is dear that the dJ 8 8
Probability .072 .‫סס‬oo,
RMS for Model 2 is half the size of the RMS
RMS .096 .21
for Model 3 in both orthogonal and oblique
models. Unfortunately, direct statistical tests No/e. SO '" Self-Deception; 00 - Other Deception;
are not yet available for testing RMS values. RMS - root mean square residuals.
 SOCIALLY DESIRABLE RESPONDING 605

the Wiggins Sd scale} are generally more re- Table 6

spOnsive than the SO scale to changes in in- Scale Scores Under AnOflymous and
structional sets, for example, to fake good or Public Conditions
fake bad (Boe & Kogan. 1964; Wiggins, 1959). Condition
In Study 2, the same six scales from Study
I were administered to subjects under either Anony-
anonymous or public conditions. Under anon- Sal< • ~ Public ".I~
ymous conditions, subjects are expected to give SDQ .n 9.16 10.01 1.39
relatively honest self-reports. In contrast, the Edwards SD .82 2S.44 30." 1.51
public-disclosure condition was designed to M.......
resemble typical psychology studies where the Ooo~ .n IJ.2S 1~.51 2.J~*

tical
experimenter administer.> the instrument as a
prelude to some experiment. This is usually
Wains Sd
MMPI lie ."
.60
14.79
J.3~
16.80
S...
2.64·
3.21*
ODQ .74 '.S< 11.96 J.2~·
ion! a face-ta-face situation where the experimenter
a Nolt. SDQ .. Sclf·Dettptioo Quc:stionnai~; SO and
knows the subject's face and name, as well as Sd" Social desinlbilily; MMPI .. Minnc:sou Multiphasic
W the course for which he or she is receiving PI:nonaIity Invenlory; ODQ - Other-Deception Ques-
credit. In short, the public-disclosure condition tionnaire. n - 100.
should evoke a degree of impression manage- *P< .O~ (I""'O-Iailed).

ment that is characteristic of laboratory

studies.
tion It is expected that the scales designated as
0'· impression management measures (ODQ. Sd)
IS. will show substantially higher scores in the
e.g., public condition. In contrast, scores on self-
deception scales (SDQ. SO) should not show
as much difference between conditions.
Method
Subjects. Subjects wert! 100 undcrgnKluates in intro-
ductory psychology who participated for coone credit.
Because flO kX differences wen: found. the ItSUIlS ~portod
l): wert pooled acros.s males and females.
tion/ Procedllrn The inventory of social desirability scales
was administered in several group sessions. Subjects were
randomly assigned to either the public or the anonymous
) condition. In the public condition, 40 subjects comp!c:ted
,
I
in Table 6. In every case, the scores are 1000r
under anonymous conditions than under pub-
lic conditions. Only the ODQ, Sd, Lie, and
Me scales, however. are substantially and sig-
nificantly lower.
To determine whether the impression man-
agement scales changed significantly more than
the self-deception scales, a 2 X 2 mixed analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was analyzed. The within-
subjects factor was test type (impression man-
agement vs. self-deception). Each subject's
impression management scores (000, Sd)
were summed after dividing each score by the
standard deviation pooled across the two con-
ditions. Similarly the two self-deception scales

/
the inventory in small group sessions in the presence: of
both II male and a rcmale experimenter. Instructions in
(SDQ. SO) were summed. The between-sub-
jects factor was condition (anonymous vs.
this condition requested that subjects write their name.
addrc:ss. and phone number on the CO'Vef sheet. They were public). The effect of interest was the inter-
also told that the e~perimenters would be ~ading through action between condition and lest type-this
their answers to "eruure that they had read the questions was highly significant. fl.!, 97) = 12.48, p <
earerulty." They were asked to give their completed in-
ventories directly to the experimenter "so that we will be
.01, confirming that the impression manage-
able: to f'CCO&lIize you later." This procedure ""'as said to ment scales changed significantly more than
be necessary for selectins future experimental subjects. In the sclf.-dcception scales. This result further
tlte anonymous condition. 60 subjects completed the in- corroborates the impression management in-
" Yentory in a Illf)lIl: IVOUP-tcsting session. The ICSl instruc-
tions emphasized that tlte uperimenters would have no
idea who completed the inYc:lltory. They wen: asked not
terpretation of the Gamma factor. In sum,
those scales that best index the Gamma factor
to put any tdc:ntifyilll marks on tlte inventory. They were are also those that are affected most by

., told to drop their completed inventory in a bo~ on their

""'2'1 out.

Reslllts
impression management cues.

General Discussion

The means ofthe six social desirability scales The studies reported here support a two-
in the two experimental conditions are given factor theory of socially desirable responding.
606 DELROY L. PAULHUS

A reliable distinction tietween self-deception & Atkinson, 1964; Wiggins, 1964) and con- T
and impression management components has firms that the scale is tapping both components 50
been evidenced in three studies. An explor- of social desirability. The scale was affected i"
atory factor analysis of over 150 social desir- significantly by administration context, but less
ability items and scale totals revealed two ma- so than the Other-Deception Questionnaire or c
jor factors, which were best interpreted as Self~
,Deception and Impression Management. A
the Wiggins Sd scale.
Interestingly, the Marlowe-Crowne scale has ,
confirmatory factor analysis verified the su- exhibited behavioral correlates more clearly f,
perior fit of this model compared to the at~ than other social desirability scales (see Crowne d
tribution/denial model. Finally, an experi~ & Marlowe, 1964; Millham & Jacobson, 1978; fo
mental study demonstrated that the scales that Strickland, 1977). It may be that both ten-
had best marked the Impression Management dencies (impression management and self-de-
factor (the ODQ and Sd scale) were most af- ception) are necessary for an individual to dis-
fected by variations in demand for social de- play need-for-apprpval behavior. Ifso, perhaps r
sirability. On these scales, socially desirable an even more predictive scale might be derived i,
responding was significantly higher when sub- by partitioning the Marlowe-Crowne items ie
jects expected that their responses would be into subscales of items loading primarily on a
made public. In contrast, scales which fell on one of the two factors. If both impression ri
the Self-Deception factor (the Edwards SO management and self-deception are necessary t
scale, SDQ) were Dot significantly influenced for approval behavior, then some multiplicative o
by administration conditions. Taken together. combination of the two components should Ii
these three studies argue strongly for a self- provide the best index for predicting behavior. (
,i
deception plus impression management theory It may be, however, that the items that have
,
ofsocially desirable responding in self·reports. the most predictive value are those that already
,
This investigation provides a link between
a venerable line offactor-analysis research on
load on both factors. In this case, it would be
futile to attempt to separate the items into ,
social desirability scales and the more recent mutually exclusive sets. Instead of separating
work concerned with distinguishing self-de- the Marlowe-Crowne items, a more useful in- e
ception from impression management. The dex might be developed as the product of two f
traditional factor-analytic work consistently scales that are al.ready known to index the two
yielded two factors related to socially desirable components (e.g., the SDQ and ODQ).
responding, but their interpretation was never
clear. The present study demonstrated that Self- and Other-Deception Scales and rhe b
these two factors are well-marked by the $elf- Two-FaciOr Theory
and Other-Deception Questionnaires, which
do have demonstrated behavioral correlates This investigation reflects favorably on
(e.g., Gur & Saekeim, 1979; Paulhus, 1982). Sackeim and Gur's Self- and Other·Deception
The bogus pipeline approach to separating self- scales. The internal consistencies were ac- y
and other-deception measures has also dem- ceptably high. Of the six scale totals included
onstrated behavior correlates (Millham & in the exploratory factor analyses. the SDQ
Kellogg, 1980). With behavioral criteria as was the best marker of the Self-Deception fac- [i
data, stalemated debates about the nature of tor; the ODQ was the strongest marker of the S
socially desirable responding are more likely Impression Management factor.
to be resolved. Moreover, many individual items from the c
SDQ and ODQ were the highest loading items
Need for Approval Behavior on their respective factors. The content ofthese
items helps claritY the nalure ofthe two factors. (
The results for the Marlowe-Crowne scale The best loading items on the Self·Deception
are ofspecial interest. The scale loaded strongly factor were characterized by deep personal
on both the Self-Deception and Impression threat, especially in relation to sexual and pa-
Management factors. This dual loading pattern rental conflicts. Individuals scoring high on
has been found in previous factor analyses this factor seem to display a defensiveness to-
(Edwards & Walsh, 1964; Liberty, Lunneborg, ward psychologically threatening suggestions.
 SOClAUY DESIRABLE RESPONDING
This defensiveness is not simply conscious dis-
sembling because responses were not strongly
influenced by the anonymity versus public
context manipulation. Apparently it is an un-
conscious defensiveness that underlies self-de-
ceptive responding. Note that item content is
important in understanding the self-deception
factor. Rather than a uniform denial of un-
desirable behaviors, the self-deceiver is de·
fending against thoughts and feelings repre--
senting fundamental threats to the psycbe
(Paulhus, in press).
Intermixed with these items are other items
reporting low anxiety and high self-esteem. It
is well-known that standard measures ofanx-
iety, self-esteem, repression, and social desir~
ability are difficult to tease apart psychomet-
rically. Even worse, these measures are hard
to distinguish from accurate self-reports. One
explanation is that these constructs are all
linked to tbe same underlying mechanism
(Paulhus, in press). Byrne's theory of repres-
sion-sensitization provides one such integrative
system (e.g., Bell & Byrne, 1978). Sackeim
and Gur's elaboration of self-deception also
shows promise in linking this complex no-
mological network (e.g., Sackeim, 1983; Sack-
eim & Gur, 1978). Schlenker (1980) has gone
further to explicate some links between
impression management and self-deception.
The highest loading items on the Impression
Managemcnt factor were characterized, not
by personal threat, but by socially desirable
behaviors of an overt nature. They concern
mattcrs of fact whose truth value is known to
the rcspondent. Subjects' responses to these
items were affected substantially by the anon-
ymous vcrsus public manipulation.
Thc success of the Sclf- and Other-Deception
scales in this study adds to the construct va-
lidity demonstrated in previous work (Gur &
Sackeim, 1979; Paulhus, 1982; Sackeim &
Gur, 1979). A psychometric deficiency was
corrected in the BIDR by balancing each scale
wilh respect 10 attribution and denial items.
Further psychometric work is in progress
(Paulhus & Campbell, 1983). The BIDR is
available from the author.
Conclusions
The two-factor model based on denial versus
attribution components has not been sustained
607
by the present data. Its limited success (Mill.
ham, 1974) is probably due to its similarity
to the self-deception versus impression man-
agement model. The latter model was strongly
supported by a direct comparison of the mod·
els in Study 2. Thus the first factor of socially
desirable responding is best interpreted as Self-
Deception. The items appear to be chamc·
terized by threatening thoughts and reported
insecurity.' The second factor is best inter·
preted as Impression Management. Here the
item content centers on socially desirable 0YeTl
behaviors whose truth or falsity is c1ear<ut.
The acceptance of this two-factor model
carries strong implications for lhe control of
socially desirable responding in personality
scales and other self·reports. First, attempts
to preclude or control social desirability must
attend to both factors. In cases where either
self·deception or impression management
might interfere with the assessment ofcontent
dimensions, then the usual correction tech-
niques (e.g., covariance, target rotation, factor
deletion) must simultaneously control the
variance attributable to each factor (see Paul·
hus, 1981).'
In other situations, it is clear that only one
component should be controlled. For instance.,
in an instrument assessing perceived control,
it seems inappropriate to eliminate the self-
deception component because self-deception
may be an intrinsic aspect of that construct
(Paulhus & Christie, 1981). Another important
ellample is the case of the first factor of the
MMPI, variously labeled AnxielY, Ego resi-
liency, and Neurosis. Block (1965) and others
have argued at some length that this general
adjustment factor is intrinsically linked with
social desirability. Although evidence for a
substantive interpretation is strong, any at·
tempt to control socially desirable responding
(as measured by the Edwards SO scale) has
been shown to weaken the factor dramatically
(Edwards, 1970).
'It isaiIJ possible that penona.I tbrcatsare best assessed
with items requiring denials of undesirable traits. This is
suJllXlfUd by the faa that the sdf-<lcol:ption denial items
bad the hi~ loading in Study 2.
111te potentially ~ comptjcated role of the two-
factor modcI in I priori or ~rational" metholb for c0n-
trolling desirability (e.s., fO«lCd-ctlotcc format. dilfCf"Cfltial
yaJK!ity lCkction) has not ~ been addressed.
 608 DELROY L. PAULHUS
The present interpretation of Edward's SD
scale as a self-deceptive bias in self-regard sug-
gests that any desirability bias in self report
that is honestly believed by the respondent
should not be eliminated in assessing con-
structs like ego resiliency or perceived control
because these constructs entail biases in self-
perception. For perceived control, it is a bias
in expectancy of control over reinforcements
(Paulhus, 1983); for ego resiliency it is a gen-
eral-evaluative bias or degree of self-esteem.
In contrast, for aU of these substantive di-
mensions, the impression management com-
ponent should be controlled. This component
represents a conscious bias that may shift with
the situation. There is little reason to believe
that individual differences in impression man-
agement bear any intrinsic relation to central
content dimensions, so its elimination can be
generally recommended. Use of the Marlowe-
Crowne scale in controlling social desirability
should take into consideration its two-factor
nature-it provides a crude control for both
factors.
The separate consideration of self-deception
and impression management appears to be
consistent with the socioanalytic theory of
personality forwarded by Hogan and col-
leagues (e.g., Cheek & Hogan, 1983; Hogan,
1983; Mills & Hogan, 1978). Hogan argued
that responses in self-report inventories are
guided by underlying self.images that arc un-
conscious and not situationally contingent.9
The self-conceplS are said to be organized for
a socially desirable self-presentation but do
not involve conscious dissimulation. Thus self-
definition may entail a self-deceptive bias in
self-regard (cf. Tesser & Paulhus, 1983). Again,
to purge individual differences in this bias from
a personality instrument would be to eliminate
a central component of individual differences
in personality.
, Related, but lcssdevel~ views, are given by Wiggins
(1966), Rogers (1974). and Taylor, Carithers, and Coyne
(1976).
References
Bell, P. A.. & Byrne, D. (1978). Repression-sensitization.
In H. London & J. E. Exner (Eds.), DimensiOlls of per-
sonalily (pp. 449-485). New York: Wiley.
Bentler, P. M., Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1971). Iden-
tification of content and style: A two dimensional in-
terpretation ofacquicscence. Pl~hoIogicalBrillnin. 76.
186-204. j.
Block, J. (1965). The challengeofresponse Sl'ts. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofis.
Boe, E. E.. & Kogan, W. S. (1964). Effect of social desir. ,
ability instructions on several MMPI measures ofsocial jo
desirability. Journal ofConsulting Ps~hology. 28. 248- )
251.
Byrne, D. (1961). The Repression-Sensitization scale: Ra-
tionale, reliability, and validity. JOllrnal of Personality.
29. 334-349.
Cleek, J .. &. Hogan, R. (1983). Self-concepts, self·presen·
lations and monJjudgernents.ln J. Suls &. A. Grcenw.lid
(&Is.). Psychological perspectives 01/ the self(Vol. 2, pp.
249-273). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Cofer, C. N.• Chance. J., &. Judson, A. J. (1949). A study
" j
of malingering on the MMPI. Journal of Psychology.
27.491-499.
Collins. J. E., Paulhus, D. L.. &. Graziano, W. G. (1981
August). Is srlfmonitoring a skill or a mOfiW!? Paper
presented at the American Psychological Association
Convention. Anaheim, CA.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The apfJ'(J't'a1 mOlive:
Swdies in e'I'Qluative d("{Jffldence. New 'roR: Wiley.
Damarin, F., & Messick, S. (1965). Response styles as
personality variables: A theoretical integration of mul-
tivariate research (Tech Rep. No. RB--65-10). Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Danheiser, P., & Paulhus, D. L. (1981, March). Self-mon-
itoring and needfor ap~'Q1 as impression mano.geml'Ilt
slyil'S: Skill wrSIlS need. Paper presented at the South- J
eastern Psychological Association Convention, Atlan- Mil
ta,GA. P
Edw.l.rds, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in o
per.wnalilyauessmt!1ll and N'SMrr:h. New '\brk: Dryden MiD
•J
"""
Edwards, A. L. (1970). The meaSllrement of personality
traits by scale:; and inve71llxies. New)brl(: Holt. Riochart Mill
& Winston. p
,
Edwards. A. L., Dien, C. J., & Walker, J. N. (1962). Re-
sponse sets and factor loadings on si~ty+Olle personality p",
scales. Journal of Applil.'d Psychology. 46. 220-225. m
Edwards, A. L., &. Walsh, J. A. (1964). Response sets in W
"'""'
standard and experimental personality scales. American
Educational Researr:h Journal. 1. 52-61.
Fraser, C. (1979). COSAN: Covariance S!ruclure Analysis. ~
Unpublished user's guide. Ontario Institute for Studies ~
in Education, Toronto, Canada.
Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1939). MCi,:hanisms of self-decep-
tion. Journal of Social Pl)'ChoIogy. 10. 409-420.
"'""' tt
Gorsuch, R. F. (1974). Foetor analysis. Philadelphia:
Saunders.
Gur, R. C.. &. Sackeim, H. A. (1979). Self-deception: A
"'.••,
concept in search of a phenomenon. Journal of Per-
,I
sonalily and Social Psychology. 17. 147-169.
Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. "'"' <>I
m
In M. M. ~ (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on mOlivation
B,
(Vol. 29, pp. 55-89). lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Jackson, D. N. (1967). PerSOlwlity Research Form manllal. "'"'
Goshen. NY: Research Psythologisfs Press.
Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1962). Response styles on
 SOCIALLY DESIRABLE RESPONDING
the MMPI: COOlparison of dinical and DOfmal samples.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 65. 285-
m.
Jacobson. L I.. Kcllog. R. W.. Cauoe. A. M., &. Slavin.
R. S. (I977). A multidimensional social desirability in-
ventory. 8u1I~i" of 1M Psyc/JotIomic Soci~y. 9, 109-
110.
Jorcsk~ K. G .. &: SortxIrn. D. (1978). USREL IV: Ana/·
pis 0/ /I11ftU SlruauraJ rtltJIionships by tM merhod of
maximum likftjltood. Chica&o: National Educational
""""=
Kusyszyn. I., &: Jacbon.. D. N. (1968). A multimetbod
fac'lor analytic appntisal of endonement and judgment
methods in penonaJity as:scssment. EducoJiOllQ/ and
hychqlogirol Mea.rumnenJ. 18, 1047-1061.
Lanen, K.. s..
Manin. H. J., Ettinaer, R. H_. &: Nelson..
J. (1976). A~ ser:kiIJl, social cost, and aggression;
A scale and some dynamics.. Journal 0/ Social hy-
~H.J-Il.
Liberty. P. G.• LunneborJ. C. E.., &: Atkinsc:n. G. C. (1964).
Perttptuai defense. dissimulatiort and response SlyIcs..
JOfUIfQ/ o{COIUvltlf/l Psychology, 18. 529-537.
Mc:Donaki. R. P. (1918). A simple c:omprchc:nsM: model
for tbt ana/ysis of CO"U'ianc:c SltOCtures. British J(}flJ7lil/
0/ MoIhnnaJicaI and SlaJiSlical Psychology. J/. 59-72.
Mothl, P. E., &: Hathaway, S. R. (1946). The K fae:tor as
a suppressor variable in tbt MinDCSOll Multiphasic:
Pmonality Inventory. Journal of Applitd Psychology.
10. 525-564.
Millham. J. (1974). Two romponcnU ofnccd for app£O\'aI
ICOf'e and !heir rdationship to dating followire suc:cess
and failure. Joumal of Rnmrdt ilt hrsona/iJy. 8. 37&-
392.
Millham. J•• &: Jac:obson. L. I. (1978). The need for ap.
proYal. In H. London &: J. E. Exner (Eds,). DimcrsiOlU
of perSlJfluNty (pp. 365-390). New York: Wiley.
Millham. J.• &: Kelloa. R. W. (1980). Ncc:d for social
appr<M.I: Impression managcmc:nt or self-deception?
JOllr,,01 01 Rnmrc:h in Personalily. U. 445-457.
Mills, c..
&. Hopn, R. (1978). A role theoretical inter-
pretation of personality scale itc:m responses. Journal
of Pt!rsonality. 46. 778-785.
Paulhus, D. L. (in prC$S). SClf-dcttption and impression
manlljement in test responses. In A. Angicitner & J. S.
Wigins (Eds.). New direaions in pefS()lllJ/ilY assessment.
New York: Springc:r- Verlag.
Paulhus. D. L. (1981). Control of social desirability in
personality inventories: Principal-factordeletion. Joumo1
01 Research in PerSlHlulity, 15. 383-388.
Paulhus, D. L (1982). Individual differences, self-presen-
tation. aoo cognitive dissonanc:e: Their concurrent ~
eration in forced compliance. Journal of Persona/ily
and SQc:ial Psychology. 43. 838-852.
Paulhus, D. L. (1983). SpheJ'c.-specilic measures of per-
ceived control. JOlIrnai of Prr$QNJ}ity and Social Ps~
ch%gy. 44. 1253-1265.
Paulhus, D. L.. &: Campbell. J. (1983). The assessment
ofindi'iduaI difftrmm in M(fde«ption and imprrnion
mQnagemenJ. Unpublished manuscript. University of
British Columbia. Vancouver.
Paulhus, D, L., &: Christie. R. (1981). Sphc:rcs of control:
View publication stats
609
A inlmtCtionisl approach to asses.smcnt of percei\UI
conlrOl. In H. M. L(fcoort (Ed.), Reyarch ...·ith the
focus of control COIlS/ruel (Vol. I, pp. 161-188). New
Vert: Academic Press.
Ramanaiah, N. Y.. &: Martin, H. J. (1980). On the two-
dimensional nature of lhe MarJowe.Crownc social de-
sirability scale. Joumol of Prf3QNJlity Aunsmclt. 44,
507-514.
RQpn T. B. (1974). An analysis of two ttntral 5law:s
underlying respondina to perwnality items: The setr·
rd"errot decisioo and response selection. JOlUPUJi of&-
_rdI in Prnonality. 8. 128-138.
SackOm. H. A. (1983). Sdf-deoeption. self-esteem. and
dcpres5ion: The adapti~ value of lying 10 ooesdf: In
J. Maslinc (Ed.). EmpiriaJ/ Slwdin of psyrJwJwtal}ficoJ
Ihtoria(Voi. I. pp. 101-157). Hilbdak. NJ; Erlbaum.
Sackcim. H. A.. &: Our. R. C. (1978). Sdf-dccqJtion. self-
coofrootation. and consciousnc:u. In G. E. Schwartz &:
D. Shapiro (Eds.). C ~ ond mjrqll/m/oll:
Adwutct:s in rtM'QrdI (Vol. 2. pp. 139-197). New York:
f>tenum Presi.
Sackeim. H. A., &: Gur, R. (1979). Self-deception, ()(hcs.
deception. and self-reported psychopatholol)'. JounuU
o/CotuuIti'lg ond C/i1licoJ I'J~ 47. 21l-215.
SchIentcr, B. R. (1980). ImprtSSion ~.- ~ setf
rotI«Pi. social idnllily. tmd i"Jt~,~1 ulmiOfU.
Monterey, CA: Broob-CoIe.
Snyder. M. (1974). Self-monitorinaofexpressiYe behavior.
JotUJtD1 0/ Pn'wnDlity and Social PS)dtokJg}l JO. 526-
537.
Strickland. B. R. (1977). AppI'O\I8.l motivatioo. In T. Blass
(Ed.). ~litf l'Oriobln ill scrio1 lJmayior (pp. 3 IS-
356). New 'brk: Erlbaum.
Taylor. J. B.• Carithers. M.. &: Coyne. L (1976). MMPI
performance. response set.. and the ·~lf·oonoepC hy-
pothesis. JOllrnal ojCOtISulling and Clinical Psychology.
U.351-362.
Tc:sser. Jt, .• &: Paulhus. D. L. (1913). 'The definition of self:
Private and public self~uation manaaemc:nt Slnltegic:s.
Journal of f'f'rsOllality and Social Psychology. 44. 672-
682.
Ullmann. L P. (1962). An empirically derived MMPI
scale which measures facilitation-inhibition of recog-
nition of threatenina stimuli. Journal 01 Clinical Ps~
dlQlogy. /8. 127-132.
Wiggins, J. S. (1959). Interrelationships among MMPI
measures of dissimulation under standard and social
desirability instructions. JOllrnal of Consulling Ps~
chofogy. 2J. 419-427.
Wiggins, J. S. (1964). ConYeflCOces among stylistic response
measures from objective personality te5ll1. EdJU:ational
and Psychological Measurrment, 24, 551-562.
Wiggins, J. S. (1966). Substantive dimcnsiorn of self-report
in the MMPI item pool. Psychological Monogra/,Iu, 80
(22. Whole No. 630).
Wiggins. J. S. (1963). Pmonality structure. Annual Revi_
of Psychology. /9, 293-350.
Received January, 1983 •