1. Socially desirable response tendencies in survey research Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp Martijn G. de Jong Hans Baumgartner

2. Socially desirable response tendencies SDR and survey research  a frequently noted concern about self-reports collected through surveys is that respondents may not respond truthfully but simply provide answers that make them look good;  this phenomenon is called socially desirable responding or SDR (Paulhus 2002; Tourangeau and Yan 2007);  SDR has been called “one of the most pervasive response biases” in survey data (Mick 1996, p. 106), but it is often misunderstood and/or not dealt with correctly;

3. Socially desirable response tendencies Four common misconceptions  SDR can be validly conceptualized as a unidimensional construct;  any of the SDR scales available in the literature can be used to assess SDR because they all measure the same construct;  the goal is to avoid a significant correlation between substantive constructs and SDR scales because such an association always implies contamination;  the biasing influence of SDR can be removed simply by including a measure of SDR as a control variable.

4. Socially desirable response tendencies Three key issues to be addressed  How should SDR be conceptualized and measured?  What is the nomological constellation of personality traits, values, sociodemographics and cultural factors associated with SDR?  Do ratings on SDR scales represent substance or style, and how should researchers interpret and deal with an association of SDR with a substantive marketing construct?

5. Socially desirable response tendencies Global study  data from 26 countries around the world (Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, UK, and U.S);  country samples broadly representative of the total population in terms of region, age, education, and gender;  data collection via web surveys or mall intercepts (laptops or hard copy);  12, 424 total respondents (355 to 640; 1181 in the US);

6. Socially desirable response tendencies The construct of SDR  originally, SDR was conceptualized as a unidimensional construct (a person’s enduring tendency to provide overly positive self-descriptions);  two-factor conceptualizations: □ based on degree of awareness (Paulhus 1991) exaggerated but honestly held self-view (alpha bias, self-deception, self- deceptive enhancement); deliberate attempt to project a favorable self-image (gamma bias, other- deception, impression management) □ based on domain of content (Paulhus and John 1998) agency-related contexts involving dominance, assertiveness, autonomy, influence, control, mastery, uniqueness, power, status, and independence (egoistic response tendencies); communion-related contexts associated with affiliation, belonging, intimacy, love, connectedness, approval, and nurturance (moralistic response tendencies);

7. Socially desirable response tendencies The construct of SDR (cont’d)  four-factor conceptualizations (Paulhus 2002): (cross-classification by degree of awareness and domain of content) Self-deception (unconscious) Impression management (conscious) Egoistic bias (superhero) Self-deceptive enhancement Agency management Moralistic bias (saint) Self-deceptive denial Communion management

8. Socially desirable response tendencies Self-report measures of SDR  Unidimensional scales: □ Edwards SD scale (→ SDE) □ Wiggins Sd scale, EPI Lie scale (→ IM) □ Marlowe-Crowne SD scale (confounds SDE and IM)  Multidimensional scales: □ Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus 1991) Self-deceptive enhancement (SDE) (e.g., I always know why I like things); Impression management (IM) (e.g., I always obey laws, even if I’m unlikely to get caught); Self-deceptive denial (SDD) (e.g., I have never felt joy over someone else's failure)

9. Socially desirable response tendencies Prior use of SDR scales in Marketing  Marlowe-Crowne scale: used in 26 articles in JMR, JM, and JCR between 1968 and 2008; □ in 23 cases as a check for response bias in a construct of interest or to control for response bias when investigating the relationship between substantive constructs; □ In 3 cases, it served as a measure of a substantive construct (e.g., social approval);  BIDR: used in only 7 articles between 1996 and 2008; □ 4 IM, 1 BIDR overall, 2 both SDE and IM; □ with one exception, the BIDR was used to control for response bias;

10. Socially desirable response tendencies Evidence from the global study  10 SDE and 10 IM items (5 positively and 5 negatively keyed, rated on 5-point Likert scales);  ERT and MRT scores and reliabilities estimated using a hierarchical IRT approach;  average reliabilities for ERT and MRT of.67 and.73;  average correlation between ERT and MRT of.31;

11. Socially desirable response tendencies Country scores for ERT and MRT

12. Socially desirable response tendencies SDR and personality traits  correspondence between the Big Five (OCEAN) and the motives underlying SDR: □ ERT (which satisfies power and achievement strivings as well as needs for mastery and control) is consistent with behavioral regularities reflective of openness to experience and extraversion; □ MRT (which entails an avoidance of disapproval by conforming to social norms and a positive valuation of relationships and intimacy) is consistent with behavioral regularities reflective of conscientiousness and agreeableness; □ issue of emotional stability and conscientiousness;

13. Socially desirable response tendencies Prior research on SDR and personality StudyEgoistic Response Tendencies (ERT)Moralistic Response Tendencies (MRT) OEESCAOE CA Barrick and Mount (1996; n=147).32.25.54.29.24.25.01.43.26.23 Barrick and Mount (1996; n=139).17.22.35.24.17.39.12.44.39.42 Konstabel et al. (2006; n =210-217).09.42.64.45-.03 -.15-.02.27.46.58 McFarland and Ryan (2006; n=547).21.24.36.25.06.13.16.29.27.31 Meston et al. (1998; females, n=296).26.21.40.37.17 -.01 -.00.13.28.36 Meston et al. (1998; males, n=208).19.21.32.30.10-.06.05.13.22.12 Paulhus and Reid (1991; n=137).09.29.30.05.11.01.04.07.08.18 Pauls and Stemmler (2003; n=67).02.36.39.23.05-.19 -.06.12.41.30 Pauls and Crost (2005; n=155) -.08.23.56.34-.02-.06.03.24.33.27 Reid-Seiser and Fritzsche (2001; n=72-75).17.27.58.52-.06.07.27.25.30 Roth and Herzberg (2007; n=326) -.11.27.66.42.18 -.11.02.13.21.36 Average correlation.13.26.46.32.10.03.05.23.28.32 95% confidence interval (.05,.21) (.23,.30) (.38,.54) (.26,.38) (.04,.15) (-.06,.11) (.00,.09) (.16,.29) (.23,.33) (.26,.39)

14. Socially desirable response tendencies SDR and values Self-transcendence Conservation Openness to change Self-enhancement Universalism Benevolence Conformity Tradition SecurityPower Achievement Hedonism Stimulation Self-direction MRTERT

15. Socially desirable response tendencies Prior research on SDR and values  Lalwani et al. (2006; see also Shavitt et al. 2006) studied cultural dimensions at the individual level and found, based on research with U.S. respondents, that □ horizontal individualism (horizontal collectivism) was consistently positively correlated with ERT (MRT); □ vertical individualism and vertical collectivism were not consistently related to either ERT and MRT;

16. Socially desirable response tendencies SDR and national culture  since agency (communion) traits are socially desirable in individualistic (collectivistic) cultures, exaggerated self- perceptions on these qualities are likely to be beneficial; therefore, ERT (MRT) should be higher in individualistic (collectivistic) cultures;  masculine cultures, which value assertiveness, achievement, and success, should be more likely to exhibit ERT, whereas feminine cultures, which value relationships, nurturance, and the welfare of people and nature, should be more likely to exhibit MRT;

17. Socially desirable response tendencies Prior research on SDR and national culture  some evidence that MRT is higher in collectivistic countries than in individualistic countries (Van Hemert et al. 2002); the findings about the relationship between ERT and individualism are equivocal;  Van Hemert et al. (2002) reported a nonsignificant correlation of -.17 between masculinity/femininity and MRT;

18. Socially desirable response tendencies Evidence from the global study  hierarchical IRT modeling was used to compute latent scores for ERT/MRT and the personality and value constructs; dimensions of cultural variation based on Hofstede;  the hypotheses were tested based on the following multi- level model: Level 1:SDR ij =  0j +  1j O ij +  2j E ij +  3j ES ij +  4j C ij +  5j A ij +  6j SE ij +  7j OPEN ij +  8j ST ij +  9j CONS ij +  10j GENDER ij +  11j AGE ij +  12j EDUC ij +  13j SocClass ij + r ij Level 2:  0j =  00 +  01 IND/COL j +  02 MAS/FEM j + u 0j  qj =  q0 + u qj for q = 1, …, 13

19. Socially desirable response tendencies Evidence from the global study  based on a model with a random intercept but no individual-level or country-level covariates, 32 (13) percent of the variation in ERT (MRT) was between countries;  the individual-level covariates explained 27 (25) percent of individual differences in ERT (MRT);  the cultural variables explained 29 (18) percent of the cross-national variation in ERT (MRT);

20. Socially desirable response tendencies Evidence from the global study Egoistic response tendenciesMoralistic response tendencies Estimatet-valuepEstimatet-valuep Intercept.508321.34<.01.577220.65<.01 Openness.02586.58<.01.01881.92n.s. Extraversion.01815.25<.01-.0202-2.24<.05 Emotional Stability.04917.64<.01.02103.10<.01 Conscientiousness.06947.73<.01.171418.60<.01 Agreeableness.0011.24n.s..122611.12<.01 Self-enhancement.00612.79<.01-.0609-12.34<.01 Openness to Change.00603.11<.01-.0557-12.03<.01 Self-transcendence.00291.07n.s..101015.60<.01 Conservation.00231.15n.s..05199.05<.01 Gender (1=women)-.0131-4.37<.01.02812.70<.01 Age.00063.75<.01.00389.57<.01 Education-.0044-2.29<.05.00951.96<.05 Social Class-.0005-.21n.s.-.0014-.37n.s. Ind/Coll-.0016-2.05<.05-.0020-2.49<.05 Mas/Fem.00051.42<.10-.0007-1.48<.10

21. Socially desirable response tendencies Sociodemos + Big Five + Values Step 1: Sociodemographics Step 2: Big Five Step 3: Value Domains Sociodemos + Values + Big Five Step 1: Sociodemographics Step 2: Value Domains Step 3: Big Five Range in explained variance Big Five Value Domains Variance explained by psychological makeup (personality and values) Δ in explained variance of ERT 2.4% 22.5% 1.9% 2.4% 5.1% 19.5% 19.5-22.5% 1.9-5.1% 24.6% Δ in explained variance of MRT 5.7% 13.9% 5.7% 9.5% 10.1% 10.1-13.9% 5.7-9.5% 19.6% Evidence from the global study

22. Socially desirable response tendencies Do SDR scales capture substance or style?  a high score on an SDR scale may indicate one or more of the following (see Tourangeau and Yan 2007) : □ although the self-descriptions given are seemingly overly positive, the respondent actually engages in the socially desirable behaviors, and refrains from engaging in the socially undesirable behaviors, reported; □ the respondent provides exaggerated self-descriptions, but the self-reports are sincere; and □ the respondent deliberately presents an inflated self-view in order to manage a certain impression;

23. Socially desirable response tendencies Prior correlational attempts to separate substance from style  Criterion-discrepancy measures: if an SDR scale assesses distortion, it should be positively correlated with the extent to which a self-report exceeds a hypothesized unbiased criterion for the self-report; S = a 0 + a 1 O + a 2 SDR Problems: □ truly objective criteria are rare or cumbersome to collect □ observer ratings may not be unbiased □ positively biased self-ratings may not indicate self-favoring

24. Socially desirable response tendencies Prior correlational attempts to separate substance from style  criterion-related validity of S for predicting O: O = b 0 ' + b 1 ' S O = b 0 + b 1 S + b 2 SDR  a significant relationship between S and SDR is attributed to style or substance by comparing b 1 ' with b 1 :  if b 1 > b 1 ', SDR measures primarily style  if b 1 < b 1 ', SDR measures primarily substance  research has usually shown that the coefficient of S remains unchanged or decreases in magnitude when SDR is included as a control (e.g., McCrae and Costa 1983);  if the association between S and O is influenced by style, this method is problematic;

25. Socially desirable response tendencies Prior correlational attempts to separate substance from style  if partial correlation approaches are used to check whether relationships between different constructs are influenced by socially desirable responding, the problems are exacerbated: □ O is no longer a (presumably unbiased) criterion but now refers to a measure of another construct collected from the same respondent; □ if one assumes that the association between O and S is due to substance and SDR measures substance, b 1 < b 1 ' implies that SDR incorrectly removed substantive variance from S and O; □ if one assumes that the initial association between O and S was inflated by style and SDR measures style, b 1 < b 1 ' suggests that controlling for SDR successfully removed the confounding effect of stylistic variance;

26. Socially desirable response tendencies Prior experimental attempts to separate substance from style  the degree of demand for self-presentation is manipulated and respondents’ scores in “standard” (low demand) and “fake good” (high demand) conditions are compared (see Paulhus 2002);  asking respondents to “fake good” should encourage deliberate misrepresentation, so if scores on socially desirable constructs increase relative to the “standard” (control) condition, this provides evidence that conscious SDR can contaminate scores;  in particular, prior research has shown that SDR scales are sensitive to demand manipulations, which suggests that they can capture deliberate distortion;

27. Socially desirable response tendencies

28. Effects of ERT and MRT on ethnocentrism

29. Socially desirable response tendenciesConclusions  SDR should be assessed using separate scales for ERT and MRT;  ERT and MRT are nomologically related to certain personality traits, values, and sociodemographics, as well as dimensions of cultural variation;  the assumption that a correlation between a marketing scale and an SDR measure invariably indicates contamination is unwarranted;  for certain scales and certain countries, relationships with ERT or MRT are nontrivial; whether this reflects SDR bias is less clear;

30. Socially desirable response tendencies Universal value types (Schwartz 1992) broadminded equality inner harmony social justice world at peace protecting environment unity with nature world of beauty wisdom UNIVERSALISM freedom creativity curious independent choosing own goals self-respect SELF-DIRECTION exciting life varied life daring STIMULATION enjoying life pleasure HEDONISM loyal responsible true friend- ship meaning in life mature love honest helpful forgiving spiritual life BENEVOLENCE humble detachment devout respect for tradition moderate accepting portion in life TRADITION obedient politeness self- discipline honor parents CONFORMITY family security social order clean healthy national security sense of belonging reciprocation of favors SECURITY preserving public image authority wealth social power social recognition POWER intelligent capable successful ambitious influential ACHIEVEMENT