Can We Talk? Self‐Presentation and the Survey Response

This paper explores how the personality characteristics of individuals affect the answers they give to questions on controversial political topics. In April and May 2000, a randomdigit-dial survey of 518 Americans was conducted in the continental United States. This survey included question batteries measuring two psychological concepts related to selfpresentation. Respondents were also asked about their opinion on a number of sensitive topics, such as feelings toward blacks and homosexuals and their opinions about spending on popular programs, including schools and the environment. Their responses to these questions varied as a function of their self-presentation personality characteristics. The results presented here suggest that self-presentation measures such as those assessed here can improve our understanding of how the social dynamics of the survey interview affect responses to sensitive questions.

[1]  Mark L. Miller,et al.  On the existence of discrete classes in personality: Is self-monitoring the correct joint to carve? , 1989 .

[2]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Self-Monitoring and the Attitude-Behavior Relation , 1982 .

[3]  John P. Robinson,et al.  Measures Of Personality And Social Psychological Attitudes , 1991 .

[4]  Arnold H. Buss,et al.  An analysis of the Self-Monitoring Scale. , 1980 .

[5]  S. Gangestad,et al.  Self-Monitoring : Appraisal and Reappraisal , 2001 .

[6]  James M. Dabbs,et al.  Self-Monitors in Conversation: What Do They Monitor?. , 1980 .

[7]  C. Swain.  Voting Hopes or Fears? White Voters, Black Candidates, and Racial Politics in America . Keith Reeves. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Pp. 200. $15.95.) , 1999 .

[8]  M. Snyder,et al.  Persons, situations, and the control of social behavior. , 1975 .

[9]  S. Feldman,et al.  A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences , 1992 .

[10]  M. Snyder.  Public Appearances, Private Realities: The Psychology of Self-Monitoring , 1986 .

[11]  G. Stokes,et al.  COMPARABILITY OF INCUMBENT AND APPLICANT SAMPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIODATA KEYS: THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL DESIRABILITY , 1993 .

[12]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  Thinking about Answers: The Application of Cognitive Process to Survey Methodology , 1996 .

[13]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Matching Versus Mismatching Attitude Functions: Implications for Scrutiny of Persuasive Messages , 1998 .

[14]  D. Kinder,et al.  Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals , 1996 .

[15]  P. Glick,et al.  Self-Monitoring and Beliefs about Partner Compatibility in Romantic Relationships , 1988 .

[16]  S. J. Kraus,et al.  Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 1990 .

[17]  Stephen A. Dwight,et al.  A Quantitative Review of the Effect of Computerized Testing on the Measurement of Social Desirability , 2000 .

[18]  S. Joseph,et al.  Religiosity and social desirability: impression management and self-deceptive positivity , 1996 .

[19]  Wade C. Rowatt,et al.  Deception to Get a Date , 1998 .

[20]  James H. Kuklinski,et al.  Racial Attitudes and the "New South" , 1997, The Journal of Politics.

[21]  M. Snyder.  Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. , 1974 .

[22]  D. Paulhus.  Measurement and control of response bias. , 1991 .

[23]  O. John,et al.  On the nature of self-monitoring: construct explication with Q-sort ratings. , 1996, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  Marjaana Lindeman,et al.  Personality, situation, and positive–negative asymmetry in socially desirable responding , 1995 .

[25]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology , 1995, Quality of Life Research.

[26]  R. Lennox,et al.  Revision of the self-monitoring scale. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  C. Carver,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES How Should Multifaceted Personality Constructs Be Tested ? Issues Illustrated by Self-Monitoring , Attributional Style , and Hardiness , 2004 .

[28]  S. Briggs,et al.  On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity. , 1988 .

[29]  Daryl G. Kroner,et al.  Balanced inventory of desirable responding: Factor structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample , 1996 .

[30]  Paul Rosenfeld,et al.  Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference? , 1992 .

[31]  C. R. Snyder,et al.  Dimensions of favorable self-presentation. , 1986 .

[32]  D. O. Sears.  College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. , 1986 .

[33]  Nayda Terkildsen.  When White Voters Evaluate Black Candidates: The Processing Implications of Candidate Skin Color, Prejudice, and Self-Monitoring , 1993 .

[34]  Maria Krysan,et al.  Privacy and the expression of white racial attitudes : A comparison across three contexts , 1998 .

[35]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Relative importance of prior and immediate events: A causal primacy effect. , 1982 .

[36]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  The Two Faces of Public Opinion , 1999 .

[37]  D. Paulhus.  Two-component models of socially desirable responding. , 1984 .

[38]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  A Meta-Analytic Study of Social Desirability Distortion in Computer- Administered Questionnaires, Traditional Questionnaires, and Interviews , 1999 .

[39]  Gary J. Lautenschlager,et al.  Computer administration of questions: More desirable or more social desirability? , 1990 .

[40]  Edward E. Jones,et al.  Conversations at Random: Survey Research as Interviewers See It. , 1974 .

[41]  Michael D. Cobb,et al.  Chapter 3 When White Southerners Converse About Race , 2017, Perception and Prejudice.

[42]  S. Gangestad,et al.  On the nature of self-monitoring: matters of assessment, matters of validity. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.