Social desirability and controllability in computerized and paper-and-pencil personality questionnaires

Abstract The main objective of this study was to examine Steel's [Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 21 (1988) 261] self-affirmation theory, by checking the effects of different levels of manipulated control on participants' performance on personality tests. Specifically, we assessed the impact of participants' level of control (i.e. prior familiarity of questionnaire's items, choosing of test content) and anonymous or identified data collection on two different forms of socially desirable responses: impression management and self-deception [Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 (1984) 598]. Second, we compared these effects on paper-and-pencil versus computerized testing conditions. In Study 1 ( N =91) we showed that perceived control can be manipulated in computerized tests and that higher level of control is related to more positive attitudes towards the test and to lower levels of anxiety experienced during test taking. In Study 2 ( N =200) we found a significant positive relationship between manipulated control and impression management. The hypothesis claiming a significant relationship between controllability and self-deception has not been corroborated. In addition, no differences were found between the paper-and-pencil and the computerized mode of administration on measures of perceived control, trust, candor, and social desirability.

[1]  C. Spielberger,et al.  Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory , 1970 .

[2]  Myles I. Friedman,et al.  The Psychology of Human Control: A General Theory of Purposeful Behavior , 1991 .

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

[4]  J. Levin,et al.  The effect of testing instructions for handling social desirability on the Eysenck personality questionnaire , 1987 .

[5]  Paul Rosenfeld,et al.  Responses on computer surveys: Impression management, social desirability, and the big brother syndrome , 1996 .

[6]  A. Greenwald.  The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. , 1980 .

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

[8]  Andrew L. Comrey,et al.  Personality Construct Similarity in Israel and the United States , 1982 .

[9]  R. W. White.  Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. , 1959, Psychological review.

[10]  J. Averill.  Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. , 1973 .

[11]  F. C. Thorne,et al.  The psychology of control. , 1949, Journal of clinical psychology.

[12]  E. Langer,et al.  The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: a field experiment in an institutional setting. , 1976, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  Christopher L. Martin,et al.  Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses. , 1989 .

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

[15]  Ronald R. Holden,et al.  The effects of anonymity on the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory , 1999 .

[16]  D. Paulhus,et al.  Socially Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A Reconception , 1987 .

[17]  A. Furnham.  Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation , 1986 .

[18]  Chockalingam Viswesvaran,et al.  Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. , 1996 .

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

[20]  Paul C. Raffeld,et al.  Anonymity, Sex, and Weight-Preoccupation as Variables on the Eating Disorders Inventory with Normal College Students , 1989, Psychological reports.

[21]  M. Kochen,et al.  Psychological Testing by Computer: Effect On Response Bias , 1970 .

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

[23]  Stevens S Smith,et al.  Ethical Aspects of Participating in Psychology Experiments: Effects of Anonymity on Evaluation, and Complaints of Distressed Subjects , 1983, Teaching of psychology.

[24]  Hans J. Eysenck,et al.  Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire , 1975 .

[25]  H A Skinner,et al.  Does the computer make a difference? Computerized versus face-to-face versus self-report assessment of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. , 1983, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[26]  William M. Evan,et al.  Differential effects on response bias of computer vs. conventional administration of a social science questionnaire: An exploratory methodological experiment , 1969 .

[27]  Randall B. Dunham,et al.  The impact of personal control on performance and satisfaction , 1989 .

[28]  C. Steele.  The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self , 1988 .

[29]  C. Werch,et al.  Two procedures to reduce response bias in reports of alcohol consumption. , 1990, Journal of studies on alcohol.

[30]  Paul T. Costa,et al.  Social desirability scales: More substance than style. , 1983 .

[31]  Shirlynn Spacapan,et al.  Perceptions of Control in Vulnerable Populations , 1991 .

[32]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in social psychology - a useful dichotomy , 1985 .

[33]  Robert Hogan,et al.  The construct validity of social desirability. , 1990 .

[34]  R. W. Lucas,et al.  Psychiatrists and a Computer as Interrogators of Patients with Alcohol-Related Illnesses: A Comparison , 1977, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[35]  Delroy L. Paulhus,et al.  Egoistic and Moralistic Biases in Self-Perception: The Interplay of Self-Deceptive Styles With Basic Traits and Motives , 1998 .

[36]  W. Becker,et al.  Biasing Effect of Respondents' Identification on Responses to a Social Desirability Scale: A Warning to Researchers , 1976 .