Responses on computer surveys: Impression management, social desirability, and the big brother syndrome

Abstract The quality of responses on computer and paper surveys was examined using 247 Navy recruits randomly assigned to a 2 (anonymous/identified) × 3 (administration modes: paper, computer-nonlinked, computer-linked) design. The computer-linked condition was included to simulate the ‘Big Brother Syndrome’ alluded to but not studied in past research. Higher levels of impression management were found in the identified computer-linked condition. It was concluded that perceiving that one's responses are linked to a larger database may lead to more impression management on computer surveys.

[1]  Linda M. Doherty,et al.  Attitude assessment in organizations: Testing three microcomputer-based survey systems. , 1989 .

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

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

[4]  M. Burke,et al.  Efficacy of modified {crepid} SDys on the basis of archival organizational data. , 1988 .

[5]  John R. Aiello,et al.  Computer‐Based Work Monitoring: Electronic Surveillance and Its Effects , 1993 .

[6]  Marie D. Thomas,et al.  Improving organizational surveys: New directions, methods, and applications. , 1996 .

[7]  Robert A. Giacalone,et al.  Impression management in the organization. , 1989 .

[8]  B. R. Schlenker,et al.  Self-presentation: managing the impression of consistency when reality interferes with self-enhancement. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  L. Doherty,et al.  Microcomputer-based organizational survey assessment: Applications to training , 1987 .

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

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

[12]  B. R. Schlenker.  Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations , 1980 .

[13]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Response Effects in the Electronic Survey , 1986 .

[14]  Robert A. Giacalone,et al.  Applied Impression Management: How Image-Making Affects Managerial Decisions , 1991 .

[15]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Computers, Networks and Work. , 1991 .

[16]  Catherine A. Riordan,et al.  Impression Management in Organizations: Theory, Measurement, Practice , 1995 .

[17]  D. Alderton,et al.  Linking Diversity and Impression Management , 1994 .

[18]  J. R. Aiello,et al.  Computer Monitoring of Work Performance: Extending the Social Facilitation Framework to Electronic Presence1 , 1993 .

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

[20]  S. Booth-Kewley,et al.  Computer-Administered Surveys in Organizational Settings , 1993 .

[21]  Linda M. Doherty,et al.  Impression Management, Candor, and Microcomputer-Based Organizational Surveys: An Individual Differences Approach. , 1991 .