Social desirability dimensionality: one or two continua?
More details
Hide details
Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Institute of Psychology, The Maria Grzegorzewska University, Warsaw, Poland
Submission date: 2020-05-28
Final revision date: 2020-09-05
Acceptance date: 2020-09-09
Online publication date: 2020-10-15
Publication date: 2020-10-01
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2020;8(3):229-242
The objective of this paper is to examine the structure of social desirability. This variable is important in self-report question-naires. Theoretical analyses indicate the existence of at least two dimensions of this construct, but there is no unambiguous em-pirical evidence for such a structure of social desirability. The present research aimed to determine the factor structure of the social desirability construct and the number of its dimensions.

Participants and procedure:
The inductive research strategy was applied and a new pool of questionnaire items was generated. This approach allows for detachment from the existing social desirability assessment instruments. This study focuses on the concepts of social desirability that examinees have, rather than on the content of existing items measuring social desirability. The verification of the social de-sirability structure was performed in three stages. At each stage, the number of items was gradually reduced. The successive phases of the study involved three different samples, respectively, consisting of 657, 415, and 1,709 examinees.

Initially, at the first stage of the study, two dimensions were detected, but in the two subsequent stages, the second dimension represented acquiescence. The procedure of partialling the mean out of the correlation matrix was applied to eliminate acquies-cence. This dimension is related, as expected, to agreeableness and conscientiousness. It also appeared that the social desirability structure can be confounded by acquiescence in longer questionnaires.

It is concluded that every item reflects both social desirability and acquiescence, albeit to different extents. A one-dimensional construct of social desirability was finally obtained.

Bishop, G. F. (1987). Experiments with the middle response alternative in survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 220–232.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1992). Social desirability scales as moderator and suppressor variables. European Journal of Personality, 6, 199–214.
Burisch, M. (1986). Methods of personality inventory development – a comparative analysis. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 109–120). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Cattel, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the numbers of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Cervellione, K. L., Lee, Y. S., & Bonanno, G. A. (2009). Rasch modeling of the self-deception scale of the bal-anced inventory of desirable responding. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 438–458.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Jour-nal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York, NY: Wiley.
Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
Espinosa, A. D. C., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2014). An Indigenous Social Desirability Scale. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 47, 199–214.
Ferrando, P. J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Chico, E. (2009). A general factor-analytic procedure for assessing response bias in questionnaire measures. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 364–381.
Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 7, 385–400.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assess-ment, 4, 26–42.
Greenwald, H. J., & Clausen, J. D. (1970). Test of relationship between yeasaying and social desirability. Psycho-logical Reports, 27, 139–141.
He, J., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2013). A general response style factor: Evidence from a multi-ethnic study in the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 794–800.
He, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Espinosa, A. D., Abubakar, A., Dimitrova, R., Adams, B. G., ...Villieux, A. (2015). Socially desirable responding: Enhancement and denial in 20 countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 49, 227–249.
Helmes, E., & Holden, R. R. (2003). The construct of social desirability: One or two dimensions? Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1015–1023.
Hofstee, W. K. B., Ten Berge, J. M. F., & Hendricks, A. A. J. (1998). How to score questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 897–909.
Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1989). Three common social desirability scales: Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 180–191.
Holden, R. R., & Passey, J. (2009). Social desirability. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of indi-vidual differences in social behavior (pp. 441–454). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
Jackson, D. N. (1975). The relative validity of scales prepared by naive item writers and those based on empiri-cal methods of personality scale construction1. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 361–370.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
Kalton, G., Roberts, J., & Holt, D. (1980). The effects of offering a middle response option with opinion ques-tions. Statistician, 29, 65–78.
Knowles, E. S., & Condon, C. A. (1999). Why people say “yes”: a dual-process theory of acquiescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 379–386.
Kroner, D. G., & Weekes, J. R. (1996). The balanced inventory of desirable responding: Factor structure, reliabil-ity, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 323–333.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537–567.
Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025–2047.
Lanyon, R. I., & Carle, A. C. (2007). Internal and external validity of scores on the balanced inventory of desir-able responding and the Paulhus deception scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 859–876.
Leary, M. R., & Toner, K. (2015). Self-processes in the construction and maintenance of personality. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 447–467). Washington, DC: APA Publishing.
Leite, W. L., & Beretvas, S. N. (2005). Validation of scores on the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale and the balanced inventory of desirable responding. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 140–154.
Li, F., & Li, Y. (2008). The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): a factor analysis. Psychologi-cal Reports, 103, 727–731.
Li, F., Li, Y., & Wang Y. (2015). Socially desirable responding in Chinese university students: Denial and en-hancement? Psychological Reports, 116, 409–421.
Loo, R., & Loewen, P. (2004). Confirmatory factor analyses of scores from full and short versions of the Mar-lowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2343–2352.
Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the full and short versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 628–635.
Malham, P. B., & Saucier, G. (2016). The conceptual link between social desirability and cultural normativity. International Journal of Psychology, 51, 474–480.
Marín, G., Triandis, H. C., Kashima, Y., & Betaneourt, H. (1983). Ethnic affirmation versus social desirability: Explaining discrepancies in bilinguals’ responses to a questionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14, 173–186.
Martin, J. (1964). Acquiescence – measurement and theory. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 3, 216–225.
Moral de la Rubia, J., García-Cadena, C. H., & Antona Casas, C. J. (2012). Traducción y validación del inventario balanceado de deseabilidad social al responder en una muestra probabilística de estudiantes universitarios mexicanos [Translation and validation of the balanced inventory of desirable responding in a probability sample of Mexican university students]. Revista de Psicología GEPU, 3, 54–72.
Musch, J., Brockhaus, R., & Bröder, A. (2002). Ein inventar zur erfassung von zwei faktoren sozialer erwünscht-heit [An inventory for the assessment of two factors of social desirability]. Diagnostica, 48, 121–129.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 46, 598–609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in tests responses. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaire (pp. 143–165). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 60, 307–317.
Pearson, P. R., & Francis, L. J. (1989). The dual nature of the Eysenckian lie scales: Are religious adolescents more truthful? Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1041–1048.
Ramanaiah, N. V., Schill, T., & Leung, L. S. (1977). A test of the hypothesis about the two-dimensional nature of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 251–259.
Ramanaiah, N. V., & Martin, H. J. (1980). On the two-dimensional nature of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desir-ability Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 507–514.
Ray, J. J. (1983). Reviving the problem of acquiescent response bias. Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 81–96.
Reyment, R. A., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1996). Applied factor analysis in the natural sciences. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Studying values: Personal adventure, future directions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-chology, 42, 307–319.
Shultz, K. S., & Chávez, D. V. (1994). The reliability and factor structure of a social desirability scale in English and in Spanish. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 935–940.
Stöber, J. (1999). Die Soziale-Erwünschtheits-Skala-17 (SES-17): Befunde zu Reliabilität und Validität [The So-cial Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Development and first results on reliability and validity]. Diagnostica, 45, 173–177.
Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminant validity, and rela-tionship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222–232.
Stricker, L. J. (1963). Acquiescence and social desirability response styles, item characteristics, and conformity. Psychological Reports, 12, 319–341.
Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., & Rowiński, T. (2014). Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza IPIP-BFM-50 do pomiaru pię-ciu cech osobowości w ujęciu leksykalnym [Polish adaptation of IPIP-BFM-50 measuring five personality traits in a lexical approach]. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 17, 327–366.
Ten Berge, J. M. F. (1999). A legitimate case of component analysis of ipsative measures, and partialling the mean as an alternative to ipsatization. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 89–102.
Ventimiglia, M., & MacDonald, D. A. (2012). An examination of the factorial dimensionality of the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 487–491.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top