Item Desirability Effects in Compliance-Gaining Research Seven Studies Documenting Artifacts in the Strategy Selection Procedure
A popular method for assessing compliance‐gaming behavior involves having people rate lists of preformulated message strategies for likelihood of use. This “selection procedure” has been employed much more frequently than the alternative “construction procedure,” a method that requires people to gen...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Human communication research 1988-06, Vol.14 (4), p.429-486 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 486 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 429 |
| container_title | Human communication research |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | BURLESON, BRANT R. WILSON, STEVEN R. WALTMAN, MICHAEL S. GOERING, ELIZABETH M. ELY, TERESA K. WHALEY, BRYAN B. |
| description | A popular method for assessing compliance‐gaming behavior involves having people rate lists of preformulated message strategies for likelihood of use. This “selection procedure” has been employed much more frequently than the alternative “construction procedure,” a method that requires people to generate their own message strategies. The present article argues that the selection procedure is much less sensitive than the construction procedure to the effects of situational and individual‐difference variables on compliance‐gaining behavior. The article further suggests that the insensitivity of the selection procedure is due to a type of social desirability bias known as the item desirability effect. Seven studies were carried out testing the Marwell and Schmitt (1967) and Wiseman and Schenk‐Hamlin (1 981) strategy checklists for the item desirability effect. These studies found that (a) the likelihood of use ratings prouided for the strategies on both checklists could be accurately predicted by the rated social appropriateness of the strategies, (b) likelihood of use ratingsfor preforrnulated strategies haue relatively poor reliability, and (c) the construction procedure is much less susceptible to social desirability biases than the selection procedure. On the basis of these and related findings, it is recommended that researchers eschew the use of strategy checklists in future research. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00164.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1305789236</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1305789236</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3299-d13b2eb722e18d61ab48be25f0f738489a4d3efce8f3568c6af58327e63caba3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkM9v0zAUgC0E0srgf4iAa4J_JLHNBU1d6YY2QOukSVwsx3neXNKk2A60N_50HLXqfe_ig7_3PelD6B3BBUnzcV2QshY5lZUoiBSiiA3GpC6L3Qs0O329RDPMapwzKeQZeh3CGqfhgs_Qv-sIm-wSgvO6cZ2L-2xhLZgYMtdn82Gz7ZzuDeRL7XrXP2Z3EEB785St4A_02SqOrYOQXQ5m3EAfJ-TCR2f1URGfIEFeR3jcp50uqd3QZz_8YKAdPbxBr6zuArw9vufo_svifn6V33xfXs8vbnLDqJR5S1hDoeGUAhFtTXRTigZoZbHlTJRC6rJlYA0Iy6pamFrbSjDKoWZGN5qdo_cH7dYPv0cIUa2H0ffpoiIMV1xIyupEfTpQxg8heLBq691G-70iWE3B1VpNVdVUVU3B1TG42qXlD8cTOhjdWZ-6uXAycFxSSXHCPh-wv66D_TMOqKv53SI5kiE_GFyIsDsZtP-las54pR6-LdXPr7elXK4qxdl_87-mwQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1305789236</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Item Desirability Effects in Compliance-Gaining Research Seven Studies Documenting Artifacts in the Strategy Selection Procedure</title><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>BURLESON, BRANT R. ; WILSON, STEVEN R. ; WALTMAN, MICHAEL S. ; GOERING, ELIZABETH M. ; ELY, TERESA K. ; WHALEY, BRYAN B.</creator><creatorcontrib>BURLESON, BRANT R. ; WILSON, STEVEN R. ; WALTMAN, MICHAEL S. ; GOERING, ELIZABETH M. ; ELY, TERESA K. ; WHALEY, BRYAN B.</creatorcontrib><description>A popular method for assessing compliance‐gaming behavior involves having people rate lists of preformulated message strategies for likelihood of use. This “selection procedure” has been employed much more frequently than the alternative “construction procedure,” a method that requires people to generate their own message strategies. The present article argues that the selection procedure is much less sensitive than the construction procedure to the effects of situational and individual‐difference variables on compliance‐gaining behavior. The article further suggests that the insensitivity of the selection procedure is due to a type of social desirability bias known as the item desirability effect. Seven studies were carried out testing the Marwell and Schmitt (1967) and Wiseman and Schenk‐Hamlin (1 981) strategy checklists for the item desirability effect. These studies found that (a) the likelihood of use ratings prouided for the strategies on both checklists could be accurately predicted by the rated social appropriateness of the strategies, (b) likelihood of use ratingsfor preforrnulated strategies haue relatively poor reliability, and (c) the construction procedure is much less susceptible to social desirability biases than the selection procedure. On the basis of these and related findings, it is recommended that researchers eschew the use of strategy checklists in future research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0360-3989</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2958</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00164.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: HCORDD</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Social interactions. Communication. Group processes ; Social psychology</subject><ispartof>Human communication research, 1988-06, Vol.14 (4), p.429-486</ispartof><rights>1989 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3299-d13b2eb722e18d61ab48be25f0f738489a4d3efce8f3568c6af58327e63caba3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3299-d13b2eb722e18d61ab48be25f0f738489a4d3efce8f3568c6af58327e63caba3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.1988.tb00164.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.1988.tb00164.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27869,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=7042920$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>BURLESON, BRANT R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WILSON, STEVEN R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WALTMAN, MICHAEL S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GOERING, ELIZABETH M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ELY, TERESA K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WHALEY, BRYAN B.</creatorcontrib><title>Item Desirability Effects in Compliance-Gaining Research Seven Studies Documenting Artifacts in the Strategy Selection Procedure</title><title>Human communication research</title><description>A popular method for assessing compliance‐gaming behavior involves having people rate lists of preformulated message strategies for likelihood of use. This “selection procedure” has been employed much more frequently than the alternative “construction procedure,” a method that requires people to generate their own message strategies. The present article argues that the selection procedure is much less sensitive than the construction procedure to the effects of situational and individual‐difference variables on compliance‐gaining behavior. The article further suggests that the insensitivity of the selection procedure is due to a type of social desirability bias known as the item desirability effect. Seven studies were carried out testing the Marwell and Schmitt (1967) and Wiseman and Schenk‐Hamlin (1 981) strategy checklists for the item desirability effect. These studies found that (a) the likelihood of use ratings prouided for the strategies on both checklists could be accurately predicted by the rated social appropriateness of the strategies, (b) likelihood of use ratingsfor preforrnulated strategies haue relatively poor reliability, and (c) the construction procedure is much less susceptible to social desirability biases than the selection procedure. On the basis of these and related findings, it is recommended that researchers eschew the use of strategy checklists in future research.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Social interactions. Communication. Group processes</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><issn>0360-3989</issn><issn>1468-2958</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1988</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNqVkM9v0zAUgC0E0srgf4iAa4J_JLHNBU1d6YY2QOukSVwsx3neXNKk2A60N_50HLXqfe_ig7_3PelD6B3BBUnzcV2QshY5lZUoiBSiiA3GpC6L3Qs0O329RDPMapwzKeQZeh3CGqfhgs_Qv-sIm-wSgvO6cZ2L-2xhLZgYMtdn82Gz7ZzuDeRL7XrXP2Z3EEB785St4A_02SqOrYOQXQ5m3EAfJ-TCR2f1URGfIEFeR3jcp50uqd3QZz_8YKAdPbxBr6zuArw9vufo_svifn6V33xfXs8vbnLDqJR5S1hDoeGUAhFtTXRTigZoZbHlTJRC6rJlYA0Iy6pamFrbSjDKoWZGN5qdo_cH7dYPv0cIUa2H0ffpoiIMV1xIyupEfTpQxg8heLBq691G-70iWE3B1VpNVdVUVU3B1TG42qXlD8cTOhjdWZ-6uXAycFxSSXHCPh-wv66D_TMOqKv53SI5kiE_GFyIsDsZtP-las54pR6-LdXPr7elXK4qxdl_87-mwQ</recordid><startdate>198806</startdate><enddate>198806</enddate><creator>BURLESON, BRANT R.</creator><creator>WILSON, STEVEN R.</creator><creator>WALTMAN, MICHAEL S.</creator><creator>GOERING, ELIZABETH M.</creator><creator>ELY, TERESA K.</creator><creator>WHALEY, BRYAN B.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>blackwell</general><general>Oxford University Press for the International Communication Association</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HNJIA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>SFNNT</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198806</creationdate><title>Item Desirability Effects in Compliance-Gaining Research Seven Studies Documenting Artifacts in the Strategy Selection Procedure</title><author>BURLESON, BRANT R. ; WILSON, STEVEN R. ; WALTMAN, MICHAEL S. ; GOERING, ELIZABETH M. ; ELY, TERESA K. ; WHALEY, BRYAN B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3299-d13b2eb722e18d61ab48be25f0f738489a4d3efce8f3568c6af58327e63caba3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1988</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Social interactions. Communication. Group processes</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>BURLESON, BRANT R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WILSON, STEVEN R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WALTMAN, MICHAEL S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GOERING, ELIZABETH M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ELY, TERESA K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WHALEY, BRYAN B.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 20</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 44</collection><jtitle>Human communication research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>BURLESON, BRANT R.</au><au>WILSON, STEVEN R.</au><au>WALTMAN, MICHAEL S.</au><au>GOERING, ELIZABETH M.</au><au>ELY, TERESA K.</au><au>WHALEY, BRYAN B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Item Desirability Effects in Compliance-Gaining Research Seven Studies Documenting Artifacts in the Strategy Selection Procedure</atitle><jtitle>Human communication research</jtitle><date>1988-06</date><risdate>1988</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>429</spage><epage>486</epage><pages>429-486</pages><issn>0360-3989</issn><eissn>1468-2958</eissn><coden>HCORDD</coden><abstract>A popular method for assessing compliance‐gaming behavior involves having people rate lists of preformulated message strategies for likelihood of use. This “selection procedure” has been employed much more frequently than the alternative “construction procedure,” a method that requires people to generate their own message strategies. The present article argues that the selection procedure is much less sensitive than the construction procedure to the effects of situational and individual‐difference variables on compliance‐gaining behavior. The article further suggests that the insensitivity of the selection procedure is due to a type of social desirability bias known as the item desirability effect. Seven studies were carried out testing the Marwell and Schmitt (1967) and Wiseman and Schenk‐Hamlin (1 981) strategy checklists for the item desirability effect. These studies found that (a) the likelihood of use ratings prouided for the strategies on both checklists could be accurately predicted by the rated social appropriateness of the strategies, (b) likelihood of use ratingsfor preforrnulated strategies haue relatively poor reliability, and (c) the construction procedure is much less susceptible to social desirability biases than the selection procedure. On the basis of these and related findings, it is recommended that researchers eschew the use of strategy checklists in future research.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00164.x</doi><tpages>58</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0360-3989 |
| ispartof | Human communication research, 1988-06, Vol.14 (4), p.429-486 |
| issn | 0360-3989 1468-2958 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1305789236 |
| source | Periodicals Index Online; Access via Wiley Online Library; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Biological and medical sciences Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Social interactions. Communication. Group processes Social psychology |
| title | Item Desirability Effects in Compliance-Gaining Research Seven Studies Documenting Artifacts in the Strategy Selection Procedure |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T15%3A40%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Item%20Desirability%20Effects%20in%20Compliance-Gaining%20Research%20Seven%20Studies%20Documenting%20Artifacts%20in%20the%20Strategy%20Selection%20Procedure&rft.jtitle=Human%20communication%20research&rft.au=BURLESON,%20BRANT%20R.&rft.date=1988-06&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=429&rft.epage=486&rft.pages=429-486&rft.issn=0360-3989&rft.eissn=1468-2958&rft.coden=HCORDD&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00164.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1305789236%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1305789236&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |