Validity of the SDS-17 measure of social desirability in the American context

In Germany, Stober et al. (1999, 2001) presented evidence for the validity of the SDS-17, a new measure of social desirability bias. In the current investigation, three experiments ( n = 800) assessed the SDS-17’s validity in the US environment. In all conditions SDS-17 scores correlated highly with...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Personality and individual differences 2006-06, Vol.40 (8), p.1625-1636
Hauptverfasser: Blake, Brian F., Valdiserri, Jillian, Neuendorf, Kimberly A., Nemeth, Jacqueline
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In Germany, Stober et al. (1999, 2001) presented evidence for the validity of the SDS-17, a new measure of social desirability bias. In the current investigation, three experiments ( n = 800) assessed the SDS-17’s validity in the US environment. In all conditions SDS-17 scores correlated highly with Marlowe–Crowne scores. In Study 1, a group administration of a paper and pencil booklet, SDS-17 scores of 327 college students were higher under Fake Good than Standard conditions, and both were higher than scores in the Honest condition. Study 2, an online survey of a demographically diverse adult sample ( n = 257), showed that the increase in SDS-17 scores under Fake Good conditions occurs also in a Web survey and that SDS-17 scores were unrelated to one’s demographic profile. Study 3, a group administration to 216 college students, revealed again that scores under Fake Good were higher than those under Standard administration and that SDS-17 scores correlated more highly with the Impression Management than with the Self-Deception subscales of the BIDR. The SDS-17 appeared valid for the US environment as a measure of socially desirable responding. The evidence, however, encourages its further assessment as an index of social desirability bias per se.
ISSN:0191-8869
1873-3549
DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.007