4.4 Article

Are social desirability scales desirable? A meta-analytic test of the validity of social desirability scales in the context of prosocial behavior

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY
卷 90, 期 2, 页码 203-221

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12662

关键词

economic games; meta-analysis; prosocial behavior; social desirability; social desirability scales

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [TH 2318/1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research suggests that social desirability (SD) scales may not effectively measure bias or substantive traits, calling into question their validity. Scholars and practitioners are advised to refrain from using SD scales based on the implications of the results.
Social desirability (SD) scales have been used for decades in psychology and beyond. These scales are sought to measure individuals' tendencies to present themselves overly positive in self-reports, thus allowing to control for SD biases. However, research increasingly questions the validity of SD scales, proposing that SD scales measure substantive trait characteristics rather than response bias. To provide a large-scale empirical test of the validity of SD scales, we conducted a meta-analysis (k = 41; N = 8980) on the relation between SD scale scores and prosocial behavior in economic games (where acting in a prosocial manner is highly socially desirable). If SD scales measure what they are supposed to (namely, SD bias), they should be negatively linked to prosocial behavior; if SD scales measure socially desirable traits, they should be positively linked to prosocial behavior. Unlike both possibilities, the meta-analytic correlation between SD scores and prosocial behavior was close to zero, suggesting that SD scales neither clearly measure bias nor substantive traits. This conclusion was also supported by moderation analyses considering differences in the implementation of games and the SD scales used. The results further question the validity of SD scales with the implication that scholars and practitioners should refrain from using them.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据