Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mx8w7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-08T05:04:30.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature of Social Desirability Response Effects in Ethics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Maria F. Fernandes  and
Donna M. Randall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study assesses how a social desirability (SD) bias influences the relationship between several independent and dependent variables commonly investigated in ethics research. The effect of a SD bias was observed when a questionnaire was administered under varying conditions of anonymity and with different measurement techniques for the SD construct. Findings reveal that a SD bias is present in the majority of relationships studied, and it most frequently plays a moderating role. While the measure of SD influences the strength and type of relationship, condition of anonymity has relatively little effect on the level of SD.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 183 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bradburn, N.M., Sudman, S. and Associates: 1979, Improving interview method and questionnaire design: Response effects to threatening questions in survey research, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., and Cohen, P.: 1983, Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed., New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Crowne, D.P., and Marlowe, D.: 1960, ‘A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology’, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dohrenwend, B.P.: 1966, ‘Social status and psychiatric disorder: An issue of substance and an issue of method’, American Sociological Review, 23, 361–365.Google Scholar
Edwards, A.: 1953, ‘The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganster, D.C., Hennessey, H.W. and Luthans, F.: 1983, ‘Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models’, Academy of Management Journal, 26, No. 2, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gove, W.R., and Geerken, M.R.: 1977, ‘Response bias in surveys of mental health: An empirical examination’, American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1289–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, R.M.: 1989, Survey errors and survey costs, New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohlberg, L.: 1969, ‘Stage and sequence: The cognitive-development approach to socialization’, Pp. 347–380 in Goslin, D.A. (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research, Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Levenson, H.: 1972, ‘Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control: Development of a new scale’, Proceedings of the 80th Annual convention of the American Psychological Association, 261–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nederhof, A.J.: 1985, ‘Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulhus, D.L.: 1984, ‘Two-component models of socially desirable responding’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulhus, D.L.: 1989, ‘Measurement and control of response bias’, In Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., and Wrightsman, L. (Eds.), Measures of social-psychological attitudes, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, D.L., and Clancy, K.J.: 1972, ‘Some effects of ‘social desirability’ in survey studies’, American Journal of Sociology, 11, No. 5, 921–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, D.M., and Fernandes, M.F.: 1991, ‘The social desirability response bias in ethics research’, Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, D.M., and Gibson, A.M.: 1990, ‘Methodology in business ethics research: A review and critical assessment’, Journal of Business Ethics, 9, No. 6457–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rest, J.R.: 1976, ‘New approaches in the assessment of moral judgment’, Pp. 198–220 in Lickona, T. (Ed.) Moral development and behavior, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Rest, J.R.: 1979, Development in judging moral issues, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rest, J.R.: 1986, ‘Moral development in young adults’, Pp. 92–111 in Kitchener, K. and Mines, R. (Eds.) Social cognitive development in young adults, New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Rest, J.R.: 1990, Manual for the Defining Issues Test, Third Edition, 8/90 Revision, Minneapolis: Center for the Study of Ethical Development, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Rotter, J.B.: 1966, ‘Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement’, Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruch, W.A., and Newstrom, J.W.: 1975, ‘How unethical are we?’, Supervisory Management, 16–21.Google Scholar
Stem, D.E. Jr., and Steinhorst, R.K.: 1984, ‘Telephone interview and mail questionnaire applications of the randomized response model’, Jo urnal of the American Statistical Association, 79, No. 387, 555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, F.: 1972, ‘Methodological bias in public opinion surveys’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 105–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zerbe, W.J., and Paulhus, D.L.: 1987, ‘Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception’, Academy of Management Journal, 12, No. 2, 250–264.Google Scholar