Psychology Science, Volume 48, 2006 (3), p.

336-356

Social desirability:
the role of over-claiming, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence
JESSICA MESMER-MAGNUS1, CHOCKALINGAM VISWESVARAN,
SATISH DESHPANDE & JACOB JOSEPH

Abstract
Socially desirable responding (SDR) has been widely studied with regards to personality
assessment due to fears it may attenuate the predictive validity of decisions made using such
assessments (e.g., in personnel selection). A number of scales have been employed to assess
individual differences in response distortion. We expand the nomological net for a popular
measure of social desirability the Marlowe-Crowne scale by correlating individual differences in SDR to measures of over-claiming, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence.
Survey results (n = 198) yielded a significant positive correlation between SDR and both
self-esteem and emotional intelligence. Over-claiming was found to be negatively related to
self-deceptive enhancement, a form of SDR, but not to SDR overall. Regression analyses
revealed emotional intelligence explains significant variance in SDR, over and above that
which is explained by self-esteem and over-claiming alone (R2 = .16, p < .01). Implications
for personality assessment are discussed.
Key words: social desirability response distortion, marlowe-crowne, self-deceptive denial, self-deceptive enhancement

Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, Department of Management & Marketing, University of North Carolina Wilmington; Chockalingam Viswesvaran, Department of Psychology, Florida International University; Satish
Deshpande, Department of Management, Western Michigan University; Jacob Joseph, Department of Management, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Jessica Mesmer-Magnus, Department of
Management & Marketing, UNC-Wilmington, 601 South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403; Email:
magnusJ@uncw.edu or to Chockalingam Viswesvaran, Department of Psychology, Florida International
University, Miami, FL 33199; Email:Vish@fiu.edu

Social desirability

337

The use of personality variables to explain individual behavior has increased in the 1990s
(Hough & Ones, 2001). Personality variables are increasingly employed to predict outcomes
in high-stakes situations such as personnel selection in organizations (Barrick & Mount,
1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Rothstein, & Jackson, 1991). This increased use is probably due to the meta-analytic findings suggesting that personality variables have considerable validity and utility for prediction of behavior across a variety of
contexts (cf. Murphy & Dzieweczynski, 2005; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert, 2005). Nevertheless, the potential for test-takers to fake their responses (in order to garner a valued
outcome; e.g., a job offer) to a personality test through socially desirable responding (SDR)
have led some to question the construct and criterion-related validity of such tests. Research
exploring SDR suggests there may be individual differences in this form of response distortion (e.g., Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996). The purpose of this study is to expand our
understanding of the role of individual differences in SDR by expanding the nomological net
surrounding a widely used measure of social desirability. In the next sections, we review (1)
some major issues associated with SDR for personality and high-stakes testing, (2) the content domain of social desirability, and (3) the potential role of individual difference variables, self-esteem, over-claiming tendency, and emotional intelligence, to predict SDR.

Major issues associated with socially desirable responding in

high-stakes testing
Substantial evidence suggests that personality variables correlate with a number of performance measures of importance to organizations (e.g., job performance, training performance, absenteeism, organizational commitment, etc.; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993; Tett et al., 1991). In addition, personality variables have been found
to correlate with several important life outcomes such as occupational status, health outcomes and healthy lifestyle behaviors, managerial ability, and leadership effectiveness. As
such, the assessment of personality has become a central and important function for psychologists. Assessments of personality in high-stakes situations (both for the individual
assessed and other stakeholders) have raised concerns about motivations for socially desirable responding and whether such socially desirable responding affects the decisions made
on the basis of these scores (Mueller-Hanson, Heggstad, & Thornton, 2003). Broadly defined, socially desirable responding constitutes attempts by test-takers to answer test items in
such a way as to obtain more desirable scores (whether better or worse) than would be
achieved through honest responding (Paulhus, 1981; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). A critical
assumption in psychological and personality testing is that test-takers accurately recollect
relevant information assessed in test items and attempt to provide honest responses (McIntire
& Miller, 2001). To the extent individuals provide socially desirable responses (rather than
honest responses), the predictive validity of the scores could be affected.
It is important to note, however, that socially desirable responding becomes a problem
for making decisions more so when there are individual differences in the ability and motivation to respond in a socially desirable manner. If all test-takers engage in socially desirable
responding by an equal amount, all scores will be elevated to the same extent. The relative
rank-ordering of individuals on the personality trait being measured will not be affected.

338

J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph

Similarly, the correlation between personality scores and outcome variables will also remain
unaffected. The only issue will be the need to revise cut-scores in light of the elevation in
scores due to socially desirable responding (Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996). Therefore,
the issue of social desirability response bias in personality assessment boils down to potential
individual differences in the ability and motivation to distort responses in a socially desirable
way.
When there are individual differences in the ability and/or motivation to provide socially
desirable responses (cf. McFarland, & Ryan, 2000), the relative rank ordering of the testtakers on the trait may be altered. In this case, the change is due to the correlation between
personality scores and relevant outcomes as well as to the impact of socially desirable responding. The validity and utility of personality assessments for predicting outcomes will be
affected such that criterion-related validity data collected in experimental conditions may not
be applicable to high-stakes situations (where there will likely be a greater motivation to
engage in socially desirable responding). Similar concerns have been raised about the interpretability of the role of SDR from concurrent-validity designs as compared with true predictive-validity designs. Recognizing these psychometric realities, several test publishers have
attempted to assess and control for individual differences in socially desirable responding.
Scales are embedded in commercial personality inventories (e.g., the MMPI and CPI) to
assess individual differences in socially desirable responding (SDR).
Importantly, current research evidence suggests personality test validities do not seem to
be largely affected by SDR. Specifically, although Barrick and Mount (1996) found applicants did distort their responses to personality assessments through SDR (both via selfdeception and impression management), these forms of distortion did not attenuate the predictive validity of conscientiousness or emotional stability in personnel selection contexts.
Similarly, using meta-analysis, Ones, Viswesvaran and Reiss (1996) concluded that statistically controlling for SDR in assessments of the Big Five personality does not diminish their
criterion-related validity for predicting job performance. Finally, Hough et al. (1990) found
that when respondents were instructed to fake, this distortion was captured by validity scales,
but the criterion-related validity of the personality constructs remained unchanged.

The content domain of SDR

Early researchers believed SDR reflected a response style wherein test takers would alter
their answers to personality inventories in an effort to make themselves look better to others.
However, Crowne and Marlowe (1964) conceptualized SDR as a substantive personality
construct rather than simply a response style. Testing the distinction between substance and
style, McCrae and Costa (1983) compared personality reports (on traits like neuroticism,
agreeableness, extraversion, and openness to experience) made by individuals and their
spouses. When corrected for SDR, correlations between spouse and respondent ratings (validity coefficients) decreased. Similarly, Pauls and Stemmler (2003) found evidence supporting the existence of both conscious and unconscious forms of response distortion. Piedmont,
McCrae, Riemann, and Angleitner (2000) found correlations of self-other personality ratings
were not improved with the statistical control of SDR. In sum, these studies suggest SDR
should be given substantive consideration.

Social desirability

339

Several researchers have attempted to delineate the content domain of SDR. Paulhus
(1984) argues for two underlying factors of social desirability: self-deception and impression
management. Self deception refers to the positive view (even if inflated) that individuals
have of themselves; impression management refers to the conscious effort by individuals to
dissimulate and alter the opinions that others have of them (Paulhus & Reid, 1991). Specifically, evidence suggests impression management is akin to a response style in low anonymity conditions whereas self-deception is response distortion motivated unconsciously because
the individual actually believes in the high self-evaluation. This finding has led to the recommendation that the effects of impression management should be statistically controlled
while the effects of self-deception should not (Paulhus, 1981). Self-deception has been
termed an egoistic bias; impression management a moralistic bias (Paulhus & John,
1998). Specifically, self-deception is characterized by an overconfidence in ones social and
intellectual abilities; impression management by claims of a heightened conformity to societal and moral norms and a rejection of deviant impulses (Paulhus & John, 1988; Peterson et
al., 2003). Paulhus (1984) and Paulhus and Reid (1991) further differentiated the selfdeception response style into two components: (1) one component relates to the attribution of
positive attributes (self-deceptive enhancement; SDE) and (2) the other component relates to
the denial of negative attributes (self-deceptive denial; SDD). Subsequent factor analyses of
these items confirmed a two-factor model for self-deception, with an intercorrelation between factors ranging from .10 to .19 (Kroner & Weekes, 1996; Paulhus & Reid, 1991; Pauls
& Stemmler, 2003; Roth, Harris, & Snyder, 1988). Self-deceptive denial has been found to
correlate strongly with the impression management scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Kroner & Weekes, 1996; Paulhus & John, 1998).
Factor analytic studies of social desirability scales have supported the partitioning of social desirable responses styles into two clusters: Alpha (Block, 1965) and Gamma (Wiggins,
1964). Alpha, the general adjustment factor of the MMPI, represents the tendency to give
desirable self-reports on measures of personality (Edwards, 1957). Gamma, the factor associated with propagandistic bias (Damarin & Messick, 1965), represents the distortion of
self-descriptions to be consistent with those expected by a specific audience. Gough (1996;
1987) notes, however, that it may be difficult to differentiate between a profile that reflects
exceptional psychological adjustment and one that is indicative of respondent faking. Montross, Neas, Smith, and Hensley (1988) instructed volunteers to role play a higher level of
gender identification than their honest profiles indicated (males were instructed to fake
higher masculinity; females were instructed to fake higher femininity). Neither the Good
Impression nor the Sense of Well-Being scales were able to detect this form of SDR. However, research suggests that these scales are able to detect more general forms of respondent
SDR (e.g., Dicken, 1960; Sandal & Enresen, 2002).
Consider some of the items used to assess the above described dimensions of SDR. The
most current form of the BIDR (BIDR-7; Paulhus & John, 1998) uses items such as I am a
completely rational person. to assess Self-Deceptive Enhancement, I never read sexy
books or magazines. to assess Impression Management, and Once Ive made up my mind,
other people can seldom change my opinion. to assess Self-Deceptive Denial. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC-SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) uses items
like I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble, My table manners at
home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant, and No matter who Im talking to, Im
always a good listener. The validity scales embedded within the MMPI assess the extent to

340

J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph

which respondents agree with relatively unrealistic or unusual statements (e.g., I never get
angry, It would be better if most laws were thrown away). Similarly, the Good Impression Scale embedded within the CPI assesses the extent to which the respondent exaggerates
positive points and minimizes negative qualities. Specifically, items included require respondents to indicate the extent to which they have a high level of confidence, are self-assured,
always behave in a socially approved manner, experience harmonious relationships with
others, have few complaints about accomplishments, and minimal insecurities and anxieties.
Clearly, high agreement on all positive attributes and low agreement with all negative attributes would flag potential response distortion.

Individual differences potentially associated with socially desirable responding

Our primary objective in this paper is to expand the nomological net of a popular and
widely used measure of SDR by relating scores of potentially associated individual difference variables. Researchers have reported correlations between SDR and personality constructs (cf. Furnham, 1986; Messick, 1960). For example, Pauls and Stemmler (2003) found
positive correlations between respondent emotional stability, extraversion, and openness to
experience, and unconscious response distortion (self-deceptive enhancement), and negative
correlations between respondent agreeableness and conscientiousness, and conscious response distortion (impression management and self-deceptive denial). Ones et al. (1996)
reported estimated population correlations of .18 and .13 between SDR and emotional stability and conscientiousness, respectively. Others (McCrae & Costa, 1983; Nicholson & Hogan, 1990) have argued these covariations indicate an overlap between SDR scales and personality assessments. To the extent SDR is a personality trait rather than a response style, the
practice of treating SDR variance as error is questionable (Ellingson et al., 1999). In this
study, we examine scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) in
relation to other potentially related individual difference measures, over-claiming, selfesteem, and emotional intelligence. We elaborate on these variables below.
Over-claiming. Over-claiming is a tendency to claim knowledge of impossible topics or
events (Paulhus, Harms, Bruce, & Lysy, 2003), and is thought to be an automatic process,
much like SDR, that is influenced independently by personality and cognitive elements
(Williams, Paulhus, & Nathanson, 2002). Over-claiming may also result in part from a
memory bias, wherein some individuals have a tendency to believe everything is familiar
(Williams et al., 2002). Research suggests over-claiming may be a substantive personality
trait as it appears to occur on an unconscious level. Over-claiming has been found to correlate with neuroticism, cognitive ability, openness to experience, but not self-esteem or perfectionism (Paulhus, Harns, Bruce, & Lysy, 2004; Schoderbek & Deshpande, 1996; Williams et al., 2002). Over-claiming indexes an individuals threshold for claiming general
knowledge, such that higher scores on measures of over-claiming indicate a lower threshold
for claiming recognition of general knowledge concepts; Paulhus et al., 2004).
A review of the items included in scales that assess socially desirable responding and
those that assess over-claiming suggests a common underlying theme. Specifically, respondents who obtain high scores on these measures are likely exaggerating their image in the
eyes of others, or, in other words, are over-claiming what they are and what they are not.
Research suggests some respondents are unwilling to admit ignorance to a topic about which

Social desirability

341

they feel they have (or should have) some expertise (Bradley, 1981). Specifically, individuals who over-claim tend to indicate a high level of agreement with statements that are virtually impossible or claim to have knowledge about topics that are, in reality, fictitious. Measures of over-claiming ask respondents to indicate their degree of familiarity with (nonexistent) items related to well-known or popular topics (e.g., movies, television programs,
product labels, etc.; cf. Paulhus & Bruce, 1990; Phillips & Clancy, 1972; Randall & Fernandez, 1991) hence implying these individuals should have some knowledge about them. Individuals who purport to know a great deal about a non-existent product, for example, are said
to be over-claiming. It seems that the tendency to over-claim (or exaggerate ones knowledge) would be highly related to ones tendency to distort others impressions via socially
desirable responding. Thus, we hypothesize that measures of SDR and each of its sub dimensions (self-deceptive enhancement and self-deceptive denial) and over-claiming will be
correlated.
Hypothesis 1a. Socially desirable responding and over-claiming will be significantly and
positively correlated.
Hypothesis 1b. Self-deceptive enhancement and over-claiming will be significantly and
positively correlated.
Hypothesis 1c. Self-deceptive denial and over-claiming will be significantly and positively
correlated.
Self-esteem. Socially desirable responding is also related to the self-esteem of the testtakers. Self-esteem refers to how much value people place on themselves (Baumeister,
1993), and has been referred to as the evaluative component of self-knowledge. Researchers
(e.g., Brown, 1986) have found that individuals high on self-esteem rated themselves higher
than they rated others on a wide variety of personality traits, potential for superior performance, level of motivation, ability, and social skill. Krueger (1998) argues that high selfesteem is influenced by deliberate or unwitting self-enhancement. In fact, one strategy used
to measure self-esteem is to assess the narcissism of respondents (Emmons, 1984; Williams
et al., 2002). The narcissism construct involves highly favorable view of oneself, which is
likely to result in over-claiming and socially desirable responding by claiming unlikely virtues. It would be rare to find someone low on self-esteem to score high on a scale of SDR.
Not surprisingly, researchers have also found that individuals high on self-esteem rate
themselves high on physical attractiveness. Importantly, there is no correlation between selfesteem and objective measures of physical attractiveness (cf. Harter, 1993). Similarly, positive correlations have been found between self-esteem and self-reports of health (e.g., Glendinning, 1998) job performance (e.g., Brockner, 1983), etc., but not between self-esteem and
more objective measures of health, job performance, etc. Thus, we hypothesize that measures of SDR and each of its sub dimensions (self-deceptive enhancement and self-deceptive
denial) and self-esteem will be correlated.

342

J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph

Hypothesis 2a. Socially desirable responding and self-esteem will be significantly and positively correlated.
Hypothesis 2b. Self-deceptive enhancement and self-esteem will be significantly and positively correlated.
Hypothesis 2c. Self-deceptive denial and self-esteem will be significantly and positively
correlated.
Emotional intelligence. Another variable included in our nomological net for social desirability was emotional intelligence (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Emotional intelligence (EI),
also referred to as emotional literacy, the emotional quotient, and personal, social, or interpersonal intelligence (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000), has received increasing attention since the
1995 publication of the Goleman book popularizing the construct. Emotional intelligence
refers to the ability to perceive emotions and regulate them appropriately, and may be defined as the set of verbal and non-verbal abilities that enable a person to generate, recognize,
express, understand, and evaluate their own and others emotions, in order to guide the necessary thinking and action to successfully cope with environmental demands and pressures
(Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004).
Individuals high in EI are able to effectively understand and perceive emotion within
themselves and others, and successfully regulate and utilize their emotions for purposeful
action (Law et al., 2004). Emotional intelligence is known to be predictive of successful
performance across employment, academic, and life settings (VanRooy & Viswesvaran,
2004). High EI individuals are more adept at reasoning through the (emotional) antecedents
of their own and others behavior and using this information to guide thinking and action
(Mayer & Salovey, 1993). Might emotional intelligence also have value for predicting tendency toward socially desirable responding? To the extent that tendency toward SDR stems
from an individuals ability to regulate, recognize, and utilize emotion and emotion-focused
behavior (c.f., Hoffman, 1984), emotional intelligence will be related to SDR. Specifically, it
seems individuals high in EI would be likely to attend to aspects of measures and situations
wherein a socially desirable response would be valuable (to gaining outcomes of interest, for
example). Thus, we hypothesize that measures of SDR and EI will be correlated. Further,
since EI governs emotions and emotion-focused behaviors in socially desirable ways (e.g.,
temper regulation, self-motivation, goal-orientation, etc.), we suspect that emotional intelligence will explain variance in social desirability above and beyond that which can be explained by self-esteem and over-claiming. A consistent relationship is expected for each of
the sub dimensions of social desirability, self-deceptive enhancement and self-deceptive
denial.
Hypothesis 3a. Socially desirable responding and emotional intelligence will be significantly
and positively correlated.
Hypothesis 3b. Self-deceptive enhancement and emotional intelligence will be significantly
and positively correlated.
Hypothesis 3c. Self-deceptive denial and emotional intelligence will be significantly and
positively correlated.

Social desirability

343

Hypothesis 4a. Emotional intelligence will add significant incremental variance to prediction
of socially desirable responding, over and above that which can be explained by overclaiming and self-esteem.
Hypothesis 4b. Emotional intelligence will add significant incremental variance to prediction
of self-deceptive enhancement, over and above that which can be explained by over-claiming
and self-esteem.
Hypothesis 4c. Emotional intelligence will add significant incremental variance to prediction
of self-deceptive denial, over and above that which can be explained by over-claiming and
self-esteem.

Methods
Participants & Procedure
To examine these hypotheses, we surveyed 198 undergraduate students (45% male, 55%
female) solicited from undergraduate business administration and psychology courses in two
mid-size universities located in the mid- and north-western regions of the United States and
participated in this study in exchange for course credit. Participant age averaged 24 years
old, and ranged from 17-52. Seventy-three percent were Caucasian, 4% African-American,
5% Hispanic, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander, 10% Alaska Native/American Indian. Thirty-seven
percent were currently employed on a full-time basis; the remaining were currently not employed (31%) or employed on a part-time basis (31%). Participants reported having worked
an average of 7.7 years, at least on a part-time basis (84% of the sample had worked for 10
or fewer years). Eighty-one participants (41%) reported having taken a college-level course
in business ethics. Participants were asked to be candid when answering the survey, and
were assured of their anonymity and confidentiality.

Measures
Surveys included measures of social desirability, self-esteem, over-claiming, emotional
intelligence, and sample demographics. Scale reliabilities (coefficient alpha) for this sample
are reported in Table 1.
Social desirability. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MC-SDS; Crowne
& Marlowe, 1960) was used to assess SDR. Beretvas, Meyers, and Leite (2002) identified
over 1,000 articles and dissertations that had employed the MC-SDS since its inception. The
full version of the MC-SDS is comprised of 33-items. Respondents rate the extent to which
items are relatively consistent with their typical behaviors, attitudes, or actions. An example
item is I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. Items were scaled
on a 4-point likert-type scale (4 = mostly agree; 1 = mostly disagree). Higher scores on
this scale indicate greater socially desirable responding.
In addition to the global assessment of social desirability, we partitioned the MC-SDS
into subscales reflecting the two sub dimensions of social desirability: self-deceptive en-

344

J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph

hancement and self-deceptive denial (Paulhus, 1984; Paulhus & Reid, 1991). This was accomplished using guidelines established by Millham (1974) and Ramanaiah and Martin
(1980). Specifically, social desirability sub-dimensions were formed by summing items
representing attribution of socially desirable characteristics (self-deceptive enhancement;
SDR-SDE) and those representing denial of socially undesirable characteristics (selfdeceptive denial; SDR-SDD) as two separate scales. Items assessing the tendency toward
self-deceptive denial have been found to strongly correlate with items assessing impression
management, an overlapping element of social desirability (Paulhus & Reid, 1991).
Over-claiming. Over-claiming was assessed using a 10-item measure published by Randall and Fernandes (1991) which was based on previous work on over-claiming by Paulhus
(1989), Paulhus and Bruce (1990), and Phillips and Clancy (1972). Respondents are asked to
indicate the extent to which they are familiar with each of 10 fabricated items associated
with five categories of potentially well-known topics/items (e.g., How familiar are you with
each of the following designer labels? Ocean City, Jones L.A.). Categories included newly
released movies, products, music albums, television programs, and designer label clothing.
Items were scaled on a three-point scale, 3 = Very Familiar and 1 = Not at All Familiar.
Scores ranged from 10-30. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency toward over-claiming.
Self-Esteem. Self-esteem was assessed using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(1965). Items were scaled on a 4-point likert-type scale (4 = mostly agree; 1 = mostly
disagree). An example item is I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis
with others.
Emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence was assessed using a 16-item measure
published by Law et al. (2004). The emotional intelligence scale purports to measure four
components of emotional intelligence (i.e., self-emotion appraisal, other-emotion appraisal,
use of emotion, and regulation of emotion). Sample items for each of the sub-scales are I
have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time (self-emotion appraisal),
I am a good observer of others emotions (other-emotion appraisal), I am a selfmotivating person (use of emotion), and I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions (regulation of emotion). Items were scaled on a 4-point likert-type scale (4 = mostly
agree; 1 = mostly disagree). Descriptive statistics and scale reliability for each subscale
are also reported.
In addition to the above three variables, we also collected demographic data as potential
control variables. Given research (cf. Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998; Sutton & Farrall, 2005)
suggesting gender differences in SDR, we controlled for gender of the test takers. Since our
participants were college students who may have been exposed to courses in ethics wherein
social desirability, faking, or related topics were potentially discussed, we controlled for
whether students had ever taken such an ethics class. Finally, given empirical research suggesting age-related differences in impulsivity, we controlled for respondent age (e.g., Ray &
Lovejoy, 2003; Thomsen, Mehlsen, Vidik, Sommerlund, & Zachariae, 2005).

Social desirability

345

Results
Correlation and regression analyses were employed to test the hypotheses of interest.
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and scale reliabilities for the study variables are presented
in Table 1. Scale reliabilities for the measured variables ranged from .74 for the MC-SDS to
.91 for over-claiming. Correlations suggest females are somewhat more likely to engage in
self-deceptive enhancement (SDR-SDE), older individuals are more likely to engage in
denial of socially undesirable characteristics (SDR-SDD), and individuals who have taken a
course in ethics are less likely to engage in enhancement but not denial. SDR was significantly and positively correlated with age, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence, but not
with over-claiming. The correlation between over-claiming and SDR was r = -.05 (p > .05).
However, over-claiming and SDR-SDE were significantly, negatively related, suggesting
individuals high in SDE were actually less likely to overclaim. Thus, we found partial support for our hypothesis that over-claiming is an underlying factor in SDR. The correlation
between self-esteem and SDR was .20 (p < .01), providing support for hypothesis 2 which
suggested individuals high in self-esteem are somewhat more likely to engage in SDR. Interestingly, it appears high self-esteem individuals are somewhat more likely to engage in denial (SDD) than enhancement (SDE). Finally, the correlation between SDR and emotional
intelligence was .44 (p < .01), suggesting high EI individuals are also more likely to engage
in SDR. This pattern was seen for each sub-dimension of SDR. However, the correlation
between EI and SDE was stronger than with SDD (r = .48 and .23, respectively). Each subdimension of emotional intelligence yielded similar positive correlations with social desirability. Thus, hypothesis 3 was supported. Importantly, the sub dimensions of SDR (denial
and enhancement) share only a small portion of overlapping variance (r = .24), providing
support for Paulhus and Reids (1991) argument for two underlying dimensions of social
desirability, attribution and denial.
Not only was over-claiming not correlated with SDR, it was also not significantly correlated with emotional intelligence (nor with any sub-dimensions of EI) suggesting EI has no
bearing on an individuals tendency or decision to over-claim. An interesting finding was the
negative correlation between over-claiming and self-esteem (r = -.16, p < .05), suggesting
individuals low in self-esteem are somewhat more likely to over-claim. This relationship is
opposite that of SDR and self-esteem, wherein individuals with high self-esteem were found
to be more likely to engage in SDR. In other words, high self-esteem individuals appear to
be less likely to overclaim but more likely to engage in SDR, particularly denial of socially
undesirable characteristics. Self-esteem and EI were significantly and positively correlated,
suggesting individuals high in EI also tend to be high in self-esteem.
Hypothesis 4 proposed that EI would explain significant variance in socially desirable responding, over and above that which can be explained by over-claiming and self-esteem.
Hierarchical regression analysis was employed to test this proposition. The results of this
analysis for overall SDR are presented in Table 2. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results for
each sub-dimension of SDR. In the first step, respondent age and ethics course history were
entered as control variables. (Respondent sex was omitted as a control variable as it was not
found to correlate with SDR). These variables explained 7% of the variance in SDR (p <
.01). Self-esteem and over-claiming were added in the second step. These variables ex-

Note. N=198; indicates correlations significant at the .10 level; * indicates correlation is significant at the .05 level; ** indicates correlation is
significant at .01 level. The variable sex was coded 1 for male and 2 for female. Ethics course ever taken was coded 0 for no and 1 for yes.

Table 1:
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables

346
J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph

Social desirability

347

plained an additional 6% variance in SDR (p < .01). In the final step, emotional intelligence
was added to assess incremental variance in SDR over self-esteem, over-claiming, and the
control variables. This model explained 28% of the variance in SDR (p < .01), for a change
in explained variance of 16% attributable to EI (p < .01). Thus, hypothesis 4 was supported.

Table 2:
Hierarchical regression results for socially desirable responding using key study variables

Age
Ethics course taken?
Self-esteem
Over-claiming
Emotional Intelligence
Total R2
R2

Step 1
.20**
-.19*

Step 2
.21**
-.17*
.23**
.13

.07**

.13**
.06**

Step 3
.20**
-.18**
.02
.06
.45**
.28**
.16**

Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Table 3:
Hierarchical regression results for SDR self-deceptive enhancement using key study variables

Age
Ethics course taken?
Self-esteem
Over-claiming
Emotional Intelligence
Total R2
R2

Step 1
.13
-.23**

Step 2
.14
-.22**
.10
.16*

.07**

.09**
.03

Step 3
.13
-.24**
-.13
.08
.49**
.28**
.19**

Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Table 4:
Hierarchical regression results for SDR self-deceptive denial using key study variables

Age
Ethics course taken?
Self-esteem
Over-claiming
Emotional Intelligence
Total R2
R2

Step 1
.21**
-.09

Step 2
.22**
-.07
.26**
.08

.05*

.11**
.07**

Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Step 3
.22**
-.08
.14
.04
.27**
.17**
.06**

348

J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph

Importantly, when EI was added to the equation, self-esteem and over-claiming were no
longer significant predictors of SDR. Hierarchical regression results reveal similar findings
for the role of EI in enhancement and denial forms of social desirability (i.e., the change in
explained variance attributable to EI was equal to 19% for SDE and 6% for SDD, both significant at the p < .01 level).
Since emotional intelligence was a significant predictor of social desirable responding
over and above self-esteem and over-claiming, we conducted a subsequent hierarchical regression analysis to examine the effects of the sub-dimensions of emotional intelligence on
social desirable responding (and its sub-dimensions), controlling for the effects of age and
ethics courses taken. In the first step, age and ethics course taken were added as controls. In
the second step, the sub-dimensions of EI (self-emotions appraisal, other-emotions appraisal,
use of emotion, and regulation of emotion) were added. The sub-dimensions of EI explained
22% additional variance over the control variables (p < .01) for socially desirable responding. This model accounts for a total of 29% of the variance in SDR (p < .01), with the most
important dimensions being emotion regulation, use of emotion, and other-emotions appraisal. Similar patterns were found for the role of EI sub-dimensions in explaining the selfdeceptive enhancement and self-deceptive denial forms of social desirability. The detailed
results of these analyses are reported in Tables 5-7.

Discussion
In this paper we investigated the nomological net of a popular measure of socially desirable responding. Specifically, we investigated the correlates of social desirability with the
constructs of over-claiming, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence. Results suggested emotional intelligence, over-claiming, and self-esteem are potentially valuable predictors of
socially desirable responding. Interestingly, while EI was found to be positively correlated
with both sub-dimensions of SDR, over-claiming and self-esteem were each related to only
one element of socially desirable responding. Specifically, high self-esteem individuals were
more likely to deny socially undesirable characteristics than low self-esteem individuals, but
were no more likely to claim they engaged in socially desirable behaviors. However, individuals high in over-claiming were found to be less likely to engage in self-deceptive enhancement. This suggests individuals likely to engage in over-claiming of knowledge are
less likely to claim socially desirable attributes. Since social desirability, over-claiming, and
self-esteem have been found to correlate with scores on personality and ability tests (cf.
Barrick & Mount, 1996; Hough et al., 1990; Paulhus et al., 2003; Paulhus & Harms, 2004;
Williams et al., 2002), our findings suggest it may be important to assess each factor in highstakes testing situations.

Socially desirable responding and emotional intelligence

Emotional intelligence is known to be a valuable predictor of job performance, academic
achievement, burnout, and stress (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). Regression results suggest it may also be a valuable predictor of individual tendency toward socially desirable
responding. If this is the case, what might be the implication of this finding for personnel

Social desirability

349

Table 5:
Hierarchical regression results for socially desirable responding using emotional intelligence
sub-dimensions

Age
Ethics course taken?
EI Self Emotions Appraisal
EI Other Emotions Appraisal
EI Use of Emotion
EI Regulation of Emotion
Total R2
R2

Step 1
.20**
-.18*

.07**

Step 2
.19**
-.18**
.03
.17*
.18*
.29**
.29**
.22**

Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Table 6:
Hierarchical regression results for SDR self-deceptive enhancement using emotional
intelligence sub-dimensions

Age
Ethics course taken?
EI Self Emotions Appraisal
EI Other Emotions Appraisal
EI Use of Emotion
EI Regulation of Emotion
Total R2
R2

Step 1
.13
-.23**

.06**

Step 2
.13
-.23**
.07
.15*
.15*
.27**
.26**
.20**

Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Table 7:
Hierarchical regression results for SDR self-deceptive denial using emotional intelligence
sub-dimensions

Age
Ethics course taken?
EI Self Emotions Appraisal
EI Other Emotions Appraisal
EI Use of Emotion
EI Regulation of Emotion
Total R2
R2

Step 1
.21**
-.08

.05*

Note. All regression coefficients are standardized. p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

Step 2
.21**
-.09
-.02
.14
.16*
.22**
.17**
.12**

350

J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph

selection and other high-stakes testing contexts? Specifically, it seems that high EI individuals are likely to be valuable contributors to an organization (Goleman, 1995; Van Rooy &
Viswesvaran, 2004), but they may also be inclined to engage in SDR, response distortion,
and faking on measures of personality, ability tests, interviews, etc. An appealing explanation for this tendency is that individuals high in EI know when, how, and where to engage in
SDR in order to exact desirable outcomes. The EI sub-dimensions that explain the most
variance in SDR, emotion regulation, use of emotions, and other-emotion appraisal, describe
individuals who are able to make use of their emotions by controlling and directing them
toward constructive activities (Law et al., 2004). These aspects of an emotionally intelligent
individual would logically be related to socially desirable behavioral tendencies. For example, consider the following items from the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale: I
have never intensely disliked someone, There have been times when I feel like rebelling
against people in authority, even though I knew they were right (reverse scored), I dont
find it particularly difficult to get along with loud-mouthed, obnoxious people, I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable, I have almost never felt the urge to
tell someone off, I have never deliberately said something that hurt someones feelings. A
person high in EI, particularly one who is adept at using and regulating emotion would be
inclined to agree with these statements either because (1) they believe they behave in consistent ways or (2) they know better than low EI individuals that affirmative responses to these
items are more desirable. Importantly, when the EI sub-dimensions were used to predict
SDR and its sub-dimensions, EI Self-Emotions Appraisal was not found to significantly
predict any aspect of SDR. Although this is an interesting finding, as one would expect a
high EI individual would be more self-aware with regards to self-deceptive tendencies, it
does make sense in light of Paulhus and Johns (1991) argument that self-deceptive tendencies occur at an unconscious level, such that individuals engaging in self-deception actually
believe their responses.
On the other hand, it may be that high EI individuals actually do tend to behave in more
socially desirable ways. If this is the case, and high EI individuals actually behave in a more
socially desirable manner (than low EI individuals), then these individuals high scores on
social desirability measures may not actually indicate an instance of response distortion. An
important finding with relation to this point, however, was that high EI individuals were
more likely to engage in self-deceptive enhancement. Past research results suggest the tendency to falsely attribute socially desirable characteristics may operate at an unconscious
level, rather than deliberately (e.g., Pauls & Stemmler, 2003). If this is the case, and high EI
individuals are unknowingly self-deceiving with regards to positive attributes, the possibility
they actually behave in more socially desirable ways than low EI individuals seems less
likely. Future research might make use of objective measures of socially desirable behavior
and emotional intelligence to address this research question.
An alternate explanation for the correlations between EI and SDR and its sub-dimensions
is that EI is susceptible to social desirability response bias, and that an individual who tends
to respond in a socially desirable manner will inflate their responses to measures of emotional intelligence. However, respondents in this study were given no motivation to distort
their responses to emotional intelligence items. Specifically, they were guaranteed anonymity and were promised no reward for appearing to be more emotionally intelligent. Hough et
al. (1990) found personality traits were more likely altered by social desirability bias when
social desirability pressures were high. Also, the correlations between EI and sub dimensions

Social desirability

351

of SDR were different in magnitude such that deceptive enhancement was more strongly
correlated with EI than deceptive denial. Research suggests individuals who engage in deceptive enhancement actually believe their responses to be true (Pauls & Stemmler, 2003).
This taken in concert with meta-analytic evidence supporting a correlation between EI and
performance outcomes (VanRooy & Viswesvaran, 2004), suggests the impact of social desirability bias on predictive validity of EI is relatively small.

Socially desirable responding, over-claiming, and self-esteem

It is interesting to note the pattern of correlations between SDR, over-claiming, and selfesteem. Specifically, individuals high in self-esteem are more likely to engage in SDR (particularly, deceptive denial of socially undesirable characteristics); individuals low in selfesteem are more likely to engage in over-claiming. This pattern raises the potential that
socially desirable responding and over-claiming (both of which are arguably forms of response distortion) are motivated by different aspects of personality or cognition. An individual high in self-esteem has a high opinion of themselves and probably of their abilities. In a
high-stakes assessment situation (as in personnel selection, for example) this individual
would feel confident that others (e.g., interviewers) would recognize their superior knowledge and ability (from a resume, application blank, or interview), and thus they would not
feel the need to exaggerate in this area. Rather, they would focus on demonstrating their
potential for being a good organizational citizen, team player, etc. (which are less easily
discernible from the more objective selection tools), and may therefore exaggerate their
socially desirable tendencies, or at least deny socially undesirable ones. Low self-esteem
individuals, however, have a low opinion of themselves and of their abilities. They may fear
their inferiority will be very visible to others by their responses regarding knowledge and
ability in resumes, application blanks, and interviews. Therefore, they may try to pad their
responses by over-claiming their knowledge. So, for example, in an interview, if they are
asked about the extent of their knowledge of some job-related topic, they would hesitate to
reveal lack of knowledge, and would instead over-claim.
Another possibility is that since emotional intelligence and over-claiming are not related
(yet EI and SDR are related), over-claiming may be a tactic more readily adopted by individuals who are relatively unskilled in the technique or benefits of socially desirable responding. Specifically, SDR yields perceptions that an individual operates within the expected social norms of a population, which is arguably an impression that an emotionally
intelligent individual would like to present; whereas over-claiming yields perceptions that
the individual has a great wealth of knowledge, an impression that would be comparatively
less relevant/important to the emotionally intelligent individual.
Finally, a recent meta-analysis reported a correlation between self-esteem and emotional
stability of .66 (Judge & Bono, 2001), suggesting emotionally stable individuals typically
have higher self-esteem. Further, emotional stability has been found to correlate with deceptive self-enhancement, a form of socially desirable responding (Pauls & Stemmler, 2003).
However, it is interesting to note that in our study, self-esteem and deceptive selfenhancement were not correlated, though self-esteem and deceptive denial were related. This
finding lends support to the notion that emotional stability and social desirability have
unique underpinnings.

352

J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph

Limitations and directions for future research

Clearly, over-claiming has implications for the predictive validity of personnel selection
methods (i.e., application blanks, interviews, resumes). Future research might examine the
potential for individual differences in SDR and over-claiming to be used in concert within
personnel selection systems. Further, other measures of over-claiming exist in the extant
literature (e.g., Phillips & Clancy, 1972; Paulhus et al., 2003). Future research may benefit
from a triangulation of over-claiming measures and a replication of our findings using alternate over-claiming scales.
An important point drawn from this study is that individuals who are high in emotional
intelligence may be likely to respond in a socially desirable manner in high-stakes personality assessments. While this is relatively disconcerting, it is important to note that the predictive validity of EI for job performance has been replicated in a number of studies (VanRooy
& Viswesvaran, 2004). Further, our results suggest high EI and high self-esteem individuals
are not likely to over-claim their job relevant knowledge or ability. Since job-relevant
knowledge is an important predictor of job performance, this finding offers additional comfort to those concerned about the effects of response distortion in EI and personality assessments.
A key limitation of this study is that our database was comprised of undergraduate students with little incentive to fake their responses to survey items. It certainly could be argued
that there will be greater pressure to provide socially desirable responding in high-stakes
testing such as personnel selection. Although such increased pressure for providing SDR will
affect the mean scores in SDR scales, it is not clear how the correlations with external variables will be affected. On one hand, the correlations could be reduced due to greater range
restriction in scores compared to the correlations reported here. Alternately, the correlations
could be larger since the possibility of random error is likely to be reduced in high-stakes
assessment. However, it is also pertinent to note that the reliabilities of assessments in this
study was respectable, with reliability values ranging from .74 for assessing SDR to .91 for
assessing over-claiming.
Another potential limitation is relative lack of variability in over-claiming by respondents in our sample. Specifically, few respondents claimed to have very high levels of familiarity with all of the fabricated items. This finding may be a function of our study population or survey contents. For example, Schoderbeck and Deshpande (1996) reported a correlation between SDR and over-claiming of .17 in their study of the ethical characteristics of 174
managerial employees of a non-profit organization. This larger correlation may have been a
function of the differences between student and working samples. Future research on the
nomological net of SDR should attempt to replicate our findings using different sample
types.
Another avenue fruitful for future research involves replicating our results in other cultures. Social desirability in an individualistic culture such as the United States may correlate
with claiming unlikely virtues and high levels of (narcissistic) self-esteem, but this pattern
may differ in other countries, especially those with more a collectivistic outlook (Hofstede,
1980). The pattern of relationships may also depend on the role of power distance, masculinity/femininity differences, uncertainty avoidance, etc.

Social desirability

353

Conclusion
In this paper, we investigated the correlations between several constructs and an overall
score of social desirability. We found self-esteem and emotional intelligence are potentially
valuable predictors of socially desirable responding as they shared common variance in our
study. Further, we found that over-claiming, a tendency toward over-emphasizing expertise
and familiarity with topics, is not correlated with social desirability. Rather, results suggest
individual differences in social desirability and over-claiming tendencies may play a unique
role in high-stakes personality assessments.
Researchers (cf. Paulhus, 1984) have argued for more nuanced approach to understanding the construct of social desirability. Although we acknowledge the value of assessing the
distinct facets of socially desirable responding, for practical applications such as personality
assessment in the workplace, our emphasis was on the global individual differences in the
ability and motivation to provide socially desirable responding. Nevertheless, future research
needs to consider the nomological net of the different facets of socially desirable responding.
Our findings suggest that a valid nomological net of SDR will include not only the micro
focus of correlations between constructs measured at the individual level but also a more
meso-level approach.

References
Barrick, M. R, & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on
the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261272.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self regard. Plenum Press: New York.
Beretvas, S. N., Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability generalization study of the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62,
570-589.
Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets. New York: Appleton.
Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Diagnostic test usage by forensic psychologists in
emotional injury cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 252-259.
Bradley, J. V. (1981). Overconfidence in ignorant experts. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,
17(2), 82-84.
Brockner, J., & Guare, J. (1983). Improving the performance of low self-esteem individuals: An
attributional approach. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 642-656.
Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of the self and others: Self-enhancing biases in social
judgments. Social Cognition, 4, 353-376.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Dicken, C. F. (1960). Simulated patterns on the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 7(1), 24-31.
Dulewicz, W., & Higgs, M. (1999). Can emotional intelligence be measured and developed?
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 20, 242-252.

354

J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph

Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variables in personality assessment and research.
New York: Dryden Press.
Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 291-300.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York:
Bantam.
Gough, H. G. (1996). California Psychological Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory: Administrators guide. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Groth-Marnat, G. (1999). Handbook of Psychological Assessment, 3rd Ed. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children and adolescents. In R.
F. Baumeister, Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard. Plenum Press: New York.
Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Empathy, its limitations, and its role in a comprehensive moral theory. In
J. Gewirtz & W. Kurtines (Eds.), Morality, moral development, and moral behavior (pp. 283302). New York: Wiley.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterionrelated validity of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those
validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
Hough, L.M. , & Ones, D. S. (2001). The Structure, Measurement, Validity, and Use of
Personality Variables in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology. In N. Anderson,
D. S. Ones, H. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial, Work, and
Organizational Psychology: Vol. 1 (pp. 233-277), London, UK: Sage.
Hurtz, G. M; & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability with job satisfaction and
job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92.
Kroner, D. G., & Weekes, J. R. (1996). Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: Factor
structure, reliability, and validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual
Differences, 21(3), 323-333.
Krueger, J. (1998). Enhancement bias in descriptions of self and others. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 505-516.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional
intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(3), 483-496.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17,
433-442.
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812-821.
Millham, J. (1974). Two components of need for approval score and their relationship to cheating
following success and failure. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 378-392.
Montross, J. F., Neas, F., Smith, C. L., & Hensley, J. H. (1988). The effects of role-playing high
gender identification on the California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 44(2), 160-164.

Social desirability

355

Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggstad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. III (2003). Faking and selection:
Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(2), 348-355.
Murphy, K. R., & Dzieweczynski, J. L. (2005). Why dont measures of broad dimensions of
personality perform better as predictors of job performance? Human Performance, 18(4), 343357.
Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on
personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11(2/3),
245-269.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005). Personality at work: Raising awareness and
correcting misconceptions. Human Performance, 18(4), 389-404.
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.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of
integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job
performance [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 679-703.
Paulhus, D. L. (1981). Control of social desirability in personality inventories: Principal-factor
deletion. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 383-388.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.
Paulhus, D. L. (1989). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A
mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197-1208.
Paulhus, D. L., & Bruce, N. (1990). Validation of the OCQ: An initial study. Presented at the
meeting of Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa.
Paulhus, D. L., & Harms, P. D. (2004). Measuring cognitive ability with the over-claiming
technique. Intelligence, 32, 297-314.
Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Bruce, M. N., & Lysy, D. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique:
Measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(4), 890-904.
Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The
interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66(6),
1025-1060.
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307-317.
Pauls, C. A., & Stemmler, G. (2003). Substance and bias in social desirability responding.
Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 263-275.
Pedhauzer, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated
Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Peterson, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Driver-Linn, E., Seguin, J. R., Higgins, D. M., Arseneault, L., &
Tremblay, R. E. (2003). Self-deception and failure to modulate responses despite accruing
evidence of error. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 205-223.
Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J. (1972). Some effects of social desirability in survey studies.
American Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 921-940.
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2000). On the invalidity of
validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582-593.
Ramanaiah, N.V., & Martin, H. J. (1980). On the two-dimensional nature of the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 507-514.

356

J. Mesmer-Magnus, Ch. Viswesvaran, S. Deshpande & J. Joseph

Randall, D. M., & Fernandez, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics
research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 805-817.
Ray, J. J., & Lovejoy, F. H. (2003). Age-related social desirability responding among Australian
women. Journal of Social Psychology, 143(5), 669-671.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Roth, D.L., Harris, R. N., & Snyder, C. R. (1988). An individual differences measure of
attributive and repudiative tactics of favorable self-presentation. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 6(2), 159-170.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European
community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence: Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 9, 185-211.
Sandal, G. M., & Endresen, I. M. (2002). The sensitivity of the CPI Good Impression Scale for
detecting faking good among Norwegian students and job applicants. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 10(4), 304-311.
Schoderbeck, P. P., & Deshpande, S. P. (1996). Impression management, over-claiming, and
perceived unethical conduct: The role of male and female managers. Journal of Business
Ethics, 15, 409-414.
Sutten, R. M., & Farrall, S. (2005). Gender, social desirable responding, and the fear of crime:
Are women really more anxious about crime? British Journal of Criminology, 45(2), 212224.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job
performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703-742.
Thomsen, D. K., Mehlsen, M. Y., Vidik, A., Sommerlund, B., & Zachariae, R. (2005). Age and
gender differences in negative affect Is there a role for emotion regulation? Personality and
Individual Differences, 38(8), 1935-1946.
VanRooy, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation
of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71-95.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Meta-analysis of fakability estimates: Implications for
personality measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 197-210.
Wiggins, J. S. (1964). Convergences among stylistic response measures from objective
personality tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(3), 551-562.
Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Nathanson, C. (2002). The nature of over-claiming:
Personality and cognitive factors. A poster presented to the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.