The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed.
Abstract
There is a rather common suspicion among many psychologists that subjects tend to give what are considered to be socially desirable responses to items in personality inventories. This suspicion has been given public expression in a recent article by Gordon (3, p. 407) who comments upon . . the motivation of a majority of respondents to mark socially acceptable alternatives to items, rather than those which they believe apply to themselves. We have here two problems. One concerns the truthfulness of a subject's answers to items in a personality inventory, i.e., whether the response accurately describes the subject. The answer to this question implies that we have available some independent criterion in terms of which the inventory response is to be evaluated. The other problem concerns the relationship between a subject's response to an item and the social desirability of that item, i.e., whether the subject tends to give a positive answer to an item that is socially desirable and a negative answer to an item that is not. The answer to this question implies that we have available some measure of the social desirability of the item to which the response can be related. It is this problem we wish to report upon here.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review
Nederhof, A. J. (1985) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303 · Cited by 2,340
Common method bias: It’ s bad, it’ s complex, it’ s widespread, and it’ s not easy to fix
Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., Williams, L. J., Huang, C., & Yang, J. (2024) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030 · Cited by 1,899
Using linguistic cues for the automatic recognition of personality in conversation and text
Mairesse, F., Walker, M. A., Mehl, M. R., & Moore, R. K. (2007) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.2349 · Cited by 1,046
Why Don’t Employers Hire and Retain Workers with Disabilities?
Kaye, H. S., Jans, L. H., & Jones, E. C. (2011) · Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation · doi:10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8 · Cited by 484
Uziel, L. (2010) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610369465 · Cited by 348
Metadata
- Authors
- Edwards, A. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 1953-04
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 90-93
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2101345151
- Cited by
- 608
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/h0058073
- The paper
- Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058073
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.