The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A meta‐analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research
Abstract
Recently, several authors have questioned the potential biasing effects of social desirability response sets on the findings reported in organizational behaviour research. This paper reports the results of two studies designed to examine this issue. In the first study, a meta‐analytic review of 33 studies that have examined the relationships between social desirability response sets and organizational behaviour constructs was conducted. The results of this study indicated that social desirability, as traditionally measured in the literature, is significantly (although moderately) correlated with several widely used constructs in organizational behaviour research. The second study was designed to see if the meta‐analytic results would be replicated using a new measure of socially desirable responding. The results from this study indicated that even though a number of the measures commonly used in organizational behaviour research are significantly correlated with Paulhus' (1989) impression management dimension, the majority of these correlations are generally small to moderate in size, and controlling for socially desirable responding had little impact on the nature of the relationships reported. The importance of these findings for those using self‐report questionnaires is then discussed.
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
Method Variance in Organizational Research: Truth or Urban Legend?
Spector, P. E. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284955 · Cited by 3,445
Understanding Self-Report Bias in Organizational Behavior Research
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1023/a:1019637632584 · Cited by 1,068
Chen, F. F. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013193 · Cited by 962
Core Self-Evaluations: A Review and Evaluation of the Literature
Chang, C.-H. (., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206311419661 · Cited by 608
Science PhD Career Preferences: Levels, Changes, and Advisor Encouragement
Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036307 · Cited by 355
Metadata
- Authors
- Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1992-06
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 131-149
- ISSN
- 0963-1798 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8325
- OpenAlex
- W2012577627
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.05
- 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: A meta‐analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00490.x
- The paper
- Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta‐analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00490.x
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.