National Culture and Social Desirability Bias in Measuring Public Service Motivation
Abstract
Much of what we know about public service motivation comes from self-report measures. However, self-report questionnaires are vulnerable to social desirability bias due to respondents’ tendencies to answer in a more socially acceptable way. This is a problem as social desirability bias threatens the validity of the measure. This study investigates whether characteristics of national culture influence social desirability bias during surveys on public service motivation. In particular, the impact of social desirability bias is analyzed with two concerns in mind: construct validity and inference validity of public service motivation measures. Experimental survey research (list experiment) is conducted to examine the magnitude of social desirability bias and its associations with national cultures in four countries: Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and the United States. The results show that respondents in both collectivistic countries (Japan and Korea) and individualistic countries (the Netherlands and the United States) are likely to over-report answers on items of public service motivation, although the magnitude and pattern of this bias is stronger and more consistent in collectivistic countries. This study also finds a strong possibility of a moderator effect in correlational analyses in collectivistic countries, but it is doubtful this effect is present in individualistic countries. Overall, we suggest that the effects of social desirability bias should be investigated in public service motivation research, and social desirability bias should be controlled for in future research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Interview statements from employees and leaders were triangulated with each other and with observation data to address common source bias and social desirability bias.
“We therefore triangulated interview statements from employees and leaders with each other and with observation data.”
From Leadership and motivation: a qualitative study of transformational leadership and public service motivation (2018) · cites this paper as Kim and Kim 2016
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0047358 · Cited by 8,686 · see citing works
Sensitive questions in surveys.
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859 · Cited by 3,057 · see citing works
Two-component models of socially desirable responding.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598 · Cited by 3,013 · see citing works
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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This precaution is also warranted by many cultural studies in organizational leadership and psychology (Ganster et al., 1983; King & Brunner, 2000; Nederhof, 1985).”
BackgroundMeasuring Social Desirability: Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164493053002011 · Cited by 580 · see citing works
More Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends
Lance, C. E. (2011) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428110391814 · Cited by 88 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The other camp has regarded this critical perspective as a myth or urban legend (Chan, 2009), thinking that it distorts and exaggerates reality.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Andersen, L. B., Bjørnholt, B., Bro, L. L., & Holm-Petersen, C. (2018) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/0020852316654747 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
“…in the interviews to measure both leadership and motivation might cause common source bias (Meier and O’Toole, 2013), and using the leaders’ selfassessments of their leadership strategy to classify their level of transformational leadership might cause social desirability bias (Kim and Kim, 2016).”
BackgroundWhat are the priming and ceiling effects of one experience measure on another?
Salman, A. A., Kopp, B. J., Thomas, J. E., Ring, D., & Fatehi, A. (2020) · Journal of Patient Experience · doi:10.1177/2374373520951670 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kim, S. H., & Kim, S.
- Affiliations
- Seoul National University of Science and Technology (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Kim, Seung Hyun
- ORCID
- Kim, Seung Hyun
- Venue
- Administration & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-09-04
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 444-476
- ISSN
- 0095-3997 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3039
- OpenAlex
- W2334083765
- Cited by
- 124
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 12.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Administration & Society (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Sussex
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- public service motivation, social desirability bias, national culture, collectivism, individualism, list experiment, self-report measures, construct validity, validity of inference, overreporting, cross-national comparison
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