CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 348Psychological Testing and AssessmentPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPersonality Traits and Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 222 of the 222 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Rethinking Social Desirability Scales: From Impression Management to Interpersonally Oriented Self-Control

Uziel, Liad·2010·Perspectives on Psychological Science
DOI 10.1177/1745691610369465
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Social desirability (specifically, impression management) scales are widely used by researchers and practitioners to screen individuals who bias self-reports in a self-favoring manner. These scales also serve to identify individuals at risk for psychological and health problems. The present review explores the evidence with regard to the ability of these scales to achieve these objectives. In the first part of the review, I present six criteria to evaluate impression management scales and conclude that they are unsatisfactory as measures of response style. Next, I explore what individual differences in impression management scores actually do measure. I compare two approaches: a defensiveness approach, which argues that these scales measure defensiveness that stems from vulnerable self-esteem, and an adjustment approach, which suggests that impression management is associated with personal well-being and interpersonal adjustment. Data from a wide variety of fields including social behavior, affect and well-being, health, and job performance tend to favor the adjustment approach. Finally, I argue that scales measuring impression management should be redefined as measures of interpersonally oriented self-control that identify individuals who demonstrate high levels of self-control, especially in social contexts.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691610369465

Cites

222 of 222 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Agarwal V., 1977, Asian Journal of Psychology & Education, 2, 36
  2. 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Eysenck H.J., 1975, Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
  4. Gough H.G., 1987, California Psychological Inventory manual
  5. 10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.1037 · DOI
  6. 10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_7 · DOI
  7. Rutledge T., 2006, Stress and its impact on society, 1
  8. Schwerdtfeger A., 2002, Journal of Psychophysiology, 16, 249
  9. Uziel L., 2009, Poster presented at the 10th annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP 2009)
  10. Uziel L., 2008, Poster presented at the 2008 conference of the Association for Research in Personality (ARP)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 348

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Uziel, L.
Affiliations
Bar-Ilan University (IL)
Corresponding author
Uziel, Liad
ORCID
Uziel, Liad
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-05
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
243-262
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
DOI
10.1177/1745691610369465
OpenAlex
W2113634081
Cited by
348
References
207
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 17
FWCI
1.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
social desirability, impression management, self-report bias, response styles, defensiveness, self-esteem, interpersonal adjustment, well-being, self-control, scale evaluation, employee performance

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