The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Socially Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A Reconception
Abstract
Socially desirable responding (SDR) refers to presenting oneself favorably regarding current social norms and standards. While SDR has concerned organizational researchers as a contaminant in self-assessment, it is argued here that such a presumption is inappropriate and that SDR may represent content variance in some settings. Further, a two-component model of SDR as self-deception and impression management is presented. One or both components of SDR may be related conceptually to the variable of interest such that indiscriminate control of SDR removes the predictive power of a measure. Implications of this reconception are considered for measuring and controlling SDR in organizational research. The distinction between self-deception and impression management is used to clarify a number of theoretical issues.
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
Cites
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
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
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
Self-citationThe Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact.
Adair, J. G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.334 · Cited by 1,095 · cited 1×
“Even the classic Hawthorne effect could be considered the result of employees presenting themselves favorably under the eyes of watchful researchers (Adair, 1984).”
BackgroundRater bias in performance ratings: Superior, self-, and peer ratings.
Holzbach, R. L. (1978) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.5.579 · Cited by 249
Cited by
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
The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests
Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.008 · Cited by 486
Variance in faking across noncognitive measures.
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812 · Cited by 410
Uziel, L. (2010) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610369465 · Cited by 348
Falgoust, G., Winterlind, E., Moon, P., Parker, A., Zinzow, H., & Chalil Madathil, K. (2022) · Human Factors in Healthcare · doi:10.1016/j.hfh.2022.100014 · Cited by 190
Metadata
- Authors
- Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1987-04
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 250
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090985933
- Cited by
- 693
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 3.56
- 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: Socially Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A Reconception. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/258533
- The paper
- Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially Desirable Responding in Organizational Behavior: A Reconception. The Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/258533
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.
