The DOI matches its Crossref record; 104 of the 104 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Desirability in Environmental Psychology Research: Three Meta-Analyses
Open accessAbstract
That social desirability might be a confounder of people's survey responses regarding environmental actions has been discussed for a long time. To produce evidence for or against this assumption, we conducted meta-analyses of correlations between social desirability scales and self-reports of environmentally relevant behaviors, intentions, and (broadly defined) attitudes, based on data from 29 previously published papers. The pooled correlations with social desirability are generally small, ranging from 0.06 to 0.11 (0.08-0.13 when correcting for measurement error attenuation). However, our results do not lead to the conclusion that social desirability can be completely disregarded by environmental psychologists as a potential confounder. For example, we found evidence of substantial heterogeneity across studies, so the effect of social desirability may be more pronounced in specific cases. Continued attention to social desirability bias is needed to fully understand its possible subtle effects.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
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
The proof and measurement of association between two things
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412159 · Cited by 8,039
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176 · Cited by 5,678
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
Identifying careless responses in survey data.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0028085 · Cited by 3,865
The Constructive, Destructive, and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x · Cited by 3,643
Measurement and Control of Response Bias
Paulhus, D. L. (1991) · Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-590241-0.50006-x · Cited by 3,598
Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power
Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009 · Cited by 3,493
Randomized Response: A Survey Technique for Eliminating Evasive Answer Bias
Warner, S. L. (1965) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1965.10480775 · Cited by 3,255
Metadata
- Authors
- Vesely, S., & Klöckner, C. A.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2020-07-24
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 1395-1395
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3044072846
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 104
- FWCI
- 34.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Social Desirability in Environmental Psychology Research: Three Meta-Analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01395
- The paper
- Vesely, S., & Klöckner, C. A. (2020). Social Desirability in Environmental Psychology Research: Three Meta-Analyses. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01395
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.