CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Survey Methodology and NonresponsePsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

Faking it: social desirability response bias in self-report research

Open access
van de Mortel, Thea·2008·Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing
DOI 10.37464/2008.254.1817
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: The tendency for people to present a favourable image of themselves on questionnaires is called socially desirable responding (SDR). SDR confounds research results by creating false relationships or obscuring relationships between variables. Social desirability (SD) scales can be used to detect, minimise, and correct for SDR in order to improve the validity of questionnaire-basedresearch. The aim of this review was to determine the proportion of health-related studies that used questionnaires and used SD scales and estimate the proportion that were potentially affected by SDR. Methods: Questionnaire-based research studies listed on CINAHL in 2004-2005 were reviewed. The proportion of studies that used an SD scale was calculated. The influence of SDR on study outcomes and the proportion of studies that used statistical methods to control for social desirability response bias are reported. Results: Fourteen thousand two hundred and seventy-five eligible studies were identified. Only 0.2% (31) used an SD scale. Of these, 43% found SDR influenced their results. A further 10% controlled for SDR bias when analysing the data. The outcomes in 45% of studies that used an SD scale were not influenced by SDR. Conclusions: While few studies used an SD scale to detect or control for SD bias, almost half of those that used an SD scale found SDR influenced their results. Recommendations: Researchers using questionnaires containing socially sensitive items should consider the impact of SDR onthe validity of their research and use an SD scale to detect and control for SD bias.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.37464/2008.254.1817

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Self-report measures like the DASS are prone to socially desirable responses, potentially inflating symptom change scores.

    “Self-report measures like the DASS are prone to socially desirable responses, potentially inflating symptom change scores.”

    From Yoga-Based Group Intervention for Inpatients with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders—Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Outcomes of a Rater-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. (2026) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Introduction says socially desirable responding can bias questionnaire results, and the Discussion identifies self-reported psychological distress as susceptible. A study summarized in the paper found that social desirability influenced anxiety and depression scale scores. The paper does not address the DASS specifically or establish that this bias inflates symptom change scores; its copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The confounding influence of reporter-sided biases (e.g., social desirability) cannot be entirely accounted for.

    “Even though all self-reported assessment methods were previously validated (see Supplementary Material), the confounding influence of certain commonly present reporter-sided biases (eg, social desirability) cannot be entirely accounted for.68”

    From Yoga-Based Group Intervention for Inpatients with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders—Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Outcomes of a Rater-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. (2026) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says social desirability can compromise questionnaire validity and confound relationships between variables. The Discussion describes ways to detect and control for it, but the paper does not establish that such bias cannot be entirely accounted for, or address reporter-sided biases generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

  • 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 5× · see citing works

    “The strategies used to deal with SDR identified during data analysis include: • rejecting the data of subjects with high SD scores; • registering the impact of SDR but not controlling for it; and • correcting the data of subjects with high SD scale scores (Nederhof 1985 p.268).”
    BackgroundMethodInfluential

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Adams, S., Matthews, C., Ebbeling, C., Moore, C., Cunningham, J., Fulton J. and Herbert J. 2005. The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. American Journal of Epidemiology, 161(4):389-398.
  2. Andrews, P. and Meyer, R. 2003. Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and short form C: forensic norms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(4):483-492.
  3. Babcock, J., Costa, D., Green, C. and Eckhardt, C. 2004. What situations induce intimate partner violence? A reliability and validity study of the Proximal Antecedents to Violent Episodes (PAVE) scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(3):433-442.
  4. Bell, I., Lewis, D., Lewis, S., Brooks, A., Schwartz, G. and Baldwin, C. 2004a. Strength of vital force in classical homeopathy: bio-psycho-social-spiritual correlates within a complex systems context. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10(1):123-131.
  5. Bell, I., Lewis, D., Brooks, A., Schwartz, G., Lewis, S. Caspi, O., Cunningham, V. and Baldwin, C. 2004b. Individual differences in response to randomly assigned active individualised homeopathic and placebo treatment in fibromyalgia: implications of a double-blinded optional crossover design. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 10(2):269-283.
  6. Black, D., Carney, C., Peloso, P., Woolson, R., Letuchy, E. and Doebbeling, B. 2005. Incarceration and veterans of the first Gulf War. Military Medicine, 170(7):612-618.
  7. Blair, D. and Coyle, C. 2005. An examination of multicultural competencies of entry level certified therapeutic recreation specialists. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 39(2):139-157.
  8. Bornstein, M., Leach, D. and Haynes, O. 2004. Vocabulary competence in first and second-born siblings of the same chronological age. Journal of Child Language, 31(4):855-873.
  9. Campbell, T., Jughes, J., Girdler, S., Maixner, W. and Sherwood, A. 2004. Relationship of ethnicity, gender, and ambulatory blood pressure to pain sensitivity: effects of individualised pain rating scales. Journal of Pain, 5(3):183-191.
  10. Consedine, N., Mangai, C. and Neugut, A.I. 2004. The contribution of emotional characteristics to breast cancer screening among women from six ethnic groups. Preventive Medicine, 38(1):64-77.
  11. Cossette, S., Cara, C., Ricard, N. and Pepin, J. 2005. Assessing nurse-patient interactions from a caring perspective: report of the development and preliminary psychometric testing of the Caring Nurse-Patient Interactions Scale. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42(6):673-686.
  12. Cox, D., van Velsor, P. and Hulgas, J. 2004. Who me? Angry? Patterns of anger diversion in women. Health Care for Women International, 25(9):872-893.
  13. Crowne, D. and Marlowe, D. 1960. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4):349-354.
  14. DiFranceisco, W., McAuliffe, T. and Sikkema, K. 1998. Influences of survey instrument format and social desirability on the reliability of self-reported high risk sexual behaviour. AIDS and Behaviour, 2(4):329-337.
  15. Edens, J., Buffington, J., Tominic, T., and Riley, B. 2001. Effects of positive impression management on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Law and Human Behaviour, 25(3):235-256.
  16. Fischer, D. and Fick, C. 1993. Measuring social desirability: short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Education and Psychological Measurement, 53(2):417-423.
  17. Friedman, A., Terras, A., Zhu, W. and McCallum, J. 2004. Depression, negative self-image and suicidal attempts as effects of substance use and substance dependence. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 23(4):55-71.
  18. Harrison, M., Edwards, C., Koenig, H., Bosworth, H., Decastro, L. and Wood, M. 2005. Religiosity/spirituality and pain in patients with sickle cell disease. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 193(4):250-257.
  19. Henning, K., Jones A. and Holdford R. 2005. "I didn't do it, but if I did I had a good reason": minimisation, denial, and attributions of blame among male and female domestic violence offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 20(3):131-139.
  20. Huang, C., Liao, H. and Chang, S. 1998. Social desirability and the Clinical Self-Report Inventory: methodological reconsideration. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54(4):517-528.
  21. Hurley, K., Caulfield, L., Sacco, L., Costigan, K. and Dipietro, J. 2005. Psychosocial influences in dietary patterns during pregnancy. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(6):963-966.
  22. Johnson, T. and Fendrich, M. 2002. A validation of the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. Available from: http://www.srl.uic.edu/publist/Conference/crownemarlowe.pdf (accessed 10 April 2005).
  23. King, M. and Bruner, G. 2000. Social desirability bias: a neglected aspect of validity testing. Psychology and Marketing, 17(2):79-103.
  24. Knauper, B., Rabiau, M., Cohen, O. and Patriciu, N. 2004. Compensatory health beliefs: scale development and psychometric properties. Psychology and Health, 19(5):607-624.
  25. Lewandowski, W. 2004. Patterning of pain and power with guided imagery. Nursing Science Quarterly, 17(3):233-241.
  26. Loo, R. and Thorpe, K. 2000. Confirmatory factor analyses of the full and short versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(5):628-635.
  27. McGillaway, S. and Connelly, M. 2004. Mental illness in the UK criminal justice system: a police liaison scheme for mentally disordered offenders in Belfast. Journal of Mental Health, 13(3):263-275.
  28. McParland, M., Noble, L. and Livingstone, G. 2004. The effectiveness of problem-based learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Medical Education, 38(8):859-867.
  29. Mahalik, J., Aldarondo, E., Gilbert-Gokhale, S. and Shore, E. 2005. The role of insecure attachment and gender role stress in predicting controlling behaviour in men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(5):617-631.
  30. Matthews, V., Nattinger, A. and Anderson, R. 2005. Accuracy and certainty of self-report for colorectal cancer screening among ambulatory patients. Psychology Health Medicine, 10(1):1-15.
  31. Ojala, K. and Nesdale, D. 2004. Bullying and social identity: the effects of group norms and distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22(1):19-35.
  32. Pallant, J. 2005. SPSS survival manual (2 nd edn). McGraw Hill Education: Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK.
  33. Puhl, R., Schwartz, M. and Brownell, K. 2005. Impact of perceived consensus on stereotypes about obese people: a new approach for reducing bias. Health Psychology, 24(5):517-525.
  34. Reynolds, K. and Magnan, M. 2005. Nursing attitudes and beliefs toward human sexuality: collaborative research promoting evidence-based practice. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 19(5):255-259.
  35. Reynolds, W. 1982. Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1):119-125.
  36. Scagliusi, F., Polacow, V., Artiole, G., Benatti, F. and Lancha, A. 2003. Selective underreporting of energy intake in women: magnitude, determinants, and effect of training. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103(10):1306-1313.
  37. Silverstein, A.B. 1983. Validity of random short forms II: The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(4):582-584.
  38. Strahan, R. and Gerbasi, K. 1972. Short, homogenous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(2):191-193.
  39. Straus, M. 2004. Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7):790-811.
  40. Strike D., Skovholt T. and Hummel T. 2004. Mental health professionals' disability competence: measuring self-awareness, perceived knowledge, and perceived skills. Rehabilitation Psychology, 49(4):321-327.
  41. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O. and Findler, L. 2005. Proximal and distal effects of mortality salience on willingness to engage in health promoting behaviour along the life span. Psychology and Health, 20(3):308-313.
  42. Taylor, T., Kamark, T. and Shiffman, S. 2004. Validation of the Detroit Area Study Discrimination Scale in a community sample of older African American adults: the Pittsburgh Healthy Heart Project. International Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 11(2):88-94.
  43. Tejeda, M. 2004. Egalitarianism and self-esteem as correlates of hate ideation against gay men and lesbians. Journal of Multicultural Nursing and Health, 10(1):42-50.
  44. Todaro, J., Sears, S., Rodriguez, J. and Musto, K. 2005. The influence of knowledge related to organ scarcity and transplant waiting periods on psychological distress. Progress in Transplantation, 15(1):78-85.
  45. Tooze, J., Sabar, A., Thompson, F., Troiano, R., Schatzkin, A. and Kipnis, V. 2004. Psychosocial predictors of energy underreporting in a large doubly labelled water study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79(5):795-804.
  46. Yazbeck, M., McVilly, K. and Permenter, T. 2004. Attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities: an Australian perspective. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(2):97-111.
  47. Zook, A. and Sipps, G. 1985. Cross-validation of a short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41(2):236-238.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van de Mortel, T.
Venue
Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
Published
2008-08-01
Volume
04
Issue
25
ISSN
  • 0813-0531 (ISSN-L)
  • 1447-4328
DOI
10.37464/2008.254.1817
OpenAlex
W6991193508
Cited by
35
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Australian journal of advanced nursing (publishedVersion)
  • Cross Connect (Southern Cross University) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
social desirability bias, self-report questionnaire, Social Desirability Scale, questionnaire validity, health research

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