Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0013164408324469v1
69/4/548    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ziegler, M.
Right arrow Articles by Buehner, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Modeling Socially Desirable Responding and Its Effects

Matthias Ziegler

Humboldt University Berlin, matthias.ziegler{at}psychologie.hu-berlin.de

Markus Buehner

Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich

The impact of socially desirable responding or faking on noncognitive assessments remains an issue of strong debate. One of the main reasons for the controversy is the lack of a statistical method to model such response sets. This article introduces a new way to model faking based on the assumption that faking occurs due to an interaction between person and situation. The technique combines a control group design with structural equation modeling and allows a separation of trait and faking variance. The model is introduced and tested in an example. The results confirm a causal influence of faking on means and covariance structure of a Big 5 questionnaire. Both effects can be reversed by the proposed model. Finally, a real-life criterion was implemented and predicted by both variance sources. In this example, it was the trait but not the faking variance that was predictive. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Key Words: social desirability • faking • validity • spurious measurement error • structural equation modeling • common method variance

This version was published on August 1, 2009

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 69, No. 4, 548-565 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164408324469
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?