Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-bslzr Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-03-21T02:42:16.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Social Desirability Item Response Theory Model: Retrieve–Deceive–Transfer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Cheng-Han Leng Open the ORCID record for Cheng-Han Leng [Opens in a new window] ,
Hung-Yu Huang  and
Grace Yao
Cheng-Han Leng
Affiliation:
National Taiwan University
Hung-Yu Huang
Affiliation:
University of Taipei
Grace Yao*
Affiliation:
National Taiwan University
*
Correspondence should be made to Grace Yao, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study, a new item response theory model is developed to account for situations in which respondents overreport or underreport their actual opinions on a positive or negativeissue. Such behavior is supposed to be a result of deception and transfer mechanisms. In the proposed model, this behavior is simulated by incorporating a deception term into a multidimensional rating scale model, followed by multiplication by a transfer term, with the two operations performed by an indicator function and a transition matrix separately. The proposed model is presented in a Bayesian framework approximated by Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms. Through a series of simulations, the parameters of the proposed model are recovered accurately. The methodology is also implemented within an online experimental study to demonstrate the methodology’s application.

Keywords

socially desirable behavior (SDB)item response theory (IRT) modelmultidimensional rating scale (MRS) model
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 85 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 56 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-019-09689-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

Abelson, R.P., Loftus, E.F. & Greenwald, A.G.Tanur, J.M.,(1992) Attempts to improve the accuracy of selfreports of voting.Questions about Questions New York:Russell Sage Foundation 138–153Google Scholar
Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F.,(2013). Social desirability in personality inventories: Symptoms, diagnosis and prescribed cure. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54 (2) 152–159CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belli, R.F.,Traugott, M.W., Young, M.,&McGonagle, K.A.,(1999) Reducing vote overreporting in surveys: Social desirability, memory failure, and source monitoring. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(1), 90–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böckenholt, U.,(2014). Modeling motivated misreports to sensitive survey questions. Psychometrika, 79(3), 515–537CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, S.P.,&Gelman, A.,(1998). General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 7(4), 434–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.D.,(1986). Evaluations of self and others: Self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4(4), 353–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, A.H.,&Perry, M.,(1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, JC-C.,&Jeliazkov, I.,(2009). MCMC estimation of restricted covariance matrices. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 18(2), 457–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L.J.,(1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, J., Krall, E.,&Coleman, K.,(1987). The problem of memory in nutritional epidemiology research. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 87 1509–1512CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emmons, R.A.,(1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 291–300CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F.,&Buss, A.H.,(1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R.J.,(1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedenreich, C.M., Slimani, N.,&Riboli, E.,(1992). Measurement of past diet: Review of previous and proposed methods. Epidemiologic Reviews, 14(1), 177–196CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ganster, D.C., Hennessey, H.W.,&Luthans, F.,(1983). Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L.R.,(1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J.A.,(1997). A further evaluation of the aggression questionnaire: Issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(11), 1047–1053CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hebert, J.R., Ma, Y., Clemow, L., Ockene, I.S., Saperia, G., Stanek, E.J. III, Ockene, J.K.,(1997). Gender differences in social desirability and social approval bias in dietary self-report. American Journal of Epidemiology, 146(12), 1046–1055CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holtgraves, T.,(2004). Social desirability and self-reports: Testing models of socially desirable responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(2), 161–172CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jobe, J.B.,&Mingay, D.J.,(1989). Cognitive research improves questionnaires. American Journal of Public Health, 79(8), 1053–1055CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, T., Chen, T.T.,(2008). Performance of the generalized s-x2 item fit index for polytomous irt models. Journal of Educational Measurement, 454 391–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, J.,(1998). Enhancement bias in descriptions of self and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 505–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, F.R., John, D., Lüdtke, O., Schupp, J.,&Wagner, G.G.,(2011). Short assessment of the big five: Robust across survey methods except telephone interviewing. Behavior Research Methods, 432 548–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leary, M.,&Kowalski, R.,(1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesmer-Magnus, J., Viswesvaran, C., Deshpande, S.,&Jacob, J.,(2006). Social desirability: The role of over-claiming, self-esteem, and emotional intelligence. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 48(3), 336–356Google Scholar
Mick, D.G.,(1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(2), 106–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, S.,(1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moorman, R.H.,&Podsakoff, P.M.,(1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2), 131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morand, C., Young, S.N.,&Ervin, F.R.,(1983). Clinical response of aggressive schizophrenics to oral tryptophan. Biological Psychiatry, 18(5), 575–578Google ScholarPubMed
Nadler, A., Goldberg, M.,&Jaffe, Y.,(1984). Effect of self-differentiation and anonymity in group on deindividuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982 42(6), 1127–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulhus, D.L., Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulhus, D.L., Angleitner, A., Wiggins, J.S.,(1986). Self-deception and impression management in test responses.Personality assessment via questionnaires.New York:Springer 143–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulhus, D.L., Wegner, D., Pennebaker, J.,(1993). Bypassing the will: The automatization of affirmations.Century psychology series. Handbook of mental control.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall Inc 573–587Google Scholar
Paulhus, D.L., Braun, H.I., Jackson, D.N., Wiley, D.E.,(2002). Social desirable responding: The evolution of a construct.The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement.New Jersey:Erlbaum 44–69Google Scholar
Paulhus, D.L.,&John, O.P.,(1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1025–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, F.E., Metzner, H.L., Lamphiear, D.E.,&Hawthorne, V.M.,(1990). Characteristics of individuals and long term reproducibility of dietary reports: The tecumseh diet methodology study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43(11), 1169–1178CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uziel, L.,(2010). Rethinking social desirability scales: From impression management to interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 243–262CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, K.M.,Paulhus, D.L., & Nathanson, C.(2002). The nature of over-claiming: Personality and cognitive factors. In Poster Presented at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Zimbardo, P.G.,(1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 17 237–307Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Leng et al. supplementary material

Leng et al. supplementary material 1
Download Leng et al. supplementary material(File)
File 33.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Leng et al. supplementary material

Leng et al. supplementary material 2
Download Leng et al. supplementary material(File)
File 56.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Leng et al. supplementary material

Leng et al. supplementary material 3
Download Leng et al. supplementary material(File)
File 20.3 KB