Social desirability was initially conceptualised as a one-dimensional construct and scales were then developed to measure this construct. Due to the lack of correlation between the scales various two-factor models of social desirability were formulated (Steenkamp et al., 2010). Although Edwards (1957) viewed social desirability as the extent to which behavioural personality denotations were undesirable or desirable expressed as a scale value on a bi-polar continuum (undesirable or desirable) other researchers have used two-factor models to explain social desirability. The difference between Edwards (1957) and the researchers proposing two- factor models, however, go further than mere a difference in opinion about the number of dimensions involved. Edwards (1957) and also Nederhof (1985) regard social desirability as firstly descriptive of the behavioural denotations used to assess a person’s standing on the various latent personality dimensions and the social desirability of a respondent’s test responses then depends on the social desirability of the items he/she choose to endorse and not to endorse. The researchers advocating a two-, three- or four-factor model of social desirability view social desirability as a multi-dimensional abstract theme in a bundle of related behaviours. This also is true with regards to some of the one-dimensional scales examined by Wiggins (1964).
One of the first two-factor models was developed by Damarin and Messick in 1965 and provides a detailed theoretical interpretation of two distinct factors of social desirability. Their two-factor model is depicted in Figure 1.The first factor (Factor 1 in Figure 1) involves distorting the privately held self-image of the individual. This distortion is as a result of a bias that an individual is employing that is associated with a global belief regarding personality traits (Paulhus, 2002). This factor was labelled autistic bias in self-regard (Damarin & Messick, 1965). The second factor (Factor 2 in Figure 1) relates to a naive tendency to promote a reputation that is desired by others and is labelled propagandistic bias. The underlying motivation for propagandistic bias relates to factors varying from social approval to habitual lying (Paulhus,
2002), which are characteristics of the definitions of social desirability discussed in the previous section.
Figure 1: Damarin and Messick’s Dimensions of SDR
(Source: Adapted from “Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct.” By D.L. Paulhus (2002) p. 58)
Sackeim and Gur (1979) also developed a two-factor model of SDR. Their two-factor model is depicted in Figure 2.This model distinguishes between the constructs of self-deception and other- deception. With self-deception the respondents report unrealistic positive self-descriptions about which they appear to be totally convinced, while with other-deception the respondents consciously and deliberately distort their self-description to mislead an audience (Paulhus, 2002). The first type of social desirability described by Espinosa and Van de Vijver (2014) and Ellingson, Sackett and Smith. (2001), a form of social desirability in which the respondent is convinced that the self they are portraying when answering a self-report measurement is in fact their true self even if others disagree, can be linked to the self-deception factor identified by Sackeim and Gur (1979). Self-deception is measured by including items in the questionnaire that relate to the psychodynamic notion that certain undesirable thoughts (sexual and aggressive) are experienced but often denied (Sackeim & Gur, 1979). If respondents overreact to this offensive content then they are seen to have self-deceptive tendencies (Paulhus, 2002).
Responding in an other-deception manner occurs when the respondent aims to mislead others by lying or faking answers (Ellingson et al., 2001; Espinosa & Van de Vijver, 2014). To measure other-deception, items are constructed to describe desirable behaviours that are so public and blatant that they are not subject to self-deception (Sackeim & Gur, 1979). When an individual
SDR
Autistic Bias in Self-Regard
Propagandistic Bias
19 makes excessive claims of such behaviours it is assumed that this probably involves some form of conscious dissimilation (i.e. untrue exaggerations; Paulhus, 2002).
Figure 2: Sackiem and Gur’s Dimension of SDR
(Source: Adapted from “Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct.” By D.L. Paulhus (2002) p. 59)
Self-deception can be linked to Damarin and Messick’s (1965) autistic bias in self-regard, as both these factors are based on an individual’s tendency to distort the self so that they can protect themselves from being labelled as abnormal with regard to human behaviours that are in fact normal. Other-deception can be linked to Damarin and Messick’s (1965) propagandistic bias, in that the individual responds in a manner that is in line with what is deemed to be proper, appropriate or accepted in their community.
The final two-factor model of social desirability was developed by Paulhus (1984) and attempts to link and integrate the concepts and measures developed by Sackeim and Gur (1979) with the structure provided by Damarin and Messick (1965) (Paulhus, 2002). Factor analyses conducted on social desirability scales suggested the existence of two major factors (Paulhus, 1984) that are best interpreted as self-deception and impression management (previously labelled other- deception; Sackeim & Gur, 1979). Paulhus and John (1998) have repeatedly found empirical evidence for these two factors.
According to Paulhus (1984) impression management refers to a conscious and intentional distortion of responses to create a favourable impression that is related to the traditional view that the respondent deliberately alters their answers to present a positive social image (Ferrando, 2008). Research suggests that there is a distinction between the self-deception and impression
SDR
Self-Deception: Unconscious
Other-Deception: Conscious
management components of social desirability (Paulhus, 1984). Self-deceptive positivity refers to an honest but somewhat overly positive view of the self, whereas impression management occurs when the respondent consciously dissembles when responding (Paulhus, 1984; 1991; 2002). The term impression management is favoured over other-deception because the term other-deception implies deliberate lying, which Paulhus (1984) suggested was too presumptuous. Paulhus (1984) agreed with Damarin and Messick’s (1965) argument and suggested that the habitual presentation of a specific positive public image could be construed as a meaningful personality construct rather than a response bias. Figure 3 below provides a visual depiction of Paulhus’ (1984) model.
Figure 3: Paulhus’ Two Factor Model of SDR
(Source: Adapted from “Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct.” By D.L. Paulhus (2002) p. 59)
Extensive examination of the social desirability construct has, however, suggested that the two- factor models are overly simplistic and further exploration is required (Paulhus, 2002). This has resulted in the development of three-factor models, which are discussed below.