Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing social desirability responding on world wide web and paper-administered surveys

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social desirability responding (SRD) on surveys administered on the World Wide Web (WWW) and on paper was examined using 178 graduate and undergraduate students randomly assigned to a 2 (World Wide Web and Paper) ×2 (Anonymous and Nonanonymous) true experimental design. The findings reveal no differences in SDR between the WWW and the paper-administered survey conditions, and no differences in SDR between the anonymous and nonanonymous conditions. These findings and potential explanations are examined for consideration by anyone interested in using the WWW to obtain accurate information from survey participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association of Collegiater Registrars and Admissions Officers. (1984).A guide to postsecondary institutions for implementation of the Family educational rights and privacy act of 1974 as amended/prepared by Task force, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 “Buckley amendment.”Washington, DC:The Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, I.A. (1967). The deviation hypothesis: A broad statement of its assumptions and postulates. In I.A. Berg (ed.)Response set in personality assessment (pp. 146–190), Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernreuter, R.G. (1933). Validity in personality inventory.Personality Journal, 11, 383–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J.E., & Rosenfeld, P. (1992). Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference?Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 562–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth-Kewley, S., Rosenfeld, P., & Edwards, J.E. (1993). Computer-assisted surveys in organizational settings: Alternatives, advantages, and applications. In P. Rosenfeld, J.E. Edwards, & M.D. Thomas (Eds.),Improving organizational surveys: New directions, methods, and applications (pp. 73–101). New-bury Park, CA Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calsyn, R.J. (1999). Understanding and controlling response bias in needs assessment studies.Evaluation Review, 23(4), 399–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calsyn, R.J., & Klinkenberg, W.D. (1995). Response bias in needs assessment studies.Evaluation Review, 19(1), 217–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J.P., & Tifft, L.L. (1966). Polygraph and interview validation of self-reported deviant behavior.American Sociological Review, 31, 516–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. (1946). Response sets and test validity.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 475–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillehay, R.C., & Jernigan, L.R. (1970). The biased questionnaire as an instrument of opinion change.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 144–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, L., & Thomas, M.D. (1986). Effects of an automated survey system upon responses. In O. Brown, Jr., & H.W. Hendrick (Eds.),Human factors in organizational design management II (pp. 157–161). North Holland, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisman, R. (1991). Big brother lives.Incentive, 165, 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, S. (1986, October 9). Computers replacing interviewers for personnel and marketing tasks.Wall Street Journal, p. 35.

  • Feuer, D. (1986). Computerized testing: A revolution in the making.Training, 23, 80–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D.L. 1968. Personality attributes associated with extreme response style.Psychological Bulletin, 69, 192–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iadipaolo, D.M. (1992). Monster or monitor?Insurance and Technology, 17, 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, L.I., Kellogg, R.W., Cauce, A.M., & Slavin, R.S. (1977). A multidimensional social desirability inventory.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 9, 109–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey.Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 401–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudson, D.D., Pope, H., & Irish, D.P. (1967). Response differences to questions on sexual standards.Public Opinion Quarterly, 31, 290–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lautenschlager, G.J., & Flaherty, V.L. (1990). Computer administration of questions: More desirable or more social desirability?Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 310–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leak, G.K., & Fish, S. (1989). Religious orientation, impression management, and self deception: Toward a clarification of the link between religiosity and social desirability.Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 355–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C.L., & Nagao, D.H. (1989). Some effects of computerized interviewing on job applicant responses,Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P.E., & Hathaway, S.R. (1946). The K factor as a suppressor variable in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 525–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, S., Conroy, L., & Masteller, B.K. (1986). Comparative trait analysis of long-term recovering alcoholics.Psychological Reports, 58, 411–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 behavior research.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(3), 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D.L. (1984). Two-component models of social desirability responding,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.),Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D.L. (1993).Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding-Reference manual for Version 6. Unpublished manual.

  • Paulhus, D.L., & Reid, D.B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in social desirability responding.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peabody, D. 1962. Two components in bipolar scales: Direction and extremeness.Psychological Review, 69, 65–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D.L., & Clancey, K.J. (1972). Some effects of social desirability in survey studies.American Journal of Sociology, 77, 921–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, B.A. (1989).Religiousness and psychological wellbeing: An empirical investigation, Unpublished dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, J.J. (1983). Reviving the problem of acquiescent response bias.Journal of Social Psychology, 121, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, P., Booth-Kewley, S., Edwards, J.E., & Thomas, M.D. (1996). Responses on computer surveys: Impression management, social desirability, and the Big Brother Syndrone.Computers in Human Behavior, 12(2), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, P., Doherty, L., Vicino, S.M., Kantor, J., & Greaves, J. (1989). Attitude assessment in organizations: Testing three microcomputer-based survey systems.Journal of General Psychology, 116, 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R.A., & Riordan, C.A. (1995).Impression management in organizations: Theory, measurement, practice, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigall, H., & Page, R. (1971). Current stereotypes: A little fading, a little faking.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18, 247–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sproull, H.L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Computers, network, and work.Scientific American, 265, 116–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicino, S.M. (1989).Effects of computer versus traditional paper-and-pencil survey administration on response bias among self-monitors. Unpublished master’s thesis, San Diego State University.

  • Wiseman, F. (1972). Methodological bias in public opinion surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 105–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Administration, Research, and Technology at The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

    Dawson R. Hancock (Assistant Professor of Educational Research) & Claudia P. Flowers (Assistant Professor of Educational Research)

Authors
  1. Dawson R. Hancock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia P. Flowers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hancock, D.R., Flowers, C.P. Comparing social desirability responding on world wide web and paper-administered surveys. ETR&D 49, 5–13 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504503

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504503

Keywords

Search

Navigation