A Quantitative Review of the Effect of Computerized Testing on the Measurement of Social Desirability

Abstract

A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which the computer administration of a measure influences socially desirable responding. Social desirability was defined as consisting of two components: impression management and self-deceptive enhancement. A small but statistically significant effect ( d = -0.08) was found for impression management, with impression management being lower when assessed by computer. Correlational analysis revealed, however, that the strength of the effect of computer administration on impression management appeared to diminish over time such that more recent studies have found small or no effects. Consistent with its conceptualization, reports of self-deceptive enhancement did not differ by testing format. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of how they contribute to the explication of the construct of social desirability and cross-mode equivalence.

Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: evidence from an online survey

“…However, this may also depend on the scarce adequateness of commonly used social desirability scales in web-based surveys. Indeed, socially desirable responding tends to be reduced in computer testing formats (Dwight & Feigelson, 2000;Peck, Olsen, & Devore, 2011) than in traditional ones, because respondents to online questionnaires may have the perception of being more anonymous (Lautenschlager & Flaherty, 1990). For this reason, further social desirability measures should be developed and validated with better appropriate psychometric properties also for online investigation.…”

Bias and Equivalence in Cross-Cultural Research

“…Depending on the constructs of interest, the data collection mode (e.g., paper-and-pencil mode versus online survey) may show differential levels of social desirability. Dwight and Feigelson (2000) found that impression management (one dimension of social desirability) was lower in online assessment. Another case is the interviewer effect; Davis and Silver (2003) revealed that, in answering questions regarding political knowledge, African American respondents got fewer answers right when interviewed by a European American interviewer than by an African American interviewer.…”

Technology and Assessment in Selection

“…A number of studies (e.g., Dwight & Fiegelson 2000, Lautenschlager & Flaherty 1990, Martin & Nagao 1989, Potosky & Bobko 1997, Richman et al 1999) have looked at the differences in observed scores from online and paper-and-pencil formats and found small differences on noncognitive tests, suggesting that computer testing neither increases nor decreases a test taker's tendency to respond in a socially desirable way. Other research found equivalency in noncognitive measures.…”