Distinguishing between trait desirability and item desirability in predicting item scores: Is informant evaluation of personality free from social desirability?

Cui, Tianxue; Kam, Chester Chun Seng; Cheng, Emily Hongzhen; Ho, Man Yee

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2022.111708

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results were reported by Thomas & Kilmann (1975) for two different scales measuring five different conflict handling modes and by Chen et al (1997) for measures of positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Finally, across a series of studies, Cui et al (2022) found that both self-ratings and peer ratings of a variety of personality variables were equally susceptible to item social desirability.…”

Section: Item Social Desirabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, several studies (Chen et al 1997, Cui et al 2022, Thomas & Kilmann 1975 have shown that judges' ratings of item social desirability are strongly related to the endorsement of these items by survey respondents. In addition, Cui et al (2022) found that (a) self-and peer ratings of personality were equally susceptible to item social desirability and (b) the effects of item social desirability were more pronounced when respondents scored high on trait social desirability. These findings suggest that it is important to minimize item social desirability, where possible.…”

Section: Ensuring Respondent Anonymitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Common Method Bias: It's Bad, It's Complex, It's Widespread, and It's Not Easy to Fix

Podsakoff,

Williams

et al. 2024

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite recognition of the harmful effects of common method bias (CMB), its causes, consequences, and remedies are still not well understood. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review our current knowledge of CMB and provide recommendations on how to control it. We organize our review into five main sections. First, we explain the harmful effects of CMB (why it is bad). Second, we discuss the complexity caused by the fact that there are multiple sources of CMB, several of which are likely to be present in any study. Third, we present evidence that the conditions under which CMB is likely to occur are relatively widespread, and fourth, we explain why CMB is not easy to fix. Finally, we identify several avenues for future research. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Volume 11 is January 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

show abstract

Section: Item Social Desirabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ensuring Respondent Anonymitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Method Bias: It's Bad, It's Complex, It's Widespread, and It's Not Easy to Fix

Podsakoff,

Williams

et al. 2024

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Validity evidence for personality scores from algorithms trained on low‐stakes verbal data and applied to high‐stakes interviews

Stevenor,

Hickman,

Zickar

et al. 2024

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present multifaceted validity evidence for machine learning models (referred to as automated video interview personality assessments (AVI‐PAs) in this research) that were trained on verbal data and interviewer ratings from low‐stakes interviews and applied to high‐stakes interviews to infer applicant personality. The predictive models used RoBERTa embeddings and binary unigrams as predictors. In Study 1 (N = 107), AVI‐PAs more closely reflected interviewer ratings compared to applicant and reference ratings. Also, AVI‐PAs and interviewer ratings had similar relations with applicants' interview behaviors, biographical information, and hireability. In Study 2 (N = 25), AVI‐PAs had weak‐moderate (nonsignificant) relations with subsequent supervisor ratings of job performance. Empirically, the AVI‐PAs were most similar to interviewer ratings. AVI‐PAs, interviewer ratings, self‐reports, and reference‐reports all demonstrated weak discriminant validity evidence. LASSO regression provided superior (but still weak) discriminant evidence compared to elastic net regression. Despite using natural language embeddings to operationalize verbal behavior, the AVI‐PAs (except emotional stability) exhibited large correlations with interviewee word count. We discuss the implications of these findings for pre‐employment personality assessments and effective AVI‐PA design.

show abstract

Big Fiveの「社会的望ましさの認知」と「個人的望ましさ」――相関とその関係流動性による調整

Ueda,

Yamagata

2024

The Japanese Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

is study examined whether (1) perceived social desirability (PSD) and personal desirability (PD) of each Big Five trait are positively correlated, and (2) perceived relational mobility (PRM) moderates its strength. Participants (Study 1: 224 undergraduate students; Study 2: 558 research rm monitors) reported PSD and PD of the Big Five scale items and PRM. Con rmatory factor analyses revealed that a ve-factor structure with a random slope or a method factor t best for both PSD and PD. Correlations between PSD and PD were positive for all traits (Study 1: rs ＝ .52-.69; Study 2: rs ＝ .59-.67), and their strength di ered by high vs. low PRM for some traits: conscientiousness (r ＝ .42 vs. .64 in Study 1 and r ＝ .55 vs. .66 in Study 2) and agreeableness (r ＝ .59 vs. .73 in Study 2). Implications for studies of personality trait desirability were discussed.

show abstract

Distinguishing between trait desirability and item desirability in predicting item scores: Is informant evaluation of personality free from social desirability?

Cited by 3 publications

References 56 publications

Common Method Bias: It's Bad, It's Complex, It's Widespread, and It's Not Easy to Fix

Common Method Bias: It's Bad, It's Complex, It's Widespread, and It's Not Easy to Fix

Validity evidence for personality scores from algorithms trained on low‐stakes verbal data and applied to high‐stakes interviews

Big Fiveの「社会的望ましさの認知」と「個人的望ましさ」――相関とその関係流動性による調整

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About