The stability of the social desirability scale values in the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule.

The Control of Social Desirability in a Structured Q-Sort pn Dependency-Independency

“…Hypotheses were tested regarding certain interrelationships among these various descriptions, both in terms of variables scores and in terms of the degree of correlation between total instrument descriptions. The findings of this study will be published separately.2 Klett's (1957) data indicate little differences in Social Desirability ratings among different socio-economic classes. at UQ Library on March 15, 2015 epm.sagepub.com Downloaded from…”

“…The factor of Social Desirability has received considerable attention in the recent literature (Edwards, 1953;Edwards, 1954;Edwards & Horst, 1953;Fordyce, 1956;Klett, 1957; Kogan, Quinn, Ax & Ripley, 1957). Its relevance here may be summarized by noting that the evidence indicates the probability of endorsement of a statement or item as self-descriptive by a test subject is correlated substantially with the rated Social Desirability of the item (Edwards, 1953).…”

Effects of religious affiliation, religious involvement, and sex on the social desirability ratings of MMPI religion items.

“…Furthermore, it seems obvious that an individual's view of socially desirable or undesirable behavioral traits should stem, at least in part, from his group affiliations. However, attempts to demonstrate relationships between social desirability response sets and such variables as age, sex, social class (Klett, 1957;Melhman & Warehime, 1962), occupation (Messick, 1960), IQ, education (Fordyce, 1960), or ethnic background (Fujita, 1956;Lovaas, 1957) have met with little success.…”

The social desirability stereotype and some measures of psychopathology.

“…In recent studies (2,3) of the stability of the social desirability scale values of the items comprising the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (1), striking agreement in judgments of what constitutes socially desirable or undesirable behavior was found between college and high school students (r=.93), college students and hospitalized mental patients (r -.88), and high school students and mental patients (y=.87). In spite of this high overall agreement, there were some systematic and significant differences among the three groups in terms of specific subscales (psychological needs) included in the 140 items.…”