Minimizing Social Desirability in Questionnaires of Non-Cognitive Measurements
Farida Agus Setiawati
,
Tria Widyastuti
,
Kartika Nur Fathiyah
,
Tiara Shafa Nabila
Data obtained through questionnaires sometimes respond to the items presented by social norms, so sometimes they do not suit themselves. High social d.
- Pub. date: March 15, 2024
- Pages: 33-43
- 214 Downloads
- 721 Views
- 0 Citations
Data obtained through questionnaires sometimes respond to the items presented by social norms, so sometimes they do not suit themselves. High social desirability (SD) in non-cognitive measurements will cause item bias. Several ways are used to reduce item bias, including freeing respondents from not writing their names or being anonymous, explaining to the participants to respond to each statement honestly, as they are or according to themselves, and responding to the questionnaire online or offline. This research aims to prove that several methods can minimize the possibility of item bias SD and academic dishonesty (AD). The research was carried out with an experimental study using a factorial design. There were 309 respondents who were willing to be involved in this research. Data analysis was carried out using multivariate ANOVA. The research results show differences for all variables, Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE), Impression Management (IM), and AD in the anonymous group. There are differences in AD in the groups that provide a complete explanation and do not explain, and there is an interaction between the average AD based on the anonymous and explanation group.
Keywords: Academic dishonesty, item bias, questionnaires, social desirability.
0
References
Aulia, F. (2015). Faktor-faktor yang terkait dengan kecurangan akademik pada mahasiswa [Factors associated with academic cheating in students]. Jurnal RAP (Reset Aktual Psikologi Universitas Negeri Padang), 6(1), 23–32. https://bit.ly/49WfSez
Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2003). Privacy, emotional closeness, and openness in cyberspace. Computer in Human Behavior, 19(4), 451–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00078-X
Bing, M. N., Kluemper, D., Davison, H. K., Taylor, S., & Novicevic, M. (2011). Overclaiming as a measure of faking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.006
Brenner, P. S., & DeLamater, J. (2016). Lies, damned lies, and survey self-reports? Identity as a cause of measurement bias. Social Psychology Quarterly, 79(4), 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272516628298
Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S., & Monin, B. (2013). When cheating would make you a cheater: Implicating the self prevents unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1001–1005. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030655
Cheung, Y. K., & Egan, V. (2021). The Hexaco-60, the dark triad and scholastic cheating. Psychological Reports, 124(6), 2774–2794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120961071
Demetriou, C., Ozer, B. U., & Essau, C. A. (2015). Self‐report questionnaires. In The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp507
de Vries, R. E., Zettler, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2014). Rethinking Trait Conceptions of Social Desirability Scales: Impression Management as an Expression of Honesty-Humility. Assessment, 21(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113504619
Dodou, D., & De Winter, J. C. F. (2014). Social desirability is the same in offline, online, and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.005
Eastman, J. K., Iyer, R., & Reisenwitz, T. H. (2008). The impact of unethical reasoning on different types of academic dishonesty: An exploratory study. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 5(12), 7-16. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/268110531.pdf
Edwards, A. L. (1957). The Social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Dryden Press.
Edwards, A. L., & Edwards, L. K. (1992). Social desirability and Wiggins’s MMPI content scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 147–153. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.147
Faradiena, F. (2019). Uji validitas Alat Ukur Ketidakjujuran Akademik [Validity test of the Academic Dishonesty Measuring Tool]. Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi Dan Pendidikan Indonesia, 8(2), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v8i2.13316
Feeney, J. R., & Goffin, R. D. (2015). The Overclaiming Questionnaire: A good way to measure faking? Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.038
Fernandes, M., Jonauskaite, D., Tomas, F., Laurent, E., & Mohr, C. (2023). Individual differences in self-reported lie detection abilities. PLoS ONE, 18(5), Article e0285124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285124
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
Gannon, T. A., Keown, K., & Polaschek, D. L. L. (2007). Increasing honest responding on cognitive distortions in child molesters: The bogus pipeline revisited. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 19(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11194-006-9033-0
Hart, C. M., Ritchie, T. D., Hepper, E. G., & Gebauer, J. E. (2015). The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form (BIDR-16). SAGE Open, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621113
Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (2020). Balanced inventory of desirable responding. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_3-1
Larson, R. B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evaluations of a construct. In H. I. Braun & D. N. Jackson (Eds.), Role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pavlov, G., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Fairchild, A. J. (2019). Effects of applicant faking on forced-choice and likert scores. Organizational Research Methods, 22(3), 710–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117753683
Phillips, D. L., & Clancy, K. J. (1972). Some effects of “social desirability” in survey studies. American Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 921–940. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2776929
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859
Uziel, L. (2010). Rethinking social desirability scales: From impression management to interpersonal oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 243–262. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41613334
Ventimiglia, M., & MacDonald, D. A. (2012). An examination of the factorial dimensionality of the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(4), 487–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.016
Vésteinsdóttir, V., Steingrimsdottir, E. D., Joinson, A., Reips, U. D., & Thorsdottir, F. (2019). Social desirability in spouse ratings. Psychological Reports, 122(2), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118767815
Ward, S. J., & King, L. A. (2018). Religion and moral self-image: The contributions of prosocial behavior, socially desirable responding, and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.028
Widhiarso, W. (2011). Evaluasi properti psikometris skala kepatutan sosial adaptasi dari Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale [Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the social desirability scale adaptation of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale]. INSAN Media Psikologi, 13(3), 138–148. https://bit.ly/3v5wjX5
Winrow, A. R., Reitmaier-Koehler, A., & Winrow, B. P. (2015). Social desirability bias in relation to academic cheating behaviors of nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 5(8), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v5n8p121
Zhang, G., Zhang, T., Mao, S., Xu, Q., & Ma, X. (2023). Supervisors’ ethical leadership and graduate students’ attitudes toward academic misconduct. PLoS ONE, 18(4), Article e0283032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283032