幻影问题能衡量社会受欢迎程度吗?

Axel Franzen, S. Mader
{"title":"幻影问题能衡量社会受欢迎程度吗?","authors":"Axel Franzen, S. Mader","doi":"10.12758/MDA.2019.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social desirability is a major problem in survey research. One way of handling the problem is to measure social desirability and to incorporate it into the statistical analysis. There are different techniques of measuring social desirability. We investigate and compare the performance of the well-known Crowne-Marlowe scale with the less common use of phantom questions. Up to now, there is only one study, which tests the comparative performance of both instruments (Randall & Fernandes 1991). In this paper we replicate the test and introduce a few innovations. In difference to the former study, we compare two short versions of the Crowne-Marlowe scale, the 10-items version as suggested by Clancy and Gove (1974) and a 10-items version suggested by Stocke (2014). First, we test both scales with respect to their internal consistency. Second, we investigate which of the two versions has the strongest impact on different sensitive behaviors (alcohol consumption, shoplifting, law compliance, and reported life satisfaction). Third, we construct 20 phantom questions, 10 with fictitious answering categories that can hardly be confused with existing things, and 10 where the fictitious categories resemble existing persons or sites. We then investigate whether the phantom questions pick up social desirability better than the Crowne-Marlowe scale. The study was conducted online with 365 student subjects. Our results indicate that the short version of the Crowne-Marlowe scale suggested by Clancy and Gove (1974) performs best. But none of our phantom questions or any combination of them is able to pick up social desirability. Instead over-claiming is associated with a lack of knowledge.","PeriodicalId":10477,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Social Science eJournal","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Phantom Questions Measure Social Desirability?\",\"authors\":\"Axel Franzen, S. Mader\",\"doi\":\"10.12758/MDA.2019.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social desirability is a major problem in survey research. One way of handling the problem is to measure social desirability and to incorporate it into the statistical analysis. There are different techniques of measuring social desirability. We investigate and compare the performance of the well-known Crowne-Marlowe scale with the less common use of phantom questions. Up to now, there is only one study, which tests the comparative performance of both instruments (Randall & Fernandes 1991). In this paper we replicate the test and introduce a few innovations. In difference to the former study, we compare two short versions of the Crowne-Marlowe scale, the 10-items version as suggested by Clancy and Gove (1974) and a 10-items version suggested by Stocke (2014). First, we test both scales with respect to their internal consistency. Second, we investigate which of the two versions has the strongest impact on different sensitive behaviors (alcohol consumption, shoplifting, law compliance, and reported life satisfaction). Third, we construct 20 phantom questions, 10 with fictitious answering categories that can hardly be confused with existing things, and 10 where the fictitious categories resemble existing persons or sites. We then investigate whether the phantom questions pick up social desirability better than the Crowne-Marlowe scale. The study was conducted online with 365 student subjects. Our results indicate that the short version of the Crowne-Marlowe scale suggested by Clancy and Gove (1974) performs best. But none of our phantom questions or any combination of them is able to pick up social desirability. Instead over-claiming is associated with a lack of knowledge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10477,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Social Science eJournal\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Social Science eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12758/MDA.2019.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Social Science eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12758/MDA.2019.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

社会期望是调查研究中的一个主要问题。处理这个问题的一种方法是衡量社会期望并将其纳入统计分析。有不同的测量社会期望的技术。我们调查并比较了著名的crown - marlowe量表和不太常用的幻影问题的表现。到目前为止,只有一项研究测试了两种仪器的比较性能(Randall & Fernandes 1991)。在本文中,我们复制了这一试验,并介绍了一些创新之处。与之前的研究不同,我们比较了crown - marlowe量表的两个简短版本,Clancy和Gove(1974)提出的10项版本和Stocke(2014)提出的10项版本。首先,我们测试两个量表的内部一致性。其次,我们调查了两个版本中哪一个对不同的敏感行为(饮酒、入店行窃、守法和报告的生活满意度)有最大的影响。第三,我们构建了20个虚拟问题,其中10个具有虚拟的回答类别,这些类别很难与现有的事物混淆,另外10个虚拟的类别与现有的人或地点相似。然后我们调查幻影问题是否比crown - marlowe量表更能反映社会期望。这项研究是在网上进行的,共有365名学生参加。我们的研究结果表明,Clancy和Gove(1974)提出的crown - marlowe量表的简短版本表现最好。但我们的幻影问题或它们的任何组合都无法捕捉到社会渴望度。相反,过度要求与缺乏知识有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do Phantom Questions Measure Social Desirability?
Social desirability is a major problem in survey research. One way of handling the problem is to measure social desirability and to incorporate it into the statistical analysis. There are different techniques of measuring social desirability. We investigate and compare the performance of the well-known Crowne-Marlowe scale with the less common use of phantom questions. Up to now, there is only one study, which tests the comparative performance of both instruments (Randall & Fernandes 1991). In this paper we replicate the test and introduce a few innovations. In difference to the former study, we compare two short versions of the Crowne-Marlowe scale, the 10-items version as suggested by Clancy and Gove (1974) and a 10-items version suggested by Stocke (2014). First, we test both scales with respect to their internal consistency. Second, we investigate which of the two versions has the strongest impact on different sensitive behaviors (alcohol consumption, shoplifting, law compliance, and reported life satisfaction). Third, we construct 20 phantom questions, 10 with fictitious answering categories that can hardly be confused with existing things, and 10 where the fictitious categories resemble existing persons or sites. We then investigate whether the phantom questions pick up social desirability better than the Crowne-Marlowe scale. The study was conducted online with 365 student subjects. Our results indicate that the short version of the Crowne-Marlowe scale suggested by Clancy and Gove (1974) performs best. But none of our phantom questions or any combination of them is able to pick up social desirability. Instead over-claiming is associated with a lack of knowledge.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Cost of Overconfidence in Public Information The Compliance Consequences of Fault Assignment in Sanctions Examining the Link Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Work Performance of Employees in the Private Schools, Mediated by Workplace Environment An Ordinal Theory of Risk and Correlation Aversion Persuasion Under Costly Learning
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1