Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Usefulness of item response latencies in separating self-enhancement from impression management
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Usefulness of item response latencies in separating self-enhancement from impression management
Do you wish to request the book?
Usefulness of item response latencies in separating self-enhancement from impression management
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Usefulness of item response latencies in separating self-enhancement from impression management
2023
Overview
According to Paulhus (
2002
), socially desirable responding (SDR) can be separated into unconscious self-enhancement (SE) and conscious impression management (IM), which both appear in two content domains (egoistic and moralistic). Previous studies testing the possibility to separate SE from IM were based solely on SDR scales, whose construct validity is questionable. This study used a new methodological approach – response latencies to personality questionnaire items, to test whether it is possible to separate two forms of SDR in two content domains. A sample of students (N = 206) filled-in a five-factor personality questionnaire in three motivational situations: honest responding, induced egoistic and induced moralistic bias. In addition, every participant was rated on the same questionnaire by four close peers. The possibility of separating SE from IM was tested by comparing latencies for responses indicating SE and IM with honest responses, as well as by direct comparison of latencies for responses indicating two types of SDR. Responses indicating SE, IM and honest responding were determined directly, using discrepancies between personality self-reports in different motivational situations and other-ratings that represented “true” personality traits. Results confirmed the possibility to differentiate SE from IM—while the latencies of responses indicating honest responding and SE did not differ, the latencies for responses indicating IM were significantly longer than latencies for the remaining two types of responses. These results confirm Paulus’s assumption about two separate forms of SDR (unconscious and conscious SDR), as well as the possibility of using latency times for detection of IM on personality questionnaires.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer Nature B.V
