Show simple item record

AuthorMüller, Saschadc.contributor.author
Date of accession2019-08-09T09:00:39Zdc.date.accessioned
Available in OPARU since2019-08-09T09:00:39Zdc.date.available
Year of creation2019dc.date.created
Date of first publication2019-08-09dc.date.issued
AbstractThe validity of self-report measures is threatened by individuals not responding honestly to questionnaire items. One variant of misrepresentation is the tendency to present oneself overly favorably by providing socially desirable answers. Various approaches have been proposed to assess and control for socially desirable responding. Lie scales such as the impression management (IM) scale contain socially desirable or undesirable characteristics and behaviors, so that high values on these scales are supposed to signal an unrealistically positive self-presentation. The overclaiming technique (OCT) is more akin to a general knowledge test in that people indicate whether they know certain terms from different areas of knowledge. Crucially, some of the presented terms do not exist, which means that claiming knowledge of them can be interpreted as an objective exaggeration of one’s knowledge. The present dissertation examines whether IM and the OCT are suitable measures of self-favoring response biases. Furthermore, possible alternative explanations of high values on both measures were considered. In a first study (N = 162), controlling for IM and overclaiming did not explain discrepancies between self- and other-reports of personality. Contrary to the idea of a lie scale, individuals receiving high scores on IM were rated as honest and humble not only by themselves but also by well-acquainted others. Correspondingly, in a second study (N = 461), higher scores on IM were associated with behaving more honestly in a cheating paradigm. However, IM also accounted for overly positive self-presentation in the form of discrepancies between self-reported and actual prosocial behavior. The OCT again failed to account for self-presentation. Hence, a third study (N = 157) investigated whether the overclaiming effect can rather be attributed to biased cognitive processing. Indeed, the tendency to claim knowledge of bogus terms was related to the hindsight bias and associated biased memory processes. Overall, neither of the two methods emerged as valid measures of self-favoring response biases. Possible conclusions regarding the interpretation of IM and OCT measures as well as next steps are discussed.dc.description.abstract
Languageen_USdc.language.iso
PublisherUniversität Ulmdc.publisher
Has partMüller, S., & Moshagen, M. (2019). Controlling for response bias in self-ratings of personality: A comparison of impression management scales and the overclaiming technique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101, 229 - 236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1451870dc.relation.haspart
Has partMüller, S., & Moshagen, M. (2019). True virtue, self-presentation, or both?: A behavioral test of impression management and overclaiming. Psychological Assessment, 31, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000657dc.relation.haspart
Has partMüller, S., & Moshagen, M. (2018). Overclaiming shares processes with the hindsight bias. Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 298–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.035dc.relation.haspart
LicenseStandard (ohne Print-on-Demand)dc.rights
Link to license texthttps://oparu.uni-ulm.de/xmlui/license_opod_v1dc.rights.uri
KeywordSocial desirabilitydc.subject
KeywordResponse biasdc.subject
KeywordImpression managementdc.subject
KeywordResponse styledc.subject
KeywordHindsight biasdc.subject
Dewey Decimal GroupDDC 150 / Psychologydc.subject.ddc
LCSHPersonality assessmentdc.subject.lcsh
LCSHPersonality questionnairesdc.subject.lcsh
LCSHPsychological tests; Validitydc.subject.lcsh
LCSHSelf-presentationdc.subject.lcsh
LCSHDeceptiondc.subject.lcsh
LCSHTest biasdc.subject.lcsh
TitleHow to (not) measure self-favoring response bias : an examination of impression management and overclaimingdc.title
Resource typeDissertationdc.type
Date of acceptance2019-07-24dcterms.dateAccepted
RefereeMoshagen, Mortendc.contributor.referee
RefereeZimmermann, Johannesdc.contributor.referee
RefereeWilhelm, Oliverdc.contributor.referee
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.18725/OPARU-17782dc.identifier.doi
PPN1671404637dc.identifier.ppn
URNhttp://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:289-oparu-17839-9dc.identifier.urn
GNDPersönlichkeitsdiagnostikdc.subject.gnd
GNDPsychologische Diagnostikdc.subject.gnd
GNDBefragungdc.subject.gnd
GNDObjektivitätdc.subject.gnd
GNDTäuschungdc.subject.gnd
GNDBiasdc.subject.gnd
FacultyFakultät für Ingenieurwissenschaften, Informatik und Psychologieuulm.affiliationGeneral
InstitutionInstitut für Psychologie und Pädagogikuulm.affiliationSpecific
Grantor of degreeFakultät für Ingenieurwissenschaften, Informatik und Psychologieuulm.thesisGrantor
DCMI TypeTextuulm.typeDCMI
CategoryPublikationenuulm.category
Bibliographyuulmuulm.bibliographie


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record