Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and validation of the Agents’ Socially Desirable Responding (ASDR) scale

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While the marketing discipline has advanced knowledge by augmenting objective measures of marketing performance with survey-solicited subjective measures, it has not adequately attended to potential response biases. The authors’ review of the literature highlights the need for a valid measure of socially desirable responding that can be used in detecting social desirability bias in managers’ responses to subjective performance measures. Agents’ Socially Desirable Responding (ASDR) scale development and validation procedures are described. Validation efforts reveal the psychometric properties of the eight-item ASDR scale and provide evidence of its utility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson, E., & Park, C. (1994). Concealment of negative organizational outcomes: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1302–1334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ailawadi, K. L., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2004). The difference between perceptual and objective performance measures: An empirical analysis. MSI Reports, 1, 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayers, D., Dahlstrom, R., & Skinner, S. J. (1997). An exploratory investigation of organizational antecedents to new product success. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergen, M., Dutta, S., & Walker Jr., O. C. (1992). Agency relationships in marketing: A review of the implications and applications of agency and related theories. Journal of Marketing, 56, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as ‘Tamara-land’. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 997–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broughton, R. (1984). A prototype strategy for construction of personality scales. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 47, 1334–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 474–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale for social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. J. (2000). The future of social-desirability bias research in marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 73–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganster, D. C., Hennessey, H. W., & Luthans, F. (1983). Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 321–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govindarajan, V., & Fisher, J. (1990). Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing: Effects on business-unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 259–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture: Measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirca, A., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69, 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1995). The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 54–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J. T. (2000). The effects of strategy type on the market orientation-performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Özsomer, A. (2002). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66, 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meznar, M. B., & Nigh, D. (1995). Buffer or bridge? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American firms. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 975–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mick, D. G. (1996). Are studies of dark side variables confounded by socially desirable responding? The case of materialism. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 106–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behavior research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 131–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1993). The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: Reference manual for BIDR version 6. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia.

  • Prahalad, C. K. (1995). Weak signals versus strong paradigms. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, iii–vi.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe–Crowne scale of social desirability. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: A re-inquiry into its measurement properties and the development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1978). Self-deception, other-deception, and self-reported psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 213–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2000). Strategy type and performance: The influence of sales force management. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 813–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, X. M., & Parry, M. E. (1997). Determinants of Japanese new product successes. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 64–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straw, B. M., McKechnie, P. I., & Puffer, S. M. (1983). The justification of organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 582–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, R. L., & Heide, J. B. (1996). Controlling supplier opportunism in industrial relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinten, G. (1995). The art of asking threatening questions. Management Decisions, 33, 35–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerbe, W., & Paulhus, D. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the editor, reviewers, Joe Cannon, Bob Fisher, David Mick, and Jan-Benedict Steenkamp for their helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, College of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1278, USA

    Kenneth C. Manning

  2. Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    William O. Bearden

  3. Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration and Economics, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA

    Kelly Tian

Authors
  1. Kenneth C. Manning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William O. Bearden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kelly Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth C. Manning.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manning, K.C., Bearden, W.O. & Tian, K. Development and validation of the Agents’ Socially Desirable Responding (ASDR) scale. Mark Lett 20, 31–44 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9041-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9041-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation