Exploring social desirability bias
Journal of Business Ethics 44 (4):291 - 302 (2003)
Abstract
This study examines social desirability bias in the context of ethical decision-making by accountants. It hypothesizes a negative relation between social desirability bias and ethical evaluation. It also predicts an interaction effect between religiousness and gender on social desirability bias. An experiment using five general business vignettes was carried out on 121 accountants (63 males and 58 females). The results show that social desirability bias is higher (lower) when the situation encountered is more (less) unethical. The bias has religiousness and gender main effects as well as an interaction effect between these two independent variables. Women who were more religious recorded the highest bias scores relative to less religious women and men regardless of their religiousness.Reprint years
2004
DOI
10.1023/a:1023648703356
My notes
Similar books and articles
Associations between Hofstede’s Cultural Constructs and Social Desirability Response Bias.Richard A. Bernardi - 2006 - Journal of Business Ethics 65 (1):43 - 53.
The social desirability response bias in ethics research.Donna M. Randall & Maria F. Fernandes - 1991 - Journal of Business Ethics 10 (11):805 - 817.
Does Education Influence Ethical Decisions? An International Study.Richard A. Bernardi, Caryn L. Lecca, Jennifer C. Murphy & Elizabeth M. Sturgis - 2011 - Journal of Academic Ethics 9 (3):235-256.
The “bias” bias in social psychology: Adaptive when and how?James Friedrich - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (3):335-336.
The Nature of Social Desireability Response Effects in Ethics Research.Donna M. Randall - 1992 - Business Ethics Quarterly 2 (2):183-205.
Gender Differences in Ethics Research: The Importance of Controlling for the Social Desirability Response Bias. [REVIEW]Derek Dalton & Marc Ortegren - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 103 (1):73-93.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
77 (#159,106)
6 months
4 (#183,357)
2009-01-28
Downloads
77 (#159,106)
6 months
4 (#183,357)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
A Review of The Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature: 1996–2003. [REVIEW]Michael J. O’Fallon & Kenneth D. Butterfield - 2005 - Journal of Business Ethics 59 (4):375 - 413.
A Review of The Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature: 1996–2003. [REVIEW]Michael J. O’Fallon & Kenneth D. Butterfield - 2005 - Journal of Business Ethics 59 (4):375-413.
The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Organizational Commitment: Exploring Multiple Mediation Mechanisms. [REVIEW]Omer Farooq, Marielle Payaud, Dwight Merunka & Pierre Valette-Florence - 2014 - Journal of Business Ethics 125 (4):1-18.
Gender Differences in Ethics Research: The Importance of Controlling for the Social Desirability Response Bias. [REVIEW]Derek Dalton & Marc Ortegren - 2011 - Journal of Business Ethics 103 (1):73-93.
Whistleblowing Intentions of Lower-Level Employees: The Effect of Reporting Channel, Bystanders, and Wrongdoer Power Status.Jingyu Gao, Robert Greenberg & Bernard Wong-On-Wing - 2015 - Journal of Business Ethics 126 (1):85-99.
References found in this work
Ethical ideology and the ethical judgments of marketing professionals.Tim Barnett, Ken Bass, Gene Brown & Frederic J. Hebert - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (7):715-723.
Impression management, overclaiming, and perceived unethical conduct: The role of male and female managers. [REVIEW]P. P. Schoderbek & Satish P. Deshpande - 1996 - Journal of Business Ethics 15 (4):409 - 414.
Believing that everyone else is less ethical: Implications for work behavior and ethics instruction. [REVIEW]Thomas Tyson - 1990 - Journal of Business Ethics 9 (9):715 - 721.