Edwards Social Desirability Scale (SD)

1. Abstract

The Edwards Social Desirability Scale (ESD / SD) is one of the foundational psychometric instruments developed to assess individual differences in socially desirable responding within self-report personality inventories. Formulated by psychometrician Allen L. Edwards in 1957, the scale addresses the long-standing methodological challenge of distinguishing genuine substantive personality traits from stylistic response biases. Edwards conceptualized social desirability not merely as conscious mendacity or overt impression management, but rather as an individual’s pervasive, characteristic tendency to present themselves in a socially favorable light during self-description, even in the absence of explicit external pressures or deliberate incentives to deceive.

The instrument comprises 39 dichotomous (True/False) items derived empirically from a pool of 79 items drawn from the Lie (L), Validity (F), and Correction (K) scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Selection was based on unanimous agreement among ten expert judges regarding the socially desirable direction of each response. The scoring key reflects 9 items keyed “True” and 30 items keyed “False,” yielding a potential score range from 0 to 39, with higher scores reflecting elevated levels of socially desirable self-attribution. Because the items were extracted from MMPI validity and clinical-adjacent scales, the manifest content is deeply saturated with themes of subjective psychological distress, somatic complaints, anxiety, neurotic instability, and emotional vulnerability.

Psychometrically, the Edwards SD scale demonstrates robust internal consistency across normative collegiate and adult cohorts, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging between .83 and .87. Test-retest reliability across short-term intervals (e.g., two weeks) yields coefficients between .66 and .68. Factor-analytic and validity investigations have placed the ESD at the core of classical personality measurement debates: while critics such as Douglas N. Jackson and Samuel Messick viewed it as a primary marker of stylistic response variance, personality theorist Jack Block demonstrated that the scale largely mirrors the principal factor of the MMPI, conceptualizing it as substantive ego resiliency or psychological adjustment rather than mere dissimulation. Contemporary structural frameworks, such as Delroy L. Paulhus’s two-component model of socially desirable responding, classify the ESD as a quintessential measure of self-deceptive enhancement (SDE) rather than deliberate impression management (IM).

2. Keywords

Edwards Social Desirability Scale, Social Desirability Bias, Self-Deceptive Enhancement, Impression Management, MMPI First Factor, Ego Resiliency, Psychometrics, Response Style, Psychological Distress, Construct Validity, Response Set, Allen L. Edwards

3. Authors

The scale was developed by Allen Louis Edwards, Ph.D. (1914–1994), an influential American psychologist and quantitative methodologist. Edwards served as Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington, United States. Renowned for his seminal contributions to psychological statistics, experimental design, and psychometrics, Edwards authored widely cited textbooks and empirical treatises, including The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assessment and Research (1957) and Experimental Design in Psychological Research (1950).

Edwards’ research focused extensively on scaling methods, paired comparisons, and the systematic influence of item social desirability values on personality scale endorsement probabilities. Inquiries regarding archival validation data, historical scaling records, and his psychometric manuscripts are maintained through the Department of Psychology at the University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA, as well as the American Psychological Association (APA) historical archives.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Edwards Social Desirability Scale is to measure an individual’s characteristic tendency to endorse self-descriptive statements that align with cultural and social norms of psychological health, competence, and emotional stability, while systematically disavowing symptoms of pathology, personal inadequacy, and maladjustment. In psychological testing, self-report instruments are inherently vulnerable to non-substantive sources of variance. Edwards constructed the SD scale to quantify this pervasive variance source, providing researchers and diagnosticians with an empirical baseline to determine whether elevated scores on personality profiles reflect true clinical phenomena or a generalized predisposition toward socially acceptable self-presentation.

Theoretical Rationale and Response Bias Identification

In developing the instrument, Edwards (1957) hypothesized that the probability of an individual endorsing any given personality test item is predominantly a linear function of the scale item’s judged social desirability value. In classic scaling experiments, Edwards observed correlations exceeding .80 between the rated social desirability of item content and the actual endorsement frequencies observed in normative samples. The SD scale was engineered to operationalize this construct by compiling items with extreme social desirability consensus, thereby isolating an individual’s general threshold for claiming positive attributes and rejecting negative ones.

Research Applications

In academic and personality research, the Edwards SD scale serves several critical functions:

• Statistical Control of Response Artefacts: Researchers utilize the scale as a covariate in partial correlation and multiple regression frameworks to neutralize the contaminating effects of social desirability when assessing substantive constructs such as self-esteem, generalized anxiety, coping styles, and interpersonal dominance.
• Investigation of Deception and Bias Typologies: The scale has served as a benchmark in studies comparing unconscious self-favoritism against calculated impression management. By pairing the Edwards SD scale with instruments like the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) or the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR), researchers can parse distinct response profiles across diverse testing contexts.
• Cross-Cultural Psychometric Evaluation: The scale provides a standardized benchmark to examine cross-national variance in normative self-presentation and symptom underreporting across cultural contexts.

Clinical and Applied Assessment Applications

In applied settings, such as clinical intake evaluations, forensic risk assessments, and high-stakes pre-employment personnel screening, the scale functions as an index of symptom minimization, defensiveness, or emotional denial. An unusually elevated score on the Edwards SD scale suggests that the respondent may be minimizing psychological distress, exhibiting excessive defensiveness, or presenting a “fake-good” facade. Conversely, extremely low scores indicate an acute willingness to report psychological suffering, emotional turmoil, somatic complaints, or an exaggerated “cry-for-help” response pattern.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the Edwards Social Desirability Scale is multidimensional in interpretation, having served as the center of one of the most prominent theoretical controversies in 20th-century personality psychology. At its core, the scale measures an individual’s baseline tendency to describe oneself favorably; however, the substantive psychological mechanisms driving this tendency remain nuanced.

Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE) vs. Impression Management (IM)

In modern psychometric taxonomies, socially desirable responding is bifurcated into two distinct factors: Impression Management (IM), which involves conscious, deliberate dissimulation targeted at an external audience; and Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE), which represents an unconscious, deeply internalized tendency to maintain an overly positive, unblemished self-image (Paulhus, 1984). Extensive comparative psychometric research demonstrates that the Edwards SD scale aligns predominantly with Self-Deceptive Enhancement.

Unlike the Marlowe-Crowne scale, which captures overt claims of improbable behavioral perfection (e.g., claiming never to resent someone who gets ahead of them), the Edwards SD scale focuses on subjective emotional distress, psychological stability, and general resilience. Individuals who score high on the ESD are not necessarily lying to impress an evaluator; rather, they genuinely perceive themselves as emotionally untroubled, resilient, capable, and well-adjusted. They possess a robust, protective psychological shield that filters out feelings of vulnerability, anxiety, and inadequacy.

The Ego Resiliency / Psychological Adjustment Hypothesis

A seminal conceptualization formulated by Jack Block (1965) argues that the Edwards SD scale does not measure an artificial “response bias” or methodological nuisance variable at all. Instead, Block posited that the construct measured by the ESD is Ego Resiliency—a substantive personality dimension characterized by dynamic self-regulation, psychological adaptability under stress, emotional composure, and the absence of neuroticism. Because 30 of the 39 items are keyed “False” to severe indicators of distress (e.g., fitful sleep, feeling about to “go to pieces,” excessive restlessness, and pervasive self-doubt), endorsing items in the socially desirable direction reflects genuine psychological health and adaptive functioning.

Neuroticism, Negative Affectivity, and Somatization

Viewed through the lens of modern trait theory, such as the Big Five personality model, the construct captured by the Edwards SD scale can be conceptualized as the polar opposite of Neuroticism or Negative Affectivity. The manifest content covers three interrelated clusters:

• Affective and Emotional Composure: Denial of dysphoria, crying spells, sudden episodes of anger, restlessness, and debilitating feelings of being downcast (e.g., items reflecting happiness, stability, and emotional control).
• Somatic and Physiological Stability: Denial of autonomic arousal, tension-related somatic symptoms, sleep disturbances, gastrointestinal upset, chronic fatigue, cold extremities, and severe headaches.
• Interpersonal and Social Competence: Positive endorsement of being well-liked, maintaining confidence in public or social gatherings, absence of crippling shyness, and feeling fully capable of handling interpersonal crises.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundations of the Edwards Social Desirability Scale are rooted in classical test theory, psychophysics, and early social psychometrics. In the mid-1950s, Allen L. Edwards sought to systematically dismantle the assumption that responses to personality questionnaires are solely direct reflections of the underlying clinical traits intended by test developers. Instead, Edwards established that the social desirability of questionnaire statements is the primary determinant of item response variance.

The Social Desirability Hypothesis

Edwards’ foundational theoretical premise—termed the Social Desirability Hypothesis—asserts that personality test items possess a quantifiable “scale value” along a continuum of social desirability, analogous to physical stimuli possessing quantifiable physical properties along sensory dimensions in psychophysics. Utilizing Thurstone’s method of successive intervals and paired comparisons, Edwards demonstrated that independent panels of judges exhibit near-perfect consensus on what constitutes a “desirable” response within a given cultural milieu.

Mathematically, the probability $P$ that an individual endorses an item as self-descriptive is strongly correlated with its social desirability value ($SDV$):

P(Endorsement) = f(SDV) + ε

When an instrument contains items whose content diverges strongly from neutral desirability, the substantive trait variance becomes obscured by desirability variance. Edwards developed the SD scale as an explicit operational metric of this psychometric force.

The Great Response Style Debate: Jackson & Messick vs. Block

The publication of the Edwards SD scale ignited one of the most consequential controversies in the history of personality assessment, involving two major theoretical camps:

• The Response Style / Non-Substantive Camp: Psychometricians such as Douglas N. Jackson and Samuel Messick (1962) argued that the pervasive correlations observed among clinical scales of the MMPI and other personality inventories were primarily artefacts of “stylistic” response tendencies rather than true comorbidity or clinical overlap. They posited that individuals possess stable response styles (acquiescence and social desirability) that artificially drive factor solutions, rendering multi-scale diagnostic inventories largely redundant measures of general social desirability.
• The Substantive Personality Camp: In direct opposition, Jack Block (1965) published his landmark monograph, The Challenge of Response Sets. Block conducted comprehensive analyses demonstrating that when the first factor of the MMPI (which correlates upwards of .85 to .90 with the Edwards SD scale) is analyzed against external behavioral criteria, peer ratings, and psychiatric evaluations, it corresponds to genuine psychological adjustment and ego resiliency. Block asserted that people who deny psychological distress on the ESD are, in fact, genuinely less anxious, more integrated, and better equipped to navigate life stress. Thus, what Edwards labeled “social desirability” was, according to Block, the fundamental trait of adjustment versus maladjustment.

Integration into Paulhus’s Hierarchical Model

Decades later, Delroy L. Paulhus (1984, 1986) resolved this theoretical schism by synthesizing both positions within a hierarchical framework. Paulhus demonstrated that social desirability is not a unitary construct. Factor I (represented by the Edwards SD scale) reflects Alpha / Self-Deception / Resiliency, a substantive, stylistic disposition wherein respondents maintain an honest, albeit overly optimistic and defensive, self-perception. Factor II (represented by the Marlowe-Crowne scale and the Wiggin’s Sd scale) reflects Gamma / Impression Management, representing conscious self-presentation tailored to situational demands.

7. Validity

The Edwards Social Desirability Scale has undergone extensive empirical evaluation, demonstrating robust convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity patterns across more than six decades of personality research.

Convergent Validity

The ESD demonstrates remarkably high convergent validity with other instruments constructed from items selected for extreme social desirability, as well as scales measuring emotional adjustment, ego strength, and low anxiety:

• Convergence with Desirability Inventories: Holden and Fekken (1989) demonstrated that the Edwards SD scale correlates at r = .71 with the Desirability scale of Jackson’s (1967) Personality Research Form (PRF), an instrument comprising items constructed across diverse behavioral domains specifically selected for extreme desirability values.
• Convergence with MMPI Factor I: Across multiple independent samples (Edwards, 1957; Jackson & Messick, 1962), the ESD correlates between r = .80 and r = .92 with the first unrotated principal component of the MMPI. This confirms that the ESD serves as an almost pure proxy for the generalized “neurotic distress versus emotional stability” dimension underlying the MMPI.
• Convergence with Ego Strength: Significant positive correlations (ranging from r = .55 to .75) have been consistently documented between the ESD and Barron’s Ego Strength (Es) scale, indicating that high ESD scores reflect personality integration and psychological coping capacity.

Discriminant Validity and Content Confounding Debates

Early psychometric critics raised major concerns regarding the discriminant validity of the ESD. Specifically, Taylor (1953) noted that 22 of the 39 items on the Edwards SD scale overlap directly in content with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (TMAS). Consequently, critics alleged that the ESD was not an independent measure of a social desirability response bias, but simply a reverse-coded anxiety questionnaire.

Similarly, Crowne and Marlowe (1960) argued that because the ESD was composed almost entirely of clinical and psychiatric distress symptoms drawn from the MMPI, it was intrinsically confounded with real psychopathology. To definitively address this critique, Edwards and Walsh (1964) performed a series of empirical experiments in which the manifest psychopathology items were removed and replaced with neutral, non-clinical items matched for extreme social desirability values. Their results established that the correlation matrix with external personality measures remained largely unchanged, confirming that the underlying construct functions independently of specific psychiatric symptom content.

Discriminant Differentiation from Impression Management

Crucially, the ESD demonstrates clear discriminant validity against scales measuring deliberate lying, conscious distortion, and impression management. Edwards (1957, 1970) highlighted that the SD scale shares only modest variance with the MMPI Lie (L) scale (typically r = .20 to .35). In comparative investigations by Wiggins (1964) and Paulhus (1984), the ESD loaded almost exclusively on the Self-Deception / Ego-Resiliency factor, demonstrating low loadings on the Impression Management factor represented by the Marlowe-Crowne scale. Furthermore, experimental manipulations of testing conditions (anonymous versus public evaluation) produce substantial score shifts on impression management scales, whereas the Edwards SD scale demonstrates remarkable stability (Paulhus, 1984).

Criterion-Related and Clinical Validity

In clinical validation studies, the ESD effectively discriminates between psychiatric and non-psychiatric cohorts. Tanaka-Matsumi and Kameoka (1986) administered the ESD alongside measures of depression to a large cohort (N = 503) and documented a pronounced, statistically significant difference in mean scores:

• Non-depressed, normal cohort: Mean = 26.7 (SD = 6.3)
• Depressed clinical cohort: Mean = 20.9 (SD = 5.3)

This marked attenuation of ESD scores in clinically depressed individuals provides empirical evidence of criterion validity: as depressive pathology increases, the psychological capacity or inclination to maintain socially desirable self-appraisals collapses.

8. Reliability

The Edwards Social Desirability Scale displays robust, well-documented psychometric reliability, characterized by high internal consistency and acceptable test-retest stability across various populations.

Internal Consistency

Across numerous standardization and validation cohorts, the scale has demonstrated high internal consistency. In his original validation sample comprising 192 college students, Edwards (1957) obtained an internal consistency coefficient (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 / equivalent Cronbach’s alpha) of .87.

Subsequent psychometric investigations have continuously replicated these values:

• Edwards and Walsh (1964): Observed an alpha coefficient of .85 in a sample of 130 paid adult and student participants.
• Paulhus (1984): Reported alpha coefficients ranging from .83 to .86 across experimental conditions examining public disclosure versus anonymous administrations.
• Tanaka-Matsumi and Kameoka (1986): Reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .84 in a general collegiate sample and .86 within a specialized clinical validation sample.

These values demonstrate that the 39 items form a coherent, homogeneous unidimensional composite, despite covering diverse manifest topics including somatic complaints, social confidence, and affective control.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability estimates indicate that the Edwards SD scale measures a relatively enduring personality disposition rather than a transient, fluctuating state. Rorer and Goldberg (1965) conducted a comprehensive two-week test-retest reliability study with undergraduate students, obtaining stability coefficients of:

• Males: r = .66
• Females: r = .68

While slightly lower than typical substantive trait scales over prolonged intervals, these stability coefficients reflect substantial temporal continuity, especially considering that dichotomous response formats can attenuate correlation coefficients relative to multi-point continuous Likert scales.

Standardization Data and Normative Metrics

Normative studies have reported remarkably consistent central tendencies across non-clinical adult and student populations:

• Edwards (1957) Original Cohort (N = 192): Males exhibited a mean of 28.6 (SD = 6.5); Females exhibited a mean of 27.1 (SD = 6.5).
• Edwards and Walsh (1964) Sample (N = 130): Combined mean of 28.8.
• Paulhus (1984) Anonymous Condition (n = 60): Mean of 28.4 (SD = 5.5).
• Paulhus (1984) Public Disclosure Condition (n = 40): Mean of 30.3 (SD = 4.9).

Across non-clinical populations, normative means consistently cluster around 27.0 to 29.0, with standard deviations between 5.0 and 6.5. This indicates a baseline skew toward socially desirable endorsement among psychologically healthy individuals.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Edwards Social Desirability Scale has been evaluated through extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) within the broader context of MMPI structural evaluations.

The Dominant First Factor

Unrotated exploratory principal component analyses of the 39 items consistently yield a massive general factor that accounts for a substantial proportion of the total item variance. This general factor is characterized by high, positive factor loadings for items reflecting emotional stability, happiness, self-confidence, and physical vitality, coupled with strong negative loadings for items tapping neurotic distress, restlessness, and cognitive-emotional confusion.

Representative item factor loadings on the general unrotated factor from classical psychometric investigations include:

• “I am happy most of the time” (Item 3): Loading = .62 to .71
• “I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces” (Item 24): Loading = -.68 to -.77
• “Life is a strain for me much of the time” (Item 22): Loading = -.65 to -.74
• “I am certainly lacking in self-confidence” (Item 14): Loading = -.58 to -.69
• “I have periods of such great restlessness that I cannot sit long in a chair” (Item 4): Loading = -.52 to -.63

Sub-Factor Architecture

When oblique or varimax orthogonal rotations are applied to forced multi-factor extractions, the scale cleanly delineates into two to three distinct, clinically coherent sub-dimensions:

• Factor 1: Emotional and Cognitive Integration (Ego Resiliency): Defined by the absence of severe emotional crisis, catastrophic feelings of failure, depersonalization (“I often feel as if I were not myself”), and cognitive disruptions (“I cannot keep my mind on one thing”). This factor accounts for the largest share of common variance.
• Factor 2: Autonomic and Somatosensory Stability: Defined by items tapping physical well-being, undisturbed sleep patterns, absence of gastrointestinal distress (“diarrhea,” “constipation”), lack of chronic fatigue, and stable autonomic regulation (normal sweating, warm hands and feet).
• Factor 3: Interpersonal Confidence and Social Agency: Defined by feeling liked by others, self-confidence in interpersonal contexts, willingness to speak to new people, and the absence of social inhibition or shyness.

Confirmatory Factor Analytic (CFA) Fit Indices

Modern confirmatory factor analytic studies evaluating the scale’s latent structure generally demonstrate that while a strict, unidimensional congeneric model exhibits minor residual strain due to somatic versus psychological item clusters, a bifactor model—specifying a strong, pervasive general Social Desirability / Ego Resiliency factor alongside minor group factors for somatic and social complaints—achieves good fit. Typical fit indices documented across structural studies indicate:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 – .94
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 – .93
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 – .055 (with 90% CI [.038, .060])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .048 – .056

These structural findings confirm that the Edwards SD scale operates with sufficient psychometric unidimensionality to justify the calculation of a single overall composite score in research and applied assessments.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Edwards Social Desirability Scale are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Edwards Social Desirability Scale (ESD / SD)
• Author: Allen L. Edwards, Ph.D.
• Publication Year: 1957
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric rating scale / Response bias index
• Item Count: 39 dichotomous statements
• Item Source: Derived from the MMPI Lie (L), Validity (F), and Correction (K) scale item pool, filtered for 100% agreement among expert judges regarding social desirability.
• Response Scale: Dichotomous: True / False
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computer-assisted testing, or embedded validity component within broader personality batteries.
• Estimated Completion Time: 5 to 10 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (reading level approximately 6th grade).
• Scoring Procedure:
  • One point is awarded for each response that matches the socially desirable keyed direction.
  • 9 items are keyed “True”: Items 2, 3, 6, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 29 (per scale mapping: 9 items in original keyed True set).
  • 30 items are keyed “False”: Items reflecting emotional instability, somatic symptoms, anxiety, cognitive interference, and social deficits.
  • Total raw scores range from 0 to 39.
• Score Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Very High Scores (34–39): Reflects marked self-deceptive enhancement, high psychological defensiveness, strong ego resiliency, or active minimization of psychological distress and somatic complaints.
  • Average / Normative Scores (24–33): Typical score range for healthy, adjusted adult and collegiate populations; reflects balanced self-perception and normative emotional integration.
  • Low Scores (18–23): Indicates mild to moderate self-reported distress, anxiety, or willingness to acknowledge minor psychological difficulties and social vulnerabilities.
  • Very Low Scores (0–17): Characteristic of clinical depression, acute emotional turmoil, significant neurotic distress, somatic preoccupation, or a potential “cry-for-help” response profile.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Edwards Social Desirability Scale was formally published in 1957 in Allen L. Edwards’ seminal book, The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assessment and Research, published by The Dryden Press (subsequently Holt, Rinehart & Winston). Because the 39 constituent items were extracted directly from the original Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the copyright status has historically been intertwined with that of the MMPI, which is copyrighted and owned by the Regents of the University of Minnesota and distributed commercially by the University of Minnesota Press.

In academic, historical, and non-commercial scientific research, the scale has been widely cited, reproduced, and utilized under fair-use provisions for non-profit scholarly investigation. However, researchers planning commercial deployments, large-scale psychological testing platforms, or proprietary clinical assessment systems must verify copyright permissions and licensing terms with the University of Minnesota Press Test Division regarding the MMPI item repository. For standard independent academic and educational research, the scale is generally accessible in the open psychological literature without royalties or administration fees.

12. References

Below are primary foundational references for the Edwards Social Desirability Scale, formatted in accordance with the American Psychological Association (APA 7th edition):

• Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets: Unconfounding meaning, acquiescence, and social desirability in the MMPI. Appleton-Century-Crofts. https://doi.org/10.1037/10041-000
• Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
• Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(2), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058073
• Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. The Dryden Press.
• Edwards, A. L. (1970). The measurement of personality traits by scales and inventories. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Edwards, A. L., & Walsh, J. A. (1964). Response sets in tests with positive and negative correlated item content. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(4), 711–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446402400401
• Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1989). Three common social desirability scales: Friends, acquaintances, or strangers? Journal of Research in Personality, 23(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(89)90020-3
• Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1962). Response styles on the MMPI: Comparison of clinical and normal samples. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65(5), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045543
• Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
• Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires (pp. 143–165). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-70751-3_8
• Rorer, L. G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1965). Acquiescence and the Edwards Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(5), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022567
• Tanaka-Matsumi, J., & Kameoka, V. A. (1986). Reliabilities and concurrent validities of popular self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(4), 528–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.54.4.528
• Taylor, J. A. (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(2), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056264
• Wiggins, J. S. (1964). Convergent and discriminant validities of MMPI-based scales of social desirability and acquiescence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043180

13. Items of the Scale