Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSD)

1. Abstract

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSD), developed by Douglas P. Crowne and David Marlowe in 1960, is one of the most widely utilized psychometric instruments designed to assess social desirability response bias and the personality trait known as need for approval or evaluative dependence. Originally constructed as an alternative to the Edwards Social Desirability Scale—which was heavily confounded by psychopathological content from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)—the MCSD evaluates self-presentation tendencies using 33 culturally defined, non-pathological behaviors. The instrument presents respondents with 33 statements describing either culturally approved behaviors that have a low probability of actual occurrence (e.g., admitting mistakes in all circumstances) or culturally disapproved behaviors that possess a high baseline rate of occurrence (e.g., occasional resentment or gossip).

The scale employs a dichotomous True/False response format. Scores range from 0 to 33, where higher cumulative scores reflect an elevated propensity to engage in defensive self-presentation, impression management, or an intense psychological drive to secure interpersonal validation and avoid disapproval. Psychometrically, the MCSD demonstrates robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically spanning .73 to .88 across college, community, and vocational cohorts, alongside strong test-retest reliability ($r = .84$ to $.88$ across intervals up to one month). Although originally conceptualized as a unidimensional metric of response distortion, contemporary structural equation modeling and exploratory factor analyses consistently uncover a dual-factor architecture: Attribution (claiming socially sanctionable positive traits) and Denial (repudiating universally experienced negative impulses). In addition to functioning as a statistical control covariate for response contamination in self-report research, the MCSD remains an influential measure of the approval-dependent personality, predicting heightened susceptibility to social conformity, persuasion, and defense mechanisms.

2. Keywords

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, MCSD, social desirability bias, response distortion, impression management, need for approval, evaluative dependence, psychometrics, self-report validity, attribution and denial.

3. Authors

The scale was developed collaboratively by Douglas P. Crowne and David Marlowe. At the time of the instrument’s inception and validation in 1960 at The Ohio State University, Crowne served in the Department of Psychology, conducting research centered on personality assessment, social learning, and behavioral conformity. Marlowe, also affiliated with The Ohio State University during the instrument’s formative empirical trials, later held academic appointments at institutions including the University of Kentucky and Harvard University, focusing extensively on experimental social psychology, interpersonal dynamics, and clinical evaluation.

Crowne and Marlowe continued their empirical collaboration throughout the 1960s, culminating in their seminal monograph, The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence (1964). In subsequent decades, Crowne expanded the conceptualization of the scale toward an avoidance-of-disapproval model at the University of Waterloo, while Marlowe contributed to broader investigations in clinical and personality assessment.

4. Purpose

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale was engineered to resolve a profound methodological and psychometric limitation in self-report assessment: the confounding of response bias with manifest psychopathology. In 1957, Allen L. Edwards introduced a widely cited social desirability scale composed of items extracted from the MMPI. However, because Edwards’ items contrasted overt psychiatric symptoms with benign emotional states, an individual scoring low on Edwards’ scale was frequently experiencing genuine clinical distress rather than displaying frankness, while high scorers reflected emotional stability rather than dissimulation. Crowne and Marlowe (1960) recognized that to isolate the intentional or habitual distortion of self-reports from true mental health status, an instrument needed to be constructed using socially relevant, mundane behaviors devoid of psychiatric morbidity.

The primary clinical, research, and organizational purposes of the MCSD include:

• Detection of Response Distortion in Research: Serving as a validity check or covariate in survey research across organizational behavior, social psychology, clinical trials, and health outcomes. By partialling out MCSD scores, researchers can determine whether self-reported relationships between variables represent genuine psychological associations rather than shared variance attributable to positive self-presentation.
• Assessment of Approval Motivation and Evaluative Dependence: Beyond functioning as a methodological lie detector, the MCSD serves as a substantive personality inventory. Individuals who score highly on the scale are not merely dissembling; they possess an intense psychological need to gain social acceptance, avoid criticism, and maintain protective self-esteem through conformity.
• Personnel and Forensic Evaluation: In high-stakes assessment contexts—such as pre-employment screening for law enforcement, military positions, or child custody evaluations—the MCSD identifies applicants who deliberately engage in impression management, claiming behavioral perfection while denying standard human frailties.
• Clinical Diagnostic Contexts: In psychotherapy and psychological assessment, elevated MCSD scores highlight rigid emotional defenses, reluctance to acknowledge distressing affects, and potential non-compliance with therapeutic regimens that require vulnerability.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the MCSD has undergone substantial theoretical evolution since its introduction in 1960. While initially defined narrowly as socially desirable responding (SDR)—the tendency of individuals to project favorable self-images on self-report questionnaires—Crowne and Marlowe’s subsequent programmatic research revealed that SDR is not merely an ephemeral testing artifact. Instead, it reflects an enduring, broad-spectrum personality trait designated as the need for approval (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) and later refined as avoidance of disapproval (Crowne, 1979).

The Dual-Component Model: Attribution vs. Denial

Extensive psychometric investigations (e.g., Millham, 1974; Paulhus & Reid, 1991; Roth et al., 1986) demonstrate that the MCSD measures two distinct psychological processes:

• Attribution (Claiming the Positive): This dimension comprises items keyed “True” that reflect culturally valued, pro-social behaviors that are exceptionally rare in actual practice. Examples include asserting that one thoroughly investigates all political candidates before voting or never hesitates to go out of one’s way to help someone in distress. Individuals high in attribution proactively construct a saintly persona, projecting competence, altruism, and absolute moral rectitude.
• Denial (Repudiating the Negative): This dimension consists of items keyed “False” that involve common, minor transgressions, negative affective reactions, or universal human flaws. Examples include denying ever feeling resentful when not getting one’s way, denying having ever disliked anyone, or asserting that one never gossips. Individuals high in denial rely on repressive coping strategies, defensively insulating themselves against the acknowledgment of socially sanctioned flaws.

Impression Management vs. Self-Deceptive Enhancement

Within Delroy L. Paulhus’s influential two-factor taxonomy of social desirability, the MCSD aligns predominantly with Impression Management (IM) rather than Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE). While SDE represents an honest, unconscious overestimation of one’s personal capabilities and resilience (frequently correlating with low neuroticism and high narcissism), Impression Management reflects deliberate, conscious tailoring of public answers to satisfy perceived external audiences. High MCSD scorers are intensely attuned to external standards of propriety, showing remarkable behavioral malleability depending on whether their actions are observed publicly or monitored anonymously.

6. Theoretical Framework

The MCSD is grounded conceptually in Julian Rotter’s Social Learning Theory (Rotter, 1954), which posited that behavior is determined by the expectancy that a given action will lead to specific reinforcements and the subjective psychological value attached to those reinforcements. Crowne and Marlowe operationalized the approval motive within this framework: individuals differ systematically in the generalized expectancy that social acceptance can be achieved by adhering strictly to norm-congruent behaviors and avoiding interpersonal conflict.

The Avoidance of Disapproval Paradigm

Although early formulations emphasized the active pursuit of positive praise (“approval seeking”), empirical observations shifted the core theoretical emphasis to a defensive, risk-averse model centered on avoiding social disapproval (Allaman et al., 1972; Crowne, 1979; Millham & Jacobson, 1978). Individuals with high MCSD scores exhibit profound vulnerability to negative evaluation. When faced with evaluative threat, they deploy defensive maneuvers: they conform readily to group pressures, comply with authoritative figures even when those figures are objectively incorrect, suppress outward hostility, and systematically avoid interpersonal confrontation.

In experimental settings, high approval-motivated individuals show marked behavioral differences compared to low scorers:

• Responsiveness to Social Reinforcement: High scorers display rapid verbal conditioning when experimenters provide subtle cues of approval (such as nodding or saying “good”).
• Aggression Inhibition: When provoked or insulted, high scorers suppress punitive or hostile reactions, particularly in the presence of an authority figure or peer observer.
• Task Performance Under Evaluation: Their cognitive performance improves significantly when praise is contingent on performance, but deteriorates markedly when exposed to negative criticism or public scrutiny.

7. Validity

Over six decades of empirical research have established strong evidence for the convergent, discriminant, construct, and criterion-related validity of the MCSD across diverse settings.

Convergent Validity

The scale correlates significantly with other instruments measuring impression management, social compliance, and defensive self-presentation. Paulhus (1984) demonstrated that the MCSD correlates strongly ($r = .60$ to $.75$) with the Impression Management subscale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR), confirming its operationalization as an index of audience-focused self-monitoring. Furthermore, the MCSD correlates moderately with the Lie (L) Scale and the Defensiveness (K) Scale of the MMPI ($r pprox .50$), while maintaining its intended distinction from gross psychopathology.

Discriminant Validity

Crucially, Crowne and Marlowe (1960) established that the MCSD shared markedly lower correlations with standard clinical pathology scales than Edwards’ Social Desirability scale. While Edwards SD correlated intensely ($r = -.84$) with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and various MMPI neurosis indices, the MCSD’s correlation with manifest anxiety typically hovered around $r = -.40$, demonstrating that it does not merely function as an inverted measure of emotional instability. In modern structural models, the MCSD shows low to near-zero correlations with non-evaluative cognitive abilities, perceptual speed, and general intelligence.

Construct and Criterion Validity

The behavioral correlates of the scale provide compelling construct validity:

• Audience Sensitivity: Paulhus (1984) demonstrated that mean MCSD scores increased significantly when respondents transitioned from anonymous conditions ($M = 13.3$, $SD = 4.3$) to public disclosure conditions ($M = 15.5$, $SD = 4.6$), documenting the scale’s acute sensitivity to external evaluation demands.
• Objective Discrepancy Studies: In a landmark study by Kiecolt-Glaser and Murray (1980), participants engaged in assertiveness training. Following the program, high MCSD participants rated themselves as significantly more assertive than low scorers, yet blind behavioral trainers rated the high scorers as significantly less assertive, demonstrating the presence of defensive distortion.
• Spousal and Peer Ratings: McCrae and Costa (1983) examined the scale within married couples. Interestingly, while spouses corroborated that high MCSD scorers exhibited genuine agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, the self-ratings of the high scorers systematically exaggerated these qualities beyond the spouses’ independent observations.

8. Reliability

The MCSD demonstrates high psychometric reliability across internal consistency metrics and temporal stability indices across varied demographic samples.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation cohort of 39 undergraduate students, Crowne and Marlowe (1960) reported an internal consistency coefficient of $.88$ using the Kuder-Richardson formula 20 (KR-20). Subsequent large-scale investigations across community and educational strata have consistently documented Cronbach’s alpha values ranging between $.73$ and $.88$:

• Crowne and Marlowe (1964): $lpha = .88$ ($N = 300$ university students; $M = 15.5$, $SD = 4.4$).
• Fisher (1967): $lpha = .83$ in a sample of 650 Peace Corps trainees (males: $M = 16.1$, $SD = 6.8$; females: $M = 16.4$, $SD = 6.5$).
• Tanaka-Matsumi and Kameoka (1986): $lpha = .78$ in non-depressed respondents ($M = 14.0$) and $lpha = .76$ in depressed cohorts ($M = 12.3$).

Test-Retest Reliability

The temporal stability of the MCSD confirms that it measures an enduring disposition rather than transient psychological states. Crowne and Marlowe (1964) established a test-retest reliability coefficient of $r = .88$ over a 1-month interval among college students. Similarly, Fisher (1967) reported a test-retest correlation of $r = .84$ over a 1-week re-administration period among Peace Corps volunteers.

9. Factor Analysis

Although the MCSD was initially designed under the assumption of unidimensionality, comprehensive factor analytic investigations—spanning exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)—have demonstrated that a multidimensional structure best characterizes the 33-item inventory.

Exploratory Factor Solutions

Early EFA studies (e.g., Millham, 1974; Ramanaiah et al., 1977) identified two robust, replicable orthogonal factors accounting for the majority of the common variance:

1. Attribution Factor: Primarily defined by the items keyed “True.” These items reflect the active endorsement of highly improbable, socially idealized virtues (e.g., Item 1: thorough pre-vote candidate investigations; Item 16: always admitting mistakes). Standard factor loadings on this dimension range from $.42$ to $.68$.
2. Denial Factor: Primarily defined by items keyed “False.” These items encompass the repudiation of normative, mildly disruptive interpersonal sentiments (e.g., Item 6: feeling resentful when denied one’s way; Item 11: enjoying occasional gossip). Loadings on this factor range between $.38$ and $.65$.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Modern CFA investigations evaluating the unidimensional versus two-factor models have consistently confirmed the superiority of the two-factor attribution-denial structure. While the single-factor model exhibits inadequate fit ($\chi^2 / df > 3.5$, $ ext{CFI} < .80$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .08$), the correlated two-factor model yields markedly improved fit indices ($ ext{CFI} ge .90$,$ ext{TLI} ge .88$,$ ext{RMSEA} pprox .048$ to $.055$). Several short-form derivatives (such as the Reynolds 11-, 12-, or 13-item forms and the Strahan-Gerbasi 10-item version) were specifically constructed through factor analysis to eliminate items with weak primary loadings or cross-loadings, yielding more parsimonious single- or two-factor instruments with comparable psychometric integrity.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale is structured as follows:

• Test Type: Standardized self-report inventory / response bias assessment scale.
• Item Count: 33 dichotomous items.
• Response Scale: Dichotomous: True / False.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 16 and older).
• Scoring Procedure:
  • One point is awarded for each response keyed in the socially desirable direction.
  • Items keyed True (1 point if answered True): 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 32, 33.
  • Items keyed False (1 point if answered False): 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31.
  • Total Score Range: 0 to 33.
  • Interpretation Norms:
    • Scores 0–8 (Low): Unusually candid; minimal concern with social approval; non-defensive; willing to admit common human failings.
    • Scores 9–19 (Average): Typical adult balance between self-protection and honest self-appraisal; normative conformity.
    • Scores 20–33 (High): High need for social approval; defensive self-presentation; pronounced tendency toward impression management and denial of negative affects.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale was published in 1960 in the Journal of Consulting Psychology (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Under standard psychometric conventions and academic fair-use guidelines, the original 33-item scale and its abbreviated derivatives reside in the public domain for non-commercial academic, research, and educational applications. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required to administer, score, or analyze the standard scale in empirical research. However, clinical practitioners utilizing commercial psychometric platforms incorporating the MCSD must adhere to standard professional test-purchasing protocols. Proper academic citation of the original authors (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, 1964) is universally required when reporting data derived from the instrument.

12. References

• Allaman, J. D., Joyce, C. S., & Crandall, V. C. (1972). The antecedents of social desirability response tendencies of children and young adults. Child Development, 43(4), 1135–1160. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127506
• Crowne, D. P. (1979). The experimental study of personality. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• 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
• Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. John Wiley & Sons.
• Davis, C., & Cowles, M. (1989). Automated psychological testing: Method of administration, need for approval, and measures of anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, 5(3), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0747-5632(89)90013-4
• Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Dryden Press.
• Fisher, G. (1967). Response set in the measurement of self-concept. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23(4), 488–489. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(196710)23:4<488::AID-JCLP2270230424>3.0.CO;2-H
• Jacobson, L. I., Berger, S. E., & Millham, J. (1970). Individual differences in cheating during a temptation period when opportunity to cheat is counterbalanced. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35(2), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029969
• Katkin, E. S. (1964). The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale: A measure of approval need or a measure of psychopathology? Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28(6), 563. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047395
• Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Murray, L. D. (1980). Social desirability bias in self-report of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy, 11(5), 701–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(80)80009-4
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(4), 882–888. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.882
• Millham, J. (1974). Two components of need for approval: Defensive style and approval-seeking. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83(4), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036720
• Millham, J., & Jacobson, L. I. (1978). The need for approval. In H. London & J. E. Exner (Eds.), Dimensions of personality (pp. 365–390). John Wiley & Sons.
• Millham, J., & Kellogg, R. W. (1980). Need for approval and defensive denial. Journal of Research in Personality, 14(4), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(80)90004-9
• 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., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.307
• Ramanaiah, N. V., Schill, T., & Leung, L. S. (1977). A test of the hypothesis about the two-dimensional nature of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 11(2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(77)90035-7
• Riggio, R. E., Salinas, C., & Tucker, J. (1988). Personality and deception ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(1), 189–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(88)90045-8
• Roth, D. L., Snyder, C. R., & Pace, P. W. (1986). Dimensions of favorable self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 867–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.867
• Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1037/11388-000
• Strickland, B. R. (1977). Approval motivation. In T. Blass (Ed.), Personality variables in social behavior (pp. 315–356). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• 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

13. Items of the Scale