Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS)

{n “title”: “Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS)”,n “content”: “

1. Abstract

\n

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS), developed by psychometricians Douglas P. Crowne and David Marlowe in 1960, represents one of the most widely cited and psychometrically validated self-report instruments designed to assess social desirability bias and the individual need for social approval. Diverging fundamentally from earlier instruments such as Allen L. Edwards’ Social Desirability Scale—which drew items predominantly from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and thereby conflated social desirability with psychiatric morbidity—the MCSDS was constructed to be strictly independent of psychopathology. Comprising 33 dichotomous (True/False) items, the scale captures behaviors that are culturally approved but possess an extraordinarily low probability of constant occurrence, alongside behaviors that are culturally disapproved but represent nearly universal human fallibilities.

\n\n

Structurally, psychometric evaluations confirm that the MCSDS operates across two dominant thematic vectors: Attribution (the endorsement of highly improbable, socially sanctioned virtues) and Denial (the refutation of universal, minor social transgressions). Psychometrically, the instrument exhibits strong internal consistency, historically yielding Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) coefficients ranging from .82 to .88 across diverse populations, and a one-month test-retest reliability coefficient of .89. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that while the scale often functions pragmatically as a unidimensional metric of evaluative dependence, two-factor and bifactor models isolating attribution and denial provide superior empirical fit. Serving both as a methodological covariate to detect and control for response distortion (faking good and impression management) and as a substantive personality measure assessing need for social approval and interpersonal conformity, the MCSDS remains an essential benchmark in behavioral, organizational, and clinical research methodology.

\n\n

2. Keywords

\n

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, MCSDS, social desirability bias, response set, need for approval, evaluative dependence, impression management, self-deceptive enhancement, psychometrics, scale validity, attribution and denial

\n\n

3. Authors

\n

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale was authored by Douglas P. Crowne and David Marlowe. Crowne completed his doctoral training in psychology and subsequently served as a prominent faculty member in the Department of Psychology at the Ohio State University and later the University of Connecticut. David Marlowe conducted extensive research within clinical and experimental psychology at Harvard University and Dartmouth College. Their collaboration in the late 1950s and early 1960s crystallized in their foundational 1960 monograph published in the Journal of Consulting Psychology, titled \”A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology,\” and culminated in their seminal book, The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). Inquiries regarding historical validation data and archival instrumentation are routinely directed through scholarly psychological archives and university library repositories preserving the Crowne-Marlowe research estate.

\n\n

4. Purpose

\n

The principal objective of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale is to quantify an individual’s tendency to present themselves in an unrealistically favorable social light, reflecting either a conscious form of impression management or an unconscious personality manifestation known as the need for approval or evaluative dependence. In psychological measurement, self-report inventories are perennially vulnerable to non-content-related response biases. When individuals complete personality, clinical, or behavioral questionnaires, their responses can be heavily contaminated by the perceived social acceptability of the items rather than their true, objective behavioral tendencies. The MCSDS was engineered to systematically unmask this contamination.

\n\n

Historically, researchers faced a methodological dilemma when attempting to control for self-favoring response sets. Prior tools, such as the Edwards Social Desirability Scale (1957), relied heavily on items reflecting overt psychiatric distress, depression, and neuroticism. Consequently, an individual who scored low on the Edwards scale was frequently not merely \”truthful\” or free from bias, but rather symptomatic of genuine clinical psychopathology. Crowne and Marlowe recognized that an instrument designed to measure social desirability must possess content that is culturally valued yet functionally detached from psychiatric diagnostic criteria. The purpose of the MCSDS was therefore to establish a pure baseline of normative self-enhancement, measuring the degree to which an examinee claims possession of saintly, culturally venerated habits while systematically disavowing ubiquitous human shortcomings.

\n\n

In modern behavioral science, the MCSDS serves two distinct operational functions:

\n

\n
• Methodological Control and Covariate Screening: In organizational psychology, pre-employment screening, forensic psychology, and survey research, the MCSDS is routinely embedded in testing batteries as a validity scale. By treating the total MCSDS score as a statistical covariate—or utilizing predetermined cut-off scores—researchers can partial out common method variance, identify invalid protocols driven by conscious dissimulation (\”faking good\”), and suppress error variance in structural equation models.

\n

• Substantive Trait Measurement: Beyond its role as an artifact detector, Crowne and Marlowe conceptualized social desirability as a stable, meaningful personality construct. Individuals exhibiting elevated scores on the MCSDS demonstrate generalized evaluative dependence. In clinical, social, and developmental frameworks, this manifests as an intense susceptibility to social influence, heightened behavioral conformity, vulnerability to persuasive communications, active avoidance of interpersonal conflict, and rigid adherence to perceived social conventions.

\n

\n\n

5. Psychological Construct

\n

The psychological construct measured by the MCSDS is multidimensional in operational execution, capturing both an active self-presentational orientation and an underlying motivational vulnerability. Crowne and Marlowe originally defined this construct as the Approval Motive—an individual’s generalized expectancy that seeking social approval and avoiding social disapproval will lead to positive reinforcements, coupled with an intense fear of social rejection. Later psychometric theorists, notably Delroy L. Paulhus (1984, 1991), positioned the Marlowe-Crowne instrument at the nexus of two related yet distinct psychological mechanisms: Impression Management (conscious, purposeful dissimulation designed to maintain social face before an external audience) and Self-Deceptive Enhancement (an unconscious, ego-protective tendency to genuinely perceive oneself as uniquely moral, competent, and altruistic).

\n\n

The Dual Components: Attribution and Denial

\n

Psychometric decomposition of the MCSDS items reveals that the construct is operationalized across two specific behavioral strategies: Attribution and Denial. These mechanisms represent complementary facets of a respondent’s self-regulatory facade.

\n\n

1. Attribution (Claiming the Improbable Virtue): Attribution reflects an individual’s explicit endorsement of socially sanctioned, culturally idealized behaviors that are so extraordinarily demanding or unselfish that virtually no human displays them consistently across all situations. In the MCSDS, 18 of the 33 items assess attribution and are keyed as \”True.\” An individual scoring high on attribution claims an impeccably pristine moral record. For example:

\n

\n
• Item 2: \”I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble.\” (To claim that one never hesitates under any circumstance, regardless of personal safety, timing, or context, reflects an extreme overstatement of altruistic consistency).

\n

• Item 17: \”I always try to practice what I preach.\” (Absolute cognitive and behavioral consistency without moral failing).

\n

• Item 21: \”I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.\” (Complete suppression of natural irritation in the face of interpersonal hostility).

\n

\n\n

2. Denial (Disowning the Universal Fallibility): Denial involves the active repudiation of minor, ubiquitous human vices, transient lapses of character, or everyday self-serving instincts that virtually all individuals experience in normal social functioning. In the MCSDS, 15 of the 33 items assess denial and are keyed as \”False.\” A respondent who achieves a high denial score rejects any admission of common social transgressions, portraying themselves as completely devoid of pettiness, resentment, or vulnerability. For instance:

\n

\n
• Item 6: \”I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way.\” (Denying this statement asserts that one has never experienced even momentary frustration over thwarted self-interest).

\n

• Item 11: \”I like to gossip at times.\” (Denying this statement rejects participation in one of the most widespread social bonding mechanisms across all human societies).

\n

• Item 14: \”I can remember ‘playing sick’ to get out of something.\” (Refusing to acknowledge even childhood avoidance behaviors).

\n

\n\n

When an individual systematically combines high attribution with high denial, the resulting psychometric profile does not denote extraordinary moral purity; rather, it identifies an individual deeply entrenched in defensive self-protection, possessing an acute fear of negative evaluation and an overwhelming compulsion to project an idealized social facade.

\n\n

6. Theoretical Framework

\n

The theoretical architecture of the MCSDS is deeply anchored in Julian Rotter’s Social Learning Theory (Rotter, 1954). Rotter posited that human behavior is a function of the expectancy of reinforcement and the subjective value assigned to that reinforcement within specific psychological situations. Crowne and Marlowe extended this paradigm to social interaction, asserting that interpersonal behavior is governed by an overarching motivational disposition: the need for approval.

\n\n

In the Crowne-Marlowe framework, individuals do not respond to personality inventories purely on the basis of cognitive self-knowledge; rather, the test-taking situation itself constitutes an evaluative social interaction. The psychological tester, the research experimenter, or the potential employer represents an evaluative authority figure. For individuals with an elevated approval motive, the primary reinforcement sought in this context is the positive evaluation (or the non-disapproval) of the authority. Consequently, the act of completing a questionnaire becomes a goal-directed behavior aimed at securing perceived safety, acceptance, and validation.

\n\n

This theoretical stance departed radically from earlier psychometric perspectives. Prior to 1960, response sets were viewed largely as annoying, content-free measurement errors—mere technical nuisances that corrupted true scores. Crowne and Marlowe demonstrated experimentally that social desirability is a robust, dynamic personality variable with broad predictive power. In their foundational laboratory studies (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), they subjected individuals with high and low MCSDS scores to a spectrum of rigorous social experiments:

\n

\n
• Conformity Paradigms: In conformity experiments modeled after Solomon Asch’s perceptual judgment tasks, high-MCSDS participants demonstrated significantly higher rates of yielding to erroneous group consensus compared to low scorers.

\n

• Verbal Conditioning: In Taffel-type verbal conditioning tasks, where experimenters subtly reinforced specific sentence structures with mild verbal approvals (e.g., \”mm-hmm\” or \”good\”), high-MCSDS participants exhibited dramatically steeper learning curves and higher conditioning rates, confirming their hypersensitivity to verbal reinforcement.

\n

• Cognitive Dissonance and Attitude Change: High-approval individuals showed greater susceptibility to attitude change following forced compliance procedures, driven by a deep-seated urge to rationalize their actions and remain aligned with authority expectations.

\n

\n\n

Thus, within the theoretical framework of evaluative dependence, the MCSDS does not simply capture a superficial \”lying\” score. It indexes an individual’s structural defensive strategy: a defensive posture characterized by repression of hostile and aggressive impulses, rigid behavioral compliance, and an excessive reliance on external validation to maintain psychological equilibrium.

\n\n

7. Validity

\n

Over six decades of intensive international research have yielded exhaustive empirical validation for the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale across construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related domains.

\n\n

Construct and Experimental Validity

\n

Construct validity was established in the scale’s inception through experimental manipulation. In their seminal 1960 validation study, Crowne and Marlowe administered the scale to undergraduate cohorts and placed them in controlled interpersonal settings. High scorers exhibited pronounced susceptibility to social reinforcers and actively shifted their stated preferences to harmonize with an authority figure’s perspective. In a notable experiment involving an intensely monotonous, repetitive motor task (turning spools on a board), high-scoring MCSDS participants systematically rated the task as significantly more \”interesting\” and \”enjoyable\” than did low-scoring participants, seeking to validate the experimenter’s stated research goals at the expense of their own authentic perception.

\n\n

Convergent Validity

\n

Convergent validity is documented through robust, statistically significant correlations with alternative markers of self-presentation, defensiveness, and impression management:

\n

\n
• Paulhus Deception Scales / Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): The MCSDS correlates strongly with the Impression Management (IM) subscale of the BIDR (typically ranging from r = .55 to r = .71), demonstrating that the scale accurately taps conscious self-presentation before external observers. Its correlation with the Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE) subscale is moderate (typically r = .30 to r = .45), highlighting its partial overlap with unconscious self-enhancement.

\n

• MMPI Lie (L) Scale: The MCSDS consistently demonstrates strong positive correlations with the MMPI L Scale (r = .54 to r = .68). Both instruments share a foundational strategy: detecting the absolute denial of minor, universal human moral flaws.

\n

• Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) Lie Scale: Cross-national investigations reveal correlations ranging from r = .50 to r = .65 with the EPQ Lie scale, confirming cross-instrument convergence.

\n

\n\n

Discriminant Validity

\n

The pivotal psychometric breakthrough of the MCSDS was its established discriminant validity against instruments measuring psychopathology. Edwards’ (1957) Social Desirability scale correlated negatively with the MMPI neurotic and psychotic scales at extraordinary levels (frequently reaching r = -.80 to -.85), demonstrating that Edwards’ scale was largely an inverse metric of emotional distress. In contrast, Crowne and Marlowe (1960) demonstrated that the MCSDS shared negligible to modest correlations with clinical pathology scales:

\n

\n
• Correlation with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale: r = -.40 (reflecting mild defensiveness, but distinct from general trait anxiety).

\n

• Correlation with the Edwards SD Scale: r = .35 to .40, illustrating that the two scales tap fundamentally different psychometric domains.

\n

• Correlation with intellectual ability metrics: Correlations with standard measures of general cognitive intelligence (such as the Wonderlic or WAIS subtests) consistently hover around zero (r = -.05 to .08), demonstrating that MCSDS performance is entirely independent of cognitive aptitude.

\n

\n\n

8. Reliability

\n

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale exhibits high psychometric stability and internal consistency, corroborated across thousands of clinical, community, and collegiate samples worldwide.

\n\n

Internal Consistency

\n

In the original normative sample of 39 undergraduate psychology students (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), the scale yielded an internal consistency coefficient of r_KR-20 = .88 using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20. Subsequent large-scale investigations across diverse demographic cohorts have consistently affirmed this benchmark:

\n

\n
• Reynolds (1982), assessing large collegiate cohorts (N = 608), confirmed a KR-20 reliability coefficient of .88 for the full 33-item scale.

\n

• Beretvas, Meyers, and Leite (2002), in an extensive meta-analytic reliability generalization study synthesizing 109 empirical studies using the MCSDS, reported a mean internal consistency estimate of .79 across all published literature, with collegiate and professional samples averaging between .80 and .84. Lower reliabilities were observed only when administered to populations with severe reading comprehension deficits or across truncated short forms.

\n

• Barger (2002), evaluating the MCSDS across a nationally representative United States telephone survey (N = 1,400+), demonstrated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .77 to .82 across broad racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic strata.

\n

\n\n

Test-Retest Stability

\n

Temporal stability over time is a prerequisite for any measure purporting to evaluate a stable personality disposition. In their 1960 investigation, Crowne and Marlowe administered the 33-item instrument to a subsample of 31 participants across a one-month inter-test interval, observing a test-retest correlation coefficient of r = .89 (p < .001). Subsequent replications over intervals ranging from three to eight weeks have demonstrated test-retest coefficients consistently spanning .82 to .88 (e.g., Crino et al., 1983), establishing that the need for approval measured by the MCSDS functions as a remarkably stable, enduring personality trait.

\n\n

9. Factor Analysis

\n

Although Crowne and Marlowe initially constructed the MCSDS under the assumption of a functionally unidimensional construct, advanced Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have extensively clarified its underlying structural geometry.

\n\n

EFA and the Attribution-Denial Dimensionality

\n

Early factor-analytic studies utilizing orthogonal and oblique rotations (e.g., Millham, 1974; Ramanaiah, Schill, & Leung, 1977) challenged the strict unidimensionality of the MCSDS, demonstrating that the instrument consistently bifurcates into two distinct, interpretable factors:

\n

\n
• Factor 1: Attribution of Socially Desirable Characteristics. This factor comprises items keyed \”True\” that capture culturally celebrated behaviors (e.g., Item 1: investigating candidate qualifications before voting; Item 13: being a good listener regardless of conversational partner; Item 16: always admitting mistakes). Factor loadings for primary attribution items typically range from .42 to .68.

\n

• Factor 2: Denial of Socially Undesirable Characteristics. This factor comprises items keyed \”False\” where individuals deny common, minor, culturally disfavored actions (e.g., Item 6: feeling resentful when not getting one’s way; Item 11: liking to gossip; Item 15: taking advantage of someone). Factor loadings on the denial factor consistently range between .38 and .65.

\n

\n\n

Millham (1974) and subsequent investigators demonstrated that while these two factors are moderately correlated (r ≈ .35 to .50), they can exert divergent predictive effects in experimental paradigms: individuals scoring exceptionally high on Denial show pronounced behavioral avoidance of social threat, whereas individuals elevated on Attribution display an active, approach-oriented pursuit of praise.

\n\n

Confirmatory Factor Analytic (CFA) Fit Indices

\n

Modern structural equation modeling methodologies have thoroughly tested competing structural models of the MCSDS. Loo and Thorpe (2000) evaluated single-factor, two-factor (Attribution vs. Denial), and hierarchical/bifactor models using CFA across adult samples. Their findings indicated that while the single-factor model yields borderline acceptable fit, the two-factor oblique model and the bifactor model provide significantly superior fit indices:

\n

\n
• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): < 2.5

\n

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .055 (indicating good absolute fit)

\n

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 to .94

\n

• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 to .93

\n

• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .052

\n

\n\n

Psychometric Short Forms

\n

Due to the length of the 33-item instrument, numerous abbreviated forms have undergone rigorous factor-analytic extraction. The most prominent is the Reynolds Short Form C (Reynolds, 1982), consisting of 13 items. Reynolds utilized factor loadings and item-total correlations to extract three short forms (Form A [11 items], Form B [12 items], and Form C [13 items]). Form C demonstrated a correlation of r = .93 with the full 33-item scale and maintained an internal consistency of .76, making it one of the most widely implemented brief measures of social desirability in contemporary clinical and survey research.

\n\n

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

\n

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) is structured as an objective, self-administered, paper-and-pencil or computerized psychometric inventory. The technical parameters of the instrument are detailed below:

\n\n

\n
• Instrument Name: Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS)

\n

• Authors: Douglas P. Crowne and David Marlowe (1960)

\n

• Item Count: 33 dichotomous items (full version)

\n

• Response Format: Forced-choice dichotomous: True (T) or False (F)

\n

• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (recommended reading level: 6th-grade equivalent or higher)

\n

• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes

\n

• Scoring Procedure: Each item is scored either 1 or 0 based on whether the selected response matches the socially desirable direction. The total score is computed by summing the keyed points across all 33 items, yielding an absolute score range from 0 to 33.

\n

• Keyed Items:\n
  \n
  • Attribution Subscale (Keyed \”True\” = 1 point, \”False\” = 0 points; 18 items): 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, and 33.

  \n

  • Denial Subscale (Keyed \”False\” = 1 point, \”True\” = 0 points; 15 items): 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, and 32.

  \n

  \n

\n

• General Score Interpretation:\n
  \n
  • 0 to 8 points (Low Social Desirability): Indicates an atypical willingness to openly admit minor character flaws, non-conformity, or unconventional attitudes. In certain clinical contexts, extremely low scores may suggest non-defensiveness, self-deprecation, or a disregard for social norms and interpersonal expectations.

  \n

  • 9 to 19 points (Average / Normative Range): Reflects a balanced, realistic self-presentation characteristic of typical adult respondents. Individuals within this band balance realistic self-criticism with general adherence to social conventions.

  \n

  • 20 to 33 points (High Social Desirability / High Need for Approval): Reflects marked defensiveness, significant impression management, or an intense need for social approval. Self-reports on accompanying clinical or personality tests must be interpreted with caution, as high scorers frequently suppress distressing symptoms, minimize personal weaknesses, and overreport socially sanctioned attitudes.

  \n

  \n

\n

\n\n

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

\n

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale was initially published in 1960 in the Journal of Consulting Psychology, followed by its complete theoretical documentation in Crowne and Marlowe’s 1964 volume, The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence. Because the full 33-item instrument, along with its empirical scoring key, was published directly within scholarly peer-reviewed literature without proprietary commercial trademark restrictions, the MCSDS is widely regarded within the psychometric community as residing in the public domain for non-commercial academic, clinical, and research applications.

\n\n

Researchers and licensed clinicians are generally permitted to reproduce, translate, and administer the MCSDS in scholarly, non-profit empirical investigations without the payment of royal fees, provided that formal academic attribution and citation are explicitly granted to Crowne and Marlowe (1960). In commercial assessment platforms, high-stakes pre-employment assessment systems, or published commercial diagnostic testing batteries, institutional licensing guidelines or permission through the original copyright holder (the American Psychological Association for the 1960 journal article, and John Wiley & Sons for the 1964 volume) should be verified prior to incorporation.

\n\n

12. References

\n

\n
• Barger, S. D. (2002). The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale does not measure self-deception: Evidence from a nationally representative sample. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(4), 286–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00001-2

\n

• Beretvas, S. N., Meyers, J. L., & Leite, W. L. (2002). A reliability generalization study of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 570–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062004003

\n

• Crino, M. D., Svoboda, M., Rubenfeld, S., & White, M. C. (1983). Data on the Marlowe-Crowne and Edwards Social Desirability Scales. Psychological Reports, 53(3), 963–968. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1983.53.3.963

\n

• 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

\n

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

\n

• Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Dryden Press.

\n

• Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the full and short versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(5), 628–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600503

\n

• Millham, J. (1974). Two components of need for approval: Defense and enhancement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036262

\n

• 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

\n

• 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 (pp. 17–59). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50006-X

\n

• 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)90033-6

\n

• Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119–125. 3.0.CO;2-I\” target=\”_blank\” rel=\”noopener\”>https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I

\n

• Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1037/10788-000

\n

• Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 191–193. 3.0.CO;2-G\” target=\”_blank\” rel=\”noopener\”>https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197204)28:2<191::AID-JCLP2270280220>3.0.CO;2-G

\n

\n\n

13. Items of the Scale

\n

\n

“,n “excerpt”: “An in-depth academic examination of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS), covering its theoretical foundation in the approval motive, psychometric properties, factor structure, and scoring guidelines.”,n “slug”: “marlowe-crowne-social-desirability-scale-mcsds”,n “categories”: [“Psychometrics”, “Personality Assessment”, “Methodology”],n “tags”: [“social desirability”, “MCSDS”, “impression management”, “response bias”, “psychological testing”, “need for approval”],n “seo_title”: “Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale: Psychometrics & Guide”,n “seo_description”: “Explore the psychometric properties, scoring system, theoretical framework, and full 33 items of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS).”,n “focus_keyword”: “Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale”n}