The Development and Validation of the Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS): A Two-Dimensional Model of Social Desirability Bias

- Thesis statement: The PDS are a reliable and valid tool for assessing social desirability bias in self-report measures, especially in forensic and clinical settings. H2: The Two Dimensions of Social Desirability Bias: Self-Deceptive Enhancement and Impression Management - Define self-deceptive enhancement (SDE) and impression management (IM) and give examples of each. - Explain how SDE and IM differ in terms of motivation, awareness, and cognitive processes. - Discuss the implications of SDE and IM for personality assessment and diagnosis. H3: The Development and Validation of the Paulhus Deception Scales - Describe the history and evolution of the PDS, from the original 1984 version to the current 1999 version. - Summarize the psychometric properties of the PDS, such as reliability, validity, factor structure, and norms. - Highlight the advantages and limitations of the PDS compared to other measures of social desirability bias. H4: How to Administer, Score, and Interpret the Paulhus Deception Scales - Explain the format, instructions, and response options of the PDS. - Provide guidelines for scoring and interpreting the PDS scores, including cut-off points and clinical implications. - Discuss the ethical issues and best practices for using the PDS in different contexts and populations. H5: How to Download a PDF Version of the Paulhus Deception Scales - Provide a link to the official website of MHS Assessments, where the PDS can be purchased online. - Explain how to access a PDF version of the PDS after purchasing it from MHS Assessments. - Mention some alternative sources where the PDS can be downloaded for free or for a lower price. H6: Conclusion - Summarize the main points of the article and restate the thesis statement. - Emphasize the benefits and applications of using the PDS for assessing social desirability bias. - Provide some suggestions for future research and practice on the PDS. H7: FAQs - Answer five common questions about the PDS, such as: - What is the difference between the PDS and the BIDR? - How long does it take to complete the PDS? - Can I use the PDS with children or adolescents? - How can I reduce social desirability bias in my self-report measures? - What are some other measures of social desirability bias that I can use? Now that I have created an outline for my article, I'll start writing based on that outline step by step. Here is the second table for the article with HTML formatting:

What are the Paulhus Deception Scales and Why Should You Use Them?

If you have ever used a self-report measure to assess someone's personality, attitudes, or behaviors, you may have wondered how honest their responses were. Did they answer truthfully or did they try to present themselves in a more favorable light? This tendency to distort one's self-reports in order to reflect socially desirable responses rather than accurate ones is called social desirability bias.

paulhusdeceptionscalespdfdownload

Download

Social desirability bias can pose a serious threat to the validity and reliability of self-report measures, especially in forensic and clinical settings where accurate assessment is crucial for diagnosis, treatment, or legal decisions. Therefore, it is important to have a way to detect and control for social desirability bias when using self-report measures.

One of the most widely used and well-validated tools for assessing social desirability bias is the Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS). The PDS, also known as the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR), is a 40-item self-report inventory that measures two dimensions of social desirability bias: self-deceptive enhancement and impression management.

The PDS was developed by Delroy L. Paulhus, a Canadian psychologist and professor at the University of British Columbia, who is an expert on personality and individual differences. Paulhus first introduced the PDS in 1984 and revised it several times until the current 1999 version.

The PDS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing social desirability bias in self-report measures. It has been used in various contexts and populations, such as college students, offenders, military recruits, job applicants, patients, and research participants. It has also been adapted and translated into different languages and cultures.

In this article, you will learn more about the PDS, including what it measures, how it was developed and validated, how to administer, score, and interpret it, and how to download a PDF version of it. By the end of this article, you will be able to use the PDS effectively and confidently in your own assessment practice.

The Two Dimensions of Social Desirability Bias: Self-Deceptive Enhancement and Impression Management

As mentioned earlier, the PDS measures two dimensions of social desirability bias: self-deceptive enhancement (SDE) and impression management (IM). These two dimensions reflect different types of response biases that can affect one's self-reports.

SDE refers to a nondeliberate form of socially desirable responding, where the respondent genuinely believes that the desirable responses are accurate self-reports. For example, a person with high SDE may report having high self-esteem, low anxiety, or strong moral values, even if these are not true. SDE is motivated by a need to maintain a positive self-image and to avoid cognitive dissonance.

IM refers to a deliberate form of socially desirable responding, where the respondent knowingly gives false or exaggerated responses in order to impress others or to avoid negative consequences. For example, a person with high IM may report being more altruistic, more competent, or less prejudiced than they really are. IM is motivated by a need to manipulate one's social image and to gain social approval or rewards.

SDE and IM differ not only in terms of motivation but also in terms of awareness and cognitive processes. SDE involves a lack of awareness or denial of one's true self, whereas IM involves a conscious distortion or fabrication of one's self-presentation. SDE is associated with defensive or self-enhancing cognitive biases, such as overconfidence, optimism, or rationalization, whereas IM is associated with strategic or impression-managing cognitive biases, such as ingratiation, self-promotion, or deception.

The distinction between SDE and IM has important implications for personality assessment and diagnosis. SDE and IM can affect different aspects of one's personality and can have different consequences for one's psychological well-being and functioning. For instance, SDE can inflate one's scores on positive personality traits, such as extraversion, agreeableness, or conscientiousness, whereas IM can deflate one's scores on negative personality traits, such as neuroticism, antisociality, or psychopathy. SDE can also be related to positive outcomes, such as happiness, resilience, or creativity, whereas IM can be related to negative outcomes, such as stress, anxiety, or guilt.

Therefore, it is important to measure both SDE and IM when using self-report measures of personality or other psychological constructs. By doing so, one can identify the sources and extent of social desirability bias in one's self-reports and adjust them accordingly. This can improve the accuracy and validity of one's assessment results and lead to better diagnosis and treatment decisions.

The Development and Validation of the Paulhus Deception Scales

The PDS is not the first measure of social desirability bias that was developed. In fact, there are many other measures that have been proposed and used over the years, such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS), the Edwards Social Desirability Scale (ESDS), or the Lie Scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-L).

However, the PDS has some advantages over these other measures. One of them is that the PDS is based on a two-dimensional model of social desirability bias, whereas most other measures are based on a one-dimensional model. As explained

The Development and Validation of the Paulhus Deception Scales

The PDS is not the first measure of social desirability bias that was developed. In fact, there are many other measures that have been proposed and used over the years, such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS), the Edwards Social Desirability Scale (ESDS), or the Lie Scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-L).

However, the PDS has some advantages over these other measures. One of them is that the PDS is based on a two-dimensional model of social desirability bias, whereas most other measures are based on a one-dimensional model. As explained in the previous section, social desirability bias can be divided into two types: self-deceptive enhancement and impression management. The PDS is able to capture both types of bias, while most other measures only capture one type or mix them together.

Another advantage of the PDS is that it was developed and validated using rigorous psychometric methods and empirical data. The PDS underwent several revisions and improvements over the years, based on factor analysis, item analysis, reliability analysis, validity analysis, and norming studies. The current 1999 version of the PDS is the result of these efforts and reflects the best psychometric properties of the measure.

Some of the psychometric properties of the PDS are as follows:

The PDS consists of 40 items, 20 for each scale (SDE and IM). The items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 5 (very true). However, the items are scored dichotomously (0 or 1) based on whether they exceed a certain threshold of endorsement. For example, an item that is rated 4 or 5 is scored as 1, while an item that is rated 1, 2, or 3 is scored as 0.

The PDS has good internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from 0.77 to 0.86 for SDE and from 0.80 to 0.88 for IM. The test-retest reliability over a period of two weeks is also acceptable, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.69 to 0.83 for SDE and from 0.65 to 0.79 for IM.

The PDS has good convergent and discriminant validity, as evidenced by its correlations with other measures of social desirability bias and personality traits. For example, the PDS correlates positively with the MCSDS, the ESDS, and the EPQ-L, but more strongly with its own subscales than with other scales. The PDS also correlates positively with positive personality traits, such as extraversion, agreeableness, or conscientiousness, but more strongly with SDE than with IM. The PDS correlates negatively with negative personality traits, such as neuroticism, antisociality, or psychopathy, but more strongly with IM than with SDE.

The PDS has good factorial validity, as confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The two-factor model of SDE and IM fits the data better than a one-factor model or a three-factor model (with a general social desirability factor). The two factors are moderately correlated (around 0.40) but distinct from each other.

The PDS has normative data based on a sample of 441 community adults from the United States and Canada. The mean scores for SDE and IM are 6.8 and 5.7 respectively, with standard deviations of 4.2 and 4.4 respectively. The scores range from 0 to 20 for each scale. The PDS also has norms for other groups, such as college students, offenders, military recruits, job applicants, patients, and research participants.

These psychometric properties indicate that the PDS is a reliable and valid measure of social desirability bias that can be used in various contexts and populations. However, like any measure, the PDS also has some limitations that should be taken into account when using it.

Some of the limitations of the PDS are as follows:

The PDS is a self-report measure, which means that it is still susceptible to the influence of social desirability bias itself. Some respondents may try to fake their responses on the PDS in order to appear more or less socially desirable than they really are. Therefore, the PDS should be used in conjunction with other sources of information, such as behavioral observations, collateral reports, or objective tests.

The PDS is a trait measure, which means that it assesses one's general tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner across situations. However, social desirability bias may vary depending on the specific situation, the type of measure, or the content of the items. Therefore, the PDS may not capture the situational or contextual factors that affect one's social desirability bias.

The PDS is a global measure, which means that it assesses social desirability bias as a general construct without differentiating between its specific facets or domains. However, social desirability bias may have different manifestations or consequences depending on the domain of interest, such as morality, competence, or attractiveness. Therefore, the PDS may not capture the domain-specific aspects of social desirability bias.

These limitations suggest that the PDS should be used with caution and interpretation and that it should be supplemented by other measures or methods that can address its shortcomings.

How to Administer, Score, and Interpret the Paulhus Deception Scales

Now that you have learned about the development and validation of the PDS, you may be wondering how to use it in your own assessment practice. In this section, you will learn how to administer, score, and interpret the PDS.

The PDS can be administered in various ways, such as paper-and-pencil, online, or computerized. The PDS can be administered individually or in groups, depending on the purpose and context of the assessment. The PDS can be administered as a stand-alone measure or as part of a larger battery of tests.

The PDS has simple and clear instructions that explain the purpose and format of the measure. The instructions also emphasize the importance of honesty and confidentiality and ask the respondents to answer as truthfully as possible. The instructions also provide an example item and explain how to rate it.

The PDS has 40 items that are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not true) to 5 (very true). The items are presented in a random order and cover various topics and domains. The items are worded in a straightforward and neutral manner, without any obvious clues or cues that indicate their social desirability value.

The PDS takes about 3 to 5 minutes to complete, depending on the speed and carefulness of the respondent. The respondent should answer all items without skipping or changing any responses. The respondent should also avoid overthinking or second-guessing their responses and go with their first impression.

The PDS is easy and quick to score, either manually or electronically. The items are scored dichotomously (0 or 1) based on whether they exceed a certain threshold of endorsement. For example, an item that is rated 4 or 5 is scored as 1, while an item that is rated 1, 2, or 3 is scored as 0.

The scores for each item are then summed up to obtain a total score for each scale (SDE and IM). The scores for each scale range from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating higher levels of social desirability bias. A total score for social desirability bias can also be obtained by adding up the scores for both scales (SDE + IM). The total score ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher levels of social desirability bias.

The scores for the PDS can be interpreted in various ways, depending on the purpose and context of the assessment. One way to interpret the scores is to compare them with the normative data provided by Paulhus (1999). The normative data are based on a sample of 441 community adults from the United States and Canada. The mean scores for SDE and IM are 6.8 and 5.7 respectively, with standard deviations of 4.2 and 4.4 respectively.