工业组织心理学中的社会称许性研究(6)

首先介绍了社会称许性测量中的归因与否认模型、自我欺骗与印象管理模型,相关的研究分别指出社会称许性既具有特质性又具有情境性。其次综述了计算机呈现的问卷测量与纸笔问卷在社会称许性上的差异;称许性反应对组织心理学中构念间关系的影响――称许性对构念间的关系存在调节

-460- 心理科学进展 2004年

[5]在前人研究的基础上提出如下假设：社会称许性反应会导致信息不完整和不准确的平均评定，增加称许性信息的报告而降低非称许性信息的报告；而当职务信息反映出被试对组织的价值时更有可能产生不准确性。罗凤英（2002）以指导语控制称许性反应强度的研究表明社会称许性只在特定条件下对特定的信息提供者的职务信息完整性有影响[28]。前者没有区分自我欺骗和印象管理，并且影响仅停留在假设上，没有实验数据支持；后者研究中将称许性操作化为印象管理，并且仅探讨了称许性对职务信息完整性的影响。那么称许性究竟会对职务分析信息产生何种影响呢？自我欺骗和印象管理是否具有相同的效应也是值得关注的问题。

参考文献

[1] Paulhus D L. Measurement and Control of Response Bias. In: Robinson J P, Shaver P R, Wrightsman L S ed. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. New York: Academic Press, 1991

[2] Ganster D C, Hennessey H W, Luthans F. Social desirability response effects: three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 1983, 26(2): 321~331

[3] Arnold H J, Feldman D C. Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations. Academy of Management Journal, 1981, 24(2): 377~383

[4] Zerbe W J, Paulhus D L. Social desirable responding in organizational behavior: a reconception. Academy of Management Review, 1987, 12(2): 250~264

[5] Morgeson F P, Campion M A. Social and cognitive sources of potential inaccuracy in job analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82(5): 627~655

[6] Paulhus D L. Social Desirable Responding: The Evolution of a Construct. In Braun H, Wiley D E, & Jackson D N (Eds.), Personality and intellect, validity and values: Cross-cutting themes. New York: Guilford, 1999

[7] Paulhus D L. Two-component models of social desirable responding. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1984, 46(3): 598~609

[8] Paulhus D L. Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In: Angleitner A, Wiggins J S ed. Personality assessment via questionnaires: current issues in theory and measure. New York: Spring-Verlag,1986

[9] Barrick M R, Mount M K. Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology,1996,81(3): 261~272

[10] Gur R C., Sackeim H A. Self-deception: A concept in search of a phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979,

37(2): 147~169

[11] Stark S, Chernyshenko O S, Chan K Y et al. Effects of the testing situation on item responding: Cause for concern. Journal of applied

psychology, 2001, 86(5): 943~953

[12] Lautenschlager G J, Flaherty V L. Computer administration of questions: more desirable or more social desirability? Journal of

Applied Psychology,1990,75(3): 310~314

[13] Booth-Kewley S, Edwards J E, Rosenfeld P. Impression management, social desirability, and computer administrator of attitude

questionnaires: does the computer make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1992,77(4): 562~566

[14] Mead A D, Drasgow F. Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: a meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 1993, 114: 449~458

[15] Richman W L, Kiesler S, Weisband S, Drasgow F. A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered

questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84(5): 754~775