Impression Management and Self-Deceptive Scales - IPIP: a test of different theoretical models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-8623.2020.1.32580Palabras clave:
sesgo egoísta, sesgo moralista, deseabilidad social, sesgo de respuesta.Resumen
Uno reto de la evaluación psicológica por el autoinforme, son los sesgos de respuesta, es decir, la manera de responder que enmascaran la verdadera medida del rasgo latente individual. La deseabilidad social ocurre cuando la persona proporciona una evaluación excesivamente positiva de sí basado en valores sociales. Tres modelos factoriales de la deseabilidad social se destacan en la literatura, con dos y tres factores y, lo último con dos factores y cuatro facetas (o modelo de cuatro fatores). En este estudio, exploramos lo cuanto cada modelo factorial representa la estructura de la Escala de Gestión de la Impresión y Autoengaño-IPIP. La muestra fue de 466 adultos (M= 25,22 años, DP = 7,05, 60,27% mujeres). El modelo de cuatro factores tuvo lo mejor ajuste a los datos, pero el modelo original de dos factores fue la solución mas simple y clara. Implicaciones de estos hallados para la puntuación e interpretación del instrumento son discutidos.Descargas
Citas
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal Oj Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
Ellingson, J. E. (2012). People fake only when they need to fake. In M. Ziegler, C. Maccann, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 19–33). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2015). Factor: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Universitat Rovira i Virgili.
Bou Malham, P., & Saucier, G. (2016). The conceptual link between social desirability and cultural normativity. International Journal of Psychology, 51(6), 474-480. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12261
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 46(3), 598–609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: the evolution of a construct. In H. I. Brown, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahuah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Paulhus, D. L. (2006). Comprehensive Inventory of Desirable Responding (CIDR). New Orleans. Recuperado de http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~dpaulhus/research/SDR/downloads/MEASURES/CIDR%202.doc.
Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1025–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00041
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
Pauls, C. A., & Stemmler, G. (2003). Substance and bias in social desirability responding. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(2), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00187-3
Timmerman, M. E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2012). Agentic and communal values: Their scope and measurement. Journal of personality assessment, 94(1), 39-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.627968
Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., & Barbaranelli, C. (2013). Measurement and application of egoistic and moralistic self-enhancements. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12027
Schwardmann, Peter and van der Weele, Joel J. (2016). Deception and Self-Deception. Social Science Research Network (SSRN). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2734736
Ziegler, M. (2015). “F*** You, I Won’t Do What You Told Me!” – Response Biases as Threats to Psychological Assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31(3), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000292
Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal Versions of Coefficients Alpha and Theta for Likert Rating Scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0907444909031205