The Lazy or Dishonest Respondent
Detection and Prevention
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15735564 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Winfred Arthur (0000-0003-2826-3892, Texas A&M University, corresponding author), Ellen Hagen (Texas A&M University), Felix George (0000-0002-9334-4106, Texas A&M University) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 105-137 |
| Publication date | 2020-11-07 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2327-0608 • E-ISSN: 2327-0616 |
| Publisher | Annual Reviews (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-055324 |
| OpenAlex | W3095897264 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 18 |
| References cited | 127 |
Self-report measures are characterized as being susceptible to threats associated with deliberate dissimulation or response distortion (i.e., social desirability responding) and careless responding. Careless responding typically arises in low-stakes settings (e.g., participating in a study for course credit) where some respondents are not motivated to respond in a conscientious manner to the items. In contrast, in high-stakes assessments (e.g., prehire assessments), because of the outcomes associated with their responses, respondents are motivated to present themselves in as favorable a light as possible and, thus, may respond dishonestly in an effort to accomplish this objective. In this article, we draw a distinction between the lazy respondent, which we associate with careless responding, and the dishonest respondent, which we associate with response distortion. We then seek to answer the following questions for both careless responding and response distortion: ( a) What is it? ( b) Why is it a problem or concern? ( c) Why do people engage in it? ( d) How pervasive is it? ( e) Can and how is it prevented or mitigated? ( f) How is it detected? ( g) What does one do when one detects it? We conclude with a discussion of suggested future research directions and some practical guidelines for practitioners and researchers
Distortion (music · Political science · Respondent · Computer Science · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Law · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Power and Status Dynamics · Social Psychology
Addressing fraudulent responses in online surveys
Are social desirability scales desirable? A meta‐analytic test of the validity of social desirability scales in the context of prosocial behavior
Dealing with Careless Responding in Survey Data
Re-interpreting aberrant responses in educational and psychological assessments
Supervisory support for subordinates’ use of information and communication technologies
Emotional Support and Opposition for National Environmental Policies in the UK
It’s more than money
Destination image and personality in workation tourism
Too young to lead? Role incongruity explains age bias against young leaders
Are the effects of servant leadership only spurious? The state of research on the causal effects of servant leadership, recommendations, and an illustrative experiment
Adaptation and validation of bogus items scale
The potential mediating role of anxiety sensitivity in the impact of mindfulness training on anxiety and depression severity and impairment
Development of an Inconsistent Responding Scale for the Big Five Inventory-2
On the Utility of Indirect Methods for Detecting Faking
Which comes first? Modeling longitudinal associations among self-efficacy, motivation, and academic achievement
Careless Responding May Reduce Data Quality in Self-Report Questionnaire Research
Preventing satisficing
Measuring Attentiveness in Self-Administered Surveys
The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage
Insufficient effort responding
Response Time Effort
The Impact of Anonymity on Responses to Sensitive Questions 1
Factors Defined by Negatively Keyed Items
Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection
Dirty Data
Reconsidering the Use of Personality Tests in Personnel Selection Contexts
Careless Responding to Reverse-Worded Items
Puzzlingly High Correlations in fMRI Studies of Emotion, Personality, and Social Cognition
Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations
Intra-individual Response Variability as an Indicator of Insufficient Effort Responding
A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Careless responding in questionnaire measures
Meta-Analyses of Fakability Estimates
Random Responding as a Threat to the Validity of Effect Size Estimates in Correlational Research
The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research
Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys
Detecting and Deterring Insufficient Effort Responding to Surveys
Why integrity testing remains controversial
Essentials of Psychological Testing
Best practice recommendations for data screening
Caring about carelessness
Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from Web-based personality inventories
On feeling good and getting your way
Boredom at Work
Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data
Statistical methods in psychology journals
Evidence for response bias as a source of error variance in applied assessment
The prediction of semantic consistency in self-descriptions
Effects of Questionnaire Length on Participation and Indicators of Response Quality in a Web Survey
Effects of Questionnaire Length on Response Quality
On the invalidity of validity scales
Lying takes time
Cultural Differences in Careless Responding
| Unique citing works | 18 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 4,5 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 16 |