Advertisement

Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 309–318 | Cite as

Using a Polygraph System for Evaluation of the Social Desirability Response Bias in Self-Report Measures of Aggression

  • Dmitri Poltavski
  • Richard Van Eck
  • Austin T. Winger
  • Charles Honts
Article
  • 124 Downloads

Abstract

Empirical evidence suggests that respondents systematically overreport socially desirable behaviors and systematically underreport socially undesirable behaviors. This “social desirability response bias (SDRB)” presents significant challenges for research that relies on self-report measures to assess behaviors that adhere to or violate social norms. The present study used a state-of-the-art polygraph system to examine SDRB in widely used aggression questionnaires, including the Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire-Short Form, the Indirect Aggression subscale of the Aggression Questionnaire by Western Psychological Services, and the Reactive–Proactive Questionnaire. Sixteen college students with no criminal record, no known prior history of aggressive behavior, and no reported drug abuse, responded to verbally administered forms of the instruments. Indirect aggression items produced the largest, statistically significant physiological response across the sampled channels. The magnitude of this response was negatively and significantly correlated with the self-report ratings of the frequency of such behaviors. The mean separation between physiological (skin conductance) and self-report responses for indirect aggression remained significant and consistent with correlational analyses when both types of responses were converted to the same scale and compared directly. Finally, the relative magnitude of skin conductance response for items assessing indirect aggression was significantly greater than the relative magnitude of skin conductance response for direct aggression. Overall, the study suggests that the use of automated state-of-the art polygraph systems may potentially identify sensitive items on self-report instruments where social responsibility response bias is possible. Implications for the use of this procedure with such instruments are discussed.

Keywords

Polygraph Aggression questionnaires Social desirability response bias 

References

  1. Alexander, M. G., & Fisher, T. D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490309552164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, J. (1998). Sensitive questions and response effects: An evaluation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 13, 63–76.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02683949810369138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basow, S. A., Cahill, K. F., Phelan, J. E., Longshore, K., & McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. (2007). Perceptions of relational and physical aggression among college students: Effects of gender of perpetrator, target, and perceiver. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 85–95.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00333.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brugman, S., Cornet, L. J., Smeijers, D., Smeets, K., Oostermeijer, S., Buitelaar, J. K., & Jansen, L. (2017). Examining the reactive proactive questionnaire in adults in forensic and non-forensic settings: A variable-and person-based approach. Aggressive Behavior, 43, 155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21671.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046900.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cima, M., Raine, A., Meesters, C., & Popma, A. (2013). Validation of the Dutch Reactive–Proactive Questionnaire (RPQ): Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression from childhood to adulthood. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 99–113.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dahlen, E. R., Czar, K. A., Prather, E., & Dyess, C. (2013). Relational aggression and victimization in college students. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 140–154.  https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher, T. D. (2013). Gender roles and pressure to be truthful: The Bogus Pipeline modifies gender differences in sexual but not non-sexual behavior. Sex Roles, 68, 401–414.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0266-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fowler, F. J. (1995). Improving survey questions: Design and evaluation (Vol. 38). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Ganon, T. A., Keown, K., & Polaschek, D. L. L. (2007). Increasing honest responding on cognitive distortions in child molesters: The bogus pipeline revisited. Sex Abuse, 19, 5–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11194-006-9033-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Honts, C. R., & Alloway, W. (2007). Information does not affect the validity of a comparison question test. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 311–320.  https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X123770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Honts, C. R., Amato, S., & Gordon, A. (2004). Effects of outside issues on the control question test. The Journal of General Psychology, 151, 53–74.  https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.131.1.53-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Honts, C. R., & Reavy, R. (2015). The comparison question polygraph test: A contrast of methods and scoring. Physiology and Behavior, 143, 15–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.02.028.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Horowitz, S. W., Kircher, J. C., Honts, C. R., & Raskin, D. C. (1997). The role of comparison questions in physiological detection of deception. Psychophysiology, 34, 108–115.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02421.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (1988). Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (2002). Computer methods for the psychophysiological detection of deception. In M. Kleiner (Ed.), Handbook of polygraph testing (pp. 287–326). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kircher, J. C., & Raskin, D. C. (2011). The computerized polygraph system. Version 1.1. Homer, AL: Scientific Assessment Technologies, Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025–2047.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Loudin, J. L., Loukas, A., & Robinson, S. (2003). Relational aggression in college students: Examining the roles of social anxiety and empathy. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 430–439.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lykken, D. T. (1981). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  24. National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2017). Juvenile Justice: Geography, policy, practice & statistics, North Dakota Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from http://www.jjgps.org/north-dakota.
  25. Orne, M. T., Thackray, R. I., & Paskewitz, D. A. (1972). On the detection of deception: A model for the study of the physiological effects of psychological stimuli. In N. S. Greenfield & R. A. Sternbach (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 743–785). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  26. Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., … Liu, J. (2006). The reactive–proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 32(2), 159–171.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raskin, D. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2014). Validity of polygraph techniques and decision methods. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts & J. C. Kircher (Eds.), Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (1st ed., pp. 65–129). Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Scientific Assessment Technologies, Inc. (2011). CpsPro fusion software manual. The computerized polygraph system. Version 1.1. Homer: Stoelting Co.Google Scholar
  29. Slavkovic, A. (2002). Evaluating polygraph data. Pittsburgh: Department of Statistics, Carnegie Melon University.Google Scholar
  30. Stern, R. M., Ray, W. J., & Quigley, K. S. (2001). Psychophysiological recording. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Strang, E., & Peterson, Z. D. (2017). Unintentional misreporting on self-report measures of sexually aggressive behavior: An interview study. The Journal of Sex Research.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1304519.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Synnott, J., Dietzel, D., & Ioannou, M. (2015). A review of the polygraph: History, methodology and current status. Crime Psychology Review, 1, 59–83.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23744006.2015.1060080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Timm, H. W. (1982). Effect of altered outcome expectancies stemming from placebo and feedback treatments on the validity of the guilty knowledge technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 391–400.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.4.391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Webster, G. D., DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S., Deckman, T., Jonason, P. K., Le, B. M., … Smith, C. V. (2014). The brief aggression questionnaire: Psychometric and behavioral evidence for an efficient measure of trait aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 120–139.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA
  2. 2.Boise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations