COMPUTER ADMINISTRATION AND RESPONSE BIAS
Technology has had many influences on modern society, one of which is the increasing use of computer-based
technology for the administration of psychological measures. Here we combine studies that examined the admin-
istration of the test items through individual desktop or laptop computers, computer networks, and via a variety
of Internet-based applications. Concerns over the influence of response bias and socially desirable responding on
responses to computerized test administration date to at least the late 1960s ( Dwight & Feigelson, 2000 ).
Studies have explored whether computerized test item administration leads to more or less socially desirable
responding, and whether or not respondents are more or less prone to attempting to fake good or bad when
responding by computer. Factors that are known to influence paper and pencil responding also appear to influ-
ence computer-based administration. For example, the extent of control and anonymity in responding are both
known to influence socially desirable responding across both forms of item administration ( Fox & Schwartz,
2002; Joinson, 1999; Lautenschlager & Flaherty, 1990 ). Impression management seems to be more susceptible to
the form of scale administration than does self-deception ( Dwight & Feigelson, 2000 ). One meta-analysis suggests
that increasingly sophisticated forms of computer administration that have developed with time, perhaps along
with increasing familiarity with computers by respondents, has led to a reduction in willingness to disclose
socially undesirable characteristics with computer-based administration ( Dwight & Feigelson, 2000 ). For what-
ever reason, such changes over time have occurred. Richman, Kiesler, Weisband, and Drasgow (1999) reported
from their meta-analysis that being alone while responding, anonymity, and being able to backtrack to change
responses to previous items were all factors that led to less distortion on measures of social desirability that were
administered by computer. More recently, Weigold, Weigold, and Russell (2013) evaluated the quantitative and
qualitative equivalence of paper-and-pencil and internet administration of several survey measures in two stud-
ies, including the 13-item short form of the Marlowe /C0Crowne Social Desirability Scale ( Reynolds, 1982 ). In both
samples of university undergraduates, the short social desirability scale showed qualitative and quantitative
equivalence across forms of administration despite its modest level of reliability in both samples. In contrast,
most of the computer-administered attitude scales reported by Helmes and Campbell (2009) showed more nega-
tive attitudes toward older adults than the same scales administered by traditional paper-and-pencil methods.
The results of the above two meta-analyses agree that few differences are evident in recent research between
computer administered and paper-and-pencil measures of most personality constructs. For example, Grieve and
de Groot (2011) found no differences between groups instructed to fake good in responding to a personality
questionnaire and to fake bad in responding to a measure of psychopathology in responding via paper-and-
pencil and computerized administration. It remains true that responding under conditions of anonymity, whether
by computer or paper-and-pencil measure, can lead to greater levels of disclosure of undesirable actions
(Kreuter, Presser, & Tourangeau, 2008 ). At the same time, there is some evidence that increasing awareness of
the pervasiveness of computers in modern society can lead to greater reluctance to reveal private information
and to increase efforts to manage one’s image through impression management techniques ( Rosenfeld, Booth-
Kewley, Edwards, & Thomas, 1996 ).
It thus appears that for many psychological measures, little difference is to be expected in terms of simply the
form of scale administration by traditional or computer-based methods. It is also evident that the same sorts of
factors that influence response styles with paper-and-pencil measures also influence computer administered
scales. Factors such as the ability to change previous answers, genuine anonymity, and the social relationship
between respondent and the researcher remain influential. Recent efforts (e.g., Kubinger, 2009 ) to prevent or min-
imize faking good in personality measures that are computer-administered questionnaires may, however, lead to
more valid descriptions and conclusions with computer-based administration.
ARE RESPONSE BIAS SCALES PURELY RESPONSE BIASES?
In addressing whether response biases are confounds for the valid assessment of personality, the issue can be
reflected so as to ask whether personality constructs impede the accurate measurement of response biases. In par-
ticular, are scale operationalizations of response biases free of content or other variance? Apparently not! In this
regard, a number of findings are relevant.
First, as an alternative to stylistic conceptualizations, factor analytic investigations of socially desirable
responding scale items (e.g., Holden & Fekken, 1989 ) also support substantive interpretations including realistic35 ARE RESPONSE BIAS SCALES PURELY RESPONSE BIASES?
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT