Regardless of whether to immunize the test itself or to address the test taker, future efforts to deal with
socially desirable responding would strongly profit from an extended knowledge regarding the actual answering
processes during response distortion. Ideas have been presented by several authors (e.g., Krosnick, 1999 ;Robie,
Brown & Beaty 2007 ;Ziegler, 2011 ). Most models see the process as a sequence of understanding the item content
(comprehension), retrieving relevant information (retrieval), comparing item content with retrieved information
(judgment) and finally mapping this onto the rating scale (mapping). Ziegler proposed that immediately after
item comprehension an evaluative judgment regarding the item is made. Furthermore, during item answering
involving response distortions, situational aspects as well as person characteristics determine the degree of
response distortion. Ellingson (2012) , as well as Ellingson and McFarland (2011) have elaborated on potential per-
sonality traits as well as situational characteristics influencing response distortion. However, considerably more
information is needed to fully understand the actual response distortion process. This information will then allow
more customized efforts to prevent or detect social desirable responding.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Response biases, in general, and faking, in particular, continue to be arguably important issues of concern in
self-report personality assessment. Although preventing the impact of response biases in self-report measures
may be an ultimate goal, it is somewhat of a holy grail /C0an elusive quest that may or may not ever be fully
reached. In the interim, some of the intermediate goals are to reduce the effect of response biases, to correct for
the impact of response biases, and to identify individuals whose report may be strongly affected by response
biases. Traditionally, this latter goal has focused on the development of scales such as those reviewed in this
chapter. Many of these scales can perform their task well and have empirically supported merit. That being said,
personality assessment does not stand still. As the field continues to evolve, we optimistically anticipate new
developments that will take advantage of innovations in the understanding of the process of test item responding
(e.g., Bayesian and other mathematical models), in methods of test construction, in psychometric theory, and
in technology.
A road less travelled but of interest to research in faking and social desirability might be to investigate the
actual answer process to personality items. So far, the methods used with respect to such analyses have been
‘think aloud’ techniques or retrospective questioning of test takers. However, new methods such as diffusion
models ( Voss, Rothermund & Voss 2004; Voss & Voss, 2007 ) might offer more straightforward and empirically
less difficult options. Diffusion models have successfully been used to describe decision processes in experimen-
tal psychology. The parameters analysed are derived from response times and offer a multitude of information.
Regarding the answering process, comparisons between honest and faked responses based on diffusion models
potentially broaden our understanding of the actual answer process. The same holds true for the application of
techniques such as eye movement. van Hooft and Born (2012) successfully applied eye-movement analyses to
investigate the answer process in a fake good experiment.
Thus, the application of new techniques from other areas of psychology might provide the chance to further
our knowledge about faking or social desirable responding. Each of these methods provides a multitude of infor-
mation. Combining this information might provide a better basis for mathematical models describing faking and
social desirable responding.
A non-exhaustive list of some promising possibilities includes:
1.The development of better (e.g., more reliable, more targeted toward specific forms of socially desirable
responding) scales to detect response biases; such scales need to show better discriminant validity with regard
to personality questionnaires.
2.Based on Item Response Theory and Bayesian theory, the identification of response biases through the
examination of item response patterns.
3.The use of item response times, collected through computer-assisted and/or on-line assessment, to detect
response biases.
4.The use of ancillary neuroscientific physiological measures (e.g., eye-tracking, heart rate) concomitant with the
collection of self-reports (see Chapter 10 by Neumann et al., this volume).
5.The development and construction of objective personality tests rather than continued reliance on subjective
rating or self-report scales/measures (e.g., see Cattell & Warburton, 1967 ;Schuerger, 2008 ).38 2. RESPONSE BIAS, MALINGERING, AND IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT