简表马洛-克劳恩与 "最好的朋友 "社会理想偏差测量法的比较

IF 3.6 3区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS
José I. Rojas-Méndez, Gary Davies
{"title":"简表马洛-克劳恩与 \"最好的朋友 \"社会理想偏差测量法的比较","authors":"José I. Rojas-Méndez, Gary Davies","doi":"10.1108/mip-06-2023-0258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The purpose of this study is to compare two different types of measures of social desirability bias (SDB), a short form of the Marlowe–Crowne measure, a popular direct measure, and an example of a projective technique where half of the respondents record the views of their “best friends”.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The data were collected using an online survey of members of a consumer panel. The context chosen to test the SDB measures was that of attitudes toward counterfeit products and xenocentrism in Colombia. Counterfeit proneness, attitude toward counterfeit products and consumer xenocentrism were selected as variables likely to be affected by SDB. Vertical and horizontal collectivism were included as variables likely to influence the first group of variables while not being themselves subject to SDB.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The projective technique consistently identified higher levels of SDB effects, as hypothesized. Marked differences emerged in the apparent strength of the relationships between the operational constructs depending upon which measure of SDB was used. At times, whether any such relationship might exist depended on the SDB measure used. Contrary to some prior work, no systematic gender effects were identified using either approach.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The first study to provide evidence of the comparative effects of different types of measures of SDB in research into ethical issues. One of the few to demonstrate how apparent relationships between variables can be created by SDB.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":48048,"journal":{"name":"Marketing Intelligence & Planning","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of short form Marlowe–Crowne and “best friends” social desirability bias measures\",\"authors\":\"José I. Rojas-Méndez, Gary Davies\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/mip-06-2023-0258\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>The purpose of this study is to compare two different types of measures of social desirability bias (SDB), a short form of the Marlowe–Crowne measure, a popular direct measure, and an example of a projective technique where half of the respondents record the views of their “best friends”.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>The data were collected using an online survey of members of a consumer panel. The context chosen to test the SDB measures was that of attitudes toward counterfeit products and xenocentrism in Colombia. Counterfeit proneness, attitude toward counterfeit products and consumer xenocentrism were selected as variables likely to be affected by SDB. Vertical and horizontal collectivism were included as variables likely to influence the first group of variables while not being themselves subject to SDB.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>The projective technique consistently identified higher levels of SDB effects, as hypothesized. Marked differences emerged in the apparent strength of the relationships between the operational constructs depending upon which measure of SDB was used. At times, whether any such relationship might exist depended on the SDB measure used. Contrary to some prior work, no systematic gender effects were identified using either approach.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>The first study to provide evidence of the comparative effects of different types of measures of SDB in research into ethical issues. One of the few to demonstrate how apparent relationships between variables can be created by SDB.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":48048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Marketing Intelligence & Planning\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Marketing Intelligence & Planning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/mip-06-2023-0258\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marketing Intelligence & Planning","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/mip-06-2023-0258","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较两种不同类型的社会可取性偏差(SDB)测量方法,一种是流行的直接测量方法马洛-克劳恩(Marlowe-Crowne)测量方法的简表,另一种是投射技术的实例,即一半受访者记录其 "最好朋友 "的观点。选择用来测试 SDB 测量的背景是哥伦比亚人对假冒产品和排外主义的态度。假冒伪劣产品、对假冒伪劣产品的态度和消费者的仇外心理被选为可能受 SDB 影响的变量。纵向和横向集体主义被列为可能影响第一组变量的变量,但其本身不受 SDB 影响。根据所使用的 SDB 测量方法的不同,操作性建构之间关系的明显强度也存在明显差异。有时,这种关系是否存在取决于所使用的 SDB 测量方法。与之前的一些研究相反,使用这两种方法都没有发现系统性的性别效应。原创性/价值这是第一项研究,它提供了不同类型的 SDB 测量方法在伦理问题研究中的比较效应的证据。该研究是为数不多的能证明 SDB 如何在变量之间建立明显关系的研究之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of short form Marlowe–Crowne and “best friends” social desirability bias measures

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare two different types of measures of social desirability bias (SDB), a short form of the Marlowe–Crowne measure, a popular direct measure, and an example of a projective technique where half of the respondents record the views of their “best friends”.

Design/methodology/approach

The data were collected using an online survey of members of a consumer panel. The context chosen to test the SDB measures was that of attitudes toward counterfeit products and xenocentrism in Colombia. Counterfeit proneness, attitude toward counterfeit products and consumer xenocentrism were selected as variables likely to be affected by SDB. Vertical and horizontal collectivism were included as variables likely to influence the first group of variables while not being themselves subject to SDB.

Findings

The projective technique consistently identified higher levels of SDB effects, as hypothesized. Marked differences emerged in the apparent strength of the relationships between the operational constructs depending upon which measure of SDB was used. At times, whether any such relationship might exist depended on the SDB measure used. Contrary to some prior work, no systematic gender effects were identified using either approach.

Originality/value

The first study to provide evidence of the comparative effects of different types of measures of SDB in research into ethical issues. One of the few to demonstrate how apparent relationships between variables can be created by SDB.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Marketing Intelligence & Planning (MIP) facilitates communication between researchers and practitioners, providing the users of research with a wealth of robust and relevant information. At a time when some journals are losing their relevance to industry and practical requirements, MIP successfully offers a bridge between academic and practitioner thinking, while retaining a high level of scientific rigour.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信