Using Construal Level Theory to Deter the Social Desirability Bias A dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies Of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTORATE OF PHILISOPHY (PH.D.) in the department of Marketing of the College of Business 2012 by Scott A. Wright B.S., Boston College Committee Members: Frank R. Kardes, Ph.D., James J. Kellaris, Ph.D., David J. Curry, Ph.D., and Rebecca Walker Naylor, Ph.D. 1 ABSTRACT Leveraging Construal Level Theory to Attenuate the Social Desirability Bias by Scott A. Wright Chair: Frank R. Kardes, Ph.D. The social desirability bias is the tendency of respondents to adjust their responses or behavior in such a way as to present themselves in socially acceptable terms. The systematic bias introduced by the social desirability bias threatens the legitimacy of empirical research by confounding a phenomenon of interest with impression management behavior, thus obscuring research results and potentially triggering false conclusions. When the social desirability bias is a concern (e.g., when asking socially sensitive, embarrassing, or private questions), researchers commonly use techniques such as indirect questioning to avoid this bias. By asking respondents how most or the typical person would respond (i.e, referring to a third party target) the respondent transcends from an egocentric focus on his or her own unflattering attitudes or behavior onto that of an ambiguous target. Given the target‘s indistinctness respondents project their own feelings, attitudes, behaviors, or beliefs when responding while remaining psychologically distanced from the true, yet socially undesirable response. According to construal level theory this process of ―transcendence‖ is possible because individuals are able to form abstract mental construals (Liberman and Trope 1998; Trope and Liberman 2003; Trope and Liberman 2010). This mental construal process is essential to recalling the past, empathizing with others, imagining what could have been, and visualizing future events. We propose that when presented with an indirect question, respondents increase their mental construal to project a response onto the third party target. As mental construals increase, individuals refocus from detailed, incidental features to central, fundamental 2 characteristics (Trope and Liberman 2010). Consequently, we propose that indirect questioning prompts respondents to deemphasize the contextual demand to engage in impression management behavior by increasing construal levels. This research serves three primary purposes. First, we propose construal level theory as a theoretical explanation for indirection questioning. Second, we explore how psychological distances and construal level effectively reduce social desirability bias. Lastly, we test our theoretical model within a consumer choice context including sustainable products. This research has important methodological and substantive implications for marketers, researchers, and consumer psychologists. In addition, we integrate construal level theory with projective measurement theory, thus extending knowledge in both domains. This research provides researchers with a framework to explain and develop techniques that deter social desirability bias. In Study 1, we investigate the association of seven commonly used marketing scales with measures of socially desirable responding. As a preliminary demonstration that increasing construal levels decreases the social desirability bias, we manipulate the psychological distance of these seven marketing scales to reduce their association with socially desirable responding measures. Results indicate that whereas indirect questioning increasing social or spatial distance reduces the association with desirable responding measures, indirect questioning increasing temporal distance magnifies this association. Study 2 further investigates the relationship between construal level and the social desirability bias through a product choice task involving sustainable and non-sustainable product option. Results indicate that increasing construal levels in an ostensibly unrelated task subsequently increases the likelihood that consumers will select the non-sustainable product. In Study 3, we extend these findings by exploring the mechanism 3 explaining the relationship between psychological distance and impression management behavior. We find that when demand biases are present, increasing the psychological distance of the choice task reduces impression management, consequently increasing the share of choice for the functionally superior, yet environmentally inferior product option. 4 ∙ © Copyright 2012 Scott A. Wright ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 5 DEDICATION To my loving wife, Christine. 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge those that have helped me complete this work. Firstly, I would like to thank my committee chair, Frank Kardes, for his wealth of knowledge and support. Frank has always treated me with kindness and the utmost respect. I am privileged and honored to have such a terrific mentor. I would also like to thank my extraordinary doctoral committee. I would like to thank Dave Curry for his keen intellect and advice. The department is fortunate to have such an exceptional and compassionate Ph.D. coordinator. Thank you to James Kellaris for his honesty and patience. Thank you to Rebecca Naylor for inspiring this dissertation and for guiding its development. I would also like to thank our department head, Karen Machleit for her guidance throughout my time in the program. I would also like to thank the remaining faculty at the University of Cincinnati for your support and for the opportunity to complete this work. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife, Christine, for whom I have dedicated this dissertation, for her eternal support. 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE Introduction…………………………………………..……………1 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review…………………………………….....…………5 CHAPTER THREE Study 1………………………………….……………………………………………..…………17 Method……………………………………………………………………………..…….18 Results……………………………………………………………………………………22 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………..…24 CHAPTER FOUR Study 2…………………………………………….…………………………..…………………26 Method………………………………………………………………………………..….28 Results……………………………………………………………………………………29 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..30 CHAPTER FIVE Study 3…………………………………………….……………………………………………..33 Method………………………………………………………………………………..….34 Results……………………………………………………………………………………37 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………..…39 CHAPTER SIX General Discussion…………………………….………………………………………………...41 References…………………………………………………………………………………..……48 Tables and Figures………………………………………………………………………...……..59 Appendix A Manipulations and Measures for Study 1…………………………..……70 Appendix B Manipulations and Measures for Study 2……………………………..…90 8 Appendix C Manipulations and Measures for Study 3………………………………..98 Appendix D Individual Difference Measures…………………………………….…..105 9 TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ARTICLES DOCUMENTING THE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY BIAS (JCR, JMR, JM, JAMS: 1998-2011) ……………………..………60 TABLE 2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (STUDY 1)……………..…………………….…63 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF STANDIZED TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS FOR EACH PRODUCT CATEGORY (STUDY 3)...…………….…64 FIGURE 1 STUDY 1: PLOTS OF WITHIN EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS OF SDE AND IM FOR SEVEN MARKETING SCALES……………………………………….…65 FIGURE 2 STUDY 3: INDIRECT-ONLY MEDIATED MODERATION MODEL FOR LAUNDRY DETERGENTS ……..…………………………………….…68 FIGURE 3 STUDY 3: INDIRECT-ONLY MEDIATED MODERATION MODEL FOR HAND SANITIZERS…………..……………………………………….…69 10 CHAPTER ONE Introduction Whether completing a marketing survey, purchasing a product, or sharing product information with a friend, consumers frequently alter their responses or behavior to maintain positive social impressions (Baumeister 1982). This behavior, identified as the social desirability bias, has been well documented in the literature (Crowne and Marlowe 1960; Maccoby and Maccoby 1954; Acquisti, John, and Loewenstein 2012; Steenkamp, de Jong, and Baumgartner 2010). A respondent‘s motive to engage in socially desirable responding increases as their accurate and truthful response deviates from a standard response that they perceive as being socially optimal. For example, questions pertaining to socially sensitive behaviors like calorie consumption, charitable giving, recycling, and television viewing are all likely to elicit distorted responses towards a socially acceptable standard or away from a socially unacceptable standard. Similarly, scales measuring socially sensitive constructs such as materialism (Mick 1996), green orientation (Luchs et al. 2010), impulsive purchasing (Rook 1987), and corporate social responsibility (Burton and Hegarty 1999), are also likely to result in biased responses. To date, a significant portion of our knowledge of socially sensitive constructs, and their causal structures, comes from such self-report measures (Rindfleisch et al. 2008). Unfortunately, the social stigma associated with such topics, and consequent response adjustment behavior, increases systematic response biases, thus distorting parameter estimates and compromising the validity of research conclusions. Prior research documents the threats posed by the social desirability bias (see King and Bruner 2000; Mick 1996; Steenkamp et al. 2010). These threats range from inflated measurement error to outright erroneous results (see Fisher 1993; Ganster, Hennessey,