Content uploaded by Wayne W. Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wayne W. Smith on Dec 20, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tourism Management 28 (2007) 917–919
Research note
Social desirability bias and exit survey responses: The case of
a first nations campground in Central Ontario, Canada
Wayne W. Smith
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Received 8 September 2004; accepted 3 March 2006
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to illustrate a case in which social desirability bias may have affected exit survey results. In this case, an
exit survey of visitors to a First Nations (or aboriginal) campground, the results varied according to who collected the data (two
aboriginal or First Nations research assistant versus a Caucasian researcher or mailbox). Overall, those who delivered the results to the
First Nations research assistants provided answers that were more favorable than those delivered to the Caucasian researcher or mailbox.
Many of results were found to be overly positive especially in regards to questions related to staff performance. The results of this study
indicate that tourism researchers must be wary of data collection procedures (especially when attempting to measure cross culturally).
Finally, this paper examines methods to counter act situations, which may produce social desirability bias.
r2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Social desirability bias; Aboriginal; First nations; Data collection methods
1. Introduction
Exit surveys are a key tool in many destinations arsenal
for gathering information about their visitors. In a tourism
context, these surveys are often conducted on a one-on-one
basis at the site. The exit survey data collected then is used
to justify how resources are allocated. Given the relative
importance of this data, questions related to the validity and
reliability of the information is critical to the development
of tourism research as a whole. The purpose of this paper is
to illustrate how social desirability bias can affect the overall
reliability and validity of results of exit surveys especially
when related to cross cultural measurement.
2. Social desirability bias
Social desirability bias is the wish for individuals’ to
answer survey questions based not on their true feelings,
but on the desire to present themselves in the most
favorable manner possible, based upon what they believe
to be the social norms and mores of their region (King &
Bruner, 2000;Middleton & Jones, 2000;Paulhus & Reid,
1991). As Nancarrow and Brace (2000) note, social
desirability bias creates two potential issues for researchers
to overcome. The first is that social desirability bias relates
to the over or under reporting behavior based on whether
or not the activity being discussed is socially acceptable.
Secondly, Nancarrow and Brace (2000) states the social
desirability bias can lead to relationships found within the
research being artificial in the sense that attributes can
often be inflated or moderated. Given that tourism is a
relationship-based business (it is based on person to person
connections), the ways in which on-site exit surveys are
conducted are often in danger of social desirability bias
being present. For instance, in Western culture very few
people would attend a party, and at the end of it would tell
the host it was not enjoyable. However, individuals will
often tell ‘outsiders’ their true feelings related to the
experience. When tourism entities collect on-site data using
local researchers, the question then must be raised is if it is
akin to the party example given above? The purpose of this
research is to examine whether or not data collection
methods impact results in a case where cultural variance
between researcher and respondent (tourist) is present.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
0261-5177/$ - see front matter r2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.03.013
E-mail address: wayne_W_smith@yahoo.com.
3. Methods
This study began as an exit survey for a small First
Nations band’s campground facilities in Central Ontario,
Canada. The questionnaire asked a variety of questions
related to park performance, individuals’ demographic
characteristics and their marketing preferences. The ques-
tionnaire was handed to guests as they checked into the
campground during three holiday weekend periods (one per
month in May, July, and August). On the Sunday and/or
Monday before visitors at each site were to check out the
primary researcher (who is Caucasian and male) or one of
two research assistants (both of First Nations heritage and
female) went and asked if the patrons had filled out the
survey. If they had already filled out the questionnaire they
gave it to the researcher or research assistants or if the
individual’s preferred, they were reminded that they could
place it in a ‘special’ box at the exit of the park. If the
patrons had not filled out the survey, they were then asked to
do so (and if they had lost it, were provided another at that
time). They were once again given the option of handing the
survey back to the primary researcher/research assistants or
placing it in the ‘special’ mailbox at the exit at the park.
Questionnaires were marked with the symbol stating how
the data was collected. This was originally done to examine
issues related to response rate (which was over 60%)
however; as the data was analyzed some discrepancies were
noticed. As a result of the discrepancies, the research
collection process was reviewed and was found to be
consistent among all data collectors. Further analysis was
conducted into the results of the study based on which
source collected the data. An initial examination of the data
indicated that there was no statistically significant difference
between the responses received through the mailbox and the
primary researcher while the two-research assistants’ results
were also quite similar. There was a significant difference
however, between the research assistants’ results and those
delivered to the primary researcher and the mailbox.
The data collection process was then examined in detail
(employing techniques such as shadowing and reviewing
the procedures for encounters with potential respondents)
to ensure that a consistent approach was being pursued by
both the primary researcher and the research assistants and
was found to be adequate. There were also no significant
differences found between the researchers pertaining to the
overall profile of the visitors or their general trip
characteristics (such as activities engaged in while at the
park). These findings indicate that there may be a social
desirability bias present in the results. Due to these results,
the purpose of this research note is to establish these
differences to examine if a social desirability bias is present.
4. Results
The results of this study indicate that overall respondents
were more likely to give a more positive rating (based on a
five point Likert scale [1—strongly disagree to 5—agree
strongly]) for the park and its facilities to the research
assistants of First Nations heritage (Table 1). In particular,
those categories pertaining to the staffs’ performance (who
are all of First Nations descent) were found to be more
likely to be overly positive in comparison to the responses
given to the primary researcher and delivered anonymously
to the mailbox. There was no discrepancy found in the
demographic profile of visitors interviewed, and questions
regarding factors such as campers marketing tendencies
showed no statistically significant variation. These results
indicate that questions related to individual performance
and site-specific questions were more prone to possible
social desirability bias.
5. Conclusion
Social desirability bias is not commonly regarded in the
tourism literature as being a topic of importance. As these
results indicate, though, this topic is quite relevant to the
industry especially when asking visitors to make judgments
pertaining to service quality and image. King and Bruner
(2000) note situations where research designs are investi-
gating highly sensitive constructs (either personally or
socially sensitive) or situations in which subject anonymity
may be perceived as compromised are two instances where
social desirability bias may affect results.
Ways to relieve social desirability bias from the research
design include being careful of instrument construction. In
the case of this study, the phrasing of certain questions may
have lead respondents to believe they needed to make
personal judgments rather than service-quality judgments.
For instance, if the question ‘‘the office staff was friendly and
courteous’’ was rephrased into several specific performance-
related questions such as ‘‘the office staff asked me if I
needed anything to make my stay more pleasant’’ may have
lead to a reduction of social desirability bias. Further, in the
case of this study, using only third party data collectors or
guaranteeing anonymity through only collecting data via the
mailbox could have improved the data collection process.
These results bring forward many issues related to data
collection for tourism research in general. For instance, when
conducting exit surveys, what constitutes a third party? Is it
someone directly not involved in the research agenda or is it
someone who is not of the community and can be identified
as such? Finally, questions arise as to the overall validity of
the results. The question is whether a scale measures
accurately. In the case of this study, does someone agreeing
that the staff was friendly and courteous really mean that, or
should the scale be reexamined for its potential truer
meaning? Are the scales being used valid in these cases?
Social desirability bias is a factor that is omni-present
but not often considered an integral part of the research
design. Within the field of tourism research especially in
designs, where cultural factors involved, there is little
known about the effects of social desirability bias in these
cases. There needs to be further research into this field in
order to examine the effect of social desirability bias in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
W.W. Smith / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 917–919918
relation to tourism research in order to not to be the host
that thinks their party was fantastic when in reality it was
perceived as terrible.
References
King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected
aspect of validity testing. Psychology & Marketing,17(2), 79–103.
Middleton, K. L., & Jones, J. L. (2000). Social desirable response sets:
The impact of country culture. Psychology & Marketing,17(2),
149–163.
Nancarrow, C., & Brace, I. (2000). Saying the ‘right thing’: Coping with
social desirability bias in marketing research. Bristol Business School
Teaching and Research Review,1, 8–16.
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancment and denial in social
desirability bias. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology,77(5),
307–317.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Measures of social desirability bias during exit survey at first nations campground
Survey item Collection method NMean Std. deviation TSig.
The registration process was easy. RA 114 3.95 1.12 2.03 0.043
Primary/Mailbox 131 3.63 1.29
The staff was efficient in processing my registration. RA 107 4.00 0.91 2.65 0.009
Primary/Mailbox 126 3.64 1.14
There were enough washroom facilities in the park. RA 104 3.99 0.98 2.02 0.044
Primary/Mailbox 123 3.72 1.06
The campsites were spacious. RA 113 4.29 0.76 2.27 0.024
Primary/Mailbox 129 4.04 0.96
The office staff was friendly and courteous. RA 116 4.70 0.60 2.43 0.016
Primary/Mailbox 129 4.51 0.60
The playground facilities were well maintained. RA 78 3.87 0.97 2.62 0.010
Primary/Mailbox 99 3.46 1.09
The campground signage was good. RA 112 4.25 0.71 0.55 0.580
Primary/Mailbox 125 3.90 0.88
The staff on patrols was friendly and courteous. RA 112 4.25 1.02 7.18 0.008
Primary/Mailbox 126 4.18 0.82
The campground-recycling program is too onerous. RA 116 4.56 0.78 2.53 0.012
Primary/Mailbox 127 4.29 0.87
The trails are well maintained. RA 113 4.47 0.72 2.17 0.030
Primary/Mailbox 125 4.26 0.79
The staff enforced the rules evenly. RA 113 4.83 1.04 2.64 0.009
Primary/Mailbox 126 3.18 1.00
The shower facilities were clean and tidy. RA 103 3.77 1.06 3.05 0.003
Primary/Mailbox 121 3.28 1.28
The staff teams made us feel welcome. RA 108 4.44 0.72 1.54 .010
Primary/Mailbox 126 4.07 0.77
Overall the visit to the park was enjoyable. RA 117 4.86 0.36 8.40 .000
Primary/Mailbox 132 4.18 0.84
RA ¼Research assistant.
Primary/Mailbox ¼Combined answers to Primary Researcher and Mailbox drop-off point.
W.W. Smith / Tourism Management 28 (2007) 917–919 919