A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology

Abstract

A new social desirability scale was constructed and correlated with MMPI scales. Comparison was made with correlations of the Edwards Social Desirability scale. The new scale correlated highly with MMPI scales and supported the definition of social desirability. Ss need to respond in "culturally sanctioned ways."

Full text

Journal
oj
Consulting
Psychology
1960, Vol.
24, No. 4,
349-354
A
NEW
SCALE
OF
SOCIAL
DESIRABILITY
INDEPENDENT
OF
PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
DOUGLAS
P.
CROWNE
Ohio
State
University
AND
DAVID MARLOWE
College
of
Medicine,
University
of
Kentucky
It has
long been recognized that personality
test
scores
are
influenced
by
non-test-relevant
response determinants. Wiggins
and
Rumrill
(1959)
distinguish
three approaches
to
this
problem.
Briefly,
interest
in the
problem
of
response distortion
has
been concerned with
attempts
at
statistical
correction
for
"faking
good"
or
"faking bad"
(Meehl
&
Hathaway,
1946),
the
analysis
of
response sets (Cron-
bach,
1946,1950),
and
ratings
of the
social
de-
sirability
of
personality
test
items (Edwards,
19
5
7).
A
further
distinction
can be
made, how-
ever,
which results
in a
somewhat
different
division
of
approaches
to the
question
of re-
sponse distortion. Common
to
both
the
Meehl
and
Hathaway corrections
for
faking
good
and
faking
bad and
Cronbach's notion
of
response
sets
is an
interest
in the
test behavior
of the
subject(S).
By
social
desirability,
on the
other
hand, Edwards primarily means
the
"scale
value
for any
personality
statement
such
that
the
scale value indicates
the
position
of the
statement
on the
social desirability con-
tinuum
. .
."
(1957,
p. 3).
Social desirability,
thus,
has
been used
to
refer
to a
characteristic
of
test
items,
i.e.,
their
scale
position
on a
social desirability scale.
Whether
the
test
behavior
of 5s or the
social desirability properties
of
items
are the
focus
of
interest, however,
it now
seems clear
that
underlying both these approaches
is the
concept
of
statistical deviance.
In the
con-
struction
of the
MMPI
K
scale,
for
example,
items were selected which
differentiated
be-
tween
clinically normal
persons
producing
abnormal
te¥Tpfpfiles~snd^cTinically
abnormal
individuals
with abnormal test
profiles,
and
between
clinically
abnormal
persons
with nor-
mal
test
profiles
and
abnormal
5s
whose
test
records were abnormal. Keyed
responses
to
the K
scale items tend
to be
statistically
deviant
in the
parent populations. Similarly,
the
development
of the
Edwards
Social
De-
sirability
Scale (SDS) illustrates this proce-
dure.
Items
were drawn
from
various
MMPI
scales
(F, L,
K,
and the
Manifest
Anxiety
Scale
[Taylor,
1953])
and
submitted
to
judges
who
categorized them
as
either socially
desirable
or
socially undesirable. Only items
on
which there
was
unanimous agreement
among
the 10
judges were included
in the
SDS.
It
seems
clear
that
the
items
in
Edwards
SDS
would,
of
necessity, have extreme social
desirability scale positions
or, in
other words,
be
statistically deviant.
Some
unfortunate
consequences
follow
from
the
strict
use of the
statistical
deviance model
in
the
development
of-sOcialTtesirSbTBty
scales.
With items drawn
from
the
MMPI,
it is ap-
parent that
in
addition
to
their scalability
for
social desirability
the
items
may
also
be
char-
acterized
by
their content
which,^n
a
general
sense,
has
pathological
implications.
When
a
social
desrrabtltty^scale
constructed
according
to
this procedure
is
then applied
to a
college
student population,
the
meaning
of
high social
desirability scores
is not at all
clear. When
5s
given
the
Edwards
SDS
deny,
for ex-
ample,
that
their
sleep
is fitful and
disturbed
(Item
6)
or
that they worry quite
a bit
over
possible
misfortunes
(Item
35),
it
cannot
be
determined
whether these responses
are at-
tributable
to
social desirability
or to a
genuine
absence
of
such symptoms.
The
probability
of
occurrence
of the
symptoms represented
in
MMPI
items
(and
incorportated
in the
SDS)
394

350
Douglas
P.
Crowne
and
David
Marlowe
in
a
college
undergraduate
population
is un-
doubtedly
low.
Thus,
the
achievement
of
high
SD
scores
may
simply
reflect
the low
fre-
quency
of
pathological
symptoms
in
this
population
and not the
needs
of 5s to
present
themselves
in a
favorable
light.
Of
course,
if
one is
only
concerned
with
the
properties
of
test
items
(their
social
desirability
scalabil-
ity),
this
is
not a
relevant
issue.
If,
however,
major
irrtportance
is
attached
to the
needs
of
5s
in
psychometric
situations
and the
influ-
ence
of
these
needs
on
test
responses,
it is
essential
to be
able
to
discriminate between
the
effects
of
item
content
and the
needs
of
5s to
present
themselves
in a
socially
desirable
(or
undesirable)
light.
In the
present
research,
a
social
desirabih'ty
scale
was
developed
according
to a
different
psychometric
model,
avoiding
the
ambiguities
of
the
statistical
deviance
approach.
Basic
to
this
model
is the
sampling procedure employed
in
the
selection
of
items
from
a
denned
uni-
verse.
The
jMpulatioiiJrom_whic_h_items
were
drawn
isjdefined
by
behaviors,
which
are
cul-
turally
sa,nctionear™and
approved
b_ut
which
are
improbabTe_6|
occurrence.
This
will
read-
ily
be"recognized
as
the"
rationale
underlying
the Lie
scale
of the
MMPI
(Meehl
&
Hath-
away,
1946).
Items
in the
present
scale,
how-
ever,
are
probably
le,ss,,,£Xtr,emg_J,han
the
JLjeJtejtns.
METHOD
Development
of
Scale
A
number
of
current personality inventories were
consulted
by the
authors
in
order
to
devise
a set of
items
for a new
social desirability scale (M-C SDS).
For
inclusion
in the
scale,
an
item
had to
meet
the
criterion
of
culturaLjipJiroyal
described above
and
was
required
to
ha^_mmffial~pathological
or ab-
nprnaal_Jmplications_Jf
responded
to~in"eifher
the
..socially,desirable
or
undesirable directions.
A set of
50
items
meeting
these
criteria
was
submitted
to 10
judges,
both
faculty
members
and
graduate students
in the
Department
of
Psychology
of
Ohio State Uni-
versity,
for
social desirability ratings.
The
judges
were
instructed
to
score each item
in the
socially
desirable direction
from
the
point
of
view
of
college
students, using true
and
false
response categories.
Unanimous agreement
was
obtained
on 36
items
and
90%
agreement
on 11
additional
items.
These
47
items constituted
the
preliminary
form
of the
scale.
A
major objective
in the
development
of the M-C
SDS was the
elimination
of
pathology-relevant item
content.
To
test this
and for
comparative
purposes,
both
the M-C SDS and the
Edwards 39-item
SDS
(Edwards, 1957) were submitted
to 10
additional
judges,
again including both faculty members
and
graduate students
in the
psychology
department,
for
ratings
of the
degree
of
maladjustment implied
by
socially undesirable responses
to the
items.
A
5-point
scale, ranging from extremely well-adjusted
(1) to
extremely
maladjusted
(5),
was
employed
for
this
purpose.
The
mean rating
for all the
items
in the
M-C SDS was
2.8, slightly below
the
midpoint
of the
scale
(implies neither good
nor
poor adjustment).
The
mean rating
for the
Edwards
SDS
items
was
3.9,
indicating that
the
judges considered socially unde-
sirable
responses
on
this scale
to be
definitely
indica-
tive
of
maladjustment.
The t
test
of the
significance
of
the
difference
between these means
is
15.27,
which
is
significant
well beyond
the
.0001 level.
The
preliminary scale
was
then administered
to 76
students
in two
introductory psychology courses,
and
an
item analysis completed.
There
were
33
items that
discriminated
at the
.05
level
or
better between high
and
low
total scores.
Of the 33
items,
18 are
keyed
true
and 15
false,
making
a
response
set
interpreta-
tion
of
scores highly improbable. These
33
items con-
stitute
the final
form
of the M-C SDS and are
listed
in
Table
1
with
the
socially desirable response scor-
ing
indicated.
Reliability
The
internal consistency
coefficient
for the final
form
of
.the
scale, using Kuder-Richardson
formula
20,
is
.88. This
was
computed
on 39
5s,
10
males
and
29
females,
who
were enrolled
in an
undergraduate
abnormal psychology class
at
Ohio
State
University.
The
mean
age of
this sample
was
24.4 years, with
a
range
of 19 to 46
years. Thirty-one
of
these
Ss
took
the
scale
on two
occasions separated
by a
month
interval.
A
test-retest
correlation
of .89 was
obtained.
Relationship
to
Edwards
SD
Scale
The
correlation
betwgen_thfr
M-C SDS and the
Edwards
SDS"iT:35,
whiSiis
significant
at the .01
level.
The~sample
on
which this correlation
is
based
included,
in
addition
to the 39
abnormal psychology
students,
81
students
in a
course
on
exceptional chil-
dren.
The
correlation shows
a
general tendency
for
scores
on the two
tests
to be
associated.
In
Table
2, the
means
and
standard deviations
of
both SDSs
are
reported.
The
distribution
of M-C
SDS
scores rather closely approximates
a
normal
distribution, while negative skewness, consistent with
previous
findings
(Edwards,
1957),
is
found
for the
Edwards
SD
distribution.
It is
interesting
to
compare
the
Edwards
SD
mean
found
in the
present research
with that originally reported.
The
means
of
28.6
and
27.1
for
males
and
females
reported
by
Edwards
are
considerably
lower than
the
value
found
in
this study.
Correlations
with
Other Scales
A
considerable portion
of the
research
on
social
desirability
has
involved
the
correlation
of
SDSs with
MMPI
variables.
To
compare
the
present scale with

A
New
Scale
of
Social
Desirability
351
TABLE
1
THE
MARLOWE-CROWNE
SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE
Personal Reaction
Inventory
Listed below
are a
number
of
statements concerning personal attitudes
and
traits. Read each item
and
decide
whether
the
statement
is
true
or
false
as it
pertains
to you
personally.
1.
Before voting
I
thoroughly
investigate
the
qualifications
of all the
candidates.
(T)
2.
I
never hesitate
to go out of my way to
help someone
in
trouble.
(T)
3.
It is
sometimes hard
for me to go on
with
my
work
if I am not en-
couraged.
(F)
4.
I
have never intensely disliked anyone.
(T)
1
5. On
occasion
I
have
had
doubts about
my
ability
to
succeed
in
life.
(F) •'
6.
I
sometimes
feel
resentful
when
I
don't
get my
way.
(F)
7.
I am
always
careful
about
my
manner
of
dress.
(T)
8.
My
table manners
at
home
are as
good
as
when
I eat out in a
restau-
rant.
(T)
9.
If I
could
get
into
a
movie
without
paying
and be
sure
I was not
seen
I
would probably
do
it.
(F) ,
10.
On a
few
occasions,
I
have given
up
doing something because
I
thought
too
little
of my
ability.
(F)
11. I
like
to
gossip
at
times.
(F)
12.
There have been times when
I
felt
like rebelling against people
in
authority even though
I
knew they were
right. (F) ,
13.
No
matter
who I'm
talking
to, I'm
always
a
good listener.
(T)
14.
I can
remember "playing
sick"
to get out of
something.
(F)
15.
There have been occasions when
I
took advantage
of
someone.
(F)
16.
I'm
always willing
to
admit
it
when
I
make
a
mistake.
(T)
17.
I
always
try to
practice
what
I
preach.
(T)
18. I
don't
find it
particularly
difficult
to get
along with loud mouthed,
obnoxious
people.
(T)
19. I
sometimes
try to get
even rather than
forgive
and
forget.
(F)
20.
When
I
don't know something
I
don't
at all
mind admitting
it. (T)
21. I am
always courteous, even
to
people
who are
disagreeable.
(T)
22.
At
times
I
have really insisted
ori
having things
my own
way.
(F)
"S
23.
There have been occasions when
I
felt
like smashing things.
(F)
24. I
would never think
of
letting someone else
be
punished
for my
wrong-
doings.
(T)
25.
I
never
resent
being
asked
to
return
a
favor.
(T)
26.
I
have never
been
irked when people expressed ideas very
different
from
my
own.
(T)
27.
I
never make
a
long trip without checking
the
safety
of my
car.
(T)
28.
There have been times when
I was
quite jealous
of the
good
fortune
of
others.
(F)
29.
I
have almost never
felt
the
urge
to
tell someone
off.
(T)
30. I am
sometimes
irritated
by
people
who ask
favors
of me. (F)
31.
I
have never
felt
that
I was
punished without cause.
(T)
32.
I
sometimes think when people have
a
mistortune
they only
got
what
they deserved.
(F)
33. I
have never deliberately said something
that
hurt someone's feelings.
(T)

352
Douglas
P.
Crowne
and
David Marlowe
TABLE
2
MEANS
AND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
OF THE
SOCIAL
DESIRABILITY SCALES
Scale
N
Mean
SD
M-C SDS 120
Edwards
SDS 120
(From
Edwards,
84
1957)
108
13.72
31.83
28.6 Males
27.1
Females
5.78
5.06
6.5
6.5
the
Edwards SDS, Pearson product-moment correla-
tions were computed between
the two
SDSs
and the
following
MMPI
and
derived scales:
K—Test-taking
attitude;
L—Lie;
F—Validity
and
test-taking
atti-
tude;
Hs—Hypochondriasis;
D—Depression;
Hy—
Hysteria;
Pd—Psychopathic
Deviate;
Pa—Paranoia;
Pt—Psychasthenia;
Sc—Schizophrenia;
Ma—Manic;
Pr—Prejudice
(Gough,
1951);
St—Status
(Gough,
1948);
Es—Ego
Strength
(Barren,
1953);
MAS—
Manifest
Anxiety (Taylor,
1953);
A—Anxiety
(Welsh,
1956);
R—Repression
(Welsh,
1956).
The 39 5s
referred
to
above
who
served
in the
study
were administered
the M-C
SDS,
the
39-item
Edwards SDS,
and the
MMPI
in
that
order.
The
first
two
tests were given
on the
same
day and the
MMPI
about
a
month later. Thirty-four
Ss
com-
pleted
all of the
tests
and 37 of
them completed
all
but the
derived
MMPI
scales.
Table
3
presents
the
correlations
between
the M-C
TABLE
3
CORRELATIONS
BETWEEN
THE
SOCIAL
DESIRABILITY
SCALES
AND
VARIOUS
MMPI
SCALES
FOR
37
MALES
AND
FEMALES
MMPI
Scales
M-C SDS
Edwards
SDS
K
L
F
Hs
D
Hy
Pd
Pa
Pt
Sc
Ma
Pr*
St*
Es
MASb
Ab
Rb
.40*
.54**
—.36*
-.30
-.27
.15
-.41**
.21
-.30
-.40*
-.24
-.27
.16
.17
-.25
-.23
.28
.65**
.22
-.61**
-.62**
-.72**
.09
-.73**
-.02
-.80**
-.77**
-.42*
-.58**
.14
.46**
-.75**
-.61**
.07
*
Significant
at the
.05
level.
**
Significant
at the .01
level.
»
N = 36.
b
N = 34.
SDS
and the
Edwards
SDS and the 17
MMPI
validity, clinical,
and
derived scales.
It is at
once
apparent that
uniformly
higher correlations obtain
between
the
Edwards
SDS and the
various
MMPI
scales
than between
the M-C SDS and
these
MMPI
variables.
A
general trend, which
is
consistent with
previous
research,
is
found
in the
positive correlations
between
the
SDSs
and the
validity scales
of the
MMPI,
and
negative
correlations
with most
of the
clinical
scales. Four
clinical
scales correlate highest
with
both SDSs, with
the
single exception
of D
which
correlated
-.27
with
the M-C
SDS:
Sc, Pd,
Pt, and Hs. Two of
these
four,
Sc and Pt, are
considered
to be
among
the
most "pathological"
of
the
clinical
scales.
DISCUSSION
The
most important
feature
of the findings
of
this study
is
found
in the
marked
differ-
ences overall
in the
magnitude
of the
correla-
tions between
the two
SDSs
and the
MMPI.
Consistently higher correlations were
found
between
the
Edwards
SDS and the
MMPI
scales
than
were obtained between
the M-C
SDS
and the
MMPI
scales.
The
high Edwards
SDS-MMPI
correlations,
in
general,
confirm
findings
previously reported
by
Edwards
(1957)
and
Fordyce
(1956).
Correlations
be-
tween
the
Edwards
SDS and the Pt, Sc, and
MAS
scales,
in
fact, approach
the
asymptotic
value
of the
reliabilities
of the
separate
tests.
With
correlations
this
high,
it
is
necessary
to
raise
the
question
of
whether
the
Edwards
SDS
and
these MMPI scales
are
not,
in
effect,
functionally unitary.
It
would
appear
to be
difficult
to
hold
the
view
that
SD
scores
and
MAS,
Pt, and Sc
scores
can be
interpreted
differently.
More
in
accord with
the
evidence
would
be to
attribute
the
covariance
of the
Edwards
SDS and
these
MMPI
scales
to
item
similarity
and to the
"pathological"
content
of
both
sets
of
items.
This
would lead
to an
interpretation
of the
Edwards scale
as a
meas-
ure
of the
willingness
to
admit
to
certain
symptoms
of a
"neurotic" nature
or as a
meas-
ure
of
general
"neuroticism."
But
this
does
not
enable
one to
discriminate
between high
SD
scorers
who
genuinely
do not
have
the
symptoms represented
in the SDS
items
from
those
5s who
conceal
(consciously
or
uncon-
sciously) their symptoms
and
whose responses
are
motivated
by
social desirability.
To the
extent,
then,
that
the
Edwards
SDS
measures
social desirability,
it
does
so in the
very
re-

A
New
Scale
oj
Social
Desirability
353
stricted sense that high
SD
scores imply
that
it
is bad or
undesirable
to
have
or
admit
to
symptoms.
Possibly, such attitudes have little
generality
and
would
not be
related
to
other
test
behavior
or
social behavior. Sarason
(1959)
has
also raised
the
question
of the
interpretation
of
Edwards
SDS as an un-
confounded
measure
of
social desirability.
In the
development
of the M-C
SDS, social
desirability
was
denned
more
broadly
to
refer
to
the
need
of 5s to
obtain approval
by re-
sponding
in a
culturally
appropriate
and ac-
ceptable manner. This conception does
not
involve
the
acquiescence
or
denial
by 5 of
pathology.
The
significantly
different
malad-
justment
ratings obtained
on the two
SDSs
support
the
hypothesis
that
the
Edwards
SDS
involves
the
admission
or
denial
of
maladjus-
tive
symptoms
and
indicate that socially unde-
sirable responses
on the M-C SDS do not
imply
maladjustment.
The
smaller correlations between
the M-C
SDS
and the
various
MMPI
scales would
be
predicted
if one
views
social
desirability
as
accounting
for a
fraction
of the
MMPI
vari-
ance
but not all or
most
of it. The
problem
of
overlapping meanings
is
thereby avoided.
Thus,
it is
submitted that
the M-C
SDS-
MMPI
correlations
more
accurately indicate
the
amount
of
MMPI
scale variance which
may be
attributed
to
differences
in the
need
to
give socially desirable responses.
It may
additionally
be
pointed
out
that
the
M-C SDS and the
Edwards
SDS
differ
con-
siderably
in the
amount
of
content
or
item
overlap with
the
various MMPI scales.
The
present scale contains
one
exact
and
four
approximate replications
of L
items
and one
repetition
of a
K
scale item.
By
contrast,
the
Edwards
SDS,
it
will
be
recalled,
was
con-
structed
from
a
heterogeneous pool
of
MMPI
items
and not
inconsiderably overlaps with
many
MMPI validity
and
clinical scales.
The
two
SDSs have
no
items
in
common.
Certain
additional
aspects
of the
present
findings are
worthy
of
note. Positive correla-
tions
are
found
for
both SDSs with
the K and
L
scales,
on
which high scores
are
generally
interpreted
to
indicate
"defensiveness"
and
the
attempt
by 5 to
cast
himself
in a
favorable
light.
The M-C SDS
correlates much more
highly
with
L,
however, than does
the Ed-
wards
SDS.
The
negative correlations with
the
F
scale
are
accounted
for by the
interpretation
of
a
high
F
score
as an
indication
of
"plus
getting." Regarding
the
clinical
and
derived
scales,
in-general
those
MMPI
scales
on
which
a
high score indicates maladjustment
are
neg-
atively correlated with
the
SDSs.
In
part,
the
exceptions
to
this
may be
explained
in
terms
of
the
distinction between subtle
and
obvious
scoring
on
some
of the
clinical scales. Item
subtlety, meaning
the
relative absence
of so-
cial
desirability
implications, would account
for
the
negligible correlations between
the
Edwards
SDS and the
Hy
and Pa
scales,
for
example.
The
fairly substantial correlations
between
the
Edwards
SDS and the Pr and Es
scales
may
again
be a
function
of
similarity
in
general item content.
In the
judgment
of
the
present authors, about
half
of the
items
in
the Es
scale would
be
classed
as
"patholog-
ical,"
while roughly
a
third
of the Pr
items
would
be so
considered.
The
positive correlation between
the M-C
SDS
and the Pa
scale, however,
is an
interest-
ing
possible
exception. While
this
r
falls short
of
significance,
it
might suggest that high
SDS
scores (implying
in the
present
definition
of
the
construct
a
high need
for the
approval
of
others) tend
to be
associated with concern
or
suspicion about
the
motives
of
others. Corre-
lations between
the
Edwards
SDS and
Welsh's
A
and R
scales have not,
to the
writers'
knowledge,
been previously reported.
The Ed-
wards
SDS
correlated highly,
as one
would
expect, with
the A
scale
but not at all
with
R
which
has a
rather heterogeneous item content
in
terms
of
pathology.
The M-C SDS
does
better
in
this
case
with
an r of
.28.
This
is in
the
predicted direction since
all of the
items
on
the R
scale
are
keyed false.
The M-C SDS
correlation
with
the A
scale
is of the
same
magnitude
as the
correlation with
the MAS
and
is
consistent with expectation.
It
would
appear
from
the
correlations
of the
SDSs with
A
and MAS
that
the
latter
are
approximately
equivalent
measures.
SUMMARY
In
this research,
an
alternative model
to
Edwards'
conception
of
social desirability
was
proposed.
Basic
to the
present construct
of

354
Douglas
P.
Crowne
and
David Marlowe
social desirability
is the
definition
of a
popula-
tion
of
culturally acceptable
and
approved
be-
haviors which are,
at the
same time, relatively
unlikely
to
occur.
Test
items were drawn
from
this population
in the
development
of a new
social desirability scale,
the
Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale.
This
scale
was
corre-
lated with
17
MMPI
validity, clinical,
and
derived
scales
and the
results
compared with
the
correlations
of the
Edwards
SDS
with
these
MMPI
variables.
The
very high correla-
tions obtained with
the
Edwards scale
cast
doubt
on the
interpretation
of
this test
as a
measure
of the
influence
of
social desirability
on
test responses.
The
magnitude
of the
corre-
lations
of the new
scale with
the
MMPI
was
considered
to be
more
in
accord
with
a
definition
of
social desirability
in
terms
of
the
need
of
subjects
to
respond
in
culturally
sanctioned ways.
REFERENCES
BARHON,
F. An
ego-strength scale which predicts
re-
sponse
to
psychotherapy.
J.
consult.
Psychol.,
19S3,
17,
327-333.
CRONBACH,
L. J.
Response sets
and
test
validity.
Educ.
psychol.
Measmt.,
1946,
6,
475-494.
CRONBACH,
L. J.
Further evidence
on
response sets
and
test design.
Educ.
psychol.
Measmt.,
19SO,
10,
3-31.
EDWARDS,
A. L. The
social
desirability variable
in
personality assessment
and
research.
New
York:
Dryden,
1957.
FORDYCE,
W. E.
Social desirability
in the
MMPI.
/.
consult.
Psychol.,
1956,
20,
171-175.
GOUOH,
H. G. A new
dimension
of
status:
I.
Devel-
opment
of a
personality scale.
Amer.
social.
Rev.,
1948,
13,
401-409.
GOUOH,
H. G.
Studies
of
social intolerance:
II. A
personality scale
for
anti-semitism.
/.
soc.
Psychol.,
1951,
33,
247-255.
MEEHL,
P.
E.,
&
HATHAWAY,
S. R. The K
factor
as
a
suppressor variable
in the
MMPI.
/.
appl.
Psy-
chol.,
1946,
30,
525-564.
SARASON,
I. G.
Relationships
of
measures
of
anxiety
and
experimental instructions
to
word association
test performance.
J.
abnorm.
soc.
Psychol.,
1959,
59,
37-42.
TAYLOR, JANET
A. A
personality scale
of
manifest
anxiety.
J.
abnorm.
soc.
Psychol.,
1953,
48,
285-290.
WELSH,
G. S.
Factor
dimensions
A and R. In G. S.
Welsh
& W. G.
Dahlstrom
(Eds.),
Basic readings
on
the
MMPI
in
psychology
and
medicine.
Minne-
apolis: Univer. Minnesota Press, 1956.
WIGGINS,
J.
S.,
&
RUMRILL,
C.
Social desirability
in
the
MMPI
and
Welsh's
factor scales
A and R.
J.
consult.
Psychol.,
1959,
23,
100-106.
(Received August
29,
1959)