바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.21 No.2
Citation Share

사회적 바람직성 상, 하위 집단 간 성격검사의 구인동등성 검증

Test of Construct Equivalence of Personality Inventory in Low and High Socially Desirable Responding Groups

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2007, v.21 no.2, pp.71-87
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2007.21.2.006
손은영 (한국교육개발원)
차정은 (이화여자대학교)
김아영 (이화여자대학교)
손은영, 차정은, & 김아영. (2007). 사회적 바람직성 상, 하위 집단 간 성격검사의 구인동등성 검증. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 21(2), 71-87, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2007.21.2.006
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

본 연구에서는 사회적 바람직성이 자기보고식 성격검사의 구인타당도에 미치는 영향력을 알아보기 위한 한 가지 방안으로 사회적 바람직성이 높은 집단과 낮은 집단에서 성격구인이 동등한지를 탐색하였다. 이를 위해 5요인 성격검사(중앙고용정보원, 2001)를 대학생 2,799명을 대상으로 실시하여 외향성, 호감성, 성실성, 정서적 불안정성, 개방성의 각 주요인에 해당하는 5문항을 선정하여, 총 25문항으로 척도를 축소하여 본 연구에 활용하였다. 사회적 바람직성이 높은 집단과 낮은 집단에서 성격구인이 동등한지 알아보기 위해서 먼저 사회적 바람직성 하위척도인 자기기만적 고양 및 인상관리 점수에 근거하여 상, 하위 집단을 구성한 뒤, 두 집단 간 다집단 확인적 요인분석을 실시하였다. 그 결과, 두 집단 간 형태불변성과 측정불변성이 확인되어 사회적 바람직성의 영향력이 있음에도 성격구인이 어느 정도 유지되었음을 알 수 있었으나 척도불변성이 확보되지 않아 측정된 점수를 두 집단에서 직접 비교하는 것에는 신중해야 함을 보여주었다. 본 연구결과를 자기보고식 성격검사 활용과 관련하여 해석 시 고려사항을 중심으로 논의하였다.

keywords
Social desiability, Self-deceptive enhancement, Impression management, Personality inventory, Construct equivalence, 사회적 바람직성, 자기기만적 고양, 인상관리, 성격검사, 구인동등성, Social desiability, Self-deceptive enhancement, Impression management, Personality inventory, Construct equivalence

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the construct equivalence of a personality inventory in a low and high socially desirable responding (SDR) groups. In the pursuit of achieving the purposes, a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the configural, metric, and scalar invariance in the two groups' data. Total of 2,799 undergraduate students responded to the reduced personality inventory which was based on the Personality Inventory developed by the Central Employment Information Office (2001) and Korean version of Paulus' (2002) BIDR-7 that consists of two sub-scales, namely the self-deceptive enhancement scale and the impression management scale. The results of the construct equivalence tests provided evidence that supported the configural and metric invariance in the two groups. The results also showed that (1) between the low and high self-deceptive enhancement groups, substantial effect sizes were observed in the conscientiousness and emotional stability items; (2) between the low and high impression management groups, substantial effect sizes were observed in the agreeableness and conscientiousness items. It was worth noting that social desirability did not alter the factor structures that characterized the personality inventory used in this study. The results implied that the personal inventory could be used commonly in the low and high SDR groups. However, since it failed to ensure scalar invariance, the personality inventory scores from each group were to be compared cautiously. The limitation of this study and suggestions for following studies were discussed.

keywords
Social desiability, Self-deceptive enhancement, Impression management, Personality inventory, Construct equivalence, 사회적 바람직성, 자기기만적 고양, 인상관리, 성격검사, 구인동등성, Social desiability, Self-deceptive enhancement, Impression management, Personality inventory, Construct equivalence

참고문헌

1.

한국산업인력공단 중앙고용정보원 (2001). 직업선호도검사 타당화 연구보고서. 서울：조양비즈네스사.

2.

정보라 (2005) 사회적 바람직성의 구인 탐색. 이화여자대학교 대학원 석사학위논문.

3.

홍세희 (2000). 구조방정식 모형의 적합도 지수 선정기준과 그 근거. 한국심리학회지：임상, 19, 161-177.

4.

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 User's guide, SPSS Inc.

5.

Bartlett, C. J., & Doorley, R. (1967). Social desirability response differences under research, simulated selection, and faking instructional sets. Personnel Psychology, 20, 281-288.

6.

Barrick, M. B., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261-272.

7.

Cohen (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

8.

Collins, J, M., & Gleaves, D. H. (1998). Race, job appli- cants, and the five factor model of personality: Implications for Black psychology, industrial/ organizational psychology, and the five-factor theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 531-544.

9.

Costa, P. T. (1996). Work and personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R. Conn & M. L. Rieke(Eds.), 16PF fifth edition, technical manual(pp.xxiii-xxvii). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

10.

Cronbach, L. J. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 475-494.

11.

Damarin, F., & Messick, S. (1965). Response styles and personality variables: A theoretical integration of multivariate research(Research Bulletin No. 65- 10). Princeton, N.J: Educational Testing Service.

12.

Dunnett, S., Koun, S., & Barber, P. J. (1981). Social desirability in the Eysenck Personality Inventory. British Journal of Psychology, 72, 19-26.

13.

Dunnette, M. D., McCartney, J., Carlson, H. C., & Kirchner, W. K. (1962). A study of faking behavior on a forced-choice self-description checklist. Per- sonnel Psychology, 15, 13-24.

14.

Edwards, A. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 90-93.

15.

Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: ryden.

16.

Ellingson, J. E., Smith, D. B., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). Investigating the Influence of Social Desirability on Personality Factor Structure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 122-133.

17.

Frei, R. L., Griffith, R. L., Snell, A. F., McDaniel, M. A., & Douglas, E. F. (1997, April). Faking of non-cognitive measures: Factor invariance using multiple-groups LISREL. In G. Alliger(Chair), Faking matters. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organi- zational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.

18.

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). The California Psychological Inventory manual(3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

19.

Griffith, R. (1997). Faking of non-cognitive selection devices: Red herring is hard to swallow. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, University of Akron, Akron, OH.

20.

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities [Monograph]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.

21.

Hui, C. H., & Trindis, H. C. (1985). The instability of response sets. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 253- 260.

22.

Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1962). Response styles on the MMPI: Comparison of clinical and normal samples, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- chology, 65, 285-299.

23.

Kirchner, W. K. (1962). “Real-life” faking on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule by sales applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 128-140.

24.

Lyons, J. (1963). Psychology and the measure of man. London: Free Press of Glencoe.

25.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882-888.

26.

McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 812-821.

27.

Messick, S. (1962). Response style and content measures from personality Inventories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 41-56.

28.

Messick. S. (1991). Psychology and methodology of response styles. In R. E. Snow & D. E. Willey (Eds.), Improving inquryes in social science(pp. 161-200). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

29.

Michaelis, W., & Eysenck, H. J. (1971). The determination of personality inventory factor patterns and intercorrelations by changes in real-life motivation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 118, 223-234.

30.

Montag, I., & Comrey, A. L. (1990). Stability of major personality factors under changing motivational conditions. In J. W. Neuliep(Ed.), Replication re- search in the social sciences(pp.253-262). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

31.

Montag, I., & Levin, J. (1994). The five-factor personality model in applied setting. European Journal of Personality, 8, 1-11.

32.

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245-269.

33.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. D. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.

34.

Orpen, C. (1971). The fakability of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule in personnel selection. Person- nel Psychology, 23, 1-4.

35.

Paulhus, D. L. (1981). Control of social desirability in personality inventories: Principal-factor deletion. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 383-388.

36.

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.

37.

Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Manual for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding(BIDR-7). Toronto/Buffalo: Multi-Health systems.

38.

Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct In H. I. Braum, D. N. Jackson & D. E. Wiley(Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp.49-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

39.

Paulhus, D. L., Bruce, M. N., & Trapnell, P. D. (1995). Effects of self-presentation strategies on personality profiles and their structure. Personality an Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 100-108.

40.

Robie, C., Zickar, M. J., & Schmit, M. J. (2001). Measurement equivalence between applicant and incumbent groups: An IRT analysis of personality scales, Human Performance, 14(2), 187-207.

41.

Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1978). Self-deception, other-deception and consciousness. In G. E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro(Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research(Vol.2, pp. 139-197). New York: Plenum Press.

42.

Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant population. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966-974.

43.

Smith, D. B. (1996). The Big Five in personnel selection: Reexamining frame of reference effects. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.

44.

Smith, D. B., & Ellingson, J. E. (2002). Substance versus style: A new look at social desirability in motivating contexts, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 211-218.

45.

Smith, D. B., Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). The Big Five in personnel selection: Reexamining the effects of applicants' frame of reference on construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology.

46.

Sticker, L. J. (1963). Acquiescence and social desirability response styles; item characteristics, and conformity. Psychological Reports, 12, 319-341.

47.

Thornton, G. C., Ⅲ., & Gierasch, P. F., Ⅲ. (1980). Faka- bility of an empirically derived selection instrument. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 48-51.

48.

Wiggins, J. S. (1959). Interrelationships among MMPI measures of dissimulation under standard and social desirability instructions. Journal of Consulting Psy- chology, 23, 419-427.

49.

Wiggns, J. S. (1964). Convergences among stylistic response measures from objective personality tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24, 551-562.

50.

Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconcep- tion. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250-264.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책