ArticleQuality & quantity2026
Unraveling honest responding: a systematic review on the effectiveness of social desirability bias reduction methods in survey research.
Article in Quality & quantity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Preconception and Early-Pregnancy Alcohol Consumption in Women and Men, Infertility and Risk for Miscarriage.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Beach safety as a family affair: exploring the role of parents on young adolescents' knowledge, bathing risk perceptions, and behaviours.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Charting the Scientific Landscape of Indirect Estimation Models in Doping Prevalence Research: A Bibliometric Analysis with Narrative Appraisal.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Role of Najran University Scholarship Students in the United Kingdom in cultural bridging and civilizational dialog.PloS one · 2026Article
- Methodological Limitations in "Self-Reported Vision-Related Quality of Life and Functional Impact in Portuguese Patients with Uveitis: A Cross-Sectional Study" [Letter].Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Social Desirability Bias (SDB), the tendency of respondents to present themselves in socially acceptable terms, poses serious challenges for the validity of survey research. This study systematically reviewed the effectiveness of methods aimed at reducing SDB. Searches in Scopus and PsycINFO of publications from 2017 to 2021 identified a total of 121 experiments in 79 peer-reviewed papers. These experiments, conducted in over 20 Western countries, employed 13 SDB-reduction methods across more than 17 behavioral or cognitive topics. Based on 10 quality measures, the methodological quality of these experiments was typically high. There was considerable variability in the frequency of SDB-reduction methods being used and their effectiveness. The most common methods were list experiments, probability-based techniques (RRT/NRRT), face-saving strategies, survey mode, and proxy reporting. Overall, in 55% of experiments SDB was significantly reduced, with face-saving strategies demonstrating the highest efficacy. Future research should aim at replicating these findings in a wider range of (societally relevant) topics and more comprehensively testing promising less explored methods. This review highlights the importance of continuing to refine and test SDB reduction techniques to improve survey data quality. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11135-026-02664-7.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.