Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR)

Abstract

The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) is a widely used psychological instrument designed to measure two distinct components of Social Desirability Responding (SDR) in self-reports: self-deceptive positivity (SDE) and impression management (IM). The BIDR is a refinement of the earlier Self- and Other-Deception Questionnaires developed by Sackeim and Gur (1978).

The original conceptualization of self-deception focused on the denial of psychologically threatening thoughts (rooted in psychoanalytic theory). However, the modern version of the scale, developed by Paulhus (1988), shifted its focus toward ego enhancement, specifically emphasizing exaggerated claims of positive cognitive attributes, such as overconfidence and perceived rationality. The Impression Management component, conversely, measures deliberate self-presentation and the conscious overreporting of desirable behaviors or underreporting of undesirable ones. The BIDR consists of 40 propositional items rated on a seven-point agreement scale, utilizing a balanced, dichotomous scoring system that emphasizes extreme desirable responses, ensuring that high scores reflect exaggerated claims rather than moderate agreement.

Keywords

Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding, BIDR, Self-Deception, Impression Management, Social Desirability, Self-Deceptive Positivity, SDE, IM, Psychological Assessment, Psychometrics

Authors

Delroy L. Paulhus (Primary Author), C. Sackeim, R. Gur

Purpose

The primary purpose of the BIDR is to provide separate, purified measures of the two major factors underlying Social Desirability Responding (SDR): the unconscious tendency to view oneself positively (Self-Deceptive Positivity or SDE) and the conscious effort to control how one is perceived by others (Impression Management or IM). By isolating these two factors, researchers can determine which component of desirable responding is responsible for correlations observed between SDR and other psychological variables.

The scale was developed to overcome limitations in earlier measures, particularly by introducing balanced keying and removing items related to overt psychopathology, thereby eliminating spurious correlations with clinical measures. The dichotomous scoring method (awarding points only for extreme responses of 6 or 7) is a key feature designed to tap response style rather than simply content agreement.

Construct

The BIDR measures two orthogonal constructs of social desirability:

• Self-Deceptive Positivity (SDE): This construct reflects the honest but positively biased self-reporting tendency. Individuals scoring high on SDE genuinely believe their exaggerated claims regarding positive cognitive attributes, such as being rational, confident in their judgments, and in control of their fate. This represents an unconscious, positively distorted self-view, often linked to mechanisms like ego enhancement and positive adjustment.

• Impression Management (IM): This construct reflects the deliberate distortion of self-reports to create a favorable public image. IM items focus on overt, observable behaviors (e.g., never dropping litter, always obeying laws). Distortion on this subscale is presumed to be a conscious effort or lie intended for an audience. The IM scale is highly sensitive to situational demands for self-presentation, increasing significantly under public disclosure conditions.

Validity

The validity of the BIDR is supported by strong concurrent, convergent, and discriminant evidence for both subscales.

Convergent Validity: Overall SDR and Self-Deception (SDE)

When all 40 BIDR items are summed to form an overall measure of SDR, it demonstrates strong concurrent validity, correlating highly with established measures. Specifically, the total BIDR score correlates at .71 with the Marlowe-Crowne scale (MCSD) (Paulhus, 1988) and at .80 with the Multidimensional Social Desirability Inventory (Jacobson et al., 1977).

The SDE measure correlates positively with traditional measures of defense and coping mechanisms, including Byrne’s R-S scale for repressive style (r = .51), reversal measured by Ihilevich and Gleser’s Defense Mechanisms Inventory (r = .34), and positive re-appraisal (r = .44) and distancing (r = .33) from the Ways of Coping scale. Experimental evidence further supports the SDE construct, showing that high scorers exhibit a greater self-serving bias following failure, higher illusion of control, and increased hindsight bias. High SDE scores are also consistently linked to indicators of positive adjustment, such as high self-esteem and low levels of neuroticism, depression, and social anxiety.

Convergent Validity: Impression Management (IM)

The IM scale correlates highly with measures traditionally categorized as lie scales (e.g., Eysenck’s Lie scale, MMPI Lie scale) and role-playing measures. Correlations with the MCSD and conscientiousness ratings suggest that a social approval motive underlies high IM scores, particularly in anonymous settings. Crucially, the IM scale is highly reactive to situational pressures; studies show it increases significantly when subjects move from private to public testing conditions, demonstrating its sensitivity to explicit demands for positive self-presentation.

Discriminant Validity

Measures of self-deception and impression management show strong discriminant validity, consistently forming separate factors in factor analyses (Paulhus, 1984, 1988). While earlier versions of the self-deception measure correlated moderately with IM (r = .35 to .65), the refined BIDR version exhibits much lower correlations between SDE and IM, ranging from .05 to .40, confirming their independence as distinct constructs.

Reliability

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency, measured by Coefficient Alpha, demonstrates acceptable to good reliability across various samples. For the Self-Deceptive Positivity (SDE) subscale, alpha values range from .68 to .80. For the Impression Management (IM) subscale, alpha values range from .75 to .86. When all 40 items are summed to form the overall SDR measure, the internal consistency is robust, with a reported alpha of .83 (Paulhus, 1988).

Test-Retest Reliability

Test-retest reliability assessments conducted over a 5-week period showed stable results. Paulhus (1988) reported correlations of .69 for the SDE scale and .65 for the IM scale, indicating moderate temporal stability for both components.

Factor Analysis

Factor analytic studies consistently support the BIDR’s theoretical framework, demonstrating that self-deception and impression management load onto two separate, orthogonal factors. This distinction is central to the utility of the BIDR, allowing researchers to measure these two primary dimensions of desirable responding independently. The refinement process of the BIDR, including balanced keying and the removal of psychopathology content, contributed significantly to the successful separation of these factors, especially lowering the correlation between the SDE and IM scales compared to predecessor measures.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Questionnaire (Psychometric Scale)

Format: 40 propositional items rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = NOT TRUE to 7 = VERY TRUE). The items are scored dichotomously (1 point for extreme responses of 6 or 7, after reversing negatively keyed items).

Language Available: English, French (Sabourin, Bourgeois, Gendreau, & Morva!, 1989)

Population Group: General population, including college students, religious adults, and clinical samples (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous members).

Age Group: Adults and college students.

Population Details: Samples used in standardization include 884 religious adults (Quinn, 1989) and 433 college students (Paulhus, 1988). The scale is suitable for non-clinical populations.

Test Methodology: Paper-and-pencil or computer administration. Total scores for SDE and IM range from 0 to 20. The first 20 items assess SDE, and items 21-40 assess IM.

Keywords

Self-Enhancement, Ego Defense, Response Style, Lie Scales, Marlowe-Crowne, Coefficient Alpha, Test-Retest Reliability, Psychological Adjustment, Rational Scale Development

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Y7 (as of 1988).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1988 (Version 6—Form 40).

Permissions: The manual, Assessing self deception and impression management in self-reports: the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding, was available directly from the author, Delroy L. Paulhus (1988). Researchers should contact the author for current usage permissions.

Fee: Not specified in source content.

Reference’s

• Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 441-485.

• Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.

• Ihilevich, D., & Gleser, G. C. (1986). Defense Mechanisms Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

• Jacobson, P. E., Kellogg, R. W., Cauce, A. M., & Slavin, L. A. (1977). Multidimensional Social Desirability Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.

• Lautenschlager, G. J., & Flaherty, V. L. (in press). Computer administration of psychological tests: The state of the art. Applied Psychological Measurement.

• Leak, G. K., & Fish, S. (1989). The BIDR and intrinsic religiosity. Journal of Psychology, 123, 417-427.

• Lockard, J., & Paulhus, D. L. (Eds.). (1988). Self-deception: An adaptive mechanism? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

• Mellor, S., Conroy, W., & Masteller, R. (1986). BIDR scores in Alcoholics Anonymous. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia.

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

• Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self deception and impression management in self-reports: the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. (Manual available from the author at the Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1Y7.)

• Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (in press). Enhancement and denial in self-deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

• Quinn, S. (1989). Socially desirable responding in religious adults. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.

• Sabourin, M., Bourgeois, P., Gendreau, P., & Morva!, M. (1989). French version of the BIDR. Unpublished manuscript, University of Montreal.

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

• Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

Items of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

BIDR Version 6—Form 40

Using the scale below as a guide, write a number beside each statement to indicate how much you agree with it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• NOT TRUE
• SOMEWHAT TRUE
• VERY TRUE

• 1. My first impressions of people usually turn out to be right.
• *2. It would be hard for me to break any of my bad habits.
• 3. I don’t care to know what other people really think of me.
• * 4. I have not always been honest with myself.
• 5. I always know why I like things.
• *6. When my emotions are aroused, it biases my thinking.
• 7. Once I’ve made up my mind, other people can seldom change my opinion.
• *8. I am not a safe driver when I exceed the speed limit.
• 9. I am fully in control of my own fate.
• * 10. It’s hard for me to shut off a disturbing thought.
• 11. I never regret my decisions.
• *12. I sometimes lose out on things because I can’t make up my mind soon enough.
• 13. The reason I vote is because my vote can make a difference.
• * 14. My parents were not always fair when they punished me.
• 15. I am a completely rational person.
• *16. I rarely appreciate criticism.
• 17. I am very confident of my judgments.
• * 18. I have sometimes doubted my ability as a lover.
• 19. It’s all right with me if some people happen to dislike me.
• *20. I don’t always know the reasons why I do the things I do.
• * 2 1 . I sometimes tell lies if I have to.
• 22. I never cover up my mistakes.
• *23. There have been occasions when I have taken advantage of someone.
• 24. I never swear.
• *25. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.
• 26. I always obey laws, even if I’m unlikely to get caught.
• *27. I have said something bad about a friend behind his or her back.
• 28. When I hear people talking privately, I avoid listening.
• * 29. I have received too much change from a salesperson without telling him or her.
• 30. I always declare everything at customs.
• * 3 1 . When I was young I sometimes stole things.
• 32. I have never dropped litter on the street.
• *33. I sometimes drive faster than the speed limit.
• 34. I never read sexy books or magazines.
• *35. I have done things that I don’t tell other people about.
• 36. I never take things that don’t belong to me.
• *37. I have taken sick-leave from work or school even though I wasn’t really sick.
• 38. I have never damaged a library book or store merchandise without reporting it.
• *39. I have some pretty awful habits.
• 40. I don’t gossip about other people’s business.

Items 1-20 assess SDE; items 2 1 – 4 0 assess IM. Add one point for every “6” or “7” (minimum = 0; maximum = 20).

*, Items keyed in the ”False” (negative) direction.