KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3

Nitel Araştırmalarda Sosyal İstenirlik Yanlılığı

Social Desirability Bias in Qualitative Research

Ayşe Nur Boz(KTO KARATAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4060-4939
Sinan Akçay(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9485-5891
Sayfa
1637–1657
Yayın Tarihi
2026-09-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Çalışma, sosyal istenirlik yanlılığı ile başa çıkmada söz konusu metodolojik hususların birbirini tamamlayan bir bütün olarak ele alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Sosyal istenirlik yanlılığı, araştırma katılımcılarının kendilerine yöneltilen araştırma sorularına toplumsal olarak kabul gören normatif cevaplar verme eğilimlerini ifade etmektedir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu yanlılık çalışmanın niteliğini ve incelenen olguyla ilgili uygun verilerin elde edilmesini olumsuz etkileyebilmektedir.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Çalışma, sosyal istenirlik yanlılığı ile başa çıkmada söz konusu metodolojik hususların birbirini tamamlayan bir bütün olarak ele alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Sosyal istenirlik yanlılığı · nitel araştırma · güven duyulabilirlik

Özet

Sosyal istenirlik yanlılığı, araştırma katılımcılarının kendilerine yöneltilen araştırma sorularına toplumsal olarak kabul gören normatif cevaplar verme eğilimlerini ifade etmektedir. Bu yanlılık çalışmanın niteliğini ve incelenen olguyla ilgili uygun verilerin elde edilmesini olumsuz etkileyebilmektedir. Nitel araştırmalarda güven duyulabilirliğin sağlanması açısından sosyal istenirlik yanlılığının kavramsal çerçevesinin çizilmesi ve bu yanlılığın yönetimine ilişkin metodolojik hususların belirlenmesi büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu doğrultuda anlatı temelli derleme olarak tasarlanan bu çalışma, nitel araştırmalarda sosyal istenirlik yanlılığının göstergelerini ve bu yanlılığın yönetimine ilişkin metodolojik hususları incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında sosyal istenirlik yanlılığının göstergeleri aşırı uyumluluk, inkâr, kısmi ya da belirsiz yanıtlar verme, cevaplar arasında tutarsızlık, abartma ya da olduğundan az gösterme ile kendini sunma ve iletişim tarzındaki değişimler olarak belirlenmiştir. Sosyal istenirlik yanlılığının yönetimine ilişkin metodolojik hususlar ise araştırma tasarımı ve veri oluşturma süreci olmak üzere iki düzeyde incelenmiştir. Bu hususlar; araştırma amacının açıkça tanımlanması, uygun yöntem ve tekniklerin seçilmesi, katılımcı seçim ölçütlerinin belirlenmesi, veri çeşitlemesinin sağlanması, görüşme sorularının genelden özele doğru kurgulanması, gönüllü katılımın güvence altına alınması, gizlilik ve mahremiyetin korunması ile araştırmacının yargılamayan ve saygılı bir tutum benimsemesi bağlamında ele alınmaktadır. Çalışma, sosyal istenirlik yanlılığı ile başa çıkmada söz konusu metodolojik hususların birbirini tamamlayan bir bütün olarak ele alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Abstract

Social desirability bias refers to the tendency of research participants to provide normatively accepted responses to questions posed during the research process. This bias can negatively affect the quality of a study and hinder the collection of appropriate data regarding the phenomenon under investigation. In qualitative research, defining the conceptual framework of social desirability bias and identifying the methodological considerations for its management are of great importance for ensuring the trustworthiness of data. Designed as a narrative review, this study aims to examine the indicators of social desirability bias in qualitative research and the methodological considerations related to its management. Within the scope of the study, the indicators of social desirability bias were identified as excessive compliance, denial, providing partial or ambiguous answers, contradictions across responses, exaggeration or minimization, and changes in self-presentation and communication style. The methodological considerations for managing social desirability bias were examined at two levels: research design and data generation processes. These considerations encompass clearly defining the research aim, selecting appropriate methods and techniques, establishing participant selection criteria, ensuring data triangulation, sequencing interview questions from general to sensitive, ensuring voluntary participation, protecting confidentiality and privacy, and maintaining a nonjudgmental and respectful attitude as a researcher. The study concludes that the methodological considerations for addressing social desirability bias should be regarded as a complementary whole rather than isolated techniques to be applied independently.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Boz, A. N., Akçay, S. (2026). Nitel Araştırmalarda Sosyal İstenirlik Yanlılığı. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 3, 1637–1657. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.1733348

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (107)

  1. Adams, E. B., Harry, C., & Maguire, E. R. (2025). The role of community policing in communities with serious gang problems: Insights from Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Criminal Justice, 97, 102382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102382
  2. Akçay, S., & Akar, B. (2025). Social workers' working experiences with men in the provision of mental health services. Social Work in Public Health, 40(4), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2025.2467391
  3. Akçay, S., & Koca, E. (2025). Challenges of conducting qualitative social work research with older adults. Educational Gerontology, 51(5), 518–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2024.2402037
  4. Akın Arıkan, Ç., Baştemur, Ş., & Demirtaş Zorbaz, S. (2021). Marlowe-Crowne sosyal beğenilirlik ölçeği kısa form C'nin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. HAYEF: Journal of Education, 18(2), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.5152/hayef.2021.20026
  5. Akın, A. (2010). İki boyutlu sosyal istenirlik ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve psikometrik özelliklerinin araştırılması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3), 771–784. https://izlik.org/ JA34EU63EY
  6. Alexander, K., Mackey, J., McAllister, C., & Ellen, B. (2025). What do you want to hear? A self-presentation view of social desirability bias. Journal of Business Research, 191, 115191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2025.115191
  7. Allen, L. N., Karanja, S., Tlhajoane, M., Tlhakenelo, J., Macleod, D., & Bastawrous, A. (2025). Comparison of telephone and in-person interview modalities: Duration, richness, and costs in the context of exploring determinants of equitable access to community health services in Meru, Kenya. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241312012
  8. Bartels, W. O. (2024). The influence of social support on athletic identity: A qualitative study (Doctoral dissertation). The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.
  9. Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.1.3
  10. Bellucci, J. L. (2025). Wellness experiences of counselors serving individuals convicted of sexual offenses (ICSOs): An interpretative phenomenological analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Southern Connecticut State University.
  11. Bergen, N., & Labonté, R. (2019). “Everything is perfect, and we have no problems”: Detecting and limiting social desirability bias in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 30(5), 783–792. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1049732319889354
  12. Bernardi, R. A., & Guptill, S. T. (2008). Social desirability response bias, gender, and factors influencing organizational commitment: An international study. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 797–809. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9548-4
  13. Bispo Júnior, J. P. (2022). Social desirability bias in qualitative health research. Revista de Saúde Pública, 56, 101. https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2022056004164
  14. Bouwmeester, O. (2023). Lowering social desirability bias: Doing jokes-based interviews. Management Consulting Journal, 6(2), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.2478/mcj-2023-0010
  15. Carian, E. K., & Hill, J. D. (2021). Using frameworks of social desirability to teach subjectivity in interviews. Teaching Sociology, 49(4), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X211017195
  16. Chung, J., & Monroe, G. S. (2003). Exploring social desirability bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023648703356
  17. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
  18. Çiğdem, B. (2024). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin bilimsel araştırmaya ilişkin görüşleri ve bilim öğretimi fırsatlarını kullanma durumlarının incelenmesi (Yüksek lisans tezi). Balıkesir Üniversitesi. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/okul-öncesiöğretmenlerinin-bilimsel-araştırmaya/docview/3132863748/se-2
  19. Çınar, B., Duran, A., & Taştan, H. (2019). Sosyal istenirliğin çevreci duyarlılık, tutum ve davranışlar üzerindeki etkisi; Doğa Tabanlı Tur Katılımcıları Örneği (Effect of social desirability on environmental sensitivity, attitude and behavior; the case of nature based tour participants). (2023). Turizm & Gastronomi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 7(3), 1727-1736. https://doi.org/10.21325/jotags.2019.445
  20. Çizel, B., Selçuk, O., & Atabay, E. (2020). Ortak yöntem yanlılığı üzerine sistematik bir yazın taraması. Anatolia: Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 31(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.17123/atad.713552 Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1998). The effect of gender and academic discipline diversity on the ethical evaluations, ethical intentions and ethical orientation of potential public accounting recruits. Accounting Horizons, 12(3), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.2308/AH-1114550
  21. Cole, R. (2024). A qualitative investigation of the emotional, physiological, financial, and legal consequences of online romance scams in the United States. Journal of Economic Criminology, 6, 100108. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100108
  22. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
  23. Cypress, B. (2017). Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: Perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 36(4), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/dcc.0000000000000253
  24. Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender differences in ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability response bias. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-011-0843-8
  25. Denham, M. A., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2013). Beyond words: Using nonverbal communication data in research to enhance thick description and interpretation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 670–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200137
  26. Dion Larivière, C., Crough, Q., & Eastwood, J. (2022). The effects of rapport building on information disclosure in virtual interviews. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 38(2), 452-460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-022-09535-5
  27. Dodgson, J. E. (2019). Reflexivity in qualitative research. Journal of Human Lactation, 35(2), 220–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334419830990
  28. Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Dryden Press.
  29. Erzen, E., Yurtçu, M., Kalın, Ö. U., & Koçoğlu, E. (2021). Sosyal beğenirlik ölçeği'nin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(78), 879–891. https://doi. org/10.17755/esosder.774947
  30. Fallon, L., Lau, A., Ciccia, D., Duckworth, T., Pereira, C., Kopp, E., & Sherman, K. A. (2025). Healthrelated decision-making experiences of people with endometriosis: A qualitative analysis. Psychology & Health, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2025.2502866
  31. Fernandes, M. F., & Randall, D. M. (1992). The nature of social desirability response effects in ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857570
  32. Forbes, G., Akter, S., Miller, S., Galadanci, H., Qureshi, Z., Al-Beity, F. A., & Lorencatto, F. (2024). Development and piloting of implementation strategies to support delivery of a clinical intervention for postpartum hemorrhage in four sub-Saharan Africa countries. Global Health: Science and Practice, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00387
  33. Garbarski, D., Schaeffer, N., & Dykema, J. (2016). Interviewing practices, conversational practices, and rapport. Sociological Methodology, 46(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175016637890
  34. Grandi, B., & Cardinali, M. G. (2025). The distance between sustainability store image and store identity inside grocery stores. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 53(13), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2023-0704
  35. Greenhalgh, T., Raftery, J., Hanney, S., & Glover, M. (2016). Research impact: A narrative review. BMC Medicine, 14, 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0620-8
  36. Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48, e12931. https://doi. org/10.1111/eci.12931
  37. Grimm, P. (2010). Social desirability bias. In J. N. Sheth & N. K. Malhotra (Eds.), Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568. wiem02057
  38. Guest, G., Bunce, A., Johnson, L., Akumatey, B., & Adeokun, L. (2005). Fear, hope and social desirability bias among women at high risk for HIV in West Africa. BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 31(4), 285–287. https://doi.org/10.1783/jfp.31.2.285
  39. Havle, N. (2025). Adaletin terazisindeki yük: İstanbul'daki hâkim ve savcıların tükenmişlik ve iş doyumu deneyimleri. Çekmece Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 27, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.55483/cekmece.1742458
  40. Hewitt, J. (2007). Ethical components of researcher-researched relationships in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1149–1159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307308305
  41. Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Measuring voter turnout by using the randomized response technique: Evidence calling into question the method's validity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(2), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfq012
  42. Horsfall, M., Eikelenboom, M., Draisma, S., & Smit, J. (2021). The effect of rapport on data quality in faceto-face interviews: Beneficial or detrimental? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20), 10858. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010858
  43. Jetten, J., Hornsey, M., & Adarves-Yorno, I. (2006). When group members admit to being conformist: The role of relative intragroup status in conformity self-reports. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205279904
  44. Johnson, T. P., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2002). Social desirability in cross-cultural research. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 195–204). Wiley.
  45. Kaiser, A., Idd, H., Chan, K., Djuric, A., Marshall, S., Cairns-Mills, H., & Musselman, K. E. (2024). Content validation of an activity-based therapy tracking tool in a community setting for people living with spinal cord injury or disease using cognitive debriefing interviews. PLOS ONE, 19(12), e0315404. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315404
  46. Kalburan, Ç., Aydın, O., Gürbüzer-Gürkaynak, S. B., & Haşıloğlu, Ş. (2021). Pazarlama araştırmalarında sosyal istenirlik yönünde cevap verme eğilimi ve cevaplama tarzı. 25. Pazarlama Kongresi Tam Metin Bildiri Kitabı (ss. 1–8). Ankara.
  47. Kaminska, O., & Foulsham, T. (2013). Understanding sources of social desirability bias in different modes: Evidence from eye tracking (ISER Working Paper Series No. 2013-04). Institute for Social and Economic Research. https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/workingpapers/iser/2013-04
  48. Kelley, G. A., & D'Souza, R. S. (2024). Narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine: Guidelines for producers, reviewers and consumers. Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/ rapm-2024-105661
  49. King, B. M. (2022). The influence of social desirability on sexual behavior surveys: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51, 1495–1501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02197-0
  50. King, B. M. (2024). Social desirability biased responding: Are researchers listening? Psychology & Behavioral Science International Journal, 21(5), 556075. https://doi.org/10.19080/PBSIJ.2024.21.556075
  51. King, R., Jackson, R., Dietsch, E., & Hailemariam, A. (2016). Utilisation of maternal health services in Ethiopia: A key informant research project. Development in Practice, 26(2), 158–169. https://doi.org /10.1080/09614524.2016.1131244
  52. Knott, E., Rao, A., Summers, K., & Teeger, C. (2022). Interviews in the social sciences. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2, 73. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00150-6
  53. Konu, H., Leino, P., & Tyrväinen, L. (2024). Tourism firms' attitudes and willingness to contribute to payments for ecosystem services in tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 50(3), 478–492. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2024.2312349
  54. Kozak, A. T., Garber, N., & Uhley, V. (2024). Undergraduates' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours associated with fad diets. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being, 19(1), 2309687. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2024.2309687
  55. Kozan, K. (1983). Davranış bilimleri araştırmalarında sosyal beğenirlik boyutu ve Türkiye için bir sosyal beğenirlik ölçeği. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 10, 447–477.
  56. Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2025–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
  57. Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 165–178. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.165
  58. Lane, C., Saronga, N., Fowell, R., Berretta, R., Blackmore, K., Momenzadeh, L., & Milam, J. (2024). Does targeted recruitment turn the dial for gender equity? A qualitative study at an Australian university. Higher Education Quarterly, 78(3), 934–956. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12499
  59. Langhaug, L. F., Sherr, L., & Cowan, F. M. (2010). How to improve the validity of sexual behaviour reporting: Systematic review of questionnaire delivery modes in developing countries. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 15(3), 362–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2009.02464.x
  60. Larson, W. R. (1958). Social desirability as a latent variable in medical questionnaire responses. Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1), 30–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388613
  61. LaSala, M. C. (2003). When Interviewing “Family”: Maximizing the Insider Advantage in the Qualitative Study of Lesbians and Gay Men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 15(1–2), 15–30. https:// doi.org/10.1300/J041v15n01_02
  62. Latkin, C. A., Mai, N. V. T., Ha, T. V., Sripaipan, T., Zelaya, C., Le Minh, N., & Go, V. F. (2016). Social desirability response bias and other factors that may influence self-reports of substance use and HIV risk behaviors: A qualitative study of drug users in Vietnam. AIDS Education and Prevention, 28(5), 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2016.28.5.417
  63. Liu, Q., Xie, C., Tan, J., Xu, L., Zhou, F., & Peng, L. (2024). Exploring the nurses' experiences in recognising and managing clinical deterioration in emergency patients: A qualitative study. Australian Critical Care, 37(2), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2023.06.004
  64. Lu, X., Wang, W., Sun, X., Zhang, S., Zhou, B., & Xie, H. (2025). Knowledge, attitude, and practice related to dementia and cognitive impairment among medical specialists with expertise unrelated to dementia. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 12438. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-96479-5
  65. Mabuza, L. H., & Moshabela, M. (2023). What do medical students and their clinical preceptors understand by primary health care in South Africa? A qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 23(1), 785. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04751-x
  66. Millham, J., & Kellogg, R. W. (1980). Need for social approval: Impression management or self-deception? Journal of Research in Personality, 14(4), 445–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(80)90003-3
  67. Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed., Vol. 16). Sage.
  68. Mousa, M., Althalathini, D., & Puhakka, V. (2025a). When grand societal challenges stimulate the creation of public value: A study of nurses in a non-Western public healthcare sector. Public Administration and Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2093
  69. Mousa, M., Marquina, P., & Fernández Concha, R. A. (2025b). When age really matters: Digital entrepreneurship of seniors in Latin American contexts. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-11-2024-1631
  70. Mugerwa, M., Namutundu, J., Nangendo, J., Babirye Tumusiime, V., Ndekezi, D., Atuheire, C. G., & Kyaddondo, D. (2025). Disclosure of positive HIV status to sexual partners among young people receiving treatment at an urban clinic, Kampala, Uganda. AIDS Research and Therapy, 22(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12981-025-00727-7
  71. Mwandira, K., Lemma, S., Dube, A., Akter, K., Tufa, A. A., Kyamulabi, A., & Shawar, Y. R. (2025). Do global health networks facilitate innovation, learning and sharing? A qualitative analysis of the Qualityof-Care Network in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda. PLOS Global Public Health, 5(1), e0002720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002720
  72. Nanvazadegan, S. (2024). The big elephant in the room: Mental health and stigma among adolescents in Botkyrka (Master's thesis). Uppsala University.
  73. Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
  74. Nuno, A., & John, F. A. S. (2015). How to ask sensitive questions in conservation: A review of specialized questioning techniques. Biological Conservation, 189, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.047
  75. Nymoen, M., Lomeland, M. S., Biringer, E., Ekstedt, M., Hetlevik, Ø., Sheaff, R., & Hartveit, M. (2025). Conveying the need for mental healthcare: A qualitative study of how patients communicate mental health challenges. BMC Health Services Research, 25(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12851-1
  76. Oceno, M. (2025). How social desirability bias impacts the expression of emotions. Political Science Research and Methods. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2025.10016
  77. Özeren, A. (1996). The effect of anxiety on visual attention. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. https://tezarsivi.com/the-effect-of-anxiety-onvisual-attention
  78. Öztürk, M., & Gülmez, Ç. (2025). İlahiyat fakültesi öğrencilerinin mesleki kaygıları üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(28), 434–478. https://doi. org/10.53683/gifad.1642068
  79. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Çev. Ed.). Pegem Akademi.
  80. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
  81. Paulhus, D. L. (1992). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Reference manual, version 6). University of British Columbia.
  82. Pavlenko, V. (2023). The relationship between intra-group status and propensity for conformity in the process of forming group norms. Visnyk of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University: A Series of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.26565/2225-7756-2023-75-05
  83. Phillip, M. B. (2024). The role of gender stereotypes and societal pressures in creating impostor syndrome in black female entrepreneurs (Doctoral dissertation) Liberty University.
  84. Pong, C. Y., Roberts, N. J., & Lum, E. (2024). The 201cwhat, why, and how?201d of story completion in health services research: A scoping review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 24(1), 159. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02274-7
  85. Rana, K., & Chimoriya, R. (2025). A guide to a mixed-methods approach to healthcare research. Encyclopedia, 5(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020051
  86. Ried, L., Eckerd, S., & Kaufmann, L. (2021). Social desirability bias in PSM surveys and behavioral experiments: Considerations for design development and data collection. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 27(3), 100743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100743
  87. Saçaralp, S.A. (2023). İdeal benlik ve gerçek benliğin reklama angaje olma üzerindeki etkisinde psikolojik iyi oluş, kendini izleme, sosyal istenirlik ve benlik saygısının rolü (Doktora tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi.
  88. 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). Springer.
  89. Şahin, E. (2016). Sporcu ve sporcu olmayan bedensel engelli bireylerin özgüven ve sosyal istenirlik durumlarının karşılaştırılması (Yüksek lisans tezi). Düzce Üniversitesi.
  90. Saraç, M., & Koç, İ. (2020). Increasing misreporting levels of induced abortion in Turkey: Is this due to social desirability bias? Journal of Biosocial Science, 52(2), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0021932019000397
  91. Sarkar, S., & Bhatia, G. (2021). Writing and appraising narrative reviews. Journal of Clinical and Scientific Research, 10(3), 169–172. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcsr.jcsr_1_21
  92. Seitz, S. (2016). Pixilated partnerships, overcoming obstacles in qualitative interviews via Skype: A research note. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115577011
  93. Setiawati, F., Widyastuti, T., Fathiyah, K., & Nabila, T. (2024). Minimizing social desirability in questionnaires of non-cognitive measurements. European Journal of Psychology and Educational Research, 7(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejper.7.1.33
  94. Speidel, C. (2024). The impact of cultural settings on sustainability narratives: An explorative study with the Indian diaspora. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 29(6), 60. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11027-024-10157-x
  95. Tatar, A., & Özdemir, H. (2018). Sosyal İstenirlik Ölçeği-17'nin Türkçeye çevrilmesi ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Social Mentality and Researcher Thinkers Journal (SMART Journal), 4(9), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.31576/smryj.50
  96. Tekiner, U. (2024). The German Social Democratic Party between idealistic pro-Europeanism and domestic ideological priorities in the post-reunification Germany. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 23(1), 163–195. https://doi.org/10.32450/aacd.1372477
  97. Ural, T., & Özbirecikli, M. (2006). Is ethical judgement influenced by social desirability in responding? An analysis on Turkish accountants. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1), 393–409. https://izlik.org/JA85RB37AX
  98. Vallano, J. P., & Compo, N. S. (2011). A comfortable witness is a good witness: Rapport-building and susceptibility to misinformation in an investigative mock-crime interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 960–970. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1789
  99. Van Eck, C. W. (2023). The next generation of climate scientists as science communicators. Public Understanding of Science, 32(8), 969–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231176382
  100. Van Kraaij, J., Spruit-Bentvelzen, L., van Lieshout, F., Vermeulen, H., & van Oostveen, C. (2024). Navigating uncertainties for promoting nurse-led changes in work environments: A participatory action research. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 7, 100265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100265
  101. Vedel, J. O., Martins, J. S. D., Borges, I. D. S., Bassat, Q., Fisker, A. B., & Maixenchs, M. (2025). How is the restrictive vaccine vial opening policy of the childhood vaccination programme experienced by health care workers and health facility users? A qualitative study in rural Guinea-Bissau. Public Health, 242, 332–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2025.02.038
  102. Vuong, I. M. (2024). The influence of Vietnamese immigrant parents on their children's schooling and work (Doctoral dissertation). University of Technology Sydney.
  103. Wilson, A., McKeaveney, C., Carswell, C., Atkinson, K., Burton, S., McVeigh, C., & Noble, H. (2023). Experiences of people with kidney disease following the implementation of the compassionate mindful resilience programme: Qualitative findings from the COSMIC study. Healthcare, 11(22), 2926. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11222926
  104. Winterstein, J., Zhu, B., & Habisch, A. (2024). How personal and social-focused values shape the purchase intention for organic food: Cross-country comparison between Thailand and Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 140313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140313
  105. Yolcu, A. F. (2024). Sportif rekreasyon faaliyeti olarak doğa ve macera sporları yapan bireylerin akış deneyimleri ve risk alma eğilimlerinin incelenmesi (Yüksek lisans tezi). Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi.
  106. Zimbalist, Z. (2018). Fear-of-the-state bias in survey data. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(4), 631-651. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edx020
  107. Zimbalist, Z. (2021). Bystanders and response bias in face-to-face surveys in Africa. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(3), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1886397