Still Misinterpreting Lie Scales: Reply to Feldman’s Rejoinder

Despite convincing counterevidence, misinterpretation of so-called Impression Management, Social Desirability, or Lie scales in low-stakes settings seems to persist. In this reply to an ongoing discussion with Feldman and colleagues (De Vries et al., 2017; Feldman, in press; Feldman et al., 2017), we argue that high scores on Impression Management and Lie scales in low-stakes settings are more likely to reflect honesty than dishonesty. Specifically, we point out (1) that there is no evidence of a relation between Impression Management and (in-)authenticity, (2) that respondents in anonymous online studies have no reason to be inauthentic, and (3) that laypersons’ judgments about Lie scale responses (especially responses that are extremely rare) are uninformative and thus yield no insight on the construct validity of the Lie scale. We finally reiterate the warning that conclusions based on the incorrect interpretation of Impression Management, Social Desirability, or Lie scales in low-stakes settings are invalid.