• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Development and analysis of the...
 Study I
 Study II
 Conclusion
 Bibliography
 Appendices
 Biographical sketch














Group Title: development and validation of self-presentation scales
Title: The development and validation of self-presentation scales
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098634/00001
 Material Information
Title: The development and validation of self-presentation scales
Physical Description: vii, 138 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Ackerman, Bette Joan, 1951-
Copyright Date: 1979
 Subjects
Subject: Self   ( lcsh )
Social interaction   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 79-82.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Bette Joan Ackerman.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098634
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000090498
oclc - 05802052
notis - AAK5890

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 6 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
        Page vi
    Abstract
        Page vii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
    Development and analysis of the self-presentation scales
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Study I
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
    Study II
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
    Conclusion
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
    Bibliography
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
    Appendices
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
    Biographical sketch
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
Full Text













THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF
SELF-PRESENTATION SCALES













By

Bette Joan Ackerman


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
TIHE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY













UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I would like to extend my gratitude to Afesa Bell-Nathaniel,

Franz Epting, Barry Schlenker, Elois Scott, and William Ware for their

interest and cooperation as members of my committee. I would also like

to extend my thanks to the social psychology graduate students in the

program at the Univeristy of Florida for their mutual support and

encouragement. Particular appreciation is felt for Mickey Dansby,

Jeff Elliott, Sonja Peterson-Lewis, and Annette Worsham for serving

as judges for the study, and for their friendship. I would also like

to express my admiration and affection for Marvin Shaw who served as

my chairman. Finally, I would like to thank Henry for making

everything easier, calmer, and brighter.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS





ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................

LIST OF TABLES .....................................

ABSTRACT .......................................................

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION .............................................

Self-Presentation ................. ............
Interactionism ....................... ............
Self-Monitoring: An Interactionist
Approach to Self-Presentation .......... ..........
Proposed Development and Validation of
Self-Presentation Scales ......... .... ...
Notes ...............................

II DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF THE SELF-PRESENTATION
SCALES ....................... .. ............................

Testing the Self-Monitoring Scale for the
Hypothesized Dimensions ...............
Construction of the Self-Presentation
S ca les .. ... ....... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ..............

III STUDY I ...............................

M etho d ...............................................
Results .............................
Discussion ...........................................

IV STUDY I I ...................................................

Method ............................
Results ............................
Discussion ...........................

V CONCLUSSION .............................

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................


Page

ii

v

vii




I

1
3

7

14
18


19


19

28

39

39
40
62

65

65
67
70

72

79









Page

APPENDICES

1 SELF-MONITORING SCALE ...................................... 84

2 PRESCALE ITEMS ............................................. 87

3 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR THE SELF-MONITORING
SCALE ITEMS ............................................... 92

4 SELF-PRESENTATION SCALE .......... ........ .................. 97

5 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR THE SELF-PRESENTATION
SCALE ITEMS ............................................... 100

6 PERSONALITY TESTS ........................................... 106

7 SELF-PRESENTATION SCENES AND ADJECTIVE LIST ................ 126

8 SELF-PRESENTATION INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS ................. 133

9 SCRIPT ........................................ ........... 137

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................. 138
















LIST OF TABLES


Page

Table

1 Self-Monitoring Scale ...................................... 20

2 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Monitoring
Scale Items--3 Factors Retained-- .......................... 23

3 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Monitoring
Scale Items--With Deletion of Items #12, #14,
#22, #23-- .............................................. 26

4 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Presentation
Scale Items--2 Factors Retained-- --Prescale
Data-- ............. ........................................ 30

5 Ability-to-Act Scale Items and Factor Loadings ............. 32

6 Attempt-to-Act Scale Items and Factor Loadings ............. 34

7 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Presentation
Scale Items --3 Factors Retained-- --Prescale
Data-- ..................................................... 36

8 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Presentation
Scale Items --2 Factors Retained-- --Study I
Data-- .............. .... ................. ........... 42

9 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Presentation
Scale Items --3 Factors Retained-- --Study I
Data-- ......................................... ............ 44

10 Correlations of Personality Test Scores .................... 47

11 Cell-Frequencies for Ability-to-Act and
Attempt-to-Act Scale Classification ........................ 49

12 Multivariate Analysis of Variance on Subjects'
Variance Scores ............. ............................... 50

13 Tests of Homogeneity of Within-Group Covariance
Matrices Using Both Attempt-to-Act and
Ability-to-Act Scale Classification ........................ 52









Page

Table

14 Tests of Homogeneity of Within-Group Covariance
Matrices Using Attempt-to-Act Scale
Classification ............................................. 54

15 Tests of Homogeneity of Within-Group Covariance
Matrices Using Ability-to-Act Scale
Classification ................................. ..... ....... 55

16 Analyses of Variance on Scene Discrimination Scores ........ 58

17 Analysis of Variance on Predicted and Pertinent
Target Adjectives for all Personality Tests ................ 60

18 Analysis of Variance on Predicted and Pertinent
Target Adjective Scene Scores for Extraversion
Classification ............................................. 61

19 Inter-Judge Reliability .................................... 68










Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


TIE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF
SELF-PRESENTATION SCALES

By

Bette Joan Ackerman

June 1979

Chairman: Marvin E. Shaw
Major Department: Psychology

Two self-presentation scales were developed based primarily

upon a modification of the Self-Monitoring Scale. It had been

predicted that the Self-Monitoring Scale items reflected two separate

dimensions conceptually related to engagement in self-presentational

behaviors. Factor analysis of subjects' responses to the Self-

Monitoring scale clearly supported the hypothesis that the scale items

reflected an ability to successfully present images, as well as an

acknowledged attempt on the part of respondents to vary their public

behavior to suit situational constraints. Two self-presentation

scales, the ability-to-act scale and the attempt-to-act scale, were

developed to more accurately measure individual differences with

respect to these dimensions. The self-presentation scales were found

to correlate significantly with standard personality measures. Further

attempts to validate the scales were not entirely successful as

classification on the self-presentation scales failed to result in

the predicted variability in behavior.
















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Self-Presentation

When engaged in social situations, people exchange information on

an endless variety of subjects. During this procedure, and sometimes

as the main object of such behavior, people exchange information about

themselves. Whenever an individual is engaged in verbal or nonverbal

behaviors that appear to reflect on the way in which he feels about

himself, the individual is engaging in self-presentations.

The term self-presentation originates from the writings of Erving

Goffman who likened social interaction to a theatrical performance (1955,

(1959). Goffman used this analogy to describe individuals as "on stage"

during a large part of their relationships with others, and who while

"on" are conscious of their "lines" and the effects they have on the

course of the interaction. By saying the appropriate thing an actor is

able to help structure a situation as he would like, enabling him to save

face, gain respect, or move the interaction in whatever way the actor

wishes it to proceed. There are instances when a theatrical approach to

self-presentation could be viewed in a pejorative fashion, with the

implication that these images are false and are largely presented

for self-satisfying reasons. In many cases, however, it is possible

to interpret the same acts in a positive light and view self-

presentations as necessary for effective and congenial social

interaction, or as a means of more accurately conveying one's true










feelings to others (Davitz, 1964). Regardless of the interpretation

one wishes to place on the motivation behind self-presentations, the

underlying assumption for this area of research is that, for a variety

of reasons, individuals engage in strategic tactics designed to effect

a desired image, be it competency, humility, honesty, or whatever.

Further, empirical research in this area has demonstrated that

individuals do alter their self-descriptions in response to situational

variables.

In order for an individual to be reasonably successful when

engaging in the strategies involved in self-presentations, he must be

constantly aware of the situation he finds himself in, at least tacitly

aware of how others make attributions about behavior, able to interpret

situations and the specific actions of others correctly, and willing

to engage in "acts." And although not necessary to the engagement in

self-presentations, these behaviors are more likely to be successful

if the individual has a repertoire of face-saving behaviors and/or a

desire either to keep interactions going smoothly for all or to maintain

a favorable standing for himself. Thus, while empirical research has

demonstrated that certain situation variables will reliably affect the

manner and degree to which people engage in self-presentations, it is

reasonable to assume that possessing the ability to successfully

complete self-presentations and a desire to engage in them will affect

an individual's involvement in this type of behavior.

In light of this it would seem reasonable to assume that there

are individual differences that affect whether or not an individual

engages in self-presentations, as well as the manner in which such

presentations are manifested. This becomes a problem of identifying









relevant individual differences and knowing how these differences will

interact with the situational constraints in the environment. It is

maintained that individuals vary greatly in the extent to which they

believe self-presentational behaviors to be often necessary in social

interactions, and that they also vary greatly in their abilities to

successfully complete the attempted presentations. The present study

was an attempt to develop a procedure that would classify individuals

with respect to their willingness to attempt presentational behaviors,

as well as their ability to successfully enact these behaviors. Once

individuals were identified, I attempted to predict the manner in which

these individual differences would affect self-presentational behaviors.

Ultimately, this type of approach stresses the understanding of

individual personality differences when attempting to predict how people

will respond to situational variables. It is believed that an under-

standing of the interaction of relevant personality and situational

variables must be understood if one is to understand behavior in a

variety of situations.


Interactionism

Certain areas of social-psychological investigation, such as

leadership or group dynamics, have consistently utilized both personality

and social-situational variables. For the most part, however, research-

ers have tended to utilize primarily one or the other of these groups

of variables. Personality theorists (e.g. Cattell, 1946) have focused

on character variables as a means to explain behavioral variance and

have thereby assumed that these traits or types will be reflected in

behavior as a consistency across a variety of situations.










Social psychologists, as well as some sociologists and social learning

theorists, have directed their attention to situational factors as the

primary means of explaining behavioral variance (Mischel, 1968;

Bandura & Walters, 1963). Certainly both approaches have led to an

increased understanding of human behavior, but each alone has

limitations when explaining behavior. Recently much attention has been

given to comparisons of the relative importance of cross-situational

behavior as a result of enduring personality characteristics versus

situational dependency (Alker, 1972; Bem, 1972; Endler, 1973). In

a survey of literature Bowers (1973; see also Argyle & Little, 1972)

compared the variance due to situations and the variance due to persons,

and concluded that the variance explained by these methods alone

is too meager to justify the use of either approach separately.

Ils findings indicated that an interaction of these variables often

explains more variance than either main effect alone, and often explains

more variance than the main effects summed.

To understand the interactionist approach and its importance to

the study of self-presentations, one must understand that it involves

more than the inclusion of both personality and situational variables

in some neat, orderly fashion. Interactionism denies the primacy of

either traints or situations in the determination of behavior and

maintains instead that trait and situational variables do not act

separately upon the individual, but rather they combine into complex

interactions that are far from simple. As Bowers put it, "interac-

tionism argues that situations are as much a function of the person as

the person's behavior is a function of the situation" (1973, p. 327).

The implication of this is clear, and represents a definite incorporation










of cognitive variables to the extent that each individual will experi-

ence a particular situation uniquely, depending on his past history

of experiences. This view stresses an epistomology similar to that of

Kelly (1955) and Neisser (1967) which suggest reality exists for an

individual as a function of his means of knowing it. In Piaget's terms

this means that the individual actively construes reality by drawing

on past experiences and interpretation by assimilating the situation

to current schemas while accommodating others.

While the term interactionismm" appeared fairly recently in the

literature, the use of individual differences along with situational

variables to explain behavioral variance is not entirely new, and has

been used in a variety of settings. In his 1957 Presidential Address

to the American Psychological Association, Cronbach stressed the need

for approaching education research via an aptitude by treatment inter-

action model, which has since been utilized in a variety of educational

(Cronbach, 1975; see also Goldberg, 1972), as well as therapy settings

(Insel f Moos, 1974;Schildkraut, 1970). Nor is this approach new to

social psychologists who are familiar with Fiedler's assessment of

leadership effectiveness in terms of personality styles of the leader

as well as the demands of the situation brought on by the group and its

goals (1973). McGuire (1968) utilized an interactionist approach when

investigating susceptibility to social influence, as did Endler and

Hunt (1969) and Endler (1975) in their work concerning anxiousness.

Other areas of investigation which have incorporated both trait and

situational variables without specifying an interactionist approach

include conformity (Crutchfield, 1955; Strickland F Crowne, 1962) as

well as dissonance studies (Steiner & Rogers, 1963; Rosenberg, 1969).









By including both personality and situational factors into

research, the investigator attempts to discern enough of the subject's

cognitive structure along a particular dimension to explain behavioral

variance. This becomes a problem of identifying those individuals for

whom the situation has a particular meaning. Although the explanation

of the individual's behavior in terms of his own phenomenology has been

most recently set forth by Mischel in a reconceptualization of his

previous behavioristic stance (1973), the similarity to Kurt Lewin's

psychology (1935) is obvious.

Several recent investigations have attempted to delineate the

relationship between particular trait and situational variables. In

one of these, Bem and Allen (1974) attempted to identify particular

persons who would respond consistently on particular dimensions, such

as friendliness or conscientiousness, across a variety of situations.

Their subjects were asked to respond to self-report items which the

investigators believed were indicators of friendliness or conscien-

tiousness in a variety of situations. The authors classified the

subjects on each dimension, based on the subjects' self-reported high-

versus low-variability. Correlations were then calculated separately

for each group's self-rated position with the observed behavioral

measures.

The results with respect to friendliness were as predicted.

Individuals whose self-reports indicated they wouldn't vary in friend-

liness from situation to situation displayed significantly less vari-

ability across situations than individuals who indicated they would

vary. Furthermore, the individual's self-rated level of friendliness

was not related to his cross-situational variability. In 13 of 15









instances, correlations among the friendliness variable were higher

for the low-variability group than for the high-variability group. The

overall mean inter-correlation among all the variables was +.57 for the

low-variability subjects, and +.27 for the high-variability subjects.

Similar results were obtained on the conscientious variables, once

rescaling of the self-ratings was performed to arrive at an intrain-

dividual measure of variance. The overall mean intercorrelation among

all the variables was +.45 for the low-variability subjects, and +.09

for the high-variability subjects. Not only were the predictions

confirmed, but the authors were also able to predict a group of

individuals for whom cross-situational consistency is greater than the

commonly observed +.30 ceiling (Mischel, 1968).

The Bem and Allen findings indicate that by allowing an individual

to indicate the extent to which he views a variety of situations as

equivalent, one has an indication of the phenomenology the individual

is responding under with respect to a particular dimension. Once an

investigator brings this phenomenology to bear in the laboratory, a

definite increase in the explanation of behavioral variance results.


Self-Monitoring: An Interactionist

Approach to Self-Presentation

An attempt was made to relate the approach utilized by Bem and

Allen to the area of self-presentation by Snyder (1974). Snyder was

concerned with identifying individuals who were particularly concerned

with social appropriateness. He reasoned that individuals who were

concerned with appearing appropriate were likely to respond to subtle

variations in situational cues, and would therefore tend to display









little cross-situational consistency on any dimensions other than

attempting to present a positive image to others.

Following an interactionist approach, Snyder assumed that

individuals would vary in the degree to which they would be concerned

with and engage in self-presentations. lie argued that people who often

engage in self-presentations were more likely to monitor themselves and

their behavior as it appeared in a social context than were nonself-

presenters. In order to identify these persons, Snyder constructed the

Self-Monitoring Scale based on forty-one true-false statements which

represented a) concern with the social appropriateness of one's behavior,

b) attention to social comparison information much as cues to appropri-

ate self-expression, c) the ability to control and modify one's self-

presentaion and expressive behavior, d) the use of this expressive

ability in particular situations, and e) the extent to which the

respondent's expressive behavior and self-presentations were consistent

across situations. The preliminary items were administered to 192

university undergraduates and were scored in the direction of high-

self-monitoring. An item analysis was performed over the responses to

select those items which would maximize internal consistency. During

this procedure, the top and bottom thirds of the total test scores

were found, and the percentages of persons in each group who responded

in the manner keyed as high-self-monitoring were determined for each

item. The difference between the percentage in the bottom group when

subtracted from the percentage in the top group served as an index of

item validity to discriminate total test scores. Items were then

discarded on the basis of low difference scores until a set of 25 items









remained (see Appendix 1). The resulting Self-Monitoring Scale was

found to have a Kuder-Richardson interitem reliability of .70, and a

test-retest reliability of .83 over a one month time interval.

In an attempt to validate the scale, Snyder performed a series

of correlations between the Self-Monitoring Scale and conceptually

related measures. Correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social

Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) were negative and signifi-

cant, such that individuals who reported that they observed, monitored,

and managed their self-presentations were unlikely to report that they

engaged in socially desirable behaviors. This relationship was

clarified when it was found that persons scoring high on the Self-

Monitoring Scale were better able to accurately convey expressions of

emotions to judges than were subjects scoring low. When these same

persons were classified on the basis of their Social Desirability Scale

scores, individuals who scored below the median on the test were better

able to communicate emotion accurately to judges than were those who

scored above the median. These results suggest that the correlation

between the Self-Monitoring Scale and the Social Desirability Scale

is a result of a common ability to distinguish those individuals

capable of effectively acting. A subsequent experiment revealed that

the Self-Monitoring Scale was able to discriminate professional stage

actors from university students, with stage actors scoring higher than

nonactors on the scale. Thus it would appear that a large component

tapped by the Self-Monitoring Scale is an ability to act.

Additional validation attempts revealed a significant negative

correlation between the Self-Monitoring Scale and the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) Psychopathic Deviate subscale,










with high-self-monitors unlikely to report deviate psychological

behaviors or histories of maladjustment. A correlation between the

Self-Monitoring Scale and the Performance Style Test--c subscale

(Ring & Wallston, 1968) revealed a nonsignificant relationship. The

c subscale was designed to identify those individuals whose behavior

is determined by where they find themselves; that is, persons who

become whatever the situation calls for. Unfortunately, little work

has been done to establish the reliability or validity of the Perfor-

mance Style Test, so little can be said concerning the insignificant

correlation. Other nonsignificant correlations were obtained with

the Mach IV scale of Machiavellianism (Christie & Geis, 1970), the

Achievement Anxiety Test (Alpert & Haber, 1960), and Inner-Other

Directedness (Kassarjian, 1962).

Futher indications of the Self-Monitoring Scale's validity come

from an experiment where it was found that hospitalized psychiatric

patients had been found previously to he more rigid in their cross-

situational behavior (Moos, 1969), and suggestive of a conceptualization

of psychopathology as behavioral rigidity (Cameron, 1950). It was also

determined that individuals scoring high on the Self-Monitoring Scale

were more likely to search out social comparison information than were

persons scoring low. Finally, peer ratings were found to correlate

positively with scores on the Self-Monitoring Scale when individuals

were asked to rate their friend's concern with acting appropriately in

social situations, learning what is socially appropriate, and control

of emotional expression such that it can be used to create impressions,

etc.










In a second series of experiments, Snyder and Monson (1975)

utilized a disposition by situation analysis in an attempt to asses

individual differences in response to situational variables. The person-

ality measure utilized included the Self-Monitoring Scale, Marlowe-

Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), Eysenck

Personality Inventory measures of extraversion and neuroticism

(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968), the Inner-Other Scale which measures

Riseman's (1950) concept of inner- versus other-directed social char-

acteristics (Kassarjian, 1962). For each of these measures, subjects

were assigned to either high- or low-scoring groups via a median split.

The subjects participated in a social conformity experiment, where the

similarity of their behavior to that of the remainder of the group's

members was assessed as a function of relative privacy. An analysis of

variance was performed for each personality measure. No disposition by

situation interactions were observed for extraversion, social desirability,

or inner-other directedness when subjects responded to a manipulation of

relative privacy and its effects on conformity. A significant

self-monitoring by situational manipulation, however, was obtained.

Subsequent comparisons revealed that low-self-monitoring subjects were

insensitive to the situational manipulation, whereas the social

conformity of high-self-monitoring subjects was less in the public

condition than in the private condition. Furthermore, neither the

classification on the Self-Monitoring Scale nor the situational manip-

ulation revealed a main effect on the amount of conformity obtained.

A significant interaction of situational manipulation with a personality

variables was also obtained when subjects were classified according to

a median split on the neuroticism scale. Paired comparisons revealed









that the high-neurotics were relatively insensitive to the situational

manipulations, whereas low-neurotic,scoring subjects were more conforming

in private than in the public condition. Subsequent analyses revealed

a significant positive correlation between the Self-Monitoring and

neuroticism scales, although a chi-square for independence of classifi-

cation was not significant. It would appear that both the Self-

Monitoring and neuroticism scales identified individuals whose behavior

is sensitive to situational variance in privacy. These results support

the interactionist contention that the relationship between the situation

and resultant behavior is enhanced if the dispositions of the

individuals involved are taken into account.

A second experimental finding reported by Snyder and Monson (1975)

indicated that high-self-monitoring subjects report more cross-

situational variance for themselves than for their acquaintances; the

reverse was true for individuals scoring low. Further, high-self-

monitoring subjects reported more situation variance for themselves than

did low-self-monitoring subjects.

While the initial findings of Snyder (1974) and Snyder and Monson

(1975) support an interactionist approach to the study of self-

presentation, it is believed that the concept of self-monitoring

inadequately deals with the complexity of individual differences impor-

tant to the understanding of self-presentational behavior. It is not

enough that a person be concerned with social appropriateness if he

is to successfully engage in strategic manipulations of his self-

descriptive behavior. Meerly wanting to look good is not enough; one

must have sufficient ability to engage in the self-presentation, both










in knowing what to say (content) and heing able to say it so that others

believe it, as well as not feeling constrained to perform one consistent

self-presentaion regardless of situational constraints.

As described earlier in this paper, Snyder believed his scale

was tapping an individual's overall sensitivity to situational cues of

social appropriateness. For this reason he included items which dealt

with the individual's attention to social comparison information when

attempting a presentation as well as items concerning the person's

ability to control and modify his expressive behavior. Snyder did

include items which he believed represented other orientations into his

scale, but a majority of the items can be classified into these dim-

ensions. It is believed that the success the Self-Monitoring Scale has

had in predicting engagement in self-presentational behavior is due to

the extent to which it has included items reflective of these two

dimensions--ability to act and attempting to act. Snyder's own results

support this assertion. Half of his results can be summarized by saying

that subjects scoring high on the Self-Monitoring Scale are people who

are accomplished at acting; high-scorers were better able to accurately

convey expressions of emotions to judges than were low-scorers, and

stage actors were more likely to receive high scores than were nonactors.

Other results cited by Snyder not reflecting an ability to act success-

fully do represent an attempt to vary one's behavior from situation to

situation. Results show that the scale was capable of differentiating

psychiatric patients from normal persons, while previous work had

conceptualized such patients as rigid in their behavior. The scale

was also able to identify individuals who were concerned with acting










appropriately, scanned the environment for cues as to how to act, and

were sensitive to particular situational manipulations.

Further support for the contention that the Self-Monitoring

Scale is tapping two separate dimensions, each of which is related to

engagement in self-presentations is reflected in the scale's internal

reliability estimate. Snyder's estimation of interitem consistency

yielded a Kuder-Richardson coefficient of +.70. This relatively low

value, when compared to the test-retest reliability coefficient of

+.83, indicates a lack of homogeneity, an indication that the scale

is not tapping a unitary dimension (Anastassi, 1955). It is suggested

that this lack of homogeneity is a result of the scale's composition

of two separate groups of items--items dealing with the individual's

general willingness to attempt self-presentation, and items which

assess the individual's ability to successfully effect a desired

image or act. As it is currently scored, the Self-Monitoring Scale

separates subjects into two groups, high- and low-self-monitors. If

the scale is tapping the two hypothesized dimensions, high-self-

monitors would he persons who indicated an ability to act as well as

a desire to act.


Proposed Development and Validation

of Self-Presentation Scales

The present study was an attempt to support the contention that

more than one personality dimension is relevant to engagement in

self-presentational behavior. Further, it was believed that the Self-

Monitoring Scale, as designed by Snyder, reflects two separate










dimensions relevant to self-presentation attempts. It was hypothesized

that these dimensions reflected an attempt to act as well as an ability

to act.

Prediction 1

Factor analyses performed on responses to the Self-Monitoring

Scale would yield two factors, reflecting attempt-to-act and ability-

to-act dimensions.

Further, it had been hypothesized that the attempt-to-act and

ability-to-act dimensions represent personality traits relevant to

engagement in self-presentational behavior, and that a clear classifi-

cation of individuals along these dimensions would account for differ-

ences in subsequent self-presentational attempts. For this reason

attempt-to-act and ability-to-act scales were constructed, based

largely on the items currently found in the Self-Monitoring Scale.

Using responses to these scales, several predictions were possible.

Prediction 2

Subjects receiving high scores on the attempt-to-act scale would

demonstrate more variability in their self-descriptions across

situations than would subjects receiving low scores.

Prediction 3

Subjects receiving high scores on the ability-to-act scale would

be better able to determine the content appropriate for a given self-

presentation. These subjects would lay higher claims to those attri-

butes that are relevant to a given image than would subjects receiving

low scores on the ability-to-act scale.









Prediction 4

Subjects receiving high scores on the ability-to-act scale

would be better able to convey target images to judges than would

subjects receiving low scores.

Conceptual support for the attempt-to-act and ability-to-act

scales were to be provided by correlating subjects' scores on the two

scales with a variety of personality measures for which estimates of

validity were well documented.

Correlary Predictions

It was believed that scores on the attempt-to-act scale would

correlate positively with scores on the Chapin Social Insight Test, and

the extraversion and neuroticism scales of the Eysenck Personality

Inventory. Scores on the ability-to-act scale were expected to cor-

relate negatively with scores on the Social Desirability Scale and

positively with Mach V scores of Machiavellianism.

The extraversion scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory can

be interpreted broadly as assessing the degree to which the individual

orients himself to the external extraversionn) versus the internal world

(introversion). Carrigan (1960) stated that the scale discriminated

between individuals who actively look for social cues, and those who do

not. The Chapin Social Insight Test (Chapin, 1942) was developed to

assess an individual's capacity to see into a social situation, to

appreciate the implications of things said, and to interpret effectively

the attitudes expressed. The test stresses the diagnostic capabilities

of the person, not the tendencies to behave adaptively. Unfortunately,

little validation work has been conducted for the Chapin Social Insight









Test, so the predicted correlation with the attempt-to-act scale was

based on the conceptual claim of Chapin.

The ability-to-act scale was predicted to correlate negatively

with scores on the Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964),

and correlate positively with the Mach V test of Machiavellianism

(Christie & Geis, 1970). The Social Desirability Scale assesses the

degree to which an individual actively endorses appropriate behavior.

Support for the scale's ability to discriminate along the acting

dimension was provided by Snyder (1974) who found that low-scorers were

better actors than were high-scorers. The Mach scales are designed to

identify those individuals effective in controlling others. Involved

in this characteristic is a relative detachment from personal involvement

or concern for morality. Support for the predicted correlation with

the ability-to-act scale was provided by Weinstock (1964) who found

that high-Mach refugees were more facile in face to face contacts, were

more able to improvise, and were less susceptive to the arousing

influences of irrelevant affect. The Mach V version of the test was

utilized in the proposed study because it theoretically controls for

socially desirable responses (Robinson & Shaver, 1973).





18



Note

1Although cross-situation correlation coefficients usually do
not exceed the +.30 ceiling cited by Mischel, several studies have
yielded correlations which surpass this value (Mann, 1959; Stogdill,
1948). In addition, it should be kept in mind that correlations
obtained under experimental conditions reflect not only some underlying
relationship, but also the specific combination of variables included,
and the methods used to manipulate them (Fiske, 1971).
















CHAPTER II
DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF THE
SELF-PRESENTATION SCALES


Testing the Self-Monitoring Scale for the
Hypothesized Dimensions

A copy of the Self-Monitoring Scale is presented in Table 1, with

an indication into which hypothesized dimension each item was predicted

to fall. Items preceded by the word "ability" were predicted to fall

into an ability-to-act dimension. Items preceded by the word "attempt"

were predicted to fall into the attempt-to-act dimension. Two items,

#12 ("In a group of people I am rarely the center of attention.") and

#22 ("At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going well.")

were not believed to represent either hypothesized dimension, and so

no prediction was made for these items. Two additional items, #13

("In different situations and with different people, I often act like

very different persons.") and #21 ("I have trouble changing my behavior

to suit different people and different situations.") were considered

to be ambiguous because of qualifying clauses or phrases that allowed

the items to be classified into either category. Thus, depending upon

the way in which these questions were interpreted, inclusion into

either predicted dimension was considered possible. For these two

items, the dimensions into which it was believed the items would most

likely fall is indicated, followed by an asterisk (*).

To test the predicted breakdown of items, the original Self-

Monitoring items were administered to 199 students enrolled in the
















Table 1

Self-Monitoring Scale



Ability 1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people.
(F)

Attempt 2. My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner
feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. (F)

Attempt 3. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do
or say things that others will like. (F)

Ability 4. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. (F)

Ability 5. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which
I have almost no information. (T)

Ability 6. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people.
(T)

Attempt 7. When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I
look to the behavior of others for cues. (T)

Ability 8. I would probably make a good actor. (T)

Attempt 9. I rarely need the advice of my friends to choose movies,
books or music. (F)

Ability 10. I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper
emotions than 1 actually am. (T)

Attempt 11. I laugh more when I watch a comedy with others than when
alone. (T)

12. In a group of people I am rarely the center of attention.
(F)

Attempt* 13. In different situations and with different people, I often
act like very different persons. (T)

Ability 14. 1 am not particularly good at making other people like
me. (F)









Table 1 Continued



Attempt 15. Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be
having a good time. (T)

Attempt 16. I'm not always the person I appear to be. (T)

Attempt 17. I would not change my opinion (or the way I do things)
in order to please someone else or win their favor. (F)

Ability 18. I have considered being an entertainer. (T)

Attempt 19. In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what
people expect me to be rather than anything else. (T)

Ability 20. I have never been good at games like charades or
improvisational acting. (F)

Ability* 21. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different
people and different situations. (F)

22. At a party I lot others keep the jokes and stories going.
(F)

Ability 23. I feel a bit awkward in company and do not show up quite
so well as I should. (F)

Ability 24. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a
straight face (if for a right end). (T)

Attempt 25. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really
dislike them. (F)

Note: Items are keyed in the direction of high self-monitoring.
*Denotes items predicted to be ambiguous.









Introductory Psychology classes. These students also responded to 47

additional items which had been included by the experimenter. Two types

of items were added to the Self-Monitoring Scale items to make up the

72-item scale (see Appendix 2). First, items were added that were verbal

variations of items in the original scale, but with modifications in

wording--particularly qualifying clauses. Such items were written to

clarify resolution of resultant factors should there have been ambiguity.

The second type of items included by the experimenter were items which

were believed to represent other facets of the hypothesized dimensions

than those included by the original Self-Monitoring Scale. The inclusion

of these additional items permitted the generation of a pool of items

for which responses were available. This pool allowed the selection

of items to be included in the revised scales which protesting indicated

would yield maximum clarity and diversity for the hypothesized

dimensions.

Responses to the original Self-Monitoring Scale items were factor

analyzed utilizing a principle axis solution with varimax rotation.

Selection of factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 resulted in

three factors being retained (see Table 2). Close examination of the

obtained factor pattern revealed for the first extracted factor heavy

loadings primarily by those items predicted to make up the ability-to-

act dimension. The second factor contained heavy loadings primarily

from those items predicted as reflecting an attempt-to-act dimension.

The third factor obtained consisted of loadings primarily from items

#12, f14, #22, and #23. Items #12 and #22 were items that had been

predicted not to load on either of the predicted relevant dimensions.

Items #14 and #23 were also extracted by the third factor because of

















Table 2

Rotated Factor Pattern of the
Self-Monitoring Scale Items
--3 Factors Retained--


Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act Social Ease


Ability

Attempt

Attempt

Ability

Ability

Ability

Attempt

Ability

Attempt

Ability

Attempt



Attempt*

Ability

Attempt

Attempt

Attempt

Ability


-0.34

-0.32

0.10

-0.18

0.46

0.41

-0.11

0.69

0.16

0.04

-0.00

-.030

0.06

-0.00

-0.13

0.13

-0.05

0.65


-0.16

-0.35

-0.25

0.09

0.01

0.26

0.33

0.11

-0.06

0.36

0.37

0.11

0.54

-0.10

0.43

0.39

-0.43

0.43


0.21

-0.26

0.30

0.08

0.02

-0.05

0.04

-0.18

0.06

-0.12

0.04

0.42

0.16

0.48

-0.16

0.19

-0.00

-0.03










Table 2 Continued


Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act Social Ease


19 Attempt 0.10 0.59 -0.01

20 Ability -0.60 0.07 0.33

21 Ability* -0.21 -0.28 0.28

22 -0.24 0.17 0.50

23 Ability -0.14 0.21 0.59

24 Ability 0.24 0.05 -0.04

25 Attempt 0.03 0.49 0.00

Note: Eigenvalues are 3.40, 2.96, and 1.75.
*Denotes items predicted to be ambiguous.









high correlations with items #22 and #23, and items #12 and #22, respec-

tively (see Appendix 3). Close examination of the content of these

items revealed them as being more distantly related to the conceptual-

izations of the hypothesized dimensions and seem rather to represent

a dimension of being at ease with others in social situations.

A second factor analysis was performed on the Self-Monitoring

Scale items, but excluding the four items extracted by the third factor

of the previous analysis. This analysis resulted in a clear division

into two factors, with the items again loading in the hypothesized

manner (see Table 3), with eigenvalues 2.59 and 1.73 and explaining

78% of the variance. Although the actual items split in the same way

as on the previous analysis, during this factor analysis the factor

representing the attempt-to-act dimension was extracted first. Of the

items considered to be ambiguous in content, #13 fell into the attempt-

to-act factor as tentatively predicted, while #21 failed to load uniquely

on either factor. Items #9 and #4 also failed to sufficiently discrim-

inate between the extracted factors. Only one item, #10, was extracted

primarily by one factor when it had been predicted to represent the

other. This item ("I sometimes appear to be experiencing deeper

emotions than I actually am.") was extracted by the attempt-to-act

factor rather than the ability-to-act factor.

These results were interpreted as support for the hypothesis that

the Self-Monitoring Scale as constructed by Snyder taps two separate

dimensions conceptually related to self-presentation: a) a desire or

willingness to attempt self-presentations where defined as an alteration

of behavior in response to situational variables, and b) an acknowledged

ability to actually "pull-off" or successfully complete a desired image.
















Table 3

Rotated Factor Pattern of the
Self-Monitoring Scale Items
--With Deletion of Items #12, #14, #22, #23--



Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act


1 Ability -0.12 0.40

2 Attempt -0.31 0.28

3 Attempt -0.22 -0.01

4 Ability -0.10 0.19

5 Ability 0.02 -0.42

6 Ability 0.26 -0.42

7 Attempt 0.31 0.09

8 Ability 0.10 -0.72

9 Attempt -0.05 -0.14

10 Ability 0.35 -0.07

11 Attempt 0.39 0.01

13 Attempt* 0.59 -0.00

15 Attempt 0.43 0.06

16 Attempt 0.41 -0.06

17 Attempt -0.41 0.07

18 Ability 0.02 -0.65

19 Attempt 0.59 -0.11

20 Ability 0.11 0.66





27



Table 3 Continued


Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act


19 Attempt 0.59 -0.11

20 Ability 0.11 0.66

21 Ability* -0.27 0.24

24 Ability 0.06 -0.21

25 Attempt 0.47 -0.05

Note: Eigenvalues are 2.59 and 1.73.
*Denotes items predicted to be ambiguous.









Construction of the Self-Presentation Scales

The above analyses supported the hypothesis that the Self-

Monitoring Scale was tapping two conceptually separate dimensions.

As further work was to be conducted testing the conceptual merit of

these dimensions as they relate to self-presentations, it was imperative

to maximize the ability to classify individuals with respect to the two

hypothesized dimensions. For this reason, two self-presentation scales

were constructed that were a modification of Snyder's Sclf-Monitoring

Scale.

In order to select the items to be included in the self-

presentation scales, multiple factor analyses were performed utilizing

the responses to the original Self-Monitoring scale and the additional

pool of items. The purpose of the factor analyses was the selection

of a combination of items that would best represent the ability-to-act

and attempt-to-act dimensions. Each analysis specified an orthogonal

rotation, squared prior estimates of communality, and a principle axis

solution. Factors were retained with eigenvalues greater than 1.0.

Items included for the various factor analyses were selected on several

criteria: a) retention of as many original Self-Monitoring items as

possible, b) an attempt to select 15 items representing each dimension,

c) inclusion of items which were found to discriminate between subjects

(only a dichotomous response was possible, so only items with a minimum

30%-70% split of responses were included), and d) maximum discrimination

of loadings between factors. In other words, in the selection of items

the ultimate goal was the inclusion of items which would result in the

retention of two factors clearly reflecting the hypothesized dimensions,

and which would also maximize the variance explained.










Throughout the various attempted factor analyses the first two

factors to emerge were consistently those representing the hypothesized

dimensions, and the individual item loadings remained relatively con-

sistent, although numerically differing slightly. On the basis of

these factor analyses, 30 items were selected for inclusion in the

self-presentation scales. The results of a factor analysis performed

on these items when restricted to two factors is presented in Table 4,

and the resulting composition of the scales is presented in Appendix 4.

Breakdowns of the items according to their appropriate scales, ability-

to-act and attempt-to-act, are presented in Tables 5 and 6, along with

each item's loadings on the resultant factors. The eigenvalues cor-

responding to these factors were 4.92 and 3.00, explaining 63% of the

variance. The final self-presentation scales contained a combined

total of 18 of the original 25 Self-Monitoring items, with an additional

12 items selected from the pool of prescale items.

Factor analysis on the self-presentation scale items without

restricting the number of factors to be extracted resulted in three

factors being retained(see Table 7). Examination of these factors

yielded the same pattern as before, with the exception of three items'

which were extracted by a third factor: #4 ("I can only argue for ideas

which I already believe."), #22 ("I'm not very good at arguing for

ideas I don't believe in."), and #29 ("I'm not very good at covering

up feelings I don't want others to see."). Examination of the cor-

relations between the items (see Appendix 5) indicated strong cor-

relations between items #22 and #29 (r=+.49), items #4 and #29 (r=+.59),

and items #4 and #22 (r=+.40). The correlation between items #22 and

#4 is to be expected from the similarity in wording. The third item
















Table 4

Rotated Factor Pattern of the
Self-Presentation Scale Items
--2 Factors Retained--
--Prescale Data--



Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act


1 Ability -0.14 -0.43

2 Attempt -0.35 -0.20

3 Attempt 0.76 0.06

4 Ability 0.20 -0.30

5 Ability 0.04 0.43

6 Ability 0.24 0.41

7 Attempt 0.31 -0.04

8 Ability 0.10 0.77

9 Ability -0.23 -0.39

10 Attempt 0.57 0.04

11 Attempt 0.38 -0.00

12 Ability 0.13 0.39

13 Attempt 0.66 0.04

14 Attempt -0.56 -0.20

15 Attempt 0.37 -0.04

16 Attempt 0.43 0.10

17 Attempt -0.41 -0.03

18 Ability -0.04 0.62










Table 4 Continued



Item Scale Attempt-to-Act Ability-to-Act


19 Attempt 0.59 0.08

20 Ability 0.10 -0.64

21 Attempt -0.33 -0.26

22 Ability 0.11 -0.53

23 Attempt 0.54 0.09

24 Ability 0.07 0.23

25 Attempt 0.40 0.07

26 Ability 0.15 0.39

27 Ability -0.10 -0.67

28 Attempt -0.52 -0.03

29 Ability 0.07 -0.36

30 Ability 0.21 0.60

Note: Eigenvalues are 4.92 and 3.00.














Table 5

Ability-to-Act Scale Items and Factor Loadings


Attempt- Ability-
Item to-Act to-Act


1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people -0.14 -0.43

4. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. 0.20 -0.30

5. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost
no information. 0.04 0.43

6. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people 0.24 0.41

8. I would probably make a good actor. 0.10 0.77

9. I rarely feel the need to be in the limelight. -0.23 -0.39

12. I usually like to he the center of attention. 0.13 0.39

18. I have considered being an entertainer. -0.04 0.62

20. I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational
acting. 0.10 -0.64

22. I'm not very good at arguing for ideas that I don't believe in. 0.11 -0.53










Table 5 Continued


Attempt- Ability-
Item to-Act to-Act


24. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face
(if for a right end). 0.07 0.23

26. I am very good at acting in everyday situations, if I feel like it. 0.15 0.39

27. I wouldn't make a very good actor. -0.10 -0.67

_29. I'm not very good at covering up feelings I don't want others to see. 0.07 -0.36

30. I'm pretty good at mimicking (copying) others' behavior. 0.21 0.60














Table 6

Attempt-to-Act Scale Items and Factor Loadings



Attemtp- Ability-
Item to-Act to-Act


2. My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner feelings,
attitudes, and beliefs. -0.35 -0.20

3. I like to get along with others and have them like me, so in different
situations and with different people I often act like different people. 0.76 0.06

7. When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the
behavior of others for cues. 0.31 -0.04

10. I let the behavior of others influence how I will behave in a
particular situation. 0.57 0.04

11. I laugh more when I watch a comedy with others than when alone. 0.38 -0.00

13. In different situations and with different people, I often act like
very different persons. 0.66 0.04

14. I try to be the same person in all situations. -0,56 -0.20

15. Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be having a
good time. 0.37 -0.04










Table 6 Continued



Attempt- Ability-
Item to-Act to-Act


16. I'm not always the person I appear to be 0.43 0.10

17. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to
please someone else or win their favor. -0.41 -0.03

19. In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people expect
me to be rather than anything else. 0.59 0.08

21. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and
different situations. -0.33 -0.26

23. In different situations and with different people, it is necessary
to act like very different people if one wants to get along. 0.54 0.09

25. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them. 0.40 0.07

28. My behavior is usually an expression of my true feelings, because
I don't feel a need to please others. -0.52 -0.03
















Table 7

Rotated Factor Pattern of the
Self-Presentation Scale Items
--3 Factors Retained--
--Prescale Data--


Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act Discrepent Acts


1 Ability -0.41 -0.13 0.15

2 Attempt -0.20 -0.35 0.04

3 Attempt 0.05 0.78 -0.05

4 Ability -0.07 0.08 0.69

5 Ability 0.35 0.06 -0.29

6 Ability 0.43 0.22 -0.01

7 Attempt -0.06 0.34 -0.08

8 Ability 0.83 0.03 0.03

9 Ability -0.40 -0.22 0.06

10 Attempt 0.05 0.58 0.00

11 Attempt 0.00 0.39 -0.01

12 Ability 0.39 0.11 -0.08

13 Ability 0.04 0.68 -0.04

14 Attempt -0.20 -0.56 0.05

15 Attemot 0.06 0.33 0.25

16 Attempt 0.05 0.46 -0.17

17 Attempt -0.07 -0.40 -0.07

18 Ability 0.64 -0.08 -0.06










Table 7 Continued



Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act Discrepent Acts


19 Attempt 0.18 0.55 0.22

20 Ability -0.63 0.13 0.12

21 Attempt -0.25 -0.33 0.08

22 Ability -0.35 0.03 0.58

23 Attempt 0.12 0.53 0.04

24 Ability 0.23 0.06 -0.03

25 Attempt 0.13 0.38 0.13

26 Ability 0.44 0.11 0.06

27 Ability -0.73 -0.04 -0.04

28 Attempt -0.10 -0.49 -0.19

29 Ability -0.13 -0.04 0.70

30 Ability 0.58 0.20 -0.15

Note: Eigenvalues are 4.92, 3.00, and 1.44.









is similar to the other two in that all three concern behavior that

is discrepant from what the individual is actually experiencing.

However, there were other items dealing with discrepent behavior which

were not extracted by this factor.

Reliability estimates for the ability-to-act and the attempt-

to-act scales were performed using the Guttman lower bound estimates.

The split-half reliability coefficient for the ability-to-act scale

was estimated to be .36, and the coefficient for the attempt-to-act

scale was estimated to be .50. As these estimates were a function of

the scale length, a Spearman-Brown step-up procedure was performed to

predict what the reliability would be for a scale twice as long, in

this case 30 items. This procedure yielded estimates of .53 and .67

for the ability- and attempt-to-act scales, respectively.
















CHAPTER III
STUDY I



Method

Subjects

One hundred and four students took part in the study as partial

fulfillment of their introductory psychology course requirements. Four

students failed to correctly follow the directions on the Mach V test,

so only 100 cases are reported for analyses involving these scores.

Procedure

Small groups of subjects reported to the laboratory for each

experimental session, at which time they were seated in separate

cubicles and given a set of six tests to complete. Each set consisted

of one copy, in random order, of the following personality tests:

a) Chapin Social Insight Scale, b) Eysenck Personality Inventory,

c) Social Desirability Scale, d) Mach V, and e) Self-Presentation

Scale--consisting of the ability-to-act and the attempt-to-act scales.

(All personality tests are presented in Appendix 6, with the exception

of the Self-Presentation Scale which is presented in Appendix 4.) The

dependent measure was administered as the sixth test, and consisted

of four scenes, each of which was followed by a self-presentation

adjective list (see Appendix 7). Each scene placed the subject in a

situation where the subject hypothetically interacted with others.

The scenes were designed to put the subjects in a role-playing position









where it would be to their advantage to express themselves as:

a) cooperative, b) empathic, c) sociable, and d) competent. Each of

the four scenes was followed by a 20-item adjective list. The subjects

were instructed to read each of the scenes and to try to imagine them-

selves in the situation described. They were then asked to use the

adjective list to indicate how they would present themselves if involved

in the situation as described.

Preliminary protesting indicated five adjectives as being perti-

nent to the image called for by each scene. The list of 20 adjectives

repeated after each scene was composed of the five adjectives that

were indicated by the pretest subjects as most pertinent to each of

the four included scenes.

After reading the four scenes and responding to the adjective

list, the subjects were instructed to look over each of the scenes

again and indicate which five of the 20 adjectives they believed to be

most pertinent to the image they would want to present in the situa-

tion described. Thus, the data consisted of the subjects' responses

for each of the four scenes to: a) the five predicted critical ad-

jectives, b) the fifteen remaining adjectives, and c) an indication

of which adjectives each subject personally believed to be most

pertinent to the scenes.


Results

Self-Presentation Scales and their Relationship to Personality Measures

A factor analysis was performed on the responses to the self-

presentation scales, as before with specification of a principle axis

solution, squared prior estimates of communality, and a varimax









rotation. The results are presented in Table 8. As compared to the

prescaling results presented earlier in Table 4, the factors were ex-

tracted in reverse order, with the first factor representing the ability-

to-act scale and the second factor representing the attempt-to-act

scale. The loadings for the ability-to-act scale were the reverse of

the loadings from the previous analysis, such that items which previously

loaded negatively now load positively, and vice-versa. It should be

noted that the factor analysis presented in Table 8 is based on the

responses of 104 subjects which is a small number for a 30-item scale.

Not surprisingly, the actual numeritatL factor loadings varied from

the earlier analyses although the relative values remained very similar.

An additional factor analysis was performed, retaining all

factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, with the result that three

factors were retained, with eigenvalues of 5.48, 2.45, and 2.00 and

explaining 70% of the variance (see Table 9). Those items extracted

by the third factor were items #4, #22, and #29, which were the same

items as those extracted by the third factor of the prescaling work.

An additional item was extracted by the third factor during this

analysis, with the inclusion of item #5 ("I can make impromptu speeches

even on topics about which I have little information."). An ex-

amination of the correlation pattern between the items indicated a

strong correlation between items #5 and #22 (r=-.53) and between

items #5 and #29 (r=-.40).

Subjects' responses on the Self-Presentation Scale items were

summed separately for the ability-to-act and attempt-to-act scales.

A Pearson Product Moment correlation was performed on these scores,

as well as the other personality measures. The results are presented
















Table 8

Rotated Factor Pattern of the
Self-Presentation Scale Items
--2 Factors Retained--
--Study I Data--



Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act


1 Ability 0.53 -0.23

2 Attempt 0.12 -0.27

3 Attempt -0.17 0.66

4 Ability 0.33 -0.04

5 Ability -0.44 0.14

6 Ability -0.34 0.31

7 Attempt 0.13 0.37

8 Ability -0.77 0.06

9 Ability 0.45 -0.06

10 Attempt -0.02 0.47

11 Attempt 0.09 0.29

12 Ability -0.42 -0.17

13 Attempt -0.09 0.69

14 Attempt 0.15 -0.67

15 Attempt 0.17 0.23

16 Attempt -0.11 0.45

17 Attempt 0.15 -0.36

18 Ability -0.49 0.05









Table 8 Continued



Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act


19 Attempt 0.02 0.56

20 Ability 0.63 -0.09

21 Attempt 0.37 -0.49

22 Ability 0.47 -0.04

23 Attempt -0.14 0.56

24 Ability -0.20 -0.10

25 Attempt -0.23 0.38

26 Ability -0.52 0.21

27 Ability 0.69 -0.06

28 Attempt 0.14 -0.25

29 Ability 0.37 -0.18

30 Ability -0.60 0.35

Note: Eigenvalues are 5.48 and 2.45.

















Table 9

Rotated Factor Pattern of the
Self-Presentation Scale Items
--3 Factors Retained--
--Study I Data--


Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act Discrepent Acts


1 Ability -0.58 -0.21 0.04

2 Attempt -0.05 -0.26 0.21

3 Attempt 0.20 0.64 -0.05

4 Ability -0.03 -0.01 0.68

5 Ability 0.24 0.11 -0.52

6 Ability 0.33 0.29 -0.13

7 Attempt -0.04 0.38 0.15

8 Ability 0.80 0.03 -0.14

9 Ability -0.41 -0.04 0.20

10 Attempt 0.09 0.47 0.08

11 Attempt -0.21 0.29 -0.26

12 Ability 0.37 -0.18 -0.17

13 Attempt 0.05 0.68 -0.19

14 Attempt -0.07 -0.66 0.28

15 Attempt -0.13 0.24 0.09

16 Attempt 0.17 0.45 0.05

17 Attempt -0.10 -0.35 0.19

18 Ability 0.54 0.04 -0.01










Table 9 Continued


Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act Discrepent Acts


-0.02

-0,55

-0.36

-0. 19

0.21

0.08

0.31

0.63

-0.69

-0.06

-0.03

0.68

are 5.48,


0.55

-0.06

-0.47

0.00

0-56

-0.11

0.37

0.19

-0.03

-0.23

-0.14

0.33

2.45, and 2.00.


-0.07

0.32

0.16

0.68

0.09

-0.27

0.07

0.08

0.17

0.21

0.77

-0.02


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Note:


Attempt

Ability

Attempt

Ability

Attempt

Ability

Attempt

Ability

Ability

Attempt

Ability

Ability

Eigenvalues


------~--









in Table 10, and indicate a significant positive correlation between

the ability-to-act and attempt-to-act scales (r=+.35, n=104, p<.001),

even though the items were selected on the basis of an orthogonal

factor analysis. Examining the scales individually, the ability-to-

act scale correlated as predicted with scores from the Mach V (r=+.28,

n=100, p<.01). The predicted correlation between the ability-to-act

scale and the Social Desirability Scale was not significant (r=-.16,

n=104, p>.05), although an unexpected correlation with the extraversion

scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory was significant (r=+.42,

n=104, p<.0001).

In contrast, the predicted correlation between the attempt-to-act

scale and the extraversion scale was not significant (r=+.03, n=104,

Ep.05), nor was there a significant correlation between the attempt-to

act scale and the Chapin Social Insight Test (r=-.15, n=104, 2p.05).

Significant correlations were found between the attempt-to-act scale

and the Social Desirability Scale (r=-.31, n=104, p<.001) as well as

the predicted correlation with the neuroticism scale of the Eysenck

Personality Inventory (r=+.26, n=104, p<.01). When the scores from the

ability-to-act and attempt-to-act scales were summed into a single self-

presentation score, significant correlations were obtained with the

extraversion scale (r=+.29, n=104, p<.01), the Mach V (r=+.28, n=104,

p<.01), and the Social Desirability Scale (r=-.28, n=104, p4.01).

Additional significant correlations were obtained between the

Mach V and Social Desirability Scale (r=-.31, n=100, p<.01) as

well as a significant negative correlation between the neuroticism

scale and Social Desirability Scale (r=-.41, n=104, pg.0001). The

Chapin Social Insight Test did not correlate with any of the










Table 10


Correlations of Personality Test Scores


r= Chapin Extra Mach V Neurot Soc-Des Ability Attempt Self-P
(n)

Chapin Social Insight +1.00 -0.16 -0.01 -0.03 +0.12 -0.11 -0.15 -0.16
(Chapin) (104) (104) (100) (104) (104) (104) (104) (104)

Extraversion -0.18 +1.00 -0.07 -0.13 +0.09 +0.42** +0.03 +0.29*
(Extra) (104) (104) (100) (104) (104) (104) (104) (104)

Mach V -0.01 -0.07 +1.00 +0.07 -0.31* +0.28* +0.18 +0.28*
(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

Neuroticism -0.03 -0.13 +0.07 +1.00 -0.41** -0.15 +0.26 +0.06
(Neurot) (104) (104) (100) (104) (104) (104) (104) (104)

Social Desirability +0.12 +0.09 -0.31* -0.41** +1.00 -0.16 -0.31* -0.28*
(104) (104) (100) (104) (104) (104) (104) (104)

Ability-to-Act -0.11 +0.42** +0.28* -0.15 -0.16 +1.00 +0.35** +0.84**
(104) (104) (100) (104) (104) (104) (104) (104)

Attempt-to-Act -0.15 +0.03 +0.18 +0.26* -0.31* +0.35** +1.00 +0.80**
(104) (104) (100) (104) (104) (104) (104) (104)

Self-Presentation -0.16 +0.29* +0.28* +0.06 -0.28* +0.84** +0.80** +1.00
(Self-P) (104) (104) (100) (104) (104) (104) (104) (104)

Note: *p<.01
**p<.001










personality measures, nor did it correlate with either of the self-

presentation scales. A nonsignificant but possibly informative correla-

tion was found between the Chapin Social Insight Test and the

extraversion scale (r=-.18, n=104, p=.06).

The Self-Presentation Scales as Predictors of Behavior Patterns

To test the predictability of behavior patterns based on scale

classifications, the subjects were assigned to "high" versus "low"

scores on the ability-to-act and on the attempt-to-act scale. Subjects'

raw scores on each scale could range from 0 to 15. A frequency distri-

bution of scores was used to select the median by which scores were

separated into the categories. Table 11 presents the frequency and

percentage of each classification grouping.

Prediction 2. It was hypothesized that subjects scoring high

on the attempt-to-act scale would vary their presentations to suit

situational constraints. Thus, a higher variance in responses from

scene to scene was predicted for subjects scoring high on the scale.

To test this, variance scores were computed for each adjective

across the four scenes. A multivariate analysis of variance was

performed on the 20 variance scores for each subject, and the results

are presented in Table 12. The surprising results indicate that rather

than the attempt-to-act scale classification predicting the variance

of subjects' responses across all scenes, it proved to be the clas-

sification by ability-to-act scale scores that predicted subjects'

variability across scenes. Examination of the means revealed that

subjects receiving high ability-to-act scores had higher variance

scores for 18 of the 20 adjectives, and that this difference was

significantly greater for 5 of these adjectives.
















Table 11

Cell-Frequencies for Ability-to-Act and
Attempt-to-Act Scale Classification


Frequency Attempt-to-Act Total

(Percent) High Low

High 35 21 56
(33.65) (20.19) (53.85)
Ability-
to-Act
Low 19 29 48
(18.27) (27.88) (46.15)


Total 54 50 104
(51.92) (48.08) (100.00)

Note: Scores 7 were defined as "high".
Scores !6 were defined as "low".
















Table 12

Multivariate Analysis of Variance
on Subjects' Variance Scores


Source df F p<


Ability-to-Act 20,81 2.40 .01

Attempt-to-Act 20,81 1.00

Ability X Attempt 20,81 1.21









As there was an indication of a significant difference in

variance of the dependent variable, it was believed that an examination

of the covariance matrices might add understanding of the patterns of

variance. To examine the homogeneity of the within-group covariance

matrices, the predicted target adjectives were submitted to the

discriminant analysis program of the SAS76 statistical package

(Barr, Goodnight, Sail, & Helwig, 1976). An ancilliary option

of the program provided a chi-square test of homogeneity of within-

group covariance matrices. The program could only test for differences

in groups, it could not estimate equivalents of main or interaction

effects. The latter could be estimated by multiple analyses which

examined the matrices of different groups which were defined by the

relevant self-presentation scale classifications.

The data were divided into four groups as a function of subjects'

classifications on the ability-to-act and attempt-to-act scales (i.e.

high/high, high/low, low/high, low/low). Submitting the within-group

covariance matrices to a discriminant procedure revealed a significant

difference in the matrices for scenes one, two and three, but not

scene four (see Table 13). The probable explanation for the inability

to display the effect on scene four was that one adjective,

"hardworking," was dropped from the analysis by the computer due to a

total lack of variance in one group on this adjective. The adjective

was believed by the experimenter, and as supported by the pretest data,

to be most representative of the image called for by the scene--a med-

ical school application interview. Subjects in the low ability-to-act/

high attempt-to-act group had all rated the adjective as highly rep-

resentative, with no variance.
















Table 13

Tests of Homogeneity of Within-Group
Covariance Matrices Using Both Attempt-to-Act
and Ability-to-Act Scale Classifications



Scene df X2 E


One 45 67.19 .05

Two 45 75.76 .01

Three 45 70.01 .01

Four 45 13.38*

Note: *Biased estimate based on only four
of the five relevant adjectives.
Degrees of Freedom = .5 (k-l) p (p+1).










Resubmitting the discriminant analysis using only attempt-to-act

classification yielded a significant difference on scenes one and two,

but not on scenes three or four (see Table 14). The analyses were sub-

mitted again, using the ability-to-act scale classification and yielded

significant differences on scenes two, three, and four, but not scene

one (see Table 15).

Prediction 3. It was hypothesized that subjects scoring high on

the ability-to-act scale would be more adept at determining the behav-

iors necessary to effect a particular image. Specifically, it was

predicted that these subjects would utilize the target adjectives by

indicating those adjectives to be more representative of them than

would subjects receiving low scores on the scale.

The data collected from the self-presentation adjectives were

analyzed from two separate approaches. First, the analyses were per-

formed on the responses to the target adjectives predicted on the basis

of pretest data to be relevant for each scene. A second alternative

arose from the responses by the subject following their self-

presentations on the adjectives when the subjects were instructed to

re-read each scene and then indicate which five of the twenty adjectives

would be most pertinent to each of the images they would attempt to

portray if they were placed in the situation as described. These

separate approaches provide somewhat different information. The first

is in keeping with the customary approaches in this area of research,

and assumes the experimenter is able to measure the behaviors that will

best convey the self-presentational behaviors and their variations as

a result of manipulated variables. This approach must also assume, due

to its static nature, that the ideal target behaviors to be observed

















Table 14

Tests of Hlomogeneity of Within-Group
Covariance Matrices Using Attempt-to-Act
Scale Classification



Scene df X2 P<


15 33.92

15 32.99

15 19.51

15 17.67


Note: Degrees of Freedom = .5 (k-1) p (p+l).


Two


Three

Four

















Table 15

Tests of Homogeneity of Within-Group
Covariance Matrices Using Ability-to-Act
Scale Classification



Scene df X2 p<


One 15 19.55

Two 15 31.61 .01

Three 15 26.70 .05

Four 15 29.57 .05

Note: Degrees of Freedom = .5 (k-1) p (p+1).









will be the same for all subjects. In contrast, the present study

provided an opportunity to measure the target behaviors as defined by

the experimenter as well as permitting the measurement of behavior

defined as most pertinent by each of the subjects themselves.

Utilization of the self-presentation adjectives was assessed by

summing within each scene the responses to the five adjectives

specified as target adjectives. Scores from the four scenes were

submitted to a multivariate analysis of variance using high versus

low categorization on the scales as classification variables. Classi-

fication based on the scales revealed no main effect due to ability-to-

act scale, F(4,97)=1.47, p>.05, the attempt-to-act scale, F(4,97)=1.47,

p>.05, or an interaction of classification, F(4,97)=1.60, P>.05. A

test of the same hypothesis was performed on a summation of the five

adjectives indicated as pertinent to the subjects rather than the

adjectives considered as target adjectives by the experimenter. Again,

no significant differences were found as a result of classification by

either the ability-to-act scale, F(4,97)=.57, p>.05, the attempt-to-act

scale, F(4,97)=.67, e>.05, or an interaction of classification, F(4,97),

=.50, P>.05.

The above results were an analysis of responses to the target

and pertinent adjectives to determine if scale classification,

particularly on the ability-to-act scale, would predict high (more

representative on positive adjectives) responses. Additional

analyses were performed to see if scale classification would predict

differential use of target versus non-target adjectives. That is, if

high ability-to-act scores would discriminate between targeted and

nontargeted adjectives by indicating the former to be more representative










of them than were the latter. To test this discriminative use of

adjectives, the average response to the target adjectives (for each

subject) was computed for each scene, as was the average response to

the nontarget adjectives. A scene discrimination score was then

computed by subtracting the nontarget average from the target average.

The larger the score, the more the subjects were discriminating between

target adjectives and nontarget adjectives by indicating the former to

be more representative of them. A multivariate analysis of variance was

performed on these discrimination scores for the four scenes. Classi-

fication based on the scales revealed no main effect due to ability-to-

act scale, F(4,97)=1.46, g>.05, or the attempt-to-act scale classifi-

cation, F(4,97)=.87, p>.05. The interaction of scale classification

was significant, F(4,97)=2.90, p<.05. Univariate analyses of variance

performed on each of the scene discrimination scores indicated that it

was scores from the first scene that were responsible for the signifi-

cant multivariate interaction (see Table 16). Examination of the means

for the discrimination scores from all four scenes indicated that high

ability-to-act/high attempt-to-act scorers rated the target adjectives

as more representative of themselves than were the nontarget adjectives

when compared to other groups. In contrast, high ability-to-act/low

attempt-to-act scorers consistently made the least distinction between

target and nontarget adjectives. Simple effects tests performed on

the means for scene one discrimination scores indicated that subjects

scoring high on the ability-to-act scale rated themselves higher on the

target than on the nontarget adjectives when they were also classified

as high attempt-to-act than when classified as low-attempt-to-act,

F(1,100)=9.43, p<.01.

















Table 16

Analyses of Variance on Scene
Discrimination Scores


Scene


One 1,100 10.67 .01

Two 1,100 .87

Three 1,100 .24

Four 1,100 .43









An analysis was performed to determine if the responses to the

personality variables could be used to predict high (representative)

responses on the target variables. Responses to the various personality

measures were divided into high versus low classification on the basis

of a median split for each test, such that approximately 50% fell into

each level. The scene scores for the predicted target adjectives were

summed to form one overall score for the predicted adjectives. A

similar score was computed for the adjectives described by the subject

as those most pertinent to the scenes. A single analysis of variance

was performed to determine if classification by the various personality

tests would predict differences on either the predicted or the

subject-indicated pertinent variables. The results are presented in

Table 17 and indicate a significant effect as a result of classification

by the extraversion scale. The effect is significant for the predicted

adjectives, F(1,96)=3.98, p<.05, but is particularly strong on the

score derived from the pertinent adjectives, F(1,96)=7.80, p<.01.

Examination of the means revealed that high extraversion scorers

responded higher on the predicted (=X90.06) and pertinent adjectives

(7=93,39) than did low-extraversion scorers (X=87.94; X=90.39).

Multiple univariate analyses of variance were performed on scene

scores derived separately for each scene. The results are presented

in Table 18 and indicate that responses to the third scene were respon-

sible for the overall significant main effect of extraversion scale

classification." The third scene dealt with friendly, outgoing people

who were comfortable in social settings and so is directly related to

an extravert-introvert dimensions. Thus, it is not surprising that the

extraverts would rate the social-related adjectives as more highly

representative of themselves.
















Table 17

Analysis of Variance on Predicted and Pertinent
Target Adjectives for all Personality Tests


Predicted Pertinent


Scale df F p< df F R<


Chapin Social Insight 1,96 0.02 1,96 0.00

Extraversion 1,96 3.98 .05 1,96 7.80 .01

Mach V 1,96 1.51 1,96 1.82

Neuroticism 1,96 0.53 1,96 0.88

Social Desirability 1,96 0.71 1,96 0.42

Ability-to-Act 1,96 0.18 1,96 3.12

Attempt-to-Act 1,96 0.03 1,96 0.87
















Table 18

Analysis of Variance on Predicted and Pertinent
Target Adjective Scene Scores for
Extraversion Classification



Predicted Pertinent


Scene df F p4 df F p<


One 1,102 0.87 1,102 2.04

Two 1,102 0.54 1,102 2.84

Three 1,102 4.03 .05 1,102 5.52 .02

Four 1,102 2.16 1,102 1.70









Discussion

Conceptual support for the self-presentation scales was mixed.

Scores from the ability-to-act scale correlated as predicted with scores

from the Mach V, although the Mach V failed to differentiate between the

the self-presentation scales. Scores from the Social Desirability Scale

did not correlate as predicted. An unexpected correlation occurred

between scores on the ability-to-act scale and the extraversion scale.

Conceptual support for the attempt-to-act scale was also modest. The

predicted correlation with the neuroticism scale was significant,

although the predicted correlation with the extraversion scale was not

significant. Nor was the expected correlation obtained with scores

on the Chapin Social Insight Test. Thus, while it was demonstrated that

the Self-Monitoring Scale was tapping two conceptual dimensions, further

work to develop scales based on these dimensions and demonstrate their

conceptual relationship to more standard personality measures was not

significant.

Support for the self-presentation scales based on behavioral

predictability was also minimal. It had been predicted that subject

classification on the attempt-to-act scale would be indicative of the

amount of variance in responses. On the contrary, it proved to be

classification on the ability-to-act scale that was indicative of the

amount of variance. Subsequent analyses based on comparisons of within-

group covariance matrices indicated that the variance patterns were

quite complex. Unfortunately these results supply little information

other than that the relationship is complex as there is no way to

compare matrices in the usual terms of "greater" or "lesser." The most

direct appraisal of these results is that there was no support for the










prediction that subjects scoring high on the attempt-to-act scale

would exhibit greater variance in self-presentational behaviors.

Support for the prediction that high scorers on the ability-to-

act scale would utilize the target adjectives by indicating them to be

more representative of themselves was also weak. A significant inter-

action of classification on both self-presentation scales was obtained

on discrimination scores computed separately for each scene. While

the results of the simple effects tests were suggestive of meaningful

interpretation, it should be cautioned that the significant multivarir-

iate analysis was a function of significant univariate results from

only one scene. This scene resulted in significance because its error

term was substantially smaller than the error terms for the others

scenes. Still, the pattern of means for all four scenes was clear.

Subjects scoring high on both the ability-to-act and the attempt-to-act

scales consistently made larger distinctions between their responses

to the target and nontarget adjectives by indicating the former to be

more representative of themselves. Subjects scoring high on the ability-

to-act scale but low on the attempt-to-act scale made the least discrim-

inating responses. It was hoped that discrimination scores based on

the use of pertinent versus nonpertinent adjectives would have provided

additional information. Unfortunately no significant effects, either

main or interaction, were obtained for scale classification. Once again

there was a clear pattern to the means. The pattern for discrimination

scores based on subject-defined pertinent adjectives varied from the

pattern based on experimenter-predicted target adjectives; on the

pertinent adjectives subjects scoring low on the ability-to-act scale

and high on the attempt-to-act scale made consistently greater





64



discrimination than did the other groups, including those subjects

scoring high on both scales--although these means were close. It must

be emphasized that these findings were not significant and no amount

of meaningfulness of "trends" can change this insignificance. However,

it is believed that these "trends" are interesting and suggestive of

directions for further investigations into personality-related patterns

of self-presentations.
















CHAPTER IV
STUDY II


The second study was an attempt to clarify the nature of the

ability-to-act scale. The previous study attempted to demonstrate the

ability to act out self-presentations by showing that subjects

scoring high on the ability-to-act scale would be better able to discern

which aspects of a self-presentation would be most relevant to the

overall image, and would rate these adjectives as particularly repre-

sentative of themselves. The second study attempted to see if judges

would be more able to discern the attempted content of images when

presented by subjects scoring high on the scale than when delivered by

subjects scoring low.


Method

Subjects

Thirty-eight students participated in the second validation study

as partial fulfillment for their introductory psychology course require-

ments. The study had been described as an opportunity to act out

various roles while watching themselves on television.

Procedure

Subjects reported individually to the laboratory. Each subject

was asked to complete the self-presentation scale (containing both the

ability-to-act and the attempt-to-act scales), and was then taken to

an adjoining room where the video equipment (camera on a tripod, recording

65









deck, play-back monitor) was set up. The subjects were told that

they would be asked to convey six roles or images and that these would

be video-taped for later play-back to judges. The roles that they were

asked to portray were briefly described to the subjects as: a) angry,

b) competent, c) cooperative, d) empathic, e) sociable, and f) tired.

The subjects were given a script to follow so that they would not need

to be concerned with the content of what they were saying, but only with

the way in which to convey the assigned image while reading the script.

It was explained to the subjects that in everyday conversations people

varied the content of what was said, but in addition they often relied

on nonverbal and subverbal nuances (e.g. loudness, pace of speaking,

accentuation of key words) to emphasize the verbal message or to convey

additional meaning. It was explained that during the experiment they

would not be able to vary the content, only the delivery.

The subjects were told that they would deliver the script six

times, each time trying to convey one of the six images (the order was

randomly predetermined by the experimenter). The subjects were read

the script aloud once by the experimenter in order to familiarize them

with its content. During their taped delivery the subjects were asked

to stick to the script and not ad-lib. The taping sessions were divided

into six parts, one for each of the images to be conveyed. For each

part the experimenter: a) informed the subjects of the specific image

to be conveyed, b) described the image in depth (see Appendix 8),

c) described a situation in which the subjects could imagine the

dialogue in the script occurring with the image in mind,d) allowed the

subjects to practice until they felt ready to tape, and e) video-taped

the subjects attempting to convey the assigned image. Thus, each









subject was taped six times, once attempting each of the assigned images.

The script read during the attempted images is presented in Appendix 9.

Procedure for Rating of Tapes

Four social-psychology graduate students, two females and two

males, served asjudges. They were given a description of the images

to be portrayed that was identical to that delivered verbally to the

subjects. The judges viewed the tapes independently and in a unique

order to balance possible order effects. However, the judges did view

the same scene order for each subject. For each scene the judges

indicated which of the six images they believed each subject was at-

tempting to convey, as well as an indication of how confident they were

of that judgement. The judges were encouraged to make their best

judgement for each scene and to use the categories as often as seemed

appropriate without concern for having used all six categories. After

rating all six scenes for a subject, the judges were asked to make an

overall judgement of the subject's ability to act, as well as how well

the subject was able to make discerningly different presentations.


Results

Prediction 4

A correlation was performed to determine the inter-judge relia-

bility. For each judge the number of his or her correct judgements

for all six scenes was summed for a given subject, forming a type of

accuracy measure. These measures were submitted to a Pearson Product

Moment Correlation (see Table 19). The results show poor agreement

between judge one and the remaining judges, and particularly good

agreement between judges two and three, and judges three and four.

However, each judge correlated significantly with a summated "correct"

















Table 19

Inter-Judge Reliability



r= Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4


Judge 1 1.00 .25 .20 .18

Judge 2 .25 1.00 .36* .15

Judge 3 .20 .36* 1.00 .42**

Judge 4 .18 .15 .42** 1.00

Correct .65** .63** .74** .65**

Note: n = 38
*pc.05
**p<.01









score computed by summating the number of correct judgements across the

four judges and six scenes.

These correct scores (as defined as the correct number of judge-

ments summed across six scenes and four judges) were submitted to an

analysis of variance using classification on both the ability-to-act

and the attempt-to-act scales. No significant difference was found

for classification on the ability-to-act scale, F(1,34)=.04, p>.05, the

attempt-to-act scale, F(1,34)=.14, p>.05, or an interaction of scale

classification, F(1,34)=.23, p>.05. Thus, the scales were unable to

predict those subject which the judges were better able to discern

correctly. A multivariate analysis of variance performed on the

correct number of judgements broken down for the six images also failed

to show significant differences for classification on the ability-to-

act scale, F(6,29)=1.23, p>.05, the attempt-to-act scale, F(6,29)=.66,

p>.05, or an interaction of classification, F(6,29)=.57, Ep.05.

After watching each scene and indicating which image they believed

the subject was attempting, the judges were asked to indicate how con-

fident they were of that judgement. The confidence scores were summed

for the four judges separately for the six self-presentation images and

a multivariate analysis of variance was performed on these scene scores.

No significant difference was found for confidence when classification

of subjects was determined by the ability-to-act scale, F(6,29)=.75, p>.05

the attempt-to-act scale, F(6,29)=.94, p;.05, or an interaction of scale

classification, F(6,29)=.70, p>.05.

After viewing all six scenes for a given subject the judges were

also requested to make two overall ratings for the subjects. The judges

were asked to indicate the variability in the subject's performance, by









responding on a seven point scale to the question "How well do you feel

the subject conveyed discrepent images?" and also by indicating their

responses to the question "how good of an actor do you feel the subject

would make?" A summated score was computed across judges for each

subject's perceived ability to present discrepent images. These scores

were submitted to an analysis of variance. No significant difference

was found for classification according to the ability-to-act scale,

F(1,34)=4.26, p>.05, the attempt-to-act scale, F(1,34)=.85, p>.05, or

an interaction of scale classification, F(1,34)=.66, p>.05. When

summations were made across judges for how good an actor they believed

the subject would make, the results did show the hypothesized effect.

Classification by the ability-to-act scale yielded a significant main

effect, F(1,34)=4.27, p<.05. Comparisons of the means revealed that

high scorers were rated as better actors (X=15.41) than were low scorers

(X=11.71). No significant main effect was found when classification was

made by the attempt-to-act scale, F(1,34)=.42, p>.05, or an interaction

of scale classification, F(1,34)=1.19, p-.05. Thus, judges were not

better able to correctly judge the images of high ability-to-act

subjects as determined by the correct number of judgements made, but

they were able to subjectively rate the subjects' overall ability as

defined by classification on the ability-to-act scale.


Discussion

The results indicated that judges were unable to assess the self-

presentational attempts of subjects scoring high on the ability-to-act

scale than subjects scoring low. Nor were the judges better able to

discern certain images better than others, as the univariate scene scores





71



were also non-significant. While the judges weren't better at

ascertaining correctly the self-presentations of high ability-to-act

scorers, the judges were able to subsequently rate these subjects as

better actors. It is possible that this lack of significance in cor-

rect judgements was a result of failure on the part of judges rather

than the inability of the scale to correctly differentiate acting

abilities. Comparisons of the judges scores did indicate large differ-

ences in their abilities.
















CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION


Factor analyses performed on responses to Snyder's Self-Monitoring

Scale were overwhelmingly supportive of the hypothesis that the scale

does not represent a unitary dimension. Further, the analyses supported

the belief that the two major dimensions tapped by the Self-Monitoring

Scale are a perceived ability to act or effect self-presentational

images, as well as an acknowledgement of attempting to act under certain

situations. Items consistently loaded on the predicted dimensions

and these predicted dimensions were extracted consistently as the first

two factors, although the order in which they were extracted varied.

When the Self-Monitoring Scale was modified to make up the two self-

presentation scales, the results were similar. Factor analysis on

responses to both scales revealed a clear division in patterns of

responding. Items loading most heavily on the ability-to-act scale

reflected an ability to perform in front of others and successfully

portray target images, whether in copying the behavior of others or

in arguing convincingly for ideas they don't really believe in. In

this respect the items most simply represented an ability-to-act,

where defined as effectively presenting an image to others.

Items loading most heavily on the attempt-to-act scale reflected

an admittence to behaving differently in different situations and

acknowledgement that this variance is often in response to the desire










to please others, and the belief that one must behave in certain ways

if he is to be sure of being liked.

Items extracted by a third factor represented an ability to convey

feelings or beliefs that are discrepent to their own feelings and beliefs

and thus introduce an element akin to deception. Another item which

reflects this deceptive element is item #24 ("I can look anyone in the

eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right end)."). This

item failed to correlate significantly with the other items, including

those extracted by the third factor. It is believed that this reflects

the beliefs of the subjects that for the most part modifying one's

behavior to suit the surroundings is not the same thing as lying. This

may be just a semantic difference--the perjorative connotations of

lying are quite strong. On the other hand, it is culturally acceptable

to "stretch the truth" by flattering someone on clothes or an ac-

complishment one knows means a lot to them, but which one doesn't really

admire. Similarly, it is often considered gracious to orient oneself

to the company he is in and not make a scene. Such behavior may appear

to be an extension of true feelings rather than being deceptive.

Construct validity of the self-presentation scales was only

moderately supportive. The ability-to-act scale correlated significantly

with scores on the Mach V test of Machiavellianism and the extraversion

scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. The Mach scale deals with

the degree to which an individual feels other people can be manipulated.

High Mach scores refelct a detachment with people and issues that would

allow people to be more manipulative and impersonal,attributes which

would make it easier to engage in strategic manipulations of self-

presentations. An argument could be make that it would be these









manipulators which would most likely engage in self-presentations. On

the other hand, persons reflecting a high degree of Machiavellianism

could be expected to be less involved in situations that would require

face saving behaviors, in that they are often less personally embarrassed

in embarrassing situations (Robinson & Shaver, 1973). It is likely that

the correlation between the ability-to-act and the Mach V scales would

have been higher had high scorers on both scales felt equally concerned

with a desire to have others like them.

The correlation between extraversion and ability-to-act scores

had not been predicted. Rather, the extraversion scale had been ex-

pected to correlate with the attempt-to-act scale. Extraverts are

more outwardly oriented and can be expected to be in tune with their

surroundings, concerned with their relations with others, and acting

on the spur of the moment. In contrast, introverts are more quiet and

introspective, not likely to act on the spur of the moment, and place

a high standard on ethical behavior. It was presumed that extraverts

would be more likely to express a concern for situational appripriate-

mess and a willingness to modify their behavior. Introverts were

expected to be more concerned with expressing beliefs and engaging in

behaviors that reflected their own personal feelings rather than in

response to situational demands. The correlation to the ability-to-act

scale rather than the predicted attempt-to-act scale can be best

understood, in retrospect, by realizing that extraverts would need polished

acting talents if they are to be constantly interacting with others.

The attempt-to-act scale failed to correlate with the Chapin

Social Insight Test as had been predicted. The best explanation is

that the focus of the Chapin Social Insight Test is to assess the










accuracy of a person in appraising others--sensing what they are feeling,

thinking, and predicting what they will say. Perhaps an individual's

accuracy in appraising situational variables and what others are thinking

is not necessarily related to an awareness that strategically manipu-

lating one's presentation may be appropriate or necessary in order to

please others. One may be sensitive to the environment without assess-

ing it correctly. Conversely, an individual may be quite adept at

assessing others but not be willing or motivated enough to let it affect

his behavior. It should be mentioned that the Chapin Social Insight Test

has been utilized very little in empirical research, so little validity

data is available. Also, some of its items appear antiquated. It is

suggested that persons considering use of the test should also consider

modifying the items to bring them up to date.

The attempt-to-act scale was found to correlate significantly

with the neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory and the

Social Desirability Scale. The positive correlation with the neuroticism

scale is readily understandable. Persons scoring high on the neuroti-

cism scale are often worriers that are preoccupied with things going

wrong (in addition to other characteristics), so it is not surprising

that such persons would be concerned with the appropriateness of their

behavior and concerned with acting in such a way as to please others.

Marlowe and Crowne described social desirable behavior as a defen-

siveness--an almost unrealistic denial. It is believed that the strong

negative correlation reflects high-social-desirable scorers being

particularly unwilling to acknowledge the fact that they alter behavior

to suit others and the situation because they are particularly sensitive

to whatever negative association there may be, such as faking.









The results indicated that classification on the ability-to-act

scale successfully differentiated between the amount of variance in the

subjects' self-presentations when examined from scene to scene, such

that subjects scoring high on the scale were significantly more var-

iable in their responses. It could be argued that even if people were

sensitive to situational restraints they would still have to be good

actors before they could effect the appropriate self-presentations.

This being the case, one would expect to see an interaction effect,

with subjects scoring high on both scales displaying more variability.

This interaction effect was not significant.

The prediction that subjects scoring high on the ability-to-act

scale would exhibit higher responses on the target adjectives was not

confirmed. Nor was the predicted effect found on the subject-indicated

pertinent adjectives nor on discrimination scores based on the difference

between target and nontarget adjectives. It was found that the

extraversion scale was successful in differentiating subjects presenting

themselves most favorably on the target adjectives. However, this

effect was due solely to the highly extraverted subjects being more

likely to rate themselves positively on target adjectives when the

scene called for outgoing, sociable behavior.

An attempt was made to determine if classification on the self-

presentation scales would be reflected in a comparison of the within-

group covariance matrices, a procedure that is handled multivariately

during a discriminant analysis procedure. This resulted in significant

chi-square ratios, indicating differences did exist as a result of

classification on both the ability-to-act and the attempt-to-act scales.









Unfortunately, several problems exist with this type of analysis.

First, there is no way to perform the analysis for multivariate data

with repeated measures. Thus, the chi-square can only be estimated for

each scene separately. Second, once a significant difference is found,

it is impossible to interpret the difference as it involves the compar-

ison of matrices. Because of this, standard methods for comparison of

covariance matrices are not performed in a manner comparable to a test

of homogeneity of variance for univariate samples. In the univariate

case a significant difference appearing on such a test of homogeneity

of variance implies that a transformation of the data is appropriate,

as one of the criteria for certain statistics is equivalence of variance.

Fortunately, all results reported for Study I and Study II were performed

using tests that were robust with respect to deviations in variance and

covariance matrices.

The second study was an attempt to validate the ability-to-act

scale in terms of actual performance--the physical ability to pull-off

an image presented to others, rather than knowing what behaviors to

engage in. The analyses revealed that the judges were not able to

better ascertain the presentations of subjects scoring high on the

ability-to-act scale than subjects scoring low on the scale. However,

while objectively they weren't better at rating the subjects, they were

subjectively able to rate high scorers as having more acting ability.

Perhaps the ability-to-act scale is separating people in terms of their

confidence or demonstrativeness--that high scorers are persons that

show more change or variability while engaging in self-presentations.

It could also be that these people are in fact better self-presenters,

but that they are better in everyday situations where they can









manipulate both the content and the delivery of self-presentations at

the same time, and in this way are successful.

Overall, very little support was provided for behavioral mani-

festations that were expected as a result of differential classification

on the self-presentation scales. It may be that the concepts tapped

by the scales aren't actually pertinent to engagement in self-

presentational behavior. However, alternative explanations are

possible. It may be, for example, that the concepts are pertinent

but that self-report measures can not be relied on. Individuals may

not be able to accurately assess their own abilities to act or their

relative attempts at alterations in self-presentations as a function

of situational constraints. The low reliability estimates may reflect

this difficulty. It may also be that the concepts and the scales are

meaningful, but that self-presentations are complex and a function of

many individual and situational characteristics. These alternatives

are, of course, empirical questions that will have to be answered

elsewhere.
















BIBLIOGRAPHY


Alker, H.A. Is personality situationally specific or intrapsychically
consistent? Journal of Personality, 1972, 40, 1-16.

Alpert, R., & Haver, R. Anxiety in academic achievement situations.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 207-215.

Anastasi, A. Psychological testing. New York: Macmillan. 1955.

Argyle, M., & Little, B.R. Do personality traits apply to social
behaviour? Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 1972, 2,
1-35.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R.H. Social learning and personality
development. New York: Holt, Rinehard, Winston, 1963.

Barr, A.J., Goodnight, J.H., Sall, J.P., & llelwig, J.T. A user's
guide to SAS 76. Raleigh, North Carolina: Sparks Press, 1976.

Bem, D.J. Constructing cross-situational consistencies in behavior:
Some thoughts on Alker's critique of Mischel. Journal of
Personality, 1972, 40, 17-26.

Bem, D.J., & Allen, A. On predicting some of the people some of the
time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior.
Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 506-520.

Bowers, K.S. Situationalism in psychology: An analysis and a
critique. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 307-336.

Cameron, N.W. Role concepts in behavior pathology. American Journal
of Sociology, 1950, 55, 464-467.

Carrigan, P.M. Extraversion-introversion as a dimension of personality:
A reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 1960, 57, 329-360.

Catell, R.B. The description and mc;isirenment of icrsonnlity. New York:
World Book, 1946.

Chapin, F.S. Preliminary standardization of a Social Insight Scale.
American Social Relations, 1942, 7, 214-228.










Christie, R., & Geis, F.1,. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York:
Academic Press, 1970.

Cooley, C.H. Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner,
1902.

Cronbach, L.J. Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology.
American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 116-127.

Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. The approval motive: Studies in
evaluative dependence. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964.

Crutchfield, R.S. Conformity and character. American Psychologist,
1955, 10, 191-198.

Davitz, J.R. (Ed.) The communication of emotional meaning. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1964.

Endler, N.S. The person versus the situation--A pseudo issue? A
response to Alker. Journal of Personality, 1973, 41, 287-303.

Endler, N.S. The case for person-situation interactions. Canadian
Psychological Review, 1975, 18, 12-21.

Endler, N.S., & Hunt, J.McV. Generalizability of contributions from
sources of variance in the S-R inventories of anxiousness.
Journal of Personality, 1969, 37, 1-24.

Eysenck, N.S., & Eysenck, S.B.G. Manual for the Eysenck personality
inventory. San Diego, California: Education and Industrial
Testing Source, 1968.

Fiedler, F.E. The effects of leadership training and experience: A
contingency model interpretation. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 1973, 18, 453-570.

Fiske, D.W. Strategies in the search for personality constructs.
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1971, 5,
323-330.

Goffman, E. On face work: An analysis of ritual elements in social
interaction. Psychiatry, 1955, 18, 213-221.

Goffman, E. Presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City,
New York: Anchor Books, 1959.

Goldberg, L.R. Student personality characteristics and optimal college
learning conditions: An extensive search for trait-by-treatment
interaction effects. Instructional Science, 1972, 1, 153-210.










Insel, P.M., & Moos, R.II. Psychological environments: Expanding the
scope of human ecology. American Psychologist, 1974, 29, 179-188.

Kassarjian, W.M. A study of Riseman's theory of social character.
Sociometry, 1962, 25, 213-230.

Kelly, B.A. The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton,
1955.

Lewin, K.A. A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1935.

Mann, R.D. A review of the relationships between personality and
performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56,
241-270.

McGuire, W.J. Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In
E.F. Borgatta & W.W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality
and social research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968.

Mead, G.H. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1934.

Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968

Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of
personality. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 252-283.

Moos, R.H. Sources of variance in responses to questionnaires and in
behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 403-412.

Neisser, U. Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Ccntury-Crofts,
1967.

Riseman, D. The lonely crowd. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale
University Press, 1950.

Ring, K., & Wallston, R. A test to measure performance styles in
interpersonal relations. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22,
147-154.

Robinson, J.P. & Shaver, P.R. Measures of social psychological
attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Research Center Institute for
Social Research, 1973.

Rosenberg, M.J. The conditions and consequences of evaluation
apprehension. In R. Rosenthal & R.W. Rosnow (Eds.),
Artifacts in behavioral research. New York: Academic Press,
1969.

Schildkraut, J.J. Neuropsychopharmacology and the affective disorders.
Boston: Little & Brown, 1970.





82



Snyder, M. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 526-537.

Snyder, M., & Monson, T.C. Persons, situations, and the control of
social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1975, 32, 637-644.

Steiner, I.D., & Rogers, E.D. Alternative responses to dissonance.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 128-136.

Stogdill, R.M. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey
of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71.

Strickland, R.R., & Crowne, D.P. Conformity under conditions of
simulated group pressure as a function of the need for social
approval. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 58, 171-181.

Weinstock, S.A. Some factors that retard or accelerate the rate of
acculturation--With specific reference to Hungarian immigrants.
Human Relations, 1964, 17, 312-340.







































APPENDIX 1

SEIF-MIONITORING SCALE
















Please read each of the following items and
indicate whether each is true of you, or false
by circling either T (true) or F (false). Please
note that some of the items are extremely similar
to others, with only a few words changed. This
is not meant as check of your honesty or
consistency, but rather as a means of determining
if these subtle wording changes will affect the
way you interpret the items. So please, respond
to each individual item as honestly as possible.


T F 1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people. (F)

T F 2. My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner
feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. (F)

T F 3. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do
or say things that others will like. (F)

T F 4. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. (F)

T F 5. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which
I have almost no information. (T)

T F 6. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people. (T)

T F 7. When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look
to the behavior of others for cues. (T)

T F 8. I would probably make a good actor. (T)

T F 9. I rarely need the advice of my friends to choose movies,
books or music. (F)

T F 10. I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper
emotions than I actually am. (T)

T F 11. I laugh more when I watch a comedy with others than when
alone. (T)

T F 12. In a group of people I am rarely the center of attention. (F)

T F 13. In different situations and with different people, I often
act like very different persons. (T)

T F 14. I am not particularly good at making other people like me. (F)









T F 15. Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be
having a good time. (T)

T F 16. I'm not always the person I appear to be. (T)

T F 17. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in
order to please someone else or win their favor. (F)

T F 18. I have considered being an entertainer. (T)

T F 19. In order to get along and he liked, I tend to be what
people expect me to be rather than anything else. (T)

T F 20. I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational
acting. (F)

T F 21. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people
and different situations. (F)

T F 22. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going. (F)

T F 23. I feel a bit awkward in company and do not show up quite so
well as I should. (F)

T F 24. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight
face (if for a right end). (T)

T F 25. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike
them. (T)

Note: Items keyed in the direction of high self-monitoring.






































APPENDIX 2

PRESCALE ITEMS
















Please read each of the following items and
indicate whether each is true of you, or false
by circling either T (true) or F (false). Please
note that some of the items are extremely similar
to others, with only a few words changed. This
is not meant as a check of your honesty or
consistency, but rather as a means of determining
if these subtle wording changes will affect the
way you interpret the items. So please, respond
to each individual itme as honestly as possible.


T F 1. 1 find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people.

T F 2. My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner
feelings, attitudes, and beliefs.

T F 3. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do
or say things that others will like.

T F 4. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe.

T F 5. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I
have almost no information.

T F 6. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people.

T F 7. ihen I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I
look to the behavior of others for cues.

T F 8. I would probably make a good actor.

T F 9. I rarely need the advice of my friends to choose movies,
books, or music.

T F 10. I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper
emotions than I actually am.

T F 11. I laugh more when I watch a comedy with others than when
alone.

T F 12. In a group of people T am rarely the center of attention.

T F 13. In different situations and with different people, I often
act like very different persons.

T F 14. I am not particularly good at making other people like me.










T F 15. Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be
having a good time.

T F 16. I'm not always the person I appear to be.

T F 17. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things)
in order to please someone else or win their favor.

T F 18. I have considered being an entertainer.

T F 19. In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people
expect me to be rather than anything else.

T F 20. I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational
acting.

T F 21. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people
and different situations.

T F 22. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going.

T F 23. I feel a bit awkward in company and do not show up quite so
well as I should.

T F 24. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight
face (if for a right end).

T F 25. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike
them.

T F 26. I often look at a person's nonverbal communication (facial
expression, eye and hand movements) to help me understand
what he or she is feeling.

T F 27. I'm usually aware of what others are feeling.

T F 28. I can make others think I feel one way, when actually I
feel something else.

T F 29. I laugh more when I watch a comedy with others than when
alone, because it seems like I should.

T F 30. I only argue for ideas which I already believe.

T F 31. 1 can usually tell what I need to do to impress others.

T F 32. My opinions are usually affected by what others believe.

T F 33. I rarely look to the behavior of others to help me decide
how I should act.

T F 34. I was never very good at lying to others and getting away
with it.










T F 35. I rarely feel the need to be in the limelight.

T F 36. I'm not usually aware of the opinion of others.

T F 37. If I'm not enjoying myself, I usually can't fool others
into thinking I'm having a good time.

T F 38. I can usually tell from what others say and do what I need
to do to get along.

T F 39. At parties and social gatherings I have difficulty knowing
what things to do or say that others will like.

T F 40. I like to get along with others and have them like me, so
in different situations and with different people I often
act like different people.

T F 41. I try to be aware of what others want me to be.

T F 42. People usually seem to be able to see right through me and
my attempts at acting.

T F 43. Sometimes it is clear that one should pretent to feel
differently than one does in order to get along with others.

T F 44. I find that I am able to impress or entertain others if
I want to.

T F 45. I find that my opinions may vary depending on who I'm with.

T F 46. I try to determine what people expect me to be.

T F 47. I usually like to be the center of attention.

T F 48. I'm pretty good at mimicking (copying) others' behavior.

T F 49. If I want to create a particular impression on others, it is
easy to determine how I should behave.

T F 50. I'm not very good at arguing for ideas that I don't believe in.

T F 51. I don't need to rely on the advice of others in order to
choose music or movies.

T F 52. Ihen I'm not having a good time, I can't make others think
I'm enjoying myself.

T F 53. My actions are affected by the people around me.

T F 54. In social gatherings I'm usually aware of the opinions and
attitudes of others.

T F 55. I don't pay attention to what others think or would like me
to be.









T F 56. I don't seem to be able to do the things necessary to make
others like me.

T F 57. I let the behavior of others influence how I will behave
in a particular situation.

T F 58. I'm not really concerned with acting in a particular way
just because everyone else seems to see it as appropriate
in a particular setting.

T F 59. I can usually tell how I should act in order to influence
others.

T F 60. If I want to, 1 can be the center of attention.

T F 61. In different situations and with different people, it is
necessary to act like very different people if one wants
to get along.

T F 62. I am very good at acting in everyday situations, if I feel
like it.

T F 63. Sometimes I pretend to feel differently than I really do in
order to get along.

T F 64. I'm pretty sensitive to what is appropriate in any situation.

T F 65. I usually want to act appropriately for the situation I
find myself in.

T F 66. I try to be the same person in all situations.

T F 67. I wouldn't make a very good actor.

T F 68. My behavior is usually an expression of my true feelings,
because I don't feel a need to please others.

T F 69. Different situations may require different behaviors on
my part.

T F 70. I'm not very good at covering up feelings I don't want others
to see.

T F 71. In dif ferent situantionls and with different people, different
behaviors are approprin;tc.

T F 72. I find that I am able to determine what people expect of me.







































APPENDIX 3

CORRELATION MATRIX FOR THE SELF-MONITORING SCALE ITEMS



















1 1.00 0.13 0.24 0.06 -0.14 -0.20 -0.05
2 0.13 1.00 0.00 0.10 -0.22 -0.23 -0.01
3 0.24 0.00 1.00 0.04 0.04 -0.13 -0.05
4 0.06 0.10 0.04 1.00 -0.17 0.05 -0.10
5 -0.14 -0.22 0.04 -0.17 1.00 0.31 -0.04
6 -0.20 -0.23 -0.13 0.05 0.31 1.00 0.04
7 -0.05 -0.01 -0.05 -0.10 -0.03 0.04 1.00
8 -0.28 -0.15 0.06 -0.08 0.18 0.28 0.03
9 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 0.01 0.03 0.12 -0.03
10 0.01 0.04 -0.08 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.16
11 -0.15 -0.14 -0.02 -0.00 -0.01 0.03 0.23
12 0.12 -0.15 0.01 0.07 -0.15 -0.10 0.12
13 -0.1- -0.22 -0.04 0.05 0.06 0.13 0.15
14 0.04 -0.05 0.14 0.14 -0.01 -0.04 -0.08
15 -0.01 -0.13 -0.20 0.09 -0.11 0.02 0.16
16 -0.04 -0.19 -0.02 -0.11 0.05 0.08 0.13
17 0.12 0.26 0.12 -0.13 0.02 -0.17 -0.06
18 -0.22 -0.14 0.07 -0.10 0.31 0.31 -0.06
19 -0.14 -0.20 -0.22 0.20 0.07 0.27 0.14
20 0.33 0.15 0.04 0.21 -0.29 -0.17 0.15
21 0.18 0.13 0.06 0.05 -0.10 -0.16 -0.08
22 0.14 -0.09 0.11 0.07 -0.15 -0.12 0.20
23 0.04 -0.25 0.01 0.08 -0.07 -0.04 0.13
24 -0.07 -0.12 0.13 0.02 0.08 0.07 -0.02
25 -0.03 -0.21 -0.02 0.08 -0.00 0.08 0.11


Item 1


2 3 4 5 6 7


















Item 8 9 1 1 1 3 1


1 -0.28 -0.03
2 -0.15 -0.03
3 0.06 -0.03
4 -0.08 0.01
5 0.19 0.03
6 0.28 0.12
7 0.03 -0.03
8 1.00 0.10
9 0.10 1.00
10 0.12 0.08
11 -0.02 -0.10
12 -0.24 -0.06
13 0.10 -0.05
14 -0.14 0.06
15 0.03 0.00
16 0.11 0.03
17 -0.03 0.17
18 0.56 0.14
19 0.14 -0.01
20 -0.55 -0.02
21 -0.16 -0.01
22 -0.16 0.04
23 -0.21 0.02
24 0.20 0.13
25 0.20 -0.05


0.01 -0.15 0.12
0.04 -0.14 -0.15
-0.08 -0.02 0.01
0.01 -0.00 0.07
0.03 -0.01 -0.15
0.16 0.03 -0.10
0.16 0.23 0.12
0.12 -0.02 -0.24
0.08 -0.10 -0.06
1.00 0.06 -0.07
0.06 1.00 0.02
-0.07 0.02 1.00
0.24 0.24 0.07
-0.06 0.08 0.15
0.25 0.17 0.08
0.10 0.14 0.01
-0.17 -0.16 0.02
0.13 0.01 -0.23
0.20 0.22 -0.08
0.04 -0.02 0.26
-0.07 -0.15 0.19
0.06 0.00 0.30
-0.02 0.16 0.39
0.10 -0.09 -0.06
0.22 0.16 0.18


-0.01 0.08
-0.22 -0.04
-0.04 0.24
0.05 0.14
0.06 -0.01
0.13 -0.04
0.15 -0.08
0.10 -0.14
-0.05 0.06
0.23 -0.06
0.24 0.08
0.07 0.15
1.00 0.08
0.08 1.00
0.13 -0.09
0.42 0.05
-0.25 0.07
-0.03 0.00
0.32 -0.00
0.09 0.14
-0.28 0.24
0.15 0.20
0.16 0.24
0.07 -0.02
0.21 -0.15


9 10 11 12 13 14


Item 8




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs