Citation
The development and validation of self-presentation scales

Material Information

Title:
The development and validation of self-presentation scales
Creator:
Ackerman, Bette Joan, 1951-
Copyright Date:
1979
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 138 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Adjectives ( jstor )
Cognitive psychology ( jstor )
Factor analysis ( jstor )
Matrices ( jstor )
Personality psychology ( jstor )
Philosophical psychology ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Social desirability ( jstor )
Social interaction ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Self ( lcsh )
Social interaction ( 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

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
023103467 ( AlephBibNum )
05802052 ( OCLC )
AAK5890 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


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




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SELF-PRESENTATION SCALES By Bette Joan Ackerman A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1979

PAGE 2

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.

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES v ABSTRACT vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Self-Presentation 1 Interactionism 3 Self-Monitoring: An Interactionist Approach to Self-Presentation 7 Proposed Development and Validation of Self-Presentation Scales 14 Notes 18 II DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF THE SELF-PRESENTATION SCALES 19 Testing the Self-Monitoring Scale for the Hypothesized Dimensions 19 Construction of the Self-Presentation Scales III STUDY I 28 39 Method 39 Results Discussion IV STUDY II 40 62 65 Method 65 Results 67 Discuss ion 70 V CONCLUSSION 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY 79

PAGE 4

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

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Self-Monitoring Scale Page 20 2 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Monitoring Scale Items--3 Factors Retained-23 26 3 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Monitoring Scale Items—With Deletion of Items #12, #14, #22, #23-4 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Presentation Scale Items--2 Factors Retained---Prescale Data30 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 Data36 8 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Presentation Scale Items --2 Factors Retained---Study I n . 42 Data-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 Abi 1 ity-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 6

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 18 Analysis of Variance on Predicted and Pertinent Target Adjective Scene Scores for Extraversion Classification 19 InterJudge Reliability 60 61 68

PAGE 7

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 THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SELF-PRESENTATION SCALES By Bette Joan Ackerman June 19 79 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 engagment in self-presentational behaviors. Factor analysis of subjects' responses to the SelfMonitoring 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.

PAGE 8

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 selfpresentations as necessary for effective and congenial social interaction, or as a means of more accurately conveying one's true 1

PAGE 9

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

PAGE 10

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 understanding 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, researchers 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.

PAGE 11

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; Bern, 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. His 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, "interactionism 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

PAGE 12

of cognitive variables to the extent that each individual will experience 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 accomodating others. While the term "interactionism" 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 interaction model, which has since been utilized in a variety of educational (Cronbach, 1975; see also Goldberg, 1972), as well as therapy settings (Insel d, 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 (Crutchf ield , 1955; Strickland ? T Crowne, 1962) as well as dissonance studies (Steiner £, Rogers, 1963; Rosenberg, 1969).

PAGE 13

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, Bern 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 friendlinesss or conscientiousness in a variety of situations. The authors classified the subjects on each dimension, based on the subjects' selfreported highversus 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 selfreports indicated they wouldn't vary in friendliness from situation to situation displayed significantly less variability 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

PAGE 14

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 intraindividual 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 Bern 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 Bern 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

PAGE 15

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. He 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 nonselfpresenters. 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 appropriate self-expression, c) the ability to control and modify one's selfpresentaion 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 highself-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

PAGE 16

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 significant, 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 SelfMonitoring 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,

PAGE 17

10 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 Performance 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 5 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 be more rigid in their crosssituational 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.

PAGE 18

11 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 personality measure utilized included the Self-Monitoring Scale, MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne § Marlowe, 1964), Eysenck Personality Inventory measures of extraversion and neuroticism (Eysenck f, Eysenck, 1968), the Inner-Other Scale which measures Riseman's (1950) concept of innerversus other-directed social characteristics (Kassarjian, 1962). For each of these measures, subjects were assigned to either highor 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 manipulation 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

PAGE 19

12 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 classification was not significant. It would appear that both the SelfMonitoring 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 crosssituational variance for themselves than for their acquaintances; the reverse was true for individuals scoring low. Further, high-selfmonitoring 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 selfpresentation, it is believed that the concept of self-monitoring inadequately deals with the complexity of individual differences important 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 selfdescriptive behavior. Meerly wanting to look good is not enough; one must have sufficient ability to engage in the self-presentation, both

PAGE 20

13 in knowing what to say (content) and being 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 dimensions. 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 successfully 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

PAGE 21

14 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, highand low-self-monitors. If the scale is tapping the two hypothesized dimensions, high-selfmonitors would be 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 SelfMonitoring Scale, as designed by Snyder, reflects two separate

PAGE 22

15 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 abilityto-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 classification of individuals along these dimensions would account for differences 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 selfpresentation. These subjects would lay higher claims to those attributes that are relevant to a given image than would subjects receiving low scores on the ability-to-act scale.

PAGE 23

16 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 correlate 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 (extraversion) 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

PAGE 24

17 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 5 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).

PAGE 25

Note Although 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).

PAGE 26

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 SelfMonitoring items were administered to 199 students enrolled in the 19

PAGE 27

20 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 I 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. I am not particularly good at making other people like me. (F)

PAGE 29

22 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 pretesting 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-toact 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, #14, #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

PAGE 30

23 Table 2 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Monitoring Scale Items --3 Factors Retained-Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act Social Ease 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 1

PAGE 31

24 Table 2 Continued Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act Social Ease 0.59 -0.01 0.07 0.33 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.50 0.21 0.59 0.05 -0.04 0.49 0.00 19

PAGE 32

25 high correlations with items #22 and #23, and items #12 and #22, respectively (see Appendix 3) . Close examination of the content of these items revealed them as being more distantly related to the conceptualizations 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 attemptto-act factor as tentatively predicted, while #21 failed to load uniquely on either factor. Items #9 and #4 also failed to sufficiently discriminate 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.

PAGE 33

26 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

PAGE 34

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.

PAGE 35

Construction of the Self-Presentation Scales The above analyses supported the hypothesis that the SelfMonitoring 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 Self-Monitoring Scale. In order to select the items to be included in the selfpresentation 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 communal ity, 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.

PAGE 36

29 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 consistent, 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, abilityto-act and attempt-to-act, are presented in Tables 5 and 6, along with each item's loadings on the resultant factors. The eigenvalues corresponding 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 correlations between the items (see Appendix 5) indicated strong correlations 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

PAGE 37

30 Table 4 Rotated Factor Pattern of the Self-Presentation Scale Items --2 Factors Retained---Prescale Data-Item Scale Ability-to-Act Attempt-to-Act -0.43 -0.20 0.06 -0.30 0.43 0.41 -0.04 0.77 -0.39 0.04 -0.00 0.39 0.04 -0.20 -0.04 0.10 -0.03 0.62 1

PAGE 38

31 Table 4 Continued Item Scale Attempt-to-Act Ability-to-Act 19

PAGE 39

32

PAGE 40

35 c o +->

PAGE 41

H

PAGE 42

f)

PAGE 43

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 36 1

PAGE 44

Tabic 7 Continued 37 Item

PAGE 45

38 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 attemptto-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 abilityand attempt-to-act scales, respectively.

PAGE 46

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 hypothetical ly interacted with others. The scenes were designed to put the subjects in a role-playing position 39

PAGE 47

40 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 themselves 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 pretesting indicated five adjectives as being pertinent 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 situation described. Thus, the data consisted of the subjects' responses for each of the four scenes to: a) the five predicted critical adjectives, 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 selfpresentation scales, as before with specification of a principle axis solution, squared prior estimates of communality, and a varimax

PAGE 48

41 rotation. The results are presented in Table 8. As compared to the prescaling results presented earlier in Table 4, the factors were extracted in reverse order, with the first factor representing the abilityto-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 numericall 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 examination 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

PAGE 49

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

PAGE 50

43 Table S Continued Item

PAGE 51

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 44 1

PAGE 52

45 Table 9 Continued Item

PAGE 53

46 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-toact 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 (£=+.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, p>.05), nor was there a significant correlation between the attempt-to act scale and the Chapin Social Insight Test (r=-.15, n=104, p_>.05). Significant correlations were found between the attempt-to-act scale and the Social Desirability Scale (r=-.31, n=104, jx.001) as well as the predicted correlation with the neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (r=+.26, n=104, p_<.01). Mien the scores from the ability-to-act and attempt-to-act scales were summed into a single selfpresentation 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, £<.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, p/.OOOl). The Chapin Social Insight Test did not correlate with any of the

PAGE 54

< 47 CXl pj ». el

PAGE 55

48 personality measures, nor did it correlate with either of the selfpresentation scales. A nonsignificant but possibly informative correlation 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 to 15. A frequency distribution 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 classification 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.

PAGE 56

49 Table 11 Cell-Frequencies for Ability-to-Act and Attempt-to-Act Scale Classification Frequency Attempt-to-Act Total (Percent) High bow High 35 21 56 (33.65) (20.19) (53.85) Abilityto-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".

PAGE 57

50 Table 12 Multivariate Analysis of Variance on Subjects' Variance Scores Source df_ F £< Ability-to-Act 20,81 2.40 .01 Attempt-to-Act 20,81 1.00 Ability X Attempt 20,81 1.21

PAGE 58

51 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 withingroup 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 medical school application interview. Subjects in the low ability-to-act/ high attempt-to-act group had all rated the adjective as highly representative, with no variance.

PAGE 59

52 Table 15 Tests of Homogeneity of Within-Group Covariance Matrices Using Both Attempt-to-Act and Ability-to-Act Scale Classifications Scene

PAGE 60

53 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 submitted 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 behaviors 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 performed 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 selfpresentations 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

PAGE 61

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

PAGE 62

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

PAGE 63

56 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. Classification based on the scales revealed no main effect due to ability-toact scale, F_(4,97) = 1.47, p_>.05, the attempt-to-act scale, F(4,97) = l . 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, p_>.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

PAGE 64

57 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. Classification based on the scales revealed no main effect due to ability-toact scale, F(4,97)=1.46, p_>.05, or the attempt-to-act scale classification, 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 significant 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(l,100)=9.43, £<.01.

PAGE 65

58 Table 16 Analyses of Variance on Scene Discrimination Scores Scene df F p< One

PAGE 66

59 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, £[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 (X=90.06) and pertinent adjectives (X=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 responsible 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.

PAGE 67

60 Table 17 Analysis of Variance on Predicted and Pertinent Target Adjectives for all Personality Tests Predicted Pertinent Scale df_ F p_< df _F p_< 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

PAGE 68

Table 18 Analysis of Variance on Predicted and Pertinent Target Adjective Scene Scores for Extraversion Classification Predicted Pertinent Scene df F p< df F £< 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 61

PAGE 69

62 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 withingroup covariancc 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

PAGE 70

63 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-toact scale would utilize the target adjectives by indicating them to be more representative of themselves was also weak. A significant interaction 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 multivaririate 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 abilityto-act scale but low on the attempt-to-act scale made the least discriminating 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

PAGE 71

64 discriminations 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 personalityrelated patterns of self-presentations.

PAGE 72

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 representative 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 requirements. 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

PAGE 73

66 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 (sec 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

PAGE 74

67 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 attempting 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 interjudge reliability. 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"

PAGE 75

68 Table 19 Inter-Judge Reliability Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4 Judge 1

PAGE 76

69 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 judgements 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_(l, 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-toact scale, F_(6,29) = 1.23, p_>.05, the attempt-to-act scale, £(6, 29)=. 66, p_>.05, or an interaction of classification, F_(6 , 29)= . 57, p_>.05. After watching each scene and indicating which image they believed the subject was attempting, the judges were asked to indicate how confident 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, £(6, 29)=. 75, p_>.05 the attempt-to-act scale, F(6,29) = .94, p_>.05, or an interaction of scale classification, £(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

PAGE 77

70 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_(l,34)=4.26, p>.05, the attempt-to-act scale, F(l ,34) = . 85, p_>.05, or an interaction of scale classification, F_(l , 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_(l,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_(l , 34)= . 42 , p_>.05, or an interaction of scale classification, •_(_! , 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 selfpresentational 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

PAGE 78

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 correct 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 differences in their abilities.

PAGE 79

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 selfpresentation 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 72

PAGE 80

73 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 accomplishment 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 selfpresentations. An argument could be make that it would be these

PAGE 81

74 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 expected 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 appripriatemess 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

PAGE 82

75 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 manipulating one's presentation may be appropriate or necessary in order to please others. One may be sensitive to the environment without assessing 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 neuroticism 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 defensiveness--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.

PAGE 83

76 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 variable 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 selfpresentation scales would be reflected in a comparison of the withingroup 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.

PAGE 84

77 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 comparison 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

PAGE 85

78 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 manifestations 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 selfpresentational 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.

PAGE 86

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alker, H.A. Is personality situational ly 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., Sail, J. P., & Helwig, J.T. A user's guide to SAS 76 . Raleigh, North Carolina: Sparks Press, 1976. Bern, D.J. Constructing cross-situational consistencies in behavior: Some thoughts on Alker' s critique of Mischel. Journal of Personality , 1972, 40, 17-26. Bern, D.J., 5 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. Situational ism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review , 1975, 8Tj, 307-336. Cameron, N.W. Role concepts in behavior pathology. American Journal of Sociology , 1950, 5_5, 464-467. Carrigan, P.M. Extraversion-introversion as a dimension of personality: A reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin , 1960, 5_7, 329-360. Catell, R.B. The desc ription and measurement of pe rsonal i ty . New York: World Book, 1946. Chapin, F.S. Preliminary standardization of a Social Insight Scale. American Social Relations, 1942, 7, 214-228. 79

PAGE 87

80 Christie, R. , 5 Geis, F.L. 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, 4J_, 287-303. Endler, N.S. The case for person-situation interactions. Canadian Psychological Review , 1975, 18, 12-21. Endler, N.S., f, Hunt, J.McV. General i zability 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, L8, 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, J_8, 213-221. Goffman, E. Presentation of sel f i n 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.

PAGE 88

81 Insel, P.M., $ Moos, R.ll. 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 f, 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, 8TJ, 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-Century-Crofts, 1967. Riseman, D. The lonely crowd . New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1950. Ring, K. , S Wallston, R. A test to measure performance styles in interpersonal relations. Psychological Reports , 1968, 22_, 147-154. Robinson, J. P. 5 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 apprehensionIn R. Rosenthal $ R.W. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifacts in behavioral research . New York: Academic Press, 1969. Schildkraut, J.J. Neuropsychopharmacology and the affective dissorders . Boston: Little § Brown, 1970.

PAGE 89

82 Snyder, M. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog y, 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., 5 Rogers, E.D. Alternative responses to dissonance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1963, 6j3, 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, 5_8, 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.

PAGE 90

APPENDIX 1 SELF-MONITORING SCALE

PAGE 91

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 8.1 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 If). I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper emotions than 1 actually am. (T) T F 11. 1 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 1.3. 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) 84

PAGE 93

APPENDIX 2 PRESCALE ITEMS

PAGE 94

Please read each of the following items and indicate whether each is true of yon, or false by circling either J_ (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. I 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. When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the behavior of others for cues. T F 8.1 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 watcli a comedy with others than when alone. T F 12. In a group of people I an 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. 87

PAGE 95

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 anyting 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 tit em. 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. I can usually tell what T 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.

PAGE 96

89 T F 35. I rarely feci 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. When 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.

PAGE 97

90 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, I 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 different situations and with different people, different behaviors arc appropriate. T F 72. I find that I am able to determine what people expect of me.

PAGE 98

APPENDIX 3 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR THE SELF-MONITORING SCALE ITEMS

PAGE 99

Item 1

PAGE 100

93 Item 10 11 12 13 14 1

PAGE 101

94 Item 15 16 17 19 20 21 1

PAGE 102

95 Item 22 23 24 25 1

PAGE 103

APPENDIX 4 SELF-PRESENTATION SCALE

PAGE 104

The statements on the following pages concern your nersonal reactions to a number of different situations. No two statements are exactly alike so consider each statement carefully before answering. If a statement is TRUE or MOSTLY TRUE as applied to you, circle T (TRUE). If a statement is FALSE or NOT USUALLY TRUE as applied to you, circle F (FALSE). It is important that you answer as frankly and as honestly as you can. Your answers will be kept in strict confidence. Please answer every item. 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. 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) 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 feel the need to be in the limelight. (F) T F 10. I let the behavior o f others influence how I behave in a particular situation. (T) T F 11. I laugh more when I watch a comedy with others than when alone. (T) T F 12. I usually like to be the center of attention. (T) T F 13. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons. (T) 97

PAGE 105

98 T F 14. I try to be the same person in all situations. (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 be 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. I'm not very good at arguing for ideas that I don't believe in (F) T F 23. In different situations and with different people, it is necessary to act like very different people if one wants to get along. (T) 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) T F 26. I am very good at acting in everyday situations, if I feel like it.' (T) T F 27. I wouldn't make a very good actor. (F) T F 28. My behavior is usually an expression of my true feelings, because I don't feel a need to please others. (F) T F 29. I'm not very good at covering up feelings I don't want others to see. (F) T F 50. I'm pretty good at mimicking (copying) others' behavior. (T)

PAGE 106

APPENDIX 5 CORRELATION MATRIX FOR THE SELF-PRESENTATION SCALE ITEMS

PAGE 107

Item 1

PAGE 108

101 Item 10 11 1

PAGE 109

102 Item 13 14 15 16 17 1

PAGE 110

103 Item 19 20 21 22 23 24 1

PAGE 111

104 Item 25 26 27 2 8 29 30 1

PAGE 112

APPENDIX 6 PERSONALITY TESTS

PAGE 113

Chapin Socal Insight Test In each of the following statements, a situation is described followed by four comments that seem to offer alternative explanations. Social insight is the ability to "see into" social situations that involve individual need to avoid embarrassment or to achieve some satisfaction as an offset to some frustration. You are asked to consider each statement upon its own merits. Then indicate by circling the letter which corresponds to the one statement which in your judgment is the most appropriate, intelligent, or logical comment upon it. There are no absolutely right or wrong, true or false, correct or incorrect answers. Each problem is a matter for judicial analysis and inference. Judgments made by different persons on the same situation may differ. As a guide, you should ask yourself the question, "Which comment represents the most probable inference or conclusion expressed in terms of the one response which will create the least embarrassment or most satisfaction to the person concerned?" The following example statement and the corresponding response illustrate the procedure to be followed: Mr. Asher, when told that an acquaintance had purchased a new automobile, was heard to criticize him very strongly for spending so much money for a car when he probably could not afford to buy one. Not long after this incident, Mr Asher himself bought an expensive new automobile. About the same time, he placed another mortgage on his house. Why did Mr. Asher criticize his acquaintance for an act lie afterwards performed himself? a. Because he probably had "money left to him" upon the death of a near relative. 106

PAGE 114

107 (£). Criticism of his acquaintance got rid of an "uneasy feeling" about something he contemplated doing himself. c. His acquaintance was probably an unsafe driver. d. In sections of the country long settled and in which Mr. Asher lived, most houses were heavily mortgaged. Joseph Runway occasionally drinks too much. He has a steady job but has never succeeded in all the years of continuous employment in getting the promotion to a better paid assistant managership, which he deeply desires in the firm for which he works. His younger brother had been the "apple of his mother's eye," and now Joseph's wife is very partial to the one son in the family otherwise consisting of three girls. To help Mr. Runway, a friend of the family: a. Takes strong measures to deprive him of access to all liquor and strong drink. b. Advises that he leave home and "take the cure" to correct his tendency to drink. c. Sympathetically hears his story and recognizes the contribution to the security of his family that he has made by steadiness on the job. d. Secretely urges Mrs. Runway to take the children and go away, thus to establish a separate residence leading to ultimate divorce. Mr. II. left high school before graduation to take a job as a clerk in a store. Although still a clerk, he has always had steady work and an income sufficient to enable him to marry, buy a home, equip and maintain it in a very comfortable manner, although this has required him to do without many other things (e.g., children, social-recreational activities, etc.). When Mr. H. is with other people in an informal group, his chief topic of conversation is the quality and cost of the various articles he has purchased for his home. The reason for Mr. H.'s chief topic of conversation is: a. He has ideals of quality and believes "production should be for use rather than for profit." b. He wishes to keep conversation limited to subjects on which he is informed. c. By talking about subjects on which he is informed, he diverts conversation from subjects lie is ignorant of but which most people are informed about and interested in. d. He wishes to appear pleasant, to make conversation, and to avoid giving offense. Mr. Smith, a business man, is strongly opposed to suggestions favoring social planning and control of business by government, because he says, "World conditions have caused our depression" and "Industrial cycles are normal and if the government interferes it will be worse." His opposition to government planning and control probably is the result of: a. His belief in individual initiative.

PAGE 115

108 b. His opposition to any form of socialism. c. His own business activities just manage to "keep within" the law. d. His experience had shown that private business is more effecient than government. 4. The principal of the school attended by James reported that he showed generally bad behavior in the schoolroom, constant teasing and bullying of younger children, and occasional petty thieving. He was conpicuous in classes for his lack of attention and concentration. He was a pale slim boy, rather tall for his twelve years. Out of school, he played little with boys of his own age and was frequently found bullying and teasing younger children. His father was a traveling salesman. James' right arm was broken twice when he was seven and eight years old. When he was nine, his left leg was fractured while in rough play with children. His mother discouraged his playing with older boys. He had a real passion for movies that showed western and adventure stories. His reading consisted of two to three books a week, preferably of the boy adventurer type. James' behavior is due to the fact that: a. He is discontented because he cannot go on trips and see the country with his father. b. He feels the need to make up for his weak physical condition by gaining mastery and attention of his playmates. c. He is an incipient criminal of the "moral imbecile" type. d. He is a moron and can never hope to develop a superior intelligence because his parents have mediocre minds. 5. Martha, an overconscientious girl of 19 years, is given to self-analysis. She is always concerned with what others think about her and the things she has done. Martha finds it difficult to start conversations with strangers and frequently analyzes the motives of others. Another trait which is characteristic of Martha's behavior is: a. Worrying over possible misfortunes. b. Frequent craving of excitement. c. Showing consideration of others' feelings. d. Preference for reading about something rather than experiencing it. 6. Mr. Jenks when in a restaurant sharply orders the waiters about and is rude and critical about the service he receives. He has not many friends because of his tendency to be bossy and critical toward them. In the office in which he works, he: a. Agitates for better working conditions. b. Is ingratiating and subservient to his employer. c. Is openly critical of the many rules and regulations governing his work. d. Tries to give orders to his fellow workers which are only supposed to be given by his superior. 7. Mr. A.'s son is in danger of flunking out of medical school because of low grades and apparent lack of interest and ability in medical courses, but Mr. A. insists that his son stay in medical course and

PAGE 116

109 put more effort into his studies. The son however would prefer to take a business course but Mr. A. persistently blocks all attempts to make this change. Mr. A.'s attitude suggests that: a. Mr. A. in his youth wanted to become a doctor, but circumstances prevented. b. Mr. A. believes that the medical profession is better than that of pharmacy. c. Mr. A. believes that the income of his son will be more secure as a doctor. d. Mr. A. believes that it is "education in character" to force one's self to distastful tasks. 8. A man bought an expensive automobile after some hesitation because it cost more than he could well afford to pay. However, when a friend later questioned him as to why he bought such an expensive car, he gave several reasons, but the one reason he did not give was : a. His wife and children needed to get out into the country and he bought a big car so that they could all drive together. b. The car would save him money in the long run because it would not need the repairs that an older or cheaper car would. c. The friend had bought a car almost as expensive although his income was not much greater. d. He expected to receive some money from an estate by the death of a critically ill relative. 9. A boy, aged ten, had temper tantrums and was disobedient to his parents. In school, he refused to follow directions, was a trouble maker, and was often fighting. Both parents were living, and he had one younger sister. He told imaginary stories about his parents' wealth and about all his toys and travels. He interrupted others to talk about himself. Frequently, he reported to teachers that other children were picking on him. In order to overcome these behavior difficulties, this boy should be placed: a. In activities with children who are older or more mature than he. b. In activities at home and school in which he can more immediately succeed. c. In activities at home and school with more responsibility. d. In activities with children who will accept him as a leader. 10. Mr. Thomas frequently protests against the irreligious attitudes of others, asserts the religious depravity of persons with religious beliefs conflicting with his own, is ardent in uncovering and crusading against vice and immorality in his community, and is held up by the members of his church as n model and virtuous person. Mr. Thomas's conduct indicates that: a. He lias been brought up in an extremely religious family. b. He is trying to become a leader in his community. c. He lias impulses to do the things he publicly is fighting against. d. He feels he must "save" others.

PAGE 117

110 11. A young man reacted with intense emotion to any indulgence in alcoholic drinks. If any of his friends as much as took a single drink, he went out of his way to denounce them in most emphatic terms. The explanation was: a. That his mother had been a leader in the Women's Christian Temperance Union. b. That his father had been a drunkard, who had treated his mother brutally and finally deserted her. c. He was himself a secret drunkard at late parties. d. His ancestors came from strict Puritan stock. 12. A weakly child was overprotected by his parents and other adult relatives, who were the only persons with whom he came into frequent contact. On entering school, he was ignored or rebuffed by his classmates. To this situation, he reacted by: a. Avoiding other children and spending his time in daydreaming. b. Fighting with the bullying other children. c. Trying to attract attention by competing in games played by the group of children. d. Attempting to get other children to accept him by persistently "hanging around" or "tagging along" with them. 13. Mrs. Thompson constantly consulted physicians about her daughter's health at the slightest sign of illness. She bought her expensive clothing and toys. She frequently irritated the child with excessive attention. She complained that the child would not obey her, and at times she punished her severely for slight misbehavior. Mrs. Thompson's reactions toward her daughter probably indicate that: a. She was inclined to be a hypochondriac. b. She was trying to do for her daughter things which she had been denied as a child. c. Because her daughter was the only child, she expected too much of her. d. She had resentments toward the child which she was trying to cover up. 14. Mrs. Harvey, age 22, disapproved of smoking, especially by her husband or by women. She also disapproved of card playing and refused to attend many movies because the love scences were "immorally presented." She is socially isolated, taking part in few activities with other people. She often asserts that people are more lax in moral matters in present times than they were in earlier times. Her attitudes on these matters suggest that: a. She was morally superior to her associates. b. As a young girl on several occasions she had been severely scolded by her parents for repeating "sex" stories heard from other girls. c. As a girl, she had been taught that such activities as card playing, etc., were not approved of by her church. d. As a girl, she had been isolated from such activities and therefore had not learned to enjoy them.

PAGE 118

Ill 15. A boy, ID, dominated his brother, 12 and his sister, 14. When he was opposed in his domineering behavior, he became abusive and destructive. In school, he refused to abide by ordinary routine activities and directions, and he: a. Asserted that the teachers were picking on him. b. Said he had no interest in any of his school work. c. Would not play or take part in competitive games in which he might be defeated. d. Was well behaved and did his work only in his manual training class . 16. A boy, age 15, is complained about by his parents and teachers, lie stays out late at night, is irresponsible, uncooperative, apathetic, and inconsiderate. He is unpopular and annoys other children. He has tendencies to lie and steal whenever he can "get away with it." He has little or no interest in school. In the following list of factors, indicate the one which probably would be most closely associated with this boy's misbehavior: a. He is lazy. b. He is disobedient in school. c. He has an introverted personality. d. He has an extroverted personality. 17. In an executive staff meeting, Mr. Goodrich, sales manager and a loyal and respected man, hears for the first time of a new "selling point" recently introduced by a competitor of the firm in the eastern sales area. This information was supplied to the staff conference by Mr. White, the brilliant young production manager. The managing director is presiding over the staff conference as chairman. Should he: a. Ask Mr. Goodrich to discuss the point in detail so that the others may profit by his ideas? b. Ask Mr. White to elaborate the point in detail and give his views? c. Ask Mr. Goodrich to report on the results of his recent and extended trip of inspection of the Far West sales territory? d. In the interests of sales efficiency and promotion, require Mr. Goodrich then and there to explain why he did not know of this new point? 18. A Community Fund in a large city is faced with the problem of preserving good working relations among the social agencies which are members of the Fund, to preserve the advantages of a single common campaign of soliciting for financial support, and to promote the idea of cooperative planning for the community. In this situation, the financial campaign falls short by 10 percent of the goal needed to keep the agencies operating at the existing rate of efficiency and skilled services. Cuts in the budgets of all agencies are made, but one large and powerful member agency, X, refuses to take its proportionate cut and maintains through the Chairman of its Board of Directors and through its Executive, that it meets a special need and should not be cut at all, but rather have its budget raised. Which of the following procedures should the Chest adopt in order to preserve its function in the city?

PAGE 119

112 a. Allow the agency X to withdraw from the Fund and try to raise its budget by a separate financial campaign. b. Give the agency X the amount it needs and distribute the cut to other fellow agencies. c. Call a conference of the Chairman of the Boards and the Executives of all other agencies to hear the arguments of the officials of agency X, and try by amicable discussion to reach a mutual understanding. d. Reprimand the officials of agency X for lack of consideration of fellow agency needs and threaten to drop it from the Fund unless it conforms. 19. During a conference, the discussion becomes so argumentative and heated that everyone seems to be angry at someone else. Finally, one member who seems to be getting the worst of the argument angrily stalks out. The chairman of the group should then: a. Immediately declare the meeting adjourned. b. Send someone to ask the departed member to return. c. Ask for a vote whether the meeting should be adjourned. d. Ignore the departure and continue with the order of business remaining. 20. The manager and his chief associates in a high grade employment agency are considering the problem of recommending James Smith for a position. How much information about Smith should go into the letter of recommendation? Smith became unemployed when the printing company for which he has been working continuously for the past five years closed because its funds were tied up by a bank failure. Smith has the technical qualifications for filling a more important position in any one of three vacant positions in other firms. Assuming that the letter of recommendation should mention the fact that ten years ago Smith had been discharged from another firm for an unexplained cause, which one of the three following firms should he be recommended to? a. A firm with an unknown personnel policy. b. A firm with an established and respected personnel policy. c. A firm whose personnel policy has been questioned on grounds of ethical dealings with employees. 21. A large organization is faced with the need of adapting its policies to changed conditions in the community. In order to supply the Directors of the organization with unbiased facts for the determination of major policies, a research bureau is set up as a special department within the organization. After consideration of the ways and means of making the best use of the new fact-finding function, the Directors decided to establish the research bureau: a. With authority immediately to carry out in practice, its own recommendations derived from fact-finding. b. With responsibility to report its findings directly to the Board of Directors. c. With responsibility to report its finding to the chief executive only.

PAGE 120

113 d. With the stipulation that its finding be reported to a subcommittee of the Board on planning, of which the chief executive is to be a member, but not the chairman. 22. A dispute arose among the employees and officers of a samll manufacturing company as to the use of an adjoining parking lot owned by the company. Some held that favoritism was shown in the assignment of the better parking spaces. The procedure for the manager to follow would be: a. To ignore a trivial dispute of this sort on the assumption that it would clear up of itself, given time. b. To promptly and carefully adjudicate the dispute. c. To terminate the parking facilities upon due notice. d. To reprimand both parties to the dispute. 23. A committee was appointed by a club to draft a formula that would solve a problem of conflict among the members due to the opposition led by a wealthy Mr. Jones to plans for locating the new club house. The committee met and carefully considered the problem; after discussion, it was decided to: a. Appoint Mr. Jones as a member of the committee. b. Take a caucus and force a favorable vote. c. Delay action until the opposition could be converted. d. Expel Mr. Jones from the memebership in the club. 24. A group of citizens of X assemble to hear a visiting architect describe a new plan for the location and construction of a needed high school building for the town. A main highway cuts through the town. Homes are located in sections on both sides of the highway and some persons who live on one side also own property on the other side. Should the chairman of the meeting, who was asked by the School Board to obtain a judgment on public opinion: a. Limit the meeting to the architect's presentation? b. Summarize the architect's address and give the summary to the School Board? c. Declare an open discussion of the address, record how the individual votes were cast, and transmit this information to the School Board? d. Limit comments on the address to neutral persons who live outside the town, thus avoiding undue acrimony? 25. The Directors of a settlement house and those who contributed largely to its support were concerned about reports of radical meetings held in its rooms by residents of the slum neighborhood. It was decided to hold a meeting with Board members to ask questions of the resident staff of social workers. Some feeling developed on the part of the social workers who felt embarrasses or resentful and on the part of Board members who felt that something was being withheld. The situation grew more and more strained until the tension was suddenly broken by the following remark of a staff member: a. "A young resident of the house confessed to making inflammatory remarks at a meeting a month ago but was not reappointed at the

PAGE 121

114 expiration of her contract because she had a nervous breakdown and had to go to a convalescent home for rest." "The executive of the settlement spotted a notorious labor racketeer two weeks ago attending a meeting and talking too much. Since the man had a police record and this was called to his attention, he dropped out of subsequent meetings." "I remember one man distinctly , who was very radical in his statements at meetings, but he has moved away to another city." "Oh, you know, there was someone around here who talked against the government, but she was a Republican." Copyright 1968 by Consulting Psychologists Press. Used for the study with permission of the publisher.

PAGE 122

115 Eysenck Personality Inventory Please answer each question by circling either "Yes" or "No". There are no right or wrong answers, and no trick questions. Work quickly and do not think too long about the exact meaning of the question. Yes No 1. Do you have many different hobbies? Yes No 2. Do you stop to think things over before doing anything? Yes No 3. Does your mood often go up and down? Yes No 4. Have you ever taken the praise for something you knew someone else had really done? Yes No 5. Are you a talkative person? Yes No 6. Would being in debt worry you? Yes No 7. Do you ever feel "just miserable" for no reason? Yes No 8. Were you ever greedy by helping yourself to more than your share of anything? Yes No 9. Do you lock up your house carefully at night? Yes No 10. Are you rather lively? Yes No 11. Would it upset you a lot to see a child or an animal suffer? Yes No 12. Do you often worry about things you should not have done or said? Yes No 13. If you say you will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter how inconvenient it might be? Yes No 14. Can you usually let yourself go and enjoy yourself at a lively party? Yes No 15. Are you an irritable person? Yes No 16. Have you ever blamed someone for doing something you knew was really your own fault? Yes No 17. Do you enjoy meeting new people? Yes No 18. Do you believe insurance plans are a good idea? Yes No 19. Are your feelings easily hurt?

PAGE 123

116 Yes No 20. Are all your habits good and desirable ones? Yes No 21. Do you tend to keep in the background on social occasions? Yes No 22. Would you take drugs which may have strange or dangerous effects? Yes No 23. Do you often feel "fed-up"? Yes No 24. Have you ever taken anything (even a pin or button) that belonged to someone else? Yes No 25. Do you like going out a lot? Yes No 26. Do you enjoy hurting people you love? Yes No 27. Are you often troubled about feelings of guilt? Yes No 28. Do you sometimes talk about things you know nothing about? Yes No 29. Do you prefer reading to meeting people? Yes No 30. Do you have enemies who want to harm you? Yes No 31. Would you call yourself a nervous person? Yes No 32. Do you have many friends? Yes No 33. Do you enjoy practical jokes that can sometimes really hurt people? Yes No 34. Are you a worrier? Yes No 35. As a child did you do as you were told immediately and without grumbling? Yes No 36. Would you call yourself happy-go-lucky? Yes No 37. Do good manners and cleanliness matter much to you? Yes No 38. Do you worry about awful things that might happen? Yes No 39. Have you ever broken or lost something belonging to someone else? Yes No 40. Do you usually take the initiative in making new friends? Yes No 41. Would you call yourself tense or "highly-strung"? Yes No 42. Are you mostly quiet when you are with other people? Yes No 43. Do you think marriage is old-fashioned and should be done away with?

PAGE 124

117 Yes No 44. Do you sometimes boast a little? Yes No 45. Can you easily get some life into a rather dull party? Yes No 46. Do people who drive carefully annoy you? Yes No 47. Do you worry about you health? Yes No 48. Have you ever said anything bad or nasty about anyone? Yes No 49. Do you like telling jokes and funny stories to your friends? Yes No 50. Do most things taste the same to you? Yes No 51. As a child did you ever talk back to you parents? Yes No 52. Do you like mixing with people? Yes No 53. Does it worry you if you know there are mistakes in your work? Yes No 54. Do you suffer from sleeplessness? Yes No 55. Do you always wash before a meal? Yes No 56. Do you nearly always have a "ready answer" when people talk to you? Yes No 57. Do you like to arrive at appointments in plenty of time? Yes No 58. Have you oftern felt listless and tired for no reason? Yes No 59. Have you ever cheated at a game? Yes No 60. Do you like doing things in which you have to act quickly? Yes No 61. Is (or was) your mother a good woman? Yes No 62. Do you often feel life is very dull? Yes No 63. Have you ever taken advantage of someone? Yes No 64. Do you often take on more activities than you have time for? Yes No 65. Arc there several people who keep trying to avoid you? Yes No 66. Do you worry a lot about your looks? Yes No 67. Do you think people spend too much time safeguarding their future with savings and insurances? Yes No 68. Have you ever wished that you were dead?

PAGE 125

118 Yes No 69. Would you dodge paying taxes if you were sure you could never be found out? Yes No 70. Can you get a party going? Yes No 71. Do you try not to be rude to people? Yes No 72. Do you worry too long after an embarrassing experience? Yes No 73. Have you ever insisted on having your own way? Yes No 74. When you catch a train do you often arrive at the last minute? Yes No 75. Do you suffer from "nerves"? Yes No 76. Do your friendships break up easily without it being your fault? Yes No 77. Do you often feel lonely? Yes No 78. Do you always practice what you preach? Yes No 79. Do you sometimes like teasing animals? Yes No 80. Are you easily hurt when people find fault with you or the work you do? Yes No 81. Have you ever been late for an appointment or work? Yes No 82. Do you like plenty of bustle and excitement around you? Yes No 83. Would you like other people to be afraid of you? Yes No 84. Are you sometimes bubbling over with energy and sometimes very sluggish? Yes No 85. Do you sometimes put off until tomorrow what you ought to do today? Yes No 86. Do other people think of you as being very lively? Yes No 87. Do people tell you a lot. of lies? Yes No 88. Are you touchy about some things? Yes No 89. Are you always willing to admit it when you have made a mistake? Yes No 90. Would you feel very sorry for an animal caught in a trap? Copyright 1975 by EdITS/Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Used in the study with permission of the publisher.

PAGE 126

119 Mach V You will find 20 groups of statements listed below. Each group is composed of three statements. Each statement refers to a way of thinking about people or things in general. They reflect opinions and not matters of fact -there are no "right" or "wrong" answers and different people have been found to agree with different statements. Please read each of the three statements in each group. Then decide first which of the statements is most true or comes the closest to describing your own beliefs. Circle a plus (+) in the space provided on the answer sheet. Just decide which of the remaining two statements is most false or is the farthest from your own beliefs. Circle the minus (-) in the space provided on the answer sheet. Here is an example: Most Most True False + A. It is easy to persuade people but hard to keep them persuaded. + B. Theories that run counter to common sense are a waste of time. + C. It is only common sense to go along with what other people are doing and not be too different. In this case, statement B would be the one you believe in most strongly and A and C would be ones that are not as characteristic of your opinion. Statement C would lie the one you believe in least strongly and is least characteristic of your beliefs. You will find some of the choices easy to make; others will be quite difficult. Do not fail to make a choice no matter how hard it may be. You will mark two statements in each group of three -the

PAGE 127

120 one that comes the closest to your own beliefs with a + and the one farthest from your beliefs with a -. The remaining statement should be left unmarked. Do not omit any groups of statements. Most Most True False A. It takes more imagination to lie a successful criminal than a successful business man. B. The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" contains a lot of truth. C. Most men forget more easilty the death of their father than the loass of their property. A. Men are more concerned with the car they drive than with the clothes their wives wear. B. It is very important that imagination and creativity in children be cultivated. C. People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death. A. Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so. B. The well-being of the individual is the goal that should be worked for before anything else. C. Once a truly intelligent person makes up his mind about the answer to a problem he rarely continues to think about it. A. People are getting so lazy and self-indulgent that it is bad for our country. B. The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear. C. It would be a good thing if people were kinder to others less fortunate than themselves. A. Most people are basically good and kind. B. The best criteria for a wife or husband is comparability -other characteristics arc nice but not essential. C. Only after a man has gotten what he wants from life should he concern himself with the injustices in the world. A. Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives. B. Any man worth his salt shouldn't be blamed for putting his career above his family.

PAGE 128

121 Most Most True False C. People would be better off if they were concerned less with how to do tilings and more with what to do. 7. A. A good teacher is one who points out unanswered questions rather than gives explicit answers. B. When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight. C. A persons' s job is the best single guide as to the sort of person he is. 8. A. The construction of such monumental works as the Egyptian pyramids was worth the enslavement of the workers who built them. B. Once a way of handling problems has been worked out it is best to stick with it. C. One should take action only when sure that it is morally right. 9. A. The world would be a much better place to live in if people would let the future take care of itself and concern themselves only with enjoying the present. B. It is wise to flatter important people. C. Once a decision has been made, it is best to keep changing it as new circumstances arise. 10. A. It is a good policy to act as if you are doing the things you do because you have no other choice. B. The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught. C. Even the most hardened and vicious criminal has a spark of decency somewhere within him. 11. A. All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest. B. A man who is able and willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding in whatever he wants to do. C. If a thing does not help us in our daily lives, it isn't very important. 12. A. A person shouldn't be punished for breaking a law which he thinks is unreasonable. B. Too many criminals are not punished for their crime. C. There is no excuse for lying to someone else. 13. A. (Generally speaking, men won't work hard unless they're forced to do so. B. Every person is entitled to a second chance, even after he commits a serious mistake.

PAGE 129

122 Most Most True False C. People who can't make up their minds aren't worth bothering about. 14. A. A man's first responsibility is to his wife, not his mother. B. Most men are brave. C. It's best to pick friends that are intellectually stimulating rather than ones it is comfortable to be around. 15. A. There are very few people in the world worth concerning oneself about. B. It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there. C. A capable person motivated for his own gain is more useful to society than a well-meaning but ineffective one. 16. A. It is best to give others the impression that you can change your mind easily. B. It is a good working policy to keep on good terms with everyone. C. Honesty is the best policy in all cases. 17. A. It is possible to be good in all respects. B. To help oneself is good; to help others even better. C. War and threats of war are unchangeable facts of human life. 18. A. Barnum was probably right when he said that there's at least one sucker born every minute. B. Life is pretty dull unless one deliberately stirs up some excitement. C. Most people would be better off if they controlled their emotions. 19. A. Sensitivity to the feelings of other is worth more than poise in social situations. B. The ideal society is one where everybody knows his place and accepts it. C. Tt is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they arc given a chance. 20. A. People who talk abstract problems usually don't know what they are talking about. B. Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble. C. It is essential for the functioning of a democracy that everyone votes.

PAGE 130

123 Social Desirability Scale Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally. T F 1. Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. T F 2. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. T F 3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. T F 4. I have never intensely disliked anyone. T F 5. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succedd in life. T F 6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. T F 7. I am always careful about my manner of dress. T F 8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. T F 9. If I could get into a movie without paying for it and be sure I was not seen, I would probably do it. T F 10. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. T F 11. I like to gossip at times. T F 12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. T F 13. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. T F 14. I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. T F 15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. T F 16. I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. T F 17. I always try to practice what I preach. T F 18. I don't fink it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people. T F 19. I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget.

PAGE 131

124 T F 20. When I don't know something I don't at all mind admitting it. T F 21. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. T F 22. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. T F 23. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. T F 24. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. T F 25. I never resent being asked to return a favor. T F 26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. T F 27. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car, T F 28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. T F 29. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. T F 30. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. T F 31. I have never felt that I was punished without cause. T F 32. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. T F 33. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings.

PAGE 132

APPENDIX 7 SELF-PRESENTATION SCENCES AND ADJECTIVE LIST

PAGE 133

Please read the following short paragraphs carefully. Try to put yourself into the position described in the scene. Then, fill out the accompanying scale as though you were in the situations described. While in real life you wouldn't fill out such a scale, consider it as just a way to indicate how you would naturally talk about yourself. Each scale consists of a series of adjectives. You are to complete the adjectives, indicating how representative each adjective would be of the way you'd talk about yourself. For example, suppose the adjectives were... HELPFUL _____ PLEASANT 1 = completely unrepresentative 2 = slightly representative 3 = moderately representative 4 = very representative 5 = highly representative If you think the work "HELPFUL" would be very representative of you in the situation described, you should put a 5 in the blank. If you think "HELPFUL" would be very unrepresentative of you, you should put a 1_ in the blank. Similarly, if you think "PLEASANT" would be moderately representative of you, you should put a 3 in the blank next to "PLEASANT". Once you have finished with the first scene and scale, repeat the process with each of the next scenes -each time completing the accompanying scale as though you were involved in the situation. 126

PAGE 134

127 I There is a citizen's advisory hoard which has heen working for several months to find new and original solutions to specific local problems. One of the members of the board has dropped out -just before the board is due to present its preliminary recommendations. Their recommendations have already been formulated, but they need an additional member before presenting them. At this late date, the board is openly looking for someone who concurs with the existing recommendations . You agree with what the board has been doing, and you believe that even temporary membership will help you to be appointed to other groups where you will be able to have an impact. The board has been given a list of your qualifications, but before they vote on your application, they have asked to meet with you so that they can determine how well you would fit in with the existing board members. During your interaction with the board, you would have a chance to give them an impression of you. Using the following scale, how would you describe yourself? WELL ADJUSTED LIKABLE INTERESTING MATURE TRUSTWORTHY APPROACHABLE HARD WORKING RESOURCEFUL FRIENDLY OPTIMISTIC WELL INFORMED SYMPATHETIC INDIFFERENT CREATIVE SELF-CONFIDENT COOPERATIVE POPULAR GOOD SENSE OF HUMOR INTELLIGENT FLEXIBLE 1 = completely unrepresentative 2 = slightly representative 3 = moderately representative 4 = very representative 5 = highly representative "Target adjectives

PAGE 135

128 II A person you know is trying to work out some problems, and has confided in you. After hearing of the problems, you are confident they will be worked out in time. Right now, the person needs an understanding person to talk to... Someone who will listen, care, and be a friend. Through your initial interactions with the person, you want to let them know that you care. Using the following scale, how would you describe yourself? WELL ADJUSTED LIKABLE TRUSTWORTHY _ APPROACHABLE HARD WORKING _ WELL INFORMED SYMPATHETIC SELF-CONFIDENT COOPERATIVE POPULAR INTERESTING MATURE RESOURCEFUL FRIENDLY OPTIMISTIC INDIFFERENT CREATIVE GOOD SENSE OF HUMOR INTELLIGENT FLEXIBLE completely unrepresentative slightly representative moderately representative very representative highly representative ''Target adjectives

PAGE 136

129 III There is a social club you wish to join for a variety of reasons, such as the activities the club can offer you, friendship with some people you'd like to know better, etc. The club members will meet you and later will vote on your application for membership. They are primarily concerned with admitting members who will be amiable, will be able to get along in social situations, and will be a person the rest of the members will get along with well. During the initial meeting of the members you have an opportunity to reveal things about yourself while interacting socially. Using the following scale, how would you try to come across? WELL ADJUSTED LIKABLE i TRUSTWORTHY _ APPROACHABLE _ HARD WORKING WELL INFORMED SYMPATHETIC SELF-CONFIDENT COOPERATIVE POPULAR * INTERESTING MATURE RESOURCEFUL FRIENDLY OPTIMISTIC _ INDIFFERENT CREATIVE GOOD SENSE OF HUMOR INTELLIGENT FLEXIBLE completely unrepresentative slightly representative moderately representative very representative highly representative Target adjectives

PAGE 137

130 IV Imagine that you are being interviewed for entrance into medical school. The professors have already seen your application, so they already know that you have a good background. During the interview they will be concerned with you motivation -that is, how much you want to become a doctor and how hard you will work once in school. During the interview you have a chance to talk about yourself. Using the following scale, how would you describe yourself? WELL ADJUSTED LIKABLE TRUSTWORTHY _ APPROACHABLE _ HARD WORKING WELL INFORMED SYMPATHETIC SELF-CONFIDENT COOPERATIVE POPULAR INTERESTING MATURE RESOURCEFUL FRIENDLY OPTIMISTIC _ INDIFFERENT CREATIVE GOOD SENSE OF HUMOR INTELLIGENT * FLEXIBLE 1 3 = 4 = 5 = completely unrepresentative slightly representative moderately representative very representative highly representative v Target adjectives

PAGE 138

131 Now that you have indicated how you would descrihe yourself in each of the given situations, look over each scene again. This time, indicate which of the adjectives are most important or pertinent to the situation. For each scene, underline the FIVE adjectives that you feel are most relevant. N0TE--Some of the adjectives listed are positive (e.g. pleasant) and some are negative (e.g. grouchy). Don't let this affect whether or not the adjective is relevant for a particular scene. For example--if you feel that a particular situation strongly calls for a happy-non-grojjchy person, grouchy should be included as one of the five most pertinent adjectives, and so should be underlined.

PAGE 139

APPENDIX 8 SELF-PRESENTATION INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS

PAGE 140

ANGRY Subjects need no clarification as to the definition of angry. The subjects were told that they could be a) angry at the person they are talking to, b) angry at the person mentioned in the script who makes a mistake—with the result that the subject has extra work to do, or c) angry at the experimenter for forcing them to do stupid experiments. WHO they were angry at was up to the subject. COMPETENT Intelligent, hardworking, competent, someone who enjoys their work. The subjects were asked to imagine that they had applied to medical school or to a job. The "employer" had seen their application, and had thought that they looked very good on paper. But before making a decission the employer wanted to talk to the subjects, to see how they handled themselves. So, the subjects were asked to behave as they would for a business interview. EMPATHIC Sympathetic, warm, nurturant, caring. The subjects were asked to imagine that a close friend had called a few days earlier, and that he was having some really serious problems (i.e. his wife or girlfriend had left him, someone close to him had become seriously ill, etc.). While the subjects were sure that their friend would be able to work out the problems, they also sensed 133

PAGE 141

134 that the friend really needed someone to talk to -someone who cared about them. The subjects were asked, then, to convey caring and sympathy to their friend. COOPERATIVE Someone who a) attempts to get along with others, b) makes sure things go smoothly, c) makes sure others aren't embarrassed, and d) doesn't go out of his or her way to make trouble. The subjects were asked to imagine that they were interested in becoming a member of a citizen's advisory board. It was explained that these boards were made up of citizens appointed to study issues, and then make recomendations to elected officials. The subjects were asked to imagine that there was a particular citizen's advisory board that they'd like to join. As it turns our, this particular citizen's advisory board had just lost a member, and they needed someone as a quick replacement so that they could present their recomendations tomorrow. Their recomendations have already been formulated, so the board is openly looking for someone who is willing to endorse the proposal as it stands now. They are asking the subject to become the new member as they had expressed an interest and because they had expressed opinions very similar to those of the group. So, the subjects were asked to convey to the target they would be cooperative. SOCIABLE Friendly, good sense of humor, popular, at ease in social settings. The subjects were asked to imagine that they were interested in joining a social group (i.e. a fraternity, a professional group,

PAGE 142

135 amateur photographers). They have been to one meeting, and thought it would be nice to belong to the group and get to know the people. The group had heard that the subject was interested in joining, and had sent someone to talk to the subject about it. The subjects, then, were asked to convey to the target that they are friendly, and in general -nice to have in a social setting. TIRED Sleepy, lethargic, out of energy. This image needed little explanation -all students understood what was called for immediately.

PAGE 143

APPENDIX 9 SCRIPT

PAGE 144

All day I've been looking forward to this get together. I hope this was a convenient time for you to meet me. I had hoped that we'd be able to have a long time period in which we could talk. There are a lot of things, afterall, that we have to discuss. Unfortunately, as it turns out, this isn't going to be such a good day for us to talk. At least, not for me. Things have really been hectic around here--so we won't have as much time as I would like. At the last minute I learned of some things that would have to be done in preparation for a meeting I have tomorrow morning. I really hadn't expected to be tied up the rest of today, but someone made a mistake-so it will take me some time to straighten things out. At any rate--we'll be able to have some time to talk. But, before I forget, I'd like to show you some of the information I've compiled for the Brennan case the project I was telling you about last week. Some of the facts we've been able to come up with are fascinating. 137

PAGE 145

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Bette Joan Ackerman was born on January 25, 1951, in LaPorte, Indiana. She attended schools in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and was graduated from Northeast High School in June, 1969. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from Eckerd College, formerly Florida Presbyterian College in June, 1973. In June, 1975, she received her Master of Arts degree in psychology from the University of Florida, where she specialized in social psychology. In June, 1977, she married Henry Kurtz, a graduate student in theoretical chemistry. Bette (pronounced Bet) is currently working as a program evaluator for a community mental health program at the University of Pittsburgh. 138

PAGE 146

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. S^ 7 ' "''Marvin E. Shaw7 Chairman Professor of Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. P~ IUUt L/isC uML I Afesa Bell-Nathaniel Assistant Professor of Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Franz Efiting Associate Professor of Psychology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptalbe standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. . ID&Uy /{, Barry R. Schlenker Associate Professor of Psychology

PAGE 147

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Elois M. Scott Assistant Professor, Director of the Reading and Writing Center This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Psychology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. June 1979 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 148

lilfi


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EYOO8A3Q1_LV2E04 INGEST_TIME 2017-07-17T20:34:50Z PACKAGE UF00098634_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES