PERGAMON Personality and Individual Differences 26 (1999) 701±722

Development of a self-presentation tactics scale

Suk-Jae Lee a, 1, Brian M. Quigley b, *, Mitchell S. Nesler c, Amy B. Corbett d,
James T. Tedeschi d
a
Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea
b
Research Institute on Addictions, Bu€alo, NY, U.S.A.
c
Regents College, The University of the State of New York, New York, NY, U.S.A.
d
University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, U.S.A.
Received 8 January 1998

Abstract

Previous personality measures examining individuals' propensity to engage in self-presentation (e.g.

self-monitoring, social desirability) often dealt only with positive forms of self-presentation and have not
measured individuals' proclivity to use speci®c self-presentation tactics. In order to overcome these
problems, 4 studies were carried out to (a) develop a self-presentation tactics scale (SPT) measuring
individual di€erences in proclivity for using 12 self-presentation tactics, (b) examine the dimensions of
self-presentation and (c) to examine gender di€erences in self-presentation behavior. The results of the 4
studies indicate that the SPT is internally consistent, consistent across time and that the SPT shows
adequate discriminant validity. Con®rmatory factor analyses demonstrate that self-presentation consists
of two distinct components: defensive and assertive tactics, and that these two general types of tactics
are signi®cantly correlated. Additionally, males are more likely than females to use assertive self-
presentation tactics. The potential utility of the self-presentation tactics scale for future research on self-
presentational behavior is discussed. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Self-presentation consists of behaviors which are intended to manage the impressions that
observers have of actors (Go€man, 1959). Self-presentation has sometimes been distinguished
from impression management which has been de®ned as an attempt to control the images
which are presented to others usually to increase the power of the individual. Self-presentation

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: quigley@ria.org

1
Also a corresponding author.

0191±8869/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
PII: S 0 1 9 1 ± 8 8 6 9 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 1 7 8 ± 0
702 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

has been proposed to deal with more self-relevant or authentic presentations (see Schlenker,
1980 for a more detailed analysis of this distinction). However, as the tactics used to engage in
both impression management and self-presentation are the same and it is the tactics we are
concerned with here, we will use the terms interchangeably as others have done (see Leary and
Kowalski, 1990). Self presentation has been used to explain many di€erent interpersonal
phenomena including aggression (Tedeschi and Felson, 1994), cognitive dissonance (Tedeschi
and Rosenfeld, 1981), job interviewing behavior (Stevens and Kristof, 1995) and health related
behaviors (Leary et al., 1994). Given self-presentation's possible explanatory value to so many
areas of inquiry, an understanding of individuals' proclivity to engage in di€erent types of self-
presentational behaviors would be a useful tool in our understanding of social phenomena. The
present research had the goals of: (a) developing scales to measure a person's proclivity to use
certain self-presentation tactics, (b) assessing the reliability and validity of the scales, (c)
empirically examining the dimensions which underlie self-presentational tactics and (d)
examining gender di€erences in self-presentation behavior.
Tedeschi and Melburg (1984) classi®ed self-presentational behaviors into 4 categories, based
on distinctions between tactical and strategic self-presentation, and between defensive and
assertive behaviors. A representative example for each of the 4 categories is as follows: excuses
for tactical-defensive behaviors; entitlements for tactical-assertive behaviors; test anxiety for
strategic-defensive behaviors; and attractiveness for strategic-assertive behaviors. Self-
presentation tactics are behaviors used to manage impressions to achieve foreseeable short-term
interpersonal objectives or goals, while strategic behaviors are directed toward the construction
of long-term identities (see Baumeister, 1982 on self-construction). While tactical self-
presentation focuses on speci®c behaviors, strategic self-presentation is focused on the identities
a person is constructing and many di€erent tactics may be employed in the construction of a
single identity. Defensive self-presentations occur when an event is interpreted as endangering
or spoiling a desired identity and are intended to mend the identity or mitigate the negative
e€ects of the precipitating event. Assertive self-presentation refers to proactive behavior
performed to establish particular identities (see Arkin, 1981 regarding protective and
acquisitive self-presentation).
Several attempts have been made to develop paper-and-pencil scales measuring the proclivity
of respondents to engage in self-presentational behavior including the self-monitoring scale
(Snyder, 1974), the social desirability scale (Crowne and Marlowe, 1964), and the self-
consciousness scale (Fenigstein et al., 1975). While each of these scales captures a person's
motivation to manage impressions to some degree, they do not appear to directly measure
speci®c types of self-presentational behavior.
Factor analyses of the self-monitoring scale indicate that one of the factors accounting for a
signi®cant amount of variance refers to ``acting ability'' (Briggs et al., 1980; Gabrenya and
Arkin, 1980; Lennox and Wolfe, 1984). The second factor, other-directedness, deals with how
in-tune a person is with an audience and the third factor, extroversion, is most likely not that
closely related to self-presentation as both intraverts and extroverts engage in self-
presentational behavior. As two of the factors have to do with aspects of performing
unauthentic behavior, the scale may underrepresent the construct of self-presentation. Self-
presentation is not necessarily unauthentic behavior. Often the identities the person wishes to
present are identities the person truly believes he or she possesses. Additionally, individuals
 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722 703

have been shown to give signi®cantly di€erent responses to the self-monitoring scale when they
believe it is a measure of acting ability (Nesler et al., 1995). The social desirability scale
measures the motivation of an individual to gain the approval of another person. However,
not all self-presentational behavior is designed to present a socially desirable identity.
Individuals may often present identities of aggressiveness or weakness in order to achieve their
interpersonal objectives (Jones and Pittman, 1982).
The self-consciousness scale measures the degree to which a person is concerned with public
appearances, private identities, and social anxiety. Traditionally, as compared to individuals
high in public self-consciousness, those high in private self-consciousness have been
characterized as authentic and independent and less motivated to engage in self-presentation to
others (Scheier, 1980; Carver and Scheier, 1985; Fenigstein, 1987)2. However, although the self-
consciousness scale may give some indication of the degree to which people are motivated to
engage in self-presentation, it does not attempt to measure the propensity to use speci®c self-
presentation tactics. Social anxiety is clearly related to defensive self-presentation (Schlenker
and Leary, 1982, 1985; Snell, 1989; DePaulo et al., 1990; Meleshko and Alden, 1993), but
probably is associated with many other social circumstances as well. The self-monitoring scale,
the social desirability scale and public-private self-consciousness, although they tap some
aspects of the proclivity for one to engage in self-presentational behavior, are limited and do
not adequately measure the construct of self-presentation.
More recently, a self-presentation scale was developed by Roth et al. (1986, 1988).
Con®rmatory factor analysis of items indicated that the scale appears to measure the
propensity of respondents to deny negative characteristics (repudiative tactics) and to arm
positive characteristics (attributive tactics). These two dimensions were signi®cantly correlated
with one another in both studies. This two-dimensional structure may parallel the defensive
and assertive categories proposed by Tedeschi and Lindskold (1976) and Tedeschi and Melburg
(1984). However, some items in the scale refer to behaviors (e.g. ``I would lie to get out of
trouble'') and others refer to values (e.g. ``Money is an important motivator for me''). It was
not clear if the measure is meant to be one of attitudes or behavior and it is not clear how one
necessarily relates to the other in terms of self-presentation. Finally, the focus in the self-
presentation scale is the propensity to present positive identities to others. Yet, as mentioned
before, not all self-presentation is meant to present a positive identity (e.g. Jones and Pittman,
1982). These methodological problems and conceptual ambiguities suggest that the proclivity
for self-presentation is probably under-represented by the self-presentation scale, thus
undermining its construct validity.
The studies to be reported here take a di€erent approach to the measurement of propensity
for engaging in self-presentation. The focus is clearly on tactical self-presentation because a
measure of a propensity to engage in tactical behavior has practical advantages. Most
laboratory research has focused on tactical self-presentation (see Tedeschi, 1981; Baumeister,
1982) and a measure of a propensity to engage in such behavior would allow clear tests of the
construct validity of these studies. The method utilized obtains self-reports of the frequency of

2
However, Schlenker and Weigold (1989) reported that privately self-consciousness people tend to present them-
selves to others as ``appearing autonomous'' not ``behaving autonomous'' in the face of audiences.
704 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

Fig. 1. Two-component model of self-presentation.

use of 13 self-presentation tactics. The focus on speci®c behaviors avoids the over-generality
associated with measuring motives, as in the case of the social desirability scale. It is assumed
that a ``track record'' of prior behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

1.1. Types of self-presentation tactics

Creation of the self-presentation tactics scale was based on the theory of Tedeschi et al.
(Tedeschi and Lindskold, 1976; Tedeschi, 1981; Tedeschi and Melburg, 1984) which divides
self-presentation tactics into two distinct categories: defensive and assertive (see Fig. 1).
Defensive and assertive self-presentation tactics have di€erent interpersonal purposes. Assertive
self-presentations are meant to develop or create identities, whereas defensive tactics are used
in order to defend or restore an identity which has been spoiled.
In order to examine speci®c tactics of impression management we identi®ed 13 tactics most
often discussed in the literature and which can be categorized as either defensive or assertive
tactics (e.g. Tedeschi and Lindskold, 1976; Schlenker, 1980; Jones and Pittman, 1982). The
conceptual de®nitions provided by impression management theorists were used as a basis for
developing items to measure each tactic.

1.1.1. Defensive self-presentation tactics.

(a) Excuses: verbal statements denying responsibility for negative events (Tedeschi and
Lindskold, 1976). (b) Justi®cations: providing overriding reasons for negative behavior as
justi®ed, but accepting responsibility for it (Scott and Lyman, 1968). (c) Disclaimers:
expressions o€ering explanations before predicaments occur (Hewitt and Stokes, 1975). (d)
Self-handicapping: the production of an obstacle to success with the intention of preventing
observers from making dispositional inferences about one's failure (Berglas and Jones, 1978).
(e) Apologies: a confession of responsibility for any harm done to others or negative events and
expressions of remorse and guilt (Tedeschi and Lindskold, 1976).
 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722 705

1.1.2. Assertive self-presentation tactics

(a) Ingratiation: actions performed to get others to like the actor so that the actor can gain
some advantage from them (Jones and Pittman, 1982). Ingratiation may take the form of self-
enhancing communication, ¯attery, opinion conformity and doing favors or giving gifts (Jones
and Wortman, 1973). (b) Intimidation: actions that have the intent to project an identity of the
actor as someone who is powerful and dangerous. Intimidation tactics are used to induce fear
in a target and increase the e€ectiveness of contingent threats (Jones and Pittman, 1982). (c)
Supplication: An actor projects himself or herself as weak and displays dependence to solicit
help from a target person (Jones and Pittman, 1982). (d) Entitlement: claims by an actor of
responsibility and credit for positive achievements (Tedeschi and Lindskold, 1976). (e)
Enhancement: An actor persuades others that the outcomes of his or her behavior are more
positive than they might have originally believed (Schlenker, 1980). (f) Basking: An actor
associates self with another person or group who is perceived positively by others, or asserts
the worth of a group to which he is positively linked (Cialdini and Richardson, 1980). (g)
Blasting: A behavior intended to produce or communicate negative evaluations of another
person or groups with which the actor is merely associated (Cialdini and Richardson, 1980).
(h) Exempli®cation: A behavior presenting the actor as morally worthy and as having integrity.
By using this tactic, an actor may elicit respect, imitation, or admiration from others (Jones
and Pittman, 1982).

2. Study 1: scale development

The major purpose of study 1 was to develop items to measure self-reports of frequency of
use of each of 13 self-presentation tactics. The relationships of the self-presentation tactics scale
to other personality scales were also examined. Selection of personality tests for purposes of
assessing discriminant validity was based on prior studies that had focused on developing a
measure of propensity for self-presentation.
Roth and his associates (Roth et al., 1988) have shown that scores on their measure of
favorable self-presentation were positively correlated with scores on the self-monitoring scale
(Snyder, 1974) and the social desirability scale (Crowne and Marlowe, 1964). In addition, they
found that scores on their measure of repudiative self-presentation were positively correlated
with scores on the social anxiety scale (Fenigstein et al., 1975). On the basis of these ®ndings,
we predicted that our measure of self-presentation would (a) be positively correlated with the
self-monitoring scale and that (b) scores on our defensive self-presentation subscales would be
positively correlated with the social anxiety scale. The relationship with Marlowe±Crowne,
however, is unclear. Self-monitoring has been shown to be negatively related to Marlowe±
Crowne (Snyder, 1974). As mentioned earlier not all behaviors assessed by the self-presentation
tactics scale present a positive identity. However, as the self-presentation tactics scale measures
presentation of both positive and negative identities no predictions are made at this time
concerning the relationship between our scale and social desirability.
Finally, gender di€erences in degree of proclivity for using self-presentation tactics were
examined. According to Deaux (1977) men are more assertive in presenting themselves to
others, while women tend to be more defensive. To date, however, few studies have examined
706 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

gender di€erences in using speci®c self-presentation tactics and the ®ndings have been
inconsistent with one another. For example, some researchers have reported that men use self-
handicapping tactics more than women do (Berglas and Jones, 1978; Harris and Snyder, 1986;
Shepperd and Arkin, 1989b), while others found no gender di€erences in self-handicapping
(Strube, 1985; Shepperd and Arkin, 1989a).

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants
A total of 206 college students (male = 96, female = 107, unknown = 3) from a large
Northeastern university participated as part of a requirement for an introductory psychology
course.

2.1.2. Procedures
All personality scales were administered to participants during a mass testing session in a
regular class and also in small groups in the laboratory. Participants were asked to write down
their student identi®cation numbers3, age and gender on the ®rst page of the questionnaire.

2.1.3. Materials
On the basis of the conceptual de®nitions in the research literature, the authors ®rst
individually developed multiple items believed to measure each self-presentation tactic. We then
together reviewed each item and brainstormed about the appropriate operationalization of each
tactic and revisions of items were made. Finally, we generated from 5 to 13 items to measure
each self-presentation tactic by using only items on which at least 3 of us agreed. For example,
5 items were generated to measure propensity to apologize and 13 items were generated to
measure ingratiation. Thus, a preliminary scale was established for each of 13 self-presentation
tactics. The scale consisted of a total of 90 items developed to measure 13 tactics4. All items
were randomized on the questionnaire to avoid response biases. To measure individual
proclivity for using self-presentation tactics, participants were asked to describe their use of
each tactic on a Likert type scale ranging from 1 (very infrequently) to 9 (very frequently). In
addition to the self-presentation tactics scale participants were also asked to respond to the
social anxiety scale (Fenigstein et al., 1975), the self-monitoring scale (Snyder, 1974) and the
social desirability scale (Crowne and Marlowe, 1964). The scales were presented in a random
order.

3
Having participants give their student identi®cation numbers was meant to increase accountability for their
answers. It is unclear what e€ects this might have had, or conversely what e€ects anonymity would have had. This
is, however, an empirical question which should be examined in the future.
4
A complete list of these 90 items is available from the S-JL on request.
 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722 707

2.2. Results and discussion

2.2.1. Initial selection of items

Initial analyses were carried out to select items that provided the best measures of internal
consistency for each of the 13 self-presentation scales. The criteria used for item selection were
the inter-item correlations of each tactic, the correlations of the individual items with a
composite score for each tactic and the correlation of items with total score on the self-
presentation tactics scale. One or two items were eliminated for each tactic because they had
low correlations with the other items. Items were also deleted in order to increase Cronbach's
alpha (Cronbach, 1951) which is an estimate of internal consistency. By carrying out these 2
steps repeatedly, we reduced items and ended up with a total of 73 items. The scores on those
items were then subjected to further analyses.

2.2.2. Internal consistency

The internal consistency of the self-presentation tactics scales, the means obtained on each of
the scales, the standard deviations and reliability coecients are shown in the Table 1. As can
be seen, the levels of internal consistency for each scale except Basking were acceptable
(Nunnally, 1978).
Subscales measuring defensive and assertive self-presentation were created. The defensive
self-presentation subscale score was determined by adding the individual's raw scores on

Table 1
Scale means, standard deviations and Cronbach's alpha reliability

Scales Study 1 (N = 206) Study 2 (N = 395)

mean S.D. alpha item (n) mean S.D. alpha item (n)

TSPT 4.51 1.44 0.94 73 4.42 1.53 0.93 63

DSPT 4.91 1.50 0.89 25 4.92 1.53 0.86 25
Excuse 4.34 1.58 0.83 5 4.38 1.65 0.81 5
Justi®cation 4.87 1.53 0.79 5 4.86 1.59 0.78 5
Disclaimer 4.37 1.58 0.78 5 4.64 1.54 0.72 5
Self-handicapping 4.13 1.50 0.62 5 3.92 1.45 0.58 5
Apology 6.84 1.30 0.71 5 6.81 1.40 0.74 5
ASPT 4.10 1.38 0.92 48 3.91 1.52 0.91 38
Ingratiation 4.42 1.24 0.80 11 4.21 1.37 0.78 8
Intimidation 3.16 1.50 0.83 6 2.95 1.63 0.83 5
Supplication 3.82 1.24 0.63 5 3.92 1.34 0.60 5
Entitlement 3.83 1.33 0.78 7 3.55 1.53 0.80 5
Enhancement 3.52 1.46 0.76 5 3.67 1.59 0.78 5
Blasting 3.91 1.56 0.73 5 3.62 1.53 0.68 5
Basking 4.53 1.15 0.52 3 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
Exempli®cation 5.58 1.52 0.83 6 5.47 1.66 0.83 5

1 = very infrequently and 9 = very frequently. In study 2, data for Basking was omitted due to the low level of in-
ternal consistency. TSPT = total of DSPT and ASPT scores; DSPT = defensive self-presentation tactics;
ASPT = assertive self-presentation tactics.
708 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

excuse, justi®cation, disclaimer, self-handicapping and apology. For the assertive self-
presentation subscale, the individual's raw scores on the remaining scales were added (i.e.
ingratiation, intimidation, supplication, entitlement, enhancement, blasting, basking and
exempli®cation). The alphas for the defensive self-presentation subscale and the assertive self-
presentation subscale were 0.89 and 0.92, respectively. The alpha for total items was 0.94.

2.2.3. Relationship to other scales

As shown in Table 2, the total scores on the self-presentation tactics scale were positively
correlated with scores on the self-monitoring scale, but were negatively correlated with scores
on the Marlowe±Crowne social desirability scale. Both of the subscales (i.e. for defensive and
assertive tactics) had the same pattern of relationships to self-monitoring and social desirability
as did the overall scores. These 2 self-presentation subscales were positively correlated to each
other (r = 0.54, p < 0.01). While the defensive self-presentation subscale was not signi®cantly
correlated with the social anxiety scale, the excuses and self-handicapping scales were positively
correlated with social anxiety.

2.2.4. Gender e€ects

We also examined gender di€erences in the scores on each scale of the 13 tactics.
Using the 13 self-presentation tactics scales as dependent variables, one-way multivariate

Table 2
Correlations between the self-presentation tactics scale and other scales

Scales Study 1 Study 2 Study 4

SA SM MC SA SM MC LC SHS

TSPT 0.06 0.48** ÿ 0.26** 0.19** 0.35** ÿ 0.31** 0.09 0.32**

DSPT 0.13 0.36** ÿ 0.23** 0.26** 0.29** ÿ 0.27** 0.16** 0.44**
Excuse 0.15* 0.45** ÿ 0.37** 0.22** 0.30** ÿ 0.38** 0.17** 0.40**
Justi®cation 0.03 0.42** ÿ 0.22** 0.14** 0.26** ÿ 0.22** 0.07 0.22**
Disclaimer 0.12 0.34** ÿ 0.17* 0.26** 0.24** ÿ 0.22** 0.13* 0.38**
Self ÿhandicapping 0.20** 0.15* ÿ 0.26** 0.31** 0.14** ÿ 0.30** 0.25** 0.55**
Apology ÿ0.04 ÿ 0.11 0.24** ÿ 0.05 0.01 0.24** ÿ 0.10* ÿ 0.02
ASPT ÿ0.05 0.50** ÿ 0.22** 0.08 0.35** ÿ 0.30** 0.01 0.19**
Ingratiation 0.03 0.53** ÿ 0.17* 0.04 0.34** ÿ 0.21** 0.04 0.19**
Intimidation ÿ0.08 0.26** ÿ 0.20** ÿ 0.05 0.17** ÿ 0.26** 0.01 0.10
Supplication 0.20** 0.31** ÿ 0.23** 0.31** 0.14** ÿ 0.26** 0.17** 0.40**
Entitlement ÿ0.01 0.40** ÿ 0.30** 0.02 0.28** ÿ 0.22** 0.03 0.13*
Enhancement ÿ0.04 0.42** ÿ 0.23** 0.11 0.26** ÿ 0.28** 0.02 0.14*
Blasting 0.09 0.41** ÿ 0.34** 0.01 0.28** ÿ 0.37** 0.03 0.21**
Basking ÿ0.10 0.33** 0.00 ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
Exempli®cation ÿ0.28** 0.12 0.27** 0.00 0.17** 0.09 ÿ 0.14** ÿ 0.20**

In studies 2 and 4, data for Basking was omitted due to the low level of internal consistency. TSPT = total of DSPT
and ASPT scores; DSPT = defensive self-presentation tactics; SA = social anxiety; SM = self-monitoring;
MC = Marlowe±Crowne; LC = locus of control; SHS = self-handicapping scale.*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722 709

Table 3
Means and standard deviations for the self-presentation tactics scale

Scales Study 1 Study 2

male female male female

M S.D. M S.D. F(1,198) M S.D. M S.D. F(1,376)

DSPT 4.84 1.00 4.97 1.19 0.59 4.90 1.09 4.94 1.01 0.17
Excuse 4.40 1.49 4.28 1.65 0.30 4.50 1.63 4.29 1.65 1.52
Justi®cation 4.99 1.41 4.76 1.63 1.12 5.03 1.62 4.71 1.55 3.89*
Disclaimer 4.38 1.45 4.36 1.69 0.01 4.61 1.53 4.67 1.56 0.17
Self-handicapping 3.98 1.39 4.26 1.58 1.80 3.80 1.50 4.01 1.40 1.90
Apology 6.47 1.29 7.16 1.22 15.08*** 6.55 1.37 7.03 1.39 11.42***
ASPT 4.39 0.98 3.84 0.83 18.23*** 4.28 0.98 3.60 0.97 45.19***
Ingratiation 4.65 1.20 4.21 1.24 6.48* 4.55 1.34 3.92 1.33 21.08***
Intimidation 3.58 1.56 2.78 1.33 15.43*** 3.56 1.71 2.43 1.36 51.11***
Supplication 3.87 1.24 3.77 1.25 0.30 3.97 1.34 3.87 1.34 0.54
Entitlement 4.22 1.43 3.48 1.14 16.46*** 3.93 1.51 3.21 1.47 21.64***
Enhancement 3.90 1.54 3.19 1.31 12.11*** 4.13 1.66 3.29 1.43 27.72***
Blasting 4.38 1.62 3.49 1.39 17.71*** 4.16 1.50 3.16 1.40 44.35***
Basking 4.87 1.18 4.24 1.04 16.10*** ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
Exempli®cation 5.63 1.45 5.54 1.58 0.17 5.65 1.58 5.32 1.72 3.69

1 = very infrequently and 9 = very frequently. In study 2, Basking was deleted due to the low level of internal con-
sistency. No data for Basking will be reported. DSPT = defensive self-presentation tactics; ASPT = assertive self-
presentation tactics.*p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.

analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated that the main e€ect of gender was signi®cant,
F(13,186) = 3.82, p < 0.001. Univariate follow-up tests indicated that men had signi®cantly
higher scores on ingratiation, F(1,198) = 6.48, p < 0.05, intimidation F(1,198) = 15.43,
p < 0.001, entitlement, F(1,198) = 16.46, p < 0.001, enhancement, F(1,198) = 12.11,
p < 0.001, blasting, F(1,198) = 17.71, p < 0.001 and basking, F(1,198) = 16.10, p < 0.001.
Women had a signi®cantly higher score only on apology, F(1,198) = 15.08, p < 0.001. There
were no gender di€erences in the scores on excuse, justi®cation, disclaimer, self-handicapping,
supplication and exempli®cation ( ps>0.05). The means by gender for all scales are shown in
Table 3.
To examine overall gender di€erences in using assertive and defensive self-presentation
tactics, the scores for the defensive and assertive self-presentation subscales were used as
dependent variables in a one-way MANOVA. The main e€ect of gender was signi®cant,
F(2,197) = 16.94, p < 0.0001. Univariate follow-up tests indicated that there was no gender
di€erence in scores on the defensive scale ( p > 0.05). However, men reported that they more
frequently used assertive tactics (M = 4.39, S.D. = 0.98) than did women (M = 3.84,
S.D. = 0.83), F(1,198) = 18.23, p < 0.001.
710 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

3. Study 2: test of validity and dimensionality

The results from study 1 were encouraging in that adequate reliability was established for
items making up 12 of the 13 scales. Furthermore, signi®cant correlations with scales
commonly believed to measure some aspects of self-presentation, along with the associations
between excuses and self-handicapping to social anxiety provided some support for the
discriminant validity of the self-presentation tactics scale. Study 2 was undertaken to ®ne tune
the internal consistency of the scales, to further examine discriminant validity and to analyze
the underlying structure of the revised measure.
A total of 73 items from study 1 were re-examined with a new population of respondents.
Again, Marlowe±Crowne, self-monitoring, and social anxiety scales were administered to all
respondents. In addition, the locus of control scale was administered (Rotter, 1966). External
controllers have been found to be more likely than internal controllers to use excuses in
following failure (Basgall and Snyder, 1988; Wang and Anderson, 1994). Based on these results
it was expected that people high in external control orientation should have higher scores on
the defensive tactics subscales than people with an internal control orientation.
Finally, con®rmatory factor analysis was employed to examine whether the structure of self-
presentation consists of a single underlying factor or whether it is a dual-faceted phenomenon
as proposed by some (e.g., Tedeschi and Lindskold, 1976; Tedeschi and Melburg, 1984).
Con®rmatory factor analysis is preferable to exploratory when one has a theoretical rationale
for the proposed structure of the factors (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), as in the present case,
because it allows for theory testing. The high internal consistency coecient of the entire self-
presentation tactics scale (a = 0.94) in study 1 suggests a single dimension underlying it. To our
knowledge, no one has proposed a one-factor model of self-presentation. On the other hand,
Tedeschi et al. proposed that the causal factors that elicit assertive and defensive tactics are
di€erent, and hence, they imply a 2-component model of self-presentation.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants
A total of 395 college students (male = 179, female = 212, unknown = 4) from a large
Northeastern university participated as part of a requirement for an introductory psychology
course.

3.1.2. Procedures
The procedures for this study were identical to those used in study 1, except that the locus of
control scale (Rotter, 1966) was added to the questionnaire. The 73 items from the self-
presentation tactics scale that survived reliability analyses in study 1 were administered to all
subjects.

3.2. Results and discussion

From the 73 items administered in study 2, 10 items were eliminated, including all basking
items in order to achieve high levels of internal consistency and more equal numbers of items
 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722 711

across scales. All basking items were dropped and basking was not examined further due to the
low level of internal consistency of those items (a = 0.22)5. The 63 items that were retained are
shown in Appendix A. It can be seen that 5 items were used for each of 11 subscales and 8
items were used to assess ingratiation6.

3.2.1. Internal consistency

The means obtained on each of the scales, the standard deviations, and reliability coecients
are shown in Table 1. As can be seen, the values of alpha for all 12 scales were acceptable
(Nunnally, 1978). The alphas for the defensive and the assertive self-presentation subscales
were 0.86 and 0.91, respectively. The alpha for total items was 0.93. The alphas for the scales
were highly similar to those obtained in study 1.

3.2.2. Relationship to other scales

The relationships of the scores on the self-presentation subscales for defensive and assertive
tactics to the measures of self-monitoring and Marlowe±Crowne replicated those found in
study 1 (Table 2). Scores on the defensive self-presentation subscale were signi®cantly
correlated with social anxiety (r = 0.26, p < 0.05) and with external locus of control (r = 0.16,
p < 0.05). The ®nding of a positive correlation between our measure of defensive self-
presentation and social anxiety replicates study 1 and is consistent with the contention that
social anxiety is related to defensive self-presentation (Schlenker and Leary, 1982, 1985; Strube,
1985). The assertive self-presentation subscale was not correlated with either social anxiety or
locus of control ( ps>0.05). These ®ndings suggest that the defensive and assertive self-
presentation subscales measure di€erent but related constructs. However, the defensive and
assertive self-presentation subscales were again strongly and positively correlated (r = 0.62,
p < 0.01), indicating that a person who frequently uses assertive tactics is also likely to more
frequently use defensive tactics and a person who infrequently uses assertive tactics does not
often use defensive tactics.

3.2.3. Gender e€ects

Using the 12 self-presentation tactics scales as dependent variables, a one-way multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) also indicated that the main e€ect of gender was signi®cant,
F(12,365) = 9.77, p < 0.001. As shown in Table 3, univariate follow-up tests indicated that men
had signi®cantly higher scores on justi®cation, F(1,376) = 3.89, p < 0.05, ingratiation,
F(1,376) = 21.08, p < 0.001, intimidation, F(1,376) = 51.11, p < 0.001, entitlement,

5
Additionally, basking is the only tactic in the SPT which is not primarily a verbal behavior. For this reason,
along with the measure's low internal consistency, it was dropped from the scale. Readers should note then that the
SPT is a measure of self-presentation tactics which are primarily, but not exclusively, verbal in nature. It is likely
that proclivity to engage in verbal self-presentation is predictive of non-verbal self-presentation but additional
research is needed to examine this hypothesis.
6
Ingratiation is a complex structure with such various aspects as complimenting others, opinion conformity, ren-
dering favor and self-aggrandizement. To appropriately measure this tactic, we ended up with 8 items instead of 5
items because the scale with 8 items had good psychometric properties in study 1 and study 2 and avoids the criti-
cism of ``construct underepresentation'' (Cook and Campbell, 1979).
712 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

F(1,376) = 21.64, p < 0.001, enhancement, F(1,376) = 27.72, p < 0.001 and blasting,
F(1,376) = 44.35, p < 0.001. Women had a signi®cantly higher score only for apologies,
F(1,376) = 11.42, p < 0.001. There were no gender di€erences for the scales measuring excuses,
disclaimers, self-handicapping, supplication and exempli®cation ( ps>0.05). The means by
gender for all scales are shown in Table 3.
To examine overall gender di€erences in using assertive and defensive self-presentation
tactics, the scores for the defensive and assertive self-presentation subscales were used as
dependent variables in a one-way MANOVA. The main e€ect of gender was signi®cant,
F(2,375) = 43.18, p < 0.0001. Univariate follow-up tests indicated that there was no gender
di€erence in scores on the defensive self-presentation subscale ( p > 0.10). However, men
reported that they more frequently used assertive tactics (M = 4.28, S.D. = 1.01) than did
women (M = 3.60, S.D. = 0.97), F(1,376) = 45.19, p < 0.001.

3.2.4. Dimensionality of the self-presentation tactics scale

Discussions of self-presentation frequently assume that the actor is primarily concerned with
presenting a positive identity to others so as to gain social approval from them. If a need for
approval is the basic reason for engaging in self-presentation tactics, the underlying structure
of the self-presentation tactics scale may be unidimensional. Indeed, it was found in studies 1
and 2 that the overall internal consistency of items was very high, providing some evidence
that the structure might be unidimensional. However, the negative relationship between the
self-presentation tactics scale and the social desirability scale is not consistent with the
hypothesis that self-presentation is motivated primarily by a concern for social approval.
Additionally, the ®nding that defensive self-presentation, but not assertiveness, was related to
locus of control and to social anxiety, suggests a 2-factor structure consistent with the
proposition of Tedeschi and Lindskold (1976).
To test these competing models con®rmatory factor analysis with a maximum likelihood
method was carried out using LISREL VIII (JoÈreskog and SoÈrbom, 1993). Comparisons were
made between a one-factor model which assumes that one underlying factor or latent variable
can account for the covariance matrix among the 12 self-presentation tactics and a 2-factor
model which assumes that there are 2 underlying factors or latent variables that account for
the covariance matrix. First, we examined multiple ®t criteria rather than rely on a single
statistic: a w 2 statistic, a goodness-of-®t index (JoÈreskog and SoÈrbom, 1993) and the
comparative ®t index (Bentler, 1990). Second, we performed t-tests to assess whether individual
path coecients between latent variables (or factors) and observed variables were reliably
di€erent from zero. Finally, a one-factor model was compared to a 2-factor model by assessing
a di€erence in overall w 2 for the 2 models (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Anderson and Gerbing,
1988; Breckler, 1990).
The ®t criteria data for the 2 models are shown in Table 4. As can be seen, the w 2 for the
one factor model was signi®cant, w 2(54) = 474.06, p < 0.001. The values of GFI and CFI for
the one factor model (model 1) indicate that the goodness-of-®t is poor. All of the path
coecients were statistically signi®cant from zero ( p < 0.05). Thus, each tactic is signi®cantly
related to a higher order factor of self-presentation.
The two-factor solution is shown in Table 4. As can be seen, all but one of the defensive
tactics loaded on factor 1 and all of the assertive tactics loaded on factor 2. While w 2 for the
 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722 713

Table 4
Factor loadings and ®tting indices

Measures Model 1 Model 2

factor 1 factor 2

Factor loadings
Excuse 0.80 0.85 ÿ
Justi®cation 0.73 0.82 ÿ
Disclaimer 0.67 0.80 ÿ
Self ÿhandicapping 0.46 0.50 ÿ
Apology ÿ0.15 ÿ 0.07 ÿ
Ingratiation 0.76 ÿ 0.76
Intimidation 0.37 ÿ 0.39
Supplication 0.59 ÿ 0.56
Entitlement 0.85 ÿ 0.91
Enhancement 0.85 ÿ 0.88
Blasting 0.62 ÿ 0.63
Exempli®cation 0.22 ÿ 0.21

Model 1 Model 2
Goodness-of-®t indices
w2 476.04* 315.74*
df 54 53
GFI 0.80 0.87
CFI 0.80 0.88

GFI = goodness-of-®t index; CFI = comparative ®t index. All factor loadings except apology in model 1 are signi®-
cant at p < 0.05.*p < 0.05.

two-factor model was signi®cant, w 2(53) = 315.74, p < 0.001, the values of GFI and CFI
indicate a relatively good model ®t. Path coecients between the latent variables and observed
variables were statistically signi®cant ( p < 0.05) for all subscales except apology. The 2 latent
variables were also signi®cantly correlated each other, r = 0.79, p < 0.001.
The hypothesis that the goodness of ®t of model 2 over model 1 is statistically signi®cant
was tested, by using the overall w 2 di€erences (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988; Breckler, 1990). The w 2 di€erence was statistically signi®cant, w 2(1) = 158.32,
p < 0.001, indicating a better ®t for the two-factor model. The values of GFI and CFI also
suggest the advantage of the two-factor model over a one factor model. Overall, the results of
these analyses indicate that defensive tactics and assertive tactics, although correlated, are
distinct constructs.

4. Study 3: test-retest reliability

The ®rst 2 studies have shown that the self-presentation tactics scale has adequate internal
consistency, but it remains to be demonstrated that it has acceptable test-retest reliability. If
714 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

the SPT is consistent across time, a high correlation should be obtained between scores on a
®rst administration and scores on a second administration with the same set of respondents.

4.1. Method

4.1.1. Participants
A total of 98 college students (male = 37, female = 61) from a large Northeastern university
participated in the ®rst session as part of a requirement for an introductory psychology course.
Seventy seven of these same students (male = 28, female = 49) participated in the second test
session. The data from 2 females in the second session were dropped because of failure to
follow instructions. Because of some incomplete responses ®nal sample sizes for assessing test-
retest reliability ranged from 71 to 75.

4.1.2. Procedures
The instructions for this study were identical to those used in study 1. On 2 separate
administrations all participants completed the self-presentation tactics scale consisting of the 63
items shown in the Appendix A. They participated in small group testing sessions. The average
interval between the 2 sessions was 3 weeks.

4.2. Results and discussion

4.2.1. Test-retest correlation

The test-retest correlation of the total score on the self-presentation scales was r = 0.89,
p < 0.001. The test-retest correlations for the defensive self-presentation and the assertive self-
presentation subscales were 0.88 and 0.87, respectively ( p < 0.001). Test-retest correlations for
the scales associated with each speci®c tactic were as follows: 0.71 for excuses, 0.70 for
justi®cations, 0.75 for disclaimers, 0.83 for self-handicapping, 0.51 for apologies, 0.81 for
ingratiation, 0.79 for intimidation, 0.85 for supplication, 0.77 for entitlements, 0.80 for
enhancements, 0.75 for blasting and 0.73 exempli®cation. All tests in this study were two-tailed
( ps < 0.001). Overall, the results indicated that the self-presentation tactic scale reliably
measured individual proclivity for using self-presentation tactics over time.

4.2.2. Gender e€ects

Using the scores for the defensive and assertive self-presentation subscales, a one-way
MANOVA indicated that the main e€ect of gender was signi®cant, F(2,68) = 3.17, p < 0.05.
However, univariate follow-up tests showed no gender di€erence in scores for either the
defensive self-presentation subscale or the assertive self-presentation subscale ( ps>0.05).

5. Study 4: relationship of SPT to the self-handicapping scale

In order to better estimate the validity of the SPT, we examined the relationship of the SPT
to another measure of a self-presentational tactic, the self-handicapping scale (SHS; Jones and
Rhodewalt, 1982). By comparing a measure of one of the tactics measured by SPT, we can
 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722 715

examine the convergent validity of the speci®c sub-scale as well as the discriminant validity of
the other sub-scales. If our measure of self-presentation tactics has validity it should be related
to another measure of self-handicapping. Additionally, as self-handicapping is a defensive self-
presentation tactic, the self handicapping scale should be more strongly related to the other
defensive tactics than it is to assertive tactics. The strongest correlation should be between our
self-handicapping measure and the Jones and Rhodewalt (1982) measure.

5.1. Method

5.1.1. Participants
Two hundred and thirty two undergraduate students (114 males, 117 females, 1 unidenti®ed)
participated in partial ful®llment of a introductory psychology course research requirement.
Mean age of the participants was 18.74 yr.

5.1.2. Procedure
The instructions for this study were identical to those used in study 1. The participants were
administrated the 63 item self-presentation tactics scale along with the Jones and Rhodewalt
(1982) self-handicapping scale which measures individuals' propensity to use self-handicapping
behaviors such as procrastination, illness and overindulgence. Participants worked on the scales
in the laboratory while waiting to participate in another study.

5.2. Results

As can be seen in Table 2 the Jones and Rhodewalt (1982) self-handicapping scale was more
highly correlated with the defensive sub-scale of the SPT, r = 0.44, p < 0.05, than with the
assertive subscale, r = 0.19, p < 0.05. The di€erence between these two correlations was
examined through transforming the correlations into z scores and computing the di€erence
between the z scores. The comparison produced a signi®cant z score of the di€erence,
zdi€ = 2.99, p < 0.05, indicting that the SHS was more highly correlated with the defensive self-
presentation subscale than the assertive self-presentation subscale. Examining the correlations
at the level of our individual tactics scales, the largest correlation was with the self-
handicapping subscale of the SPT. With the exceptions of apology and supplication, the SHS
was more strongly related to the individual defensive tactic subscales than to the assertive
tactic subscales.

5.2.1. Gender e€ects

Using the scores for the defensive and assertive self-presentation subscales, a one-way
MANOVA indicated that the main e€ect of gender was signi®cant, F(2,228) = 25.50, p < 0.05.
There was a signi®cant univariate e€ect of gender on assertive self-presentation
F(1,229) = 12.81, p < 0.05, indicating that men scored higher than women. There was also a
signi®cant univariate e€ect of gender on defensive self-presentation, F(1,229) = 5.04, p < 0.05,
indicting that women scored slightly higher than men.
In order to examine the reliability and strength of gender e€ects, e€ect sizes for the overall
gender di€erences in using the assertive and defensive self-presentation tactics were calculated
716 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

for each of the 4 studies and overall e€ect size was also calculated. The e€ect size calculated
was g, which represents the standardized di€erence between males and females in frequency of
reported use of self-presentational behaviors. The gs were transformed into ds as g tends to
overestimate the population e€ect size with small samples (see Hedges and Olkin, 1985).
For the defensive subscale, the overall unweighted mean e€ect size was ÿ0.14. The overall
mean e€ect size weighted by sample size was ÿ0.13, (95% CI = ÿ0.26 to 0.01). The 4 studies
were homogeneous as indicted by Q, w 2(2) = 1.86, p = 0.60. Homogeneity of e€ect sizes
indicates that the lack of a gender di€erence on the defensive self-presentation subscale is
consistent across all 4 studies. For the assertive subscale, the overall unweighted mean e€ect
size was 0.51 and the overall mean e€ect size weighted by sample size was 0.57, (95%
CI = 0.43 to 0.70) showing a signi®cant e€ect across all 4 studies. The 4 studies were also
homogeneous, w 2(2) = 3.73, p = 0.29, suggesting that men reported using assertive self-
presentation tactics more frequently than females across all 4 studies.

6. General discussion

The results of the 4 studies reported indicate that the self-presentation tactics scale is reliable
and provides encouraging evidence for the scale's validity. Cronbach's alpha indicated good
internal reliability for the items measuring each of the 12 tactics that made up the self-
presentation tactics scale and a high value of alpha for the complete scale. The test-retest
correlations obtained in study 3 also revealed that the scale was highly reliable over time.
In addition to positive evidence for reliability, the correlations of the self-presentation tactics
scale with other personality measures indicated that it measures a unique construct di€erent
from other personality constructs related to self-presentation. While self-monitoring and
Marlowe±Crowne scales tended to be signi®cantly correlated with each of the 12 self-
presentation tactics scales, the correlations were low or moderate. The negative relationship
between the self-presentation tactics scale and the Marlowe±Crowne was consistently obtained
in both studies 1 and 2 of the present study. This negative relationship is consistent with the
®nding that high self-presenters are less likely to report that they engage in socially desirable
behaviors (Snyder, 1974). Although this ®nding seems counter-intuitive it is consistent with
other research on self-presentation. Marlowe±Crowne is a measure of need for approval.
Snyder (1985) suggested that people who score high on Marlowe±Crowne, while they have a
high need for approval, may lack the ability to gain social approval. Those high in need for
approval are described by their peers as loners who do not go out of their way to make friends
(Crowne and Marlowe, 1964). Additionally, according to Zaidel and Mehrabian (1969), those
with high need for approval are less able to communicate their feelings both verbally and
nonverbally. In the present context, it may be that those high in need for approval lack self-
presentational skills and engage in self-presentation tactics less frequently. Perhaps the inability
to engage in self-presentation leads to less approval from others which in turn causes the
development of a need to gain approval. However, the relationship between need for approval
and ability to engage in self-presentation is an area in which more research is still needed.
The defensive self-presentation subscale was positively correlated with the social anxiety scale
and the locus of control scale, while the assertive self-presentation subscale was not correlated
 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722 717

with the two personality scales. These ®ndings provide evidence of the discriminant validity of
the self-presentation tactics scale. Additionally, the data from study 4 indicate that the
defensive sub-scales are more highly correlated with a measure of self-handicapping than are
assertive sub-scales. Our self handicapping sub-scale was more highly correlated with the Jones
and Rhodewalt (1982) measure of self-handicapping than were any of the other sub-scales,
indicating strong evidence for the convergent validity of our self-handicapping scale and for the
discriminant validity of the other measures. In sum, the relationships of our scale to other
scales clearly provided evidence for the validity of the self-presentation tactics scale.
Three ®ndings clearly suggested that the structure of the self-presentation tactics scale is
minimally two-dimensional: (a) defensive tactics are generally correlated with social anxiety
and external control orientation, but assertive tactics are not correlated with these two
personality scales; (b) men generally use more assertive self-presentation tactics than do
women, but there were no gender di€erences on the use of defensive tactics; and (c) the results
of the con®rmatory factor analysis demonstrating that a two-factor solution produced a better
®t to the data than a one-factor solution. Even though the overall w 2 test of the goodness of ®t
of the two-factor solution was statistically signi®cant, we do not reject a two-factor model. w 2
results are strongly a€ected by the increased statistical power associated with sample size.
Thus, in study 2 which had a large sample size, the w 2 test could yield a signi®cant value even
when the discrepancy between the predicted model and the observed data was trivial
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bollen, 1989). Several indices, such as the overall w 2 di€erences
test, GFI and CFI indicated that two factors is an acceptable model ®tting the obtained data.
On the other hand, we cannot de®nitely reject a one factor model based on con®rmatory factor
analysis alone. In covariance structure models, ``acceptable models are those that the data fail
to discon®rm; when a model is not discon®rmed, many other equally ®tting models are also
not discon®rmed'' (Breckler, 1990, p. 262). However, the results of a statistical comparison of
the two models clearly support a two-factor rather than a one-factor structure.
The gender di€erences found are partially consistent with the contention that men are
assertive and women are defensive (e.g. Deaux, 1977). These tendencies are re¯ected by the
signi®cantly higher scores of men on the assertive self-presentation subscale and the lack of a
gender di€erence on the defensive subscale. Study 3 was the only study in which some gender
di€erences in use of self-presentation tactics were not found. Calculation of standardized e€ect
sizes over the 4 studies indicate that the gender di€erence on use of assertive tactics is a
consistent e€ect and that there are no di€erences in use of defensive tactics.
An important aspect of the self-presentation tactics scale is that it is the ®rst measure of a
person's reported tendency to use speci®c self-presentation tactics. Most of the test
construction related to self-presentation has measured a general tendency to desire social
approval or avoid social disapproval (e.g. Crowne and Marlowe, 1964; Roth et al., 1986,
1988). Although scales have been developed to measure the tendency to use a speci®c tactic,
such as self-handicapping (Jones and Rhodewalt, 1982), no previous test has attempted to
measure the wide range of tactics represented by the self-presentation tactics scale. The
instrument developed here should have better predictive power in a variety of situations where
speci®c tactics are expected to occur. For example, in Arkin's (Arkin, 1980; Shepperd and
Arkin, 1989a,b) work on self-handicapping, our speci®c scale measuring reported frequency of
self-handicapping and scores on the defensive presentation subscale should predict who would
718 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

be more likely to handicap themselves in a particular research paradigm. However, the

usefulness of the scale in predicting behavior has yet to be tested. Future validation of the scale
should employ experimental paradigms in which self-presentation has been shown to be a
factor. The scale should predict participants' reactions in these paradigms. Although we
already have evidence for discriminant and convergent validity, experimental studies are needed
to provide predictive validity information. As Curtis and Jackson (1962) mentioned: ``criterion
variables do not determine that a given indicator should be absolutely accepted or rejected as
valid but only increase the likelihood of validity'' (p. 199). The results of the 4 studies reported
here have provided encouragement for further research regarding the validity of the self-
presentation tactics scale.

Acknowledgements

Portions of this article were presented at the meetings of the American Psychological
Society, New York City, New York, June, 1995 and Washington, DC, May, 1997.

Appendix A. The self-presentation tactic scale

On the following pages you will be asked a number of questions dealing with your
perceptions of yourself. Please read the instructions carefully and try to respond to all the
items as openly and honestly as possible. There are no right or wrong answers. In responding
to the items, please circle the number on the scale which most closely represents your behavior.

Very infrequently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very frequently

Excuse
39. When I am blamed for something, I make excuses.
48. I make up excuses for poor performance.
36. When things go wrong, I explain why I am not responsible.
62. To avoid being blamed, I let others know that I did not intend any harm.
35. I try to convince others that I am not responsible for negative events.
Justi®cation
44. I o€er socially acceptable reasons to justify behavior that others might not like.
64. After a negative action, I try to make others understand that if they had been in my
position they would have done the same thing.
61. I o€er good reasons for my behavior no matter how bad it may seem to others.
45. When others view my behavior as negative, I o€er explanations so that they will under-
stand that my behavior was justi®ed.
05. I justify my behavior to reduce negative reactions from others.
Disclaimer
04. I o€er explanations before doing something that others might think is wrong.
17. I try to get the approval of others before doing something they might perceive
negatively.
 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722 719

10. When I believe I will not perform well, I o€er excuses beforehand.
25. I justify beforehand actions others may not like.
49. I o€er an excuse for possibly not performing well before taking a very dicult test.
Self-handicapping
58. Anxiety interferes with my performances.
53. I do not prepare well enough for exams because I get too involved in social activities.
57. I put obstacles in the way of my own success.
12. I get sick when under a lot of pressure to do well.
42. Poor health has been responsible for my getting mediocre grades in school.
Apology
13. I apologize when I have done something wrong.
29. I accept blame for bad behavior when it is clearly my fault.
50. I express remorse and guilt when I do something wrong.
18. I try to make up for any harm I have done to others.
03. If I harm someone, I apologize and promise not to do it again.
Ingratiation
52. When I want something, I try to look good.
38. I tell others about my positive qualities.
11. I use ¯attery to win the favor of others.
63. I compliment people to get them on my side.
09. I express the same attitudes as others so they will accept me.
33. I express opinions that other people will like.
28. I do favors for people in order to get them to like me.
43. I help others so they will help me.
Intimidation
51. I intimidate others.
01. I behave in ways that make other people afraid of me.
59. I do things to make people afraid of me so that they will do what I want.
02. I use my size and strength to in¯uence people when I need to.
32. I threaten others when I think it will help me get what I want from them.
Supplication
08. I ask others to help me.
54. I tell others they are stronger or more competent than me in order to get others to do
things for me.
14. I lead others to believe that I cannot do something in order to get help.
31. I hesitate and hope others will take responsibility for group tasks.
07. I use my weaknesses to get sympathy from others.
Entitlement
55. I claim credit for doing things I did not do.
40. I point out the positive things I do which other people fail to notice.
23. I tell people about my positive accomplishments.
46. When working on a project with a group I make my contribution seem greater than it is.
22. When telling someone about past events, I claim more credit for doing positive things
than was warranted by the actual events.
720 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

Enhancement
60. When I succeed at a task, I emphasize to others how important the task was.
30. I exaggerate the value of my accomplishments.
06. I tell people when I do well at tasks others ®nd dicult.
19. In telling others about things that I own, I also tell them of their value.
41. I do correct people who underestimate the value of gifts that I give to them.
Blasting
56. I make negative statements about people belonging to rival groups.
27. I have put others down in order to make myself look better.
34. I say negative things about unpopular groups.
20. I point out the incorrect positions of the opposing political party.
47. I exaggerate the negative qualities of people who compete with me.
Exempli®cation
24. I try to set an example for others to follow.
15. I try to serve as a model for-how a person should behave.
26. I try to get others to act in the same positive way I do.
37. I act in ways I think others should act.
21. I try to induce imitation by others by serving as a positive example.

References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411±423.
Arkin, R. M. (1980). Self-presentation. In D. M. Wegner, & R. R. Vallacher (Eds.), The self in social psychology (pp. 158±182). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentational styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research
(pp. 311±333). New York: Academic Press.
Basgall, J. A., & Snyder, C. R. (1988). Excuses in waiting: External locus of control and reactions to success-failure feedback. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 656±662.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3±26.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative ®t indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238±246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signi®cance tests and goodness of ®t in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 588±606.
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405±417.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental ®t index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303±
316.
Breckler, S. J. (1990). Overall ®t in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size e€ects. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256±259.
Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 679±686.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1985). Aspects of the self and the control of behavior. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life
(pp. 146±174). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of image management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 406±415.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for ®eld settings. NJ: Houghton Mu‚in.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coecient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica, 16, 297±334.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. A. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.
Curtis, R. F., & Jackson, E. F. (1962). Multiple indicators in survey research. American Journal of Sociology, 68, 195±204.
Deaux, K. (1977). Sex di€erences. In T. Blass (Ed.), Personality variables in social behavior (pp. 3570±377). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722 721

DePaulo, B. M., Epstein, J. A., & LeMay, C. S. (1990). Responses of the socially anxious to the prospect of interpersonal evalu-
ations. Journal of Personality, 58, 623±640.
Fenigstein, A. (1987). On the nature of public and private self-consciousness. Journal of Personality, 55, 543±554.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522±527.
Gabrenya, W. K., Jr., & Arkin, R. M. (1980). Self-monitoring scale: Factor structure and correlates. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 6, 13±22.
Go€man, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Harris, R. N., & Snyder, C. R. (1986). The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 451±458.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, L. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hewitt, J. P., & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers American Sociological Review, 40, 1±11.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives
on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231±262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jones, E. E., & Rhodewalt, F. (1982). The Self-handicapping scale. Unpublished manuscript at Princeton University/University of
Utah.
Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
JoÈreskog, K., & SoÈrbom, D. (1993). LISREL VIII. Mooresville, IN: Scienti®c Software, Inc.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 34±47.
Leary, M. R., Tchividjian, L. R., & Kraxberger, B. E. (1994). Self-presentation can be hazardous to your health: Impression manage-
ment and health risk. Health Psychology, 13, 461±470.
Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349±
1364.
Meleshko, K. G. A., & Alden, L. E. (1993). Anxiety and self-disclosure: Toward a motivational model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64, 1000±1009.
Nesler, M. S., Tedeschi, J. T., & Storr, D. M. (1995). Context e€ects, self-presentation, and the self-monitoring scale. Journal of
Research in Personality, 29, 273±284.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Roth, D. L., Harris, R. N., & Snyder, C. R. (1988). An individual di€erences measure of attributive and repudiative tactics of favor-
able self-presentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 159±170.
Roth, D., Snyder, C. R., & Pace, L. M. (1986). Dimensions of favorable self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 867±874.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs external reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, whole no. 609).
Scheier, M. F. (1980). E€ects of public and private self-consciousness on the public expression of personal beliefs. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 514±521.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/
Cole.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin,
92, 641±669.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1985). Social anxiety and communication about the self. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 4, 171±192.
Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1989). Goals and the self-identi®cation process: Constructing desired identities. In L. Pervin (Ed.),
Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 243±290). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scott, M. R., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts American Sociological Review, 33, 46±62.
Shepperd, J. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1989a). Determinants of self-handicapping: Task importance and the e€ects of preexisting handi-
caps on self-generated handicaps. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 101±112.
Shepperd, J. A., & Arkin, R. M. (1989b). Self-handicapping: The moderating roles of public self-consciousness and task importance.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 252±265.
Snell, W. E. (1989). Willingness to disclose to female and male friends as a function of social anxiety and gender. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 15, 113±125.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526±537.
Snyder, M. (1985). Public appearances private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.
Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A ®eld study of applicant impression management during job
interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587±606.
Strube, M. J. (1985). An analysis of the self-handicapping scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 211±224.
Tedeschi, J. T. (Ed.) (1981). Impression management theory and social psychological research. New York: Academic Press.
722 S.-J. Lee et al. / Personality and Individual Di€erences 26 (1999) 701±722

Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Lindskold, S. (1976). Social psychology: Interdependence, interaction, and in¯uence. New York: Wiley.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and in¯uence in the organization. Research in the Sociology of
Organization, 3, 31±58.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Rosenfeld, P. (1981). Impression management and the forced compliance situation. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.) Impression
management theory and social psychological research (pp. 147±180). New York: Academic Press.
Wang, D., & Anderson, N. H. (1994). Excuse-making and blaming as a function of internal-external locus of control. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 295±302.
Zaidel, S., & Mehrabian, A. (1969). The ability to communicate and infer positive and negative attitudes facially and vocally. Journal of
Experimental Research in Personality, 3, 233±241.