دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 38962
عنوان فارسی مقاله

مدیریت شخصیت و تصور: نقشه پرسشنامه شخصیتی چند بعدی بر روی 12 خودارائه گری تاکتیک

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
38962 2010 6 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
Personality and impression management: Mapping the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire onto 12 self-presentation tactics
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 48, Issue 5, April 2010, Pages 623–628

کلمات کلیدی
خودارائه گری - مدیریت قالبگیری - شخصیت - MPQ - هیجان خواهی منفی - خلق و خوی - اضطراب اجتماعی
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله مدیریت شخصیت و تصور: نقشه پرسشنامه شخصیتی چند بعدی بر روی 12 خودارائه گری تاکتیک

چکیده انگلیسی

Abstract This study examined the relations between Tellegen’s three-factor personality model, using the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), and 12 self-presentation tactics operationalized in the self-presentation tactics scale (SPT). Differential correlations of the MPQ higher-order domains and primary scales were predicted based on a review of the literature pertaining to each self-presentation tactic and the dimensional classifications of tactics. Joint exploratory factor analysis was used to determine structural relationship among the higher-order MPQ traits and SPT indicators. Results suggest an important role for basic emotional and interpersonal personality traits in the frequency and nature of impression management behaviors, overwhelmingly in the domain of Negative Emotionality. Evidence of construct validity for the SPT and further evidence of the discriminant validity of the MPQ higher-order dimensions and primary scales is also presented.

مقدمه انگلیسی

1. Introduction 1.1. General introduction An inescapable fact of everyday life is the need to “present well,” or to make a good impression on others, referred to as self-presentation or impression management (Goffman, 1959, Leary, 1995 and Schlenker, 2005). Self-presentation behaviors have often been explained by underlying needs and motives. The need to be liked, for example, manifests in ingratiating behavior, whereas the need to be seen as blameless prompts excuses. Lee, Quigley, Nesler, Corbett, and Tedeschi (1999) recently categorized 12 of the most studied self-presentation tactics as defensive or assertive based on previous work by Tedeschi and colleagues (Tedeschi, 1981 and Tedeschi and Melburg, 1984). Assertive tactics are behaviors used proactively to establish or develop an actor’s identity, whereas defensive tactics are behavioral efforts to repair or restore an identity after it has been “spoiled” (Lee et al., 1999). Defensive self-presentation has been associated with several indicators of negative affect or emotion. “Social anxiety arises in real or imagined social situations when people are motivated to make a particular impression on others but doubt that they will be able to do so, because they have expectations of unsatisfactory impression-relevant reactions from others” (Schlenker & Leary, 1982, p. 645). Socially anxious or shy individuals tend to employ defensive tactics such as verbal disclaimers and self-handicapping (Berglas and Jones, 1978 and Schlenker and Leary, 1982). Lee et al. (1999) found that defensive tactics, but not assertive tactics, were positively correlated with social anxiety and external locus of control. Other researchers have stressed the connections between self-presentation tactics generally and problematic personality features such as self-consciousness (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975), chronic insecurity and need for approval (Buss, 1980, Crowne and Marlowe, 1964 and Watson and Friend, 1969), fear of negative evaluation, anxiety, low self-esteem, and fear of failure (Doherty and Schlenker, 1991, Leary and Kowalski, 1995 and Schlenker and Pontari, 2000). There is less evidence linking self-presentation to Positive Emotionality. However, high self-monitors, as measured by the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974), are skilled at regulating expressions; they adopt more active, directive roles in social situations, and engage in strategic impression management more than low self-monitors. High self-monitoring individuals have been characterized as using assimilative ( Wolfe, Lennox, & Cutler, 1986) and acquisitive ( Arkin, 1981) forms of impression management that are conceptually similar to proactive assertive self-presentation tactics. High self-monitors express positive affect more often than negative affect ( Gangestad & Snyder, 2000) and tend to score higher than low self-monitors on measures of Extraversion and Social Potency ( John, Cheek, & Klohnen, 1996). Males and females tend to report using impression management tactics that are consistent with traditional masculine and feminine gender roles as would be expected on the basis of social role theory (Eagly, 1987) and socialization to stereotypes (Deaux, 1985). Females tend to use defensive tactics such as apologies and supplication, while males tend to use assertive tactics such as blasting and intimidation ( Forsyth, Schlenker, Leary, & McCown, 1985; see Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007 for a review). Lee et al. (1999) found that men reported more frequent use of assertive tactics than women, but found no sex difference in the self-report of defensive tactics. The present study is the first to examine associations between multiple self-presentation tactics and categories of tactics and personality broadly defined. Our specific aims were to: (a) predict the shared variance of higher-order personality domains and total, defensive, and assertive categories of self-presentation tactics, (b) predict relations between selected specific self-presentation tactics and primary personality traits both within and across higher-order personality domains, (c) investigate sex differences in self-presentation tactics, and (d) explore the joint factor structure of self-presentation tactics and higher-order personality factors. 1.2. The present study Personality traits are substantially heritable and stable dispositions (Bouchard et al., 1990, Pedersen et al., 1988 and Tellegen et al., 1988), rooted in biological mechanisms (e.g., Clark, Watson, & Mineka, 1994). Importantly, traits are distinct from the features of behavior that result from interactions between the influences of traits and the social environment (McCrae et al., 2005 and Tellegen and Waller, 2008). These behavioral features or “characteristic adaptations include habits, attitudes, skills, roles, and relationships … intended to help the individual adapt to the requirements and opportunities of the social environment” (McCrae et al., 2005, p. 272). Self-presentation behaviors may be viewed within this framework as behavioral adaptations developed through early experience in and evoked by social situations. Banerjee and Watling (2010) recently showed that self-presentational concerns and tactics are evident in middle childhood and are associated with social anxiety. Tellegen and Waller’s (2008) Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) operationalizes Tellegen’s (1985) three-factor model of personality. Positive Emotionality (PEM) and Negative Emotionality (NEM) are broad affect dimensions reflecting variation in susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. PEM and NEM subsume social, interpersonal and pure emotional constructs. Two primary traits, Wellbeing and Stress Reaction, represent the core emotional dispositions of PEM and NEM, respectively. The interpersonal aspects of PEM are measured at the facet level by Achievement and Social Potency (agency) and Social Closeness (communion), and in NEM by Aggression (confrontation) and Alienation (estrangement). The higher-order Constraint (CON) factor subsumes Control (impulsivity reversed), Harm Avoidance (avoidance of physical danger), and Traditionalism (conventionality). A separate trait of Absorption reflects the proclivity for imaginative, aesthetic and self-absorbing experiences. Unlikely Virtues is a stand-alone measure reflecting endorsement of highly improbable virtues and denial of common failings (Tellegen, 1982). High PEM scores reflect self-efficacy and active involvement in social relationships and work. The PEM dimension has been associated with positive adjustment and adaptive behavior (Leon, Kanfer, Hoffman, & Dupre, 1991), general level of social activity and leadership (Kamp, 1986) and prosocial behavior (Krueger, Hicks, & McGue, 2001). Wellbeing, variously operationalized, has been strongly related to health, positive adjustment (Diener, 2000), and a range of positive life outcomes (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). NEM is correlated with anxiety and depression (Clark and Watson, 1991 and Tellegen, 1985). Stress Reaction has been found associated with a “neurotic” cluster of biographical items, such as missing school due to emotional problems and frequent headaches (Kamp, 1986). NEM is clearly the MPQ marker of maladaptive emotional reactivity. Our predictions were based on conceptual links between the defensive and assertive self-presentation factors, specific self-presentation tactics, and higher-order and primary MPQ personality traits. Because PEM and NEM have been shown to tap relatively independent dimensions of affect (Tellegen, 1985, Tellegen et al., 1999 and Watson and Tellegen, 1985), we expected to find a clear divergence of correlates for these temperament domains. Based on the extensive literature associating self-presentation with anxiety-related characteristics, we predicted that greater overall use of self-presentation tactics and greater use of defensive tactics would be associated with NEM and its emotional marker Stress Reaction but not with PEM. We expected greater shared variance overall between self-presentation tactics and NEM. With respect to specific defensive tactics, we expected disclaimer and self-handicapping to be more strongly associated with NEM than with PEM. We predicted that the assertive tactic of intimidation would show a pattern of correlates across the NEM and PEM domains, including Social Potency and Aggression. Considering Social Potency and Positive Emotionality as markers of high self-monitoring, we predicted that Social Potency would show multiple correlates with assertive tactics. We predicted that the assertive tactic of exemplification (conveying impressions of moral worthiness) would show associations across the PEM and CON domains, including Wellbeing, Control and Traditionalism. Within CON we predicted that Harmavoidance would not be significantly related to self-presentation as Harmavoidance reflects fear and avoidance of physically dangerous situations rather than socially threatening situations.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

Results 3.1. Internal consistency All MPQ protocols met validity criteria on the Variable Response Inconsistency and True Response Inconsistency scales. All scores on the Unlikely Virtues scale were within normal limits thus providing a check on social desirability bias. In the present sample the MPQ subscales yielded Cronbach’s alphas from .81 to .91 with the exception of Harmavoidance (.59). However, alphas in the MPQ test construction research were all within .76–.89 (Tellegen & Waller, 2008). Alphas for the SPT scales ranged from .42 to .85. Alphas for the total self-presentation scale and defensive and assertive dimensions were .90, .86, and .85, respectively (see Table 1). The supplication scale with an alpha of .42 did not seem applicable to our sample and was dropped from further analysis. 3.2. Correlational relationships between the MPQ and the SPT Correlations for the MPQ primary and higher-order dimensions and SPT scales are shown in Table 2. An absolute value of r = .20 is significant at an adjusted α of .003. As expected, there was a clear divergence between the MPQ higher-order emotionality domains and overall use of self-presentation tactics. NEM was positively correlated with the total SPT (r = .44) while PEM was unrelated to total SPT (r = .13). NEM was moderately and positively correlated with both defensive (r = .34) and assertive (r = .41) self-presentation. Stress Reaction was moderately correlated with defensive tactics generally (r = .42) but uncorrelated with assertive tactics (r = .14). Stress Reaction was moderately correlated with the defensive tactics of disclaimer (r = .35) and self-handicapping (r = .58). Aggression was strongly associated with the assertive tactics of intimidation (r = .61) and blasting (r = .52), and was negatively associated with apology (r = −.45). Table 2. Zero-order correlations between self-presentation tactics and MPQ higher-order dimensions and primary scales. MPQ scale Total SPT Defensive SPT Excuse Justification Disclaimer Self-handicapping Apology Assertive SPT Ingratiation Intimidation Supplication Entitlement Enhancement Blasting Exemplification Positive Emotionality .40 Wellbeing −.32 .38 Social Potency .36 .37 .33 Achievement .30 Social Closeness Negative Emotionality .44 .34 .31 .48 .41 .42 .40 Stress Reaction .30 .42 .35 .58 .30 Alienation .39 Aggression .31 −.45 .40 .61 .33 .52 Control Constraint .33 Harm Avoidance −.32 Traditionalism .48 Absorption Table options As noted, PEM was not associated with the total use of self-presentation (r = .13) and showed extremely weak associations across all SPT scales. Wellbeing was negatively correlated with the defensive tactic of self-handicapping (r = −.32). Social Potency showed correlations with the assertive tactics of intimidation (r = .37) and blasting (r = .33), but none of the defensive tactics. CON was not associated with overall SPT (r = .06) and also showed weak associations across SPT scales. As expected, Harmavoidance was negatively associated with intimidation (r = −.32) and was not correlated with any other self-presentation scale. Certain self-presentation scales showed joint associations across MPQ domains. The traits most strongly associated with the assertive tactics were NEM Aggression (r = .40) and PEM Social Potency (r = .36). Aggression strongly predicted the assertive tactics of intimidation (r = .61) and blasting (r = .52), and was negatively associated with apology (r = −.45). The assertive tactic of exemplification was associated with higher-order dimensions of PEM (r = .40) and Constraint (CON) (r = .33) as well as the PEM scale of Wellbeing (r = .38) and the CON scale of Traditionalism (r = .48). 3.3. Sex differences One-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated a significant main effect of sex on the 12 self-presentation tactics scales, F(12,215) = 3.54, p < .001, View the MathML sourceηp2=.17. Univariate follow-up tests indicated that females were more likely than males to use defensive tactics overall, F(1,226) = 11.21, p < .001, d = .53 but there was no significant sex difference in the use of assertive tactics, F(1,226) = 0.17, p = .68, d = .06. Females reported significantly higher use of the defensive tactics disclaimer, F(1,226) = 11.88, p < .001, d = .46, and self-handicapping,F(1,226) = 14.01, p < .001, d = .50, whereas males reported higher use of the assertive tactic intimidation,F(1,226) = 8.69, p = .004, d = .34. 3.4. Exploratory joint factor analysis of the MPQ and SPT scales In a joint factor analysis of the 11 self-presentation scales and two MPQ emotional temperament scales NEM and PEM, apology and exemplification loaded poorly on both one- and two-factor solutions and were therefore excluded. A second factor produced no factor loadings above an absolute value of 0.43 with the exception of disclaimer, 0.64. The minimum average partial correlation procedure suggested a one-factor solution with apology and exemplification excluded. Factor loadings and item uniqueness are shown in Table 3. NEM loaded on the one-factor structure (0.45), while PEM did not (0.07). Post-hoc analysis using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy suggested that our sample size was satisfactory for EFA, 0.83. Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis. Scale Factor loading Uniqueness MPQ PEM .06 .996 MPQ NEM .46 .79 Excuse .71 .49 Justification .58 .66 Disclaimer .47 .78 Self-handicapping .39 .85 Ingratiation .75 .43 Intimidation .41 .83 Supplication .52 .73 Entitlement .76 .43 Enhancement .74 .45 Blasting .64 .59

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.