توسعه مقیاس تاکتیک های خودارائه گری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|38949||1999||22 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 8980 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 26, Issue 4, 12 March 1999, Pages 701–722
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 specific 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 differences in proclivity for using 12 self-presentation tactics, (b) examine the dimensions of self-presentation and (c) to examine gender differences 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. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that self-presentation consists of two distinct components: defensive and assertive tactics, and that these two general types of tactics are significantly correlated. Additionally, males are more likely than females to use assertive self-presentation tactics. The potential utility of the self-presentation tactics sc
1. Introduction Self-presentation consists of behaviors which are intended to manage the impressions that observers have of actors (Goffman, 1959). Self-presentation has sometimes been distinguished from impression management which has been defined as an attempt to control the images which are presented to others usually to increase the power of the individual. Self-presentation has been proposed to deal with more self-relevant or authentic presentations (see Schlenker, 1980for 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 different 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 different 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 differences in self-presentation behavior. Tedeschi and Melburg (1984)classified 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, 1982on self-construction). While tactical self-presentation focuses on specific behaviors, strategic self-presentation is focused on the identities a person is constructing and many different 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 effects of the precipitating event. Assertive self-presentation refers to proactive behavior performed to establish particular identities (see Arkin, 1981regarding 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 specific types of self-presentational behavior. Factor analyses of the self-monitoring scale indicate that one of the factors accounting for a significant 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 have been shown to give significantly different 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 specific self-presentation tactics. Social anxiety is clearly related to defensive self-presentation (Schlenker and Leary, 1982 and Roth et al., 1988Schlenker and Leary, 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), Roth et al. (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis of items indicated that the scale appears to measure the propensity of respondents to deny negative characteristics (repudiative tactics) and to affirm positive characteristics (attributive tactics). These two dimensions were significantly 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 different 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 use of 13 self-presentation tactics. The focus on specific 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 different 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. Two-component model of self-presentation. Fig. 1. Two-component model of self-presentation. Figure options In order to examine specific tactics of impression management we identified 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 definitions 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) Justifications: providing overriding reasons for negative behavior as justified, but accepting responsibility for it ( Scott and Lyman, 1968). (c) Disclaimers: expressions offering 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). 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, flattery, 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 effectiveness 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) Exemplification: 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).