Given that social anxiety arises from people’s concerns with how they are perceived and evaluated by others,
Lee et al. (1999) examined correlations between social anxiety and the self-presentational tactics. Social anxiety
correlated weakly with the subscales that assess the use of excuses ( r50.22), justifications ( r50.14), disclaimers
(r50.26), self-handicapping ( r50.31), and supplication ( r50.31), as well as with the defensive tactics subscale
(r50.26) and the total scale score ( r50.19), but not the assertive tactics subscale ( r50.08).
Divergent/Discriminant
Two questions arise regarding the divergent validity of the SPTS. The first is whether the various subscales
tap into distinct self-presentational tactics. The answer appears to be no; although Lee et al. (1999) did not present
correlations between each pair of subscales, factor analyses suggest that the structure is two-dimensional, with
the various subscales falling on two factors that reflect assertive versus defensive tactics. The second question is
whether the overall scale, and the individual subscales, assess something distinct from measures of related con-
structs. Evidence regarding divergent validity is scarce, although data show that, with one exception, the sub-
scales do not generally correlate with locus of control ( Lee et al., 1999 ). With the exception of the apology
subscale (which correlated positively with social desirability, r50.24), scores on the 12 tactics subscales corre-
lated negatively with scores on the Marlowe /C0Crowne Social Desirability Scale ( 20.21,r,2 0.38). Negative cor-
relations were also obtained between social desirability scores and the defensive tactics subscale ( r520.27), the
assertive tactics subscale ( r520.30), and the total scale score ( r520.31).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Lee et al. (1999) conducted confirmatory factor analyses showing that a two-factor model that distinguished
between the defensive and assertive factors was superior to a one-factor model. This finding suggests that the
total scale score should rarely, if ever, be used. However, the fit for the two factor solution was still not high
(CFI50.88), and Lee et al. did not test alternative models.
Criterion/Predictive
No evidence on criterion or predictive validity is currently available.
Location
Lee, S., Quigley, B.M., Nesler, M.S., Corbett, A.B., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1999). Development of a self-presentation
tactics scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 26 , 701/C0722.
Results and Comments
The Self-Presentation Tactics Scale shows promise as a measure of impression-management tactics, but it has
not yet been widely used. Inspection of item content suggests that some subscales may assess self-presentational
tactics whereas other subscales assess general approaches to influencing other people. For example, some
items explicitly reference self-presentational or social-evaluative goals (e.g., to avoid being blamed, I let others
know that I did not intend any harm; I lead others to believe that I cannot do something in order to get help),
whereas others refer to interpersonal behaviors that might or might not bear any relationships to people’s
self-presentational goals or tactics (e.g., I threaten others when I think it will help me get what I want from them;
I act in ways I think others should act). Of course, people’s general approach to influencing others is probably
related to the ways in which they tend to manage their impressions, but work is needed to show that all of the
subscales assess self-presentational tactics as opposed to general social influence strategies.
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS SCALE
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 indi-
cate the number on the scale that most closely represents
your behavior.Very
infrequently123456789 Very
frequently
Excuse
39. When I am blamed for something, I make excuses.
48. I make up excuses for poor performance.466 16. MEASURES OF CONCERNS WITH PUBLIC IMAGE AND SOCIAL EVALUATION
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES