Whereas some people are rarely troubled by social anxiety, embarrassment, and other negative emotions when
they think that others might evaluate them negatively, other people become greatly distressed when they might
make an undesired impression or be evaluated negatively.
Third, people differ in the nature of the public images they try to maintain and in the tactics they use to foster
such images. For example, people may place more or less emphasis on being viewed as likeable versus compe-
tent, and may use different behavioral tactics to convey these images to other people. Given the same interper-
sonal goals, people may use different self-presentational tactics.
This chapter reviews measures that assess these three aspects of concerns with public image and social evalua-
tion. Although conceptually distinct, these aspects of social-evaluative concerns are obviously interdependent
and often highly correlated. Furthermore, many of the measures that we discuss, even ones that purport to assess
only one of these aspects of concerns with public image and social evaluation, actually measure more than one.
For practical research purposes, this conflation of constructs is often not an issue because the investigator is inter-
ested in measuring a global concern with public image or social evaluation and has no need to distinguish among
the underlying, component processes. Yet, we caution researchers that some of these measures do not assess the
distinct constructs that their labels might imply, and we urge them to consider the item content carefully.
MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
We have chosen nine measures that reflect concerns with public image and social evaluation for review.
These measures fall roughly into three categories that reflect the three processes just described. Specifically, we
review measures that reflect (1) attentiveness to social evaluation and motivation to impression-manage; (2) affec-
tive reactions to social-evaluative concerns; and (3) self-presentational styles.
Attentiveness to Social Evaluation and Motivation to Impression-Manage
1.Public Self-Consciousness Scale ( Scheier & Carver, 1985 )
2.Self-Monitoring Scale ( Snyder & Gangestad, 1986 )
3.Martin /C0Larsen Approval Motivation Scale ( Martin, 1984 )
Affective Reactions to Social-Evaluative Concerns
4.Social Interaction Anxiety Scale ( Mattick & Clarke, 1998 )
5.Social Phobia Scale ( Mattick & Clarke, 1998 )
6.Social Physique Anxiety Scale ( Hart, Leary, & Rejeski, 1989 )
7.Susceptibility to Embarrassment Scale ( Kelly & Jones, 1997 )
Self-Presentational Behaviors
8.Self-Presentation Tactics ( Lee, Quigley, Nesler, Corbett, & Tedeschi, 1999 )
9.Impression Management Styles ( Bolino & Turnley, 1999 )
OVER VIEW OF THE MEASURES
The first three measures involve the degree to which people attend to their public images and, thus, are moti-
vated to manage other people’s impressions and evaluations of them. Public self-consciousness involves the
degree to which people attend to and think about their public image, self-monitoring involves the degree to
which people monitor their public image so that it is appropriate to social norms and the roles they play,
and approval motivation involves the degree to which people are motivated to obtain approval and avoid
disapproval from other people. All three of the scales reviewed in this section are revisions of earlier scales.
The revised Public Self-consciousness Scale ( Scheier & Carver, 1985 ) is intended for community samples,
although the original measure ( Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975 ) is an equally sound scale that is typically used
for college-educated respondents. In contrast, the revised versions of the Self-monitoring Scale ( Snyder &
Gangestad, 1986 ) and the Martin /C0Larsen Approval Motivation Scale ( Martin, 1984 ) described here are decidedly
better measures than their predecessors.449 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES