Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (SPTS)

Abstract

The Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (SPTS) is a comprehensive psychological instrument developed to quantify the frequency with which individuals engage in specific behaviors aimed at controlling the impressions others form of them. Rooted in the social psychological theory of impression management, the scale measures twelve distinct self-presentation strategies. These tactics are broadly organized into two higher-order dimensions: defensive strategies, which focus on protecting or repairing a damaged public image, and assertive strategies, which are used proactively to construct a desired positive image.

The SPTS is highly valued in research for its ability to differentiate subtle behavioral approaches—ranging from seeking sympathy (Supplication) to projecting dominance (Intimidation)—thereby providing a nuanced understanding of social interaction dynamics and individual differences in impression regulation.

Keywords

Self-Presentation Tactics Scale, SPTS, impression management, social psychology, assertive self-presentation, defensive self-presentation, ingratiation, intimidation, exemplification.

Authors

Lee, S., Quigley, B.M., Nesler, M.S., Corbett, A.B., Tedeschi, J.T.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SPTS is to provide a reliable and exhaustive measure of specific behavioral self-presentation strategies employed by individuals in daily social life. Unlike general measures of impression concern, the SPTS is designed to assess the frequency of discrete, actionable tactics used to achieve specific interpersonal goals.

By measuring twelve separate subscales, the instrument allows researchers to analyze how personality factors, situational variables, and motivational states influence the choice of specific tactics, such as using self-handicapping to manage failure expectations or employing ingratiation to win favor.

Construct

The SPTS measures the construct of Self-Presentation Tactics, defined as the specific behaviors used to influence the perceptions of an audience. The scale is structured around twelve distinct sub-constructs, which represent the major tactics identified in the literature on social influence and impression management.

These twelve tactics are categorized into two major groupings:

• Assertive Tactics: Strategies designed to create a positive image (e.g., Entitlement, Enhancement, Exemplification, Intimidation, Blasting, Ingratiation).
• Defensive Tactics: Strategies designed to minimize negative consequences or repair a damaged image (e.g., Excuse, Justification, Disclaimer, Apology, Self-handicapping, Supplication).

Validity

The validity of the SPTS is supported by its strong theoretical grounding in the work of Tedeschi and colleagues, ensuring robust content validity across the spectrum of known self-presentation behaviors. The scale’s ability to successfully delineate twelve distinct factors, as confirmed by factor analytic studies, provides evidence for the structural validity of the measure.

Furthermore, the SPTS has demonstrated construct validity in research demonstrating meaningful relationships between the use of specific tactics and other psychological variables. For instance, studies have explored how the differential use of these tactics relates to underlying self-determination levels (Lewis, 2005), confirming that the subscales measure theoretically relevant, distinct constructs.

Reliability

The SPTS exhibits high levels of internal consistency across the overall scale and its primary subscales. Leary, Jongman-Sereno, and Diebels (2015) reported that the internal consistency for the entire Self-Presentation Tactics Scale was excellent, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.93.

Reliability estimates for the broader categories were also strong: the defensive self-presentation tactic subscale showed an alpha of 0.86, and the assertive self-presentation tactic subscale showed an alpha of 0.91. Individual subscale reliability coefficients (alpha) reported by Lewis (2005) are detailed below:

• Excuse (a = .83)
• Justification (a = .81)
• Disclaimer (a = .73)
• Self-handicapping (a = .56)
• Apology (a = .66)
• Ingratiation (a = .81)
• Intimidation (a = .84)
• Supplication (a = .71)
• Entitlement (a = .79)
• Enhancement (a = .72)
• Blasting (a = .76)
• Exemplification (a = .82)

Factor Analysis

The SPTS was developed to reflect a multi-dimensional structure comprising twelve empirically supported factors, each representing a core self-presentation tactic. These factors are consistently identified in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, confirming the scale’s theoretical model.

These twelve factors load onto two higher-order factors: Assertive Self-Presentation and Defensive Self-Presentation. This hierarchical structure allows researchers to analyze both specific tactical usage and broader strategic orientations in impression management. The specific items loading onto each factor, according to Lewis (2005), are delineated in the scale items section below.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire, Psychological Scale

Format: 64 items (one item missing/unlisted in the source content), rated on a 9-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English (original publication language).

Population Group: General adult population (often used in college student samples).

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults.

Population Details: Primarily utilized in non-clinical settings to measure trait-like tendencies in social behavior.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate the frequency with which they engage in the described behavior using a scale ranging from 1 (very infrequently) to 9 (very frequently). Scores are computed by summing the responses for items corresponding to each of the twelve subscales.

Keywords

Psychological scale, impression regulation, social interaction, exemplification, apology, intimidation, justification, self-handicapping, ingratiation.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: Unknown

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Self-Presentation Tactics Scale was first published in 1999. Researchers interested in using the instrument should consult the primary authors or the publishing journal (Personality and Individual Differences) regarding copyright and usage permissions.

The instrument is sometimes available within academic resources for research purposes. The original PDF source cited in the content can be downloaded here: http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baboons-Chapter.pdf.

Reference’s

• 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(4): 701-722.
• Lewis, M.A. (2005). Self-Determination and the Use of Self-Presentation Strategies. Journal of Social Psychology, 145(4): 469-489.
• Leary, Mark R., Jongman-Sereno, Katrina P., and Diebels, Kate J. (2015). Measures of Concerns with Public Image and Social Evaluation. in Gregory Boyle, Donald H. Saklofske and Gerald Matthews., Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs. Elsevier, Pages 448–473.

Items of the Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (SPTS)

Scale Items (64 total):

1. I behave in ways that make other people afraid of me.
2. I use my size and strength to influence people when I need to.
3. If I harm someone‚ I apologise and promise not to do it again.
4. I offer explanations before doing something that others might think is wrong
5. I justify my behavior to reduce negative reactions from others.
6. I tell people when I do well at tasks others find difficult.
7. I use my weaknesses to get sympathy from others.
8. I ask others to help me.
9. I express the same attitudes as others so they will accept me.
10. When I believe I will not perform well‚ I offer excuses beforehand.
11. I use flattery to win the favor of others.
12. I get sick when under a lot of pressure to do well.
13. I apologise when I have done something wrong.
14. I lead others to believe that I cannot do something in order to get help.
15. I try to serve as a model for how a person should behave.
16. ???
17. I try to get the approval of others before doing something they might perceive negatively.
18. I try to make up for any harm I have done to others.
19. In telling others about things that I own‚ I also tell them of their value.
20. I point out the incorrect positions of the opposing political party.
21. I try to induce imitation by others by serving as a positive example.
22. When telling someone about past events‚ I claim more credit for doing positive things than was warranted by the actual events.
23. I tell people about my positive accomplishments.
24. I try to set an example for others to follow.
25. I justify beforehand actions others may not like.
26. I try to get others to act in the same positive way I do.
27. I have put others down in order to make myself look better.
28. I do favors for people in order to get them to like me.
29. I accept blame for bad behavior when it is clearly my fault.
30. I exaggerate the value of my accomplishments.
31. I hesitate and hope others will take responsibility for group tasks.
32. I threaten others when I think it will help me get what I want from them.
33. I express opinions that other people will like.
34. I say negative things about unpopular groups.
35. I try to convince others that I am not responsible for negative events.
36. When things go wrong‚ I explain why I am not responsible.
37. I act in ways I think others should act.
38. I tell others about my positive qualities.
39. When I am blamed for something‚ I make excuses.
40. I point out the positive things I do which other people fail to notice.
41. I do correct people who underestimate the value of gifts that I give to them.
42. Poor health has been responsible for my getting mediocre grades in school.
43. I help others so they will help me.
44. I offer socially acceptable reasons to justify behavior that others might not like.
45. When others view my behavior as negative‚ I offer explanations so that they will understand that my behavior was justified.
46. When working on a project with a group I make my contribution seem greater than it is.
47. I exaggerate the negative qualities of people who compete with me.
48. I make up excuses for poor performance.
49. I offer an excuse for possibly not performing well before taking a very difficult test.
50. I express remorse and guilt when I do something wrong.
51. I intimidate others.
52. When I want something‚ I try to look good.
53. I do not prepare well enough for exams because I get too involved in social activities.
54. I tell others they are stronger or more competent than me in order to get others to do things for me.
55. I claim credit for doing things I did not do.
56. I make negative statements about people belonging to rival groups.
57. I put obstacles in the way of my own success.
58. Anxiety interferes with my performances.
59. I do things to make people afraid of me so that they will do what I want.
60. When I succeed at a task‚ I emphasize to others how important the task was.
61. I offer good reasons for my behavior no matter how bad it may seem to others.
62. To avoid being blamed‚ I let others know that I did not intend any harm.
63. I compliment people to get them on my side.
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.

Subscale Item Groupings (Lewis, 2005):

• Excuse: (items 35, 36, 39, 48, 62)
• Justification: (items 5, 44, 45, 61, 64)
• Disclaimer: (items 4, 10, 25, 17, 49)
• Self-handicapping: (items 12, 42, 53, 57, 58)
• Apology: (items 3, 13, 18, 29, 50)
• Ingratiation: (items 9, 11, 28, 33, 38, 43, 52, 63)
• Intimidation: (items 1, 2, 32, 51, 59)
• Supplication: (items 7, 8, 14, 31, 54)
• Entitlement: (items 22, 23, 40, 45, 55)
• Enhancement: (items 6, 19, 30, 41, 60)
• Blasting: (items 20, 27, 34, 47, 56)
• Exemplification: (items 15, 21, 24, 26, 37)