Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (SPTS)

Abstract

The Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (SPTS) is a comprehensive psychometric assessment developed by Seung-Jun Lee, Brian M. Quigley, Michael S. Nesler, Anthony B. Corbett, and James T. Tedeschi (1999) designed to quantify the multidimensional behavioral repertoire individuals deploy to construct, manage, and protect their public social identity. Rooted deeply in Tedeschi and Norman’s taxonomic framework of interpersonal influence and impression management, the instrument operationalizes self-presentation across two high-order categories—defensive (protective) and assertive (acquisitive) tactics—delineated into 12 distinct functional subscales: Excuse, Justification, Disclaimer, Self-Handicapping, Apology, Ingratiation, Intimidation, Supplication, Entitlement, Enhancement, Blasting, and Exemplification. Comprising 64 self-report items evaluated on a 9-point Likert-type frequency scale ranging from 1 (very infrequently) to 9 (very frequently), the SPTS provides a granular analysis of how individuals navigate impression crises and status accrual. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate strong internal consistency, with total scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reaching .93, higher-order subscale reliabilities of .86 for defensive tactics and .91 for assertive tactics, and individual subscale alphas ranging from .56 to .84 across empirical studies. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic studies confirm the structural distinction between assertive and defensive orientations while affirming the theoretical coherence of the 12-factor architecture. The scale has become a foundational instrument in social psychology, clinical assessment, personality science, and organizational behavior, capturing nuanced individual differences in interpersonal behavior, social anxiety, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and workplace impression management.

Keywords

Self-Presentation Tactics Scale, SPTS, impression management, self-presentation, assertive tactics, defensive tactics, social influence, self-handicapping, ingratiation, psychometrics, Tedeschi

Authors

The Self-Presentation Tactics Scale was originated and psychometrically validated by a research team led by Seung-Jun Lee and James T. Tedeschi at the Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany, in collaboration with:

• Seung-Jun Lee, Ph.D. — State University of New York at Albany, Department of Psychology.
• Brian M. Quigley, Ph.D. — Research Institute on Addictions, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
• Michael S. Nesler, Ph.D. — Excelsior College and State University of New York at Albany.
• Anthony B. Corbett, M.A. — State University of New York at Albany, Department of Psychology.
• James T. Tedeschi, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany (a leading theorist in social influence, interpersonal aggression, and impression management theory).

Inquiries regarding the theoretical formulation of the taxonomy are historically tied to the social psychology laboratory of James T. Tedeschi at the University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York 12222, USA.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (SPTS) is to provide empirical researchers and clinical practitioners with a standardized, psychometrically validated measurement instrument capable of assessing the full behavioral spectrum of self-presentation. Historically, empirical research in social and personality psychology measured impression management as either a unitary confounding variable (such as social desirability bias or defensive lying assessed via scales like the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale) or focused myopically on isolated tactics such as self-monitoring, ingratiation, or behavioral self-handicapping. The SPTS was constructed to rectify these limitations by providing a unified, multi-faceted measurement paradigm that captures both the constructive (assertive) and protective (defensive) behavioral adaptations utilized in everyday human interactions.

Theoretical Rationale

Human social interaction is fundamentally organized around the cultivation, negotiation, and preservation of identity. When individuals perceive that their social identity is threatened, devalued, or undermined by negative events, they engage in remedial, defensive behaviors designed to restore their perceived social worth, deflect blame, or mitigate potential social sanctions. Conversely, when motivated to accrue power, social resources, approval, status, or interpersonal intimacy, individuals deploy proactive, assertive tactics designed to establish favorable identities. The SPTS was formulated under the premise that self-presentation is not merely an occasional deceptive ploy, but a pervasive, normative, and structural feature of social functioning. By standardizing the measurement of 12 distinct tactics, the scale permits researchers to determine an individual’s characteristic “tactical profile” across social situations.

Research Applications

In empirical research, the SPTS is utilized extensively across several distinct domains of inquiry:

• Personality and Individual Differences: The scale enables investigators to examine how trait constructs—such as the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), extraversion, neuroticism, self-esteem, and locus of control—predict systematic preferences for specific defensive or assertive tactical repertoires.
• Organizational Behavior and Workplace Dynamics: Industrial-organizational psychologists employ the SPTS to study leadership styles, organizational politics, performance appraisals, supervisor-subordinate upward influence tactics, interview behavior, and corporate impression management.
• Digital Interpersonal Communication: Researchers studying computer-mediated communication and social media platforms analyze how virtual identities, selective presentation, and curated personas correlate with specific tactical dimensions such as blasting, enhancement, and exemplification.

Clinical and Applied Interpersonal Applications

In clinical, counseling, and forensic psychology, the SPTS serves as an invaluable diagnostic and therapeutic adjunct. Maladaptive deployment of self-presentation tactics is intrinsically linked to diverse forms of psychopathology. For example, individuals suffering from chronic social anxiety disorder frequently overutilize defensive tactics such as pre-emptive disclaimers, behavioral self-handicapping, and supplication to protect themselves from negative social evaluation. In contrast, individuals exhibiting antisocial or narcissistic personality traits systematically rely on assertive intimidation, blast competitors, claim undeserved credit (entitlement), and aggressively exaggerate personal attributes (enhancement). In psychotherapy, assessing a patient’s SPTS profile helps clinicians identify rigid, self-defeating relational patterns, unpack underlying cognitive distortions regarding social judgment, and train patients in authentic, assertive communication skills.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the SPTS is the frequency and intensity with which an individual deploys specific strategic behaviors to influence the perceptions, attributions, and evaluations that others form of them. Drawing from the taxonomy formulated by Tedeschi and Norman (1985), the scale models self-presentation along two overarching tactical domains encompassing 12 distinct psychological dimensions:

1. Defensive Self-Presentation Tactics

Defensive (or protective) tactics are instigated when an individual experiences or anticipates a threat to their public identity, moral character, competence, or social acceptance. These behaviors aim to repair damage, neutralize culpability, or preemptively guard against impending evaluative failure.

• Excuse: Retrospective accounts in which the actor acknowledges that a negative, undesirable, or blameworthy event occurred, but denies personal responsibility or causal agency. The individual attributes the outcome to external forces, unintentional accidents, physiological distress, or uncontrollable circumstances (e.g., “When things go wrong, I explain why I am not responsible”).
• Justification: Accounts wherein the actor admits full personal responsibility for an act or outcome, but redefines the meaning or moral valence of the act, arguing that it was permissible, necessary, beneficial, or produced a positive social outcome (e.g., “I justify my behavior to reduce negative reactions from others”).
• Disclaimer: Prospective verbal explanations offered before an anticipated action or performance occurs, designed to deflect anticipated negative judgments or prepare the audience for potential failure or transgression (e.g., “When I believe I will not perform well, I offer excuses beforehand”).
• Self-Handicapping: The strategic creation, attribution, or public assertion of obstacles and impediments to one’s own performance prior to an evaluative task. This tactic provides an external attribution for potential failure (protecting self-esteem) and an internal, competence attribution in the event of success (e.g., “I put obstacles in the way of my own success”; “Anxiety interferes with my performances”).
• Apology: The full social admission of blameworthiness, accompanied by explicit expressions of guilt, remorse, sorrow, and remedial promises or restitution to restore social balance and elicit relational forgiveness (e.g., “If I harm someone, I apologise and promise not to do it again”).

2. Assertive Self-Presentation Tactics

Assertive (or acquisitive) tactics are proactive maneuvers designed to actively construct, elevate, and advance a specific desirable identity, status hierarchy, or social power base, regardless of whether a prior social crisis occurred.

• Ingratiation: Illicit or strategic behaviors executed to make oneself attractive, likable, and agreeable to target individuals. This tactic encompasses flattery, opinion conformity, reciprocal favor-doing, and interpersonal warmth (e.g., “I use flattery to win the favor of others”; “I express the same attitudes as others so they will accept me”).
• Intimidation: The deliberate projection of power, physical strength, anger, unpredictability, or dangerousness to induce fear and compliance in others, thereby compelling them to yield resources or defer to the actor’s demands (e.g., “I behave in ways that make other people afraid of me”; “I threaten others when I think it will help me get what I want from them”).
• Supplication: The strategic presentation of oneself as helpless, weak, needy, or incompetent in order to elicit sympathy, maternal/paternal assistance, or mandatory social support under the norm of social responsibility (e.g., “I use my weaknesses to get sympathy from others”; “I lead others to believe that I cannot do something in order to get help”).
• Entitlement: Actions taken to claim maximum personal credit, authority, or association for desirable, successful events or achievements, particularly when one’s actual causal role was minimal or shared (e.g., “When telling someone about past events, I claim more credit for doing positive things than was warranted by the actual events”).
• Enhancement: The strategic amplification, exaggeration, or highlighting of the positive value, difficulty, or societal importance of an accomplishment, task, or personal possession (e.g., “I exaggerate the value of my accomplishments”; “When I succeed at a task, I emphasize to others how important the task was”).
• Blasting: An aggressive, indirect assertive tactic involving the public disparagement, defamation, and derogation of rival individuals, out-groups, competitors, or political opponents to make oneself or one’s in-group look comparatively superior (e.g., “I have put others down in order to make myself look better”; “I say negative things about unpopular groups”).
• Exemplification: The strategic projection of moral virtue, ideological purity, dedication, righteousness, and personal integrity in order to be viewed as a moral exemplar, evoke admiration, and induce emulation or feelings of moral inferiority in others (e.g., “I try to serve as a model for how a person should behave”; “I try to set an example for others to follow”).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical bedrock of the Self-Presentation Tactics Scale is rooted primarily in social influence theory and sociological dramaturgical analysis, synthesized through empirical cognitive-behavioral psychology.

Goffman’s Dramaturgical Model and Social Norms

The earliest structural foundations of impression management were laid by sociologist Erving Goffman in his seminal 1959 text, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Goffman posited that social encounters are akin to theatrical performances wherein individuals (actors) present specific “fronts” before audiences. Social interaction requires actors to maintain “face”—a positive social value claimed by the line the person takes during a contact. When face is threatened or disrupted by an embarrassing performance, social repair is required through defensive alignments, tact, and apologies. While Goffman provided the descriptive qualitative architecture of interpersonal posturing, his model lacked a quantitative psychometric taxonomy for measuring variance across individuals.

The Jones and Pittman Strategic Taxonomy

In 1982, Edward E. Jones and Thane S. Pittman advanced psychological inquiry by formulating a five-part taxonomy of strategic self-presentation based on the specific interpersonal attributions an actor seeks to extract from an audience:

1. Ingratiation (seeking to be viewed as likable).
2. Intimidation (seeking to be perceived as dangerous or formidable).
3. Self-promotion (seeking to be perceived as competent).
4. Exemplification (seeking to be viewed as morally worthy and dedicated).
5. Supplication (seeking to be viewed as needy and helpless).

While the Jones and Pittman framework represented a major conceptual leap, it focused almost exclusively on acquisitive, assertive behaviors, leaving defensive, post-crisis compensatory strategies largely unclassified.

Tedeschi and Norman’s Integrated Impression Management Theory

In 1985, James T. Tedeschi and Nancy Norman published a seminal theoretical paper establishing a 2 × 2 matrix of impression management. They organized all self-presentational behavior across two orthogonal axes:

1. Strategic Valence: Assertive (initiating proactive behaviors to establish a new social identity) versus Defensive (initiating remedial behaviors to repair, protect, or re-establish a threatened identity).
2. Temporal / Target Scope: Tactical (short-term, situation-specific maneuvers) versus Strategic (long-term, habitual identity construction).

Lee, Quigley, Nesler, Corbett, and Tedeschi (1999) operationalized the tactical quadrant of this model. They argued that human social interaction operates as an ongoing game of social influence where social actors utilize a predictable portfolio of accounts (excuses, justifications), preemptive strikes (disclaimers, self-handicaps), repair work (apologies), and power grabs (enhancement, entitlement, blasting, intimidation). The SPTS translates this comprehensive taxonomy into an empirical rating scale capable of profiling both normative and maladaptive impression management behaviors.

Validity

Extensive empirical investigations across clinical, student, and community samples have demonstrated that the Self-Presentation Tactics Scale possesses solid construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity of the SPTS was initially established during its comprehensive development study by Lee et al. (1999). Utilizing iterative exploratory factor analyses followed by confirmatory factor analyses, the authors confirmed that self-presentation is not a unidimensional construct. Rather, the empirical item matrix cleanly decomposed into the theoretical 12-factor structure. Furthermore, higher-order factor analyses confirmed that these 12 tactical subscales meaningfully coalesce into two distinct, moderately correlated higher-order constructs: Defensive Tactics and Assertive Tactics. Confirmatory structural equation modeling has confirmed that modeling the SPTS as a two-dimensional higher-order structure with 12 lower-order factors provides a significantly superior fit compared to single-factor or orthogonal models.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through predictable, theoretically anticipated correlations with established psychometric scales:

• Social Desirability and Self-Monitoring: The Assertive subscales (specifically Ingratiation, Enhancement, and Entitlement) correlate positively with Mark Snyder’s Self-Monitoring Scale, confirming that individuals high in impression management sensitivity actively utilize assertive tactics to shape audience impressions.
• Social Anxiety: Defensive tactics, particularly Self-Handicapping, Excuses, and Disclaimers, correlate positively with the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) and Leary’s Interaction Anxiousness Scale. Individuals with elevated fear of negative evaluation systematically score higher on protective strategies.
• The Dark Triad: Assertive tactics correlate robustly with the Dark Triad. Narcissism exhibits prominent positive correlations with Enhancement (r ≈ .45 to .55), Entitlement (r ≈ .40 to .50), and Exemplification. Machiavellianism correlates strongly with Ingratiation, Blasting, and Intimidation, reflecting a manipulative, instrumental approach to interpersonal interactions. Psychopathy correlates selectively with Blasting and Intimidation.
• Self-Esteem: Global self-esteem, assessed via the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, correlates negatively with Supplication and Self-Handicapping, but displays mild-to-moderate positive correlations with Enhancement and Entitlement.

Discriminant Validity

The SPTS demonstrates robust discriminant validity against uncalibrated social desirability biases. Although some might assume that self-presentation inventories simply measure socially desirable responding, empirical data reveal that the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) correlate only weakly to moderately with the SPTS. In fact, individuals who score high on MCSDS often score lower on explicit SPTS assertive scales like Intimidation, Blasting, and Entitlement because admitting to these manipulative behaviors violates the naive social desirability norm. This demonstrates that the SPTS captures authentic behavioral variance in manipulative tactics rather than mere test-taking conformity.

Predictive and Behavioral Criterion Validity

Laboratory and field experiments confirm that SPTS scores predict actual observable behavior. Lewis (2005) investigated self-determination theory and the SPTS, demonstrating that individuals operating under external regulation and introjected motivation utilize significantly more defensive and assertive tactics than autonomously motivated individuals. In laboratory settings, high scorers on the SPTS Intimidation subscale systematically choose more aggressive ultimatum game strategies, whereas individuals scoring high on the Blasting subscale generate significantly more pejorative evaluations of rival university groups when their personal competence is threatened.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the SPTS has been rigorously scrutinized across original validation studies and subsequent independent replications, demonstrating robust internal consistency and temporal stability.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In the seminal psychometric validation across multiple samples totaling over 1,000 participants (Lee et al., 1999), the complete 64-item Self-Presentation Tactics Scale demonstrated exceptional overall reliability. Subsequent syntheses, including Leary, Jongman-Sereno, and Diebels (2015), confirmed the following internal consistency metrics:

• Total Scale Internal Consistency: The overall SPTS displays a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .93, indicating high overall measurement precision for general impression management orientation.
• Higher-Order Defensive Tactics Scale: Cronbach’s alpha of α = .86.
• Higher-Order Assertive Tactics Scale: Cronbach’s alpha of α = .91.

The individual tactical subscales exhibit acceptable to high internal consistency coefficients, summarized in Table 1 below:

The relatively modest alpha coefficient for Self-Handicapping (α = .56) is well-documented in psychometric literature and mirrors findings in other self-handicapping inventories (e.g., Rhodewalt’s Self-Handicapping Scale). This phenomenon is driven by the structural heterogeneity of self-handicapping mechanisms, which encompass physical somatic complaints (“I get sick under pressure”), behavioral diversion (“too involved in social activities”), and psychological states (“anxiety interferes with my performances”).

Test-Retest Stability

Test-retest assessments over multi-week intervals (ranging from 2 to 6 weeks) demonstrate stability coefficients ranging between r = .71 and r = .84 across individual subscales, with the overall scale score exceeding r = .85. This underscores that while self-presentation tactics can be modulated by acute situational demands, an individual’s habitual tactical disposition behaves as a stable personality trait.

Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the SPTS was established through rigorous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and validated via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across diverse cohorts.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the initial development of the scale, an extensive pool of over 100 candidate items was generated by subject-matter experts based on Tedeschi and Norman’s operational definitions. Principal axis factoring with oblique (promax/oblimin) rotation was employed because self-presentation tactics were theoretically anticipated to correlate with one another. Items demonstrating low primary factor loadings (< .35) or high cross-loadings (> .25 on secondary factors) were systematically eliminated. The resulting scree plot and eigenvalue analysis (λ > 1.0) unambiguously confirmed the emergence of 12 distinct primary factors corresponding to the 12 theoretical tactics, accounting for over 52% of the total variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

In subsequent cross-validation studies (Lee et al., 1999; Lewis, 2005), confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using structural equation modeling software (LISREL / AMOS) to compare competing structural topologies:

• Model 1: One-Factor General Self-Presentation Model. Hypothesized that all items reflect a single underlying global impression management construct. This model exhibited poor fit: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) > .10, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) < .65, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) < .60, and χ²/df > 5.0.
• Model 2: 12 Orthogonal First-Order Factors. Assumed 12 independent, uncorrelated tactics. Fit improved but remained inadequate (RMSEA ≈ .078, CFI ≈ .74).
• Model 3: 12 Oblique First-Order Factors. Allowed the 12 factors to intercorrelate freely, yielding significantly improved fit parameters (RMSEA ≈ .052, CFI ≈ .88, TLI ≈ .86).
• Model 4: Hierarchical Two-Factor Higher-Order Model. Modeled the 12 primary factors loading onto two correlated higher-order latent constructs: Defensive Self-Presentation (Excuse, Justification, Disclaimer, Self-Handicapping, Apology) and Assertive Self-Presentation (Ingratiation, Intimidation, Supplication, Entitlement, Enhancement, Blasting, Exemplification). This model provided the best balance of parsimony and empirical fit (RMSEA = .048, 90% CI [.045, .051], CFI = .90, TLI = .89, χ²/df = 2.14).

Factor Loadings and Parameter Estimates

Primary standardized factor loadings across individual subscales are predominantly strong (λ = .50 to .82). For example, within the Intimidation factor, items such as “I behave in ways that make other people afraid of me” and “I threaten others when I think it will help me get what I want from them” load above .75. Within the Excuse factor, items specifying attributional deflection load consistently between .60 and .78. Intersubscale factor correlations between the two higher-order dimensions generally range between r = .35 and .50, reflecting that individuals who are active assertive impression managers also tend to be vigilant defensive managers when social predicaments arise.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (SPTS) is formatted as an objective, multi-item, self-report psychometric inventory designed for individual or group administration in pen-and-paper or digital computer-administered formats.

• Instrument Name: Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (SPTS)
• Primary Authors: Seung-Jun Lee, Brian M. Quigley, Michael S. Nesler, Anthony B. Corbett, & James T. Tedeschi (1999)
• Construct Assessed: Individual behavioral frequency of 12 distinct assertive and defensive impression management tactics
• Total Item Count: 64 items (representing 12 distinct subscales)
• Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 16 and older; reading level approximately Grade 8)
• Response Scale: 9-point Likert-type frequency scale anchored as follows:
  • 1 = Very infrequently
  • 2 to 8 = Intermediate frequency anchors
  • 9 = Very frequently
• Subscale Item Composition:
  • Excuse: 5 items (Items 35, 36, 39, 48, 62)
  • Justification: 5 items (Items 5, 44, 45, 61, 64)
  • Disclaimer: 5 items (Items 4, 10, 17, 25, 49)
  • Self-Handicapping: 5 items (Items 12, 42, 53, 57, 58)
  • Apology: 5 items (Items 3, 13, 18, 29, 50)
  • Ingratiation: 8 items (Items 9, 11, 28, 33, 38, 43, 52, 63)
  • Intimidation: 5 items (Items 1, 2, 32, 51, 59)
  • Supplication: 5 items (Items 7, 8, 14, 31, 54)
  • Entitlement: 5 items (Items 22, 23, 40, 46, 55)
  • Enhancement: 5 items (Items 6, 19, 30, 41, 60)
  • Blasting: 5 items (Items 20, 27, 34, 47, 56)
  • Exemplification: 5 items (Items 15, 21, 24, 26, 37)
  • Unclassified / Experimental Items: Items 16, 38, 45, 52 (varies across validation iterations)
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Items are scored directly from 1 to 9 according to the respondent’s self-reported frequency. There are no reverse-scored items.
  • Subscale scores are obtained by calculating either the sum or the mean of the items comprising each subscale. Using mean scores (ranging from 1.00 to 9.00) is strongly recommended to permit direct comparison across subscales of varying item lengths.
  • Composite scores can be computed for the two higher-order dimensions: Defensive Self-Presentation (composite mean of Excuse, Justification, Disclaimer, Self-Handicapping, and Apology) and Assertive Self-Presentation (composite mean of Ingratiation, Intimidation, Supplication, Entitlement, Enhancement, Blasting, and Exemplification).
  • An overall SPTS index can be derived by computing the grand mean across all 64 items to assess general interpersonal impression management intensity.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (SPTS) was formally published in 1999 by Elsevier Science Ltd. in the journal Personality and Individual Differences. The scale was established as an open academic measurement instrument intended for scientific, non-commercial psychological research and educational assessment. No commercial testing fee or royalty is required for academic researchers or licensed clinicians employing the SPTS for non-commercial research, thesis dissertations, or clinical profiling.

The copyright of the original validation article is held by Elsevier Science Ltd. In accordance with fair-use conventions and scientific psychometric practice, researchers may reproduce and administer the scale items provided that full formal APA citation is granted to the original instrument developers (Lee, Quigley, Nesler, Corbett, & Tedeschi, 1999). Commercial utilization, incorporation into proprietary digital testing platforms, or monetization requires formal written copyright permission and licensing clearance from Elsevier Inc.

References

• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
• Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Leary, M. R., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., & Diebels, K. J. (2015). Measures of concerns with public image and social evaluation. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 448–473). Academic Press / Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00016-4
• Lee, S.-J., 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00178-0
• Lewis, M. A. (2005). Self-determination and the use of self-presentation strategies. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(4), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.145.4.469-489
• Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Brooks/Cole Publishing.
• Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 293–322). McGraw-Hill.

Items of the Scale