personality tests: self-disclosures or self-presentations?

8/12/2019 Personality Tests: Self-Disclosures or Self-Presentations?

1/10

Personal i ty Tests : Self-Disclosures or Self-Presentat ions?

John A Johnson

The Johns Hopkins Universi ty

Abstract

This study inves t iga tes whether object ive se l f - repor t measures of

personal i ty are be t t e r regarded as sources of fac tua l information about

the s e l f i . e . , as se l f -d i s c lo su re s ) , or as ways to i n s t ruc t others about

how one i s to be regarded i . e . , as se l f -presenta t ions) . The two per

spect ives were compared by t es t ing the unique, divergent predict ions each

made about the kinds of personal i ty variables associated with consis tency

in se l f -descr ip t ion . For three groups of subjects (ISS normal adul t s ,

69 murderers, and 47 col lege s tudents) almost a l l of the se l f -presenta t ion

variables were correlated s ignif icant ly with consis tency, while none of the

se l f -d isc losure variables was correlated with the c r i t e r ion . Limitat ions

of the study are discussed.

Presented a t the 88th Annual Convention of the American Psychological

Associat ion, September, 1980 Montreal, Canada.


2/10

Self-Disclosure Self-Presentat ion

1

Psychologists have noted t ha t when people t a lk about themselves--ei ther

in the laboratory or in everyday l i f e - - t h e i r verbal reports can be conceptu

al ized as simple factual communications about the s e l f ( i . e . , se l f -d isc losure)

or as ways to i n s t ruc t others about how one i s to be regarded ( i . e . , s e l f

presenta t ion) . The dis t inc t ion between se l f -d isc losure and se l f -presenta t ion

has been a common topic of concern to soc ia l psychologists , personologists ,

and cl in ic ians (c f . Shaver, 1977, pp. 330-339; Snyder Swann, 1976; Wylie,

1974, pp. 63-86).

Responsesto items

onobject ive se l f - r epo r t measures of persona l i ty

similarly can be regarded as se l f -d isc losures or se l f -presenta t ions . A

se l f -d isc losure view of i tem response dynamics would hold t ha t endorsement

of a persona l i ty i tem such as I read 15 books a year i s simply a fac tua l

communication about the s e l f ( i . e . , how many books one reads) . From a s e l f

presenta t iona l view, endorsement of tha t i tem i s not merely a descript ion of

one's behavior, but a socia l ac t i t s e l f , intended to i n s t ruc t others about

how one i s to be regarded-- in t h i s case, perhaps as an i n t e l l ec tua l , scholar ly

individual .

The present research examines the adequacy of the se l f -d isc losure and

se l f -presenta t iona l theories of i tem response dynamics. Each theory

makes impl ic i t assumptions about why personali ty scale scores are associated

with various non- tes t c r i t e r i a ; these impl ic i t assumptions have implicat ions

for maximizing the va l id i ty of persona l i ty t e s t s . The f i r s t task i s to make

exp l i c i t these theories of i tem response dynamics and t e s t va l id i ty.

The se l f -d isc losure view of item response dynamics hypothesizes tha t

i tem responses are bes t conceptual ized as ver id ica l repor t s about one ' s be

havior or persona l i ty. Scores on persona l i ty sca les a re sa id to predic t


3/10

Self-Disclosure Sel f -Presen ta t ion

other behavior because (a) highly frequent behavior (reported on the sca le )

i s bound to occur again or (b) the scale has measured some underlying t r a i t

t ha t has di rec ted past behavior and wi l l d i r ec t fu ture behavior. In both

cases, the emphasis i s on obtaining ve r id i ca l , fac tua l information about the

se l f as a reference for p red ic t ing o ther behavior. I t follows t h a t any con

di t ions tha t would encourage the subjec t to l i e or in some way misrepresent

him/herself would det rac t from t e s t va l id i ty. Consequently, variables l i ke

subjec t honesty and cooperat iveness are expected to a ff ec t the va l id i ty of

se l f - repor ts .

The se l f -presenta t ion view of i tem response dynamics hypothesizes tha t

i tem responses are best conceptualized, not as descr ip t ions of the way one

rea l ly i s , but , ra ther, the way one would l i k e to be regarded. ne form of

the se l f -presenta t ion view i s implicated in the research on socia l des i r ab i l i t y.

Researchers in t h i s t r ad i t i on claim t ha t people wi l l answer persona l i ty i tems

such tha t they wi l l be regarded in a favorable l i gh t , regardless of the i tem

content . Subsequent research showed tha t t h i s claim was simply f a l se , o r

a t l eas t too s impl is t ic . People do respond to i tem content , not j u s t the

social des i r ab i l i t y of the item (Rorer, 1965; Block, 1965).

A more developed se l f -presenta t ional view ( e .g . , Taylor, Car i thers

Coyne, 1976; Mills Hogan, 1978) hypothesizes t ha t people have an image of

the way they would l i ke to appear to o thers ( e .g . , as a conscient ious, con

serva t ive banker or a crea t ive , uninhibi ted a r t i s t ) , and tha t they evaluate

the content of personali ty items for the i t em's ab i l i ty to convey aspects of

t he i r self- image. Scores on personali ty sca les predic t fu ture behavior, t

i s assumed, because (a) tes t - tak ing i s a form of se l f -presenta t ional behavior

similar to what goes on in everyday socia l in terac t ion , and (b) people are


4/10

Self-Disclosure & Self-Presentat ion

3

fa i r ly cons is ten t i n t he i r habitual se l f -presenta t iona l s t r a t eg i e s . Con-

sequent ly, var iab les such as c l a r i t y of self- image and soc ia l ro le -p lay ing

s k i l l s are expected to a ff ec t the va l id i ty of se l f - r epo r t s .

The two views- -se l f -d i sc losure and se l f -presenta t ion- -are not completely

mutually exclusive, of course. Sblf-presentat ion m y en ta i l giving fac tua l

information about one s se l f ; however, t m y involve providing fa l se in

formation to pro jec t a desired public self- image. The se l f -d isc losure per

spect ive, on ther other hand, conceptual izes i tem responses as ver id ica l

information about the s e l f without regard for t he i r potent ia l for pro

j e c t i ng public self- images. The se l f -presenta t ion view therefore incor

porates the se l f -d isc losure perspect ive, but goes beyond i t

Despite some overlap, the two viewpoints are nonetheless unique enough

to generate d i ff e r en t proposi t ions about the fac tors inf luencing the va l id i ty

of personal i ty sca les . The se l f -d isc losure view holds t ha t honesty and

cooperativeness wi l l moderate t e s t va l id i ty ; the se l f -presenta t ion view

s t a t e s tha t var iab les such as c l a r i t y of self- image and soc ia l s k i l l s wi l l

moderate t e s t va l id i ty.

The present study operat ional izes t e s t va l id i ty as consis tency in s e l f -

descript ion and operat ional izes the two se t s of moderator variables proposed

by each i tem response theory with several well-val idated persona l i ty sca les ,

described in the methods sec t ion . Pos i t ive corre la t ions between consis tency

and the proposed moderator variables wi l l support the respect ive theor ies ;

lack of corre la t ions wi l l undermine them.

Method

Subjects and Instrumentat ion

The study used protocols from three separate groups. The f i r s t group


5/10

Self-Disclosure Sel f -Presen ta t ion

4

consis ted of 155 normal adul t s . The second group contained 69 murderers

serving time a t the Maryland Sta te P eni ten t ia ry. The th i rd group consis ted

of 47 students from the Johns Hopkins Universi ty. All subjects had completed

the persona l i ty scales described here as a par t of previous invest igat ions.

The present study merely reanalyzed the data tha t was on f i l e

The f i r s t two groups had completed the Cal i forn ia Psychological Inven

tory (CPI; Gough, 1975). The t h i rd group had completed the Philosophies of

Human Nature PHN) Scale (Wrightsman, 1974) and the Adjective Check Lis t

ACL; Gough Heilbrun, 1965).

Rationale and Methods of Analyses

The c r i t e r ion of va l id i ty for the f i r s t two groups was the consistency

of responding to i tems on the CPI. The CPI contains 12 items tha t appear

twice on the inventory; each subjec t was assigned a response consistency

score based on the number of t imes a consistent response was given e i the r

True on both occasions or False on both occasions) .

Response consistency was chosen as a c r i t e r ion for severa l reasons.

Fi r s t , i t i s a var iab le t ha t could be scored eas i ly from exist ing data. As

such, attempts to repl ica te can be performed by any researcher with archival

CPI data. Natural ly, the simple analyses described here should be regarded

as i n i t i a l s teps toward examining moderating effec ts on more complex c r i t e r i a

Second, the consistency of behavior i s an issue tha t has drawn an enor

mous amount of at ten t ion recent ly cf . Endler Magnusson, 1976; Epstein,

1979). Rather than take one of the extreme posi t ions- - tha t people are t o t a l ly

consistent or incons is ten t - - s tudies such as the present one attempt to show

tha t cer ta in personali ty variables moderate the amount of behavioral con

sis tency a person wi l l exhib i t .


6/10

Self-Disclosure Self-Presentat ion

5

Finally, the se l f -d isc losure and se l f -presenta t ion views make clear,

divergent predict ions about the var iab les theore t ica l ly associated with

response consis tency. From the perspect ive of se l f -d isc losure , inconsistency

n se l f -descr ip t ion i s a function of impulsivi ty, delinquency, or behavioral

l a b i l i t y These tendencies were assessed with the Responsibi l i ty, Soc.ial

iza t ion , Self-Control , and Flex ib i l i t y scales of the CPl. From the se l f

presentat ion view of tes t - taking, inconsistency i s a function of poor

i den t i ty and social incompetence. The CPI scales tha t best cover these

variables are Dominance, Sociabi l i ty, Social Presence, Self-Acceptance,

Communality, and--a scale developed by Hogan 1969)--Empathy.

To insure tha t any r e su l t s from the group of normal adul t s and the

group of murderers was not an a r t i f a c t of the instrumentation, two different

instruments were used for the student group. For t h i s group, the PHN Scale

was used to measure response consis tency. This 84-item scale i s not as long

as the 480-item CPI, and i t does not contain duplicate i tems. I t does, how-

ever, contain item pai rs tha t are near semantic paraphrases or opposi tes .

Six such paraphrases and ten such opposites were chosen to define a consistency

scale. Here, consistency was defined as responding in the same direc t ion to

a paraphrase pai r and in opposi te di rec t ions for an opposite pa i r.

The personali ty scales used for th is th i rd group were chosen from the

Adjective Check Lis t . The se l f -d isc losure view predicts tha t the Self-Control ,

Order, Labi l i ty, and Change scales on the CL moderate response consis tency.

(These variables are the CL scales tha t correlate the highest with the CPI

variables used for the f i r s t two groups.) The se l f -presenta t ion view holds

tha t the CL sca les Self-Confidence, Achievement, Dominance, and Exhibition

- - - ~ - - - - -


7/10


6

best predict response consis tency. (Again, among a l l ACL var iab les , these

corre la te the highest with the CPI var iab les used for the f i r s t two groups.)

Thus, t h i s t h i rd subject sample represents an attempt a t conceptual r ep l i

cat ion of what i s found using the f i r s t two groups.

Resul ts

The pat te rn of corre la t ion coeff ic ients , shown i n Table 1, clear ly

demonstrates tha t the se l f -presenta t ion var iab les account for more

varial'l.ce in response consistency than do the se l f -d isc losure var iables .

Of the 6 corre la t ions between the se l f -presenta t ion variables and consis tency,

a l l are in the predicted di rec t ion , and 4 of the 6 are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig

n i f i can t . In cont ras t , of the 2 correlat ions between the se l f -d isc losure_

variables and consistency, f ive are in the wrong di rec t ion , and none reached

s t a t i s t i c a l signif icance.

Inser t Table 1 here

Discussion

Although the r e su l t s of the present study overwhelmingly support a

se l f -presenta t ion view of tes t - tak ing over a se l f -d isc losure view, there

are several l imi ta t ions of the study t ha t should be mentioned. F i r s t

these r e su l t s may not obtain with different t e s t s and different behavioral

c r i t e r i a . This quest ion can be addressed only by addit ional conceptual

rep l ica t ions . Especial ly valuable would be a study using observer ra t ings

of the personal i ty moderator var iab les , which would avoid some possible

confounding in the present s tudy.

Second, t h i s sor t of study ignores individual differences in tes t - tak ing

s t ra tegies . I t i s possible t ha t some subjects are chronic se l f -d i sc lo se r s ,
http:///reader/full/varial'l.cehttp:///reader/full/varial'l.ce


8/10


7

while others tend to be Goffmanesque se l f -presenters i . e . , they resemble

Snyder s (1974) high self-monitoring type).

Finally, th is study does not take into account tes t - tak ing conditions.

I t i s possible tha t cer ta in conditions ( e .g . , anonymity, mutual se l f -d isc losure-

cf. Jourard, 1964) would encourage subjects to se l f -d isc lose , while other

conditions (competing for a job) would encourage se l f -presenta t ion and

impression management.

References

Block, J . The challenge of r e s p o n s e ~New York: Appleton-Century

Crofts , 1965.

Endler, N S. & Magnusson, D In terac t ional psychology and personali ty.

Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1976.

Gough, H G Manual for the California Psychological Inventorx (rev. ed.)

Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1975.

Gough, H G & Heilbrun, A B J r. The Adjective Check Lis t Manual.

Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965.

Hogan, R Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 307-316.

Jourard, S. M The t ransparent se l f : Self-disclosure and well-being.

Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1964.

Mills , C & Hogan, R. A ro le theore t ica l in terpre ta t ion of personali ty

scale i tem responses. Journal of Personali ty, 1978, 46, 778-785.

Rorer, L. The great response-style myth. Psychological Bullet in, 1965,

63, 129-156.

Shaver, K G Principles of socia l psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Winthrop Publishers, 1977.


9/10


8

Snyder, M The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Person

a l i t y a n d Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 526-537.

Snyder, M & Swann, W B When act ions r e f l ec t a t t i t udes : The po l i t i c s of

impression management. Journal of Personali ty and Social Psychology,

1976, 34, 1034-1042.

Taylor, J B., Cari thers , M & Coyne, L. MMPI performance, response se t ,

and the "self-concept hypothesis." Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 1976, 44, 351-362.

Wrightsman, L. S. Assumptions abouthuman

nature: A social-psychologicalapproach. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1974.

Wylie, R C The se l f concept. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska

Press, 1974.


10/10

ISelf-Disclosure Self-Presentat ion

9

Table 1

Personali ty Correlates of Item Response Consistency

Group

I I I I I I155 Normal Adults 69 ~ f u r d e r e r s47 Students

Self-Disclosure Variables

California Psychological InventoryResponsibi l i ty .08 .03Social iza t ion .08 - . 18Self-Control - .05 - . 10Flexibi l i tya .02 .11

Adjective Check Lis tSelf-Control - .08Labi l i tya .02Order .11Change a - .14

Self-Presentat ion Variables

California Psychological InventoryDominanceSociabi l i tySocial PresenceSelf-AcceptanceCommunalityEmpathy

Adjective Check Lis tSelf-ConfidenceDominanceAchievementExhibi t ion

.21***

.12*

.07

.21***

.28***

.20**

.20**

.27***

.39***

.38***

.75***

.14*

.22*

.21*

.21*

.15

Note. Consistency for Groups I and I I i s measured with the CaliforniaPsychological Inventory; for Group I I I with the Philosophies ofHuman Nature Scale.

~ i r e t i o nof scoring reversed.p c:: .10

** p < .05*** p < 0 1 (All one- t a i l t e s t s ) .

personality tests: self-disclosures or self-presentations?

Documents