UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Attribution and denial in socially desirable responding Reid, Douglas Baird 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 R44.pdf [ 2.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097795.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097795-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097795-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097795-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097795-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097795-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097795-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097795-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097795.ris

Full Text

ATTRIBUTION AND DENIAL IN SOCIALLY DESIRABLE RESPONDING By DOUGLAS BAIRD REID B.A. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1986 M.A. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 19881 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES PSYCHOLOGY We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1988 © D o u g l a s B a i r d Reid, 1988 In p r e s e n t i n g this thesis in part ia l f u l f i lmen t o f t he requ i remen ts for an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e at t h e Univers i ty o f Br i t ish C o l u m b i a , I agree that the Library shall m a k e it f reely available fo r re ference and s t u d y . I f u r the r agree that permiss ion fo r ex tens ive c o p y i n g o f th is thesis fo r scholar ly p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the h e a d o f m y d e p a r t m e n t o r by his o r her representa t ives . It is u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f th is thesis fo r f inancia l ga in shall n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t m y w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t T h e Univers i ty o f Brit ish C o l u m b i a 1956 M a i n Ma l l V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V 6 T 1Y3 Date ^ r ^ ^ L S, ffSB, DE-6(3 /81) A b s t r a c t Paulhus's (1984) Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding (BIDR) c o n t a i n s s c a l e s designed t o assess the two major components of s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e responding. The S e l f -Deception S c a l e (SDS) assesses the tendency t o g i v e f a v o r a b l y b i a s e d but h o n e s t l y - h e l d s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s ; the Impression Management S c a l e (IMS) assesses the tendency t o g i v e d e l i b e r a t e l y f a v o r a b l e s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s . Research by Millham (1974) and Roth, Snyder and Pace (1986) has d i s t i n g u i s h e d two t a c t i c s of d e s i r a b l e responding: (a) a t t r i b u t i o n : the c l a i m i n g of p o s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s , and (b) d e n i a l : the r e j e c t i o n of n e g a t i v e a t t r i b u t e s . T h i s t h e s i s p r e s e n t s t h r e e s t u d i e s designed t o e v a l u a t e the r e l a t i v e importance of these two d i s t i n c t i o n s i n the BIDR. The f i r s t study, a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of 130 cases, demonstrated t h a t both the content ( s e l f - d e c e p t i o n v s . i m p r e s s i o n -management) and t a c t i c ( a t t r i b u t i o n v s. d e n i a l ) were important i n d e termining responses t o the BIDR. The IMS items, i n c l u d i n g both a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l , formed one f a c t o r . The a t t r i b u t i o n SDS items f e l l on a second f a c t o r . S u r p r i s i n g l y , the d e n i a l SDS items f e l l c l o s e r t o the IMS f a c t o r . Rosenberg's Self-Esteem s c a l e was most h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the a t t r i b u t i o n SDS items. Study 2 was a s i m i l a r f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the data from a much l a r g e r d a t a s e t (N = 670). The f a c t o r p a t t e r n was i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t i n Study 1. Moreover, the SDS a t t r i b u t i o n i i i items again p r e d i c t e d adjustment, i n c l u d i n g h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m , low s o c i a l a n x i e t y and low empathic d i s t r e s s . Study 3 (N = 137) was designed t o determine whether the c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e between the a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l items depends on: (a) whether the item r e f e r s t o p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e a t t r i b u t e s , or (b) whether the statement as a whole i s f a v o r a b l e or u n f a v o r a b l e . To t e s t these competing hypotheses, 20 negations were w r i t t e n , one f o r each of the 20 o r i g i n a l a s s e r t i o n s on the SDS. R e s u l t s showed t h a t items r e f e r r i n g t o p o s i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (I am a s a i n t ; I am not a s a i n t ) formed a d i s t i n c t f a c t o r from items r e f e r r i n g t o n e g a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (I am a s i n n e r ; I am not a s i n n e r ) . Simple negations (I am not a s i n n e r ) f e l l on the same f a c t o r as t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g a s s e r t i o n s (I am a s i n n e r ) but a t the o p p o s i t e p o l e . F i n a l l y , the c o r r e l a t i o n s with v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l i t y measures were c o n s i s t e n t with S t u d i e s 1 and 2. These r e s u l t s c l a r i f y the d i s t i n c t i o n between a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l components. The d i s t i n c t i o n i s not simply one of k e y i n g d i r e c t i o n , t h a t i s , whether the statement as a whole i s d e s i r a b l e or u n d e s i r a b l e . Rather, the c r i t i c a l f a c t o r i s whether the item content r e f e r s t o a p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s c r i t i c a l i n measuring s e l f - d e c e p t i o n , but not impression management. i v Table of Contents A b s t r a c t i i Table of contents i v L i s t of Tables v L i s t of F i g u r e s v i Acknowledgements v i i A t t r i b u t i o n and D e n i a l i n S o c i a l l y D e s i r a b l e Responding 1 S t r u c t u r a l Models 1 Measuring S e l f - D e c e p t i o n and Impression Management 2 A t t r i b u t i o n and D e n i a l 4 Study 1 6 Method 6 R e s u l t s 7 D i s c u s s i o n 8 Study 2 9 Method 10 R e s u l t s 11 D i s c u s s i o n 13 Study 3 14 Method 15 R e s u l t s 17 P e r s o n a l i t y C o r r e l a t e s 18 D i s c u s s i o n 19 General D i s c u s s i o n 20 Offense versus Defense 22 Impression Management 23 Future Research 24 Footnotes 27 References 28 Tab l e s 32 F i g u r e s 39 Appendix I 43 Appendix I I 48 Appendix I I I 54 Appendix IV 63 L i s t of Tables T a b l e I Subscale S t a t i s t i c s : T a ble I I I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of Table I I I I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of Study 1 SDR Measures: Study 1 SDR Measures: Study 2 Table IV P e r s o n a l i t y C o r r e l a t e s : Study 2 Table V Index C o r r e l a t e s : Study 2 Table VI I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of SDR Measures: Study 3 Table VII P e r s o n a l i t y C o r r e l a t e s of SDR Measures: Study L i s t of F i g u r e s F i g u r e l F a c t o r Loadings from Study 1 F i g u r e 2 F a c t o r Loadings from Study 2 F i g u r e 3 Four Types of S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Items F i g u r e 4 F a c t o r Loadings from Study 3 Acknowledgments Any worthwhile accomplishment is the coalescence of a mileu of influences, imperatives, and desires. I am sincerely grateful to Jerry Wiggins and Wolfgang Linden for their gentle and insightful assistance. Del Paulhus'help, however, defies easy definition. May I say only that without his considerate and unceasing academic inspiration the quality of this thesis, and my knowledge of psychology, would have suffered. Thank-you a l l . And a special note to Cori Enwright and Paul Trapnell for their friendship throughout i t a l l . 1 A t t r i b u t i o n and D e n i a l i n S o c i a l l y D e s i r a b l e Responding One source of i n a c c u r a c y i n s e l f - r e p o r t s of p e r s o n a l i t y , a t t i t u d e s , and behavior i s the tendency of (a t l e a s t ) some s u b j e c t s t o engage i n s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e responding (SDR). Respondents who c o n s i s t e n t l y engage i n SDR a c r o s s time and assessment instruments are s a i d t o have a response s t y l e (Jackson & Messick, 1958). To assess the SDR response s t y l e , a g r e a t number of instruments have been developed u s i n g a wide v a r i e t y of s c a l e c o n s t r u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s ( f o r a review see Paulhus, i n p r e s s ) . S t r u c t u r a l Models F a c t o r a n a l y t i c s t u d i e s over the l a s t 25 years have supported the s t r u c t u r a l p a r t i t i o n i n g of SDR response s t y l e s i n t o two major components, which have been l a b e l e d Alpha (Block, 1965) and Gamma (Wiggins, 1964) . Measures l o a d i n g on the Alpha f a c t o r i n c l u d e the MMPI K s c a l e (McKinley, Hathaway, & Meehl, 1948; Meehl & Hathaway, 1946), the SD s c a l e (Edwards, 1957) and the S e l f - D e c e p t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Sackeim & Gur, 1978). S e v e r a l commentators view t h i s f a c t o r as the g e n e r a l tendency t o g i v e s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e s e l f - r e p o r t s (Edwards, 1957; Jackson & Messick, 1958). Damarin and Messick (1965) a p p l i e d the term " a u t i s t i c b i a s " , the tendency t o d i s t o r t s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n t o be c o n s i s t e n t with s e l f - a t t i t u d e s . Paulhus (1984) p r e f e r r e d the term " s e l f - d e c e p t i v e p o s i t i v i t y " . i n c o n t r a s t t o these s t y l i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , Block (1965) 2 i n t e r p r e t e d t h i s f a c t o r s u b s t a n t i v e l y as a g e n e r a l adjustment f a c t o r . • Measures f a l l i n g on the Gamma f a c t o r i n c l u d e d the P o s i t i v e M a l i n g e r i n g s c a l e ( C o f e r , Chance, & Judson, 1949) and the Sd s c a l e (Wiggins, 1959). Damarin & Messick (1965) l a b e l e d the f a c t o r " p r o p a g a n d i s t s b i a s " , an i n s t r u m e n t a l d i s t o r t i o n aimed a t a s p e c i f i c audience. Edwards (1970) and Paulhus (1984, 1986) used the term "impression management". Perhaps the most c o m p e l l i n g evidence f o r the Alpha-Gamma model was p r o v i d e d by Paulhus's (1984) f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t r a d i t i o n a l SDR measures along w i t h the S e l f - and Other-Deception Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (Sackeim & Gur, 1978). As i n pre v i o u s s t u d i e s , the Alpha f a c t o r was marked by Bl o c k ' s (1965) ERS, Byrne's (1964) R-S, and Edwards's (1957) SD, wh i l e Wiggins's (1959) Sd and the EPI L i e s c a l e (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964) loaded on the Gamma f a c t o r . The Marlowe-Crowne s c a l e (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) loaded h i g h l y on both f a c t o r s . Most important, the SDQ and ODQ were the best s i n g l e markers of the Alpha and Gamma f a c t o r s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , thus e m p i r i c a l l y s u p p o r t i n g the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Alpha and Gamma as s e l f -d e c e p t i o n and impression management. Paulhus (1984) a l s o p r o v i d e d experimental support f o r t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n by c o n t r a s t i n g s c o r e s o b t a i n e d i n an anonymous t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n with those from a p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e c o n d i t i o n . Under t h r e a t of p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e , d e s i r a b l e responding i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more on s c a l e s 3 r e p r e s e n t i n g the Gamma f a c t o r than on those marking the Alpha f a c t o r . Measuring S e l f - D e c e p t i o n and Impression Management Given t h a t they mark the Alpha and Gamma f a c t o r s , the S e l f - and Other-Deception s c a l e s warrant some s c r u t i n y . Sackeim and Gur (1978) developed the two s c a l e s on a r a t i o n a l b a s i s . The S e l f - D e c e p t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (SDQ) c o n t a i n s 20 p s y c h o a n a l y t i c a l l y o r i e n t e d q u e s t i o n s about t h r e a t e n i n g f e e l i n g s and thoughts t h a t everyone i s assumed t o experience but t h a t some people deny t o themselves (e.g., Do you enjoy your bowel movements?). The c r i t i c a l f e a t u r e of the SDQ items i s t h a t o n l y the respondent can know the t r u t h v a l u e of the responses. T h e r e f o r e , any b i a s e v i d e n t under anonymous t e s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s must r e f l e c t h o n e s t l y h e l d b e l i e f s of the t e s t t a k e r . In c o n t r a s t , the Other-Deception Q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n t a i n s items concerning o v e r t behaviors f o r which the i n d i v i d u a l s h ould have a c c u r a t e memory (e.g., I always d e c l a r e e v e r y t h i n g a t customs.). L i k e the Marlowe-Crowne s c a l e , the items r e f e r t o b e h a v i o r s t h a t are l i k e l y but u n d e s i r a b l e o r u n l i k e l y but d e s i r a b l e . Many of the Marlowe-Crowne items, however, r e f e r r e d t o p r i v a t e thoughts and f e e l i n g s . The c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the SDQ and ODQ have been supported i n a number of experimental and c o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d i e s (Gur & Sackeim, 1979; Paulhus, 1982; Sackeim, 1983; Sackeim & Gur, 1978, 1979; Winters & Neale, 1985). Paulhus (1984) addressed a number of psychometric d e f i c i e n c i e s w h ile 4 d e v e l o p i n g h i s new instrument c a l l e d the Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding (BIDR). The new s u b s c a l e s , termed the S e l f - D e c e p t i o n and Impression Management S c a l e s , were improvements i n s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s : (a) The k e y i n g d i r e c t i o n was balanced, (b) items r e f e r r i n g t o adjustment were d e l e t e d , and (3) items w i t h low part-whole c o r r e l a t i o n s were r e p l a c e d . The BIDR has been used s u c c e s s f u l l y i n a number of s t u d i e s (Linden, Paulhus, & Dobson, 1986; Paulhus & L e v i t t , 1987). A t t r i b u t i o n and D e n i a l Another d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t has been advanced i n the SDR l i t e r a t u r e i s t h a t between the a t t r i b u t i o n of p o s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s and the d e n i a l of n e g a t i v e a t t r i b u t e s (e.g., Millham, 1974; Jacobson, K e l l o g g , Cauce, & S l a v i n , 1977; Roth, Snyder, & Pace, 1986). F o l l o w i n g t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , I w i l l use the s h o r t forms, a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l t o r e f e r t o these two k i n d s of s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e responding. Millham (1974) formed a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l measures simply by p a r t i t i o n i n g the Marlowe Crowne s c a l e i n t o t r u e - and f a l s e - k e y e d s u b s c a l e s . He found some.evidence t h a t the two components had d i f f e r e n t b e h a v i o r a l c o r r e l a t e s . However, when Ramanaiah and M a r t i n (1980) wrote r e v e r s a l s t o balance the keys f o r each s u b s c a l e , d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x t e r n a l c o r r e l a t e s d isappeared. Rather than u s i n g a known s c a l e , Roth e t a l . (1986) r a t i o n a l l y assembled a s e t of 30 a t t r i b u t i o n and 30 d e n i a l statements. They used o n l y a f f i r m a t i o n s (e.g., I am a s a i n t , I am a s i n n e r ) . Thus the d e s i r a b l e response was " t r u e " t o an 5 a t t r i b u t i o n statement or " f a l s e " t o a d e n i a l statement. A c o n f i r m a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s showed t h a t the a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l items formed d i s t i n c t f a c t o r s with an i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of . 19 1. The two components a l s o showed d i f f e r e n t i a l e x t e r n a l c o r r e l a t e s . Compared t o the d e n i a l s c a l e , the a t t r i b u t i o n s c a l e showed h i g h e r c o r r e l a t i o n s with Rosenberg's (1965) s e l f -esteem s c a l e (.31 v s . .05) and Beck's Depression Inventory (1967) (-.30 v s . -.15). In c o n t r a s t , the d e n i a l s c a l e showed h i g h e r c o r r e l a t i o n s with p u b l i c s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s (-.28 v s . .01) and p r i v a t e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s (-.20 vs. -.01). In a f o l l o w - u p study, Roth, H a r r i s , and Snyder (1988) performed a c o n f i r m a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s t o demonstrate t h a t a t w o - f a c t o r t a c t i c s model was s u p e r i o r t o a o n e - f a c t o r model. However, they d i d not r e p l i c a t e the Roth e t a l . (1986) f i n d i n g t h a t a t t r i b u t i o n s c o r e s p r e d i c t e d adjustment b e t t e r than d i d d e n i a l s c o r e s . 2 Paulhus (1984) d i r e c t l y compared the two s t r u c t u r a l models u s i n g c o n f i r m a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . He found t h a t the S e l f - Deception/Impression Management d i s t i n c t i o n accounted f o r more v a r i a n c e than the A t t r i b u t i o n / D e n i a l model. The r e s u l t s of the Roth e t a l . (1986) study, however, i n d i c a t e t h a t a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l components p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e responding. T h e r e f o r e t h i s t h e s i s p r e s e n t s s e v e r a l s t u d i e s designed t o examine the two s t r u c t u r a l models s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . T h i s r e q u i r e s a p a r t i t i o n i n g of the BIDR i n t o separate measures of a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l f o r each of the S e l f - D e c e p t i o n and 6 Impression Management s c a l e s . Only such an approach w i l l permit an assessment of the j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s of the f o u r types of s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e responding. F o l l o w i n g Sackeim and Gur (1979) and Roth e t a l . (1986, 1988), I w i l l a l s o examine the l i n k between these d i f f e r e n t forms of SDR and adjustment. Study 1 To examine the importance of k e y i n g - d i r e c t i o n , t h r e e measures were separated i n t o s u b s c a l e s c o n t a i n i n g t r u e - and f a l s e - k e y e d items . F o l l o w i n g the p r e v i o u s l i t e r a t u r e and f o r easy r e f e r e n c e , I w i l l use the term a t t r i b u t i o n f o r the t r u e -keyed items and the term d e n i a l f o r the f a l s e - k e y e d items. The t h r e e p a r t i t i o n e d measures were the S e l f - D e c e p t i o n and Impression Management S c a l e s from the BIDR and Rosenberg's S e l f Esteem s c a l e . Method S u b j e c t s . S u b j e c t s were 130 i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology students (42 men, 81 women, and 7 gender-undisclosed) a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. They p a r t i c i p a t e d f o r course c r e d i t . M a t e r i a l s . The instruments a d m i n i s t e r e d were the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e (Rosenberg, 1965); and the Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding, V e r s i o n 3 (BIDR-3; Paulhus, 1984) which c o n t a i n s 20-item s u b s c a l e s t o measure s e l f - d e c e p t i o n and impression management. A l l items were answered on a 7-point L i k e r t s c a l e r a n g i n g from 'not t r u e ' t o 7 'very t r u e " . These two instruments are i n c l u d e d i n Appendix I. Procedure. S u b j e c t s were r e c r u i t e d by announcing the study i n c l a s s e s of students e l i g i b l e f o r e x t r a course c r e d i t s . As s u b j e c t s a r r i v e d they were g i v e n a s u b j e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n c r e d i t form t o f i l l out. Upon r e t u r n of the c r e d i t form, s u b j e c t s were g i v e n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o complete. As the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s b u r s e d , each s u b j e c t was i n s t r u c t e d not t o s i t d i r e c t l y next t o anyone or near a f r i e n d , and t h a t i t was e s s e n t i a l t o answer the q u e s t i o n s as thoroughly and h o n e s t l y as p o s s i b l e . T a l k i n g was not allowed. These i n s t r u c t i o n s were a l s o p r i n t e d on the b l a c k b o a r d a t the f r o n t of the c l a s s and r e i t e r a t e d a t random i n t e r v a l s throughout the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n . A f t e r s u b j e c t s completed the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s they d e p o s i t e d them i n a box a t the r e a r of the c l a s s as they l e f t . R e s u l t s The means, standard d e v i a t i o n s and alpha r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the s i x s u b s c a l e s and t h r e e t o t a l s are g i v e n i n Table 1. I n s e r t Table 1 about here The s t a t i s t i c s on the s c a l e t o t a l s are s i m i l a r t o those i n p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s a t UBC u s i n g the BIDR and Rosenberg's s c a l e (e.g., Paulhus & L e v i t t , 1987). The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the s i x s u b s c a l e s are presented i n Table 2. A l l s u b s c a l e s have been keyed i n the s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e d i r e c t i o n . Note t h a t the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of the two SDS s u b s c a l e s (.19) i s 8 s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower than the co r r e s p o n d i n g i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the IMS (.47) and the SE s c a l e (.74). I n s e r t Table 2 about here The s i x s u b s c a l e s were f a c t o r e d u s i n g p r i n c i p a l components e x t r a c t i o n f o l l o w e d by varimax r o t a t i o n . The f i r s t two f a c t o r s e x p l a i n e d 65 percent of the common v a r i a n c e . A p l o t of the f a c t o r l o a d i n g s i s presented i n F i g u r e 1. I n s e r t F i g u r e 1 about here The s u b s c a l e s of the S e l f Esteem s c a l e l o a d p r i m a r i l y on one f a c t o r whereas the s u b s c a l e s of the Impression Management Sc a l e f a l l on a second f a c t o r . The a t t r i b u t i o n items of the S e l f - D e c e p t i o n S c a l e f a l l c l o s e r t o f a c t o r 1 whereas the d e n i a l items f a l l c l o s e r t o f a c t o r 2. D i s c u s s i o n T h i s study c l a r i f i e s the r e l a t i o n between the two methods of p a r t i t i o n i n g s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y items. The two s t r u c t u r a l models are i n t e r a c t i v e i n the sense t h a t both are r e q u i r e d t o e x p l a i n the observed p a t t e r n of r e l a t i o n s among the s u b s c a l e s . For the S e l f - D e c e p t i o n S c a l e , s c o r e s on the true-keyed ( a t t r i b u t i o n ) items were r e l a t i v e l y independent of s c o r e s on the f a l s e - k e y e d ( d e n i a l ) items. On the Impression Management S c a l e , the two s e t s of items were more h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d . The a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l items f o r the Self-Esteem s c a l e were a l s o h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d , r e p l i c a t i n g p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s (e.g., 9 Carmines & Z e l l e r , 1979). In s h o r t , the a t t r i b u t i o n / d e n i a l p a r t i t i o n i n g appears t o be important, but o n l y f o r s e l f -d e c e p t i o n items. Of the f o u r s u b s c a l e s formed from the BIDR, o n l y the SDS a t t r i b u t i o n items appear t o be l i n k e d t o s e l f - e s t e e m . T h i s f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the r e s u l t s of Roth e t a l . (1986) i n showing a c l o s e r l i n k a g e of adjustment w i t h a t t r i b u t i o n than with d e n i a l . At the same time, t h i s study demonstrates t h a t the f i n d i n g s of Roth and h i s c o l l e a g u e s do not apply t o a l l forms of d e s i r a b l e responding. Study 2 Given the i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s i n Study 1, i t would be r e a s s u r i n g t o see a r e p l i c a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , one purpose f o r Study 2 was t o r e p l i c a t e the r e s u l t s o f Study 1 on a l a r g e r sample. The second purpose was t o c l a r i f y the meaning of the a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l components of s e l f -d e c e p t i o n . Presumably the two components r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n t a s pects o f d e s i r a b l e s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , I ad m i n i s t e r e d the BIDR along w i t h an i n v e n t o r y o f measures of a wide range of defenses and b i a s e s . T h i s i n v e n t o r y was a s e t of 120 new items w r i t t e n t o t a p well-known concepts not u s u a l l y measured w i t h s e l f - r e p o r t s (see Appendix I I ) . These i n c l u d e d some concepts from the s o c i a l psychology l i t e r a t u r e . For example, the i l l u s i o n of c o n t r o l i s the g e n e r a l tendency f o r people t o exaggerate the 10 degree of c o n t r o l they have over t h e i r environment. I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n such a tendency may w e l l be l i n k e d t o s e l f - d e c e p t i v e t e n d e n c i e s . Other indexes developed from the s o c i a l psychology l i t e r a t u r e i n c l u d e h i n d s i g h t b i a s and s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy S t i l l f u r t h e r indexes o r g i n a t e d i n the p s y c h o a n a l y t i c l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., s u p p r e s s i o n , d e n i a l of s e x u a l i t y ) . Another way t o c l a r i f y the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i s t i n c t i o n between a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l measures would be t o look f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s with standard p e r s o n a l i t y measures. A c c o r d i n g l y , a s e t of p e r s o n a l i t y measures r e l a t e d t o d e s i r a b l e responding was admininstered along w i t h the BIDR and the i n v e n t o r y of defenses and b i a s e s . The Marlowe-Crowne s c a l e (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) was i n c l u d e d because i t i s the most wi d e l y used measure of d e s i r a b l e responding. The S e l f -M o n i t o r i n g S c a l e (Snyder, 1974) and the S e l f - C o n s c i o u s n e s s S c a l e ( F e n i g s t e i n , S c h e i e r , & Buss, 1975) both measure c o n s t r u c t s r e l a t e d t o the r e l a t i v e amount of a t t e n t i o n p a i d t o one's i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l environments. F i n a l l y , Davis's (1983) Empathy s c a l e c o n t a i n s s u b s c a l e s measuring Fantasy, P e r s p e c t i v e Taking, Empathic Concern f o r Others, and P e r s o n a l D i s t r e s s . A l l of these concepts may bear some r e l a t i o n t o an i n d i v i d u a l ' s tendency t o s e l f - d e c e i v e . Method S u b j e c t s . S u b j e c t s were 670 i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology students (279 men, 349 women, and 42 gender-undisclosed) a t 11 the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. They p a r t i c i p a t e d f o r course c r e d i t . M a t e r i a l s . The BIDR and Rosenberg s c a l e s were ad m i n i s t e r e d as p a r t of two d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e b a t t e r i e s . B a t t e r y A a l s o i n c l u d e d a S e l f - R a t i n g Inventory comprising s e v e r a l indexes r a t i o n a l l y developed t o assess a v a r i e t y of concepts r e l a t e d t o p s y c h o l o g i c a l defense and c o g n i t i v e d i s t o r t i o n : D e n i a l of h o s t i l i t y , s e x u a l i t y , and p a r e n t a l c o n f l i c t ; Reported need f o r a p p r o v a l ; Acceptance of c r i t i c i s m ; Enjoyment of u n d e s i r a b l e a c t s ; Suppression tendency; I l l u s i o n of c o n t r o l ; H i n d s i g h t b i a s ; J u s t world b e l i e f ; S e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy; B e l i e f i n prayer; Dogmatic t h i n k i n g ; S e l f - d e c e p t i v e behavior; Reported p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n ; P e r c e i v e d s a f e d r i v i n g ; and Love proneness. The complete l i s t of items composing these s c a l e s i s g i v e n i n Appendix I I . As w e l l as the BIDR and Rosenberg Self-Esteem s c a l e s , B a t t e r y B i n c l u d e d a s e t of p e r s o n a l i t y measures; the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960); the I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e a c t i v i t y Index designed t o measure empathy (Davis, 1983); the S e l f - M o n i t o r i n g S c a l e (Snyder, 1974); and the S e l f - C o n s c i o u s n e s s S c a l e ( F e n i g s t e i n , S c h e i e r , & Buss, 1975). A l l items were answered on a 7-point L i k e r t s c a l e r a n g i n g from 'not t r u e ' t o 'very t r u e ' . The complete s e t of s c a l e s i s p r o v i d e d i n Appendix I I I . Procedure. S u b j e c t s were r e c r u i t e d from seven psychology c l a s s e s . S e v e n t y - f i v e percent of the s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d B a t t e r y A and t w e n t y - f i v e percent, B a t t e r y B. The i n v e n t o r i e s 12 were randomly d i s b u r s e d i n unmarked envelopes t h a t i n c l u d e d a cover l e t t e r s t r e s s i n g c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and the n e c e s s i t y of honest responding. S u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o take home the b a t t e r i e s and t o r e t u r n them a t the begin n i n g of the next c l a s s . They were g i v e n o r a l i n t r u c t i o n s t o answer a l l q u e s t i o n s as honesty as p o s s i b l e and not t o d i s c u s s the items or responses w i t h f a m i l y o r f r i e n d s . Completed i n v e n t o r i e s were c o l l e c t e d a t the s t a r t of the next c l a s s . An e x p l a n a t i o n of the nature of the study was gi v e n a t t h a t time. R e s u l t s The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the s i x s u b s c a l e s are presented i n Table 3. They c l o s e l y resemble those i n Study 1. Again the c o r r e l a t i o n of the s u b s c a l e s of the SDS s c a l e (.22) i s much s m a l l e r than those of the SE s c a l e (.70) or the IMS (.49). T h e r e f o r e i n the remaining a n a l y s e s , the l a t t e r two s c a l e s w i l l not be separated i n t o s u b s c a l e s . I n s e r t Table 3 about here The c o r r e l a t i o n s were f a c t o r e d w i t h p r i n c i p a l components e x t r a c t i o n f o l l o w e d by varimax r o t a t i o n . The f i r s t two f a c t o r s e x p l a i n i n g 66 per c e n t of the t o t a l v a r i a n c e are d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 2. The f a c t o r l o a d i n g s are ve r y s i m i l a r t o those i n Study 1. I n s e r t F i g u r e 2 about here The c o r r e l a t i o n s of the BIDR s c a l e s with the common p e r s o n a l i t y instruments are presented i n Table 4. I n s e r t Table 4 about here The two measures of p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s t r e s s , the S o c i a l A n x i e t y s c a l e and the Personal D i s t r e s s s c a l e , show much h i g h e r c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the a t t r i b u t i o n items t h a t w i t h the d e n i a l items o r the IMS. In c o n t r a s t , the Marlowe-Crowne s c a l e and the Other-Directedness s c a l e show lower c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the a t t r i b u t i o n s than w i t h the d e n i a l items and IMS. Note t h a t the SDS a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l items do not d i f f e r e n t i a l l y c o r r e l a t e with Marlowe-Crowne a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l items. T h i s r e q u i r e s an e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t goes beyond the p a r t i t i o n i n g of t r u e - and f a l s e - k e y e d items. For one t h i n g , the Marlowe-Crowne s c a l e i n c l u d e s many impression management items, which as I have shown, do not show separate p a t t e r n s f o r the d e n i a l and a t t r i b u t i o n items. Moreover, the Marlowe-Crowne items are not a l l a f f i r m a t i o n s , as on the SDS. The c o r r e l a t i o n s between the BIDR measures and the v a r i o u s d i s t o r t i o n indexes are presented i n Tab l e 5. I n s e r t Table 5 about here Note t h a t s e v e r a l indexes c o r r e l a t e h i g h e r w i t h the a t t r i b u t i o n items than w i t h the d e n i a l items: Dogmatic t h i n k i n g , P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , D e n i a l of p a r e n t a l c o n f l i c t , I l l u s i o n of c o n t r o l , S e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy, P e r c e i v e d Safe D r i v i n g and Love Proneness. The d e n i a l items c o r r e l a t e h i g h e r than a t t r i b u t i o n w i t h the f o l l o w i n g indexes: D e n i a l of h o s t i l i t y , D e n i a l of s e x u a l i t y , Acceptance of c r i t i c i s m , Enjoyment of u n d e s i r a b l e a c t s , Suppression tendency, H i n d s i g h t b i a s , J u s t world b e l i e f , B e l i e f i n prayer, and S e l f - d e c e p t i v e b e h a v i o r s . In g e n e r a l , the indexes t h a t c o r r e l a t e d with d e n i a l a l s o c o r r e l a t e d w i t h impression management. D i s c u s s i o n The r e p l i c a t i o n of the f a c t o r p a t t e r n from Study l on such a l a r g e sample i s r e a s s u r i n g . A t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l t e n d e n c i e s on the SDS are a p p a r e n t l y independent. The r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r adjustment measures extended the d i f f e r e n t i a l l i n k a g e of a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l components with p s y c h o l o g i c a l h e a l t h . A t t r i b u t i o n of p o s i t i v e q u a l i t i e s t o the s e l f i s a s s o c i a t e d not o n l y with h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m , but w i t h minimal s o c i a l a n x i e t y and low empathic d i s t r e s s caused by o t h e r ' s problems. The d i f f e r e n t i a l a s s o c i a t i o n s of a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l w i t h the v a r i o u s indexes of defense and c o g n i t i v e b i a s were a l s o i n f o r m a t i v e . In g e n e r a l , the a t t r i b u t i o n items p r e d i c t e d b i a s e s a s s o c i a t e d with c o n f i d e n c e i n one's own judgments. In c o n t r a s t , the d e n i a l items were a s s o c i a t e d with r e j e c t i o n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h r e a t s , e.g., d e n i a l of one's h o s t i l i t y and s e x u a l i t y . The e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s p a t t e r n was a h i g h e r c o r r e l a t i o n of a t t r i b u t i o n with denying p a r e n t a l c o n f l i c t . Rather than being t r u e d e n i a l , the l a t t e r may be an a c c u r a t e 15 developmental antecedent of the o p t i m i s t i c t h i n k i n g t y p i f i e d by the a t t r i b u t i o n f a c t o r . One c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n of these f i n d i n g s i s t h a t the t r u e -and f a l s e - k e y e d items of the same s c a l e may assess d i f f e r e n t c o n s t r u c t s . Any assumption about the homogeneity of the two su b s c a l e s should be e m p i r i c a l l y s u b s t a n t i a t e d . T h i s s u b s t a n t i a t i o n should i n c l u d e an examination of the e x t e r n a l c o r r e l a t e s of the two s u b s c a l e s . Study 3 For s e l f - d e c e p t i o n items, the tendency t o a t t r i b u t e p o s i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o the s e l f i s r e l a t i v e l y independent of the tendency t o deny n e g a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Because a l l items are w r i t t e n as a f f i r m a t i o n s (I am a s a i n t ; I am a s i n n e r ) , however, t h e r e remains a c r i t i c a l ambiguity i n the d i s t i n c t i o n between a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l items. What aspects of the items are t r i g g e r i n g two d i s t i n c t response s t y l e s ? I t c o u l d be t h a t the d i s t i n c t i o n i s simply one of keying d i r e c t i o n : The tendency t o agree with d e s i r a b l e statements may be independent of the tendency t o d i s a g r e e with u n d e s i r a b l e statements. I f so, the a t t r i b u t i o n - p r o n e i n d i v i d u a l would agree with " I am a s a i n t " and a l s o agree w i t h "I am not a s i n n e r " . S i m i l a r y , the d e n i a l prone i n d i v i d u a l would d i s a g r e e w i t h "I am a s i n n e r " and a l s o d i s a g r e e w i t h "I am not a s a i n t " . 16 On the o t h e r hand, the d i s t i n c t i o n between a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l f a c t o r s may depend on whether the item r e f e r s t o a p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e a t t r i b u t e . That i s , the a t t r i b u t i o n -prone i n d i v i d u a l would agree with "I am a s a i n t " and d i s a g r e e w i t h "I am not a s a i n t " . In both cases, the respondent i s c l a i m i n g a p o s i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . The d e n i a l - p r o n e i n d i v i d u a l would agree w i t h "I am not a s i n n e r " and d i s a g r e e w i t h "I am a s i n n e r " . In both cases, the respondent i s d i s c l a i m i n g a n e g a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . The f o u r types of items are i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 3 I n s e r t F i g u r e 3 about here A c r i t i c a l t e s t of these these a l t e r n a t i v e s t r u c t u r a l models r e q u i r e s data on how s u b j e c t s respond t o the negations of the o r i g i n a l 10 a t t r i b u t i o n and 10 d e n i a l items on the SDS. T h e r e f o r e , negations were w r i t t e n f o r each item. For example, the negation f o r "My parents always l o v e d me" was "My parents d i d n ' t always l o v e me". Method S u b j e c t s . S u b j e c t s were 137 i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology students a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia (53 men, 74 women, and 10 gender u n d i s c l o s e d ) . They p a r t i c i p a t e d f o r course c r e d i t . M a t e r i a l s . As i n S t u d i e s 1 and 2, the q u e s t i o n n a i r e b a t t e r y i n c l u d e d the Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e (Rosenberg, 1965) and the Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding (Paulhus, 1984). A l s o i n c l u d e d were the T r a i t form of the 17 S t a t e - T r a i t A n x i e t y Inventory (STAI; S p i e l b e r g e r , Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970); and the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e (IAS) measures of the b i g f i v e p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions: surgency, n e u r o t i c i s m , c o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s , openness t o experience, and agreeableness (B5 Revised Short Form; T r a p n e l l & Wiggins, 1988). These instruments are p r o v i d e d i n Appendix IV. A l s o i n c l u d e d were 20 new items c o n s i s t i n g o f the s e l f -d e c e p t i o n items w r i t t e n as neg a t i o n s . These negations were presented as f a r away from the o r g i n a l s as p o s s i b l e . The two s e t s were f i r s t and l a s t i n the b a t t e r y with the order counterbalanced. Items i n a l l instruments were answered on a 7-point L i k e r t s c a l e r a n g i n g from 'not t r u e ' t o 'very t r u e ' . A complete l i s t i n g of the negations i s p r o v i d e d i n Appendix IV. Procedure. S u b j e c t s were r e c r u i t e d i n c l a s s e s g i v i n g c r e d i t f o r experimental p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The i n v e n t o r i e s were d i s b u r s e d i n unmarked envelopes t h a t c o n t a i n e d a cover l e t t e r s t r e s s i n g c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and the n e c e s s i t y of honest responding. S u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e packets a t home and t o r e t u r n them a t the begin n i n g of the next c l a s s . O r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n t h a t i t was e s s e n t i a l t o complete the q u e s t i o n s i n p r i v a t e and without d i s c u s s i o n w i t h f a m i l y or f r i e n d s . S u b j e c t s were a l s o t o l d t h a t the s u b j e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n forms would be c o l l e c t e d s e p a r a t e l y from the i n v e n t o r i e s t o ensure anonymity. Completed i n v e n t o r i e s and c r e d i t s l i p s were c o l l e c t e d independently a t the s t a r t of the next c l a s s a f t e r which the 18 nature of the study was e x p l a i n e d o r a l l y . D e b r i e f i n g forms were a l s o d i s b u r s e d a t t h a t time. R e s u l t s The c o r r e l a t i o n s among the v a r i o u s s u b s c a l e s of the BIDR and Self-Esteem measures are presented i n Table 6. A l l su b s c a l e s have been keyed i n the s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e d i r e c t i o n . I n s e r t Table 6 about here Most s t r i k i n g are the h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n s between each a f f i r m a t i o n s c a l e and i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g negation s c a l e . For example, the negations of the a t t r i b u t i o n items (e.g., I am not a s a i n t ) c o r r e l a t e d .63 wit h the o r i g i n a l a f f i r m a t i o n s (I am a s a i n t ) . S i m i l a r l y , the negations of the d e n i a l items (I am not a s i n n e r ) c o r r e l a t e d .86 wit h the o r i g i n a l a f f i r m a t i o n s (I am a s i n n e r ) . Compare these t o the low c o r r e l a t i o n (.31) between o r i g i n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s (I am a s a i n t ) and the o r i g i n a l d e n i a l s (I am a s i n n e r ) . S i m i l a r y low (.29) was the c o r r e l a t i o n between negated a t t r i b u t i o n s (I am not a s a i n t ) and negated d e n i a l s (I am not a s i n n e r ) . To show these r e l a t i o n s i n g r a p h i c a l format, the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix was f a c t o r e d w i t h a p r i n c i p a l components e x t r a c t i o n f o l l o w e d by varimax r o t a t i o n and p l o t t e d . The f i r s t two f a c t o r s , which e x p l a i n e d 66 percent of the common v a r i a n c e , are d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 4. 19 I n s e r t F i g u r e 4 about here I t i s c l e a r t h a t the o r i g i n a l items and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e negations f a l l t o g e t h e r on the same f a c t o r s as i n S t u d i e s 1 and 2. P e r s o n a l i t y C o r r e l a t e s The p e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s of the BIDR s u b s c a l e s are presented i n Table 7. Note t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the "B i g F i v e " t r a i t s are underestimates because each v a r i a b l e was measured wi t h o n l y s i x items. I n s e r t Table 7 about here The f i r s t two columns show c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the SDS s i m i l a r t o those i n S t u d i e s 1 and 2: That i s , c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h adjustment measures ( s e l f - e s t e e m , t r a i t a n x i e t y , n e u r o t i c i s m ) are c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r f o r the a t t r i b u t i o n items* than f o r the d e n i a l items. The d i f f e r e n c e s are not as l a r g e as i n S t u d i e s 1 and 2 but they are c o n s i s t e n t . There i s l i t t l e c o r r e l a t i o n between the IMS and the p e r s o n a l i t y measures except f o r Agreeableness ( r = .18, p < .05). The new v a r i a b l e A t t T o t i s the sum of the o r i g i n a l a t t r i b u t i o n items and t h e i r r e v e r s a l s : T h i s summing seems reasonable g i v e n t h e i r h i g h i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n (.63). S i m i l a r l y , the new v a r i a b l e DenyTot i s the sum of the o r i g i n a l d e n i a l items and t h e i r r e v e r s a l s . T h i s a g g r e g a t i o n i n c r e a s e s 20 the advantage h e l d by the a t t r i b u t i o n items over the d e n i a l items from a mean of .10 t o .15. The d i f f e r e n c e between the two c o r r e l a t i o n s was t e s t e d u s i n g the dependent samples t - t e s t f o r a d i f f e r e n c e i n c o r r e l a t i o n s (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the t r a i t a n x i e t y and n e u r o t i c i s m measures, p < .05, but o n l y showed a t r e n d f o r s e l f - e s t e e m , p < .20. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e a l s o i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y f o r surgency, p < .01. D i s c u s s i o n The r e l a t i v e independence of SDS a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l items i s not simply due t o the d i f f e r e n c e i n k e y i n g d i r e c t i o n . The a t t r i b u t i o n - p r o n e s u b j e c t s were a s s i g n i n g d e s i r a b l e q u a l i t i e s t o themselves by agreeing t o some items (I am a s a i n t ) and d i s a g r e e i n g w i t h o t h e r s (I am not a s a i n t ) . Both k i n d s of items a l l o w the respondent t o a s s i g n a p o s i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t o the s e l f . S i m i l a r l y , the d e n i a l - p r o n e s u b j e c t s agreed with some items (I am not a s i n n e r ) and d i s a g r e e d w i t h o t h e r s (I am a s i n n e r ) . Both ki n d s of items a l l o w the respondent t o d i s c l a i m a ne g a t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . These analyses suggested t h a t a f f i r m a t i o n s and t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g negations c o u l d be combined t o form homogeneous s c a l e s . The r e s u l t i n g A t t r i b u t i o n and D e n i a l s c a l e s were t h e r e f o r e balanced w i t h r e s p e c t t o keying d i r e c t i o n , thus h i g h l i g h t i n g the f a c t t h a t k e y i n g d i r e c t i o n i s not a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c r i t e r i o n f o r measuring the two c o n s t r u c t s . When these balanced s c a l e s were used t o p r e d i c t adjustment, i n every case the A t t r i b u t i o n s c a l e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p r e d i c t i v e than the D e n i a l s c a l e . To summarize, when d e s c r i b i n g one's p s y c h o l o g i c a l makeup, the tendency t o c l a i m p o s i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h good p s y c h o l o g i c a l adjustment whereas the d e n i a l o f negative c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s u n r e l a t e d t o adjustment. Note t h a t b a l a n c i n g the key o n l y c o n t r o l s agreement acquiescence ( B e n t l e r , Jackson, & Messick, 1971). Acceptance acquiescence, the w i l l i n g n e s s t o accept a t t r i b u t e s as being t r u e of the s e l f , i s not c o n t r o l l e d i n the A t t T o t and DenyTot s c a l e s . On the A t t T o t s c a l e , f o r example, both the a f f i r m a t i o n s and negations index the tendency t o c l a i m p o s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s . Indeed, the s c a l e might be l a b e l e d "Acceptance of D e s i r a b l e Q u a l i t i e s " . S i m i l a r l y , the DenyTot s c a l e might be l a b e l e d " D e n i a l Of Negative Q u a l i t i e s " . T h i s confounding i s not a psychometric problem g i v e n t h a t even B e n t l e r and c o l l e a g u e s view the s t y l e as d i m e n s i o n - s p e c i f i c . General D i s c u s s i o n The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h e v a l u a t e d two s t r u c t u r a l models of s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e responding. One model d e r i v e s from a t r a d i t i o n of d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between s e l f - d e c e p t i o n and impression management processes (e.g., Damarin & Messick, 1965; Paulhus, 1984). The second model emphasizes the d i s t i n c t i o n between c l a i m i n g p o s i t i v e a t t r i b u t e s and denying ne g a t i v e a t t r i b u t e s (e.g., Millham, 1974; Roth, Snyder and Pace, 1986). 22 T h i s t h e s i s presented t h r e e s t u d i e s designed t o determine the importance of these two d i s t i n c t i o n s i n the BIDR. Study 1 demonstrated t h a t both the content ( s e l f - d e c e p t i o n v s . impression-management) and t a c t i c s ( a t t r i b u t i o n v s . d e n i a l ) were important i n d e t e r m i n i n g responses t o the BIDR. The a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l IMS items formed one f a c t o r . The a t t r i b u t i o n SDS items formed the second f a c t o r . The d e n i a l SDS items f e l l c l o s e r t o the IMS f a c t o r . Rosenberg's S e l f -Esteem s c a l e was most h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the a t t r i b u t i o n SDS items. Study 2 was a s i m i l a r f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the data from a much l a r g e r d a t a s e t . The f a c t o r p a t t e r n was i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t i n Study 1 . Moreover, the a t t r i b u t i o n items were agai n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h adjustment, i n c l u d i n g h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m and low s o c i a l a n x i e t y and empathic d i s t r e s s . Study 3 was designed t o determine whether the c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e between the a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l items depends on: (a) whether the item r e f e r s t o p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e a t t r i b u t e s , or (b) whether the statement as a whole i s p o s i t i v e or n e g a t i v e . To t e s t these competing hypotheses, 20 negations were w r i t t e n , one f o r each of the 20 o r i g i n a l a s s e r t i o n s on the SDS. R e s u l t s showed t h a t items r e f e r r i n g t o p o s i t i v e content (I am a s a i n t ; I am not a s a i n t ) formed a d i s t i n c t f a c t o r from items r e f e r r i n g t o n e g a t i v e content (I am a s i n n e r ; I am not a s i n n e r ) . Simple negations (I am not a s i n n e r ) f e l l on the same f a c t o r as t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g a s s e r t i o n s (I am a s i n n e r ) because they were h i g h l y 23 negatively-correlated. F i n a l l y , the correlations with various personality measures were consistent with Studies 1 and 2. These r e s u l t s c l a r i f y the d i s t i n c t i o n between a t t r i b u t i o n and denial components of self-deception. Rather than keying d i r e c t i o n , the c r i t i c a l factor i n tr i g g e r i n g these two processes i s whether the item content refers to a po s i t i v e or negative c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . Offense versus Defense The empirical d i s t i n c t i o n between two forms of s e l f -deception i s consistent with the arguments developed by Sackeim (1983). In that paper, Sackeim argued that s e l f -deception could be used for purposes of gaining pleasure as well as avoiding pain. A p a r a l l e l d i s t i n c t i o n has been made i n the l i t e r a t u r e on impression management. Arkin (1981) and Lennox and Wolfe (1984), f o r example, distinguished a c q u i s i t i v e and defensive forms of impression management. None of these treatments, however, addresses the provocative finding that ego-enhancement promotes good adjustment better than does ego-defense. The t r a d i t i o n a l view i s that maladjustment and psychopathology involve threats to a normally-functioning organism—thus the need for defense mechanisms. The present findings suggest that defensiveness operates independently of adjustment: Apparently, some people r e j e c t negative information about the s e l f and some don't: This tendency neither promotes nor hinders one's adjustment. Ego-enhancement may promote adjustment f o r a number of reasons. I t may provide an alternative to dealing d i r e c t l y 24 with t h r e a t e n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n : Attempts t o defend may never be e n t i r e l y s u c c e s s f u l . Instead the ego-enhancer t u r n s t o h i s or her a s s e t s and wallows i n them t o n e u t r a l i z e the t h r e a t . Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t the ego-enhancer c o n s t a n t l y makes use of p e d e s t r i a n events t o b u i l d up p o s i t i v e e s t e e m — t h e balance i s so p o s i t i v e t h a t t h r e a t s can not impinge on the ego. Impression Management The a t t r i b u t i o n - d e n i a l d i s t i n c t i o n does not appear t o be r e l e v a n t i n measuring impression management. The two s u b s c a l e s are h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d and show s i m i l a r e x t e r n a l c o r r e l a t e s . The c o n s i s t e n c y may r e s u l t from the i n s t r u m e n t a l q u a l i t y of impression management: I n d i v i d u a l s who have decided t o p r e s e n t themselves f a v o r a b l y w i l l c a l c u l a t e what response w i l l most impress the audience and s e l e c t i t . T h i s c o n s i s t e n c y would r e s u l t whether the motive f o r the impression management were a need f o r approval (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), an o v e r - c o n t r o l of needs and impulses (Gough, 1987), or s t a t u s - s e e k i n g (Hogan, 1983). I t i s i n t r i g u i n g t h a t the SDS d e n i a l items f a l l c l o s e t o the impression management f a c t o r . T h i s phenomenon was presumably masked i n p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h because the a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l items were not s c o r e d s e p a r a t e l y . T h i s l o c a t i o n of the d e n i a l items suggests the p r o v o c a t i v e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s u b j e c t s are f a k i n g good on the d e n i a l items r a t h e r than s e l f -d e c e i v i n g . 25 Such impression management behavior on the SDS d e n i a l items may r e s u l t from t h e i r r e f e r e n c e t o t h r e a t e n i n g b e h a v i o r s (e.g., e n j o y i n g one's bowel movements, f e a r i n g one's homosexuality) t h a t would be embarrassing t o admit. In c o n t r a s t , the a t t r i b u t i o n items r e f e r t o p o s i t i v e q u a l i t i e s (e.g., q u i t t i n g bad h a b i t s , a c c e p t i n g c r i t i c i s m ) — o n e s t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l can c l a i m or d i s c l a i m without embarrassment. These r e s u l t s suggest a s e q u e n t i a l model of s e l f -p r e s e n t a t i o n i n response t o p e r s o n a l i t y items. I f the impression management mode i s i n e f f e c t , i t assumes p r i o r i t y . The response would be t a i l o r e d t o maximally impress the audience. Items such as "I enjoy my bowel movements." would be i n f l u e n c e d here because of t h e i r p u b l i c embarrassment v a l u e . I f impression management were not i n e f f e c t , the i n d i v i d u a l would c o n s i d e r a c c e p t i n g them as s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s . E i t h e r the enhancement or defense process would be invoked depending on whether the item was a p o t e n t i a l reward or punishment. Note t h a t the independence of reward and punishment processes i s supported by an e x t e n s i v e l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., Gray, 1975; A r k i n , 1981). Some s e l f - r e p o r t s may s u r v i v e these f i l t e r i n g processes (perhaps because of n e u t r a l s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ) and remain t o be examined f o r s e l f -a ccuracy by a memory search (e.g., Paulhus & L e v i t t , 1987). Future Research The f i n d i n g s of these s t u d i e s are now being a p p l i e d i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of new s c a l e s t o measure the two components of s e l f - d e c e p t i v e p o s i t i v i t y (Paulhus & Reid, 1988). The 26 A t t r i b u t i o n and D e n i a l s c a l e s assembled i n Study 3 are be i n g used as the b a s i s f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g r e l i a b l e , balanced and v a l i d measures of the two response s t y l e s . Many of the items from the indexes used i n Study 2, t u r n out t o l o a d h i g h e r on the SDR f a c t o r s than do the o r g i n a l SDS and IMS items. C o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the v a r i o u s b i a s indexes i n Study 2 pr o v i d e d some sugg e s t i o n s about the meaning of the two c o n s t r u c t s . On t h i s b a s i s the separate s u b s c a l e s have been l a b e l e d S e l f - D e c e p t i v e Enhancement and S e l f - D e c e p t i v e Defensiveness (Paulhus & Reid, 1988). 27 Footnotes 1. Note t h a t these two s c a l e s completely confound content and ke y i n g d i r e c t i o n . The l i k e l y e f f e c t i s t o lower the t r u e c o r r e l a t i o n between these c o n s t r u c t s . 2. A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t the second study induced more demand f o r impression management than the f i r s t (The f i r s t study was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a l a r g e c l a s s , whereas the second was a d m i n i s t e r e d i n s m a l l groups). An impression management demand u s u a l l y induces a h i g h e r c o r r e l a t i o n between v a r i o u s measures of s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e responding (Wiggins, 1964). Indeed, the c o r r e l a t i o n between the a t t r i b u t i o n and d e n i a l s u b s c a l e s i n c r e a s e d from .19 i n f i r s t study t o .49 i n the second study. As the two s u b s c a l e s become c o r r e l a t e d , i t n a t u r a l l y becomes more d i f f i c u l t t o show d i f f e r e n t . c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h adjustment. 3. The response format used i n the BIDR i s a 7-point L i k e r t s c a l e . However, I w i l l use the terms True and F a l s e t o r e f e r t o the key i n g d i r e c t i o n ( r a t h e r than p o s i t i v e l y and n e g a t i v e l y - k e y e d ) . The terms, p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e , are a l r e a d y used t o denote the type of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r e f e r r e d t o i n the items. Use of the T r u e - F a l s e terminology does not seem unreasonable g i v e n t h a t the L i k e r t s c a l e anchors were "Very True" t o "Not t r u e " . 28 References A r k i n , R. M. (1981). S e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n s t y l e s . In J . T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management t h e o r y and s o c i a l  p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . New York: Academic P r e s s . Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: C l i n i c a l , e x p e r i m e n t a l r and  t h e o r e t i c a l a s p e c t s . New York: Harper & Row. B e n t l e r , P. M., Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1971). I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of content and s t y l e : A two-dimensional i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of acquiescence. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 76, 186-204. Block, J . (1965). The c h a l l e n g e of response s e t s . New York: A p p e l t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s . B r i g g s , S. R., Cheek, J . M., & Buss, A. H. (1980). An a n a l y s i s of the S e l f - M o n i t o r i n g S c a l e . J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 38, 679-686. Byrne, D. (1964). R e p r e s s i o n - s e n s i t i z a t i o n as a dimension of p e r s o n a l i t y . In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress i n experimental  p e r s o n a l i t y r e s e a r c h ( V o l . 1, pp. 169-220). New York: Academic. Carmines, E. G., & Z e l l e r , R. A. (1979). R e l i a b i l i t y and  v a l i d i t y assessment. B e v e r l y H i l l s , CA: Sage P r e s s . Cofer, C. N., Chance, J . , & Judson, A. J . (1949). A study of m a l i n g e r i n g on the MMPI. J o u r n a l of Psychology. 27, 491-499. Crowrie, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new s c a l e of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y independent of psychopathology. J o u r n a l of  C o n s u l t i n g Psychology, 24, 349-354. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. A. (1964). The a p p r o v a l motive. New York: Wiley. Damarin, F., & Messick, S. (1965). Response s t y l e s as p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s : A t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e g r a t i o n of  m u l t i v a r i a t e r e s e a r c h (Research B u l l e t i n 65-10). P r i n c e t o n , NJ: E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e . Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n empathy: Evidence f o r a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l approach. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 44, 113-126. 29 Edwards, A. L. (1957). The s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e i n  p e r s o n a l i t y r e s e a r c h and assessment. New York: Dryden. Edwards, A. L. (1970). The measurement of p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s  by s c a l e s and i n v e n t o r i e s . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t & Winston. Eysenck, H. J . , & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). The manual of  Eysenck P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory. London: U n i v e r s i t y of London P r e s s . F e n i g s t e i n , A., S c h e i e r , M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). P u b l i c and p r i v a t e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s : Assessment and t h e o r y . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 43, 522-527. G l a s s , G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n  e d u c a t i o n and psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Gough, H. G. (1987). C a l i f o r n i a P s y c h o l o g i c a l Inventory manual. Palo A l t o , CA: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s . Gray, J . A. (1975). Elements of a two-process th e o r y of  l e a r n i n g . New York: Academic P r e s s . Gur, R., & Sackeim, H. A. (1979). S e l f - d e c e p t i o n : A concept i n s e a r c h of a phenomenon. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l Psychology, 37, 147-169. Hogan, R. (1983). A s o c i o a n a l y t i c theory of p e r s o n a l i t y . In M.M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on m o t i v a t i o n (Vol.29, pp. 55-89). L i n c o l n , NE: U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska Pr e s s . Jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1958). Content and s t y l e i n p e r s o n a l i t y assessment. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 55, 243-252. Jacobson, L. I . , K e l l o g g , R. W., Cauce, A. M., S l a v i n , R. S. (1977). A m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y i n v e n t o r y . B u l l e t i n of the Psychonomic S o c i e t y P 9, 109-110. Lennox, R., & Wolfe, R. (1984). R e v i s i o n of the S e l f -M o n i t o r i n g S c a l e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 46, 1349-1364. Linden, W., Paulhus, D. L., & Dobson, K. E. (1986). The e f f e c t of response s t y l e s on the r e p o r t of p s y c h o l o g i c a l and somatic d i s t r e s s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 54, 309-313. 30 McKinley, J . C , Hathaway, S. R., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). The Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory: VI. The K s c a l e . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g Psychology, 12, 20-31. Meehl, P. E., & Hathaway, S. R. (1946). The K - f a c t o r as a suppressor v a r i a b l e i n the MMPI. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d  Psychology. 30, 525-564. Millham, J . (1974). Two components of need f o r approval s c o r e and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o c h e a t i n g f o l l o w i n g success and f a i l u r e . J o u r n a l of Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y . 8, 378-392. Paulhus, D. L. (1982). I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , s e l f -p r e s e n t a t i o n , and c o g n i t i v e dissonance: T h e i r c o n c u r r e n t o p e r a t i o n i n f o r c e d compliance. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y  and S o c i a l Psychology, 43, 838-852. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e responding. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 46, 598-609. Paulhus, D. L. (1986). S e l f - d e c e p t i o n and impression management i n t e s t responses. In A. A n g l e i t n e r & J . S. Wiggins ( E d s . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y assessment v i a q u e s t i o n n a i r e (pp. 142-165). New York: S p r i n g e r . Paulhus, D. L. ( i n p r e s s ) . Measurement and c o n t r o l of response b i a s . In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (E d s . ) , Measures of s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l  a t t i t u d e s . Paulhus, D. L., & L e v i t t , K. (1987). D e s i r a b l e responding t r i g g e r e d by a f f e c t : Automatic egotism? J o u r n a l of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 52, 245-259. Paulhus, D. L., & Rei d , D. (1988). The Balanced Inventory of  D e s i r a b l e Responding-Version 5. Unpublished manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Ramanaiah, N.V., & M a r t i n , H.J. (1980). On the two-dimensional nature of the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment. 44, 507-514. Rosenberg, M. (1965). S o c i e t y and the ad o l o s c e n t s e l f - i m a g e . P r i n c e t o n , NJ: P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Roth, D.L., H a r r i s , R.N., & Snyder, C R . (1988). An i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s measure of a t t r i b u t i v e and r e p u d i a t i v e t a c t i c s of f a v o r a b l e s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n . J o u r n a l of S o c i a l and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 6, 159-170. 31 Roth, D. L., Snyder, C. R., & Pace, L. M. (1986). Dimensions of f a v o r a b l e s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y  and S o c i a l Psychology. 51, 867-874. Sackeim, H. A. (1983). S e l f - d e c e p t i o n , s e l f - e s t e e m , and d e p r e s s i o n : The ad a p t i v e v a l u e of l y i n g t o o n e s e l f . In J . M a s l i n g (Ed.), E m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s of p s y c h o a n a l y t i c t h e o r i e s (pp. 101-157). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1978). S e l f - d e c e p t i o n , s e l f - c o n f r o n t a t i o n , and conciousness. In G. E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro ( E d s . ) , Conciousness and s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n :  Advances i n r e s e a r c h ( V o l . 2, pp. 139-197). New York: Plenum P r e s s . Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1979). S e l f - d e c e p t i o n , o t h e r -d e c e p t i o n , and s e l f - r e p o r t e d psychopathology. J o u r n a l of  C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 47, 213-215. S p i e l b e r g e r , C. D., Gorusch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual f o r the S t a t e - T r a i t A n x i e t y Inventory. Palo A l t o , CA: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s . Snyder, M. (1974). S e l f - m o n i t o r i n g of e x p r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 30, 526-537. T r a p n e l l , P., & Wiggins, J . S. (1988). Short form measures of  the B i g F i v e t r a i t s from the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e  S c a l e s (IASR-B5). Unpublished manuscript, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Wiggins, J . S. (1959). I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among MMPI measures of d i s s i m u l a t i o n under standard and d e s i r a b i l i t y i n s t r u c t i o n s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g Psychology. 23, 419-427. Wiggins, J . S. (1964). Convergences among s t y l i s t i c measures from o b j e c t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s . E d u c a t i o n a l and  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 24, 551-562. Winters, K. C., & Neale, J . M. (1985). Mania and low s e l f -esteem. J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology, 94, 282-290. 32 Table 1 Subscaie S t a t i s t i c s : Study 1. (N = 130) Item V a r i a b l e Mean Std Dev Alpha 1. SE-A 5.52 .91 .84 2. SE-D 5.29 1.16 .80 3. SE T o t a l 5.40 .96 .89 4. SDS-A 4.40 .75 .59 5. SDS-D 4.49 .85 .64 6. SDS T o t a l 4.45 .62 .67 7. IMS-A 4.22 .91 .72 8. IMS-D 3.35 .87 .65 9. IMS T o t a l 3.78 .76 .77 Note. SE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e (Rosenberg, 1965); SDS = S e l f - d e c e p t i o n s c a l e of the Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding, V e r s i o n 3 (BIDR-3; Paulhus, 1984a); IMS = Other-deception s c a l e of the BIDR-3. S u f f i x A = A t t r i b u t i o n items; D = D e n i a l items. A l l items r a t e d on 7-point s c a l e s . 33 T a b l e 2 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f SDR Measures: Study 1 (N = 130) Measure 1 2 3 4 5 1. SE-A 2. SE-D .74 3. SDS-A .45 .38 4. SDS-D .06 .14 .19 5. IMS-A .09 .01 .25 .38 6. IMS-D .05 .18 .17 .39 .47 Note. SE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e (Rosenberg, 1965); SDS = S e l f - d e c e p t i o n s c a l e of the Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding, V e r s i o n 3 (BIDR-3; Paulhus, 1984); IMS = Other-deception s c a l e o f the BIDR-3. S u f f i x A = A t t r i b u t i o n items; D = D e n i a l items. C o r r e l a t i o n s above .23 are s i g n i f i c a n t , p < .01, t w o - t a i l e d . 34 Table 3 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f SDR Measures: Study 2 (N=670.) Measure 1 2 3 4 5 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6, SE-A SE-D SDS-A SDS-D IMS-A IMS-D .70 .41 .15 .16 .06 .30 23 08 19 .22 .33 .22 39 52 .49 Note. SE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e (Rosenberg, 1965); SDS = S e l f - d e c e p t i o n s c a l e of the Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding, V e r s i o n 3 (BIDR-3; Paulhus, 1984); IMS = Other-d e c e p t i o n s c a l e o f the BIDR-3. S u f f i x A = A t t r i b u t i o n items; D = D e n i a l items. C o r r e l a t i o n s above .10 are s i g n i f i c a n t , p < .01, t w o - t a i l e d . 35 Table 4 P e r s o n a l i t y C o r r e l a t e s of SDR measures: Study 2 fN = 157) Measure SDS-A SDS-D IMS 1. Empathy - T o t a l -.07 .17 .07 2. Fantasy .00 -.01 .01 3. P e r s p e c t i v e Taking .19 .26 .23 4. Empathic Concern -.03 .35 .11 5. P e r s o n a l D i s t r e s s -.31 -.16 -.18 6. S e l f - M o n i t o r i n g - T o t a l .13 .05 .02 7. A c t i n g .12 -.17 -.16 8. E x t r a v e r s i o n .20 .16 .10 9. Other-Directedness -.27 -.43 -.40 10. S e l f - C o n s c i o u s n e s s - P r i v a t e -.02 -.10 .02 11. S e l f - C o n s c i o u s n e s s - P u b l i c -.11 -.18 -.21 12. S e l f - C o n s c i o u s n e s s - S o c i a l A n x i e t y -.28 -.10 -.22 13. Marlowe-Crowne - T o t a l .32 .50 .48 14. Marlowe-Crowne - True . 30 .51 .53 15. Marlowe-Crowne - F a l s e .18 . 22 .17 Note. SDS = S e l f - d e c e p t i o n s c a l e of the Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding, V e r s i o n 3 (BIDR-3; Paulhus, 1984); IMS = Other-deception s c a l e of the BIDR-3; Empathy s u b s c a l e s are from the I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e a c t i v i t y Index (IRI; Davis, 1980); S e l f - M o n i t o r i n g (Snyder, 1974; s u b s c a l e s from B r i g g s , Cheek, & Buss, 1980); S e l f - C o n s c i o u s n e s s S c a l e ( F e n i g s t e i n , S h e i e r , & Buss, 1975); Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), True and F a l s e r e f e r t o d e s i r a b i l i t y k e y i n g d i r e c t i o n . S u f f i x A = A t t r i b u t i o n items; D = D e n i a l items. C o r r e l a t i o n s above .21 are s i g n i f i c a n t , p < .01, t w o - t a i l e d . 36 Table 5 Index C o r r e l a t e s : Study 2 (N = 513) S e l f - R e o o r t Index SDS-A SDS-D IMS 1. D e n i a l of h o s t i l i t y .09 .42 .35 2. D e n i a l of s e x u a l i t y .05 .22 .16 3. D e n i a l of p a r e n t a l c o n f l i c t .14 -.01 .03 4. Reported Need f o r approval -.14 -.10 -.12 5. Acceptance of c r i t i c i s m -.22 -.37 -.42 6. Enjoyment of u n d e s i r a b l e a c t s .03 .54 .4.5 7. Suppression tendency .20 .33 .27 8 I l l u s i o n of c o n t r o l .28 .01 .09 9. H i n d s i g h t b i a s .10 -.17 -.03 10. J u s t world b e l i e f .01 -.21 -.11 11. S e l f - F u l f i l l i n g prophecy .16 -.01 .13 12. B e l i e f i n prayer .14 .27 .29 13. Dogmatic t h i n k i n g .23 -.05 .08 14. S e l f - d e c e p t i v e behavior .01 -.13 -.16 15. Reported p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n .20 .06 .32 16. P e r c e i v e d s a f e d r i v i n g .18 .09 .16 17. Love proneness .11 .03 .21 Note. SDS = S e l f - d e c e p t i o n S c a l e of the Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding, V e r s i o n 3 (BIDR-3; Paulhus, 1984); IMS = Other-deception s c a l e of the BIDR-3; indexes are r a t i o n a l l y d e r i v e d . S u f f i x A = A t t r i b u t i o n items; D = D e n i a l items. C o r r e l a t i o n s above .12 are s i g n i f i c a n t , p < .01, t w o - t a i l e d . 37 Table 6 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f SDR Measures: Study 3 (N = 137) Measure 1 2 3 4 5. 6 7 1. SE-A 2. SE-D .73 3. SDS-A .34 .32 4. SDS-D .18 .18 .31 5. IMS-A .13 -.04 .28 .23 6. IMS-D -.05 .00 .16 .36 .29 7. SDS-A-N .14 .29 .63 .37 .09 .33 8. SDS-D-N .18 .21 .30 .86 .26 .31 Note. SE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e (Rosenberg, 1965); SDS = S e l f - d e c e p t i o n s c a l e of the Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding, V e r s i o n 3 (BIDR-3; Paulhus, 1984); IMS = Other-d e c e p t i o n s c a l e o f the BIDR-3. S u f f i x A = A t t r i b u t i o n items; D = D e n i a l items; N = Negations. C o r r e l a t i o n s above .23 are s i g n i f i c a n t , p < .01, t w o - t a i l e d . 38 Table 7 P e r s o n a l i t y C o r r e l a t e s of SDR Measures: Study 3 (N = 137) Measure SDS-A SDS-D A t t T o t DenyTot IMS 1. Self-Esteem .34 .21 .32 .23 -.06 2. STAI - T r a i t A n x i e t y -.46 -.37 -.53 -.34 -.16 3. Surgency .29 .13 .38 .13 .04 4. N e u r o t i c i s m -.30 -.22 -.36 -.20 -.07 5. C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s .05 .01 .01 .03 .08 6. Agreeableness .11 .13 .06 .20 .18 7. Openness t o Experience .09 .02 .13 -.01 .01 Note. SDS = S e l f - d e c e p t i o n s c a l e of the Balanced Inventory of D e s i r a b l e Responding, V e r s i o n 3 (BIDR-3; Paulhus, 1984); IMS = Other-deception s c a l e of the BIDR-3; A t t T o t = t o t a l of p o s i t i v e content BIDR-3 s e l f - d e c e p t i v e items; DenyTot = t o t a l of n e g a t i v e content BIDR-3 s e l f - d e c e p t i v e items; Self-Esteem = Rosenberg Self-Esteem S c a l e (Rosenberg, 1965); STAI = T r a i t form of the S t a t e - T r a i t A n x i e t y Inventory ( S p i e l b e r g e r , Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970); Surgency, N e u r o t i c i s m , C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s , Agreeableness, and Openness t o Experience are s i x - i t e m s c a l e s from the I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e -B5 Revised (Short Form; T r a p n e l l & Wiggins, 1988). S u f f i x A = A t t r i b u t i o n items; D = D e n i a l items. C o r r e l a t i o n s above .23 are s i g n i f i c a n t , p < .01, t w o - t a i l e d . 39 9 "f Q co co o CO Q i UJ CO < I UJ co 00 CO a CO -+-00 I a> CO I -f-00 -+-ID CO E o CO D ) C T3 CO O O CD L L 40 oo 00-° 5 oo — CO a 00 CO 00 CM a> CO I -+-00 I -+-CM > "O CO E o 00 D ) C T3 CO O O CD 41 Figure 3 Four types of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y items. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c R e f e r r e d To S t a t e m e n t K e y i n g D i r e c t i o n F a v o r a b i l i t y p o s i t i v e n e g a t i v e F a v o r a b l e I am a s a i n t I a n n o t a s i n n e r t r u e U n f a v o r a b l e I am n o t a s a i n t I a a a s i n n e r f a l s e a t t r i b u t i o n d e n i a l T a c t i c 42 OO ' oo < 00 • Q 00 Q 00 03 00 - f -00 03 CO CO • 00 I CO > ZD •*-> C/) E o oo O) c CD O O CD 43 Appendix I 44 ROSENBERG SCALE Using the s c a l e below as a guide, w r i t e a number be s i d e each statement t o i n d i c a t e how much you agree w i t h i t . + + + + + + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not t r u e somewhat very t r u e 1. I f e e l t h a t I'm a person of worth, a t l e a s t on an equal b a s i s w i t h o t h e r s . 2. I f e e l t h a t I have a number of good q u a l i t i e s . 3. A l l i n a l l , I am i n c l i n e d t o f e e l t h a t I am a f a i l u r e . 4. I am ab l e t o do t h i n g s as w e l l as most ot h e r people. 5. I f e e l I do not have much t o be proud o f . 6. I take a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward myself. 7. On the whole, I am s a t i s f i e d with myself. 8. I wish I c o u l d have more r e s p e c t f o r myself, 9. I c e r t a i n l y f e e l u s e l e s s a t times. 10. At times I t h i n k I am no good a t a l l . 45 BIDR Sc a l e - V e r s i o n 3 Sex ID not v e ry t r u e t r u e + + + + + + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Using the above s c a l e as a guide, w r i t e a number be s i d e each statement t o i n d i c a t e how much you agree with i t . 1. I always throw my l i t t e r i n t o waste baskets on the s t r e e t . 2. I have r e c e i v e d too much change from a s a l e s p e r s o n without t e l l i n g h i m(her). 3. When I hear people t a l k i n g p r i v a t e l y I a v o i d l i s t e n i n g . 4. I have taken t h i n g s t h a t d i d n ' t belong t o me. 5. I sometimes t e l l l i e s i f I have t o . 6. I always keep my promises, no matter how i n c o n v e n i e n t i t might be t o do so. 7. I have taken s i c k - l e a v e from work or s c h o o l even though I wasn't r e a l l y s i c k . 8. I l i k e t o g o s s i p about other people's b u s i n e s s . 9. I have done t h i n g s t h a t I don't t e l l o t h e r people about. 10. I say o n l y good t h i n g s about my f r i e n d s behind t h e i r backs. 11. I sometimes put t h i n g s o f f u n t i l tomorrow what I should do today. 12. I always d e c l a r e e v e r y t h i n g a t customs. 13. I have some p r e t t y awful h a b i t s . 14. I always t e l l the t r u t h . 15. I am sometimes l a t e f o r appointments. 16. I always obey t r a f f i c laws even i f I'm u n l i k e l y t o get caught. 46 17. When I was a c h i l d I obeyed my p a r e n t s . 18. I sometimes p i c k my nose. 19. I am always p o l i t e t o ot h e r s i n c l u d i n g my f r i e n d s and f a m i l y . 20. I have never cheated on a t e s t o r assignment i n any way. 21. I have sometimes hated one or both of my par e n t s . 22. I am always f r e e of g u i l t . 23. Seeing any a t t r a c t i v e person of the o p p o s i t e sex makes me t h i n k about having sex. 24. I have sometimes f e l t l i k e I wanted to. k i l l someone. 25. I c o u l d e a s i l y q u i t any of my bad h a b i t s i f I wanted t o . 26. I always accept c r i t i c i s m i f i t i s a c c u r a t e . 27. I have f e l t p h y s i c a l l y a t t r a c t e d t o a t l e a s t one person of the same sex. 28. I have f e l t joy over someone e l s e ' s f a i l u r e . 29. I always r e t u r n a f a v o r without h e s i t a t i o n . 30. I t ' s a l r i g h t w i t h me i f some people happen t o d i s l i k e me. 31. I'm not i n t e r e s t e d i n knowing what other people r e a l l y t h i n k of me. 32. My parents o n l y punished me when I r e a l l y deserved i t . 33. I sometimes get j e a l o u s over the good f o r t u n e of o t h e r s . 34. My parents always l o v e d me no matter what I d i d . 35. I o f t e n have sexual f a n t a s i e s . 36. I have always been c e r t a i n t h a t I am not homosexual. 37. I have always been c o n f i d e n t about my a b i l i t y as a sex p a r t n e r . 47 38. I u s u a l l y enjoy my bowel movements v e r y much. 39. At times I have wanted t o rape or be raped by someone. 40. I have thought of committing s u i c i d e t o get back a t someone. 48 Appendix II 49 SELF-DESCRIPTION INVENTORY Using the s c a l e below as a guide, w r i t e a number be s i d e each statement t o i n d i c a t e how much you agree w i t h i t . + + +_ + + + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not t r u e somewhat v e r y t r u e D e n i a l of h o s t i l i t y 1. I have never i n t e n s e l y d i s l i k e d anyone. 2. There have been o c c a s i o n s when I f e l t l i k e smashing t h i n g s . 3. I have never d e l i b e r a t e l y s a i d something t o h u r t someone's f e e l i n g s . 4. I have g o t t e n so angry a t a f r i e n d t h a t I f e l t l i k e h i t t i n g him(her). • 5. I can t h i n k of someone I hate deeply. D e n i a l of s e x u a l i t y 6. People who masturbate a l o t are probably s i c k . 7. Those who s l e e p around probably f e e l inadequate i n some way. 8. I have sometimes thought t h a t I would l i k e t o change sex. 9. I can remember being s e x u a l l y e x c i t e d about the thought of s e e i n g my mother (or f a t h e r ) without c l o t h s on. D e n i a l o f p a r e n t a l c o n f l i c t 10. I have g o t t e n so angry a t my mother t h a t I f e l t l i k e h i t t i n g her. 11. I o f t e n suspected t h a t I was not my parents f a v o r i t e c h i l d . 12. I f e e l bad about doing t h i n g s t h a t my parents disapprove o f . 50 13. My parents o f t e n f i g h t . Reported need f o r approval 14. The appr o v a l of my f r i e n d s i s v e r y important t o me. 15. I sometimes conform t o s o c i a l p r e s s u r e and do something t h a t I would p r e f e r n o t ' t o do. 16. I o f t e n do t h i n g s t h a t my f r i e n d s don't approve of, Acceptance of c r i t i c i s m 17. I sometimes f e e l i r r i t a t e d when I don't get my own way. 18. There have been times when I f e l t l i k e r e b e l l i n g a g a i n s t a u t h o r i t y even though I knew they were r i g h t . 19. I sometime f e e l r e s e n t f u l when people f i n d f a u l t w i t h me or my work. 20. I t never i r r i t a t e s me when people express i d e a s c o n f l i c t i n g w i t h my own. Enjoyment of u n d e s i r a b l e a c t s 21. I must admit t h a t I enjoy watching c a r t o o n s . 22. I r e a l l y enjoy watching sexy scenes i n movies. 23. In c e r t a i n cases I c o u l d enjoy b e i n g c r u e l t o someone. 24. More than once I f e l t good when I heard on the news t h a t someone had been k i l l e d . 25. I must admit t h a t revenge can be sweet. 26. When I c r i t i c i z e someone, I'm o n l y doing i t f o r t h e i r own good. 27. I enjoy i t when obnoxious people get put down. 28. I t r y t o a v o i d s m e l l i n g my own body odors. 29. I don't u s u a l l y bother r e a d i n g the comic s t r i p s i n the newspaper. 30. I sometimes t r y t o get even r a t h e r f o r g i v e and f o r g e t . 51 Suppression tendency 31. People s h o u l d not d w e l l on unpleasant thoughts. 32. Once i n a w h i l e I t h i n k of t h i n g s too bad t o t a l k about. 33. I t ' s easy f o r me t o t u r n o f f a d i s t u r b i n g thought. I l l u s i o n of c o n t r o l 34. On a gamble f o r h i g h s t a k e s , I would r a t h e r throw the d i c e myself than l e t someone throw them f o r me. 35. I am f u l l y i n c o n t r o l of my own f a t e . 36. The reason I vote i s because my vote can make a d i f f e r e n c e . 37. I can u s u a l l y p r e d i c t f i r s t t h i n g i n the morning how good my day i s going t o be. H i n d s i g h t b i a s 38. A f t e r h e a r i n g the answer t o an exam or t r i v i a q u e s t i o n , i t always seems l i k e I knew i t a l l along. 39. I f I were i n charge of t h i s country, I c e r t a i n l y would not make as many mistakes as the c u r r e n t l e a d e r . J u s t world b e l i e f 40. Most people k i l l e d i n t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t s d i d something t o deserve t h e i r f a t e . 41. V i c t i m s of crime v e r y o f t e n were not as c a r e f u l as they should have been. 42. I sometimes t h i n k t h a t when people have a m i s f o r t u n e , they o n l y get what they deserved. S e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophecy 43. My f i r s t impressions about people u s u a l l y t u r n out t o be r i g h t . B e l i e f i n prayer 44. In one way or another, God answers a l l my p r a y e r s . 52 Dogmatic t h i n k i n g 45. Often when people c r i t i c i z e me, they don't have t h e i r f a c t s s t r a i g h t . 46. Once I've made up my mind, oth e r people can seldom change my o p i n i o n . 47. No one can t a l k me out of something I know i s r i g h t . S e l f - d e c e p t i v e b e h a v i o r s 48. I o f t e n s e t my watch ahead so I won't be l a t e . 49. I j u s t s w i t c h channels on TV when I hear someone t a l k i n g nonsense about p o l i t i c s or r e l i g i o n . 50. I a v o i d changing answers on a t e s t because my f i r s t r e a c t i o n i s u s u a l l y r i g h t . 51. I w i l l go out of my way t o a v o i d someone i f we have an u n s e t t l e d problem. 52. I o f t e n buy l o t t e r y t i c k e t s . 53. I have avoided s e e i n g the d o c t o r , even when I had a problem. Reported p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n 54. I r e a l i z e I sometimes p r o c r a s t i n a t e (puts t h i n g s o f f ) . 55. I always manage t o meet important d e a d l i n e s . 56. I o f t e n put o f f doing t h i n g s u n t i l i t ' s too l a t e . P e r c e i v e d s a f e d r i v i n g 57. I don't have any dangerous d r i v i n g h a b i t s . 58. Other d r i v e r s i n t e r f e r e w i t h me more than I i n t e r f e r e w i t h them. 59. I am a s a f e d r i v e r even when I exceed the speed l i m i t . Love proneness 60. I have never t o l d anyone I l o v e d them u n l e s s i t was a b s o l u t e l y t r u e . 53 61. I can't f a l l i n lo v e with someone u n l e s s they l o v e me f i r s t . 62. I don't want t o know about my l o v e r ' s p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s . 63. I have been so much i n l o v e t h a t I c o u l d n ' t see the o t h e r person's f a u l t s . 64. A person's p h y s i c a l a t t r a c t i v e n e s s does not i n f l u e n c e me. 54 Appendix I I I 55 Marlowe-Crowne S c a l e L i s t e d below are a number of statements c o n c e r n i n g p e r s o n a l a t t i t u d e s and t r a i t s . Read each item and d e c i d e whether the statement i s t r u e or f a l s e as i t p e r t a i n s t o you. T F 1. Before v o t i n g I thoroughly i n v e s t i g a t e the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of a l l the c a n d i d a t e s . T F 2 . 1 never h e s i t a t e t o go out of my way t o h e l p someone i n t r o u b l e . T F 3. I t i s sometimes hard f o r me t o go on w i t h my work i f I am not encouraged. T F 4. I have never i n t e n s l y d i s l i k e d anyone. T F 5. On o c c a s i o n I have had doubts about my a b i l i t y t o succeed i n l i f e . T F 6.1 sometimes f e e l r e s e n t f u l when I don't get my way. T F 7. I am always c a r e f u l about my manner of d r e s s . T F 8. My t a b l e manners a t home are as good as when I eat out i n a r e s t a u r a n t . T F 9. I f I c o u l d get i n t o a movie without paying f o r i t and be sure I was not seen, I would probably do i t . T F 10. On a few o c c a s i o n s , I have g i v e n up doing something because I thought too l i t t l e of my a b i l i t y . T F 11. I l i k e t o g o s s i p a t times. T F 12. There have been times when I f e l t l i k e r e b e l l i n g a g a i n s t people i n a u t h o r i t y even though I knew they were r i g h t . T F 13. No matter who I'm t a l k i n g t o , I'm always a good l i s t e n e r . T F 14. I can remember " p l a y i n g s i c k " t o get out of something. T F 15. There have been o c c a s i o n s when I took advantage of someone. 56 T F 16. I'm always w i l l i n g t o admit i t when I make a mistake. T F 17. I always t r y t o p r a c t i c e what I preach. T F 18. I don't f i n d i t p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t t o get along w i t h l o u d mouthed, obnoxious people. T F 19. I sometimes t r y t o get even, r a t h e r than f o r g i v e and f o r g e t . T F 20. When I don't know something I don't a t a l l mind a d m i t t i n g i t . T F 21. I am always courteous, even t o people who are d i s a g r e e a b l e . T F 22. At times I have r e a l l y i n s i s t e d on having t h i n g s my own way. T F 23. There have been o c c a s i o n s when I f e l t l i k e smashing t h i n g s . T F 24. I would never t h i n k of l e t t i n g someone e l s e be punished f o r my wrongdoings. T F 25. I never r e s e n t being asked t o r e t u r n a f a v o r . T F 26. I have never been i r k e d when people expressed i d e a s very d i f f e r e n t from my own. T F 27. I never make a long t r i p without c h e c k i n g the s a f e t y of my c a r . T F 28. There have been times when I was q u i t e j e a l o u s of the good f o r t u n e of o t h e r s . T F 29. I have almost never f e l t the urge t o t e l l someone o f f . T F 30. I am sometimes i r r i t a t e d by people who ask f a v o r s of me. T F 31. I have never f e l t t h a t I was punished without cause. T F 32. I sometimes t h i n k when people have a m i s f o r t u n e they o n l y got what they deserved. T F 33. I have never d e l i b e r a t e l y s a i d something t h a t h u r t someone's f e e l i n g s . 57 INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX Using the s c a l e below as a guide, w r i t e a number b e s i d e each statement t o i n d i c a t e how much you agree w i t h i t . + + + + + + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not t r u e somewhat very t r u e I daydream and f a n t a s i z e , with some r e g u l a r i t y , about t h i n g s t h a t might happen t o me. 2. I sometimes f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o see t h i n g s from the "other guy's" p o i n t of view. 3. I o f t e n have tender, concerned f e e l i n g s f o r people l e s s f o r t u n a t e than me. 4. In emergency s i t u a t i o n s , I f e e l apprehensive and i l l - a t ease. 5. I r e a l l y g et i n v o l v e d w i t h the f e e l i n g s of the c h a r a c t e r s i n a n o v e l . 6. I sometimes t r y t o understand my f r i e n d s b e t t e r by imagining how t h i n g s look from t h e i r p e r s p e c t i v e . 7. Sometimes I don't f e e l v ery s o r r y f o r o t h e r people when they are having problems. 8. I sometimes f e e l h e l p l e s s when I am i n the middle of a very emotional s i t u a t i o n . 9. I.am u s u a l l y o b j e c t i v e when I watch a movie or p l a y , and I don't o f t e n get completely caught up i n i t . 10. Before c r i t i c i z i n g somebody, I t r y t o imagine how I would f e e l i f I were i n t h e i r p l a c e . 11. When I see someone being taken advantage o f , I f e e l k i n d of p r o t e c t i v e of them. 12. When I see someone get h u r t , I tend t o remain calm. 13. Becoming extremely i n v o l v e d i n a good book o r movie i s somewhat r a r e f o r me. 58 14. When I'm upset a t someone, I u s u a l l y t r y t o "put myself i n h i s shoes" f o r awhile. 15. Other people's m i s f o r t u n e s do not u s u a l l y d i s t u r b me a g r e a t d e a l . 16. Being i n a tense emotional s i t u a t i o n s c a r e s me. 17. A f t e r s e e i n g a p l a y or movie, I have f e l t as though I were one of the c h a r a c t e r s . 18. I t r y t o look a t everybody's s i d e of a disagreement when I make a d e c i s i o n . 19. When I see someone being t r e a t e d u n f a i r l y , I sometimes don't f e e l v ery much p i t y f o r them. 20. I am u s u a l l y p r e t t y e f f e c t i v e i n d e a l i n g w i t h emergencies. 21. When I watch a good movie, I can v e r y e a s i l y put myself i n the p l a c e of a l e a d i n g c h a r a c t e r . 22. I f I'm sure I'm r i g h t about something, I don't waste much time l i s t e n i n g t o o t h e r people's arguments. 23. I am o f t e n q u i t e touched by t h i n g s t h a t I see happen. 24. I tend t o l o s e c o n t r o l d u r i n g emergencies. 25. When I am r e a d i n g an i n t e r e s t i n g s t o r y or n o v e l , I imagine how I would f e e l i f the events i n the s t o r y were happening t o me. 26. I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e are two s i d e s t o every q u e s t i o n and I t r y t o look a t them both. 27. I would d e s c r i b e myself as a p r e t t y s o f t - h e a r t e d person. 28. When I see someone who badly needs h e l p i n an emergency, I go t o p i e c e s . 59 S e l f - M o n i t o r i n g S c a l e Using the s c a l e below as a guide, w r i t e a number be s i d e each statement t o i n d i c a t e how much you agree w i t h i t . + + + + + + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not t r u e somewhat very t r u e I can make impromptu speaches even on t o p i c s about which I have almost no i n f o r m a t i o n . 2. I can o n l y argue f o r ideas which I a l r e a d y b e l i e v e . 3. At p a r t i e s and s o c i a l g a t h e r i n g s , I do not attempt t o do or say t h i n g s t h a t o t h e r s w i l l l i k e . 4. My behavior i s u s u a l l y an e x p r e s s i o n of my t r u e i n n e r f e e l i n g s , a t t i t u d e s , and b e l i e f s . 5. I f i n d i t hard t o i m i t a t e the behavior of o t h e r people. 6. I may d e c e i v e people by being f r i e n d l y when I r e a l l y d i s l i k e them. 7. I can look anyone i n the eye and t e l l a l i e w i t h a s t r a i g h t f a c e ( i f f o r the r i g h t end). 8. I f e e l a b i t awkward i n company and do not show up q u i t e so w e l l as I should. 9. At a p a r t y , I l e t o t h e r s keep the jokes and s t o r i e s going. 10. I have t r o u b l e changing my behavior t o s u i t d i f f e r e n t people and d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s . 11. I have never been good a t games l i k e charades or i m p r o v i s i o n a l a c t i n g . 12. In o r d e r t o get along and be l i k e d , I tend t o be what people expect me t o be r a t h e r than anything e l s e . 13. I have c o n s i d e r e d being an e n t e r t a i n e r . 14. I would not change my o p i n i o n s (or the way I do t h i n g s ) i n o r d e r t o p l e a s e someone e l s e or win t h e i r f a v o r . 60 15. I'm not always the person I appear t o be. 16. Even i f I'm not e n j o y i n g myself, I o f t e n pretend t o be having a good time. 17. I am not p a r t i c u l a r l y good a t making o t h e r people l i k e me. 18. In d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s and wit h d i f f e r e n t people, I o f t e n a c t l i k e v e r y d i f f e r e n t persons. 19. In a group of people, I am r a r e l y the c e n t e r of a t t e n t i o n . 20. I laugh more when I watch a comedy wit h o t h e r s than when alone. 21. I sometimes appear t o ot h e r s t o be e x p e r i e n c i n g deeper emotions than I a c t u a l l y am. 22. I r a r e l y seek the advi c e of my f r i e n d s t o choose movies, books, or music. 23. I would probably make a good a c t o r . 24. When I am u n c e r t a i n how t o a c t i n a s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n , I look t o the behavior of the o t h e r s f o r cues. 25. I guess I put on a show t o impress o r e n t e r t a i n people. 61 S e l f - C o n s c i o u s n e s s S c a l e Using the s c a l e below as a guide, w r i t e a number be s i d e each statement t o i n d i c a t e how much you agree w i t h i t . + + + + + + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very t r u e somewhat not t r u e 1. Large groups make me nervous. 2. I'm aware of the way my mind works when I work through a problem. 3. I'm always t r y i n g t o f i g u r e myself out. 4. I'm concerned about my s t y l e of doing t h i n g s . 5. G e n e r a l l y , I'm not very aware of myself. 6. I t takes me time t o overcome my shyness i n new s i t u a t i o n s . 7. I r e f l e c t about myself a l o t . 8. I'm concerned about the way I p r e s e n t myself. 9. I'm o f t e n the s u b j e c t of my own f a n t a s i e s . 10. I have t r o u b l e working when someone i s watching me. 11. I never s c r u t i n i z e myself. 12. I get embarassed v e r y e a s i l y . 13. I'm s e l f - c o n s c i o u s about the way I look. 14. I don't f i n d i t hard t o t a l k t o s t r a n g e r s . 15. I'm g e n e r a l l y a t t e n t i v e t o my i n n e r f e e l i n g s . 16. I u s u a l l y worry about making a good impression. 17. I'm c o n s t a n t l y examining my motives. 18. I f e e l anxious when I speak i n f r o n t of a group. 62 19. One of the t h i n g s I do b e f o r e I l e a v e my house i s look i n the m i r r o r . 20. I sometimes have the f e e l i n g t h a t I'm o f f somewhere watching myself. 21. I'm concerned about what other people t h i n k of me. 22. I'm a l e r t t o changes i n my mood. 23. I'm u s u a l l y aware of my appearance. 63 Appendix IV 4 64 S e l f - D e c e p t i o n S c a l e - Negations Sex ID not very-t r u e t r u e + + + + + + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Using the above s c a l e as a guide, w r i t e a number be s i d e each statement t o i n d i c a t e how much you agree w i t h i t . 1. I have never hated e i t h e r of my p a r e n t s . 2. I am never f r e e of g u i l t . 3. I t ' s not t r u e t h a t s e e i n g any a t t r a c t i v e person of the o p p o s i t e sex makes me t h i n k about having sex. 4. I have never f e l t l i k e I wanted t o k i l l someone. 5. I t would be hard f o r me t o q u i t any of my bad h a b i t s . 6. I r a r e l y a p p r e c i a t e c r i t i c i s m even i f i t i s a c c u r a t e . 7. I have never f e l t p h y s i c a l l y a t t r a c t e d t o a person of the same sex. 8. I have never f e l t joy over someone e l s e ' s f a i l u r e . 9. I never r e t u r n a f a v o r without h e s i t a t i n g . 10. I t bothers me i f someone d i s l i k e s me. 11. I am i n t e r e s t e d i n knowing what ot h e r people r e a l l y t h i n k of me. 12. My parents punished me even when I r e a l l y d i d not deserve i t . 13. I never get j e a l o u s over the good f o r t u n e of o t h e r s . 14. My parents sometimes d i d n ' t l o v e me. 15. I r a r e l y have sexual f a n t a s i e s . 65 16. I have sometimes wondered i f I am homosexual. 17. I have sometimes doubted my a b i l i t y as a sex p a r t n e r . 18. I r a r e l y e n j o y my bowel movements. 19. I have n e v e r wanted t o rape o r be r a p e d by someone. 20. I have never t h o u g h t o f c o m m i t t i n g s u i c i d e t o g e t back a t someone. 66 I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d j e c t i v e S c a l e - Revised: B i g F i v e Using the s c a l e below as a guide, w r i t e a number be s i d e each word t o i n d i c a t e how d e s c r i p t i v e i t i s of you. + .+ + + + + + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not t r u e somewhat Very t r u e Outgoing U n a u t h o r i t a t i v e U n p h i l o s o p h i c a l Unsearching Worrying Unkind Organized T i d y C o n v e n t i o n a l Imaginative C o l d h e a r t e d Tense F r e t f u l V o c a l C a r i n g Commanding Relaxed G e n t l e h e a r t e d U n d i s c i p l i n e d Anxious Broadminded Systematic D i s o r g a n i z e d Unsympathetic Tenderhearted Calm E f f i c i e n t I n g u i s i t i v e Q u i e t Shy S t a t e - T r a i t A n x i e t y Inventory - form X-2 ( T r a i t form) Sex Almost never Sometimes Often Almost always + + + + 1 2 3 4 Using the above s c a l e as a guide, w r i t e a number be s i d e each statement t o i n d i c a t e how you g e n e r a l l y f e e l . 1. I f e e l p l e a s a n t . 2. I t i r e q u i c k l y . 3. I f e e l l i k e c r y i n g . 4. I wish I c o u l d be as happy as o t h e r s seem t o be. 5. I l o s e out on t h i n g s because I can't make up my mind soon enough. 6. I f e e l r e s t e d . 7. I am "calm, c o o l , and c o l l e c t e d " . 8. I f e e l t h a t d i f f i c u l t i e s are p i l i n g up so t h a t I cannot overcome them. 9. I worry too much over something t h a t r e a l l y doesn't matter. 10. I am happy. 11. I am i n c l i n e d t o take t h i n g s hard. 12. I l a c k s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e . 13. I f e e l secure. 14. I t r y t o a v o i d f a c i n g a c r i s i s or d i f f i c u l t y . 15. I f e e l b l u e . 16. I am content. 68 17. Some unimportant thought runs through my mind and bothers me. 18. I take disappointments so hard I c a n ' t put them out of my mind. 19. I am a steady person. 20. I get i n a s t a t e of t e n s i o n or t u r m o i l as I t h i n k over my r e c e n t concerns and i n t e r e s t s . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097795/manifest

Comment

Related Items