PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS SCALE

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 2 , 779 - 800 , 30.06.2022

Özlem Serap Özkan , Gülşah Durna , Arzu Araz

https://doi.org/10.16953/deusosbil.1010261

Cited By: 2

https://izlik.org/JA74DS75FL

Öz

The current study aimed to adapt the Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (SPTS; Lee et al., 1999) into Turkish and to evaluate its psychometric properties. Accordingly, two studies were conducted. In the first one, the factor structure of SPTS was tested in a sample of 346 adults with exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which revealed a distinct structure explaining 58.14% of the variance from the 12-factor original scale. The findings showed that a nine-factor model including 50 items presented the best fit with the following factors: ingratiation, apology, exemplification, disclaimer, intimidation, excuse/justification, enhancement, self-handicapping, blasting/entitlement. In the second study, a sample of 653 college students completed SPTS and Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (RSMS). The second-order nine-factor solution was uncovered by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In addition, internal consistency and test-retest reliability analyses showed significant correlation coefficients. The criterion-related validity was also proved with significant correlations between SPTS and RSMS. These results verify that the SPTS is a valid and reliable measure to assess self-presentation tactics for the adult population in Turkey.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Self-presentation tactics , Assertive , Defensive , Reliability , Validity

BENLİK SUNUMU TAKTİKLERİ ÖLÇEĞİ’NİN TÜRKÇE UYARLAMASININ PSİKOMETRİK DEĞERLENDİRMESİ

https://izlik.org/JA74DS75FL

Öz

Bu çalışma, Benlik Sunumu Taktikleri Ölçeği’ni (BSTÖ; Lee et al., 1999) Türkçe’ye uyarlamayı ve ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Bu doğrultuda, iki ayrı çalışma yürütülmüştür. İlk çalışmada, ölçeğin faktör yapısı 346 yetişkinden oluşan örneklem ile incelenmiştir. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) bulguları, 12 faktörlü orijinal ölçek yapısından farklı olarak varyansın % 58.14’ünü açıklayan bir yapıyı ortaya koymuştur. Bulgular, en uyumlu modelin 50 madde ve dokuz faktörden oluşan yapı olduğunu göstermiştir: kendini sevdirme, özür dileme, örnek olma, ön açıklama, göz korkutma, mazeret bildirme/meşrulaştırma, öne çıkarma, kendini engelleme, hak iddia etme/ hor görme. İkinci çalışmada, 653 üniversite öğrencisinden oluşan örneklem BSTÖ ve Gözden Geçirilmiş Kendini Ayarlama Ölçeğini (GGKAÖ) doldurmuştur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları, ikinci düzey dokuz faktörlü yapıyı desteklemiştir. Bunun yanı sıra, iç tutarlılık ve test-tekrar test güvenirlik analizleri sonucunda anlamlı korelasyon katsayıları bulunmuştur. BSTÖ ve GGKAÖ arasındaki anlamlı korelasyon ölçüt bağıntılı geçerliğin varlığını kanıtlamıştır. Bu bulgular, BSTÖ’nün iddiacı ve savunucu benlik sunumu taktiklerini değerlendiren geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu ve Türkiye’deki yetişkin popülasyonu için kullanılabileceğini doğrulamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Benlik sunumu taktikleri , İddiacı , Savunucu , Güvenirlik , Geçerlik

Kaynakça

• Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentational styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Eds.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (pp. 311-335). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
• Baron, M. (2005). Justifications and excuses. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2(2), 387-406. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/osjcl2&div=28&id=&page=
• Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 405-417. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.405
• Botterell, A. (2009). A Primer on the Distinction between Justification and Excuse. Philosophy Compass, 4(1), 172-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00200.x
• Boz, N., Uhls, Y. T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2016). Cross-cultural comparison of adolescents' online self-presentation strategies: Turkey and the United States. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning (IJCBPL), 6(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCBPL.2016070101
• Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. A. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.
• Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522-527. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076760 Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd Ed.,. London: Sage Publications Ltd., 2009.
• Fullwood, C., James, B. M., & Chen-Wilson, C. H. (2016). Self-concept clarity and online self-presentation in adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(12), 716-720. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0623
• Gever, V. C., & Okoro, N. (2020). Influence of Facebook Users' Self-Presentation Tactics on Their Response to Persuasive Political Messages. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1-20. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3656
• Hart, W., Adams, J., Burton, K. A., & Tortoriello, G. K. (2017). Narcissism and self-presentation: Profiling grandiose and vulnerable Narcissists' self-presentation tactic use. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 48-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.062
• Hart, W., Richardson, K., Breeden, C. J., Tortoriello, G. K., & Kinrade, C. (2021). Exploring the interactive role of narcissism and self-esteem on self-presentation. Self and Identity, 1-26.
• Hewitt, J. P., & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers, American Sociological Review, 40(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094442
• James, T. L., Mikhaeil, C. A., & Ziegelmayer, J. L. (2020). The Role of Social Media Affordances in Activating Normative Self-Presentation behaviour across Multiple Platforms. ECIS 2020 Research-in-Progress Papers. 16. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rip/16
• Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959
• Kawamoto, T. (2021). Online self‐presentation and identity development: The moderating effect of neuroticism. PsyCh Journal, 1-18. doi: 10.1002/pchj.470
• Kim, H., & Papacharissi, Z. (2003). Cross‐cultural differences in online self‐presentation: A content analysis of personal Korean and US home pages. Asian Journal of Communication, 13(1), 100-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292980309364833
• Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford publications.
• Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34
• Lee, S. J., Quigley, B. M., Nesler, M. S., Corbett, A. B., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Development of a self-presentation tactics scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(4), 701-722. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00178-0
• Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1349-1364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1349
• Malone, L. A. (2009). Is there really difference between justification and excuse, or did we academics make it up. Texas Tech Law Review, 42(2), 321-326. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/text42&div=19&id=&page=
• Mayer, B., Trommsdorff, G., Kagitcibasi, C., & Mishra, R. C. (2012). Family models of independence/interdependence and their intergenerational similarity in Germany, Turkey, and India. Family Science, 3(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2011.671503
• Øverup, C. S., & Neighbors, C. (2016). Self-presentation as a function of perceived closeness and trust with romantic partners, friends, and acquaintances. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156(6), 630-647. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2016.1152215
• Roth, D. L., Harris, R. N., & Snyder, C. R. (1988). An individual differences measure of attributive and repudiative tactics of favorable self-presentation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1988.6.2.159
• Sandal, G. M., van de Vijver, F., Bye, H. H., Sam, D. L., Amponsah, B., Cakar, N., ... & Leontieva, A. (2014). Intended self-presentation tactics in job interviews: A 10-country study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(6), 939-958. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114532353
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. http://www.mpr-online.de
• Schütz, A. (1998). Assertive, offensive, protective, and defensive styles of self-presentation: A taxonomy. The Journal of psychology, 132(6), 611-628. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599293
• Scott, M. R., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts, American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092239
• Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037039
• Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
• Türetgen, İ. Ö., & Cesur, S. (2006). Gözden Geçirilmiş Kendini Ayarlama Ölçeği'nin Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik Çalışması. [The Reliability and Validity Study of the Revised Self-Monitoring Scale]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 9(17), 1–17.
• Zhao, C., & Jiang, G. (2011, May 7-12). Cultural differences on visual self-presentation through social networking site profile images [Conference session]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada. (pp. 1129-1132). https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979110