This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 09 November 2013, At: 06:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and AppliedPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Assertive, Offensive,Protective, and DefensiveStyles of Self-Presentation: ATaxonomyAstrid Schütz aa Department of Psychology , University ofBamberg , GermanyPublished online: 02 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Astrid Schütz (1998) Assertive, Offensive, Protective, andDefensive Styles of Self-Presentation: A Taxonomy, The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and Applied, 132:6, 611-628, DOI: 10.1080/00223989809599293

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599293

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

The Journal of Psychology, 1998, 132(6), 61 1 4 2 8

Assertive, Offensive, Protective, and Defensive Styles of Self-presentation:

A Taxonomy

ASTRID SCHUTZ Department of Psychology

University of Barnberg, Germany

ABSTRACT. Classifications of self-presentational behavior are reviewed for differences and similarities. Earlier classifications and recent empirical research are used as a basis for a taxonomy of four styles of self-presentation-assertive, offensive, protective, and defensive-according to the relevant self-presentational intentions and the level of activi- ty involved. Each style is illustrated with typical behavioral examples, together with indi- vidual differences and possible consequences.

MOST SOCIAL INTERACTIONS can be analyzed in terms of self-presentation, because only a few behavioral acts can be considered as not having any self-pre- sentational intentions (Baumeister, 1982; Goffman, 1959). Nonetheless, even though self-presentation appears to be ubiquitous, people differ strongly as to how much they engage in conscious attempts at self-presentation (M. Snyder, 1974). Members of certain professions, such as actors or politicians, may be more aware of their own self-presentation. There are also major differences in effectiveness of self-presentation. Some people are adept at conveying a desired image; others are less skillful. Shy individuals may attempt to be friendly but still appear hostile because they tend to engage very little in social interaction for fear of failure (Schlenker & Leary, 1985).

Not only do people’s self-presentation efforts and skills differ, but also a variety of distinct images are conveyed. A scholar may aspire to be regarded as competent, whereas a priest may desire, above all, to be considered morally blameless. In addition, people use different means for self-presentation. Some

Parts of this article were written while I was a visiting scholar at the University of Vir- ginia supported by a Feodor Lynen Fellowship from the Alexander von Humholdt Foun- dation. I am grateful to Blanche Williams for editing a draft of this article.

Address correspondence to Astrid Schiitz, Lehrstuhl Psychologie Iv University of Bamherg, Posrfach 1549 0-96045 Bamherg, Germany: e-mail: astrid.schuetz@ppp.uni- hamherg.de.

61 I

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

612 The Journal of Psychology

people talk about their competencies in order to create favorable impressions; some try to belittle their rivals; and others emphasize qualities of the groups to which they belong. My objective in this study was to construct an integrative tax- onomy of self-presentational styles, distinguishing assertive, offensive, protec- tive, and defensive behavior according to the verbal and behavioral means used for different self-presentational purposes.

Four Self-Presentational Styles

Several classifications of self-presentational behavior have been suggested by researchers. Here, I review prior classifications and subsequently construct a new integrative taxonomy (see Appendix).

A widely accepted distinction of self-presentational behaviors is the one dis- tinguishing assertive and defensive tactics (Tedeschi & Lindskold, 1976; Tedeschi & Norman, 1985). Tedeschi and colleagues defined assertive self-pre- sentation as behavior aimed at establishing particular identities in the eyes of oth- ers, and defensive self-presentation as actions taken to reestablish a positive iden- tity or remove negative typifications.

Arkin (198 1) suggested a similar distinction between acquisitive and pro- tective behaviors. Acquisitive self-presentation seeks social approval and is largely synonymous with assertive self-presentation; protective self-presentation entails very careful and conservative behavior aimed at avoiding disapproval and includes modest self-descriptions, the use of uncertain expressions, self-depreci- ation, and a reduction in the frequency of social interaction.

Assertive and defensive self-presentations refer to behavioral taxonomies; no relation to personality traits has been established. With regard to protective self-presentation, however, an association has been reported with social anxiety (Arkin, 198 1). Recently, styles of self-presentation have been associated system- atically with self-esteem; that is, a style typical of individuals low in self-esteem and another typical of individuals high in self-esteem have been identified by Baumeister, Tice, and Hutton (1989). These authors related self-presentational styles to scores on self-esteem questionnaires and argued that high scorers pre- sent themselves in a self-enhancing although risky way, drawing attention to their positive attributes.

Lower scorers, who in fact obtained medium-range scores on the question- naires, use a self-protective style. They avoid drawing attention to their abilities and are concerned with avoiding negative impressions rather than achieving pos- itive impressions. Empirical support for this theory has been supplied by several studies (Schutz & DePaulo, 1996; Schutz & Tice, 1997; Tice, 1991). Similar dis- tinctions have been suggested by others and have been termed getting along and getting ahead or acquisitive and protective (Wolfe, Lennox, & Cutler, 1986), self-assertive and self-protective (Schlenker, 1987), or passive and active coping style (Baumgardner & Arkin, 1987).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Schiitz 613

These classifications, though containing quite a few common aspects, have not systematically been related to each other. An integrative framework of self- presentational styles, talung into account the similarities and differences of the established taxonomies as well as other empirically derived aspects of self-pre- sentation, ought to be useful to enhance our understanding of forms of self-pre- sentation. An integrative taxonomy should include the following four aspects in the basic distinction of assertive versus defensive self-presentation.

First, the literature on low self-esteem and self-presentation (Baumeister et al., 1989) clearly suggests that protective self-presentation (Arkin, 198 1 ; Baum- gardner & Arkin, 1987; Schlenker, 1987; Wolfe et al., 1986) should be consid- ered an additional dimension. Second, empirical findings suggest the usefulness of a fourth dimension, which may be referred to as offensive self-presentation. In several studies on politicians’ public self-presentation (Laux & Schutz, 1996; Schutz, 1990, 1993b, 1995a. 1995b, I997a, 1997b), for example, aggressive behavior was used as a means of self-enhancement. Critical comments directed to the questioner, the rival, or a third party, as well as attempts to control a dis- cussion, were frequently used in order to convey an impression of superiority.

Other research (e.g., Baumgardner, Kaufmann, & Levy, 1989; Buss & Ded- den, 1990; Cialdini & Richardson, 1980; Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; Crocker, Thompson, McGraw, & Ingermann, 1987; Pelham, 1993; Spencer, Josephs, & Steele, 1993) has likewise shown that the derogation of a third party can be used for self-enhancement. Such a use of aggressive means for creating a favorable image or boosting one’s self-esteem is quite distinct from assertive self-presen- tation as described by Tedeschi and Norman (1985).

Third, several self-presentational behaviors have been observed that do not match any of the self-presentational tactics described in the literature to date, such as denial, identification, showing strength, remediation, criticizing the source of criticism, and determining the topic of discussion (Schutz, 1986, 1990, 1992). Fourth, several independent groups of researchers have observed similar forms of self-presentation that also should be explored for possible inclusion in unified taxonomic constructs.

These typologies already appear to form an active-passive dimension, a con- tinuum widely used in classifying various forms of behavior. With respect to social interactions, activity versus passivity denotes the extent to which behavior is withdrawn versus outgoing. Along the same lines, the classical system for cod- ing interaction behavior, SYMLOG, suggests the dimension upward versus downward for rating the dominance versus submissiveness of behavior (Bales & Cohen, 1979). Self-presentational styles, then, may be placed on a dimension ranging from passive, conservative behavior to outgoing, aggressive behavior.

Another dimension in self-presentation involves underlying intentions. High and low scorers on measures of self-esteem tend to differ in their self-presenta- tional motivations (Baumeister et al., 1989). Those high in self-esteem are eager to create highly favorable impressions; those low in self-esteem are preoccupied

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

6 I4 The Journal of Psychology

with not creating negative impressions. Thus, an important dimension for classi- fying self-presentation entails a person’s efforts to look good as opposed to efforts not to “look bad” (Arkin, 1981; Olson & Johnson, 199 1; Roth, Snyder, & Pace, 1986). In the taxonomy suggested in this article, behaviors are distin- guished on the basis of (a) intentions not to give any negative impression and (b) intentions to achieve positive impressions. Each of these dimensions may be classified according to how actively the person engages in the purpose. Thus, the following four styles emerge.

Trying to Look Good by Presenting a Favorable Image

Assertive self-presentation consists of active, but not aggressive, efforts to build positive impressions. In the process of assertive self-presentation, actors present attributes desirable to them in a given situation. Such attributes can be claimed verbally (“I am good at math”) or proved by relevant behavior (e.g., solving a complicated equation). Observers usually find more credibility in behavioral clues, for they are harder to fake (DePaulo, 1992; Ekman, Friesen, & Scherer, 1976).

Assertive self-presentation includes behaviors distinguished by Jones and Pittman ( 1982), such as ingratiation, exemplification, and self-promotion. Because these assertive tactics have already been described extensively (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Tedeschi, Lindskold, & Rosenfeld, 1985; Tedeschi & Norman, 1983, they are presented here only briefly. Other tactics listed by Jones and Pittman (1982), such as intimidation and supplication, are not to be subsumed under the assertive category in the taxonomy suggested here because the behav- iors do not represent attempts to convey favorable impressions.

1. Ingratiation. The ingratiator wants to appear likable by doing favors, complementing others, describing himself or herself favorably, or showing opin- ion conformity (Jones, 1964).

2. Exemplification. Helping others, neglecting one’s own interests, or engaging in similar behavior represents a desire to appear morally worthy (Jones & Pittman, 1982).

3. Self-promotion. Showing successful performances or claiming such per- formances in the past are means of conveying the impression of competency to observers (Jones & Pittman, 1982).

Tactics similar to self-promotion have been observed by other researchers. For example, “basking in reflected glory” (Cialdini et al., 1976; Cialdini & Richardson, 1980) refers to attempts to “look good” by associating oneself with others who are evaluated positively (see also Cialdini & DeNicholas, 1989). Two other tactics have been called “entitlements” and “enhancements” (D’ Arcy, 1963; Schlenker, 1980). Using entitlements, people associate themselves with positive events (Abele-Brehm, 1989); with enhancements, they try to convince

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Schiitz 615

others that events with which they are already associated are more positive than they appear at first. These indirect forms of self-presentation operate under the principles of balance theory (Heider, 1958): Self-enhancement is achieved by associating the self with positive entities.

Entitlements, enhancements, and basking have been called specific forms of self-presentation (Tedeschi et al., 1985). It is important to note, however, that goals toward which these tactics are directed may differ according to the context. Certain claims allow a person to appear more competent; others may allow a per- son to appear more attractive and likable (e.g., claiming friendship with a popu- lar star) or may give the impression of greater personal wealth and generosity (e.g., announcing that one has donated a large sum of money to a social organi- zation). Of course the impressions generated depend not only on the actor’s self- presentational abilities (Jones & Pittman, 1982), but also on listeners’ values and attitudes (Schutz, 1992). Some people might judge the use of money for a social cause to be foolish.

4. Showing strength or “power display” is an assertive tactic observed in studies on campaigning politicians’ self-presentation (Schiitz, 1986, 1992).

Politicians were found to present themselves as strong and powerful; unlike the tactic of “intimidation” (Jones & Pittman, 1982), a power display was not used to create fear in others but to assure potential voters that the candidate was in charge and able to achieve rewards for people. Showing strength thus appears to be the positive sibling of intimidation, in that the display of power is used to reassure observers of one’s potential to create positive outcomes.

5. Identification. A current study on motor-bikers’ self-presentation (Schutz, 1997) points out a form of self-presentation based on group membership.

Identification aims at emphasizing membership in a specific group that is evaluated positively by the actor. The technique includes verbal claims of mem- bership and the use of “symbolic self-completion” (Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982), such as references to one’s tatoos and features of one’s motorbike.

Trying to Look Good by Making Others Look Bad

Offensive self-presentation is an aggressive way of establishing a desired image. People using assertive self-presentation simply present themselves in a desired fashion, whereas in offensive self-presentation they use domination or derogation of others in order to make themselves look good. By attacking others and presenting themselves as superior, they try to convey desired impressions of themselves.

1. As observers usually judge by comparison, one means of achieving a more positive evaluation is to make others with whom one is compared look less positive (Heider, 1958). Wills (1981) has termed such behavior “downward comparison.”

Cialdini and Richardson (1980) have shown that students rated the quality of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

6 I6 The Journal of Psychology

their university’s rival school less positively after they were given negative feed- back of their own performance. This strategy, which the researchers have termed “blasting the opposition,” obviously serves self-enhancement purposes in the context of a failure experience. Buss and Dedden (1990) have called such behav- ior “derogating competitors.”

A recent study of politicians’ self-presentation during election campaigns indicated that attacks against the political opponent can be a means of self-pre- sentation (Schiitz, 1992). In this study, a subtle form of derogating the rival was also observed, probably owing to the politicians’ understanding of the public’s general dislike of harsh attacks. One political candidate used a “sandwich tech- nique’’: He packaged the critical evaluation of his opponents in verbal claims of fairness (Oslislo, 1987; Schiitz, 1992), at first affirming the importance of fair campaigning, then mentioning several key arguments of public criticism direct- ed to his opponent, and finally distancing himself from some of these negative evaluations by calling it unfair to attack the candidate’s person instead of his political standing.

In the case of attacks against an opponent, a positive image can result via two roads. First, as rivals are compared with each other, criticizing the rival will lower the level of comparison. Second, the actor looks superior because the rival seems to not reach the standards set by the actor (Schutz, 1992).

2. Ironic statements or critical evaluation of a third party form another type of offensive self-presentation (Schiitz, 1997).

In the eyes of observers, ironic statements create the impression of a sharp mind that sets tough standards of evaluation. When people criticize the govern- ment for political errors or criticize the abilities of a football player, they make themselves appear competent in the relevant sphere because they seem to be able to make judgments or to know the proper solution.

3. A third technique that has similar effects and also reduces the impact of criticism is that of criticizing the questioner (Schiitz, 1992).

In this offensive form of self-presentation, the actor criticizes a person who has posed a critical question. For example, the former Bavarian prime minister, Franz-Josef Strauss, who was famous for harsh attacks on journalists, once asked a journalist who posed a critical question whether he had finished high school.

4. Attack the source of criticism, which may be a person who has negative- ly evaluated the subject (Baumgardner et al., 1989) or a publication whose criti- cal comment is cited (Schiitz, 1992).

By attacking the source’s competency or credibility, its criticism can be weakened and actors can manage to look superior to observers. This technique includes charges of incompetence and bias. If a lecturer, for example, is con- fronted with published evidence that contradicts his arguments, he may call the respective journal or newspaper unscholarly or biased.

5 . Another offensive technique has been named “determining the topic of discussion” (Schutz, 1992).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Schutz 617

This form of self-presentation includes both attempts to change the topic of discussion and attempts to prevent others from changing the topic. Determining the topic can be accomplished overtly, by stating “I do not want to talk about this!” or “Let’s talk about . . . .” The goal may also be less obvious: Speakers may begin their statements by seemingly answering a question that has been asked and then redirecting their argument to another topic (Hoffmann, 1982); or they may talk without allowing interruption and thus prevent others from entering the discussion and changing the topic (Schutz, 1993b). Determining the topic of discussion can be a powerful self-presentational tool, for people engaging in such behavior con- vey an impression of being in charge (Merten, 1989); they control the interaction and keep at bay topics that do not allow them to create desired impressions.

Trying Not to Look Bad by Avoiding the Conveyance of Negative Impressions

The common goal of self-presentation has been described as creating desired impressions (Jones & Pittman, 1982) or establishing particular identities (Tedeschi & Norman, 1985). Protective behavior, however, aims at less: The per- son does not try to look good or favorable but simply not to look bad. Efforts are not devoted to attaining desired identities but to avoiding damage to social iden- tities already established or assumed. Compared with defensive self-presenta- tion, protective self-presentation does not consist of active efforts to correct undesired identities but includes passive efforts at avoiding negative impressions.

People engaging in protective self-presentation often avoid situations that could be embarrassing or humiliating and thus forgo certain opportunities to con- vey favorable impressions and enhance their self-esteem (Schlenker, 1987). They try not to stand out and do not engage in risky positive self-presentation (Baumeis- ter et al., 1989). Typically, they also limit interactions and behave pleasantly when interaction is necessary (Arkin, 1981). The following behaviors can be classified as typical of protective self-presentation.

1. Avoiding public attention. Not being looked at prevents critical evaluation, so avoiding attention can be a means of trying to avoid criticism (Schlenker, 1987).

2. Minimal self-disclosure. If one has to say something about oneself, the cautious approach is to say as little as possible (Schlenker & Leary, 1985). giv- ing others little opportunity for criticizing.

3. Cautious self-description. People engaging in protective self-presentation try not to draw attention to their abilities and avoid the risks of positive self-pre- sentation (Baumeister et al., 1989), which would expose them to the possibility of negative evaluation in the case of future failure. They rather reduce standards, use self-handicapping strategies (Baumgardner & Arkin, 1987), describe them- selves modestly, or even engage in self-depreciation (Arkin, 198 1; Schlenker, 1987; Schlenker & Leary, 1985).

4. Minimizing social interaction. The fear of misbehaving and consequently

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

61 8 The Journal of Psychology

being evaluated negatively may result in avoidance of social interactions (Arkin, 198 1). Not interacting with others reduces the risk of leaving negative impres- sions, just as it reduces the chances of conveying favorable ones.

5. Remaining silent. When one says little or nothing in social interactions, there is little probability of saying something wrong-the risk of negative evalu- ation is reduced (Schlenker & Leary, 1985).

6. Passive but friendly interaction. Self-presentation in pleasant, friendly terms, including agreeing frequently with one’s interaction partners may limit others to uncritical responses. (Schlenker & Leary, 1985; Schutz, Schiepek, Richter, & Kohler, 1997).

Trying Not to Look Bad by Fighting Off Negative Typifications

Defensive self-presentation may become necessary to minimize the damage that has been done after desired identities have been threatened or damaged (Tedeschi & Lindskold, 1976; Tedeschi & Norman, 1985). In situations in which people’s own actions or other events have conveyed undesired images of them- selves to others, a predicament has arisen and defensive tactics may be used to reduce the negative impact of such events.

Defensive tactics have been systematized elsewhere (Schutz, 1990). A pro- totypical situation leading to defensive reactions is that of a person held respon- sible for an event that is publicly evaluated negatively. The more one is associat- ed with the event, and the more negatively the event is evaluated (C. R. Snyder, Higgins, & Stucky, 1983), the more detrimental are the implications regarding one’s public image. In classifying defensive reactions, we can thus distinguish how much is admitted about the event and its negative consequences and to what degree the actor accepts responsibility for the event.

Four questions are useful in understanding the extent to which an actor’s image is threatened: Did the event take place at all? Is the event to be evaluated negatively? Did the person in question cause the event? Could the actor have reacted differently? Usually a person will try to supply as little negative infor- mation regarding herself or himself as possible and try to maintain a public image that is as positive as possible. Self-serving behavior reaches its limits, however, if it is confronted with a differing reality. Statements that are later con- tradicted by facts have an even more detrimental impact on a person’s public image, for the person may then be perceived as a liar. Here are five strategies of self-presentation that differ with regard to how much the actor reveals concern- ing the aforementioned four questions.

1. Denial. The main statement of this tactic is “It did not happen.” Schon- bach (1980) has called similar behavior “refusals.” Maintaining one’s position, one could then also question the trustworthiness of those who claim that a nega- tive event occurred (which would be offensive self-presentation).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Schiitz 619

2. Reframing. The person admits that a certain event has happened but argues that it should not be seen in a negative way. The main statement is “It was different!” C. R. Snyder et al. (1983) framed this tactic as “It was not so bad!”

3. Dissociation. The main statement is “It was not me.” People using disassociation accept that a negative event has taken place, but

affirm that they have not caused it. Tedeschi and Riess (1981) called this behav- ior “denial of agency.” To strengthen the claim of not having caused a certain event, a person may name a scapegoat. He or she might even claim not to be asso- ciated with the event in question. Cialdini and Richardson (1980) presented an example of this behavior: College students referred to their university football team as “we” in instances of a winning score but said “they lost” when the team was not successful. Distancing from unsuccessful persons or groups has also been called “cutting off reflected failure” (C. R. Snyder et al., 1983).

4. Justification. The main statement is “It was legitimate” (Schonbach, 1980; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Tedeschi & Riess, 1981).

Actors using justifications accept that they caused a negative event but claim that it was inevitable or justified and that they should not be blamed. They may even expect people to be grateful rather than angry, in view of the “fact” that they caused short-term inconvenience for the sake of long-term improvement.

5. Excuses. The main statement of this tactic is “I could not help it” (Schon- bach, 1980; Scott & Lyman, 1968; Tedeschi & Riess, 1981).

Actors using excuses accept responsibility for a negative event, but they put forward extenuating circumstances. They may claim that they could not control the event or did not foresee the consequences. Tedeschi and Riess (198 1) listed lack of volition and lack of intention as major excuses. By using excuses, actors try to minimize negative inferences that might be drawn about their personality.

6. Concessions, apologies, and remediation. A final possibility is to take full responsibility for a negative event (Schonbach, 1980), show remorse, and ask for for- giveness (Tedeschi & Riess, 1981). perhaps promising that it will not happen again.

If remediation is offered in addition to apology, the effect is usually stronger than the effect of apology alone (Darby & Schlenker, 1989). Apologies and reme- diation may save a person’s image as honest and responsible, even though he or she may have to bear the consequences of being responsible for a negative event.

Discussion

These four self-presentational styles have been observed in various studies and in different types of participating individuals. Behavior during interviews was categorized as assertive, defensive, and offensive (Schutz, 1993a); written documents were classified for assertive, offensive, protective, and defensive ele- ments. Styles of self-presentation are not expected to be consistent across situa- tions, as both personality and situational determinants are important in eliciting any given style. It will be necessary to conduct empirical research to find out how

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

620 The Journal of Psychology

different groups of people resort to different styles in different situations. How- ever, I have sketched here some preliminary thoughts on situational and person- al determinants of choosing a self-presentational style.

Situational and Personal Determinants of Self- Presentational Styles

It is not possible to ascribe a single self-presentational style to a particular individual, because people use different styles at different times. There may, however, be habitual trends toward certain styles in certain persons: Some peo- ple frequently use offensive behaviors, just as others tend to behave in a defen- sive fashion. Various personality traits such as self-esteem and social anxiety are important variables in characterizing groups of individuals favoring specific styles. People low in self-esteem, for example, tend to avoid risks, behave in a cautious and conservative manner, and adopt a protective style of self-presenta- tion more frequently than other people (Baumeister et al., 1989; Baumgardner & Arkin, 1987; Schlenker, 1987; Schutz & DePaulo, 1996).

Offensive self-presentation, for example, criticizing others, has been shown to be more frequent in people with high trait self-esteem (Schutz & Tice, 1997). The offensive style may also be typical of ambitious and competitive people who are low in traits such as empathy. With respect to assertive self-presentation, it has been shown that high trait self-esteem is associated with presenting competence and wanting to be admired, whereas low trait self-esteem is associated with altruism and wanting to be liked (Schutz & DePaulo, 1996; Schutz & Tice, 1997).

Habitual emphasis on one of the four self-presentational styles can be inter- preted as personality disposition and related to widely used dimensions such as the five factor model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992; John, Angleit- ner, & Ostendorf, 1988). Because of conceptual similarity, it can be argued that offensive and assertive self-presentation, the styles that have been classified as “trying to achieve positive impressions” in the present taxonomy, may both be related to extraversion.

These two self-presentational styles may, however, differ with respect to the level of agreeableness involved. Offensive self-presentation, the style that has been classified as more active, may be perceived as less agreeable because it vio- lates social norms such as politeness or fairness. Protective and defensive self- presentation, the two dimensions that have been classified as trying to avoid neg- ative impressions, might both be related to neuroticism if used frequently (see also Tedeschi & Norman, 1985). The defensive style, which is also the more active one, may be regarded as less agreeable because it can make the actor look evasive. Protective self-presentation, which focuses on agreeing and not convey- ing negative impressions, may be related to high scores on both neuroticism and agreeability.

If carried to the extreme, it could even be argued that the use of one particular self-presentational style resembles certain personality disorders as classified in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Schiitz 621

standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; Ameri- can Psychiatric Association, 1994). Excessive use of protective self-presentation may be typical of the avoidant personality; excessive use of offensive self-presen- tation may be typical of the antisocial personality. An overuse of assertive self-pre- sentation may be related to the narcissistic personality, just as an overuse of defen- sive self-presentation may be symptomatic of the paranoid personality.

However, it is not traits alone that guide behavior. Clearly, situational demands have to be taken into consideration to understand self-presentational choices (see, for example, Alexander & Rudd, 1981). People who frequently engage in protec- tive self-presentation at their workplace, where they have a subordinate position, may behave offensively at home. A child who is often teased by his peers and reacts protectively in those situations may be assertive with younger children.

Likewise, certain types of interaction call for particular styles of self-pre- sentation. In a court hearing, for example, the accused may tend to use defensive self-presentation, whereas the attorney’s self-presentation is likely to be offen- sive. Thus social roles and expectations create an important framework for peo- ple’s interactional conduct (Hogan, 1993; Holland, 1985). The impact of a situa- tion depends on how much the ensuing interaction is ritualized or prescribed by social norms (Mischel, 1973). Military ceremonies do not allow for individual variation, for instance, but enjoying a holiday on the beach does.

Several other factors constrain the variety of possible self-presentations. Cultural prescriptions and gender roles are among the most important of those factors. In societies where modest self-presentation is prescribed, such as Japan- ese society, people will engage more often in protective self-presentation and less in assertive self-presentation than in a society that emphasizes the importance of individual accomplishments, such as that of the United States (see Doi, 1986; Markus & Kitayama, 199 1 ; Miller, 1994; Triandis, 1989). With respect to gender roles, women in most cultures are expected not to react as offensively as is acceptable for men (see Ferrari, 1991; Wiley & Crittenden, 1992).

Finally, interaction between personality and situational demands must also be taken into account: Certain people may look for or create certain environ- ments to match their abilities and needs (Mischel, 1993). A dhy person, for exam- ple, may try to evade participation in public debates that call for offensive self- presentation. Likewise, certain situations attract particular personality types.

Consequences of the Self-presentational Styles

The different styles of self-presentation create quite distinct impressions and are related to different advantages as well as risks. Using protective self-presenta- tion, one may prevent negative evaluation but may risk not being viewed favorably either. Adopting this self-presentational style, one risks leaving only a faint impres- sion, being considered uninteresting or unimportant, or even being totally over- looked. Defensive self-presentation presents other chances and pitfalls. It may be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

622 The Journal of Psychology

effective in removing negative impressions, but typically it does not create favor- able impressions either. A German candidate for the office of Federal Chancellor, Johannes Rau, used defensive self-presentation extensively and ended up with a rather low profile, probably contributing to his loss of the election (Schutz, 1992).

Assertive self-presentation is an important tool for establishing positive impressions and raising one’s social profile. It is a major means by which desir- able impressions are created, although it may also make a person seem vainglo- rious or pretentious. Offensive self-presentation can be effective in conveying a positive image of potency, authority, or superiority. It can also be used to reduce the credibility, and thus the impact, of criticism. Not everybody will value being confronted with this style of communication, however; thus, it is associated with the risk of being regarded as unfair, aggressive, or rude. If the source of criticism is derogated, there may be negative reactions, even hostility, from that source. Even so, derogation of the source of criticism can be an important strategy in pur- suing the aim of positive images when the source of criticism is of lower status than the recipient of criticism. The higher status person who does not rebut or stop criticism may in fact lose status (Merten, 1989). To a certain degree, evalu- ation of self-presentational behavior is mediated by observers’ values and atti- tudes. In politics, for example, supporters often like a candidate’s offensive behavior, whereas nonsupporters dislike it (Schutz, 1992).

Assertive self-presentation may be palatable to the largest number and vari- ety of observers, as in the case of Ronald Reagan’s response during the 1984 elec- tion campaign to criticism that he was too old to handle the task of presidency. A campaign advertisement that showed him on his ranch chopping wood and riding a horse can be considered assertive self-presentation. The advertisement made him look young and vigorous and effectively served a defensive goal in a nonde- fensive style (Schutz, 1986). Reagan also used the offensive style effectively in the 1984 campaign debates to deal with the age issue: He joked that he did not want to make age an issue in the debate so as not to exploit his opponent’s (Walter Mon- dale) youth and lack of experience. Reagan’s ironic statement was effective in ridiculing the questioner and silencing criticism. These examples illustrate how assertive and offensive behavior can be effective in fighting off negative impres- sions. Their advantage over defensive self-presentation is that they establish pos- itive impressions and minimize the risk of having too low a profile.

Assertive forms of self-presentation can also be used for defensive purpos- es. If specific images are threatened, assertive self-presentation can work toward establishing a positive overall impression by stressing alternative positive quali- ties. Steele (1988) has shown that people sometimes cope with threats to their self-regard by affirming their worthiness in some other, even unrelated, field. Women who had been called bad drivers, for example, were found to be more willing than others to help a social cause. Self-affirmation (Steele, 1988) has been described as a private process, and in many experiments was assessed sim- ply by completing a value-oriented questionnaire. Nonetheless, it can be argued

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Schiitz 623

that the same thing is true of public self-presentation: A person who has just given a relatively poor performance during physical exercise may try to start a conversation about a topic he or she knows a lot about, trying to show his or her interaction partners knowledge in a different field and thus establish a positive overall impression after failure.

When People (at First Sight) Do Not Want to Convey Favorable Impressions

The styles just described refer to attempts to create positive impressions and defuse negative ones. Sometimes, however, people more or less purposefully cre- ate impressions that are evaluated negatively (Baumeister & Schutz, 1997). Those negative impressions are, in many, a means to achieve other more impor- tant goals or long-term benefits.

Supplication, identified by Jones and Pittman (1982), is an example. Using this strategy, actors depict themselves as helpless or incompetent, which in West- em culture usually is not desirable. The positive outcome is, however, that they will probably receive help. Intimidation (Jones & Pittman, 1982) may also serve more distant, positive purposes. The intimidator may lose sympathy but obtain a power- ful position. In both cases, the power-related goal (getting help, dominating others) is obviously more important to the actor than creating a favorable impression.

If social anxiety is regarded as a self-handicapping strategy (Jones & Ber- glas, 1978), there is a similar case: Actors allow certain negative impressions to be formed in order to disguise other negative impressions. If a person claims that he or she just could not concentrate during an oral exam because of nervousness, he or she accepts the possibility of being regarded as high in anxiety rather than incompetent (Laux, 1993; Laux & Glanzmann, 1987). So, in fact such individu- als do want to be perceived favorably but allow for certain negative impressions as a pathway to achieving more important positive impressions. A similar argu- ment can be made regarding depressed mood, which can also be used as a self- handicapping strategy (Baumgardner, 199 1).

Conclusion

In this taxonomy of self-presentational behaviors, distinctions have been made between protective, defensive, assertive, and offensive styles of self-pre- sentation. These distinctions are based on the person’s underlying intentions (Is the actor trying to achieve positive impressions or trying to avoid negative typi- fications?) as well as the level of activity or aggression involved. Each style is characterized by specific strategies and has its own advantages as well as its own pitfalls. There is some evidence of association between the use of particular self- presentational styles and personality traits such as self-esteem.

The taxonomy presented here can be used in future research on self-presen- tational behavior, because it improves our understanding of the various routes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

624 The Journul of Psychology

self-enhancement and favorable self-presentation can take. The taxonomy can also be used as a coding schema for studies that aim at identifying the self-pre- sentational properties of a specific group or situation (Schutz, 1994).

REFERENCES

Abele-Brehm, A. (1989). Wir haben gewonnen. Zur Kommentierung von Ergebnissen der Bundestagswahl 1987 durch die betroffenen Politiker [We won. Comments of candi- dates after the election of 19871. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, I , 38-57.

Alexander, N. C., & Rudd, J. (1981). Situated identities and response variables. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 83-107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

American Psychiatric Association. ( 1 994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentational styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression man- agement theory and socialpsychological research (pp. 31 1-335). San Diego, CA: Aca- demic Press.

Bales, R. F., & Cohen, S. P. ( 1 979). SYMLOG. A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: Free Press.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 2-36.

Baumeister, R. F., & Schutz, A. (1997). Das tragische Paradoxon selbstzerstorerischen Verhaltens. Mythos und Realitat [The tragic paradox of self-destruction. Myth and real- ity]. Psychologische Rundschau, 48, 67-83.

Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentational motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 57, 547-579.

Baumgardner, A. H. (1991). Claiming depressive symptoms as a self-handicap: A protec- tive self-presentation strategy. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 97-1 13.

Baumgardner, A. H., & Arkin, R. M. (1987). Coping with the prospect of disapproval. Strategies and sequelae. In C. R. Snyder & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Coping with negative life events (pp. 323-346). New York: Plenum.

Baumgardner, A. H., Kaufmann, C. M., & Levy, P. E. (1989). Regulating affect interper- sonally: When low self-esteem leads to greater enhancement. Journal qf Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 907-92 I .

Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395422.

Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personali- t y and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.

Cialdini, R. B., & De Nicholas, M. E. (1989). Self-presentation by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 626-63 1.

Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of image management: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406-4 15.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. ( 1 985). The NEO Personality Inventory. Manual Form S and Form R. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60-67.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Schiitz 625

Crocker, J., Thompson, L., McGraw, K., & Ingermann, C. ( I 987). Downward comparison, prejudice, and evaluations of others: Effects of self-esteem and threat. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 52, 901-9 16.

Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1989). Children’s reactions to transgressions: Effects of the actor’s apology, reputation and remorse. British Journal ofsocial Psychology, 28, 3 5 3-3 64.

D’ Arcy, E. ( I 963). Human acts. New York: Oxford University Press. DePaulo, B. M. ( 1 992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin,

Doi, T. (1986). The anatomy ofsew Tokyo: Kodansha. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Scherer, K. (1976). Body movement and voice pitch in

Ferrari, J. R. (1991). A second look at behavioral self-handicapping among women. Jour-

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. Heider, F. ( I 958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Hoffmann, R. (1982). Politische Fernsehinterviews. Medien in Forschung und Unterricht,

Bd 9 [Political interviews on television. Research and education on the media, Vol. 91. Tubingen, Germany: Niemeyer.

Hogan, R. (1993, August). Another view of the person-situation debate. In W. B. Walsh (Chair), Person-Environment psychology-Contemporary models and perspectives. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Associa- tion, Toronto.

Holland, J. L. ( I 985). Making vocational choices: A theory of personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

John, 0. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2,

Jones, E. E. ( 1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts.

Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-hand- icapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personal- ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200-206.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presenta- tion. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives of the self (pp. 23 1-263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Laux, L. ( 1993). Angst, Selbstwert und Selbstdarstellung [Anxiety, self-esteem and self- presentation]. In L. Laux & H. Weber (Eds.), Emotionsbewultigung und Selbstdarstel- lung (pp. 121-129). Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.

Laux, L., & Glanzmann, P. (1987). A self-presentational view of test anxiety. In H. M. van der Ploeg, R. Schwarzer. & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 5 , pp. 31-37). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Laux, L., & Schiitz, A. (1996). Wic die wir gut sind. Die Selbstdarstelllung von Politikern zwischen Glor@zierung und Glaubwiirdigkeit [We are good. Self-presentation of politi- cians: Self-enhancement and credibility]. Miinchen, Germany: DTV.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Merten, K. ( 1989). Django und Jesus. Verbal- Nonverbales Verhalten der Kanzlerkandi- daten im Bundestagswahlkampf 1989 [Django and Jesus. Verbal and nonverbal behav- ior of the candidates for chancellor in 19891. In M. Opp de Hipt & E. Latniak (Eds.), Sprache start Politik (pp. 188-21 0). Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.

111, 203-243.

deceptive interaction. Semiotica, 16, 23-27.

nu1 of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 195-206.

171-203.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

626 The Journal of Psychology

Miller, J. ( 1994). Cultural psychology: Bridging disciplinary boundaries in understanding the cultural grounding of self. In P. K. Bock (Ed.), Handbook of psychological anthro- pology (pp. 139-170). Westport, C T Greenwood.

Mischel, W. ( 1 973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personali- ty. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.

Mischel, W. (1 993, August). Incorporating the psychological situation into theory and assessment ofpersonality. Invited address presented at the annual meeting of the Amer- ican Psychological Association, Toronto.

Olson, K. R., &Johnson, D. C. (1991). Individual differences in self-presentational styles. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 495-509.

Oslislo, W. (1 987). Die Plananalyse als Diagnostikum von Formen der Selbstdarstellung bei Spitzenpolitikern [Using plan-analysis to assess self-presentation in politicians]. University of Bamberg, Germany: Unpublished diploma thesis.

Pelham, B. W. (1993). On the highly positive thoughts of the highly depressed. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem. The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 183-200). New York: Plenum.

Roth, D. L., Snyder, C. R., & Pace, L. M. (1986). Dimensions of favorable self-presenta- tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 867-874.

Schlenker, B. R. ( 1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity and interper.sona1 relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks.

Schlenker, B. R. (1987). Threats to identity. Self-identification and social stress. In C. R. Snyder & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Coping with negative life events (pp. 273-321). New York: Plenum.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1985). Social anxiety and communication about the self. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4, I7 1-1 92.

Schonbach, P. (1980). A category system for account phases. European Journal of Social

Schutz, A. ( I 986). Versuch der Anwendung des Selbstdarstellungsansatzes auf den US- Prasidentschafrswnhlkampf 1984: Theoretische und empirische Analysen [Using self- presentational theory to analyze the U.S. presidential campaign in 1984: Theoretical and empirical analyses]. University of Bamberg: Unpublished diploma thesis.

Schutz, A. ( 1990). Leugnen, Umdeuten, Verantwortung ablehnen und andere defensive Taktiken in politischen Skandalen [Denial, reframing, diffusing responsibility, and other tactics in political scandals]. Politische Psychologie Aktuell, I& 2, 35-55.

Schutz, A. ( 1992). Selbstdarstellung von Politikern. Analyse von Wahlkampfaufrritten [Self-presentation of politicians. Analysis of campaign performances]. Weinheim, Ger- many: Deutscher Studien Verlag.

Schiitz, A. (1993a). Politik oder Selbstdarstellung? Beispiele von Politikerauftritten [Pol- itics or self-presentation. Politicians’ performances]. In P. Winterhoff-Spurk & M. Jack1 (Hg.), Politik und Medien. Schriftenreihe der Landeszentrale Rheinland Pfalz fur Poli- tische Bildung. Berlin, Germany: Vistas.

Schutz, A. (l993b). Self-presentational tactics used in a German election campaign. Polit- ical Psychology, 14, 4 6 9 4 9 1 .

Schiitz, A. ( 1994). Die Wirkung unterschiedlicher Strategien der Selbstdarstellung. Jugendliche beurteilen die Wahlkampfauftritte von Spitzenpolitikern [Consequences of different styles of self-presentation. Adolescents’ evaluation of politicians’ perfor- mances]. Publizistik, 39, 289-306.

Schutz, A. (1 995a). Entertainers, expert or public servants? Politicians’ self-presentation on television talk shows. Political Communication, 12, 21 1-221.

Schutz, A. (1995b). Mythen in der politischen Kommunikation. Werbefilme fur Ronald Reagan 1984 und Helmut Kohl 1994 [Myth in political communication. Advertise-

Psychology, 10, 195-200.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

Schiitz 627

ments for the campaigns of Ronald Reagan 1984 and Helmut Kohl 19941. Zeitschrft fur Politische Psychologie, 3, 5-2 I ,

Schiitz, A. ( 1997a). Audience perceptions of politicians' self-presentational behaviors concerning their own abilities. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 173-1 88.

Schiitz, A. ( 1997b). When ingroup and outgroup norms differ: Unfavorable self-presenta- tion in members of motorcycle clubs. Psychological Reports, 80, 122 1-1 222.

Schiitz, A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1996). Self-esteem and evaluative reactions: Letting peo- ple speak for themselves. Journal o f Research in Personality, 30, 137-1 56.

Schiitz, A., Schiepek, G., Richter, K., & Kohler, M. (1997). Self-presentation in client-therapist interaction: A single case study. Journal of Social and Clinical Psy- chology, 16, 440-462.

Schiitz, A., & Tice, D. M. (1997). Associative and competitive self-enhancement in close relationships moderated by trait self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology,

Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 23, 4 6 6 2 .

Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stucky, R. J. (1983). Excuses: Masquerades in search of grace. New York: Wiley.

Snyder, M. ( 1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personulity and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.

Spencer, S. J., Josephs, R. A., & Steele, C. M. (1993). Low self-esteem: The uphill strug- gle for self-integrity. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem. The puzzle of low self- regard (pp. 2 1-36). New York: Plenum.

Steele, M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Lindskold, S. ( 1976). Social psychology: Interdependence, interaction, and influence. New York: Wiley.

Tedeschi, J. T., Lindskold, S., & Rosenfeld, P. (1985). Introduction to social psychology. St. Paul, MN: West.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation and the self. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The selfand social Ige (pp. 293-322). New York: McGraw Hill.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Riess, M. (1981). Predicaments and verbal tactics of impression man- agement. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Ordinar?, language explanations of social behavior (pp. 27 1-3 10). London: Academic Press.

Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Triandis, H. C . (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psy- chological Review, 96, 506-520.

Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic self-completion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl- baum.

Wiley, M. G., & Crittenden, K. S. (1992). By your attributions you shall be known: Con- sequences of attributional accounts for professional and gender identities. Sex Roles,

Wills, T. (198 I ). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychulogicul Bulletin, 90, 245-27 1 .

Wolfe, R. N., Lennox, R. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1986). Getting along and getting ahead: Empirical support for a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 356-36 1 .

27, 257-273.

60, 71 1-725.

27, 259-276.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13

628 The Journal of Psychology

APPENDIX Four Styles of Self-presentation and ‘Qpical Actions

Assertive Ingratiation Exemplification Self-promotion Power display Identification

Derogating competitors Critical evaluation of a third party Criticizing the questioner Attacking the source of criticism Determining the topic of discussion

Avoiding public attention Minimal self-disclosure Cautious self-description Minimizing social interaction Remaining silent Passive but friendly interaction

Denial Reframing Dissociation Justification Excuses Concession, apologies, and remediation

Offensive

Protective

Defensive

Received July 10, 1997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 0

6:57

09

Nov

embe

r 20

13