^.^?^y % \ " •. V .' A_ i \m ^ *f'>fI,*! >l Jd Psychopathy and Self-Monitoring: Additive and Interactive Effects on Self-Presentation Tactics by Namia Worth A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Department of Psychology BROCK UNIVERSITY St. Catharines, Ontario October 2007 Namia Worth, 2007 Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine the relative contributions of psychopathy and self-monitoring to the prediction of self-presentation tactics (behaviours that individuals use to manipulate their self-image). Psychopathy is composed of two main factors: Factor 1, which includes manipulativeness and shallow affect, and Factor 2, which includes irresponsibility and anti-social behaviours. Self-monitoring is a personality trait that distinguishes between those who adapt their behaviour to fit different social situations (high self-monitors) and those who behave as they feel regardless of social expectations (low self- monitors). It was hypothesized that self-monitoring would moderate the relationship between psychopathy and self-presentation tactics. One hundred and forty-nine university students completed the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974), the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale - Version III (Paulhus et al., in press), the Self-Presentation Tactics scale (Lee, S., et al., 1999), the HEXACO-PI (a measure of the six major factors of personality; Lee, K., & Ashton, 2004), and six scenarios that were created as a supplementary measure of the self- presentation tactics. Results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that self-monitoring did moderate the relationship between psychopathy and three of the self- presentation tactics: apologies, disclaimers, and exemplification. Further, significant interactions were observed between Factor 1 and self-monitoring on apologies and the defensive tactics subscale, between Factor 2 and self-monitoring on self-handicapping, and between Factor 1 and Factor 2 on exemplification. Contrary to expectations, the main effect of self-monitoring was significant for the prediction of nine tactics, while psychopathy was significant for the prediction of seven tactics. This indicates that the role of these two personality traits in the explanation of self-presentation tactics tends to be additive in nature rather than interactive. In addition. Factor 2 alone did not account for a significant amount of variance in any of the tactics, while Factor 1 significantly predicted nine tactics. Results are discussed with regard to implications and possible directions for future research. m Acknowledgements There are several people that I would like to acknowledge who assisted in the completion of this thesis. First, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Angela Book, for all of her expertise, guidance, and support. I am very grateful for the confidence she placed in me and my topic. I would also like to thank my committee members. Dr. Mike Ashton and Dr. Nancy DeCourville, who provided excellent advice and were always available to answer my many questions. Finally, thank you to my friends and my family, who were endlessly supportive and who could always be counted on to provide much-needed perspective. And thank you especially to my parents, Christine and Ted, and to my brother Devon, for their love, encouragement, and interest. You even listened to my descriptions of statistical analyses, and I appreciate it. I promise that someday I will be able to make it up to you. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES xii LIST OF APPENDICES xiii INTRODUCTION 1 Psychopathy 1 Self-Monitoring 6 The Relationship between Psychopathy and Self-Monitoring 8 Self-Presentation Tactics 10 Hypotheses 13 METHOD 19 Participants 19 Procedure 19 Materials 19 Demographic Information 20 Self-Report Psychopathy Scale - Version III (SRP III) 20 Self-Monitoring Scale 21 Self-Presentation Tactics Scale 21 HEXACO-PI 22 Scenarios 22 RESULTS 26 Missing Data 26 Descriptive Statistics: Scales 27 Descriptive Statistics: Scenarios 29 Correlations: Scales 32 Correlations: Scenario Response Cluster Ratings 35 Description of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for Self-Presentation Tactics 36 Main Effects: Psychopathy 63 Main Effects: Self-Monitoring 65 Interactions 67 Interactions: Apologies 68 Interactions: Disclaimers 71 Interactions: Exemplification 73 Interactions: Self-Handicapping 77 Interactions: Defensive Tactics Subscale 77 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses for Scenario Response Cluster Ratings 80 Logistic Regression Analyses for Scenario Response Cluster Choices 82 Additional Exploratory Analyses: Multiple Regression Analyses with the HEXACO Factors as Predictors 82 DISCUSSION 89 Apologies 92 Disclaimers 93 Exemplification 94 Self-Handicapping 96 VI Defensive Tactics 97 Main Effects 98 Contributions of the HEXACO : 100 Limitations and Future Research 1 03 Conclusions 1 06 REFERENCES 108 APPENDICES 112 vu LIST OF TABLES Table 1 . Examples of Items on the Self-Presentation Tactics Scale (Lee, S., et al., 1999) 11 Table 2. Expected Self-Presentation Tactics Use as a Function of Psychopathy and Self-Monitoring 16 Table 3 . Descriptive Statistics for all Scales, Subscales, and Tactics 28 Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Scenario Response Cluster Ratings 30 Table 5 . Descriptive Statistics for Scenario Response Cluster Choices 30 Table 6. Number of Times each Cluster was Chosen («) for Low and High Choice Groups 32 Table 7. Correlations between Psychopathy, Self-Monitoring, and Self- Presentation Tactics, including Subscales (A^ = 1 49) 33 Table 8. Correlations between Self-Presentation Tactics, Psychopathy, and Self- Monitoring (A^ = 149) 34 Table 9. Correlations between Scenario Response Cluster Ratings and Self-Presentation Tactics Subscales (N = 149) 36 Table 10. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction ofTotal Self-Presentation Tactics (TV =148) 40 Table 1 1 . Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Assertive Self-Presentation Tactics (A'^ = 148) 40 Table 12. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Defensive Self-Presentation Tactics (A^ = 148) 41 Table 13. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction ofApologies(A^=148) 41 Table 14. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Blasting (A^= 148) 42 Table 15. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Disclaimers (A^ = 1 48) 42 Table 16. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Enhancement (A^= 148) 43 vni Table 17. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Entitlement (iV= 148) 43 Table 18. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction ofExcuses(iV=148) 44 Table 19. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Exemplification (7^= 148) 44 Table 20. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction oflngratiation(A^= 148) 45 Table 2 1 . Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction ofIntimidation(A^-148) 45 Table 22. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Justifications (A^= 148) 46 Table 23. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Self-Handicapping (iV= 148) 46 Table 24. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Supplication (A^= 148) 47 Table 25. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Total Self-Presentation Tactics (A^ = 1 48) 48 Table 26. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Assertive Self-Presentation Tactics (N = 1 48) 49 Table 27. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Defensive Self-Presentation Tactics (TV^ = 1 48) 50 Table 28. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Apologies (A'^ = 1 48) 51 Table 29. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Blasting (A^= 148) 52 Table 30. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Disclaimers (N = 148) 53 Table 3 1 . Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Enhancement (A^ - 148) 54 IX Table 32. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Entitlement (A^= 148) 55 Table 33. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Excuses (A'^ = 1 48) 56 Table 34. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Exemplification (A'^ = 1 48) 57 Table 35. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Ingratiation(A^= 148) 58 Table 36. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Intimidation (A'^= 148) 59 Table 37. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Justifications (A^ = 1 48) 60 Table 38. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Self-Handicapping (iV= 148) 61 Table 39. Summary of Exploratory Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis for Prediction of Supplication (A'^ = 148) 62 Table 40. Squared Semi-Partial Correlations (^test) for Hierarchical Multiple Regressions of Self-Presentation Tactics on Psychopathy and Self-Monitoring (A^= 148) 64 Table 41.