The role of factor analysis in the development

and evaluatbn of personality scales

Stephen R Bnggs, University of Tulsa, and
Jonathan M Cheek, Wellesley College

Abstract
ITie purpose of this paper is to examine the usefulness of factor analysis in
developing and evaluating personality scales that measure hmited domain con-
structs The approach advocated follows from several assumptions that a smgle
scale ought to measure a smgle construct, that &ctor analysis ought to be applied
routinely to new personality scales, and that the factors of a scale are important
if it can be demonstrated that they are diiFerenbally related to other measures
A detailed study of the Self-Monitonng Scale illustrates how &ctor analysis can
help us to understand what a scale measures A second example uses the self-
esteem hterature to illustrate how factor analysis can clarify the proliferation of
scales within a single content domain Both examples show how fJEictor analysis
can he used to identify important conceptual distinctions Confirmatory tech-
niques are also introduced as a means for testing specific hypotheses It is con-
cluded that &ctor analysis can make an important contnbuhon to programmatic
research m personality psychology

One of the major research traditions m personality psychology has

been the measurement of individual differences Rather than attempting
to create vanance between groups through the use of expenmental ma-
nipulation and control, personality researchers typicallyfocusinstead on
measunng existing vanation across individuals Consequently, statistical
analyses more often involve measures of relationship (e g , correlatWHi
coefficients) than tests of mean differences (e g , analysis of vanance) In
the terminology of Cronbach's (1957) classic article, personality is part
of the "correlational" (as opposed to the expenmental) discipline of psy-
chdogy
Consistent with this emphasis on a correlational or differential re-
search strategy, personahty psychologists have gravitated toward statis-
tical techniques that allow them to examine xaore thoroughly and moare
ngorously the relaticniships m multivanate data sets Factor analytic pro-
Hie authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of J S Fleming, David
Funder, CMi^ner Jdin, Martin Jdinson, Damel Ozer, Delroy Paulhus, Cardyn Phmney,
and Stei^ien West Requests for reprints should be atUressed to Stephen Bnggs, De-
partment ctf Psychobgy, Umversity of Tulsa, TUlsa, OK '14104

Joumd of Personality 54 1, March 1986 C c ^ y n ^ t © 1986 by Dute University Press

CCC 0022-3506/86/$! 50
 Factor analysis 107

cedures have proven to be useful and important tools in this regard be-
cause they allow an investigator to augment, refine, and test (in some
cases statistically) his or her intuitive grasp of an area and because they
provide a means by which to deal vwth vanables that are not only unob-
served but usually unobservable (latent vanables)
Factor analysis was first introduced by Spearman (1904) in his studies
of intelligence, and much of the early work with factor analysis dealt with
the structure of mtelhgence and the development of performance meas-
ures Personality measurement has always been somewhat of a younger
sibling to thefieldof ability testing, and thus it was not long before fector
analytic procedures were also being used to develop and refine global
personality measures and to define the structure of the trait universe
Although personality theonsts still disagree as to the central dimensions
of personality, there now seems to be at least some agreement as to the
nature of the disagreement Studies using adjective lists to describe
peers generally suggest that there arefiveor six dimensions that are cen-
tral to the trait universe (e g , see Digman & Inouye, m press, Digman
& Takemoto-Chock, 1981, Goldberg, 1981, Hogan, 1983, McCrae &
Costa, m press, and Wiggins & Broughton, 1985), whereas studies that
employ self-report lnventones tend to yield a larger number of pnmary
dimensions (e g , Cattell's 16 dimensions or Guilford's 13) which can in
tum be summanzed in terms of 2 or 3 higher-order dimensions or su-
perfectors (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969, Royce & Powell, 1983)
In recent years, personality researchers have seemed less interested
m the development of global measures of personality and have instead
focused their attention more intently on single psychological constructs
of hmited domain (Maddi, 1984) Popular t(q)ics have included locus of
control, masculinity and femininity, need fw achievement, machiavelli-
anism, authoritananism, sensation-seeking, loneliness, self-esteem,
self-<xMisciousness, and self-monitonng to name but a few The purpose
of this paper ts to exarmne the usefulness of factor analysis as a meth-
odohgtcal toolfor advancing research on these constructs ofltnuted do-
main
A Bnef Overview erf Factor AralytK Methods

The term factor analysts refers to a fomily of statistical procedures

vtiuch can be used to identify the redundancy in a set of ctH-related var-
mbks and to rediK>e the set to a smaller numher of denved vanables
caUed &ctc»rs Fbr a particular set of vanables, such as perstmahty ques-
tionnaire items, each £Eict»r will consist of items that correlate more
hi^Jy anMmg themselves than they carrdate with items not included m
that hctor Loosdy spedoog, then,fect«M-analysis is a way of gnrnping
 108 Bnggs & Cheek

correlated vanables, a way of reducing a set of redundant vanables, and

a way of identifying what it is that a set of vanables shares m common
Descriptions of the various factor analytic procedures are readily
available elsewhere as are discussions of the mathematics underlying
these techniques (e g , Gorsuch, 1983, Kim & Mueller, 1978 a and b)
For our purposes, however, a few basic distinctions will suffice One of
the most common procedures is called prtnctpal components factor
analysts, although some wnters prefer not to classify it as a type of factor
analysis In this form of analysis, the denved vanables are linear com-
binations of the onginal vanables and can be calculated directly from
them Each pnncipal component (orfector)that is extracted acts to max-
imally discnminate among subjects with the restnction that it be uncor-
related with jwevious components In its complete form, as many pnn-
cipal components are extracted as there are onginal vanables
In other forms of factor analysis (e g , pnncipal axis factonng), the var-
iance associated with scores on a vanable is decomposed into common
vanance (vanance held m common with other vanables) and unique var-
iance (systematic vanance associated only with that vanable as well as
error) These common factor solutions assume that the mtercorrelations
among the ongmal vanables can be summanzed m terms of a smaller
number o(latent vanables Thus they work to provide a more parsimon-
ious explanation of the interrelationships Factors are extracted initially
according to certam mathematical specifications For instance, pnncifial
axis fectonng requires that each successive factor account for the maxi-
mum possible amount of vanance common to a group of vanables while
also not correlating with any fector extracted previously This require-
ment generally results m a unique solution, but one that is rarely of the-
oretical interest By relaxing these initial restrictions, an investigator
can rotate the factors to a scdution that is conceptually more meaningful,
however, by rrtabng the solution its uniqueness is lost and a degree of
indeterminacy is introduced Thus, different researchers can analyze
the same set (rf correlations and amve at entirely different mterpreta-
tunis based on such decisions as the number offectorsretained, the type
of rtrtation employed, and the names of factors (Comrey, 1978)
Fbr example, it is indeterminacy of this sort which explains how—m
descnbmg the fectw structure of personality—Cattell's large number of
correlated &ctors (which are lower-order or narrow m range) can be
maiihettatxcaSiy mt«x:hangeable with Eysenck's small number of inde-
pendent dimensions (higher-order factors vrfiich are broad m range)
Similarly, it is this mtfetermuiacy that ex{^iis how Gray (1981) can ad-
vocate a 45 degree rotatKn o£ Eysrawk's hi^ia--OTda- fectos (from Ex-
trave»Kn) and Nram^Knsm to Impubivity and Anxiety) As Gray puts it
"diape i^pear to be no ntmarbrtrary mathematicai cntena for decidii^
wiiere to n ^ t e care's Suitors, at whatevra- level (hi^^r- w low^-order)
 Factor analysis

one chooses to work the decision where to place factors or dimen-

sions m the space that they define is a theoretical one it is to play a
hunch that it is here, not there, that the causal influences will be found"
(p 250, italics original) In addition, individuals' scares on denved fac-
tors cannot be calculated directly within the common factor model They
can only be estimated and hence there is also a degree of indeterminacy
m fector scores (see McDonald & Mulaik, 1979) Thus, one ofthe com-
mon cnticisms of factor analysis has to do with its inherent mathematical
or logical indeterminacy Cntics contend that this subjectivity reduces
fectors to fictions (e g , Lykken, 1971, Revelle, 1983), whereas propo-
nents argue thatfectorsare simply inferences that always require further
validation (e g , Howarth, 1972)
Traditional fector analysis, as descnbed above, is an exploratory pro-
cess, typically, researchers examine multiple solutions in their search for
a structure that seems conceptually meaningful This exploratory ap-
proach can be contrasted with the more recently developed strategy of
confirmatory fector analysis, which is first and foremost a hypothesis-
testing prociedure Based on a pnon theoretical expectations, investi-
gators impose certain restnctions on the factor solution, and after the
fectors are extracted (using the maximum likebhood method to estimate
the unspecified parameters), statistical tests are conducted on the resid-
ual matnx to determine whether it still contains significant covanation
Confirmatory factor analysis was made possible by advances in the area
of causal modeling (for a nontechnical review, see Bentler, 1980), and m
particular by the groundbreahng work of Karl Joreskog (e g , Joreskog
& Sorbom, 1979), who developed a computer program capable of esti-
mating structural equation models containmg unobserved vanables (the
most recent version of which is USREL VJ) The LISREL program al-
lows one to specify vanous parameters (e g , the number offectors,the
correlations between fectors, specific fector loadings, etc ) Confirma-
tory fector analysis does not avoid all ofthe problems of indeterminacy
noted earher, but it ctoes represent a significant advance over exploratory
methods m that it allcnvs us to test more directly hypotheses conceming
specific parameters denved from previous research or conceptual work
As a final note, we should add that although the maximum likelilwod
method is most crflai used withm a craifirmatory framework, it can also
be used m an explcratory feshion Of course, gcx)dness of fit statistics
will have less meaning when used this way since they will capitalize
lffiavily cm chance
Some Assuinptxxis atxxjt Scale Devek^mient

Mach erf" what we have to say m this pjq>er rests cm an lmpcHtant as-
sumptHm that a mtgile scale ought to measure a single construct TTus
IS Kit a novel CH- idH}syncratic point, nor CHie that we can attempt to take
 110 Bnggs & Cheek

credit for Guilford made the point 30 years ago "any test that measures
more than one common factor to a substantial degree yields scores that
are psychologically ambiguous and very difficult to interpret" (1954, p
356) McNemar (1946) also speaks clearly on this issue "Measurement
implies that one charactenstic at a time is being quantified The scores
on an attitude scale are most meaningful when it is known that only one
continuum is involved Only then can it be claimed that two individuals
with the same score or rank can be quantitatively and, withm limits,
qualitatively similar in their attitude towards a given issue" (p 268)
Although we believe this premise to be quite reasonable, and one with
which most scale developers (as well as most readers) will be able to
agree, it raises two sorts of problems First, there is the problem of how
to specify the notion of a single construct both conceptually and opera-
tionally Several concepts are typically used when evaluating the ade-
quacy of a scale unidimensionahty, internal consistency, and homogene-
ity These concepts are all related to the notion that a scale ought to be
focused on a single construct, and they are often used interchangeably
when in fact they are not synonymous (McDonald, 1981) For mstance, a
scale can achieve a generally acceptable level of internal ccMisistency (as
measured by coeflScient alpha) and yet be relatively heterogeneous (as
measured by the mean correlation across pairs of items) Similarly, a
scale can reach generally acceptable levels of internal consistency and
homogeneity and still yield multiple factors We will explore this issue
more fuUy m a later example, but for now the point is that there is some
disagreement as to what specific indices and decision cntena are appro-
pnate when evaluating the adequacy of a scale (Hattie, 1984, McDcaudd,
1981)
Tlie second problem is that a number of well known and widely used
sc^es seem to run contrary to our assumption that single scales ought to
measure single constructs For example, popular scales such as the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desir-
abihty Scale, and the Ho^n Empathy Scale all have mean mtentem cor-
relaticns of less than 10 In feet, Fiske (1971) suggests that the mean cxir-
relation between pairs of items for the typical test is less than 10
Furt}Krmc»-e, many pc^pular scales (including the three hsted above) are
known to be multifectonal (e g , see Howarth, 1976, Jc^nscHi, Cheek, &
Smthea-, 1983, I^ulhus, 1984)
In part, this traicfencyfiMrsc^es to be heterogei^ous and multifecto-
nal has to do wath the breadth w level of the construct being measured
Tlus lssiK can be well illustrated using the dimensicm of extraversion-
mtroversicm Eysenck (l!%3) pomts out that "One ofthe central problems
in perscmahty research has been the question of wtethra" higher-CM-der
as extraversicm can be regarded m any meaningfol sense as
 Factor analysis 1-11

unitary or whether there are several independent fectors such as 'socia-

bihty' and 'impulsivity', which should not be combined" (p 5, italics
onginal) Eysenck goes on to note correctly that sociabihty and impulsiv-
ity themselves can be subdivided into components (e g , lmpulsivity can
be decomposed mto constructs such as nsk-takmg, nonplannmg, and
hvelmess) He then comments "if we factor analyze a large number of
items we would almost certainly be able to show that each fector
m tum could be subdivided mto smaller subfactors, and so on ad lnfin-
ltum There would presumably be httle interest in doing this, but the
possibihty has to be bome in mind" (p 7) Thus, Eysenck would seem
to agree with our initial premise—that a single scale ought to measure
a single construct—but he raises an additional issue What is the appro-
pnate level of a construct'' Is it extraversion, or sociability and impulsiv-
ity, or some more hmited component stilP
This bnngs us to our second assumption that the components of a
scale are important if they are dtfferenttaUy related to other measures
In other words, it makes sense to continue subdividing a large global fac-
tor into smaller, more precise subfectors as long as the distinctions are
conceptually meaningful and empmcally useful The decision as to w^iat
level of constriKit is most appropnate isfirstand foremost an issue of con-
struct validity It IS also necessary to demonstrate the rephcability of a
factor structure, but as Lanyon and Goodstein (1982) correctly comment
"Usefulness, in any predictive sense, is not an intnnsic property of fee-
tonally clenved scales, but must be demonstrated empmc^ly" (p 93)
The vahdity of fector scales must be demonstrated m the same way as
any other new scale Many kmds of evidence can be oflFered in support
of a measure's vahdity, but cntical readers apparentlyfindsome forms of
data more convincing than others Thus we can talk about levels qf vali-
dation In a later example we will refer to three levels, hsted bere m
ascending order conceptual vahdation, vabdation by self-report, and
behavioral validation
Our third andfinalassumption is borrowedfromNunnally (1978, par-
ticularly Chapter 8) who argues that factor analysis ought to be applied
routinely to new personality scales immediately after they are con-
structed We beheve that it is best to have an instrument with a lawwn
fectonal composition before attempting to vahdate it empmcally In
terms ofthe trachtional strategies of test develc^ment, we advocate a ra-
ticmal and homogenecnis approach rather than an empincal cw cntenon-
Miented apjHoach Certainly the empmcal apjwoach produces mvento-
nes tiiat successfully prechct a specific cntaion (or set of cntena), but
these measures are gaoerally so teterogeneous (by clesign) ainl so anicH--
lAcHis that they aM httfe to our understandii^ ofthe ccmstruct that they
represoit
112 Briggs& Cheek

In his defense of the empincal strategy of test development, Gough

(1965) argues that the first task in the conceptual analysis of a scale is to
establish its empincal validity (in a primary evaluation), and that only
then are you ready for a secondary evaluation to understand how the test
works and "to uncover and hence illuminate the underlying dimensional-
ity that IS inherent in any test or measure possessing pnmary utility" (p
295) The problem as we see it is that the factor structure of such scales
tends to be exceedingly complex and one can never be sure which com-
ponent or components of a scale were responsible for previous sets of
findings Furthermore, analyses of empmcally developed scales often
reveal "messy" factor structures where none of the denved fectors
closely resembles the onginal constmct, where single items sometimes
seem to be unrelated to anything else, and where knowledge ofthe fec-
tor structure of the individual items adds little to our understanding of
the construct being measured (e g , see Johnson et al , 1983, analysis of
the Hogan Empathy Scale)
In the next two sections of this paper, we want to focus on how factor
analysis can help us to refine our constructs and the way we measure
them Specifically, we want to examine two issues (1) How can we un-
derstand what it IS that a scale measures'^ and (2) How can we know
whether different scales with the same name measure the same thing (or
whether different scales with different names measure different things)''
Our basic position is that factor analysis is one of the tools that enables
us to understand what it is that a scale measures and that allows us to
assess the extent to which the items on a scale share common vanance
The emphasis of our paper will be on factor analysis as a means to an end,
the end being the development of scales that further our understanding
ofthe constructs they measure We should bnefiy note what is perhaps
already obvious, that our intention is not to provide a detailed review of
the latest technical developments in the art offectoranalysis, rather, we
hope to highlight the role of fector analysis in the cxmstruction, evalua-
ticm, and refinement of measures of hmited domain constructs To this
end, we want to take an exteiKled lcH>k at two case histones self-moni-
tonng and self-esteem
The Case of Self-Monrtonng

In this pcnlion of tl« papra-, w« use self-monitonng as an example of

how fector analysis can lead to insists about a single construct and its
measurement TTie Self-MonitcHing Scale jHWides a useful "case study"
of a hmited <k>niam n^asure for three reascms First, it is a weU known
and widely used measure The s c ^ has been employed m more than
KX) studies, and a reciait review (Soyder, 1979) was one cjf the most ref-
erenced articles m 1982 (Perlman, 1984)
 Factor analysis 113

Second, the Self-Monitonng Scale was designed specifically to be an

lntemally consistent measure of a smgle dimension of individual differ-
ences (Snyder, 1972, pp 18 and 19) As Lanyon and Goodstein (1982)
point out in their text on personality assessment, the application of fector
analysis is especially appropnate when scales are developed from a pool
of items with the goal of maximizing internal consistency (more so than
when scales are developed usmg purely rational or empincal methods of
test construction)
Third, a number of factor analytic investigations ofthe Self-Monitor-
ing Scale have been published, and the factor analytically denved sub-
scales have been examined in several empmcal studies Thus, we can
evaluate both the rephcability and utility of the factor solution Self-
monitonng provides a useful object lesson, therefore, because it is a
prominent and popular measure, because it was developed m a way that
IS consistent v»ath the goals offectoranalysis, and because the bterature
contains plenty of grist for the evaluative mill
The Construct

The construct of self-monitonng belongs to the family of self theones

that emphasize the vanabihty of the presented self Its intellectual an-
cestry can be traced back to the "many social selves " of William James,
to the societal ongins of self as set forth by the symbolic interactionists,
and to the life-as-theater metaphor elaborated by Erving Goflftnan Pres-
ent m all of these approaches is the notion that individuals actively stnve
to infiuence what others think of them by carefully orchestrating the
lmpressicMis they give off Mark Snyder contnbutes to this tradition by
pointing out that there are "stnking individual differences m the extent
to which individuals can and do monitor their self-presentation, expres-
sive behavior, and nonverbal affective display" (1974, p 526-527) Sny-
der's descnption ofthe high self-monitor illustrates the nchness ofthe
construct
The prototypic high self-monttonng individual is one who, out of
a common concem for the situational and interpersonal appropnate-
ness of his or her social behavior, is particularly sensitive to the
expression and self-presentation of relevant others m social situa-
tions and uses these cues as guidehnes for monitonng (that is, reg-
ulating and controlling) his or her own verbal and nonverbal self-
presentation (1979, pp 89)
In CBtfer to test empirically his notions about self-momtcmng, Snycfer
canstructed a self-report instrument with which he could assess tte abil-
ity of individuals to tailcsr their peifemances to the demands of a situa-
ticm Tbis, the lncepticm of tte Self-Monitonng Scale was ccmsistent
 114 Bnggs & Cheek

with Nunnally's (1978) assertion that "a measure should spring from a
hypothesis regarding the existence and nature of an attnbute" (p 277)

The Scale
Intentem Relatumshtps
Snyder constructed his scale from a pool of 41 self-descnptive items
which he culled to 25 using an index that discnminates individuals with
high total scores from those with low total scores This procedure pro-
vides a type of item-total correlation, and it is designed to maxtmiTX in-
ternal conststency (Nunnally, 1978, Snyder, 1972) Unfortunately, how-
ever, Nunnally also points out that this type of procedure does not
necessanly result m a homogeneous set of items
Indeed, the major cnticism that can be made of selecting items
in terms of correlations with total scores is that the method appar-
ently works as well when several groups of items relate strongly to
different factors as when all items relate only moderately to the
same fector Thus if there are several prominent factors m the
items, the problem is not so much that the item analysis will fail,
but rather that it will work deceivingly well (pp 284-285)
The Self-Monitonng Scale seems to be a case in point Although the
scale satisfies the usually accepted standards for internal consistency
with Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 coefficients of around 70 (e g , Sny-
der, 1974), even a simple reading ofthe scale suggests a fundamental dis-
similanty m the content ofthe items For instance, cxMnpare item 18 (I
have considered being an entertainer) with item 19 (In order to get along
and be liked, I tend to be what pec^le expect me to be rather than any-
thing else) Tme answers to both are scored in the directiCHi of high self-
monitonng, even though the first dearly invdves scK;iaI self-confidence
whereas the second suggests a dependency on others or a lack of inter-
personal assurance Moreover, this item heterogeneity can be docu-
mented statistically The mean ofthe 300 possible pairwise correlations
among the 25 items is only about 08 (Bnggs, Cheek, & Buss, 1980) In
part, this average coeflBcient is near zero because roughly one-quarter of
the intentem conrelations are negative The correlations vary from
armind — 30 to about + 50
Tlius, we are ccMifrcmted with a paradox The Sdf-Monitonng Scale
meets the normal recjuirements for internal rehabihty, yet many of its
items are unrelated This apparent cxmtradiction (xx;urs be<^use stan-
dard reliabihty estimates of internal ccmsistency are not pure measures
(tfitem h(Hnoga»eity Ku^-Richardscm Pmnula 20 is a ccxivafitumal m-
dex. of lnt^tial ccmsisteiK^, the vaost genersd tcxcta ofv ^ c h is Crcmbach's
 Factor analysis 115

coefficient alpha Reliability coefficients of this sort estimate how scores

cm a sc^e would correlate with those from a hypothetical scale of the
same length, constructed in the same way but with a different set of
Items (but see McDonald, 1981) This estimate is directly related to the
mean intentem correlation but is also a function ofthe length ofthe test
(Green, Lissitz, & Mulaik, 1977) Reliability estimates can be improved
by increasing the number of items on a scale or by selecting items that
are more cohesive so as to raise the average correlation among items
Thus, the mean mtentem correlation differs from a reliability estimate
m that it IS not infiuenced by scale length (because "Spearman-Brown-
mg" has not occurred), and it is therefore a clearer measure of item hom-
ogeneity
With respect to the Self-Monitonng Scale, an alpha of 7 tells us that
this sample of items would probably correlate around 7 with another
sample of items drawTi from the same population At the same time, a
mean intentem correlation of 08 suggests that we have a very disparate
set of items Such a findmg can occur when we attempt to assess a con-
struct that IS itself broad and polymorphous The problem with broad
constructs of this sort is that they tend to gloss over important distinc-
tions In the words of one psychometncian
Unfortunately, it is not always recognized that a cntenon of a
good test IS that the correlations among the item scores shall be as
large as possible The argument isfrequentlymade that it might be
desirable for a given test to sample a large number of different var-
iables which are ncrt highly correlated so that one gets a wider sam-
phng of whatever it is that he is trying to measure If a person is
attempting to measure a large number of thmgs, then he should
specify as accurately as he can what each ofthe things is and should
attempt to measure them separately by separate groups of highly
correlated items (Horst, 1966, p 147)
Tins IS not to say that Inxiad constructs are unimportant, but rather that
one must be mindful ofthe components of which they are built We
should also pomt out that Horst overstates the case when IM insists that
the cOTrelaticm between items be as large as possible We bdieve that
the c^timal levd of iKsnogeneity cxxiurs when the mean mtentem cor-
rdaticm is m the 2 to 4 n u ^ Lower than 1 and it is unlikely that a
singletotalscore cxnild adequately rejK^sent the complexity ofthe items,
higher than 5 a i ^ die items cm a scale teiKl to be overly redundant aai
tlw ccmstruct measured too specie iTie 2 to 4 range erf mterccHTeia-
would se«n to oSer an iK»eptaMe balance between bandwidth cm
cme hand aiKl fiddity cm the other
116 Bnggs & Cheek

Table 1 Representative items from the factors ofthe Self-Monitonng Scale

Acting tactor
I would probably make a good actor
I have considered being an entertainer
I have never been good at games like charwles or improvisational acting (R)
"Extraversion" fcK^tw
I feel a bit awkward in company and do not ^xm up quite as well as I should (R)
At a party I let others keep the ]okes and stones gmng (R)
In a group of peo(^ I am rarely the center of attention (R)
C^ther-directedness feKstor
In different situations arxt with different people, I often act like very different persons
In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people expect me to be rather than
anything else
I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people
Notes —(R) denotes items to t>e recoded for scoring in the direction of high Self-Monitoring Items
based on Bnggs, Cheek, and Buss (1980)—s«e also Leary etal (1982), Sparacino etal (1983), and
Tobey&Tunnell(1981)

Factor Structure
Given that the items ofthe Self-Momtonng Scale are only minimally
related on average and given the heterogeneity ofthe item intercorrela-
tions, we can use fector analysis to detect pattems m the correlations
among items Analyses ofthe Self-Momtonng Scale have demonstrated
that items can indeed be grouped together into several distinct fectors
In our own research, we identified three replicable fectors and labelled
them acttng, "extraversion," and other-directedness (Bnggs et al ,
1980) Representative items from the^e fectors are presented in Ikble 1
Scalesformedfromthe highest loading items on each ofthe factors were
relatively independent (for extraversion and other-directedness, r =
— 11, ior extraversion and acting, r = 31, and for other-directedness
and acting, r = 13) TTie items cm these subscales also proved to be
more iMmogeneous than the items on the full Self-Mcmitonng Scale The
mean intentem correlatimis for the tcAal samjde m tl^ Bnggs et al study
was 29 tor acting, 27 iar extraversion, and 18 for other-directedness
compared to 08ft»"the full scale Gabrenya & Arkin (1980) identified a
similarfec^tca-structure altlwv^ they settled on a four-fiK:tor soluticm
Tl^se basicfectc»^have now been re^dicated m a number of {Kibhshed
studies (Cegala, &ivage, &unner, & Ccmrad, 1982, Ecklmann, 1985,
Fumham & Capcm, 1983, Leary, Silver, Darby, & Schlenker, 1982, Sen-
ior & Wymer, ]J983, Riggio & Fhedman, 1982, Sparacino, Rcmdu, l&g-
ley, Flesch, & Kuhn, 1983. and Tdbey & Tunnell, 1981)
Hiese lnvestigatitms reach surpisingly sunilar ccmdusicms given the
number of investigators involved and the variety of techmques em-
 Factor analysis 117

ployed Although the studies differ with respect to at least four proce-
dural issues—type of item format, type of factor solution, type of rota-
tion, and the number of factors retained m thefinalsolution—as shown
in Table 2 mterpretations as to the nature ofthe denved factors show a
decided resemblance
The first difference concems what type of response format to use
when administenng the Self-Momtonng Scale—dichotomous or multi-
point Snyder introduced the scale with a true-false format and most of
the subsequent empincal research has retained that format In our
study, however, we employed a 5-point format in order to avoid limiting
the size of the correlations among items due to skewed frequencies of
endorsements (see Nunnally, 1978, pp 141-146) The correlation be-
tween total scores on the tme-false form and total scores on the 5-point
form (administered 45 days apart) is roughly equivalent to the reliability
of the item sample as measured by the alpha coefficient (both hover
around 70)
The second source of vanation m Table 2 involves the method of ex-
traction Although the vanous methods employed (e g , principal com-
ponent analysis, principal axis factonng, and maximum likelihood) differ
markedly in terms of their fundamental assumptions and computational
algonthms, apparently the factor structure ofthe Self-Momtonng Scale
IS sufficiently robust to emerge regardless of the particular procedures
emjdoyed This finding is not unusual, the different procedures repre-
sented often seem to yield similar solutions (e g , Velicer, Peacock, &
Jackson, 1982)
The third type of difference involves rotation ofthe extracted factors
Recall from our earlier discussion that there is no unique solution to the
problem of rotation in factor analysis Various statistical cntena have
been introduced to assist in the rotation to a "correct" solution, but no
one method is appropnate for all situations The vanous methods can be
divided into those which require that the factors be orthogonal or inde-
pendent (e g , Vanmax) and those which allcnvfectorsto correlate some-
what (e g , Direct Oblimm and Promax) Because the vanables in this
case all belong to the same scale (and thus should be related despite the
feet that the mean intentem correlation is low), an obbque form of rota-
tion would seem more appropnate smc^ any fectors to emerge would
presumably be some>^t correlated The similanty m findings across
tbe studies m Table 2 despite vanations m the method of rotation sug-
gests tiiat thefectCR-sare not highly correlated since forcing thefectorsto
be indepeiKlent did noi alter the results m any meaningful way
ThefinaldtSererkce among these vanous studies concems the metlxx}
for extracting the "proper" number of factors frora a correlaticm matnx
A number of objective imx^dures have been suggested fw use with ex-
 Bnggs & Cheek
118

o o
c c c c
o o o o
0 o
o 01 u> *^ O)
CO ^ tf) fc_ W

T5

it £
A 5 "
® c£ c.
'
O 2 oo "
go. © ra c 2

ffTfffT
1
•s il"
I
I if if I I Ii
5 I 11 If I 5 «i

1 c

I I
•5
1 a.
o
o EI I I I
eg
S-
o
a)
fi-
p
a)
S-
o £

in t l t i l t •?

I a>
iiv C\l
iin

•a

I!
 Factor analysis 119

ploratory fector analysis, these procedures are based on charactenstics

ofthe data itself rather than on any a pnon hypotheses (Gorsuch, 1983,
Chapter 3) Unfortunately, these decision mles often clo not yield the
same answer One common rule—retaining for rotation any eigenvalue
(or latent root) greater than 1 0—generally seems to overestimate the
number of underlyingfectorsby retainingfromone-third to one-fifth the
onginal number of vanables (e g , see Zwick & Velicer, 1982) Many fec-
tor analysts currentiy spurn this procedure when factonng items, even
though It IS the default option on some statistical packages (e g , SPSS-
X) and even though not all ofthe evidence is negative (Hakstian, Rogers,
& Cattell, 1982) Eigenvalues represent how much vanance is explained
in terms ofthe average onginal vanable, an eigenvalue of 1 0 means that
a factor accounts for as much ofthe vanance as the average ongmal var-
iable
Pnncipal component analyses of the Self-Monitonng Scale generally
produce seven to nme factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 0 (roughly
one-third ofthe scale's 25 items) Thesefectorscan be further evaluated
using Cattell's (1966) scree test which plots the incremental vanance ac-
counted for by each successive factor to determine the point at which the
explained variance levels out Scree tests suggest that three factors
should be extracted from the correlation matnx of self-monitonng items,
and previous research suggests that the scree test is a relatively accurate
decision mle (Zvnck & Vehcer, 1982)
In our view, however, one ofthe chief considerations should always be
the replicabtlity ofthe fector stmcture Factors that do not rephcate are
of httie value Multiple samples, therefore, should be a prerequisite for
exploratoryfectoranalysis Everett (1983) presents a factor comparability
coefficient that can be used to determine the number of reliable fectors
that should be retained for rotation
In our onginal study ofthe Self-Monitonng Scale (Bnggs et al , 1980),
we examined solutions containing between two and sevenfectorsbefore
deciding on a three-factor solution The three-factor solution revealed
meaningful components (see Table 1), but more importantly it was repl-
icable whereas the four-factor solution was not Coefficients qf factor
congruence (an index ofthe degree of similanty forfectorloadii^ from
independent samples, Harman, 1960) were all above 94 m that study,
suggesting substantial correspondence across samples Although the
coeflBcient of ccmgruence provides a relatively weak test few relating fec-
tcH^ across samiJes (Gorsuch, 1983, pp 282-288, descnbes otiier meth-
ods), the studies repeated m lable 2 attest to the reprodiKibility of tire
basicfectCH^imderlymg the Self-Mcmitonng Scale
Fhmi the previous sec^cm we can extract two well docmmraited ccm-
dusicms (l)theSdf-MonitonngScaledoesnotccmsistofahcmiogeiwous
120 Bnggs & Cheek

set of items, even though the scale was developed so as to maximize in-
ternal consistency, and (2) part of the item heterogeneity can be ex-
plained m terms of several fectors that are present m the items In this
context, it IS interesting to note the origin of some ofthe items At least
one third of the items on the Self-Monitonng Scale can be traced back
to other published mventones Three of the items (6, 16, and 19) were
acquired from items 14 and 26 of Berger's (1952) Expressed Acceptance
of Self Scale Two others (3 and 17) resemble items 4 and 8 from a self-
esteem scale by Phillips (1951) and four more (4, 5, 8, and 21) denve from
measures of lnternality and externality reported by Collins, Martm,
Ashmore, and Ross (1973) In fact, all nme of the borrowed items were
included m the study by Collins et al which identified dimensions of
internal and extemal onentation For our purposes, the important find-
ingfromtheir study is that the nine items loaded on two distinct factors
One factor included items 19, 6, 16, 17, and 3 from the Self-Monitonng
Scale All of these items load on our other-directedness factor (Collins
et al also labelled their factor Other-directedness, a remarkable coin-
cidence ) The other factor included items 5, 8, 21, and 4 from the Self-
Mcmitonng Scale Two of these items load on our Acting factor, one on
the Extraversion fector, and one not at all Colhns et al labelled their
factor lack qf constraints on behavior and showed that it correlated 37
with Eysenck's Extraversion Scale As m our research, these two factors
were relatively unrelated It would seem, therefore, that the multidi-
mensionality ofthe Self-Monitonng Scale can be traced directly back to
the pool of items from which it was constmcted
As we pointed out earher, however, identifying a replicable factor
struciture m no way ensures the importance or usefulness of those fectors
(Lanyon & Goodstein, 1982) The vabdity of the factors must be dem-
onstrated in the same way as any other new scale Evidence supporting
the validity ofthe factors ofthe Self-Mcmitonng Scale is presented in the
next three sections, each summanzing a different level of validation

Conceptual Validation
When examining a factor structure we want to know whether the
items that load on separatefectorsformmeaningful and distinct groups
Our confidence m a sdutum is bolstered by coherent and exjdic»ble fec-
tors For instance, early analyses ofthe Self-Consciousness Scale re-
vealed a meaningful distinction in item content—pnvate vs public self-
ccmsciousness, ar^ social anxiety—which resulted m three separate
subscales (Feningstem, Scheier, & Buss, 1975) Similarly, Collins (1974)
was able to show that Rotter's Locus of Control Scale ccmsisted of four
mter^etablefectcH^cwfourtypes of extemahty belief that the wcMrld is
difficult, unjust, govCTned by "luck," aiKl pohtrcally unrespcmsive
Factor analysis 121

As we pointed out earlier, several replicable factors have emerged

from the Self-Monitonng Scale (see Table 1) Although some disagree-
ment exists as to the exact number of factors, this discord is trivial com-
pared to the amount of accord evident in the names assigned to factors
denved One factor has been labelled variously other-directedness,
other-directed self-presentation, social sensitivity, and public impres-
sion management, another factor has been called acting, theatncal acting
ability, expressive self-control, and performance, and the last factor has
been named "extraversion," sociability/social anxiety, social stage pres-
ence, chansma, and (the (^posite of) social lnsecunty Although proce-
dures have been suggested for reducing the subjective element m nam-
ing fectors (Meehl, Lykken, Schofield, & Tellegen, 1971), the similanty
of these terms surely implies a meaningful and lnterpretable factor stmc-
ture
Sometimes, however, the apparent or face validity of a measure can
be misleading Conceptual distinctions may not result in any pragmatic
benefit A second level of validation, therefore, involves the relationships
between factors and other self-report measures

Validation by Self-Report
A number of studies have reported such correlations for the factors of
the Self-Momtonng Scale A sample of these correlations is presented m
Table 3 This sample is biased m two ways First, it involves only those
studies which have used the three factors identified by Bnggs et
al (1980) (This hmitation greatiy simplifies the organization ofthe table
and IS not tembly self-serving smce that solution is currently the one
most commonly used ) Second, other self-report dimensions are re-
ported only if there is a significant correlation vnth the total score on the
Self-Monitonng Scale or vwth at least one ofthe fectors Many self-report
vanables do not ccarelate with the Self-Momtonng Scale or its factors,
iKM- IS there any reason to expect that they should
TTie table is divided mto several parts The top section of the table
contams measures of poor adjustment (e g , anxiety and neuroticism)
TTie next section (fovra involves measures of extraversion and scxaal sur-
gency, whereas the third section consists of self-esteem and self-cx)nfi-
dence measures TTie last part contains measures that are ccmceptually
related to the construct of self-mcmitonng such as machiavellianism and
empathy Also lnducfed at the bottom ofthe table is the Crowne-Mar-
lowe measure of social desirability
TTu-ee things should be apparentfromthe table First, consistent with
Sn)^r's earher assoticms (1974,1979), total scores on tte Self-M<mitor-
mg ScaJe are relatively uncorrelated with other personality measures
122 Bnggs & Cheek

Table 3 Correlations of relevant self-report measures with the Self-

Mcmitonng Scale and its factors

Self-Monitoring Scaies
Sample Total Extra- Other-
Self-report measures size score Acting version directed
Adjustment measures
Shyness 1020 - 10 - 23 - 56 37
Social anxiety 221 ns - 27 - 46 20
Manifest anxiety 62 30 06 - 11 49
Trait anxiety 70 ns ns - 26 26
PRF social recognition 67 16 - 05 - 25 41
Neuroticism 67 12 - 01 - 36 45
[2nd sample] 55 30 ns ns 46
Soaal surgency measures
Extraversion 55 41 25 51 ns
[2nd sample] 67 19 20 43 -19
Sociability 1020 20 12 36 05
PRF affiliation 67 12 03 37 - 14
PRF dominance 67 29 43 42 - 16
PRFexhiisttion 67 34 40 54 - 17
Persuasive ability 72 26 36 46 00
Communication effectiveness 72 36 46 43 14
Self-esteem measures
Self-esteem 1020 - 17 ns 36 - 49
Texas Social Behavior 776 27 38 65 - 32
Inventory
Coopersmfth SEI 62 - 24 - 05 21 - 47
Jams-Field self-esteem 136 - 03 24 35 - 34
Rosenberg self-esteem 136 - 11 11 23 - 31
Measures (x»K»ptually related to self-monrtonng
Machiavellianism 77 24 23 02 26
Affective Communication Test 67 19 31 56 - 29
Empathy 61 20 32 36 - 10
[2nd sample] 221 25 31 31 ns
Ring performance scales
People 100 - 46 - 39 - 61 - 09
Roles 100 35 45 57 - 09
Chameleon 100 03 - 15 02 09
Sodal desirability 62 - 24 - 13 06 - 22
(and sample] 100 - 26 - 01 - 06 - 36
 F£K:tor analysis 123

Only 5 of 29 correlations exceed 30 Second, correlations between the

acting subscale and the vanous measures are also mcxlest As one would
predict, acting correlates most highly v^ath measures of social surgency
(dommance and exhibition) and perfbrmance (the person and role sub-
scales from Rmg and Wallston's performance measure) Acting also cor-
relates with the Affective Communication Test (ACT)—a measure of
emotional expressiveness—and Hogan's Empathy Scale Hogan's scale
IS itselffectonallycomplex (Johnson et al , 1983), and their analyses show
that the acting subscale of Self-Momtonng is related to Empathy (r =
42, p < 01) almost entirely because of its relationship to a social self-
confidence factor (r = 57, p < 01)
Our third point concerns the size and pattem of correlations for the
extraversion and other-directedness subscales Both fectors show mod-
erate to large correlations with a number of the personahty measures,
but often the cxMrelations are m opposite chrections For instance, ex-
traversion IS inversely related to the measures of poor adjustment and
positively related to the measures of social competence and self-cxmfi-
dence, whereas other-directedness is positively related to the measures
of pcKir adjustment, inversely related to the self-esteem measures, and
generally unrelated to the extraversicm or social competence measures
(although the signs are again mostiy negative) Thus, other-directedness
and extraversion work at cross-purposes, even though the two subsc^es
are virtually mcfependent (the correlation in our onginal sample was
— 11 and in an unpuUished rephcaticm sample of 778 students, r =
01) The apparently inconsequential correlations between the Self-
Monitonng Scale and other personality measures are misleading insofar
as they conceal contradictory and qften rather substantial relationships
between the components qf self-monttonng and these same personality
vanaMes Quite simply, then, our third pomt is that the Self-Mcmitonng
Scale IS "a hcmse divicfed unto itself"
With this point m mind we are better able to see how the Self-Mcmi-
tonng Scale IS related to measures with which it bears a ccmceptual re-
semblaiK« Total scores cm the Self-Mcmitonng Scale are unrelated to
the ACT, a measure ofrap-essivenessand dramatic fiair All three ofthe
fectors, however, are related to the ACT, with extraversion ami acrting
showing a positive cc»Telaticm and other-direcrtedness a negative cme
This pattem of results locates the ACT alongsicfe the other measures of
scx;ial surgency (e g , PRF exhibiticm and dominance), a condusicm that
IS entirely ccmsistent with research CHI the ACT (cf Fnedman, Pnnce,
R i ^ o , & HhMatteo, 1980) Total scores on the Self-McmitCMing Scale are
cmly modestly related to measures of machiavelhanism and empathy
The ccHTelaticm with machiavdlianism is due to the other-chrectedness
 124 Bnggs & Cheek

and acting factors, whereas the relationship with empathy involves the
extraversion and acting factors
Finally, total scores on the Self-Monitonng Scale are substantially re-
lated to two ofthe three Ring and Wailston Performance Scales Snyder
(1974) reports a nonsignificant correlation with the chameleon (c) sc^e (r
= — 25), but does not mention the role (r) or person (p) scales A study
by Dabbs, Evans, Hopper, & Purvis (1980) found a substantial correla-
tion between self-monitonng and both the role scale (r = 52, p < 01)
and the person scale (r = — 51, p < 01) Similarfindingsare presented
in Table 1, but here it is clear that the extraversion and acting factors are
responsible for the substantial overlap in these two measures, the other-
directedness factor IS unrelated to all three performance measures
One other set of findings, not reported in Table 1, deserves attention
In recent years, Jerry W i ^ n s (1979, 1980) has advocated a circumplex
model for the representation of interpersonal behavior He has devel-
qped a set of interpersonal adjective scales which form a 2-dimensional
circle that can be partitioned into eight octants One ofthe pnnciple ad-
vantages of this model is that it provides a conceptual framework for de-
scnbing the universe of interpersonal constmcts, although this approach
IS not without its cntics (e g , Jackson & Helmes, 1979) Wiggins &
Broughton (1985) have attempted to locate the fectors of the Self-Mom-
tonng Scale withm the Interpersonal Circle The acting subscale fialls
squarely m the ambitious-dominant octant, and the extraversion sub-
scale lands close by between the ambitious-dominant octont and the gre-
ganous-extraverted octant In contrast, other-directedness is lcxated cm
the other side ofthe circle and off of the circumference It falls closest to
the aloof-introverted octant, directiy opposite from the greganous-ex-
traverted octant (as well as the other twofecrtors)Wiggins and Brough-
ton conclude that "Although it is not clear what is measured by the items
ofthe Other-directedness Scale, it is dear that such items should not be
combined with those from the other two subscales to form a sii^e scale"
(P 31)
It IS apparent, therefcH-e, both in this case and m those reported m
Table 3, that an analysis by subscale reveals considerably more than an
analysis using the total score alone Of course, there are also instances
m which the subsc^es have all correlated similarly with another vana-
ble R)r example, in cme sample, Lennox and WcJfe's (1984) Ability to
Modify Self-Presentation Scale correlated 45 with total sccwes cm the
Seif-Mcmitonng Sc^e, 39 with acting ability, 32 with extraversion, and
28 with other-directedness (all p's < 01, Johnson. Jewell, & Tirrell,
1984)
 Factor analysis 125
Behavtoral Validation
Although personally we are persuaded by the evidence reported m
the last section, we realize that for many readers behavioral evidence is
the sine qua non If the factor structure has no behavioral implications,
so what'' The third and most compelling type of validation, therefore,
involves charting the relationships between factors and behavior Several
studies have provided such evidence Because the self-monitonng con-
struct has yielded a vanety of testable hypotheses, these studies can be
grouped into four sections accordmg to the kind of hypothesis being
tested communication ability, self-attention, situational variability, and
moderator variables
Sendtng messages and reading cues Four published articles have
looked specifically at how communication skills are related to the factors
of the Self-Monitonng Scale Two of these reports (Riggio & Fnedman,
1982, 1983) provide complementary analyses of a single data set in which
three types of performance measures were collected ability to send
emotional messages, ability to deceive, and abihty to detect nonverbal
cues Total scores on the Self-Monitonng Scale did not relate to any of
the behavioral or ratmg measures reported in these two studies Results
with the factors also were modest, but they outperformed the lull scale
Ia particular, an individual's ability to convey emotional messages was
related to scores on the acting factor (r = 24, p < 10), whereas scores
on a measure of facial animation (speech rate, head movements, and
smihng) correlated with both the extraversion factor (r = 39, p < 01)
and the acting factor (r = 28, p < 05), although tte facial animation
measure itself did not prove to be a reliable indicator of deception In
additum, the extraversion and acting fectors were related to a discrep-
ancy in the amount of nervous behavior displayed when telling a he vs
telhng the truth High compared to low scorers on both the extraversion
fector (r = 30, p < 05) and the acting fector (r = 25, p < 05) were
more likely to inhibit the leakage of nervous mannensms (e g , leg
movements, posture shifts, and hand-to-head contacts) vAvsa febncabng
a story than when speakmg truthfully
A third article in this area contains two separate studies examining
the relationship between self-monitonng and deception abilities (Sieg-
man & Reynolds, 1983) In the first investigation, participants re-
sponded to a senes of personal or impersonal questions and were ln-
stnKrted to answer truthfully to some and felsely to others Tl» majcH-
ifependent vanaUes were measures of verbal fluency Total scores cm the
Self-Monitonng Scale were unrelated to the fluency measures, but
 126 Bnggs & Cheek

scores on the acting factor correlated significantly with temporal pacing

when lying but not when telling the truth (although these correlations
were m the same direction) Results with the extraversion scale resem-
bled those of the acting factor but were nonsignificant In contrast, "the
correlations between subjects' [other-directedness] scores and their ver-
bal indices were nearly always in the opposite direction from what [was]
obtained between the [extraversion] and [acting] scores and the verbal
indices" (Siegman & Reynolds, 1983, p 1327)
The second study examined spontaneous, unfeigned lying Subjects
were induced first to cheat in a pseudo-ESP expenment and then to lie
in a face-to-fece confrontation with the researcher The dependent van-
ables were again measures of verbal fluency Total scores on the Self-
Momtonng Scale correlated with only one of three fluency measures,
whereas the extraversion and acting fectors correlated with all three (p
< 10) In this study the strongest results were vnth the extraversion fac-
tor The other-directedness factor did not correlate with any of the
fluency measures
The final report in this area (Mill, 1984) also contained two studies
In one study, participants listened to spoken sentences and attempted to
identify which of four emotional meanings was being conveyed by the
speaker Accuracy of identification correlated significantly with scores
on Self-Monitonng (r = 39) However, this relationship was due en-
tirely to the acting and extraversion factors (r's = 56 and 40), the cor-
relation with other-directedness was only 08
In Mill's second study, the same participants provided a three mmute
audio tape demonstrating their best communication skills (e g , em-
pathic expression and listening) Ratings of empathic expression again
correlated with the full Self-Monitonng Scale (r = - 35) Notice that
the correlation is negative, high self-monitors were less able to convey
expressicHis of empathy All three fectors also correlated negatively with
these ratings, but only other-directedness correlated significantly (r =
— 36 compared to r = — 27 for actmg and — 16 for extraversion)
As a whole, the studies m this section suggest that total scores on the
Self-Monitonng Scale are inconsistently related to communication abil-
ities at best (see also Cunningham, 1977, Fhedman, Pnnce, Riggio, &
DiMatteo, 19^, and Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984) Whatever relabonship
exists can be assigned at least as readily to the fectors (generally acting
and extraversion) as to saves tm the fiill scale
Monttonng one's own behavtor As the luune of the construct unifies,
high self-monitors should be attentive to their own unfolding perfor-
maiK^s, ready to modify tl^m at a moment's iK>tice m order to create
and maintain a cbsired impression It follows then that high self-mom-
iaars should be better able than lows to predict vAat kind of an
 Factor analysis 127

sion they are making on others To test this notion, Tobey and Tunnell
(1981) videotaped women talbng about their views on a topic and then
asked them to predict the impression they would make on others The
dependent measure was the extent to which an individual's predictions
agreed with the judgments of raters Total scores on the Self-Momtonng
Scale were unrelated to the index of agreement (r = 08, ns), but scores
on the acting factor were somewhat related (r = 25, p < 05) Subse-
quent analyses suggested that "high actors made accurate predictions
because they knew they had made good impressions" (p 667, italics ong-
inal)
In a recent study, Miell and LeVoi (in press) asked participants to m-
ter-act with either a fhend or a stranger Participants talked together for
about 10 minutes and then filled out a set of ratmgs, the partners antici-
pated a future interaction Other-directedness was positively related to
participants' rejHjrts that they used their partner's behavior as a guide to
what to do dunng the interaction, scores on the other two factors and on
the total scale were not related to these reports High scores on the act-
ing and extraversion factors, however, were negatively related to how
self-conscious an individual felt
Sttuattonal vartabdtty According to the self-monitonng construct,
individuals who score high on the scale should exhibit greater cross-sit-
uational variability than those who score low They should modify their
behavior to fit the demands of a particular situation Evidence for this
claim was reported by Snyder and Monson (1975), but several other stud-
ies have failed to corroborate thisfinding(Greaner & Peaner, 1982, San-
tee & Maslach, 1982, Schneiderman, 1980, Tunnell, 1980, Zanna, Olson,
& Fazio, 1980)
A study by Brookmgs, Flood, Hessmge, Kuhls, Miller, & Wright
(1982) compared scores on the total Self-Monitonng Scale and its fectors
with ratings of vanabihty by self and by others Self-related variability
was significantly related to scores on the other-directedaess fector (r =
36, p < 001) but not to scores on the total scale (r = 16, p > 10)
Other-rated vanabihty was not related to the total scores or the fectors
A more recent study also su^ests a relationship between situational
vanabihty and the otlier-directedness factor johnsoa, Jewell, & Turell
(1984) assessed ihe degree to which individuals acquiesed m an attitude
change paradigm 'E>tal scraps oa the Self-Mraiitonng Scale cwrelated
positively with acquiescence (r = 30, p < 01) as did scores on the
otl^r-directedness fector ( r = 31, p < 01) ScoresOTtte other two fec-
tors were not significantly related to acquiescence (r = 06 fra- extra-
version, and r = 18 for actmg)
A moderator variable Accordmg to Snyder's conceptualization of
setf-mcmitormg, low sdf-mrautOTS regard themselves as "ratlrer
 128 Bnggs & Cheek

pled beings who value congruence between their actions m social situa-
tions and relevant underlying attitudes, feelings, and dispositions " In
contrast, high self-monitors see themselves as "ratherflexibleand adap-
tive creatures w^io shrewdly and pragmatically tailor their social behav-
ior to fit situational and interpersonal specifications of appropnateness"
(Snyder & Campbell, 1982, pp 186-187) Thus, self-monitonng should
moderate the relationship between internal dispositions and social acts
(e g , Ajzen, Timko, & White, 1982, Snyder & Tanke, 1976)
Two recent studies of moderator variables have examined the Self-
Monitonng Scale as well as its fectors Cheek (1982) compared self-rat-
ings with peer-ratings on four personahty dimensions The Self-Moni-
tonng Scale felled to show meanmgful moderating efifects on the rela-
tionship between self-ratmgs and peer-ratings The acting factor,
however, did moderate this relationship, but in the direction opposite
from that suggested by Self-Monitonng theory High scorers showed
stronger agreements between self-ratings and peer-ratings than did low
scorers Scores on other-directedness followed a similar pattern al-
though somewhat less consistently, whereas scores on extraversion
tended to work m the opposite direction (l e , m the direction predicted
by the construct of self-monitonng)
Wymer and Penner (m press) not only replicated this pattem of find-
mgs, they further clarified the issue by distinguishing between (and em-
pincally assessing) two types of predictability the congruence between
self-ratings and peer-rahngs and the congruence between mtemal dis-
positicms (attitudes and traits) and actual behavior In their study, the
two types of predictability were unrelated to each other Individuals
sconng high cm the acting fector displayed more self-peer congruence
than did those sconng low on acting, a replication of the Cheek (1982)
study FOT attitude-behavior congruence, however, h i ^ sccM-ers on the
extraversiraifectoras well as the other-directedness fector displa>«d less
attitude-behaviOT ccmgruence than did those w^w scored low Thus, two
fectors were related to attitude-behavior consistency in the direction
jM-edicted by ihe craistmct of self-mtMutcHing, and the third fector was
related to agreement betwerai self aiKl rther ratmgs (albeit m the direc-
tKm c^posite to that predicted by Snydter) Interestingly, scores on the
full Self-Mcmitcmng Scale failed to moderate either kind of {nredictabil-
lty Once again, then, we have seen how thefectorsof the Self-Monitw-
lng Scale clarify the results of a study and prove more useful than the
^ sccnres alcme
Summing Up

The pmnt (^this extended review has been to demcmstrate the utihty
of AtefectcH^retracted bam the Self-Mcmibmng Scale Simjdy {wt, ^
 Factor analysis 129

fectors work They resolve the ambiguity of the item pool and its low
lntentem correlations, they are mterpretable, and they are related to
other measures of vanous sorts in sensible ways Not only do factors clar-
ify how the scale works psychometncally, they reveal something crucial
about the construct itself Individuals who attend to social cues and reg-
ulate their behavior accordingly may do so for one of two fundamentally
diflFerent reasons They may do so because they are comfortable m social
situations and can work to maximize social interactions (perhaps m a way
that IS pragmatic, shrewd, or even manipulative), or they may attempt
to minimize the chances of error, a self-defensive move to cover-up and
fit in In his essay "On Facework," Coflniaa (1967) distinguishes the use
offeceworkas an avoidance process (consisting of defensive and protec-
tive maneuvers)fromthe aggressive use of facework for "making points "
More recently, Arkin (1981) has distinguished between self-presenta-
tional strategies that he labels protective and acquisitive
In factor analyses of the Self-Monitoring Scale, this distinction
emerges as the other-directedness factor vs the extraversion and acting
fectors (for example, recall the pattems of correlations m Table 3) We do
not want to suggest, however, that these factors adequately measure this
two-component model of self-presentation Factor analysis provided a
basic insight, but the factors themselves are no elixir Sometimes they
work, sometimes they do not (e g , Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1982, Snyder &
Cangestad, 1982), which is not surpnsing since they aever went through
a process of careful scale development and refinement The proper next
step would be to take the insights that now are apparent and carefully
construct a new set of items that measure these concepts specifically and
systematically (e g , see Lennox & Wolfe, 1984, Wolfe, Lennox, & Cut-
ler, m press) Simply shortening the scalefrom25 items to 18 or 8 items
(e g , Cangestad & Sayder, 1985) does not provide an adequate solution
because it does not articulate the multiple dimensions inherent m the
scale and m the concept
We also want to state emphatically that we believe it is unacceptable
to contmue using a total score alone when to do so deliberately ignores
distinctions that are conceptually meaningful and empirically useful
(and Sdf-M<Mutoni^ is by no means the only case) The Self-Momtwing
Scale IS a popular measure of personality and has served as the center-
piece for a number of puUisl^ articles The scale has proved successfiil
m predicting a vanety of cntena and has acted to stimulate expenmeatai
social psychologists' interest m the measurement of individual diflfer-
eas^s The jH-oUem IStounderstand tcfe/the scale works As we pointed
out m our 1^0 article, it is diflScult to know how to interpret a high scwe
m Ae Self-MraiitOTU^ Scale "One persoi might score high on actii^
and crilier-directedness, antrtlwr on acting and extraversion, and a third
130 Bnggs & Cheek

on extraversion and other-directedness The same score might represent

quite different items being endorsed As a result, subjects labelled high
self-monitors in one study might be different from those labelled high
self-monitors m another study" (p 684) Interpretations of Self-Monitor-
ing findmgs, therefore, are thrown into question by what we have
leamed from the studies reviewed earlier and by vs^at appears to be at
least two distinct strategies of self-presentation underlying the Self-
Monitonng Scale
In this detailed look at the construct of self-monitonng and its mea-
surement, we have tned to show why scale development ought to pro-
ceed conceptually This approach begins with a careful analysis of the
construct under study followed by an attempt to create a pool of items
that systematically reflects this conceptualization If a construct is broad
and multifeceted, then each component should be specified and meas-
ured as cleanly as possible with items grouped into homogeneous item
clusters We believe that this approach to scale construction is supenor
to the empmcal approach mentioned earlier even when one attempts to
predict a cntenon that is factonally complex (as important, real world
cntena tend to be) As Nunnally argues "If items are selected by the
cntenon-onented approach, one really does not know what factors are
being measured one knows neither what factors are involved in the
omnibus test nor what weights are being given to different factors It is
fer better to predict a cntenon vnth a battery of tests, each of which is
homogeneous in content" (1978, p 268) This approach has been
adopted successfully in an omnibus inventory recently developed hy Ho-
gan (1986) Factor analysis serves as a useful tool with which to test one's
conceptualization and to explore for meaningful distinctions However,
fector analysis cannot magically redress a flawed pool of items Although
it can provide useful insights (sometimes serendipitously), the key to
good scale development is still in conceptualization early on, followed up
with ngorous validation work

The Case of Setf-Esteem

The case of Self-MomtcMing Scale provides a revealing example of a
major use of fector analysis m personahty research the evaluation of a
smgle scale that was designed to measure a specific constnK:t In many
cases, however, the personahty researcher is confrcmted with a bewil-
dering array of scales all purporting to measure the same construct
Nunnally (1978) has su^ested thatfectOTanalysis can play an important
role m cleani^ up the psychometnc and conceptud amfiision that is
caused by the pxdiferabon of perscHiahty scales withm a particular C(MI-
 Factor analysis 13i

tent area Our example for this section of the paper is self-esteem, which
IS unquestionably a fundamental personality construct Coopersmith
(1967) defined self-esteem as "the evaluation which the individual makes
and customanly maintains with regard to himself, it expresses an atti-
tude of approval or disapproval, and indicates the extent to which an in-
dividual believes himself to be capable, significant, successful, and wor-
thy" (pp 4-5) Similar conceptualizations have been presented by other
psychologists (e g , Rosenberg, 1965, 1979), yet research on self-esteem
has been hampered by persistent measurement problems

Construct Explication

Correlations between vanous scales constructed to assess global self-

esteem have ranged from zero to 8, with an average correlation of only
4 reported in a review of 93 attempts to demonstrate convergent vahdity
among such measures (Wyhe, 1974) To be considered altemative meas-
unng instruments of the same psychological construct, one would expect
these self-esteem scales to have mtercorrelations within the range of
their reliability coefficients ( 7 to 9) Because only 7 of the 93 cross-in-
strument correlations reviewed by Wyhe (1974) exceeded 7, it was ob-
vious by the mid-1970s that the status of self-esteem measurement re-
search had become something of an embarrassment to the field of
personality psychology In a thoughtful analysis of this problem, Shavel-
son, Hubner, and Stanton (1976) identified three categones of tasks nec-
essary for advancing self-esteem research—logical, correlational, and
expenmental—which are similar to the levels of validation we intro-
duced earlier
Factor analysis is part of the second category and has been employed
m a number of self-esteem studies, but Wyhe (1974) concluded that the
yield from factor analytic studies up to that point was limited because
"fector analysis has been used more to test hypotheses about extant self-
concept tests than as a tool m the construction of new ones" (p 102)
From the perspective of psychometnc theory, the complete process of
construct explication requires that resultsfromcorrelational and exper-
imental studies be used to re-evaluate the logical foundation initially
used to define and (^jerafaonahze the construct, and should in tum lead
to revisions of the measurement instruments and to further research
(Nunnally, 1978) Dunng the past decade fector analysis has been em-
T^ed m a great deal of self-esteem research, we will review some se-
lectionsfromthis hf»rature to illustrate ihe contnbutimis and hmitatwms
of fectar analysis as a technique ior exphcatmg the ccmstrurt of self-es-
teem
 132 Bnggs & Cheek

The Dimensionality of Self-Esteem

The major catalyst for progress in measurement work on self-esteem
came when researchers began to reconceptualize the construct as being
multidimensional rather than unidimensional (Franks & MaroUa, 1976,
Shavelson et al , 1976) If there are several dimensions of self-esteem,
the failure of vanous global self-esteem scales to mtercorrelate highly
might be explamed by arguing that some assess pnmanly one dimension
of the constmct whereas others measure another dimension Franks and
MaroUa (1976) reviewed the theoretical work of eight wnters concerning
multidimensional approaches to self-esteem and concluded that two
qualitatively difiFerent types of self-esteem could be identified They la-
belled these tnner self-esteem or feelings of competence and outer self-
esteem or feelings of being accepted and valued by other people After
devising five semantic differential items to measure each dimension,
they conducted a fector analysis on item response data from a sample of
375 junior high students and a second sample of 226 college students to
test their hypothesis that the ten adjective pairs would in fact result in
two disbnct fectors In both samples, fector analysis yielded two major
fectors, which they interpreted as inner self-esteem and outer self-es-
teem Treated as separate scales, these inner and outer dimensions of
self-esteem correlated 26 with each other, and the authors concluded
that the dual model of self-esteem merited further testing (Franks &
MaroUa, 1976)
At this point, we need to recall the distinction made earher between
exfdoratory and confirmatory factor analysis Exploratory factor analysis
pertains to situations m which the investigators are guided by hunches
or are simply examimng the number and nature offectorsthat might ex-
ist m a particular set of vanables The Bnggs etal (1980) fector analysis
of the 25 self-momtonng items is a relatively straightforw^ard example of
explwatory work Cwifirmatory factor analysis involves a pncai theoret-
ical constraints which are used to specify a model against which results
from a sample of data can be tested for their "goodness of fit" (Long,
1983) Several examines of amfirmatcHy mo^ls are discussed m the next
sectimi of this paper As Nunnally (1978) has pointed out, Imwever, many
fector analytic studies fell somewhere between the clearly defined poles
(rfexi^OTatory vs confirmatory investigations In the self-esteem exam-
ple given ahove, Franks and Marcdla (1976) unambiguously hypothesized
that theirfectCH*analysis would yield two distinct dimensums of inner and
(HJter seif-esteem, but they did not em|doy any statistical tedimques of
confirmatCBy factor analysis The same is true of the remaming examples
discussed m this secti(m Our point is that many studies are concep-
tually but not statistically amfirmatory, and the reader should be aware
Factor anatysis 133

that the textbook distinction between exploratory and confirmatory fac-

tor analysis cannot be applied neatly in the evaluation of published work
In any case, the Franks and MaroUa (1976) study does support a mul-
tidimensional approach to the measurement of self-esteem, although it
does not shed any light on the suggestion that existing self-esteem scales
mtercorrelate weakly or erratically because difiFerent scales pnmanly as-
sess difiFerent dimensions of the overall self-esteem constmct This issue
was addressed in a subsequent study by VanTuinen and Ramanaiah
(1979) They identified the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale and the Coop-
ersmith Self-Esteem Inventory as measures of inner or global self-es-
teem and the revised Jams-Field Feehngs of Inadequacy Scale and the
Self-Esteem Scale of the Jackson Personality Inventory as measures of
outer or social self-esteem These scales were administered to 204 col-
lege students in both tme-false and multipoint item response formats
along with simple self-ratings of global and social self-esteem and three
parallel-format measures of the personalitv trait orderhness A 9 X 9
multitrait-multimethod correlation matrix (e g , Campbell & Fiske,
1959) was computed to permit examination of the degree of relationship
among the three measures of each trait As expected, the three meas-
ures of each type of self-esteem, global vs social, correlated somewhat
more highly with each other than with the measures of the other type of
self-esteem, moreover, aU of the self-esteem measures had weak to near-
zero correlations with the measures of orderhness
VanTuinen and Ramanaiah (1979) also employed a special type of fec-
tor analytic procedure in their study, Jackson's (1975) multimethod fector
analysis Jackson's procedure evaluates the overaU pattem or structure
of mterconelations for the entire set of measures m a multitrait-multi-
method matnx It is a form of second-order factor analysis m which fec-
tOTS are extracted separately from each monomethod matnx (e g , the
COTrelations among the tme-false format measures of the three traits in
the study under discussion), and then the matnx of correlations among
the complete set of the resulting first-order fectors is submitted to an-
other fector analysis The factor loadingsfromthis second-order analysis
can be examined to see whether difiFerent measures of the same trait
have high loadings onraiefectorand low loadings on aU the other fectors
As expected, VanTuinen and Ramanaiah (1979) found three distinct
fectJM-s m their application of Jackson's procedure ^ohal self-esteem, so-
cial self-esteem, ami orderhness They concluded that their results sup-
pOTted the conceptual distinction between the global or inner and social
(sr miter dimensKms of self-esteem, yet they also emphasized that these
two self-esteem dimensions were much more closely related to each
<*her than either of them was to the trait of orderhness Tins point is
crucial because—as we noted befwe—it can be diflBcult to mterj^et
 134 Bnggs & Cheek

moderate correlations between two scales in deciding whether they are

two somewhat related measures within the same family of constructs
(l e , overaU self-esteem) or whether the correlation is low enough to ar-
gue that the scales do not belong to the same conceptual femily Inclusion
of other conceptually related measures along with the dimensicms of in-
terest (e g , self-esteem) in a multitrait-multimethod design may be the
best way to approach the issues of convergent and discnminant validity
(see also Marsh & Smith, 1982, Watkms, 1978)
The use of existing self-esteem scales by VanTuinen and Ramanaiah
(1979) IS both a strength and a weakness Although their results do sup-
port the idea that existing scales often mtercorrelate erratically because
they measure somewhat difiFerent dimensions of self-esteem, their study
IS not a pure test of a multidimensional conceptualization of self-esteem
The four scales selected for analysis were constructed pnor to the intro-
duction of the inner vs outer self-esteem distinction and therefore, not
surpnsmgly, these scales tend to confound the two subconstructs, many
of their Items are ambiguously worded or double-barreUed As Shavel-
son et al (1976) have pointed out, when factor analysis and other corre-
lational techniques such as the multitrait-multimethod matnx suggest a
new conceptual model for an existing personality construct, researchers
need to proceed in two directions First, logical analysis of the new
model should lead to new or revised measurement instruments of the
constructs that can be subjected to further correlational analyses Sec-
ond, the new scales need to be tested m appropnate research designs to
gather evidence of validity beanng cm the hypothesized nomological net-
work of the constructs (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955)
An important step fcM- the first task of logical analysis and scale con-
structum was achieved by Flemmg and Watts (1980) They modified a
previously revised version of the Jams-Field Feelings of Inadequacy
Scale in order to devel(q) an item pool that would assess three fecets of
tl» ShavelscKi et al (1976) multidimensional model of self-esteem self-
regard (inner), social confidence ((mter), and school abilities (academic
self-ccMifidence) "Bventy-eight questionnaire items m a 7-point Likert
scale fijrniat were administered to 106 college students and these data
were subjected to a iniiK:ii»l componentsfectoranalysis with oblique ro-
tatKm The choice of the obliqiK rt^bon is appropriate here because the
fectc»^ were expected to be moderately c(HTelated rather tima ortlK^o-
nal, tests were also api^ed to rule out significant gemkr difiFerem^es ]be-
tixe the respcmse datafrcnnmales andfemaleswere ccmibii^ for analy-
sis In spite of a sample size that was too small £u;eording to most
psyclK>metnc standards, the factor analysis yielded a clear pattem of
l o f d u ^ ccmsistoit widi the three hypc^hesized dim^isKms of self-es-
teem CatteU's (1966) scree test suppwted the mtra^etatKm of three
Factor analysis 135

fectors in this item pool Fleming and Watts' study provides another ex-
ample of a factor analysis that is conceptually but not statistically confir-
matory
In a replication and extension, Fleming and Courtney (1984) exam-
ined the Shavelson et al (1976) multidimensional model of self-esteem
more fully by adding items assessing self-confidence in physical appear-
ance and physical abilities, and by slightly revising the existing items for
self-regard, social confidence, and self-confidence m school abilities
The 36-item questirainaire was administered to 256 college students,
and these data were factor analyzed with an oblique rotation The scree
test for the number offectorsto be rotated was somewiiat ambiguous, so
the authors examined several possibihfaes before deciding on a five-fec-
tor solution with an oblique rotation The pattem of factor loadings
clearly supported the hypothesized model of five relatively distinct di-
mensions of self-esteem The success of this replication and extension of
Fleming and Watts' (1980) study reinforces their earlier findmgs and
provides further evidence mfevorofthe Shavelson et al (1976) model of
self-esteem A related study by Mamrus, O'Connor, and Cheek (1983)
showed that vocational certainty as assessed by the Vocational Identity
Scale (Holland, Daiger, & Power, 1980) should be added as a sixth di-
mension of self-esteem in college students
We have emphasized that the factors for these dimensions of self-es-
teem are oblique rather than orthogonal In fact, the fector pattem cor-
relations among thefiveobbquefectorsreported by Fleming and Court-
ney (1984) ranged from 15 to 35, with an average of 25, five scales
formed from the highest loadmg items on each ofthe factors had an av-
erage mtereorrelation of 4 Similarly, the six self-esteem dimensions
employed by Mamms et al (1983) yielded an average mterscale correla-
tion of 36 Such results bear on both the convergent and discnmmant
validity of the multidimensional conceptualization of self-esteem The
Shavelson et al (1976) model is explicitly hierarehieal, which means that
measures ofthe self-esteem dimensions sknild have moderate positive
correlations with each oth«- Furthermore, the dimensions should con-
v&rsd craiceptually and statistically into a higher-order amstnict of gen-
eral self-esteem (l e , the sum of scores on all the dimensiwis diould be
mterpretable as an index of overall self-esteem) One way to lode at this
etmvergent vahdity issue is to ctmdiKt a second-order factor analysis
Whea some or all of the first ord^ fectors obtained in an mitial fector
aiuilysis with ( ^ q u e rotatiaa are fonad to be COTrelated, the matnx of
<xsrrdatioas axmmg these factors may be subjected to anod^r, hi^ier-
order fector analysis. Tlus procedure will reveal the extent to which the
first-OTdarfectcnsdiare scwne cmnnKm vanance Tl» seccmd-order ap-
proach to self-esteem dimraisions may be analogous to models of mteUi-
 136 Briggs& Cheek

gence which specify separable factors of intellect yet also support a sin-
gle higher-order construct of "general intelligence "
For the reasons just discussed, Fleming and Courtney (1984) hypoth-
esized that all five of their specific self-esteem factors would have sub-
stanbal loadings on a single second-order fector representing the general
self-esteem construct Their results, which are presented in the first col-
umn of Table 4, were consistent with this expectation Another way to
examine this issue is to intercorrelate the self-esteem scale scores, rather
than the first order factors, and to factor analyze that correlation matnx
In the second column of Table 4, we present the factor loadings from an
analysis ofthe six self-esteem dimensions used by Mamrus et al (1983)
The interpretation of one higher-order factor of general self-esteem is
supported by these results In addition, we included the Personal Iden-
tity Scale (Cheek & Bnggs, 1982) as a means of looking for discnminant
validity evidence That scale was designed to assess self-definition (l e ,
degree of personal identity onentation) rather than self-evaluation, and
therefore should not load on the general self-esteem factor As may be
seen m the table, this test of discnmmant validity was successful
Evaluating Recent Work on the Dimensionality of Self-Esteem

In general, substantially more work has been done on the convergence

of specific self-esteem dimensions into a higher-order construct of gen-
eral self-esteem than has been done on the discnmmant validity of the
vanous dimensions The scales produced by Fleming and Courtney's
(1984) factor analysis do have individual scale reliabilities in the 7 to 9
range that are meanii^fuUy higher than the average lnterscale correla-
tions of 4, but the latter figure is high enough to make the need for ex-
ternal evidence of discnmmant v^idity salient For example, Marx and
Winne (1980) have argued against the multidimensional model of self-
esteem by questiomng the discnminant validity of a separate academic
self-confidence factor Although several studies have demonstrated that
self-reported grade average correlates significantly with only the aca-
demic self-confidence dimension (Fleming & Courtney, 1984, Fleming
& Watts, 1980, Mamms et al , 1983), fiirther investigations of the dis-
cnmmant predictive validity of all the dimensions are needed Longi-
tudinal research designs mvc^mg structural equation models may prove
to be one useful way of addressing currently unanswered questions,
siKih as whetl^r poor self-regard is a cause, a conseqirence, or merely a
correlate of low social self-confi^irce (e g , B<^mstedt & Ffelscm, 1983)
Kforeover, such apfdications ofthe self-esteem din^nsions might help to
clarify recent cwitroversies over di£Ferences m self-esteem as a function
of age, gender, race, and occupational status (e g , Bachman & O'Mal-
 F£K:tor analysis 137

Tabk 4 Second-order factor loadings for dimensions of self-esteem

Fleming & Courtney" Mamrus et al»

Dimension (1984) (1983)
Self-Regard 53 82
Social self-confidence 64 75
Academic self-confidence 35 60
Physical appearance 55 74
Physical abilities 44 42
Vocational certainty^ — 64
Personal identity" — 04
Eigenvalue of first factor* 2 02 2 76
' Second-order coefficients, n = 259
" Factor loadings from analysis of scale mtercorrelations, n = 112
<" The vocational certainty dimension was not included in Fleming & Courtney (1984)
«The Personal Identity Scale is not a self-esteem measure and was included onlyforthe purpose
of examining discnminant validity evidence
• In txjth factor analyses summanzed in this table only one eigenvalue exceeded 10, and only one
was interpreted

ley, 1977, Gray-Little & Appelbaum, 1979, Stake & Orlofsky, 1981,
Walsh & Taylor, 1982)
The point we are making here about self-esteem research applies to
factor analytic research m general factor analysis is not an end tn itself
but a prelude to programmatic research on a particular psychologtcal
construct As we discuss m the section below on confirmatory factor
analysis, some additional fector analytic work remams to be done m the
self-esteem area The problem that we have encountered in reviewing
the recent literature is that investigators are only too willing to work on
the logical and correlational steps of analysis, yet seem reluctant to be-
come involved m the empincal research necessary for establishing pre-
dictive and discnmmant validity evidence As a result, we are witness-
ing a dramatic proliferation of scales measunng vanous dimensions of
self-esteem (e g , Harter, 1982, Marsh, Rebch, & Smith, 1983, Peterson,
Schulenber, Abramowitz, Offer, & Jarcho, 1984, Phinney & Gough,
1982, Soule, Drummwid, & Mclntire, 1981) There are a few potentially
important differences among these scales, sucb as whether academic
self-confidence should be subdivided mto reading and mathematics
subscales, and some ofthe researchers are seeking extemal validity evi-
dence—for example, the spouse rabngs of typical behaviors m Phinney
(1984) But It may now be time to draw the hue that Grandall prc^)osed
in 1973fiarthe earlier generation of unidimensional self-esteem scales
 138 Bnggs & Cheek

"The casual generation of new scales is professionally irresponsible"

(p 52)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
As we mentioned previously, exploratory factor analysis has often been
used to provide conceptual support for a hypothetical model It is also
true that statistically confirmatory techniques can be applied in studies
that are more exploratory tban explicitly hypothesis-testmg (Long,
1983) Nevertheless, a basic distinction can be drawn between these two
groups of factor analytic procedures In exploratory fector analysis tbe
investigator employs a stepwise analysis involving tbe examination of
vanous solutions, whereas in confirmatory factor analysis tbe researcher
employs a direct solution that has been identified a pnon to represent a
specific bypotbesis For example, Fleming and Courtney (1984) explored
both a five- and a six-factor oblique rotation of their dimensions of self-
esteem data before deciding tbat afive-factorsolution looked most ap-
propnate, if tbeir w(M-k bad been statistically confirmatory, they would
bave specified a model or target matnx m advance and tben tested tbe
goodness offitof their sample data to that model and to competing alter-
native models The availability of sucb statistical tests for specified
models substantially reduces tbe element of subjective interpretation
that IS commonly used as a wbipping-boy by cntics of fector analysis
Although there are other approaches to confirmatory factor analysis
(e g , the multiple group method and tbe Procrustes method), tbe max-
imum-hkelilM)od approach is clearly tbe "state of the art" method and
the only one that is used widely Readers interested m presentations of
tbe relevant statistical procedures should consult tbe monograph by
Long (1983) or recent textbooks sucb as Gorsucb (1983) Fbr tbe purposes
of this paper, we discuss two applications of confirmatory fector analysis
in recent work oa the measurement of self-esteem
Shavelson and Bolus (1982) investigated one part of a cranidete multi-
dimensional model of self-esteem, tbe distinction between general self-
esteem and academic self-confidence They selected two scales to mea-
sure eacb offiveself-esteem dimensions general self-esteem, overall ac-
ademic self-confidence, and subject-specific confidence m English,
matl^matics, and science They administered these ten scales to a sam-
ple of 130 junior high school students Four competing hypothetical
nrndels were identified to encompass the range of likely outcomes in bx>-
tor analyzing this matnx, namely a null nK)del of comidete independence
of all scales, a sm^e fector model of general self-esteem, a two-fector
iiKxfel (rf^ general self-esteem and overall acad^nk self-confidence, and a
five-fect(B- mo^l refN-esendng gaieral vs acadanuc self-esteem that also
specified three adklituHialfedxirsforthe specific academic subjects
Factor analysts 139

Graifirmatory factor analysis of tbese data was conducted usmg tbe

LISREL statistical package for analysis of covanance structures (Jores-
kog & Sorbom, 1984) A goodness-of-fit test tbat provides a rougb indi-
cation of tbe degree to wbicb a hypothesized model fits tbe sample data
IS provided by tbe ratio of tbe Gbi Square to its degrees of freedom Ac-
cording to Wbeaton, Mutben, Alwin, and Summers (1977, but see Hoel-
ter, 1983), a ratio of 5 or less suggests a model of adequate fit, witb a
lower ratio indicating a better fit ' Tbe obtained ratios m tbis study were
15 97 for tbe null model, 1010 for tbe single-fector model, 8 01 for tbe
two-factor model, and 3 95 for tbefive-factormodel Tbe autbors con-
cluded tbat tbe five-factor model provided tbe best fit for tbeir data
Ninety-nine of tbe students were retested four montbs later, and tbe
confirmatory factor analysis was replicated successfully Sbavelson and
Bolus (1982) also constructed correlation matnces to examine tbe con-
vergent and discnmmant validity of tbe scales across tbe two testing ses-
sions TTiey concluded tbat tbeir study provided further support for tbe
Sbavelson et al (1976) bierarcbical fecet (l e , multidimensional) model
of self-esteem More complete confirmatory tests of self-esteem dimen-
sions are now being conducted (e g , Marsb, Smith, & Barnes, 1984,
Song & Hattie, 1984), and we believe tbat more of tbis type of work,
rather than further scale construction efforts, sbould be tbe focus of cor-
relational work on self-esteem in tbe immediate future
Sbavelson and Bolus (1982) also used tbeir test-retest design to ex-
amine tbe causal relationsbip between self-esteem and academic
achievement They employed a set of cross-lagged panel models to test
whether self-confidence about specific subject matter measured in Feb-
ruary would affect actual grades given in June, and tbey concluded tbat
tbese self-esteem dimensions bad causal predominance over actual aca-
demic achievements Tbese non-fector-analybc techniques are beyond
tbe s c c ^ of this paper (instead, see Kenny, 1979, Kenny & Gampbell,
1984), but this example serves to emphasize our tbeme tbat bctcsr analy-
sis, even the most sophisticated confirmatory procedures, sbould be
viewed as only one important part of any jwogram of psychological re-
search
Withm tbe realm of fector analysis itself, techniques tbat can be ap-
fhed to a multitrait-multimetbod matnx appear to be especially prom-
ising In our earh«- discussion of tbe self-esteem study by Vaniuinen
and Ramanaiab (1979), we descnbed Jackson's (1975) multimethod hctor
analysis Tbe multimethod approach can be mcorporated withm tbe
1 Tills fit ratio can be misleading since it does not take samide size into account,
more recent and more sc^isticated indices that reflect b<*h the samide size and the
degrees offreedomlave largeAy suppbmted the fit ratio (see Bentler & Bonett, 1980;
Hoetkr, 1^3, Sobel It B<Amstedt, 1985)
 140 Briggs& Cheek

framework of confirmatory fector analysis as well (Scbmitt, Coyle, &

Saan, 1977), and our final example from tbe self-esteem literature dem-
onstrates tbis approacb
Watkins and Hattie (1981) administered two scales measunng eacb of
four personality traits—general self-esteem, extraversion, anxiety, and
flexibility—to 275 university students Tbe first measure of eacb trait
was a standard personality scale and tbe second was a self-rating usmg
paragrapbs to describe eacb trait Tbey identified six bypotbetical
models to be tested tbrougb confirmatory factor analysis

Model I Two metbod factors (l e , scale responses and simple

self-ratings)
Model II One general and two metbod factors
Model III Four trait factors (correlated)
Model IV One general and four trait factors (correlated)
Model V Two metbod and four trait factors (all uncorrelated)
Model VI Two metbod (uncorrelated) and four trait (correlated)
factors

Tbe goodness of fit of tbe sample data to eacb model was tested by a
transformation of tbe Cbi Square Significance Test suggested by Muliak
(1975) Tbese tests indicated tbat Model VI provided tbe best fit, and tbe
autbors concluded tbat "significant additional information about tbe un-
derlying muItitrait-muItimetbod matnx was provided by this metbod of
analysis" (Watkins & Hattie, 1981, p 282)
One hmitabon to tbe multimetbod and confirmatory fector analytic
work of Watkins and Hattie (1981) and VanTumen and Ramanaiab (1979)
IS tbat botb studies employed two forms of self-reports as tbeir multtjde
metbods Tbe pnmary metbods for assessmg personality cbaractenstics
not only include self-reports on questionnairesOTmventones, but also
encompass observers' evaluations, data denved from objective measures
m more or less artificial laboratory settings, and "real Me" outcomes
sucb as grades, jwomotions, or beart attacks (Cattell, 1946, Fiske, 1971)
Therefore, we Impe tbat future self-esteem researcb using ccmfirmatory
factor analysis will involve maximally distim^ metlxids m constructii^
multitrait-multimetbod matnces and wiU mvestigate predictive ctmv&r-
gent and discnmmant vabdity tbrougb tbe ap^icatuxi of causal modds
to l<R^tudinal data A substantid portion of tbis demandu^y ideal re-
searcb design bas been approximated by Faulbus (1983) m a study of lo-
cus of c(Hitrd dimensions, and bis paper is wortb readmg as a metbodo-
lopcal example ofthe nAe of amfirmatcn^ analysis as one part of a larger
research eflfort
Factor analysis 141

Our suggestion tbat confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multi-

metbod matnces viall succeed in bridging the gap between traditional
exploratory factor analysis and modem measurement models is clearly a
speculation about future developments in tbe field Althougb this pro-
cedure permits the formulation and testmg of alternative hypotheses
about the latent trait and method fectors in a set of personality data, its
ultimate usefulness remains to be demonstrated In an informative dis-
cussion of new directions m this area. Marsh and Hocevar (1983) point
out that at least three traits and three methods are necessary for identi-
fying all parameters in a confirmatory model of a multitrait-multimethod
matnx Such a full-scale test of self-esteem data has not yet been con-
ducted Nevertbeless thefectoranalytic work completed on this topic so
far has improved what was previously a very sad state of affairs (cf Sha-
velson et al , 1976, Wyhe, 1974), and it seems likely that continuing work
on multidimensional models of self-esteem vwU yield further progress

Conclusion
In this paper we have evaluated the usefulness of factor analysis as a
method for advancing personality research by telling tbe tale of two con-
structs, self-monitonng and self-esteem In tbe first case, we docu-
mented wby Nunnally (1978) was rigbt to argue that factor analysis
should be applied routinely to new personality tests immediately after
tbey are constructed Because tbis was not done, personality psycbolo-
gists are now confronted with a sizeable body of research on self-moni-
tonng that IS empmcally acceptable but tbat is also—to borrow Guil-
ford's expression—"psychologically ambiguous and difficult to
interpret" Tbe process of scale revision has just begun (Gangestad &
Snyder, in press, Lennox & Wolfe, 1984), wbich means that old studies
will have to be reanalyzed and new work planned We are confident that
by 1990 fector analyses ofthe Self-Monitonng Scale will be recognized
as a constructive contnbution to botb tbe tbeory and measurement of
self-presentation
In the second case, we showed how the application offectoranalysis
to multidimensional ccmceptualizations of self-esteem has advanced that
important yet problematic area of personality research More vrork re-
mams to be dme, especially m tbe testmg of bierarcbical facet models
thrwigh confirmatOTy fector analysis and causal modelmg, but the con-
clusion that factor analysis has contnbuted successfully to our under-
standing of self-esteem IS amply supported in the research we reviewed
We beheve that fector analysis is one important hnk m the chain of
bgical, correlatKmal, and expenmental aiuJyses necessary for the full
exphcation of any personahty construct The argument that thorough
 142 Briggs& Cheek

conceptual analysis should precede data collection is an old one that

bears repeating
We spend more time m designing the expenmental testsfora fac-
tor study than on all of the computational work, including the cor-
relation, the factonng, and the analysis of the structure If we
have no psychological ideas, we are not likely to discover anything
interesting because even if the fectonal studies are clear and clean,
the interpretation must be as subjective as in any other scientific
work (Thurstone, 1948, p 402)
The advent of high-speed computers along with software packages for
fector analysis has permitted the proliferation of the thoughtless factor
analytic work that has earned this technique the scornful epithet of "gar-
bage m—garbage out" (Long, 1983) We believe that this problem bas
been caused by uninformed usage ratber tban by inberent deficiencies
m factor analytic models Newcomers sbould pay special attention to
Comrey's (1978) "Common methodological problems m factor analytic
studies" and Nunnally's section "How to fool yourself witb factor analy-
sis" (1978, pp 433-436) Even new and promising methods of data
analysis such as maximum likelihood fector analysis must be tempered
Wltb tbe well-worn pnnciples of scientific inference (Ch£f, 1983)
A major tbeme m our presentation bas been tbe argument tbat factor
analysis is only one important part of programmatic researcb on any per-
sonahty construct and not an end in itself Measurement and theory are
always interdependent and fector analysis is not limited to just one part
ofthe research process Thus, factor analysis can be used to refine and
clarify measures as well as to identify important distinctions and to test
specific hypotheses In this regard, multimethod confirmatory fector
analysis promises to be of interest to personahty and social psychologists
because it jwovides a framework within which to assess ihe vahdity of
both our measures and our constructs (Lcmg, 1983, pp 29-33, Watkms
& Hattie, 1981) It males as httle senseforcnbcs to dismissfectoranaly-
sis as mere psychometnc details as it would for psychometncians to ar-
gue that ccHitrcd grcNips are dispensable m laboratory expenments Just
asfectoranalysis can serve as a prelucfe to fully exjdicating a psychcdogi-
cal canstnrct, we hc^e that currentfectcnranalybc studies are a prelude
to better models and apidKabcms in future work that will be even nKH°e
useful m advancing perscmahty psychology

R^srances
Ajzen, I ,Tiinlto,C ,&Wlute,J B (1982) Sdf-niomtcRingandtheattitu<k-behavior
—'-^— Journal af Personaltty and Soctal Psi^h(Aogy,*i,"^ ""^
Factor analysts 143

Arkin, R M (1981) Self-presentation styles In J T Tedeschi (Ed ), Impresswn man-

agement theory and social psychologtcal research New York Academic
Bachman, J G , & O'Malley, P M (1977) Self-esteem in young men A longitudinal
analysis ofthe impact of educational and occupational attainment Journal ^Per-
sonality and Soctal Psychology, 35, 365-380
Bentler, P M (1980) Multivanate analysis with latent variables Causal modeling In
M R Rosenzweig & L W Porter (Eds ) Annual Review m Psychology (Vol 31,
pp 419-456) Palo Alto Annual Reviews Inc
Bentier, P M , & Bonett, D G (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the
analysis of covanance structures Psychologtcal Bulletm, 88, 588-606
Berger, E (1952) The relation between expressed acceptance of self and expressed
acceptance of others Joumal ofAbnormal and Soctal Psychology, 47, 778-782
Bohrnstedt, G W, & Felson, R B (1983) Explaining the relations among children's
actual and perceived performances and self-esteem A comparison of several causal
models Journal of Personaltty and Soctal Psychology, 45, 43-56
Bnggs, S R , Gheek, J M , & Buss, A H (1980) An analysis ofthe self-monitonng
scale Joumal of Personality and Soctal Psychology, 38, 679-686
Brookings, J B , Flood, S , Hes'singe, B , Kuhls, J , MiUer, W E , & Wnght, T
(1982) Moderator vanable analysis ofthe relationship between self-trait and peer-
trait ratings Psychologtcal Reports, 50, 621-622
Galdwell, D F , & O Reilly, G A (1982) Boundary spanning and mdividual perfor-
mance The impact of self-monitoring Joumalcf Applied Psychology, 67,124-127
Gampbell, D T , & Fiske, D W (1959) Gonvergent and discnminant validation by
the multitrait-multimethod matrix I'sychohgtcal BuUettn, 56, 81-105
Gattell, R B (1946) Descrtptton and measurement of persorudtty Yonkers-on-Hud-
son, NY World Book
Gattell, R B (1966) The scree test for number of factors Multivartate Behavtoral
Research, 1, 245-276
Gegala, D J , Savage, G T, Brunner, G G , & Gonrad, A B (1982) An elaboration
ofthe meaning of interaction involvement Toward the development of a theoretical
concept Communtcatton Monographs, 49, 229-248
Gheek, J M (1982) Aggregation, moderator vanables, and the validity of personality
tests A peer-rating study Joumal of Personahty and Social Psychology, 43, 1254-
1269
Gheek, J M ,& Bnggs, S R (1982) Self-consciousness and aspects of identity/our-
nal ^Research tn Personaltty, 16, 401-408
Gli£F, N (1983) Some cautions concerning the apphcation of causal modehng meth-
ods Multivartate Behavtoral Research, 18, 115-126
Golhns, B E (1974) Four separate components of Rotter/-£ Scale Beliefm a difficult
world, a just world, a predictable world, and a pohtically responsive world Joumal
af Personaltty and Soctal Psychology, 29, 381-391
Gollins, B E , Martm, J G , Ashmore, R D , & Ross, L (1973) Some dimensions of
the internal-external metaphor in theones of personality Joumal af Personaltty,
41, 471-492
Gomrey, A L (1978) Gommtm methodological problems m factor analytic studies
Joumal af Consulting and CUntcd Psychology, 46, 648-659
Go<^)ersmith, S (1967) Antecedents af self-esteem San Francisco Freeman
Grarakll, R (1973) The measurement of self-esteem and related constructs InJ R
Rdbinson & P R Shaver (Eds ), Measures cf soctal psychologtcal attUudes (2nd
e d , p p 45-167) Ann Arbor, MI Institute fw Social Research
Gronbach, L J (1957) TTje two disciphnes of scientific psyclwlogy Amertcan Psy-
chologmt, 12, 671-684
GnHibaih, L J , & Meehl, P E (1955) Gonstruct validity m psychological tests Psy-
chdogtcal BuUettn, 52, 281-302
Gunnin^bm, M R (1977) ftrscmahty and the structure ofthe i«iverbalcominuni-
catum of emotion Joumal af Persorudtty, 45, 564-584
 144 Bnggs & Cheek
Dabbs, J M , Evans, M S , Hopper, G H , & Purvis, J A (1980) Self-monitors m
conversation What do they monitor''/ourna/ af Personaltty and Social Psychology,
39, 278-284
Digman, J M,&Inouye, J (in press) Further specification ofthe five robust factors
of personality Joumal of Personaltty and Soctal Psychology
Digman, J M , & Takemoto-Ghock, N K (1981) Factors in the natural language of
personality Reanalysis and companson of six major studies Multtvartate Behav-
ioral Research, 16, 149-170
Edelmann, R J (1985) Individual difFerences m embarrassment Self-consciousness,
self-monitonng, and embarrassibility Personaltty and Indivtdual Differences, 6,
223-230
Everett, J E (1983) Factor comparability as a means of determining the number of
factors and their rotation Multtvartate Behavtoral Research, 18, 197-218
Eysenck, H J (1983) A biometrical-genetical analysis of impulsive and sensation
seeking behavior In M Zuckerman (Ed ), Rtological bases cf sensation seektng,
tmpuhivtty, and anxtety HiUsdale, NJ Erlbaum
Eysenck, H J , & Eysenck, S B G (1969) Personality structure and measurement
London Routledge & Kegan Paul
Fenigstein, A , Scheier, M F , & Buss, A H (1975) Public and private self-conscious-
ness Assessment and theory Joumal of Consulting and Cltntcal Psychology, 43,
522-527
Fiske, D W (1971) Measunng the concepts of personality Ghicago Aldine
Fleming, J S , & Gourtney, B E (1984) The dimensionality of self-esteem II Hi-
erarchical facet model for revised measurement scales Joumal of Personaltty and
Soctal Psychology, 46, 404-421
Fleming, J S,&Watts, W A (1980) The dimensionality of self-esteem Some results
from a college sample Journal cf Personaltty and Soctal Psychology, 39, 921-929
Franks, D D , & MaroUa, J (1976) Efficacious action and social approval as interact-
ing dimensions of self-esteem A tentative formulation through construct valida-
tion Soctometry, 39, 324-341
Fnedman, H S , Pnnce, L M , Riggio, R E , & DiMatteo, M R (1980) Under-
standing and assessing nonverbal expressiveness The Affective Gommunication
Test Joumal of Personaltty and Soctal Psychology, 39, 333-351
Furnham, A , & Gapon, M (1983) Social skills and self-monitonng processes Per-
sonaltty and Indtvtdual Dtfferences, 4, 171-178
Gabrenya, W K , & Arkin, R M (1980) Self-monitonng scale Factor structure and
correlates Personaltty and Social Psychology Bullettn, 6, 13-22
Gangestad, S , & Snyder, M (1985) To carve nature at its joints On the existence of
discrete classes in personality Psychologtcal Revtew, 93, 65—85
Goldberg, L R (1981) Language and individual difFerences The search for universals
in personality lexicons In L Wheeler (Ed ), Personahty and Soctal Psychology
Revtew (V(A 2, pp 141-165) Beverly Hills Sage
Gofiman, E (1967) Interaction rttual Ghicago AJdine
GcMTSuch, R L (1^3) Factor and^sM (2nd ed ) HiUsdale, NJ Erlbaum
Gough, H G (1965) Gonceptualanalysisof psychological test scores and other diag-
nostic vanaUes Joumal cfAbnormal Psychdogy, 70, 294-302
Gray, J A (1981) A cnbqueofEysenck'sth^iry of personality InH J Eysenck (Ed),
A modelfi)rpersonality Berhn Spni^r-Verlag
Gray-Littk, B ,&Appell»um, M I (1979) Instrumentality eSects in the assessment
of racial dififerences m self-esteem Joumal cf PersomAtty and Soaal Psychdogy,
37,1221-1229
Greaner, J L., & Fenner, L A (1982) The reliability and validity of Bem ami AUen's
measure of cross-situationai consistency Soctal Behavtor and Personality, 10,
241-244
Green, S B , Lissitz, R W, & Mulaik, S A (1977) Limitations of coeCBcient alpba
as an index of test unidimensionabty Educatumal and Ps^hologtcal Measure-
ment, 37, 827-838
 Factor analysis 145

Guilford, J P (1954) Psychometnc Methods (2nd ed ) New York McGraw-Hill

Hakstian, A R , Rogers, W T, & Gattell, R B (1982) The behavior of number-of-
factors rules with simulated data Multtvanate Behavtoral Research, 17, 193-219
Harman, H H (1960) Modern factor analysis Ghicago Univ of Ghicago Press
Harter, S (1982) The perceived competence scale for children Child Development,
53, 87-97
Hattie, J (1984) An empincal study of vanous indices for determining unidimension-
ality Multtvartate Behavtoral Research, 19, 49-78
Hoetler, J W (1983) Analysis of covanance structures Soctologtcal Methods and Re-
search, 11, 325-344
Hogan, R (1983) A socioanalytic theory of personahty In M M Pag,e(Ed), Nebraska
Sympostum on Mottvatton 1982 Lincoln Univ of Nebraska Press
Hogan, R (1986) Manual for the Hogan Personality Inventory Minneapolis National
Gomputer Systems
HoUand, J L , Daiger, D G , & Power, P G (1980) My vocational situation De-
scnptton of an expenmental diagnostic form for the selection of vocational assis-
tance Palo Alto, CA Gonsulting Psychologists Press
Horst, P (1966) Psychological measurement and prediction Belmont, GA Wads-
worth
Howarth, E (1972) Factor analysis has only just begun to fight A reply to Lykken
Journal of Expenmental Research tn Personaltty, 6, 268-272
Howarth, E (1976) A psychometnc investigation of Eysenck's personality inventory
Joumal of Personality Assessment, 40, 173-185
Jackson, D N (1975) Multimethod factor analysis A reformulation Multtvanate Be-
havtoral Research, 10, 259-275
Jackson, D N , & Helmes, E (1979) Personality structure and the circumplex Jour-
nal of Personaltty and Social Psychology, 37, 2278-2285
Johnson, J A , Gheek, J M , & Smither, R (1983) The structure of empathy Joumal
qf Personaltty and Soctal Psychology, 45, 1299-1312
Johnson, M A , Jewell, L R , & Tirrell, L (1984) Self-monitonng A companson qf
Snyder and Lennox and Wolfe scales Paper presented at the 92nd annual meeting
ofthe American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ganada
Joreskog, K G , & Sorbom, D (1979) Advances in factor analysts and structural
equation models Gambndge Abt Books
Joreskog, K G , & Sorbom, D (1984) LISREL VI Analysts of linear structural re-
lationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares
methods MoorseviUe, IL Scientific Software
Kenny, D A (1979) Correlation and causality New York Wiley
Kenny, D A ,& Gampbell, D T (1984) Methodological considerations m the analysis
of temporal data In K J Gergen & M M Gergen (Eds ), Histoncal soctal psy-
chology Hillsdale, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Kim, J ,& Mueller, G W (1978a) Introduction to factor analysis What it ts and how
to do It Sage University Piper Senes on Quantitative Applications in the Social
Sciences, senes no 07-013 Beverly Hills, GA Sage
Kim, J , & Mueller, G W (]fl78b) Factor analysts Stattsttcal methods and practical
tssues Sage University Paper Senes on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sci-
ences, series no 07-014 Beverly Hills, GA Sage
Lanyon, R I ,& Goodstein, L D (1982) Personaltty assessment i2nded ) New York
Wiley
Leary, M R., Silver, S E , Darby, B W ,& Schlenker, B R (1982) The multidimen-
sHxudity of self-mmiitoruig Representative Research tn Soctal Psychology, 2, 3 3 -
36
Lennox, R D , & WbUe, R N (1984) Revision ofthe self-monitonng scale Joumd
af^rsonahty and Soctal Psychdogy, 46, 1349-1364
Long, J S (1983) Confirmatory factor analysts Sage University Paper Senes on
Qualitative Applicatxms in t t e Social Sciences, senes no 07-033 Beverly Hills,
GA
146 Bnggs & Cheek
Lykken, D T (1971) Multiple factor analysis and personality research Journal qf Ex-
penmental Research tn Persondtty, 5, 161-170
Maddi, S R (1984) Pfersonology for the 1980s In R A Zucker, J Aronoff, & A I
Rabin (Eds ), Personaltty and the predtctton af behavior (pp 7-41) New York Ac-
ademic Press
Mamms, L M , O'Gonnor, G , & Gheek, J M (1983, Apnl) Vocattonal certatnty as
a dtmenston qf self-esteem tn college women Paper presented at the 54th Annual
meeting ofthe Eastem Psychological Association, Philadelphia
Marsh, H W, & Hocevar, D (1983) Gonfirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-mul-
timethod matnces Joumal afEducationd Measurement, 20, 231-248
Marsh, H W, Relich, J D , & Smith, I D (1983) Self-concept The constmct valid-
ity of interpretations based upon the SDQ Joumd qf Personaltty and Soctal Psy-
chology, 45.173-187
Marsh, H W,&Smith, I D (1982) Multitrait-multimethod analyses of two self-con-
cept instruments Joumal qfEducattond Psychology, 74, 430—440
Marsh, H W, Smith, I D , & Barnes, J (1984) Multidimensional self-concepts Re-
lationships with inferred self-concepts and academic achievement Australian
Joumd (^Psychology, 36, 367-386
Marx, R W, & Wmne, P H (1980) Self-concept research Some current complexi-
ties Measurement and Evaluation, 13, 72-82
McGrae, R R , & Gosta, P T (m press) Updating Norman's Adequate Taxonomy"
Intelligence and personality dimensions in natural language and m questionnaires
Joumal af Persondtty and Soctal Psychology
McDonald, R P (1981) The dimensionality of tests and items Bnttsh Journal of
Mathematical and Stattsticd Psychology, 34,100-117
McDonald, R P, & Mulaik, S A (1979) Determinacy of common factors A non-
technical review Psychologtcd Bullettn, 66, 119-124
McNemar, Q (1946) Opinion-attitude methoddogy Psychologtcal Bulletin, 43, 289-
37^
Meehl, P E , Lykken, D T, Schofield, W, & TeUegen, A (1971) Recaptured-item
technique (RTF) A method for reducing somewhat the subjective element in &ctor
naming Joumd qf Expenmental Research tn Personality, 5,171-190
Miell, D , & LeVoi, M (in jM-ess) Self-nKmitonng and control in dyadic interactions
Joumal of Persondity and Soctal Psychdogy
Mdl, J (1984) High and low self-monitonng individuals Their decoding skiUs and
empathic expression Joumal qf Persondtty, 52, 372-388
Mukik, S A (1975) Gonfirmatcn-y fector analysis In D J Amick & H J Walberg
(Eds ), Introductory multtvariate analysts Berkeley McGutchan
NunnaUy, J G (1978) Psychometnc theory (2nd ed ) New York McGraw-Hill
Paulhus, D L (1983) S{Aere-specific measures of perceived cwitrol/owma/offtr-
sondtty and Social Psychology, 44, 1253-1265
Baulhus, D L (1984) TWo-component models of socially desirable responding Jour-
nal af Personality and Soctd Pst^hdogy, 46, 598-609
Penn^, L A , & Wymer, W E (1983) The mocbrator vanaUe ap{nt>ach to behavioral
predictability Smne ofthe vanaUes some of die time Joumd af Research in Per-
sondtty, 39, 514-521
Parlman, D (1984) Rec«it ^velopments m ptersoiudity and soctal psychdogy A ci-
tation analysis Persondtty and Sodd Psychology Bulletin, 10, 493-501
Peters^), A G , Schulenbei^, J E , Abramowitz. R H , Offer, D , & Jaicho, H D
(1984) A self-image qiKstKmnaire for yaajog adolescents (SM^YA) lyiability and
vahdity studies Journd qf Youth and Adolescence, 13, 93-111
l4uUips, E L (1951) Attitudes toward sdf ami odiers A Imefquesbonnaire report
Joumd afConstdUng Psychdogy, 15, 79-Sl
Phiniiey, G (1984, August) Self and spouse euduatums Perspectives of intimate ob-
servers B^>^ i»«seiited at the 92nd annual meebngtrf'tl^ Amencan PsyciKJo^-
cal AssociatMm, Iwcmto, Ganada
 Fa(^)r analysis 147

Phinney, G , & Gough, H G (1982) The Caltfomia Self-Evaluation Scales (2nd ed )

Berkeley Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, University of Galifor-
nia
Revelle, W (1983) Factors are fictions, and other comments on individuality theory
Joumal qf Personahty, 51, 707-713
Riggio, R E , & Fnedman, H S (1982) The interrelationships of self-monitMing fac-
tors, personality, traits, and nonverbal skills Joumal cf Nonverbal Behavtor, 7,
33-45
Riggio, R E ,& Fnedman, H S (1983) Individual difFerences and cues to deception
Joumd qf Personahty and Soctal Psychology, 45, 899-915
Rosenberg, M (1965) Soctety and the adolescent self-tmage Pnnceton, NJ Pnnce-
twi University Press
Rosenberg, M (1979) Conceiving the self New York Basic Books
Royce, J R , & Povvell, A (1983) Theory of personaltty and individual dtfferences
Factors, systems, and processes Englewood Gliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall
Santee, R T, & Maslach, G (1982) To agree or not to agree Personal dissent amid
social pressure to conform Joumal ofPersoruihty and Social Psychology, 42, 690-
700
Schmitt, N , Goyle, B W,&Saan, B B (1977) A review and cntique of analyses of
multitrait-multimethod matnces Multtvanate Behavtoral Research, 12, 447-
478
Schneiderman, W (1980) A personality dimension of consistency versus variability
without the use of self-reports or ratings Joumd of Personahty and Soctal Psy-
chology, 39, 158-164
Shavelson, R J , & Bolus, R (1982) Self-concept The interplay of theory and meth-
ods Joumal of Educational Psychology, 74, 3-17
Shavelson, R J , Hubner, J J , & Stanton, G G (1976) Self-concept Validation of
construct interpretations Revtew qf Educattonal Research, 46, 407-441
Siegman, A W, & Reyndds, M A (1983) Self-monitonng and speech in feigned and
unfeigned lying Joumal qf Personahty and Soctal Psychology, 45, 1325-1333
Snyder, M (1972) Individual differences and the self-control of expressive behavior
(Doctoral dissertatim, Stanford University, 1972) Dtssertatton Abstracts Inter-
natwnd, 33, 4533A-4534A
Snyder, M (Vdii) SeU-taomtonng of expressive hehavior Joumal qf Personahty and
Soctd Psychology, 30, 526-537
Snyder, M (1979) Self-momtming processes In L Berkowitz (Ed ), Advances tn ex-
penmentd soctal psychology (Vol 12, pp 86-128) New York Academic Press
Snyder, M , & Gampbell, B (1982) Self-momtoring The self m action I n J Suls
(Ed ), Psychologtcal perspecttves on the self (Vol 1, pp 185-207) HiUsdale, NJ
Erlbaum
Snyder, M , & Gangestad, S (1982) Ghoosing social situations Two investigatums of
self-monitanng processes Joumal qf Personahty and Soctd Psychology, 43,123-
135
Snyder, M , & Mmsm, T G (1975) Ftersons, situations, and the control of social be-
havior Joumd qf Personahty and Soctd Psychology, 32, 637-644
Snyder, M ,&Tan)%, E D (1976) Behavior and atbtude Some p e t ^ e are mwe con-
sistent than oth^s Journd of Personaltty, 44, 501-517
Sobel, M E , & B<dimstedt, G (1985) Use of null models in evaluating the fit of co-
vanance structure models In N B Thma (Ed ), Socidogicd Methodology (pp
152-178) SanFraiK3Sco JosseyBass
Song, I , & Hattie, J (1984) The dtmenstondtty qf self-concept UnpuMished manu-
scnpt, Gentre for Behavioural Studies, University of New England, Armidale,
New South Wales, Australia
Soule, J G , Ehoimmond, R J , & Mclntire, W G (1981) Dimensirais of self-concept
fi>r duldren m hudergarten and grades 1 and 2 Psychdogtcal Reports, 48, 83-88
^Jaracino, J , Ronchi, D , Bigley, T K , Flesch, A L , & Kuhn, J W (1983) Sdf-
OMHutoru^ and blood iH«ssure Joumd qf Persondity and Socid Psychdogy, 44,
3^-375
 148 Bnggs & Cheek
Spearman, G (1904) "General intelligence objectively determined and measured
Amertcan Joumal qf Psychology, 15, 201-293
Spitzberg, B H , & Gupach, W R (1984) Interpersonal communtcatton compe-
tence Beverly Hills, CA Sage
Stake, J E , & Orlofsky, J L (1981) On the use of global and specific measures m
assessing the self-esteem of males and females Sex Roles, 7, 653-662
Thurstone, L L (1948) Psychological implications of factor analysis Amencan Psy-
chologist, 3, 402-408
Tobey, E L , & Tunnell, G (1981) Predicting our impressions on others Effects of
pubhc selif-consciousness and acting, a Self-Monitoring subscale Personaltty and
Soctal Psychology Bullettn, 7, 661-669
Tlinnell, G (1980) Intratndividual consistency in personality assessment The effect
ofself-monitoring Joumal of Personahty, 48, 220-232
VanTuinen, M , & Ramanaiah, N V (1979) A multimethod analysis of selected self-
esteem measures Joumal qf Research tn Personaltty, 13, 16-24
Velicer, W F , Peacock, A G , & Jackson, D N (1982) A companson of component
and factor pattems A Monte Garlo approach Multivariate Behavtoral Research,
17, 371-388
Walsh, E J , & Taylor, M G (1982) Occupational correlates of multidimensional self-
esteem Sociology and Social Research, 66, 252-262
Watkins, D (1978) Ttedevelopmentandevaluationof self-esteem measuring instru-
ments Joumdqf Personahty Assessment, 42, 171-182
Watkins, D , & Hattie, J (1981) An investigation of the construct validity of three
recently developed personahty instruments An application of confirmatory multi-
method factor analysis Australtan Joumal qf Psychology, 33, 277-284
Wheaton, B , Muthen, B , Ahvm, D F , & Summers, G F (1977) Assessing the re-
habihty and stability in panel models In D R Heise (Ed ), Soctologtcal Method-
ology (pp 84-136) San Francisco JosseyBass
Wiggins, J S (1979) A psychological taxonomy of trait-descnptive terms The inter-
personal domain Joumal of Personality and Soctal Psychology, 37, 395-412
Wiggins, J S (1980) Gircumplex models of interpersonal behavior In L Wheeler
(Ed ), Revtew qf persondity and soctd psychology (Vol 1, pp 265-294) Beverly
Hills Sage
Wiggins, J S , & Broughton, R (1985) The interpersonal circle A stnictural model
for the integration of personality research In R Hogan & W H Jones (Ed ), Per-
specttves on persondtty (Vol 1, pp 1-47) New Ycwk JAI
Wolfe, R N , Lennox, R D , & Cutler, B L (in press) Getting along and getting
ahead Empincal support for a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presenta-
tion Joumal qf Personahty and Soctd Psychology
Wyhe, R G (1974) The self-concept A review of methodological constderattons and
measuring instruments (2nd ed , Vol 1) Lincoln University of Nebraska Press
Wymer, W E , & Penner, L A (in press) Moderator vanables and different types of
predictabdity Do you have a match^ Joumal of Personaltty and Soctal Psychology
Zanna, M P, Olson, J M , & Fazio, R H (1980) Attitude behavior consistency An
individual difference perspective Joumal af Personahty and Socid Psychology,
38, 432-440
Zwick, W R , & Velicer, W F (1982) Factors influencing four rules for determining
the number of compcments to retain Mtdttvartate Behavtoral Research, 17, 253-
269
Manuscnpt received September 14,198S