Aleksandra Witkowska, Dorota Mącik, Łukasz Mackiewicz Polish adaptation of Self-Presentation on Facebook Questionnaire (SPFBQ) – Skala autoprezentacji na Facebooku (SAF)

Introduction

Since 2004, the social networking site Facebook has served as a platform for communication and a virtual community that transcends the boundaries of time and location. It allows users to share photos, videos, messages, and posts (Celestine, Nnanyelugo, 2020), as well as maintain social connections, which is related to fulfilling the need for belonging (Gilmour et al., 2020). Facebook has become an integral part of daily life for individuals aged 18–25, who are the most frequent users of social media. Young adults present their image online in various ways, managing how they may be perceived by others–an activity referred to as online self-presentation (Arifah et al., 2023). Among the activities that serve self-presentational goals are sharing links, photos, and posts, sending messages, and creating profiles (Yenilmez, 2023).

Michikyan et al. (2015), drawing on the definitions of the self by Harter et al. (1996), Higgins (1987), and Manago et al. (2008), define online self-presentation as the portrayal of various versions of the self. These include: the Real Self–a self-image consistent with reality, reflecting authentic emotions and motivated by internal attributes; the Ideal Self–a self-image aligned with one’s aspirational visions, understood in terms of desires, goals, and traits the individual wishes to possess; and the False Self–behaviors that are inconsistent with one’s true self, adopted for reasons such as deception (intentionally misleading others), exploration (experimenting with one’s image), or comparison/impress (presenting oneself based on social references or to impress others). Behaviors related to the False Self are motivated differently than those related to the Ideal Self, even though both diverge from the person’s actual self-image. While the False Self may be a normative part of identity development, it can also stem from self-devaluation or an intention to deceive. In contrast, the Ideal Self is centered around striving for and displaying traits the person does not possess but without any deliberate intent to mislead (Michikyan et al., 2015).

A tool that enables the examination of realistic, idealized, and false self-presentation styles on Facebook among adults is the Self-Presentation on Facebook Questionnaire (SPFBQ) developed by Michikyan et al. (2015). The construction of the questionnaire began with the creation of 21 items, which were then subjected to statistical analyses, ultimately resulting in a five-factor solution. These five factors, represented by 17 items, accounted for 64.3% of the total variance. In the original study, the reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the scales ranged from .65 for the False Self (comparison/impression) subscale to .81 for the Real Self subscale (Michikyan et al., 2015).

In Indonesia, a version of the SPFBQ tool was adapted in 2019, though not all reliability results were high. After further analyses, 12 items were retained in this language version (Tama, 2019). The SPFBQ scale was also tested for studying self-presentation on Instagram (Jackson, Luchner, 2017; Radecke, 2021; Turner, Ordonia, 2023). In these adaptations, the number and content of the items from the original version were maintained, with the word Facebook in 15 out of 17 items replaced by Instagram. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients for the five subscales in the various studies ranged from .65 to .75 (Turner, Ordonia, 2023), .72 to .77 (Jackson, Luchner, 2017), and .55 to .84 (Radecke, 2021).

In the original version of the SPFBQ, validity analyses revealed positive correlations between integrated identity, higher self-esteem, and lower levels of depressive symptoms with real self-presentation on Facebook. Ideal self-presentation was associated with lower well-being, increased depressive symptoms, higher levels of neuroticism, and more time spent using Facebook. In contrast, false self-presentation was linked to increased activity on the platform and lower levels of extraversion (Michikyan et al., 2014; Michikyan et al., 2015).

In the Indonesian context, positive relationships were confirmed between real self-presentation and better well-being, self-acceptance, and greater social support. For false self-presentation, relationships were found with poorer well-being, lower self-esteem, and decreased life satisfaction (Firasatie, 2023; Septiana, Qudsyi, 2024).

These indicators remain consistent with findings pointing to more general psychological mechanisms. Facebook users’ activities aim to enhance self-esteem by gaining popularity (Kim, Lee, 2011; Stefanone et al., 2011). Using the platform increases life satisfaction (Huang, 2010). Facebook addiction can be associated with worsened mental health, somatic symptoms, anxiety, insomnia, social disorders, and depression (Hanprathet et al., 2015). The way users present themselves on Facebook is influenced by self-conscious emotions–pride, shame, and guilt. When people’s evaluations are unfavorable, an individual may promote themselves by limiting the spread of negative information about them, either by diminishing the value of others (shame) or recalling unfavorable past events (guilt) (Sznycer, 2019). Pride can be divided into two types: hubristic pride, which is a global and difficult-to-control aspect of the self (e.g., the belief that one's physique is attractive), associated with feelings of superiority over others, and authentic pride, which refers to the sense that one has achieved social standards through controlling their behavior (Razmus et al., 2019).

The main goal of the presented research is to verify the psychometric quality of the Self-Presentation on Facebook Questionnaire (SPFBQ) in the Polish population. Due to the widespread popularity of Facebook in Poland, where the number of active users is approximately 24.75 million (Statista, 2024), and the lack of tools for studying online self-presentation, it was deemed important to adapt the scale for the Polish context. The adaptation of the SPFBQ addresses the need for a better understanding of how Poles present themselves in the digital space, which is particularly significant in light of the increasing role of social media in daily life.

Two research questions were posed:

1. Will the theoretical model of the questionnaire's structure be reflected in the Polish population, and how well will this model fit the data?
2. Will the theoretical validity of the method be confirmed?

The following hypotheses were anticipated:

H1: Unrealistic self-presentation styles will be positively associated with higher levels of self-conscious emotions, greater problematic use of Facebook, a stronger compensatory function of Facebook, and lower self-esteem and life satisfaction.

H2: Realistic self-presentation will be negatively associated with the severity of health-related symptoms, a lower need to create a Virtual Self, and positively associated with higher self-esteem and life satisfaction.

Method

The Self-Presentation on Facebook Questionnaire (SPFBQ) allows for the identification of the type of self-presentation used by Facebook users. The tool consists of 17 statements. The task of the respondent is to rate each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree. The score is calculated by summing the raw scores for each of the five scales (discussed in the introduction) and calculating the average for each scale. Example items include: I like myself and am proud of what I stand for and I show it on my Facebook profile., I sometimes try to be someone other than my true self on Facebook.

In the adaptation study, the following methods were also applied:

– Body and Appearance Self-Conscious Emotions Scale (BASES), in the Polish adaptation by Razmus et al. (2019). This method allows for the examination of both positive and negative self-conscious emotions related to the body and appearance. The tool consists of 16 items. The task of the respondent is to rate each statement on a 5-point scale, where 1 means never and 5 means always. The score is calculated by summing the raw scores for each scale and then calculating the average for each of the four emotions. Example items: I am ashamed of how I look and I am proud that, I look better than others.

– The Internet Addiction Test (IAT) by Young (1998), in the Polish adaptation by Poprawa (2011), is used to assess internet addiction and problematic internet use. It consists of 22 items and offers a range of 6 possible responses, from does not apply to always. The score is calculated by summing the raw scores for each response to the questions. Example items: How often do you realize you're thinking about when you'll be online again? and How often do you try to conceal how long you stay online?

– The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) by Goldberg (1972), in the Polish adaptation by Makowska and Merecz (2001), allows for the assessment of overall mental health, as well as symptoms of somatic issues, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and social functioning disorders. The respondent is tasked with evaluating each of four statements. There are different scoring methods for GHQ-28. Points can be assigned from 0 to 3 for each response, with the total possible score ranging from 0 to 84. GHQ-28 can also be scored using a binary method, where Not at all and No more than usual are scored as 0, and More than usual and Much more than usual are scored as 1. The results for the GHQ-28 scale are calculated using the Likert method, with a measurement scale of 0-1-2-3. Example items: Have you recently felt unwell? and Have you recently felt that life was not worth living?

– The Psycho-Social Aspects of Facebook Use (PSAFU) Questionnaire (Bodroža, Jovanović, 2016) measures the way Facebook is used. For the purposes of the study, the questionnaire was translated and pilot testing was conducted. Initially, two independent translations of the scale were created and then verified by three independent translators. Subsequently, pilot testing was conducted using the refined version in an online format, with the help of Google Forms. The study involved 82 participants. The reliability analysis conducted on this group allowed for the use of the scale in the main study. The PSAFU tool consists of 43 statements. The respondent answers on a five-point scale, where 1 means does not apply to me at all and 5 means completely applies to me. The score is calculated by computing the arithmetic mean of the responses across 5 dimensions. Example items: I enjoy social life on Facebook more than in real life; On Facebook, I feel more appreciated and accepted. In this study, due to the goal of examining the reasons why an individual uses Facebook and how they present themselves in the virtual space, two dimensions were used: the compensatory function of Facebook and Virtual Self.

– The Self-Esteem Scale (SES) by Rosenberg (1965), in the Polish adaptation by Dzwonkowska et al. (2007), measures the level of self-esteem and the attitude towards the self in a global context. It consists of 10 statements. The respondent evaluates them on a 4-point scale, where 1 means strongly agree and 4 means strongly disagree. The score is obtained by summing the responses. Example items: I feel I have many positive qualities and Sometimes I feel I am no good at all.

– The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) by Diener et al. (1985), in the Polish translation by Jankowski (2015), is used to measure life satisfaction. It consists of 5 statements. Respondents answer on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1 means strongly disagree and 7 means strongly agree. The score is calculated by summing the points from all the questions and converting the raw score into sten scores. The lower the score, the lower the life satisfaction. Example items: The conditions of my life are excellent and so far, I have achieved important goals that I want in life.

Participants and data collection procedures

The main study involved 531 participants aged 18 to 64 years (M = 25.3, SD = 6.1), consisting of 422 women (79.5%) and 109 men (20.5%). Of the sample, 93.6% were young adults, meaning individuals up to the age of 35. Among them, 247 participants (46.5%) had higher education – 199 women and 48 men; 278 participants (52.4%) had secondary education – 218 women and 60 men; 4 participants (0.8%) had vocational education – all women; and 2 participants (0.4%) had primary education – 1 woman and 1 man.

The study was conducted between 2023 and 2024 on the Facebook platform. The questionnaires were placed on the LimeSurvey platform, accessible via a link. The sample was gathered using the snowball sampling method – the link was sent by the authors of the adaptation to their acquaintances, who were asked to forward it to others. The inclusion criterion was being 18 years old or older. No other inclusion or exclusion criteria were applied. All participants were informed about the anonymity of the study. The research was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines, confidentiality, and voluntariness. Respondents were not compensated and could withdraw from the study at any time. The project received approval from the Ethics Committee of the KUL Scientific Research (approval number: KEBN_21/2023).

Psychometric Properties of the Scale – Reliability, Internal Consistency, Validity

Preliminary analyses included translation procedures and the initial estimation of measurement reliability. To evaluate the psychometric properties of the scale, the following methods were applied: reliability analyses using Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and theoretical validity analysis involving scales measuring self-esteem and life satisfaction. Subsequently, reliability, stability, and validity coefficients were calculated, and descriptive statistics were checked. The analyses were conducted using statistical software packages: IBM SPSS Amos 26 and SPSS for Windows 28.

Results

Translation and linguistic validation

First, written consent was obtained from the author of the original version of the tool to create an adaptation. The scale was translated from English to Polish by three independent translators. The items were then reviewed by six competent judges–participants of a clinical psychology seminar. They selected the items that, in terms of translation, best reflected the content and essence of the original items. Subsequently, the translated version underwent a back-translation procedure. The back-translation did not raise any concerns regarding the translation, and thus the Polish version of the tool was subjected to pilot testing.

The pilot testing was conducted on Facebook in 2023 using a link to the LimeSurvey platform, where the questionnaire package was hosted. A total of 82 participants (71 women and 11 men) were recruited using the snowball sampling method. The link was sent among the authors’ acquaintances, who were then asked to forward it to others. The inclusion criterion was being at least 18 years old, with no other inclusion or exclusion criteria applied. The study was conducted in accordance with ethical principles, ensuring anonymity and voluntary participation. Respondents were asked to indicate if and how they understood the individual items. Following this, the scale underwent reliability analysis, which indicated satisfactory properties of the tool.

Descriptive statistics

In order to gather information about the distributions of the analyzed variables, descriptive statistics were calculated for each scale (Table 1).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for SPFBQ scales (N = 531)

	Min	Max	M	Me	SD	AS	K	Z	p	α	ω
Real Self	1.00	5.00	3.25	3.40	0.79	-0.41	0.15	0.08	< .001	.69	.70
Ideal Self	1.00	5.00	2.54	2.50	1.14	0.10	-1.05	0.14	< .001	.83	-*
False Self (deception)	1.00	5.00	1.83	1.75	0.77	0.82	0.29	0.14	< .001	.74	.67
False Self (exploration)	1.00	5.00	2.24	2.33	0.94	0.45	-0.32	0.10	< .001	.75	.65
False Self (compare/impress)	1.00	5.00	2.49	2.67	1.07	0.15	-0.95	0.10	< .001	.74	.75
Real Self**	1.00	5.00	2.90	3.00	0.96	-0.18	-0.47	0.09	< .001	.69	.70
False Self (deception)**	1.00	5.00	1.95	2.00	0.87	0.69	-0.17	0.16	< .001	.74	.76

* – It is not possible to estimate the value of ω for only two items.
** – These scales refer to Model 2 (see Factorial validity analysis: confirmatory factor analysis section).
Source: Author’s own work.

The distribution of the analyzed variables, according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test, significantly differed from normal. However, the skewness and kurtosis values did not exceed the range of -2 to +2, allowing for the use of parametric tests. The reliability of the Real Self dimension, from which two items were removed, was α = .69, and the reliability of the 3-item version was also α = .69. Similarly, the reliability of the False Self (deception) dimension, from which one item was removed, was α = .74, and the reliability of the 3-item version was also α = .74. In both cases, the values exceed > .60, indicating that two dimensions are reliable in both Model 1 and Model 2 (see Table 3).

Internal consistency analysis

The stability of the tool was examined using the Pearson correlation coefficient. A group of 75 young adults completed the SPFBQ twice, with a 4-week interval between measurements. The correlation coefficient between the two measurements for the Real Self was significant, moderate, and amounted to .61 (p < .001). The stability for the Ideal Self was significant, moderate, and amounted to .41 (p < .001). For the False Self (deception), the correlation coefficient was significant, weak, and amounted to .25 (p = .028). The correlation coefficient between the two measurements for the False Self (comparison/impress) was significant, strong, and amounted to .73 (p < .001). For the False Self (exploration), the correlation coefficient was significant, moderate, and amounted to .63 (p < .001). The results indicate satisfactory stability of the tool, though it should be noted that some dimensions of self-presentation–especially the False Self (deception)–appear to have a considerably more fluctuating nature.

To check the internal consistency of the five types of Facebook self-presentation, reliability analysis was performed using Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω. The Cronbach's α values were at an acceptable level, similar to the results of the analysis of the original version of the tool. The obtained McDonald's ω coefficients, above .60, indicated that the dimensions are reliable (Sagan, 2014).

Factorial validity analysis: confirmatory factor analysis

The validity of the internal structure of the questionnaire was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (N = 531). The AMOS 26 for SPSS was used.

As a first step, a model reflecting the original structure of the questionnaire (see Fig. 1) was tested to evaluate its fit to the data and the quality of measurement. The maximum likelihood estimation method was used, along with modification indices. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3 (fit indices) and Table 4 (factor loadings).

Figure 1.

Path model of confirmatory analysis for original structure SPFBQ (Model 1)

Note: The items that have been removed in Model 2 are marked with dashed lines. Standardized regression coefficients for Model 2 (if they were different then in Model 1) are provided in parentheses.

Source: Author’s own work.

The results show that fit indices are only slightly acceptable, even after applying suggestions for modification. CFI and GFI are beyond the threshold, but RMSEA only barely meets the criteria. SRMR and CMIN/df are not acceptable (Table 2).

The regression values (lambdas) of all items are statistically significant (Table 4). Most of the items have high factor loadings. However, items 2, 3, 6, 8, 13 have low factor loadings - below .60. Especially, items 6 and 8 with lambdas below .40 are not acceptable. Considering all that it must be concluded that the original structure presented in Model 1 fits the data obtained from the Polish population rather poorly.

Consequently, we decided to exclude items with not acceptable (less or equal than .40) loadings (items 3, 6 and 8) and check if such model (Model 2) would be better fitted to the data. Similarly, the maximum likelihood method and modification indices were used. Obtained results are presented in Table 3. Fitting indices are slightly better, especially SRMR meets the threshold. However, it should be noted that all these indices are still only at a satisfactory level. Almost all the lambdas are above .60 - only in case of items 2 and 13 those parameters are below: respectively .52 and .59.

Table 2. Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Summary for the models

	CMIN/df	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	GFI
Model 1 (17 items)	4.394	.080	.086	.903	.908
		(.073 – .088)
Model 2 (15 items)	4.235	.078	.0551	.934	.933
		(.069 – .088)

CMIN/df: < 2 indicates good fit; < 3 (or even 5) indicates acceptable fit.

RMSEA: < .05 – good fit; .05–.08 – satisfactory fit; .08–.10 – mediocre fit; > .10 – unacceptable fit.

SRMR: < .09 – good fit.

CFI and GFI: 0 indicates the worst fit, and 1 indicates the most optimal fit. The minimum acceptable value is .90.

Source: Author’s own work.

Table 3. Standardized regression weights

Parameter	Item	Model 1 (Estimate standardized)	Model 2 (Estimate standardized)
False Self (deception)	1	.72	.69
	2	.57	.52
	3	.40	–
	4	.80	.82
Real Self	5	.67	.69
	6	.34	–
	7	.72	.68
	8	.34	–
	9	.69	.63
False Self (exploration)	10	.64	.64
	11	.82	.82
	12	.74	.74
False Self (compare/impress)	13	.59	.59
	14	.78	.78
	15	.74	.74
Ideal Self	16	.80	.80
	17	.90	.89

Source: Author’s own work.

It is worth noting that the distribution of fit indices may be sensitive to sample size and data distribution, meaning they may not accurately reflect the true model fit. Therefore, fit indices, especially their thresholds, should not be the sole basis for assessing the validity of the model in confirmatory analysis. It is also important to analyze the factor loadings, which p–combined with fit indices–affect the quality of measurement of latent variables (Yuan, 2005; McNeish et al., 2018). In this regard, the factor loadings of the items for both models were compared (Table 3).

Concluding, both models (with the original structure and with excluded items) are not well fitted to data from Polish sample. However, the second model seems to be better, and its psychometric properties allow us to consider it suitable for further research, but with more careful interpretation. Further analyses were conducted for Model 2.

The last step was to assess the interrelations between factors of the scale. The correlations values between the factors are low to moderate (< .60). Only the correlation between False Self (compare/impress) and False Self (deception) reaches .64, which is justified given the nature of these dimensions. These correlation values support the interpretation of the dimensions as distinct constructs (Table 5).

Table 4. Pearson’s r Correlation Matrix Between SPFBQ Scale Dimensions in Model 2

	Real Self	Ideal Self	False Self (deception)	False Self (exploration)	False Self (compare/impress)
Real Self	1
Ideal Self	.49**	1
False Self (deception)	.21**	.49**	1
False Self (exploration)	.54**	.54**	.50**	1
False Self (compare/impress)	.23**	.55**	.64**	.51**	1

Note: Correlations from Model 2 are presented below the diagonal.
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).
Source: Author’s own work.

Theoretical validity analysis

To estimate the validity, the relationships between the results concerning self-presentation (Real Self, Ideal Self, and the three types of False Self) and emotional self-awareness, general health, psychosocial aspects of Facebook use, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and problematic Internet use were examined (Table 6).

Table 5.
Convergent and divergent validity evaluation for SPFBQ: r-Pearson’s correlation coefficients

Scales	Variables	Real Self	Ideal Self	False Self (deception)	False Self (compare/impress)	False Self (exploration)
BASES	shame	-.20**	.08	.24**	.32**	.00
	guilt	-.12*	.14*	.23**	.31**	.03
	authentic pride	.23**	.19**	.04	.10	.19**
	hubristic pride	.23**	.14*	.01	.03	.21**
IAT		.04	.26**	.41**	.46**	.30**
GHQ-28	somatic symptoms	-.02	.05	.11	.18*	.05
	anxiety/insomnia	-.06	.08	.13	.21**	.04
	social dysfunction	.07	.06	.22**	.18*	.14
	severe depression	-.10	.03	.13	.14	.15
	general health	-.04	.07	.17*	.21**	.11
PSAFU	Virtual Self	.42**	.43**	.25**	.30**	.32**
	compensatory function of Facebook	.25**	.48**	.48**	.44**	.40**
SES		.18*	-.22**	-.24**	-.06	-.33**
SWLS		.08	-.07	-.16*	-.17*	.03

** Significance at the .01 level (two-tailed)
* Significance at the .05 level (two-tailed)
Source: Author’s own work

The obtained correlation coefficients indicate consistent content meaning with other psychological variables. In terms of the Real Self, there are positive relationships with pride and negative relationships with shame. The higher the shame and guilt, the stronger the tendencies toward false self-presentation. Tendencies toward comparison and the associated false self-presentation are linked to an increase in health-related symptoms, although this relationship is not present for other forms of self-presentation. In fact, in every case, Facebook and the creation of the Virtual Self serve a compensatory function, which is also related to self-acceptance – its absence is linked to the tendency to present oneself in a false manner.

Discussion

The aim of the study was to adapt the Self-Presentation Questionnaire on Facebook (SPFBQ) to the Polish context. Unrealistic ways of self-presentation were positively associated with an increase in self-conscious emotions, but a similar relationship was observed between two types of pride and real self-presentation. This is due to the fact that self-presentation methods, which may involve creating an idealized or false image of oneself, may be linked to intensifying self-conscious emotions, as users are more focused on controlling their image or attempting to make an impression. On the other hand, the relationship between two types of pride and real self-presentation may stem from their positive connotation and greater authenticity in self-expression, which is associated with positive emotions (Sznycer, 2019; Razmus et al., 2019). Unrealistic self-presentation methods were positively correlated with the intensification of problematic internet use. Using the internet in this way may serve as a method to improve a lowered mood and attempt to compensate for negative symptoms related to mental health, which is associated with negative emotions linked to unrealistic self-presentation methods (Elphinston, Noller, 2011; Michikyan et al., 2015; Błachnio et al., 2016). Real Self was associated with fewer symptoms of health-related disorders. Real self-presentation, based on authenticity and alignment with reality, can be linked to higher self-esteem and positive emotions, which can help reduce the intensity of mental and physical health symptoms. Maybe, people who present themselves realistically often have a healthier attitude towards themselves, which may lead to greater social support and better mental health (Wang et al., 2019; Septiana, Qudsyi, 2024). All types of self-presentation were linked to fulfilling the need to create a Virtual Self and the compensatory function of Facebook. All self-presentation types, regardless of whether they are realistic, are related to creating a virtual image due to the need to show oneself online. Perhabs, unrealistic self-presentation methods often serve a compensatory function, as individuals may try to fill emotional voids or satisfy a need for belonging they feel in their offline lives by making a particular impression. This can also apply to real self-presentation, as a person may try to compensate for deficiencies, even if they do not affect their well-being (Schiappa et al., 2007; Bodroža, Jovanović, 2016). Real self-presentation has a positive impact on self-esteem because people who present an authentic image of themselves feel more confident and are more satisfied with their self-image, even if it has deficiencies. Unrealistic self-presentation methods were associated with lower life satisfaction, linked to the intensification of negative emotions (Michikyan et al., 2015; Firasatie, 2023; Septiana, Qudsyi, 2024). Based on the above, it can be concluded that Hypothesis 1 was fully confirmed, while Hypothesis 2 was only partially confirmed, given the generally low correlation coefficients. Regardless of the confirmation of the hypotheses and the presentation of the above potential relationships, it should be noted that the observed effect sizes were low. Therefore, the proposed mechanisms should be treated as hypotheses for future research.

It is important to mention the limitations of the study that may have influenced its results. First and foremost, the study was conducted online, which made it impossible to fully control who completed the survey. It was also not possible to verify the identities of the participants. Additionally, the study consisted of six scales, which may have caused fatigue and led to progressively lower engagement in providing honest and accurate responses.

In summary, the presented scale is theoretically valid and reliable, which constitutes its strengths. A limitation is the two items in the Ideal Self dimension and one item in the False Self (deception), so if the tool is reconstructed, it would be advisable to create more items for these types of self-presentation. The scale is suitable for use despite the lack of perfect model fit. High fit is a desired but not essential condition for adapting the tool to a foreign-language context, as indicated by other adaptations where not all scales or dimensions were perfectly fitted to the data (Oettingen et al., 2018; Karaś, Cieciuch, 2019). The obtained factor loadings indicate a high saturation of the model, allowing the scale to be used. This is also supported by high reliability coefficients for the individual subscales. The final version of the tool includes 14 test items.

References

Arifah, P., Mikarsa, H.L., & Rahardjo, W. (2023). How emerging adults present themselves on social media: Online self-presentation influenced by self-esteem, narcissistic personality, and online privacy. Journal of Psychology and Instruction, 5(2), 114–122.

Błachnio, A., Przepiorka, & A., Pantic, I. (2016). Association between Facebook addiction, self-esteem and life satisfaction: A cross-sectional study. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 701–705.

Bodroža, B., & Jovanović, T. (2016). Validation of the new scale for measuring behaviors of Facebook users: Psycho-Social Aspects of Facebook Use (PSAFU). Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.032

Celestine, G.V., & Nnanyelugo, O. (2020). Influence of Facebook Users’ Self-Presentation Tactics on Their Response to Persuasive Political Messages. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–20.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Firasatie, G.F. (2023). Peran harga diri terhadap deceptive self-presentation pada profil aplikasi kencan daring (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Gadjah Mada).

Garcia, D., Björk, E., & Kazemitabar, M. (2022). The A (ffect) B (ehavior) C (ognition) D (ecision) of parasocial relationships: A pilot study on the psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Measure of Parasocial Relationships (MMPR). Heliyon, 8(10), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10779

Gilmour, J., Machin, T., Brownlow, C., & Jeffries, C. (2020). Facebook-based social support and health: A systematic review. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000246

Goldberg D. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionaire. Oxford University Press.

Hanprathet, N., Manwong, M., Khumsri, J., Yingyeun, R., & Phanasathit, M. (2015). Facebook addiction and its relationship with mental health among Thai high school students. J Med Assoc Thai, 98(3), S81–S90.

Harter, S., Bresnick, S., Bouchey, H.A., & Whitesell, N.R. (1997). The development of multiple rolerelated selves during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 835–853. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579497001466.

Huang, C. (2010). Internet Use and Psychological Well-being: A Meta-Analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 13, 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2009.0217

Jackson, C., & Luchner, A. (2017). Self-presentation mediates the relationship between Self-criticism and emotional response to Instagram feedback. Personality and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.052

Jankowski, K. (2015). Is the shift in chronotype associated with an alteration in well-being? Biological Rhythm Research, 46(2), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09291016.2014.985000.

Karaś, D., & Cieciuch, J. (2019). Polish adaptation of Carol Ryff’s psychological well-being scales. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 20(4), 837–853.

Kim, J., & Lee, J.E.R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(6), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0374

Laguna, M., Lachowicz-Tabaczek, K., & Dzwonkowska, I. (2007). Skala Samooceny SES Morrisa Rosenberga—Polska adaptacja metody. Psychologia Społeczna, 2, 164–176.

Makowska Z, & Merecz D. (2001). Ocena zdrowia psychicznego na podstawie badań kwestionariuszami Davida Goldberga. Podręcznik dla użytkowników kwestionariuszy GHQ-12 i GHQ-28. [Mental health assessment based on David Goldberg questionnaires. User manual for the GHQ-12 and GHQ-28 questionnaires]. Instytut Medycyny Pracy im prof. J. Nofera.

Manago, A.M., Graham, M.B., Greenfield, P.M., & Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 446–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.07.001

McCroskey, J.C., & Young, T.J. (1979). The use and abuse of factor analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research, 5(4), 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00651.x

McNeish, D., An, J., & Hancock, G.R. (2018). The thorny relation between measurement quality and fit index cutoffs in latent variable models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286

Michikyan, M., Dennis, J., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2015). Can You Guess Who I Am? Real, Ideal, and False Self-Presentation on Facebook Among Emerging Adults. Emerging Adulthood, 3(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696814532442

Michikyan, M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Dennis, J. (2014). Can you tell who I am? Neuroticism, extraversion, and online self-presentation among young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.010

Oettingen, J., Chodkiewicz, J., Mącik, D., & Gruszczyńska, E. (2018). Polska adaptacja
i walidacja krótkiej wersji Kwestionariusza Schematów Younga (YSQ-S3-PL). Psychiatria Polska, 52(4), 707-718.

Poprawa, R. (2011). Test problematycznego używania Internetu. Adaptacja i ocena psychometryczna Internet Addiction Test K. Young. [Test for problematic Internet use. Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of K. Young's Internet Addiction Test]. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 54, 193–216.

Radecke, W.B. (2021). Instagram Self-Experience: an Examination of Instagram, Self-Esteem, Social Comparison, and Self-Presentation (Doctoral dissertation, Medaille College).

Razmus, M., Razmus, W., Stachyra, A., Castonguay, A.L., & Sabiston, C.M. (2019). Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Body and Apperance Self-conscious Emotions Scale (BASES). Roczniki Psychologiczne, 21(3), 231–253.

Sagan, A. (2014). Analiza rzetelności skal w wielopoziomowych modelach pomiaru. [Analysis of scale reliability in multilevel measurement models]. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, (336), 49–59.

Samardakiewicz, M., Samardakiewicz, E., Sidor, K., Milanowska, J., Humeniuk, E., Gwizda, G., & Fryze, M. (Red.). (2022). Komunikacja wyzwaniem współczesnej medycyny. T. 2. [Communication as a challenge for modern medicine. Vol. 2.]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Tygiel sp. z o.o.

Schiappa, E., Allen, M., & Gregg, P. (2007). Parasocial relationships and television: A meta-analysis of the effects. In: R., Preiss, B., Gayle, N., Burrell, M., Allen, J., Bryant, (red.). Mass media research: Advances through meta‐analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 301–314.

Septiana Yusira, E., & Qudsyi, H. (2024). Self-presentation and Psychological Well-being Among Linkedln Users in Indonesia. KnE Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i5.15181

Statista: Number of Facebook users in Poland from August 2023 to August 2024 (in millions). Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1029779/poland-number-of-facebook-users/ [Accessed October 28, 2024].

Stefanone, M.A., Lackaff, D., & Rosen, D. (2011). Contingencies of self-worth and social-networkingsite behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(1–2), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0049

Sznycer, D. (2019). Forms and Functions of the Self-Conscious Emotions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.11.007

Tama, B.A. (2019). Validitas Skala Presentasi Diri Online. Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia (JP3I), 7(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.15408/jp3i.v7i1.12102

Turner, M., & Ordonia, D. (2023). How COVID-19 Changed Self-Presentation on Instagram and its Relation to User Well-Being. Interacting with Computers, 35(5), 590–603. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwad013

Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. (2009). Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students’ Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation1. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01474.x

Wang, P., Wang, X., Zhao, M., Wu, Y., Wang, Y., & Lei, L. (2019). Can Social Networking Sites Alleviate Depression? The Relation between Authentic Online Self-Presentation and Adolescent Depression: a Mediation Model of Perceived Social Support and Rumination. Current Psychology, 38(6), 1512–1521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9711-8

Yenilmez, K.G. (2023). Instagram as one tool, two stages: Self-presentational differences between main feed and story on Instagram. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2023.2202401

Young, K. (1998). Internet Addiction: The Emergence of a New Clinical Disorder. CyberPsychology & Behavior., 1(3), 237–244, https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237.

Yuan, K.H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 115–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4001_5

Skala Autoprezentacji na Facebooku (SAF)

Aleksandra Witkowska, Dorota Mącik, Łukasz Mackiewicz

Za pomocą poniższej skali proszę ocenić, w jakim stopniu zgadza się lub nie zgadza Pan/i z poniższymi stwierdzeniami.

Numer itemu	Itemy	1 Zdecydowanie nie zgadzam się	2 Nie zgadzam się	3 Ani się zgadzam, ani się nie zgadzam	4 Zgadzam się	5 Zdecydowanie się zgadzam
1	Czasami próbuję być na Facebooku kimś innym, niż jestem naprawdę.
2	Jestem zupełnie inną osobą będąc online.
3*	Na moim profilu na Facebooku umieszczam informacje, które nie są zgodne z prawdą.
4	Czasami czuję się jakbym na Facebooku starał/a się wywierać wrażenie na innych.
5	Wiele rzeczy, które umieszczam na moim profilu na Facebooku świadczą o tym, że mam poczucie tego, jaką jestem osobą.
6*	To kim jestem będąc online, pokrywa się z tym jaki jestem będąc offline.
7	Używam Facebooka do tego, by wyrażać swoje poglądy i punkty widzenia na różne tematy, co świadczy o tym, że czuję, że wiem czego chcę od życia.
8*	Sposób w jaki prezentuję się na Facebooku jest taki sam, w jaki prezentuje się poza nim.
9	Na swoim profilu na Facebooku pokazuję to, że lubię siebie i jestem dumny/a z tego, co sobą reprezentuję.
10	Na Facebooku bardziej, niż w prawdziwym życiu, mogę pokazać się z różnych stron.
11	Na profilu na Facebooku zmieniam swoje zdjęcia, by pokazać się z różnych stron.
12	Wydaje mi się, że mam wiele oblicz i pokazuję je na swoim profilu na Facebooku.
13	Na Facebooku porównuję się do innych.
14	Próbuję wywrzeć wrażenie na innych, umieszczając swoje zdjęcia na profilu na Facebooku.
15	Pokazuję siebie tylko z tej strony, którą mogą polubić inni użytkownicy Facebooka.
16	Umieszczam treści na Facebooku by pokazać się takim/taką, jakim/jaką chcę być.
17	To, kim chcę być, przejawia się poprzez treści, jakie umieszczam na swoim profilu na Facebooku (np. komentarze, zdjęcia, itp.).

* – usunięte itemy skali

Typy autoprezentacji

• Ja Fałszywe (Oszustwo): pozycje 1–4
• Ja Realne: pozycje 5–9
• Ja Fałszywe (Poszukiwanie): pozycje 10–12
• Ja Fałszywe (Porównanie się/Imponowanie): pozycje 13–15
• Ja Idealne: pozycje 16–17

Punktacja

(1) Oblicz surowe wyniki.
(2) Oblicz średni wynik dla każdego typu autoprezentacji

np. Autoprezentacja Ja Realnego = średni wynik z pozycji 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

---

Receipt Date: 19.07.2024

Date after correction: 16.06.2025

Print Acceptance Date: 18.06.2025

The article is available under the terms international 4.0 license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).