Table 1. Commonly Used Self-Report Measures of DBS-Relevant Constructs.

Scale	Content	Format	Reliability	Validity
California Psychological Inventory Dominance Scale (CPI Do; Gough & Bradley, 1996)	Dominance behavior	46 true/false statements covering self-rated leadership, persistence, confidence, assertiveness, persuasiveness, and social initiative	Internal consistency, alpha =.83; test-retest reliability (r): One-year =.67, 5-year =.65, and 25-year =.82	Positively correlated with the Personality Research Form Dominance, rs=.71 to .78; 16PF Dominance, r=50; and NEO-PI-R Assertiveness, r =.55 scales.
Personality Research Form – Dominance scale (PRF Do; Jackson, 1999)	Dominance motivation and behavior	16 true/false items covering self-rated dominance and use of/comfort with dominance behaviors	Internal consistency, alpha =.85Two-week test-retest reliability =.91	Positively correlated with the California Psychological Inventory Dominance, rs =.71 to .78, and 16PF Dominance, r =.48 scales
Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire – Social Potency scale (MPQ SPS; Tellegen & Waller, 2008)	Dominance motivation and behavior	14 true/false self-report items covering persuasiveness, strength, leadership, and enjoyment of dominance	Internal consistency, alpha =.87 Thirty-day test-retest reliability, r =.82	Positively correlated with a leadership measure, r=.45
Pleasure-Arousability-Dominance Scales (PAD Do; Mehrabian, 1995a; Mehrabian, 1995b, 1995c; Mehrabian, 1996)	Dominance motivation and behavior	26 statements covering self-rated dominance-submissiveness behavior	Internal consistency, alpha =.91	Dominance Scale is positively correlated with Extraversion, Achieving Tendency, Autonomy, and Aggression
Rank Style with Peers Questionnaire (RSPQ; Zuroff et al., 2010)	Strategies for pursuing power: 3 subscales	17 items covering self-rated Dominant Leadership, Ruthless Self-Advancement, and Coalition Building	One month test-retest reliability, rs =.62 for Dominant Leadership, .56 for Coalition Building, .67 for Ruthless Self-Advancement	Factor-analytic studies support the 3 subscales. Dominant Leadership is elevated in narcissism and is negatively correlated with anxiety and depression. Ruthless Self-Advancement is elevated in narcissism and psychopathy
Submissive Behavior Scale (SBS; Allan & Gilbert, 1997)	Submissive behavior/low self-perceived power	16 items covering self-rated frequency of engaging in submissive social behavior	Internal consistency, alpha =.89, four-month test-retest r=.84	Negatively correlated with assertive behavior subscales, rs=-.41 to -.51
Sense of Power Scale (Pow; Anderson & Galinsky, 2006)	Self-perceived power	8 statements reflecting self-perceived power in relation to others	Internal consistency, alpha =.88	Positively correlated with actual standing in power hierarchies
Authentic and Hubristic Pride Scales (AHPS; Tracy & Robbins, 2007a)	Authentic and hubristic pride	14 items covering self-rated tendencies to feel authentic pride (form of pride based on specific actions and abilities) and hubristic pride (form of pride based on global self-perceptions)	Internal consistency, alpha =.84 to .88 for Authentic Pride, .87 to .90 for Hubristic Pride	Confirmatory factor analyses support a two-factor solution differentiating authentic from hubristic pride. Authentic Pride is positively correlated with self-esteem, r =.44, and negatively correlated with shame-proneness, r=-.28. Hubristic Pride is positively correlated with shame-proneness, r=.09 and negatively correlated with self-esteem, r=-.14.
Adapted Shame and Guilt Scale (ASGS; Hoblitzelle, 1982)	Shame proneness	16 items covering self-rated tendencies to experience shame	Internal consistency, alpha =.83 to .86 Two-week test-retest reliability, r =.93	Factor analyses support a two-factor solution differentiating Shame from Guilt
Personal Feelings Questionnaire-Revised (PFQ-2; Harder & Zalma, 1990)	Shame proneness	10 items covering self-rated tendencies to experience shame	Internal consistency, alpha =.78, two-week test-retest reliability, r =.91	Factor analyses support a two-factor solution differentiating Shame from Guilt.
Test of Self-Conscious Affect Shame Proneness subscale (TOSCA; Tangney, Burggraf, Hamme, & Domingos, 1988)	Affective, cognitive, behavioral responses associated with shame proneness	Participants rate their likelihood of shame in response to a series of brief scenarios	Across four studies, internal consistency, alphas =.74 to .82, one to five week test-retest reliability, r =.79.	Positively ccorrelated with Shame subscale of Adapted Shame and Guilt Scale, rs=.39 to .43 across two studies.
Attention to Social Comparison Information Scale (CAS; Lennox & Wolfe, 1984)	Sensitvity to/motivation to avoid, social disapproval	13 self-rated items covering attention to social comparison information	Across nine undergraduate samples, internal consistency, alphas =.79 to .90	Positively correlated with neuroticism, r=0.29, and fear of negative evaluation, r=0.64, negatively correlated with self-esteem
Iowa-Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM; Gibbons & Buunk, 1999)	Tendency to engage in social comparison	11 items covering people's tendency to compare themselves with others	Internal consistency, alphas =.78 to .85 across 22 samples, one-year test-retest reliability, r = .60	Positively correlated with measures of conformity and other-orientation, such as public self-consciousness, rs=.38 to .49, and with neuroticism measures, rs=.28 to .37.
Social Comparison Scale (SCS; Allan & Gilbert, 1995)	Social comparison on dimensions relevant to power	11 self-rated items comparing individual to others along dimensions of inferior-superior, incompetent-competent, unlikable-likable	Internal consistency, alpha =.88 to .91	Perceptions of poor social comparison correlated with neuroticism, r =-.41.
MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (SES ladder; MacArthur Research Network on SES and Health, 2007)	Perceived social status	A picture of a 10-rung ladder presented. Respondents are asked to “think of this ladder as representing where people stand in society…” and to place an ‘X’ on the rung on which they feel they stand.	Not applicable (this is a single item scale)	Scores have been related to childhood SES, education, employment, income, satisfaction with standard of living, and feelings of financial security. Cross-culturally, low scores have been associated with a range of health indices, including depression, cardiovascular risk, diabetes, respiratory illness, and mortality
Picture Story Exercise Need for Power scale (PSE N Pow; Winter, 1992, 1994)	Implicit motives for power	Eight pictures depicting various scenes are briefly presented. Respondents are given five minutes to write a story about what is happening in each scene. Scores are based on the frequency of power themes.	Internal consistency, alpha =.78 to .86. Two-week test-retest reliability r =.39 (Schultheiss, Liening, & Schad, 2008)	Higher Need for Power predicts testosterone increases after victory and decreases after defeat in dominance contests with rigged feedback (Schultheiss et al., 1999, 2005)
Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998)	Dominance-relevant self-schemas	Participants are presented with dominance and submissiveness words on a computer and asked to repond whether these words fit into categories pertaining to ‘self.’ Dominant individuals respond quickly when dominance and ‘self’ words are paired.	Several versions of the IAT have shown acceptable internal consistency	Achieves higher correlations with laboratory measures of dominant behavior than do self-rating scales