Historical context
Major case studies
There are many cases in which self-monitoring is used as a variable of interest. Several recent studies look into the relationship between self-monitoring and on-task behavior, workplace utilization, and leadership positions. Self-monitoring is increasingly being used to increase on-task behavior in children, and there is a growing body of evidence supporting its effectiveness with a variety of groups and in various settings. Self-monitoring typically uses technology to deliver audible or tactile cues at selected intervals to prompt a child to observe and record his/her own behavior. A study demonstrated that self-monitoring was effective in improving the on-task behavior of sixth-grade students working on homework in an after-school program. A pilot study regarding on-task behavior was done with two high school students with symptoms of learning disabilities. These students were trained using a self-monitoring application and given prompts, and the results showed positive, stable improvements in their on-task behavior after each individual's self-monitoring was increased. When looking at theoretical and empirical evidence in self-monitoring in the workplace, research indicates that high self-monitors are proficient in meeting social expectations and increasing their leadership outlook. Results from the study done by Day and Schleicher emphasize that the higher the individual scores on the scale, the more successful the individual tends to be as determined from the criteria of getting along, getting ahead, and making sense. The relationship between self-monitoring and career mobility in particular was studied with a research pool of Masters of Business Administration graduates. High self-monitors are reported to be more likely to change employers, change work locations, and achieve promotions in comparison to low self-monitors.Controversy and confusion
Self-monitoring, despite all the research and theory behind it, has been shrouded in controversy and confusion with respect to its actual existence. The initial confusion arose because factor analyses were conducted which revealed that the structure of most items on the Self-Monitoring Scale was multifactorial. Three factors appeared necessary to account for the correlations between the items for the measure, interpreted as Acting (e.g. "I would probably make a good actor"), Extraversion (e.g. "In a group of people, I am rarely the center of attention"), and Other-Directedness (e.g. "I guess I put on a show to entertain or impress other people") (Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (2000)). Though these factor analyses are used as instruments to measure the level of self-monitoring, they have prompted the question of the existence of self-monitoring. Mark Snyder and Steven W. Gangestad, (2000) argued through a series of quantitative experiments that it is indeed a real unitary phenomenon by showing that external criterion measures representing a wide array of phenomena relating to expressive control all point to self-monitoring as a real causal phenomena. Additionally, they argue that the external criterion variables are generally most directly tapped by the Self-Monitoring Scale rather than being tapped by the measures of Extraversion, SocialScale
Snyder's self monitoring scale was developed in 1974. It measures whether or not an individual has the will and ability to change how they are perceived by utilizing impression management in various social interactions. The score is based on twenty five true or false statements that the individual answers according to their thought process and is used to determine how an individual may manipulate nonverbal signals and adjust their actions according to a situation. The twenty five statements are intended to identify a person's concern about their own presentation and social appropriateness when it comes to social events. This may be seen by the way in which they speak and what topics they bring up. The statements also imply how a person acts in comparison to the other people in the same setting. By using comparison, people can pick up on cues for how to behave as well as present themselves.The twenty five statements also help to identify how well a person controls expressive behavior as well as how well a person controls expressive behavior in addition to how they act despite certain feelings. For example, because of good self monitoring skills, a person may act kind and tolerant of someone whom they dislike. Lastly, these statements help us to identify how different situations tailor a person's behavior. An individual may act one way in a situation and a complete opposite way in the next situation. The score is calculated based on the individuals response to the True or False questions.Low self monitors
Low self-monitors tend to exhibit expressive controls congruent with their own internal states; i.e.,High self monitors
Individuals who closely monitor themselves are categorized as high self-monitors. They often behave in a manner that is highly responsive to social cues and their situational context. High self-monitors can be thought of as social pragmatists who project images in an attempt to impress others and receive positive feedback. Individuals who closely monitor themselves are considered to be more aware of others thoughts and feelings, but also high self-monitors are more responsive to them. Someone who is high in self-monitoring is also more likely to align their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to that of their partners as well. In comparison to low self-monitors, high self monitors participate in more expressive control and have a concern for situational appropriateness. As these individuals are willing to adjust their behavior, others may perceive them to be more receptive, pleasant, and benevolent towards them.Low vs high self monitors
A low score on the self-monitoring scale can range anywhere from 0-8 and a high score ranges from 15 to 22.Snyder, 1974 Some traits of high self-monitors include readily and easily modifying their behavior in response to the demands of the situation, whereas low self-monitors care little about modifying their behavior in response to the situation and tend to maintain the same opinions and attitudes regardless of the situation.Sanderson, C. A. (2010). Social psychology. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley ;. High self-monitors find it much easier to modify their behavior based on the situation than low self-monitors do. High self-monitors would be more likely to change their beliefs and opinions depending on who they are talking to, while low self-monitors would tend to be consistent throughout all situations. This has been studied mainly in correspondence with relationships. Compared to low self-monitors, high self-monitors will have more dating and sexual partners, are more interested in having sex with people they are not in love with, and are more likely to have had sex with someone only once, as well as be more likely to deceive potential romantic partners. High self-monitors are more likely to choose a romantic partner who is attractive but unsociable, while low self-monitors are more likely to choose a partner who is unattractive but sociable. High self-monitors are also more likely to take on leadership positions than low self-monitors. Differences in individuals' propensity for self-monitoring have a heritable component, but the likelihood that a person becomes a high (or low) self-monitor also varies between social contexts and groups. For example, on average, sexual minorities (such as gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals) are more likely to be high self-monitors than their otherwise similar heterosexual counterparts, but this difference exists primarily in geographic areas where the stigma against minority sexual orientations is strong. In the United States, for example, differences in self-monitoring based on sexual orientation have been documented in rural areas and small towns but do not seem to exist in the context of large cities, which tend to be more tolerant of minority sexual orientations.Individualistic differences
Self-monitoring is useful for students from preschool to adulthood and can be taught to individuals at a variety of levels of cognitive functioning. Self-monitoring interventions foster independent functioning, which allows individuals with disabilities to rely less on prompts from others. Self-monitoring interventions are among the most flexible, useful, and effective strategies for students with academic and behavioral difficulties. They have demonstrated efficacy for targeting a range of academic abilities, self-help skills, behavioral problems, and social behaviors. Students with behavioral and academic difficulties typically have limited awareness and understanding of their own behavior and its effects on others. Self-monitoring interventions equip students to recognize and keep track of their own behavior. Using these strategies, students can learn to identify and increase positive, pro-social behaviors, the behaviors necessary for success in general education settings. Self-monitoring strategies are individualized plans used to increase independent functioning in academic, behavioral, self-help, and social areas. Rather than focusing on reducing a student's undesired behavior, self-monitoring strategies develop skills that lead to an increase in appropriate behavior. When self-monitoring skills increase, corresponding reductions in undesired behaviors often occur, even without direct intervention. This collateral behavior change allows teachers and parents to address multiple behaviors with one efficient intervention. The five steps involved in planning a self-monitoring intervention: # Identify the target behavior. # Select/design a self-monitoring system. # Choose reinforcers and how the student will earn them. # Teach the student to use the system. # Fade the role of the adult in the intervention.Social approach
It's been argued thatJob performance
It has been shown that there is a significant relation between an individual's performance at his/her job and his or her ability to change their self-presentation in order to most adapt to the situation. Self-monitoring was most important during early tenure.Caldwell (1981) This history of finding individual difference variables that relate toSocial impacts
Riggio et al., (1982) suggests that self-monitoring as defined by the self-monitoring scale is composed of many elements which are central to social interaction. It was determined that the elements of self-monitoring appear to be "charisma", "performance", and "social sensitivity". Therefore, it is determinable that those with high levels of self-monitoring had greater skill at navigating and bridging social situations, while in contrast, those with lower levels of self-monitoring may struggle in the same situations. The differences between how high self monitors and low self monitors treat relationships and social situations stem from differences in what they seek to gain out of their social life and their understanding of self. High self-monitors view their self as a product of social interactions and their own adaptability in various social settings. In contrast, low self-monitors view their self as a product of personal dispositions and their effects on social situations. High self-monitors look for friends with similar activity preferences, while low self-monitors look for friends with similar attitudes. High self-monitors also generally end up becoming close to other high self-monitors, and vice versa with low self-monitors.Leone & Hawkins (2006). Self-Monitoring and Close RelationshipsRelationships
High self-monitors look for a social context that allows flexibility and adaptability to play a multitude of roles without role conflict. High self-monitors are more likely to believe in the idea that there are multiple people one can love, and focus on attributes such as physical attractiveness, sex appeal, social status, and financial resources.Jones, 1993 In turn, the attachments high self-monitors form with their significant others are more avoidant, and they can feel uncomfortable with significant others that have higher levels of intimacy than themselves. Low self-monitors, on the other hand, look for a social context that gives them the freedom and security to express their emotions and dispositions freely without any interpersonal conflicts. They are more likely to believe in the idea of “one true love” and look for attributes such as personality desirability, similarity of values and beliefs, and other dispositions like honesty, responsibility, and kindness. This leads to more secure relationships being formed, and their level of intimacy is not a problem.Similar processes
Self presentation
There is a strong connection between self-monitoring andSocial psychology theory
There are several theories withinNotes
References
* Ajzen, Icek. (1985). From intention to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl and J. Beckman (Eds.) ''Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior''. Heidelberg, GE: Springer, 11–39. * Ajzen, I.; Timko, C. and White, J.B. (1982). Self-monitoring and the attitude-behavior relation. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 42, 426–35. * Bikhchandani, S.; Hirshleifer, D. and Welch, I. (1992), A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades. ''Journal of Political Economy'', Vol. 100, No. 5, 992–1026. * Briggs, S.R.; Cheek, J.M. and Buss, A.H. (1980). An analysis of the Self-Monitoring Scale. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 38, 679–86. * DeBono, K.G. and Omoto, A.M. (1993). Individual differences in predicting behavioral intentions from attitude and subjective norm. ''Journal of Social Psychology'', 133, 825–31. * DeBono, K.G. and Packer, M. (1991). The effects of advertising appeal on perceptions of product quality. ''Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin'', 17, 194–200. * Day, D. and Schleicher, D. (2009). Self-Monitoring, The Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology, 19, 886–888. * Eby, L. T., Cader, J., and Noble, C. L. (2003). Why do high self-monitors emerge as leaders in small groups? A comparative analysis of the behaviors of high versus low self-monitors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(7), 1457–1479. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01958.x * Hosch, H.M. and Marchioni, P.M. (1986). The Self-Monitoring Scale: A factorial comparison among Mexicans, Mexican Americans and Anglo Americans. ''Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences'', 8, 225–42. * Lennox, R. and Wolfe, R. (1984). Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 46, 1349–64. * Riggio, R.E. and Friedman, H.S. (1982). The interrelationships of self-monitoring factors, personality traits, and nonverbal skills. ''Journal of Nonverbal Behavior'', 7, 33–45. * Rose, P. and Kim, J. (2011). Self-Monitoring, opinion leadership and opinion seeking: A sociomotivational approach. ''Current Psychology'', 30, 203–214. * Shavitt, S.; Lowrey, T.M. and Han, S.P. (1992). Attitude functions in advertising: The interactive role of products and self-monitoring. ''Journal of Consumer Psychology'', 1, 337–64. * Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 30, 526–37. * Snyder, M., Berschedi, E., and Glick, P. (1985). Focusing on the exterior and the interior: Two Investigations of the initiation of personal relationships. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 48, 1427-1439 * Snyder, M. and DeBono, K.G. (1985) Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'', 49, 586–97. * Snyder, M. and Gangestad, S. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. ''Psychological Bulletin'', Vol. 126, No. 4, 530–55. * Yler, Kearns, McIntyre, (2016). Effects of Self-Monitoring on Processing of Self-Presentation Information. Social Psychology, 47(3) * Wicker, A.W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. ''Journal of Social Issues'', 25, 41–7. * Wilmot, M. P., DeYoung, C. G., Stillwell, D., & Kosinski, M. (2016). Self‐monitoring and the metatraits. ''Journal of personality'', ''84''(3), 335–347.External links