A&R Lect.1: Self-Monitoring

Results of fraternity "convergent" validity

- characteristics were seen (by peers) as more true of people whose self-ratings scored high on the scale M=50.2, than those with low self-ratings M=40.2

Snyder & Simpson (1984). Self-monitoring and dating relationships. -procedure

-170 college students, Self-monitoring measured - Questions asked: a) have an exclusive partner? for how long? b) dating multiple people? how many? -there were 41 high and 37 low self-monitors dating exclusively -48 high and 34 low self-monitors dating multiple people

Glick, DeMorest & Hotze (1988)

-20 college males; 20 females -Each given 10 cards with photos and personal info, 5 males; 5 females - task: to make 5 most "compatible" couples by pairing males/ females. -Pictures on cards, attractiveness graded -Sense of humor, extraversion rated on the cards, includes main interest (similarity between areas pretested) -Results= difference scores in variable (physical attractiveness, humor or extraversion) of pairs created by High vs. Low Self-Monitors.

High self-monitors should be better than low self-monitors at....

-Expressing emotions they do not feel. -Decoding emotions which other people express.

Who will mimic partners the most?

-High self-monitors DO mimic, unconsciously, partners' behavior more than do those lower in self-monitoring. -As mimicking leads the mimicked person to like one more, they may charm partners to like them

Snyder & Simpson (1984). Self-monitoring and dating -hypothesis: relationship lasting

-Hypothesis: low self-monitors' relationships last longest -Rationale: Lows more likely to be satisfied as situations change; less likely to attend to available alt who fits situation better

Snyder & Simpson (1984). Self-monitoring and dating -hypothesis: speed of relationships

-Hypothesis: relationships of the high self-monitors would take off the fastest (in terms of establishing intimacy). -Rationale: Intimacy is the "appropriate" behavior for romantic relationships; highs strive to match behavior to the situation

high self-monitoring: implications for close relationships Hypothesis: partner selectivity

-If high in self-monitoring , different person when with different partners. H1. People higher in self-monitoring choose partners who "fit" the social situations (rather than picking a person whom they like most for all situations.) -As a result, form more (and more varied) close relationships. -Rationale: High self-monitors wish to "fit in" situations well and prefer partners who help with that

Evidence for Discriminant Validity (general)

-Is obtained when a measure does NOT correlate highly with other measures. -suggests it's measuring something distinct from those other measures. -it can be discriminated from those other measures

-Snyder: Choosing friends as activity partners, role of self-monitoring -friend list, choosing activities (prediction)

-Low self-monitors should fill the matrix with same person across various activities -high self-monitors should have scattered, specialized activity-partner selections

Snyder & Simpson (1984). Self-monitoring and dating relationships. -striking results

-More strikingly, multiple daters asked # currently dating -Mean for the lows = 3.59... highs = 5.81

-Estow, Jamieson,& Yales (2006). -Self-monitoring and mimicry of +/- behaviors. -Prediction and rationale

-Prediction: High self-monitors will engage in most mimicking -Rationale: They are monitor their own and others' behavior and are most motivated to fit in

Snyder's "Known Groups" Technique

-Proved predictions to hold: a) Actors should be high in self-monitoring. b) Snyder predicted psychiatric patients would score low c) Stanford students should fall in the middle. 1. Psychiatric patients = 10.2 2. Students = 14.0* 3. Actors = 18.4

demonstrating "convergent" validity (definition and example)

-Showing that if you measured self-monitoring in a completely different way that measure would correlate strongly and positively with his measure. -ex: Fraternity Sample: -Participants = 16 Stanford frat brothers 1. Each filled out the self-report scale 2. Each then answered six questions about remaining 15 peers:

Concept & Scale Development (study)

-Snyder, Mark (1974). -Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. -original article on self-monitoring

-Snyder & Simpson (1984). Self-monitoring and dating -exclusive dating time length results

-When the "exclusive" daters were asked, "For how many months have you been dating?" - Mean for lows = 20.22 months -Mean for highs = 10.85 months

what if "John" is lower in self-montoring?

-shouldn't be as motivated to match partners to situations - likely to pick most-liked partner for whatever situation

-Estow, Jamieson, & Yales. (2006). -Self-monitoring and mimicry of +/- behaviors. -Procedure and results

1. 7 sec. videos of 24 student "targets" prepared: Target laughs, frowns, yawns, or none 2. 62 college students view all -think they're just rating the likelihood they would help the person. 3. Participant observed: laughing, yawns and frowns are recorded. 4. Later self-monitoring scores collected. -Results: self-monitoring strongly correlated with mimicry, r = +.61. (This is carried by mimicry of laughing and yawns, not of frowns.)

High self-monitors:

1. Expressing emotions more clearly (good acting skills) 2. Decoding others' emotions more accurately (Paying attention to and accurately reading cues from others)

Frat brothers who know male well rate him on this questionnaire:

1. How concerned is this person about acting appropriate in social situations? 2. How much does this person openly express his true inner feelings, attitudes and beliefs? (Reverse coded). 3. How good is this person in terms self-control of his own behavior? Can he play many roles? 4. How good is this person at learning what is socially appropriate in new situations? 5. Does this person appear to lack deep emotions? 6. How good at self-control of emotional expression? Can he use emotion expression to create whatever impression he wants?

Personal Attributes vs. Photographs: Low/High SM - Results

1. Low SM -Personal attributes: .46 -Photographs: .16 2. High SM -Personal attributes: .33 -Photographs: .22 -Proportion of total time spent looking at photo and personal attributes

Stated reasons for selecting a dating partner: Entries are # participants in each self-monitoring category who offered each type of stated reason for choosing their dating partner.

1. Low SM -Personal attributes: 15 -Photographs: 3 2. High SM -Personal attributes: 5 -Photographs: 10

Differences in pairs as a function of " the Matchmakers" (i.e. the participants doing the rating's) self-monitoring: (results)

1. Low SM (judge) -Physical attractiveness: 2.23 -Sense of humor: 1.06 -Extraversion: 1.08 -Interest: 3.73 2. High SM (judge) -Physical attractiveness: .56 -Sense of humor: 2.00 -Extraversion: 2.55 -Interest: *6.66

-Snyder: Choosing friends as activity partners, role of self-monitoring -friend list, choosing activities (results)

1. Low self-monitors: -specialist: 3.5, well-liked: 8.5 -Lows show clear preference for the best liked person 2. High self-monitors: -specialist: 5.1, well-liked: 6.9 - effect= attenuated but doesn't disappear for high self-monitors...more varied social worlds.

(Chartrand, T., & Bargh, J.A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior Link and social interaction. (results)

1. No Mimic Condition: -Liking: 5.9 -Smoothness of Conversation: 6.0 2. Mimic Condition: -Liking: 6.7 -Smoothness of Conversation: 6.7

-Snyder: Choosing friends as activity partners, role of self-monitoring -friend list, choosing activities (procedure and prediction)

1. Participants listed relationship partners, ordered from most to least liked 2. list liked activities 3. matrix given to each participant 4. task: X boxes to indicate selected partner per activity

How important is physical attractive vs. kindness for: -High SM -Medium SM -Low SM

1. Physical attractiveness: -High SM: 3.35 -Medium SM: 3.21 -Low SM: 2.88 2. Kindness -High SM: 3.65 -Medium SM: 3.70 -Low SM: 3.76 -note that everyone, regardless of self-monitoring scores, prioritizes kind partners

-Snyder & Simpson (1984). Self-monitoring and dating -Q: How do people value attractiveness & likability in dating partners?

1. Prediction: Highs pay more attention to exterior characteristics (visible) -Lows attend more to interior characteristics -Rationale: Highs care more about fitting into situations (having a physically attractive partner= considered desirable)

-Snyder & Simpson (1984). Self-monitoring and dating -(procedure, what's the question, measures)

1. Procedure -Person to choose 1 of 2 partners for a "date" -provided 3 pages of info about 2 potential dates -Page 1: personality info (internal) -Page 2: irrelevant info (control) -Page 3: photograph (external) 2. measure time participants look at pg. 1 vs. 3 3. Measures: How much time do they spend looking at each page? After picking, what do they say was the basis of their choice?

If "John" is high in self-monitoring and wishes to.....

1. Sing duet....pick good singer 2. Study for physics exam....pick helpful physics expert 3. Cook gourmet meal....pick good cook

Snyder study process

1. Snyder began by creating items to measure self-monitoring. 2. demonstrated "discriminant validity." 3. Next showed that groups you would expect to score high or low on it DID fall high or low on it. 4. next step involved demonstrating "convergent" validity: Using peer ratings to validate self-ratings

How does self-monitoring relate to relationships?

1. The number and variety of your social relationship partners. 2. How many people you date (not in committed relationship) 3. How quickly romantic relationships take off & how long they last 4. greater emphasis on partner's physical attractiveness or personality 5. Whether you mimic partners' behavior 6. Your ability to send (fake) emotion signals and read others' emotions

Snyder, Gangestad, & Simpson (1983). Choosing friends as activity partners: role of self-monitoring (variables and results)

1. VARIABLES: -Independent Variable1: potential partner= specialist or generally well-liked -IV2: participant= high or low self-monitor 2. RESULTS: -low self-monitors chose well-liked, high: specialist

Expressing and Decoding Emotion

1. Very high (top 25%) and very low (bottom 25%) of self-monitors were asked to express emotion (and were taped). 2. They also were asked to decode other people's expressions of emotion

Low vs. high self-monitors and relationship intimacy with time

1. high SMs start high in early relationships, level across time (decrease, if any slope) -Early in relationships, high self-monitors achieve more intimacy 2. low SMs start low but steady + slope, increase in intimacy w. time, ending up w. greater intimacy overall

Mimicry

1. interact w. others, mimic their non-verbal behaviors, unaware - adopting their behaviors, postures, mannerisms -includes facial expressions, speech patterns, emotions, gestures, accents. 2. Such mimicry is typically non-conscious and non-intentional (Chartrand & Bargh 1999) 3. Importantly, we mimic those whom we like more than those whom we dislike (Jefferis, van Baaren & Chartrand (2003) 4. Those whom we mimic like us more as a result (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999).

self-monitoring: definition

3 related tendencies 1. Observing/ monitoring your own behavior in social situations 2. Monitoring how it "fits" with others' social behavior 3. Managing your behavior to "fit" the social situation (i.e. being a social chameleon - or at least more than others are)

class response to: When I alter my behavior to match that of others, I do so because...

A. I am anxious and I want to fit in with others. B. The situation forces me to do so. C. I want to make the people whom I am with feel comfortable. D. A, B and C are true of me E. Honestly, I don't change my behaviors from situation to situation

We all change our behavior somewhat to fit social situations. When you do this, would you say you do this mostly because.... (class)

A. anxious to fit in = 33% B. Situations force you = 40% C. want others to feel comfortable = 20% D. I don't change my behavior to fit situations = 8%

Evidence for Discriminant Validity (Snyder study)

Correlations with: 1. Social desirability scale (-.18) 2. Psychopathic Deviate Scale (-.20) 3. An inner directedness scale (-.19) 4. Achievement Anxiety (+.14) 5. Machiavellianism (-.09)

self-monitoring: (un)conscious?

This may, at times, be a conscious strategy but it is not typically assumed to be conscious.

Snyder study definition of self monitoring

Three related tendencies 1. Observing your own behavior. 2. Monitoring how it "fits" with other's social behavior 3. Managing one's behavior so that it "fits" with the social situation. *This is the chameleon part.

What about outside people?

Who do they think will "match" well? -depends on their self-monitoring level... so beware of match-makers

Snyder measurements of self-monitoring (examples)

a) Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to have fun b) I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people /situations. (Reverse scored)

distribution of self-monitoring scores in class

bell curve, most = average

Snyder Investigation 2- after personal attributes/photograph (questions and results)

forced to choose between: 1. attractive person, poor personal qualities 2. unattractive person, good personal qualities 1. Low SM -Attractive/bad person: 19% -Unattractive/good person: 81% 2. High SM -Attractive/bad person:69% -Unattractive/good person: 31%

Why isn't self-monitoring linked to self-esteem?

multiple (and dissociable) reasons to develop high self-monitoring: 1. Worrying about fitting in/not being accepted. 2. One's social world may force one to develop this tendency/skill. 3. motivated to make other people feel comfortable in social situations. (perhaps related to high self-esteem) - all reasons together, may account for lack of association between self-esteem and self-monitoring.

self-monitoring and self-esteem

self-monitoring level has been unrelated to self-esteem.