choosing social situations: two investigations of self ... · choosing social situations: two...

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1982, Vol. 43, No. 1, 123-135

Copyright 1982 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022-3514/82/4301-0123$00.75

Choosing Social Situations: Two Investigationsof Self-Monitoring Processes

Mark Snyder and Steve GangestadUniversity of Minnesota

Two investigations examined the processes by which individuals choose socialsituations. In the first investigation, participants chose to enter or not to entera situation that called for behavioral expressions of extraversion. For high self-monitoring individuals, willingness to enter this situation was a direct reflectionof the clarity with which the extraverted character of the situation was defined.For low self-monitoring individuals, willingness to enter this situation was a directreflection of their personal dispositions within the domain of extraversion andintroversion. In the second investigation, participants were assigned to a situationand were allowed to indicate how the situation might be changed to make themmore willing to enter it. The transformed situations of high self-monitoring in-dividuals were of relatively clearly defined character. The transformed situationsof low self-monitoring individuals were relatively congruent with their own ex-traverted or introverted dispositions. The processes by which high self-monitoringindividuals and low self-monitoring individuals facilitate the enactment of theircharacteristic behavioral orientations are discussed.

Theory and research on self-monitoringare concerned with the processes by whichindividuals plan and enact their behavioralchoices in social contexts (for a review, seeSnyder, 1979). According to the self-moni-toring theoretical formulation, two primarysources of information are available to in-dividuals to guide these activities: informa-tion about situational and interpersonalspecifications of appropriate behavior, andinformation about their own inner states,attitudes, and dispositions. Furthermore, ac-cording to the self-monitoring formulation,individuals differ meaningfully in the extentto which they rely on either source of infor-mation to guide their actions in social set-tings.

In regulating their social behavior, those

This research and the preparation of this manuscriptwere supported in part by National Science FoundationGrants BNS 77-11346 and BNS 82-07632 to MarkSnyder. Portions of this manuscript were written whileMark Snyder was a Fellow of the Center for AdvancedStudy in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California.For their comments on the manuscript, we thank NancyCantor, William Ickes, Edward E. Jones, and Dale T.Miller.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Mark Synder,Laboratory for Research in Social Relations, Depart-ment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 EastRiver Road, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.

individuals who are relatively situationallyguided (high self-monitoring individuals,identified by their relatively high scores onthe Self-Monitoring Scale; Snyder, 1974)are markedly sensitive and responsive to so-cial and interpersonal cues to situational ap-propriateness. Their social behavior displayspronounced situation-to-situation specificity(e.g., Lippa, 1976; Snyder & Monson, 1975).At the same time, correspondence betweenbehavior and attitude often is minimal forthese high self-monitoring individuals (e.g.,Snyder & Swann, 1976; Snyder & Tanke,1976). By contrast, in regulating their socialbehavior, those individuals who are rela-tively dispositionally guided (low self-mon-itoring individuals, identified by their rela-tively low scores on the Self-MonitoringScale; Snyder, 1974) are less responsive tosituational and interpersonal specificationsof appropriate behavior (e.g., Lippa, 1976;Snyder & Monson, 1975). Rather, these in-dividuals guide their behavioral choices onthe basis of information from relevant innersources, as reflected in the characteristicallysubstantial correspondence between theirbehavior in social contexts and their relevantunderlying attitudes and dispositions (e.g.,Snyder & Swann, 1976; Snyder & Tanke,1976; Zanna, Olson, & Fazio, 1980).

123

124 MARK SNYDER AND STEVE GANGESTAD

These characteristic behavioral orienta-tions of high self-monitoring individuals andlow self-monitoring individuals appear to beclearly defined. It is as if high self-monitor-ing individuals chronically strive to appearto be the type of person called for by eachsituation in which they find themselves, andit is as if low self-monitoring individualsstrive to display their own personal disposi-tions and attitudes in each situation in whichthey find themselves. Our concern here iswith strategic activities by which high self-monitoring individuals and low self-moni-toring individuals may facilitate and pro-mote the enactment of their characteristicbehavioral orientations. That is, what strat-egies can high self-monitoring individualsuse to make it easy for themselves to be theappropriate person for each different situa-tion? What strategies can low self-monitor-ing individuals use to make it easy for them-selves .to act in accord with their privatedispositions? We suggest that one set ofstrategies involves the situations, surround-ings, and circumstances within which indi-viduals choose to live their lives.

In the course of their lives, individuals typ-ically have considerable freedom to choosewhere to be, when to be there, and withwhom to be there. Accordingly, the socialsettings and interpersonal contexts in whichindividuals find themselves are partially oftheir own choosing. What considerationsmight guide these choices of situations? Ithas been suggested that these choices of thesettings in.which to live one's life may reflectfeatures of one's personal attributes, includ-ing one's characteristic dispositions, one'sattitudes, and one's conceptions of self (Sny-der, 1981). Thus, for example, the choice tospend time in situations that promote gre-garious behaviors (e.g., parties) may reflectone's gregarious nature; in contrast, thechoice to spend time in situations that pro-mote intellectual behaviors (e.g., seminars)may reflect one's intellectual inclinations.More generally, individuals may choose toenter and to spend time in situations thatprovide opportunities for and that facilitatethe behavioral expression of their character-istic dispositions (e.g., competitive individ-uals may seek out situations in which theycan compete with other people), their atti-tudes (e.g., individuals with conservative po-

litical attitudes may seek out situations inwhich they can further the aims of conser-vative causes), and their conceptions of self(e.g., individuals who believe they are lead-ers may seek out situations in which theycan assume positions of leadership). For anoverview of empirical demonstrations of in-dividuals choosing social situations, see Sny-der and Ickes (in press).

From the perspective of self-monitoring,it may be that individuals choose to be insituations that are particularly conducive tothe enactment of the characteristic behav-ioral orientations associated with their self-monitoring propensities. If so, we may posetwo questions about the links between thesechoices and the characteristic behavioralorientations of high self-monitoring individ-uals and low self-monitoring individuals.First, from a theoretical perspective, arethere social situations and interpersonal con-texts that are particularly conducive to theenactment of the characteristic behavioralorientation of high self-monitoring individ-uals and other social situations and inter-personal contexts that are particularly con-ducive to the enactment of the characteristicbehavioral orientation of low self-monitoringindividuals? Second (if such social settingsdo exist), from an empirical perspective, willhigh self-monitoring individuals and lowself-monitoring individuals actually gravi-tate toward those social contexts that facil-itate the enactment of their characteristicbehavioral orientations? Let us examinethese issues.

What are the features of social situationsand interpersonal contexts that would beparticularly conducive to the enactment ofthe behavioral orientation characteristic ofhigh self-monitoring individuals? We sug-gest that the enactment of this behavioralorientation will be facilitated in interper-sonal settings that provide clearly definedsituational guidelines for high self-monitor-ing individuals to use in molding and tail-oring their self-presentation and social be-havior to their situations. Therefore, wewould expect that high self-monitoring in-dividuals would choose, whenever possible,to enter and to spend time in social situationsand interpersonal settings where there areclearly defined images of the type of personwho would be ideally suited for that situa-

SELF-MONITORING 125

tion. More specifically, a clearly defined im-age of the prototypic individual called for bythe situation provides operating guidelinesfor enacting a pattern of self-presentation bymeeting two criteria.

First, a situation of clearly defined char-acter provides precise and unambiguousspecifications of the person called for by thesituation. That is, a clearly defined characterprovides specifications at the relatively pre-cise level of instrumental and expressive be-haviors that constitute a situationally appro-priate pattern of self-presentation. Forexample, a situation of clearly defined char-acter does not simply specify that the displayof sociability is appropriate to that situation,but also specifies the manner and form thatthis display of sociability should take.

Second, a situation of clearly defined char-acter provides specifications of the type ofperson called for by the situation in a co-herent, consistent fashion so that behavioralspecifications do not conflict with one an-other. For example, a situation of clearlydefined character does not specify that anindividual display both assertiveness and ret-icence. Images of the type of person whowould be well-suited for the situation thatmeet both of these criteria allow high self-monitoring individuals to become the per-sons called for by their situations.

What are the features of social situationsand interpersonal contexts that would beparticularly conducive to the enactment ofthe behavioral orientation of low self-mon-itoring individuals? We suggest that the en-actment of this behavioral orientation willbe facilitated in interpersonal settings thatpermit low self-monitoring individuals to bethemselves. Therefore, we might expect thatlow self-monitoring individuals would choose,whenever possible, to enter and to spend timein social situations' and interpersonal settingswhere it is appropriate to express and reflecttheir own attitudes, traits, or dispositions. Insuch contexts, it will be possible for low self-monitoring individuals to engage in behav-iors that are not only congruent with theirown personal attributes but also appropriateto their situations.

Do high self-monitoring individuals sys-tematically choose to enter and to spend timein interpersonal settings that provide clearspecifications of the type of character one

ought to be in those situations? Do low self-monitoring individuals systematically chooseto enter and to spend time in interpersonalsettings that call for the display of their ownpersonal attributes? To answer these ques-tions, we conducted the first investigation.

Investigation 1

In this investigation, we allowed individ-uals to choose to enter or not to enter a socialsituation that called for the expression ofsociability. For some individuals, the socia-ble character called for by the situation wasdefined in minimal terms—sufficient to de-fine the situation as one that called for thedisplay of sociability but not sufficient tospecify the precise form that the display ofsociability should take. For other individu-als, the sociable character called for by thesituation was defined in clear, precise, andunambiguous fashion to provide a detailedset of specifications of the precise instru-mental and expressive behaviors by whichsociability was to be displayed. We expectedthat high self-monitoring individuals wouldbe highly responsive to this difference be-tween the two situations. That is, we ex-pected high self-monitoring individuals to berelatively unwilling to enter the situation ofminimally defined sociable character, butrelatively willing to enter the situation ofclearly defined sociable character. At thesame time, we expected that low self-mon-itoring individuals would be relatively un-affected by the clarity of the character of thesituation. However, we did expect that thewillingness of low self-monitoring individu-als to enter either situation would be a directreflection of their own personalities. That is,we expected that extraverted low-self-mon-itoring individuals would be relatively will-ing to enter either sociable situation and thatintroverted low-self-monitoring individualswould be relatively unwilling to enter eithersociable situation.

Method

ParticipantsThe participants were 125 male and female under-

graduates enrolled in introductory psychology at theUniversity of Minnesota who participated in this inves-tigation for course credit. Scores on the Self-MonitoringScale (Snyder, 1974) and the Extraversion scale of the


Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck,1968), which were administered as part of a consider-ably larger questionnaire survey, were available for allparticipants.

ProcedureParticipants, who had been scheduled in small group

sessions, received booklets that provided them an op-portunity to choose to enter and to spend time in or notto enter and not to spend time in a social situation thatcalled for the expression of social extraversion. Specif-ically, participants learned that the experimenters wereconvening discussion groups, each of which would becomposed of four students who would discuss a courtcase and reach a verdict. Participants also learned thatin each four-person discussion group there would be aconfederate of the experimenters who, for the 20-30-minute duration of the discussion, would behave in asocially extraverted manner.

For the participants assigned randomly to the mini-mally-defined-character condition, the socially extra-verted character required of confederates in the group-discussion social situations was defined in minimalterms. These participants learned only the global traitstypically associated with extraversion (i.e., "We willneed a confederate who will be outgoing, talkative, out-spoken, self-assured, and confident—in general, extra-verted—during the discussion.") but learned nothing ofthe specific expressive behaviors by which confederateswere to manifest extraversion in this social situation.

For the participants assigned randomly to the clearly-defined-character condition, the socially extravertedcharacter required of confederates in the group-discus-sion social situations was defined in substantially moreprecise and detailed fashion. In addition to learning theglobal traits typically associated with social extraver-sion, these participants received these specifications ofthe manner in which confederates were to manifest so-cial extraversion in this particular social situation:

We want the confederate to agree with whatever aparticular person in the discussion says—specifically,the person seated on his or her right. That is, theconfederate should endorse the position of that personand disagree with opposing viewpoints, should theyarise. The confederate can express and communicatehis or her position by using gestures and other non-verbal expressions—nodding when the person on hisor her right makes a point and shaking his or her heador communicating disagreement through facialexpressions when someone else makes an opposingstatement. The confederate should make these expres-sions confidently and when possible should verballyback up the position.

All participants then reported their willingness to en-ter and to spend time in this social situation. Specifi-cally, they answered (on 7-point scales on which 1 = notat all and 7 = very) these six questions: (a) How willingwould you be to participate as the confederate de-scribed? (b) How comfortable would you feel being theconfederate? (c) How natural would you act in beingthe confederate? (d) How much could you be yourselfas the confederate? (e) How good a job do you thinkyou could do as the confederate? and (f) How muchwould you enjoy the discussion as the confederate?

Results

We have predicted that high self-moni-toring individuals, but not low self-monitor-ing individuals, would be relatively willingto enter and to spend time in the group-dis-cussion social situation in the c'learly-de-fined-character condition and relatively un-willing to enter and to spend time in theminimally-defined-character condition. Wealso predicted that for low self-monitoringindividuals, but not for high self-monitoringindividuals, extraverts would be relativelywilling and introverts would be relativelyunwilling to enter and to spend time in thegroup-discussion social situation. To testthese predictions, we first constructed aglobal measure of willingness to enter andto spend time in the group-discussion socialsituation by calculating for each participantthe sum of his or her answers to the six sep-arate questions, each of which had inquiredabout different manifestations of his or herwillingness to enter and to spend time in thegroup-discussion social situation.1

We then entered participants' scores onthis global measure of willingness to enterand to spend time in the group-discussionsocial situation into a 2 (high self-monitoringindividuals vs. .low self-monitoring individ-uals) X 2 (minimally defined character vs.clearly defined character) X 2 (extravertedindividuals vs. introverted individuals) un-weighted means analysis of variance.2 Within

1 Answers to the individual questions and answers tothe entire set of questions are highly correlated. Item-total correlations (with that particular item removed)range from r = .70 to r = .77. Participants' scores onthe six-item measure of willingness to enter and to spendtime in the group-discussion social situation range from7 to 42, with a mean of 27.79 and a standard deviationof 8.53. Internal consistency of the six-item measure ofwillingness to enter and to spend time in the group-discussion social situation is .95, as assessed by Cron-bach's coefficient alpha,

2 Individuals with scores on the Self-Monitoring Scaleless than or equal to 12 were classified as low self-mon-itoring individuals (n = 61); those with scores greaterthan or equal to 13 were classified as high self-moni-toring individuals (n = 64). Individuals with scoreson the Extraversion scale less than or equal to 12were classified _as introverts (n = 58); those with scoresgreater than or equal to 13 were classified as extraverts(n =67).

Although there was a modest correlation (r - .31)between self-monitoring and extraversion for partici-pants in this investigation, the classification procedure

SELF-MONITORING 127

this analysis of variance, we performed asingle planned comparison (cf. Hays, 1973)specifically designed to test our theoreticalpredictions about the interactive influencesof self-monitoring propensities, clarity of thecharacter of the situation, and personal dis-positions within the domain of extraversionand introversion on willingness to enter andto spend time in the group-discussion socialsituation. To perform this planned compar-ison, we assigned weights of +1 to the fourconditions where we had predicted that par-ticipants would be relatively willing to enterand to spend time in the social situation (i.e.,high self-monitoring extraverts and highself-monitoring introverts in the clearly-de-fined-character condition, and low self-mon-itoring extraverts in either the minimally-defined-character condition or the clearly-defined-character condition) and weights of-1 to the four conditions where we had pre-dicted that participants would be relativelyunwilling to enter and to spend time in thesocial situation (i.e., high self-monitoringextraverts and high self-monitoring intro-verts in the minimally-defined-charactercondition, and low self-monitoring introvertsin either the minimally-defined-charactercondition or the clearly-defined-charactercondition).

This planned comparison was highly sig-nificant, F(l, 117) = 11.49, p < .001. Afterperforming the planned comparison, some

was relatively successful in producing orthogonality be-tween self-monitoring and extraversion. A 2(self-mon-itoring classification) X 2(extraversion/introyersionclassification) analysis of variance with scores on theextraversion measure as the dependent variable revealedsome tendency for high self-monitoring individuals tobe somewhat more extraverted than low self-monitoringindividuals, F(l, 121) = 2.91, p < .10. Separate com-parisons revealed that although high self-monitoring in-dividuals classified as extraverts were slightly more ex-traverted than low self-monitoring individuals classifiedas extraverts (Ms - 15.98 and 15.11, respectively),f(65) = 1.71, p < ,10, high self-monitoring individualsclassified as introverts were neither more nor less intro-verted than low self-monitoring individuals classified asintroverts (Ms - 9.67 and 9.24, respectively), t(56) =.55, ns. More importantly for purposes of testing ourpredictions, however, the high self-monitoring extravertsdiffered as much from the high self-monitoring intro-verts as the low self-monitoring extraverts differed fromthe low self-monitoring introverts (differences of 6.31and 5.87 points on the measure of extraversion, respec-tively), interaction F < 1.

systematic variation not accounted for by theplanned comparison remained, F(6, 117) =1.97, p = .08. An examination of this re-maining variation revealed a source of sys-tematic variation independent of the theo-retical prediction; specifically, a main effectfor self-monitoring such that high self-mon-itoring individuals were more willing to enterand to spend time in the social situation thanwere low self-monitoring individuals, F(l,117) = 6.06, p < .02. Aside from this singleadditional source of variation, the residualamount of systematic variation beyond thataccounted for by the theoretical predictionswas clearly not significant, F(5, 117)= 1.15,ns.3,4

3 We also examined the possible contributions of in-dividual factors that may exist within the overall mea-sure of self-monitoring. Specifically, we performed thisanalysis of variance three more times, each time allow-ing a median partition of participants' scores on one ofthe three factors suggested by Briggs, Cheek, and Buss(1980; a similar set of factors has been suggested byGabrenya & Arkin, 1980) to stand in for the catego-rization based on participants' scores on the overallmeasure of self-monitoring that we had used in theoriginal analysis of variance. These stand-in analysesrevealed that the planned comparison (which, when ithad used the overall measure had been highly signifi-cant, F(\, 117)= 11.49, /x.OOl) was now at leastmarginally significant for each of the three factors. ForFactor 1, which they have labeled Extraversion, F(\,117) = 4.90, p < .05; for Factor 2, which they have la-beled Other-Directedness, F(l, 117) = 6.70, p < .02;for Factor 3, which they have labeled Acting, F(l,117) = 3.91, p < .06. The amount of systematic vari-ation in willingness to enter and to spend time in thesocial situation accounted for by the planned compari-son using even the best performing of these factors islittle more than half of that accounted for by the plannedcomparison employing the overall measure of self-mon-itoring (for Factor 1, 43%; for Factor 2, 62%; for Factor3, 36%). It appears that, at least in this analysis, eachfactor can stand in for the entire measure; nevertheless,no individual factor seems to be a wholly adequate sub-stitute for the entire measure of self-monitoring.

4 When considered individually, the six dependentmeasures that entered into the global measure of will-ingness to enter and to spend time in the group-discus-sion social situation all yielded outcomes similar to thoseof the global measure. In each case, the amount of pre-dicted systematic variation was substantial and statis-tically significant, Fs ranging from F(l, 117) = 5.66,p < .02, toF(l, 117) = 15.83,p < .001. In cases where,as with the global measure, the residual variation wassignificant or marginally significant, Fs range from F(6,117) = .94, ns, to F(6,117) = 2^68, p < .05. Eliminationof the self-monitoring main effect reduced the residualvariation to nonsignificant levels, Fs range from F(5,117) = .65, ns, to F(5, 117) = 1.36, ns.


The outcomes of this analysis provide def-inite support for the predictions derived fromour theoretical analysis of the determinantsof the willingness of high self-monitoring in-dividuals and low self-monitoring individualsto enter and to spend time in social situa-tions. As we had predicted, high self-moni-toring individuals were reliably more willingto enter and to spend time in the group-discussion social situation in the clearly-defined-character condition than in the-minimally-defined-character condition, F( 1,117) = 4.92, p < .05. At the same time, lowself-monitoring individuals were neither morenor less willing to enter and to spend timein the group-discussion social situation in theclearly-defined-character condition than inthe minimally-defined-character condition,F( 1, 117) = .24, ns (for means, see Table 1).Furthermore, as we had predicted, low self-monitoring extraverts were reliably morewilling to enter and to spend time in thegroup-discussion social situation than werelow self-monitoring introverts, F(l, 117) =6.61, p < .02. At the same time, high self-monitoring extraverts and high self-moni-toring introverts did not differ in their will-ingness to enter and to spend time in thegroup discussion social situation, F(l,117) = .94, ns (for means, see Table 2).

Table 1Choosing Situations: Willingness to Enterand td Spend Time in Social Situationsof Minimally Defined and ClearlyDefined Character

Situation

Table 2Choosing Situations: Willingness of Introvertsand Extraverts to Enter and to Spend Timein Social Situations

Self-monitoringclassification

High self-monitoringMn

Low self-monitoring. M

n

Minimallydefined

27.4034

26.6028

Clearlydefined

31.9930

25.5933


High self-monitoringMn

Low self-monitoringMn

Introverts

28.6924

23.4434

Extraverts

30.7040

28.7627

Note. In this table, the data have been collapsed acrossthe extraverted-individuals versus introverted-individu-als factor. Thus, each mean represents the average meanof two cells in the full design.

Note, In this table, the data have been collapsed acrossthe minimally-defined-character versus clearly-defined-character factor. Thus, each mean represents the av-erage mean of two cells in the full design.

Investigation 2

In the first investigation, the willingnessof high self-monitoring individuals to enterand to spend time in the experimentally cre-ated social situation that called for the be-havioral expression of sociability was a di-rect reflection of the clarity and precisionwith which the sociable character of thatsituation was defined. In contrast, the will-ingness of low self-monitoring individuals toenter and to spend time in that social situ-ation was a direct reflection of their ownpersonal dispositions in the domain of extra-version and introversion. Of course, the find-ings of the first investigation may be limitedto the specific procedures that we used tocreate experimental situations that allowedus to assess the validity of our theoreticalprediction. Specifically, in the first investi-gation, we varied the clarity of the charactercalled for in the experimentally created so-cial situation by varying the precision of thespecifications.

How else might we have varied the clarityof the character called for in the social sit-uation? We have suggested that a clearlydefined character of the person called for bythe situation is provided by specificationsthat are precise and unambiguous and alsocoherent and consistent. From an experi-mental standpoint, there are two differentways to produce variation in clarity of char-acter. Clarity of character can be varied (asin the first investigation) in terms of the pre-

SELF-MONITORING 129

cision with which the behavioral specifica-tions for the person called for in the situationare defined. Clarity of character can also bevaried in terms of the coherence and consis-tency of the specifications of the personcalled for in the situation. To seek converg-ing evidence for our theoretical predictions,we conducted a second investigation in whichwe distinguished clarity of character interms of the latter criterion—the coherenceand consistency of the behavioral specifi-cations provided within the context of theinterpersonal setting.

The second investigation differed from thefirst investigation in one additional impor-tant aspect. In the first investigation, we cre-ated situations judged from a theoreticalstandpoint to be relatively conducive or un-conducive to the characteristic behavioralorientations of high self-monitoring individ-uals and low self-monitoring individuals, andwe gave individuals the opportunity to tellus how willing they would be to enter andspend time in such situations. In the secondinvestigation, we again presented partici-pants with a social situation, but instead ofasking participants to indicate to us howwilling they would be to enter and spend timein this situation, we gave them the oppor-tunity to tell us how the situation could bealtered to make them more willing to chooseto enter and to spend time in that situation.

Based on our theoretical analysis, we pre-dicted that high self-monitoring individualswould indicate that they would be more will-ing to enter and to spend time in a trans-formed social situation associated with amore clearly defined character than that ofthe original situation. We also predicted thatlow self-monitoring individuals would indi-cate that they would be more willing to enterand to spend time in a transformed socialsituation that called for the display of per-sonal attributes more congruent with theirown personal dispositions than did the orig-inal situation.

Method

Participants

The subjects were 234 male and female undergrad-uates enrolled in introductory psychology at the Uni-versity of Minnesota who participated in this investi-

gation for course credit. Scores on the Self-MonitoringScale (Snyder, 1974) and the Extraversion scale of theEysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck,1968), which were administered as part of a consider-ably larger questionnaire survey, were available for allparticipants.

Procedure

Participants, who had been scheduled in small groupsessions, received booklets that provided them an op-portunity to transform the character of a social situationso that they would be more willing to enter and to spendtime in it. Specifically, participants learned that the ex-perimenters, for purposes of their research, were ar-ranging conversational interactions in which two peoplewould be videotaped as they chatted informally aboutsuch things as their past experiences, their current ac-tivities, their interests and hobbies, their likes and dis-likes, or anything that two people would converse aboutin the course of becoming acquainted with each other.Participants further learned that, also for purposes oftheir research, the experimenters had a specific idea ofhow both participants were to appear during their con-versational interaction. Specifically, participants learnedthat they were to show, during the course of these 10-minute social interactions, signs of ten global traits andgeneral dispositions.

For participants assigned randomly to the mostly-extraverted-character condition, seven of these traitswere characteristic of extraverted individuals (impul-sive, talkative, ambitious, lively, cheerful, confident, ac-tive) and three of these traits were characteristic of in-troverted individuals (reserved, reflective, soft-spoken).For participants assigned randomly to the mostly-in-troverted-character condition, seven of these traits werecharacteristic of introverted individuals (reserved, retir-ing, cautious, quiet, soft-spoken, reflective, studious)and three of these traits were characteristic of extra-verted individuals (active, confident, lively). In con-structing these mostly extraverted and mostly intro-verted characters, care was taken to use extraverted andintroverted traits that, although generally incongruous,were not direct opposites in meaning.

Participants then were given the opportunity to trans-form the character of these dyadic social interactionsby modifying the set of personal attributes to be dis-played by participants in the Betting-acquainted con-versations. Specifically, participants were told:

We wish to know whaUwould make it easier for youto be the person we've described in this tape. Carefullyexamine the list of ten (10) traits of which the peoplein these tapes would give evidence. Suppose that in-stead of having to give evidence of all ten traits, thepeople in the tapes only had to give evidence of sixof these traits. What six (6) traits would you keep onthe list in order to make it easier for you to be thecharacter? From the list of traits below, please in-dicate those six traits (by circling each) which wouldcreate a character easier for you to portray, a char-acter you would be more willing to portray, etc.

By their choices of six traits, participants in themostly-extraverted-character condition could define the


Table 3Transforming Situations: Increasing theCongruence Between the Character of theSituation and One's Own Personal Dispositions

Situation


High self-monitoringrn

Mostlyextravertedcharacter

.1539

Mostlyintrovertedcharacter

.1334

Low self-monitoringr .54**n 31

.49*37

Note. Correlations are calculated between participants'scores on extraversion and the number of extravertedtraits in their lists of six traits.**/><.01.

character of this social situation as any one of a set ofcharacters that range from one defined by as many assix extraverted traits (and no introverted traits at all)to one defined by as few as three extraverted traits (andthree introverted traits). Similarly, by their choices ofsix traits, participants in the mostly-introverted-char-acter condition could define the character of this socialsituation as any one of a set of characters that rangefrom one defined by as many as six introverted traits(and no extraverted traits at all) to one defined by asfew as three introverted traits (and three extravertedtraits).

By examining the composition of the six traits re-tained by each participant, it was possible to assess theextent to which he or she had transformed his or hersocial situation into one that called for a character thatwas more clearly and consistently defined than that ofthe situation as originally defined, and the extent towhich he or she had transformed his or her social sit-uation into one that called for a character whose per-sonal attributes were more congruent with his or herdisposition within the domain of extraversion and in-troversion.

Results

We have predicted that: (a) low self-mon-itoring individuals, more so than high self-monitoring individuals, would define thecharacter of the situation they would bemore willing to enter as one relatively con-gruent with their own extraverted or intro-verted dispositions; and (b) high self-moni-toring individuals, more so than low self-monitoring individuals, would define thecharacter of the situation they would bemore willing to enter in relatively clear and

consistent terms. We examined these hy-potheses in two correlation matrixes.

Did low self-monitoring individuals, moreso than high self-monitoring individuals,define the character of the situation theywould be more willing to enter as one closelyresembling their own extraverted or intro-verted dispositions? To answer this ques-tion, we calculated Pearson product-momentcorrelations between participants' scores onthe Extraversion scale of the Eysenck Per-sonality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck,1968) and the number of extraverted traitsthat each participant retained in his or herlist of six traits. These correlations, calcu-lated separately for high self-monitoringindividuals and for low self-monitoring in-dividuals who had been assigned to themostly-extraverted-character and the mostly-introverted-character experimental condi-tions, are displayed in Table 3.5

An examination of the magnitude of thesecorrelations reveals that for low self-moni-toring individuals there is a substantial re-lationship between their own scores on themeasure of extraversion and the number ofextraverted traits that they retained in theirlists of six traits, in both the mostly-extra-verted-character condition, r(29) = .54, p <.01, and the mostly-introverted-charactercondition, r(35) = .49, p<.0l. For highself-monitoring individuals, the relationshipbetween their own scores on the measure ofextraversion and the number of extravertedtraits that they retained in their list of sixtraits is a minimal one, in both the mostly-extraverted-character condition, K37) = .15,ns, and the mostly-introverted-charactercondition, r(32) = .13, ns-.

Moreover, when we entered these corre-lations into a 2 (high self-monitoring indi-

5 In this analysis, individuals with scores of 15 or moreon the Self-Monitoring Scale were classified as high self-monitoring individuals; those with scores of 10 or lesswere classified as low self-monitoring individuals. Thus,high self-monitoring individuals represent approxi-mately the upper quartile of the distribution of scoreson the Self-Monitoring Scale; low self-monitoring in-dividuals represent the lower quartile of that distribu-tion. The substantially larger number of participants inthe second investigation than in the first investigationpermitted this classification procedure, which providesa finer differentiation between individuals low and highin self-monitoring than in the first investigation.

SELF-MONITORING 131

viduals vs. low self-monitoring individ-uals) X 2 (mostly extraverted character vs.mostly introverted character) analysis ofvariance for correlations (cf. Jones, 1968),that analysis yielded a single main effect forself-monitoring classification.6 For low self-monitoring individuals, the relationship be-tween their own personal levels of extraver-sion and the degree of extraversion of thecharacter into which they transformed theoriginal character was reliably greater thanthe corresponding relationship for high self-monitoring individuals, F(l, oo) = 5.89, p <.02.7>8 Clearly, the evidence of this matrixof correlations supports the hypothesis thatlow self-monitoring individuals more so thanhigh self-monitoring individuals wouldtransform the characters of the mostly ex-traverted or mostly introverted situations towhich they had been assigned into ones moreclosely resembling their own personal dis-position within the domains of extraversionand introversion.

Did high self-monitoring individuals,more so than low self-monitoring individ-uals, define the character of the situationthey would be more willing to enter in rel-atively clear and consistent terms? To an-swer this question, we examined separatelythe traits retained by those participantswhose original characters were discrepantfrom their own personal dispositions (thatis, extraverts assigned to the mostly-intro-verted-character condition and introvertsassigned to the mostly-extraverted-charactercondition) and the traits retained by thoseparticipants whose original characters werecongruent with their own personal disposi-tions (that is, extraverts assigned to themostly-extraverted-character condition andintroverts assigned to the mostly-intro-verted-character condition).9

Consider first those participants who hadbeen assigned to situations whose originalcharacters were discrepant from their ownpersonal dispositions. For these individuals,the same choices that create situations ofmore clearly defined character (that is, re-taining character-defining introverted traitsin the mostly-introverted-character condi-tion and character-defining extraverted traitsin the mostly-extraverted-character condi-tion) of necessity also create situations of

increased discrepancy from their personaldispositions (that is, a situation of more in-troverted character for extraverts in themostly-introverted-character condition anda situation of more extraverted character forintroverts in the mostly-extraverted-char-acter condition). We already know, based onthe analysis of the first matrix of correla-

6 In this analysis of variance for correlations, eachcorrelation is first transformed to a z score (usingFisher's r-to-z transformation) for which the varianceis known (Fisher, 1946, p. 198). Thus, the within-cellsvariance in this analysis has infinite degrees of freedom.

7 In our sample, high self-monitoring individualstended to display a somewhat more restricted range ofscores on the measure of extraversion than did low self-monitoring individuals. For participants assigned to themostly-introverted-character condition, the maximum-minimum difference in extraversion was the same forhigh self-monitoring individuals and for low self-mon-itoring individuals (16 in each case), but for participantsassigned to the mostly-extraverted-character condition,the maximum-minimum difference was 13 for high self-monitoring individuals and 17 for low self-monitoringindividuals. An additional analysis suggests that thisdifference does not mean that the lower correlation forhigh self-monitoring individuals than for low self-mon-itoring individuals in the mostly-extraverted-charactercondition was an artifact of differences in range of ex-traversion scores. If we eliminate low self-monitoringindividuals from both ends of the distribution for themostly-extraverted-character condition until the maxi-mum-minimum difference is as small as or smaller thanthat for high self-monitoring individuals, we find thatthe resulting correlation for low self-monitoring indi-viduals remains substantial, r = .45, f(27) = 2.62,p < .02.

8 We repeated this analysis of variance three times,in each case classifying participants (into upper andlower quartiles) on the basis of their scores on one ofthe three Briggs et al. (1980) factors instead of theirscores on the entire measure of self-monitoring. Themain effect that had emerged (with clear statistical sig-nificance) from the original analysis employing the en-tire measure, F(l, oo) = 5.89, p < .02, also emerged(with only marginal statistical significance) from theanalyses employing each of the factors, Factor 1: F(l,oo) = 2.61, p = .11; Factor 2: F(l, oo) = 2.61,p = .11;Factor 3: F(\, oo) = 3.91, p = .05. Evidently, for pur-poses of this analysis, each factor can reproduce to someextent the main effect produced by the entire measure,although no factor seems to perform as well as the entiremeasure.

9 In this and the subsequent analysis, individuals withscores of 16 or more on the Extraversion scale of theEysenck Personality Inventory were classified as ex-traverts; those with scores of 10 or less Were classifiedas introverts. Thus, extraverts represent approximatelythe upper quartile of the distribution of scores on thismeasure; introverts, the lower quartile of this distribu-tion.


Table 4Transforming Situations: Increasing the Clarityof the Character of the Situation

Situation

Situationalassignment

Congruent characterrn

Discrepant characterrn

Mostlyextraverted' character

.1335

.41*31

Mostlyintrovertedcharacter

-.0727

.38*33

Note. Correlations are calculated between participants'scores on self-monitoring and the number of character-defining traits in their lists of six traits.* p < .05.

tions, that low self-monitoring individualswere particularly likely to create situationswhose characters were congruent with theirown personal dispositions. That is, from theperspective of the predictions now underscrutiny, we know that low self-monitoringindividuals assigned to situations whose orig-inal characters were discrepant from theirown personal dispositions retained relativelyfew character-defining traits. If it is alsotrue, as we have predicted, that high self-monitoring individuals assigned to such sit-uations retained relatively many character-defining traits, then we would expect that forthose individuals assigned to situations whoseoriginal characters were discrepant fromtheir own personal dispositions, there wouldexist substantial correlations between theirscores on the Self-Monitoring Scale and thenumber of character-defining traits that theyretained in their list of six traits.

Consider now those participants who hadbeen assigned to situations whose originalcharacters were congruent with their ownpersonal dispositions. For these individuals,the same choices that create a situation ofmore clearly defined character (that is, re-taining character-defining traits in their listof six traits) of necessity also create situa-tions whose characters are of increased con-gruence with their own personal dispositions(that is, a situation of more extraverted char-acter for extraverts assigned to the mostly-

extraverted-character condition and a situ-ation of more introverted character forintroverts assigned to the mostly-intro-verted-character condition). We alreadyknow, based on the analysis of the first ma-trix of correlations, that low self-monitoringindividuals were particularly likely to createsituations whose characters were congruentwith their own personal dispositions. Thatis, from the perspective of the predictionsnow under scrutiny, we know that low self-monitoring individuals assigned to situationswhose original characters were congruentwith their own personal dispositions retainedrelatively many character defining traits. Ifit is also true, as we have predicted, that highself-monitoring individuals assigned to suchsituations retained relatively many charac-ter-defining traits, then we would expect thatfor those individuals assigned to situationswhose original characters were congruentwith their own personal dispositions, therewould exist minimal correlations betweentheir scores on the Self-Monitoring Scaleand the number of character-defining traitsthat they retained in their list of six traits.

Correlations between participants' scoreson the Self-Monitoring Scale and the num-ber of character-defining traits that they re-tained in their list of six traits are presentedin Table 4. Examination of these correlationsreveals that, in accord with our predictions,the correlations are substantial for partici-pants assigned to situations whose originalcharacters were discrepant from their ownpersonal dispositions, in both the mostly-ex-traverted-character condition, r(29) = .41,p < .05, and the mostly-introverted-charac-ter condition, r(31) = .38, p < .05. Also insupport of our predictions, the correlationsare minimal for participants assigned to sit-uations whose original characters were con-gruent with their own personal disposi-vtions, in both the mostly-extraverted-char-acter condition, K33) = .13, ns, and themostly-introverted-character condition,K25) = -.07, «j.10

Furthermore, a 2(congruent character vs.

10 The substantial correlations between low self-mon-itoring individuals' extraversion score and the numberof extraverted traits included in their lists reported in

SELF-MONITORING 133

discrepant character) X 2 (mostly extra-verted character vs. mostly introverted char-acter) analysis of variance on this correlationmatrix yielded a single reliable main effect.For participants assigned to situations whoseoriginal character was discrepant from theirpersonal dispositions, the relationship be-tween their scores on the Self-MonitoringScale and the number of character-definingtraits that they retained in their lists of sixtraits was reliably greater than was the cor-responding relationship for participants as-signed to situations whose original characterwas congruent with their personal disposi-tions, F(l, oo ) = 4.24, p < .05."

Taken together, the results of these twocorrelational analyses provide considerablesupport for our theoretical predictions. Lowself-monitoring individuals, more so thanhigh self-monitoring individuals, defined thecharacter of the social situation that theywould be more willing to enter as one rela-tively congruent with their own personal dis-positions. High self-monitoring individuals,more so than low self-monitoring individu-als, defined the character of the social sit-uation that they would be more willing toenter in relatively clear and consistent terms.

Discussion

In their responses to the items of the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974), high self-monitoring individuals claim, among otherthings, that "In different situations and withdifferent people, I often act like very differ-ent persons," an assertion that has been cor-roborated by empirical documentation ofmarked situation-to-situation shifts in theirself-presentation and social behavior (Sny-

Table 3 practically ensure that these minimal correla-tions are due to individuals assigned situations of con-gruent character retaining relatively many characterdefining traits, as we had predicted. We confirmed thisoccurrence by calculating the mean z score of the num-ber of character defining traits for those individuals as-signed to situations whose characters were congruentwith their own personal dispositions. These average zscores were in fact substantial and significantly differentfrom zero in both the mostly-extraverted-character con-dition, M, = .45, /(31) = 2.88, p < .01, and the mostly-introverted-character condition, M, = .73, t(26) = 3.55,p< .01.

der, 1979). By contrast, in their responsesto the items of the Self-Monitoring Scale,low self-monitoring individuals claim, amongother things, that "My behavior is usuallya reflection of my true inner feelings, atti-tudes, and beliefs," an assertion that also hasbeen corroborated by empirical documen-tation of substantial covariation betweentheir social behavior and relevant underlyingattitudes and dispositions (Snyder, 1979).

Our concern here has been to specify the-oretically and to identify empirically somestrategic activities by which high self-mon-itoring individuals and low self-monitoringindividuals each may promote and facilitateenactment of their characteristic behavioralorientations. Specifically, we have suggestedthat these individuals systematically chooseto enter and to spend time in those socialsituations and interpersonal settings that areparticularly conducive to enactment of their

" We also performed this analysis of variance threemore times using as dependent measures correlationsinvolving participants' scores on each of the three Briggset al. (1980) factors instead of their scores on the entiremeasure of self-monitoring. A reliable main effectemerged from the analysis employing Factor 1, F(l,oo) = 6.09, p = .014. However, it is unlikely that thismain effect can account for the main effect that emergedfrom the original analysis employing the entire measure.The entire measure main effect reflects substantial pos-itive correlations in the two situations of discrepantcharacter and only minimal correlations in the two sit-uations of congruent character. In contrast, the Factor1 main effect reflects one substantial negative correla-tion in one of the situations of congruent character andminimal or modest correlations everywhere else. Nomain effects emerged from the analysis employing eitherFactor 2, F(l, oo) = 0.00, ns, or Factor 3, F(l, oo) =2.30, ns. Evidently, for purposes of this analysis, noscores or individual factors can stand in for scores onthe entire measure of self-monitoring.

When considered together, the three sets of analysesinvolving the Briggs et al. (1980) factors (reported inFootnotes 3, 8, and 11) suggest that some links do existbetween individual factors and the measures of choosingsocial situations employed in these investigations. Yet,these analyses in no way suggest that the differing baseson which individuals high and low in self-monitoringchoose their social situations can be accounted for ex-clusively by one or other individual factor. Instead, thedifferential responsiveness of high self-monitoring in-dividuals and low self-monitoring individuals to the clar-ity of the definition and the congruence with personaldispositions of the character of social situations seemsto be more consistently arid reliably identified by theentire measure of self-monitoring than by any compo-nent portion of that measure.


characteristic behavioral orientations. Froma theoretical perspective, we anticipated thathigh self-monitoring individuals would sys-tematically choose to enter and to spend timein interpersonal settings that provide clearspecifications of the type of character oneought to be, or should appear to be, in thosesocial situations. At the same time, we an-ticipated that low self-monitoring individu-als would systematically choose to enter andto spend time in social situations that callfor the behavioral expression of their ownpersonal dispositions. Indeed, both empiricalinvestigations of the willingness to enter andto spend time in social situations providedconverging support for these theoretical pre-dictions.

What are the consequences of the stra-tegic choice of social situations as it is dif-ferently practiced by high self-monitoringand low self-monitoring individuals? To theextent that high self-monitoring individualshabitually gravitate toward social situationsof clearly defined character, they effectivelyprovide themselves with social settings andinterpersonal contexts that are well-suitedto enacting their characteristic behavioralorientations. They choose social contexts inwhich they can readily mold and tailor theirself-presentational and social behaviors to fitsituational and interpersonal specificationsof behavioral appropriateness. To the extentthat low self-monitoring individuals habit-ually gravitate toward social situations thatcall for personalities of the type actuallypossessed by them, they effectively providethemselves with social settings and interper-sonal contexts that are well-suited to enact-ing their characteristic behavioral orienta-tions. They choose social contexts in whichthey can readily behave in ways that accu-rately reflect and meaningfully communi-cate their own attitudes, feelings, and dis-positions.12

From this perspective, the strategic choiceof social situations may enable both highself-monitoring and low self-monitoring in-dividuals to regularly and consistently enacttheir characteristic behavioral orientations.Moreover, by their strategic choice of situ-ations, high self-monitoring individuals andlow self-monitoring individuals may createfor themselves social worlds that ensure the

perpetuation of their self-monitoring pro-pensities—social worlds in which high self-monitoring individuals continue to be highself-monitors and low self-monitoring indi-viduals continue to be low self-monitors.

Over and above the implications of choos-ing social situations for understanding self-monitoring processes, these activities maycontribute to a more general understandingof behavior in social contexts. Our full un-derstanding of social behavior may dependnot only upon considerations of the behaviorsthat occur in social contexts but also uponconsiderations of the processes by which in-dividuals find themselves in those social con-texts in the first place. After all, individualscannot respond to social situations withoutfirst encountering them. To the extent thatthe situations that individuals encounter areones of their own choosing, understandingthe processes by which individuals choosetheir social settings and interpersonal con-texts becomes essential to understanding theevents that subsequently transpire in thosesocial contexts (for an elaboration of thisargument, see Snyder, 1981). According tothis point of view, the familiar propositionthat an individual's behavior in a social sit-uation is determined by characteristics ofboth the individual and the situation shouldbe amended to propose that social behavioris a function of the individual, the situation,and the processes by which the individualfinds himself or herself in that situation.Only then will it be possible to construct a

12 A further implication of these findings concerns thecharacterization of low self-monitoring individuals. Al-though considerable empirical evidence suggests thattheir behavior in social contexts typically is highly re-sponsive to dispositional influences and only minimallyresponsive to situational influences, low self-monitoringindividuals should not be characterized as totally un-concerned with situational considerations. Indeed, theresults of these two investigations of choosing social sit-uations suggest that low self-monitoring individuals areattentive and responsive to situational considerations(in particular, those situational considerations that per-mit them to assess the extent to which situations provideopportunities to act in accord with their own personaldispositions) prior to entering social situations. That is,low self-monitoring individuals are best characterizedas individuals who are responsive to situational char-acteristics before entering social situations but who,once in social situations, are then responsive to theirown dispositional attributes.

SELF-MONITORING 135

social personality psychology that fully cap-tures the interaction between individuals andsocial situations.

References

Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. An analysisof the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 679-686.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. Manual for theEysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego: Educa-tional and Industrial Testing Service, 1968.

Fisher, R. A. Statistical methods for research workers(10th ed.). Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1946.

Gabrenya, W. K., Jr., & Arkin, R. M. Factor structureand factor correlates of the Self-Monitoring Scale.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1980, 6,13-22.

Jones, M. B. Correlation as a dependent variable. Psy-chological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 69-72.

Hays, W. L. Statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.).New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.

Lippa, R. Expressive control and the leakage of dispo-sitional introversion-extraversion during role-playedteaching. Journal of Personality, 1976, 44, 541-559.

Snyder, M. The self-monitoring of expressive behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974,30, 526-537.

Snyder, M. Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 12). New York: Academic Press, 1979.

Snyder, M. On the influence of individuals on situations.In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality,cognition, and social interaction. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erl-baum, 1981.

Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. Personality and social behav-ior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbookof social psychology (3rd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Ad-dison- Wesley, in press.

Snyder, M., & Monson, T. C. Persons, situations, andthe control of social behavior. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 637-644.

Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B., Jr. When actions reflectattitudes: The politics of impression management.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,34, 1034-1042.

Snyder, M., & Tanke, E. D. Behavior and attitude:Some people are more consistent than others. Journalof Personality, 1976, 44, 510-517.

Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. Attitude-behavior consistency: An individual difference per-spective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 1980, 38, 432-440.

Received May 11, 1981

choosing social situations: two investigations of self ... · choosing social situations: two...

Documents