Journal of Penonabty and Social Psycholofy. 1984. Vol 47. No 6. 1281-1291. Copynght 19S4 by the. American Psychological Anociauon. Inc. Self-Monitoring ...
Copynght 19S4 by the American Psychological Anociauon. Inc
Journal of Penonabty and Social Psycholofy 1984. Vol 47. No 6. 1281-1291
Self-Monitoring and Dating Relationships Mark Snyder and Jeflry A. Simpson University of Minnesota In four investigations we examined the involvement of self-monitoring propensities in dating relationships. In the first and second investigations we examined willingness to change dating partners and form close, intimate dating relationships with other partners. High self-monitoring individuals were willing and low selfmonitoring individuals unwilling to terminate current relationships in favor of alternative partners. In the third investigation we examined specific features of dating lives. For those involved in multiple dating relationships, high selfmonitonng individuals reported having dated a greater number of partners in the preceding year than low self-monitoring individuals; for those in steady, exclusive dating relationships, low self-monitoring individuals reported having dated their current partner for considerably longer than high self-monitoring individuals. In the fourth investigation we examined growth of intimacy in dating relationships. The link between length of relationship and level of intimacy was more pronounced for low than high self-monitoring individuals. This converging evidence suggests that high self-monitoring individuals adopt an "uncommitted" and low selfmonitoring individuals a "committed" orientation toward dating relationships. Implications for understanding the evolution of intimate relationships, including marital ones, are discussed.
Recently, investigations of personality and friendship have identified systematic differences between categories of individuals in the nature of their friendships. One category of individuals seems to prefer highly differentiated or compartmentalized social worlds in which they engage in particular activities with specific partners chosen because of their particular skill or expertise in that activity domain. Another category of individuals appears to prefer social worlds that are relatively homogeneous and undifferentiated in terms of the links between friends and activities, with activity partners chosen because they are well-liked by these individuals.
This research and the preparation of this manuscript were supported in part by the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota and in part by National Science Foundation Grant BNS 82-07632 to Mark Snyder. We are grateful to Barbara Brown for help in conducting the second investigation, to Steve Gangestad and Andrew C. Brod for their statistical advice in the fourth investigation, and to Steve Gangestad, Dave Smith, and Jason Young for their helpful comments on this manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to Mark Snyder, Laboratory for Research in Social Relations, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.
These contrasting categories of individuals are identified by the psychological construct of self-monitoring (Snyder, 1979), which differentiates between individuals whose social behavior is particularly responsive to situational and interpersonal cues (high self-monitoring) and individuals whose actions typically reflect underlying attitudes, dispositions, and other personal attributes (low self-monitoring). In keeping with their characteristic situationally guided behavioral orientation, when choosing friends, high self-monitoring individuals seek to maximize the fit between their friends and the activity situations in which they interact with them. And in keeping with their characteristic dispositionally guided behavioral orientation, when choosing friends, low self-monitoring individuals seek to maximize the fit between their friends and their own personal attributes. One way in which these differing social worlds are revealed is in choices of friends as partners for leisure activities. Snyder, Gangestad, and Simpson (1983) presented individuals with choices that involved engaging in particular leisure activities with specific members of their social worlds. These choices posed contrasts of the form, for example,
1281
1282
MARK SMYDER AND JEFFRY A. SIMPSON
either "playing tennis with Fred" (who is particularly good at tennis but not so well liked) or "going sailing with Paul" (who is very well liked but not so proficient in sailing) to individuals who actually played tennis and went sailing. Faced with such choices, high self-monitoring individuals chose friends who were particular specialists in the activity at hand and low self-monitoring individuals chose friends whom they generally liked. Thus far, the evidence for these contrasting orientations comes exclusively from investigations of same-sex friendships. Needless to say, not all friendships are same-sex ones, and it takes only a moment to bring to mind all the reasons why what might be true of same-sex friendships might not necessarily be true of other-sex friendships. Do the considerations involved in the selection of samesex activity partners extend to the selection of other-sex activity partners? Would high self-monitoring individuals, when given a choice between going out on a casual date (say, to play tennis) with either their current dating partner (who is an average tennis player) or an other-sex friend (who is an accomplished tennis player) base their decision on how well-suited the person is to the activity in question and choose the "specialist" (othersex friend)? And would low self-monitoring individuals, when given the same choice, not invoke these considerations and instead choose their current dating partner? To answer these questions, we conducted the first investigation. Investigation 1 In the first investigation, we presented individuals with choices that involved engaging in particular dating activities, in which they typically engaged, with prospective dating partners who were members of their social worlds. These choices were of the form, for example, either "going bowling on a casual date with Jill" (an other-sex friend particularly skilled at bowling but not a current dating partner) or "going skiing on a casual date with Ann" (a current dating partner not particularly skilled at skiing). We then examined whether, as with same-sex friendships, high self-monitoring individuals would choose other-sex friends (who were "specialists" in
the particular dating activities) and low selfmonitoring individuals would choose their current dating partner (who was not a "specialist" in the particular dating activities). Method Participants Thirty-two male and female University of Minnesota undergraduates participated for course credit in introductory psychology. Scores on the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974), administered earlier in the academic quarter, were available for all participants. Fifteen high self-monitonng (scores a 15) and 17 low self-monitoring (scores s 10) individuals participated in individual sessions.
Procedure Identifying activity domains. The experimenter (unaware of the participant's self-monitoring classification) explained that he was studying the activities people engage in when dating. Each participant then nominated one activity representative of his or her actual dating activity in each of five domains: noncompetitive recreational activities (e.g., hiking, sailing, picnicking), participatory sporting activities (e.g., bowling, tennis, softball), nonparticipatory sporting activities (e.g., watching basketball, hockey, or baseball), attending cultural events (e.g., ballet, theater, concerts), and attending movies. Identifying the dating partner and other-sex friends The participant then identified which activity his or her current or "most steady" dating partner was particularly "made for," "suited to," or seemed to be a particular specialist in. The participant next nominated four different other-sex friends (all nondating partners), each of whom was "made for" one of the remaining four activity domains. The experimenter then assessed the participant's global attitudes, preferences, and liking for the four othersex friends by presenting every possible pairing for a judgment of, on the whole, which individual the participant would prefer to spend time with on a typical day On the basis of these paired comparisons, the experimenter constructed a rank ordering of these global preferences, ordered from Rank 1 (most liked other-sex friend) to Rank 4 (least liked other-sex friend). Constructing activity/partner combinations The experimenter then constructed 10 paired choices. In the first 4, going on a casual date "for purposes of enjoying yourself" with the current dating partner and engaging in an activity for which he or she was a nonspecialist was pitted against going on a casual date with the most liked other-sex friend (Rank 1) and engaging in an activity for which he or she was the specialist. For the next 3 choices, the current dating partner in a nonspecialist activity was pitted against the second-ranked other-sex friend in his or her specialist activity. For the next 2 choices, the current dating partner in a nonspecialist activity was pitted against the third-ranked other-sex friend in his or her specialist activity. In the final choice, the current dating partner in a nonspecialist activity was pitted against the fourth-ranked other-sex friend in his or her
1283
SELF-MONITORING AND DATING RELATIONSHIPS specialist activity. For each choice (in which order of presentation of activity/partner components was counterbalanced within participants), the experimenter recorded whether the participant chose the specialist (othersex friend) or the nonspecialist (current dating partner). The experimenter then thanked participants for their participation in the investigation and allowed them to leave.
Results and Discussion Mean frequencies with which participants chose other-sex friends and the current dating partner as the preferred partner for a casual date are presented in Table 1. Across the complete set of choices, high self-monitoring individuals chose to go out on a casual date with a friend who, although not the current dating partner, was a specialist in the particular dating activity more frequently than did low self-monitoring individuals, and low selfmonitoring individuals chose to go out with the current dating partner, despite the fact that he or she was a nonspecialist, more frequently than did high self-monitoring individuals, 430) = 4.67, p < .001.' Of the set of choices, four involved engaging in the same dating activity, either with a specialist other-sex friend or with a nonspecialist current dating partner. Because these four choices eliminate any differential desirability between the dating activities under consideration, they provide a more precise test of our predictions. Within these four choices, high self-monitoring individuals chose a specialist other-sex friend more frequently than did low self-monitoring individuals, and low self-monitoring individuals chose the nonspecialist current dating partner more frequently than did high self-monitoring individuals (for mean frequencies, see Table 1), r(30) = 7.16, / x . 0 0 1 . That is, high selfmonitoring individuals allotted a clear majority (70%) of their choices of dating partners to specialist other-sex friends, and low selfmonitoring individuals allotted a definite majority (78%) of their choices to nonspecialist current dating partners. At the very least, the results of the first investigation suggest that the same considerations are invoked when individuals low and high in self-monitoring choose same-sex and other-sex friends as activity partners. Furthermore, these outcomes also may have im-
Tablc 1 Choosing Partners for Dating Activities: Investigation 1 Individuals' selfmonitoring category Partners Other-sex friends (specialists) Entire set of choices* Subset of commonactivity choices1" Current dating partner (nonspecialist) Entire set of choices' Subset of commonactivity choices'1
High
Low
6.54
3.06
2.80
0.88
3.46
6.94
1.20
3.12
Note. For high self-monitoring individuals, n = 15, and for low self-monitoring individuals, n = 17. * Range = 0-10. b Range = 0 - 4 . c Range = 0-10." Range = 0-4.
plications for the nature of the dating relationships preferred by and pursued by low and high self-monitoring individuals. In the second, third, and fourth investigations, we examined these implications. Investigation 2 Clearly, when engaging in social activities with other-sex friends, high and low selfmonitoring individuals differ in their apparent degree of commitment to their current dating partners. What is less clear is whether they differ in their degree of commitment when more serious dating relationships are considered. Does the fact that high self-monitoring individuals prefer to engage in many social activities with specialized partners other than their current dating partners imply a lack of commitment to their current dating relationship and a willingness to consider other members of their social worlds as replacements for their current dating partners? And does the preference of low self-monitoring individuals for engaging in social activities with their current dating partners, even when their partners are not particularly well suited for those 1 There was no reliable difference between women and men in the allocation of choices to other-sex friends and to the current dating parter, 1(30) = 0.14, ns.
1284
MARK SNYDER AND JEFFRV A. SIMPSON
activities, reflect strong commitment to the Table 2 dating relationship itself and an unwillingness Choosing Dating Partners: Investigation 2 to consider changing dating partners? Individuals' selfTo determine whether high and low selfmonitoring monitoring individuals differ in their oriencategory tations toward commitment in dating relaPartners High Low tionships, we presented individuals with choices that involved the prospect of dating Willingness to change different members of their own social worlds. dating partner We predicted that high self-monitoring indiOther-sex friend choices 2.15 0.69 Current dating partner viduals would be relatively willing to change choices 1.85 3.31 dating partners and to form a close dating Willingness to form close, relationship with someone other than their intimate dating current dating partner, and that low selfrelationship monitoring individuals would be relatively Other-sex friend choices 1.86 0.50 Current dating partner unwilling to change dating partners and relchoices 2.14 3.50 atively willing to continue forming a close, intimate relationship with their current Note For high self-monitoring individuals, n = 14, and partner. for low self-monitoring individuals, n = 16. Method Participants Thirty male and female undergraduates (14 high in self-monitoring, scores £ 15; 16 low in self-monitoring, scores & 10) at the University of Minnesota, all of whom had taken part in Investigation 1, participated in the second investigation.2
Procedure Approximately 4 weeks after the first investigation, a second experimenter (blind to self-monitoring classification) telephoned each participant and explained that the first experimenter "mistakenly" had omitted a series of questions. She then presented two sets of four paired choices, each of which pitted the participant's current dating partner against each of his or her four other-sex friends (all five of whom had been identified during the first investigation).
Change of Dating Partner Choices In the first four choices, participants were asked, "If you could change dating partners, which individual, if any, would you substitute for [name of current dating partner]?" For each choice (in which order of presentation of partners was counterbalanced within participants), the experimenter noted whether the participant chose the current dating partner or the other-sex friend.
whether the participant chose the current dating partner or the other-sex friend The experimenter then presented a full, detailed explanation of the two studies, including the anticipated outcomes.
Results and Discussion Willingness to Change Dating Partner Mean frequencies with which individuals chose other-sex friends and current dating partners, in response to the question "If you could change dating partners . . . ?", are presented in Table 2. Within this set of choices, high self-monitoring individuals typically chose to substitute an other-sex friend for the current dating partner, and low self-monitoring individuals overwhelmingly chose to retain the current dating partner, f(28) = 2.92, p < .005.3 That is, high self-monitoring individuals seemed willing and low self-monitoring individuals unwilling to leave their current dating relationships for other potential partners.
Close, Intimate Relationship Choices In the next four choices, participants were asked, "If you could ideally form a close, intimate dating relationship with either [name of current dating partner] or [name of an other-sex friend] whom would you choose?" For each choice (in which order of presentation was counterbalanced within participants), the experimenter recorded
2 Two individuals (one high and one low in selfmonitoring) could not be reached despite repeated attempts to contact them. 1 There was no reliable difference between men and women in the allocation of choices to other-sex friends and to the current dating partner, /(28) = 0.61, ns.
SELF-MONITORING AND DATING RELATIONSHIPS
Willingness to Form Close, Intimate Relationships
1285
In the third investigation, we examined the dating lives of individuals involved in multiple, nonexclusive dating relationships ("multiple" daters) and steady, exclusive dating relationships ("single" daters). We predicted that for multiple daters, high self-monitoring individuals would have dated a larger number of dating partners within the preceding year than would low self-monitoring individuals, and that for single daters, low self-monitoring individuals would have dated their current partner for longer periods of time than would high self-monitoring individuals.
Table 2 also contains mean frequencies with which individuals chose other-sex friends and current dating partners, in response to the question "If you could ideally form a close, intimate dating relationship. . . ?" Within this set of choices, high self-monitoring more frequently than low self-monitoring individuals chose an other-sex friend, and low self-monitoring more frequently than high self-monitoring individuals chose the current dating partner as the person with whom they preferred to form a close, intimate Method dating relationship, *(28) = 2.61, p< .01.4 Participants That is, high self-monitoring individuals expressed a relatively strong desire to form a One hundred sixty male and female undergraduates close, intimate dating relationship with some- at the University of Minnesota participated for course one other than their current partner, and low credit in introductory psychology. Scores on the SelfMonitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974), collected before the self-monitoring individuals expressed a com- study, were available for all participants. Eighty-nine high paratively strong desire to form a close, inti- self-monitoring (scores & 1S) and 71 low self-monitoring mate dating relationship with their current (scores £ 10) individuals were surveyed about their dating lives. dating partner. Together these results suggest that individ- Procedure uals low and high in self-monitoring differ in daters were identified by their "no" response their stated degree of commitment to their to Multiple the question "Do you have a current dating partner current dating relationships and in their pref- whom you have been dating exclusively' and by their erences for forming close, intimate dating indication of 2 or more in response to "How many relationships with new partners. However, it different individuals have you dated in the last year?" remains to be seen—in Investigations 3 and The 48 high and 34 low self-monitoring multiple daters reported how many different individuals they had 4—whether the actual dating lives of these then dated in the last year. Single daters were identified by individuals corroborate the claims of partic- their "yes" reponse to the question "Do you have a ipants in the second investigation. current dating partner whom you have been dating Investigation 3 If individuals high and low in self-monitoring differ in their orientations toward commitment in dating relationships, then there ought to be differences in the structural features of their dating activities. If high selfmonitoring individuals adopt an uncommitted orientation, then their dating lives should be characterized by relatively large networks of different dating partners and by dating relationships of relatively short duration. Moreover, if low self-monitoring individuals adopt a committed orientation, then their dating lives should be characterized by relatively small networks of different dating partners and by dating relationships of relatively long duration.
exclusively" The 41 high and 37 low self-monitoring single daters then indicated the length of time they had dated their exclusive dating partner.
Results and Discussion Number of Dating Partners Mean numbers of dating partners are presented in Table 3. Among those classified as multiple daters, high self-monitoring individuals reported that they had dated nearly twice as many different partners in the preceding 12 months than did low self-monitoring individuals, 1(80) = 2.44, p < .01.5 4 There was no reliable difference between women and men in allocating choices to other-sex friends and to the current dating partner, /(28) = 0.70, ns. 5 No differences were found between men and women in number of different dating partners, r(80) = 0.49, ns.
1286
MARK SNYDER AND JEFFRY A. SIMPSON
Table 3 Dating Patterns of Single Daters and Multiple Daters: Investigation 3 Individuals' selfmonitoring category Type of dating relationship Multiple daters. Number of different partners dated within preceding 12 months' Single daters: Number of months having dated current partner1'
High
Low
following: How are self-monitoring propensities reflected in the initial emergence of intimacy in dating relationships? How are they reflected in the growth of intimacy in dating relationships? And how are they reflected in levels of intimacy in long-standing dating relationships? Method
5.81
359
Participants
* For high self-monitoring individuals, n = 48, and for low self-monitoring individuals, n = 34. b For high self-monitoring individuals, n = 41, and for low self-monitoring individuals, n = 37
Two hundred fifty-seven male and female undergraduates at the University of Minnesota participated for introductory psychology course credit. Scores on the SelfMonitonng Scale (Snyder, 1974), collected earlier in the academic quarter, were available for all participants; 120 high self-monitoring (scores S: 14) and 137 low selfmonitoring (scores s 13) individuals participated in individual interviews.
Longevity of Relationships
Procedure
Mean lengths of time having dated current partners are also presented in Table 3. For those classified as single daters, low selfmonitoring individuals reported having dated their steady partners for nearly twice as long as did high self-monitoring individuals, f(76) = 3.06, p < .005.6 Together these analyses reveal substantial differences in the structural features of the dating lives of individuals high and low in self-monitoring. For those involved in multiple relationships, it is high self-monitoring individuals who have dated a greater number of different partners, a finding that seems to be another reflection of an uncommitted orientation to dating relationships. For those involved in single relationships, it is low selfmonitoring individuals who are involved in relationships of relatively long duration, an occurrence that may be another manifestation of a committed orientation to dating relationships.
The experimenter (unaware of the participant's selfmonitoring classification) administered a short "social networks" questionnaire that included these two items"How long have you been dating [your current dating partner]?" and "How would you describe your current relationship with [your current dating partner]?", answered on a 7-point intimacy scale (1 = very casual, little intimacy. 7 = very serious, great intimacy). The experimenter then explained the purposes and the anticipated outcomes of the study.
10.85
20.22
Results How are self-monitoring propensities reflected in the emergence, growth, and maintenance of intimacy in dating relationships? To answer these questions, we performed a linear multiple regression analysis with length of dating relationship as the independent variable (transformed to reciprocals to satisfy the linearity assumption of regression analysis with time as the independent variable; cf. Kirk, 1982; Neter & Wasserman, 1974) and reported intimacy with the dating partner as the dependent variable.7 We then proceeded
Investigation 4 Because dating activities are often the first steps in the development of increasingly close and intimate relationships (including marriages), we now turn to a consideration of the feelings of intimacy associated with dating relationships of wide ranging duration (from a few weeks to several years). In particular, we sought answers to questions such as the
6 No differences between women and men were found in the reported length of current, steady dating relationships, ((76) = .00, ns. 1 1f reciprocal transformations are particularly appropriate to use when one or more variables are scaled in units of time (cf. Kirk, 1982; Neter & Wasserman, 1974), then it ought to be possible to demonstrate that the transformation that we used provides a better fit to the data than other common (e.g., logarithmic, square root)
1287
SELF-MONITORING AND DATING RELATIONSHIPS
to fit two optimal (least squares) regression high than low self-monitoring individuals, lines (see Figure 1) to the data, one for high 1(253) = 2.44, p < .02. and one for low self-monitoring individuals. Analysis of Intimacy Growth Analysis of Early Intimacy How are self-monitoring propensities reHow are self-monitoring propensities re- flected in the growth of intimacy in dating flected in the initial emergence of intimacy relationships? To answer this question, we in dating relationships? To address this ques- examined the slopes (beta weights) of the tion, we examined the regression lines of regression lines of low and high self-monitorhigh and low self-monitoring individuals to ing individuals. Because the absolute magnicompare their projected intercept values at a tude of a beta weight indicates the rate at point in time when their relationships had which one variable changes in magnitude existed for two weeks, an interval long enough with respect to another, any difference beto allow individuals to reflect on their first tween the regression line slopes can be taken date, yet short enough to permit an early as evidence of a difference in the rate at assessment of the intimacy in the relationship. which intimacy increases with length of dating This analysis revealed a higher degree of relationship. Comparison of the beta weights intimacy in the early dating relationships of indicated that as length of dating relationship
HIGH SELF-MONITORING INDIVIDUALS
LOW SELF-MONITORING INDIVIDUALS
24 12 9
5
6 LENGTH OF RELATIONSHIP IN MONTHS
Figure 1. Intimacy of dating relationship as a function of length of dating relationship. (Because reciprocal transformations invert the scaling of the transformed variable, on the x axis, smaller values of the independent variable are farther from and larger values nearer to the origin. Moreover, the portions of the regression lines to the left of their intersection actually represent a greater span of time—all relationships over 6 months—than the portions to the right—only relationships of less than 6 months.)
1288
MARK SNYDER AND JEFFRY A. SIMPSON
increases, intimacy increases at a faster and more pronounced rate for low than for high self-monitoring individuals (/3s = -7.93 and -4.78, respectively), t(253) = 2.60, p< .01.8 Evidently, length of relationship is a substantially better predictor of intimacy in the dating relationships of low than high selfmonitoring individuals. Analysis of Long-Term Intimacy How are self-monitoring propensities reflected in the intimacy of dating relationships that have existed for a long time? Once again we examined the regression lines of high and low self-monitoring individuals to compare their projected intercepts at a point in time corresponding to 4 years, an interval chosen because it reflects the length of time typically spent in college and because relationships of this length are reasonably likely to evolve into marital ones. This analysis revealed a tendency for low self-monitoring individuals to experience higher levels of intimacy in long-term dating relationships than high selfmonitoring individuals, 1(253) = 1.73, p < .10. 1.73, p
