We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

See Pricing

What's Your Topic?

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

What's Your Deadline?

Choose 3 Hours or More.
Back
2/4 steps

How Many Pages?

Back
3/4 steps

Sign Up and See Pricing

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Back
Get Offer

Interpersonal Relationship and High Self-monitors

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

Deadline:2 days left
"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

Self-Monitoring and Dating Courtney Borovskis Ramapo College of New Jersey Change is inevitable and we as a society can do nothing to alter this from happening. From what is popular among the different generations to the different hairstyles and clothing options. We are always evolving as a society, except for one aspect in our lives. No matter what generation we were born into and how old we as a society are expected to follow the social norm ultimately finding his or her spouse and end in a committed relationship.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Interpersonal Relationship and High Self-monitors
Just from $13,9/Page
Get custom paper

Relationships are a huge topic today in researching socially how society acts. Constantly asking how do we find this one special person? There have been numerous experiments and researchers who have taken the time to examine and analyze this aspect in our lives. Specifically within this research paper I will be focusing on self-monitoring in relation to dating. The underlying similarity throughout each experiment and all the findings is the psychological construct of self-monitoring.

A theory that deals with expressive controls within an individual is what self-monitoring is defined as. People are overly concerned with how they are perceived buy a possible significant other to make them seem more desirable ending in a positive relationship. Within these self-monitoring people there are two separate categories defining the different personalities. There are both high self-monitors and low self-monitors. High self-monitors tend to closely monitor themselves. Those who fall into this category are more inclined to impress others and work for positive feedback.

In comparison, those who are defined as low self-monitors do not exert the same level of expressive controls. Those in this category tend to stay true to themselves and when in a social situations work off of their own beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions despite the social circumstance. In addition, low self-monitors are less observant and rely more on internal actions rather then falsifying themselves to come off as more desirable. The descriptions of high self-monitors and low self-monitors are not ones hat have recently made there way into our society. These terms have been floating around for numerous generations giving a plethora of time to researchers to extensively research the actions of both the high and low self-monitors spread throughout our society. It is clear that high self-monitors act extremely different in different situations where as low self-monitors have a more unified and consistent sense of self-expression. There is clear difference between the two and that has been extensively proven through the works of researcher over researcher.

Norris and Zweigenhaft go on to experiment with a mixture of male and female participants in order to examine the relationship shown between self-monitoring and trust. They show a slight focus on commitment along with relationships specifically on college students in the US primarily (Norris, Stacy L. , Zweigenhaft, Richard L). David Shaffer and Dorris Bazzini’s research complied with the many descriptions of the self-monitors however, added a new factor to the mix. They found through their own experiments that there is little evidence in dating and self-monitors when the partners are selected from a broad pile of candidates.

Consistently they found that men heavily weighted attractiveness when choosing a significant other. In addition, Shaffer and Bazzini do agree with the statements that certain people will alter themselves to be more attractive to others. Their findings come directly from an experiment, which included 50 male and 50 female undergraduate participants (Shaffer, David R. , Bazzini, Dorris G). Jeffrey Hall, Namkee Park, Hayeon Song, and Michael Cody take the theory of self-monitoring to another level.

They examine the factor a bit further dealing with gender, self-monitoring, the big five personality traits, and demographic characteristics. They show through their experiment that in comparison to others that those who show greater extrinsic motives are reported as high self-monitors and low self-monitors show more intrinsic motives. They go on to say and conclude through their findings that self-monitoring is the strongest and most consistent answer to the misrepresentation in dating (Hall, Jeffrey A. , Park, Namkee. , Song, Hayeon. Cody, Michael). Melinda Jones of the University of Pittsburgh ran a study including 231undergraduates to conduct her study. Her findings completely backed up the theory set forth by Jeffrey Hall, Namkee Park, Hayeon Song, and Michael Cody. Jones conducted two separate studies each one focusing on it’s own specific topic, whether it be high self-monitors or low self-monitors. (Jones, Melinda). The works of these four separate studies though all conducted at different times and in different ways finalized with very similar results.

Are they are all in conjunction with the theories proposed in or target article by Mark Snyder and Jeffry Simpson. A common theme among our society is that everyone is on a constant search for that significant other. And found in each one of these studies it is proven that there are two separate categories when looking at the way people find this other person. Through numerous experiments and hundreds or undergraduate participants we can conclude members of society will either fall into a high self-monitoring category or a low self-monitoring category both showing very different characteristics.

Through reading numerous articles and evidence dealing with self-monitoring and dating and after conducting my own personal experiment located at Ramapo College I believe that self-monitoring will play a major role when dating. The underlying variable to this finding I believe is self-esteem. When you are content with yourself you will produce more intrinsic characteristics, which means a more low self-monitoring way of approaching relationships. However, when the self esteem of a person is not great they will exert high self-monitoring characteristics and that will greatly affect their future relationships.

With my experiment I plan to see results showing those of high self-monitoring people will date for much shorter periods of times and more frequently however when it come to choosing a partner or friend they will more times then likely choose their partner. And those who exhibit low self-monitoring will date for longer periods of times but when it comes down to doing activities with either a friend or partner they are more comfortable in choosing a friend. And in the end I believe we will see much more low self-monitoring people will be dating exclusively rather then those who are high self-monitoring.

Methods Participants This research is hoping to shed light on the self-monitoring and dating tendencies of students enrolled in Ramapo College of New Jersey. In order to receive the most accurate of results necessary to analyze and compare to our hypothesis I originally collected a total of 161 volunteer participants, surveying a good majority of the Ramapo College campus. However, for this project specifically I have focused my work on the bottom 25th percentile and the upper 25th percentile not including the middle 50% in this particular study.

Once removing the middle 50% I came to a final number of 105 undergraduate-students volunteer participants ranging from the ages of 18-25. Within this number 47 people ended up in the lower percentile while 58 people were in the higher percentile. The gender varied and this experiment is based off of the answers of 63 women and 42 men. Procedure Once the experiment was chosen and the surveys were completed I went out and gathered my participants. Each participant was read a cover story when in front of me.

I explain the study and the purpose that I am collecting data on a variety of topics for my Social Psychology class. I continued to explain all answer would be confidential and if they wish to not participate they have every right to stop at any time. I hand each individual participant a consent form and once I receive a verbal consent I then begin the experiment. I have created a two-page survey questing participants on their dating history and current relationship status. Each participant will finish the survey and once done I compiled the findings and put together the results.

The dependent variable or something you have control over so for my experiment would be which type of relationship a participant was in. And what type of dating they seemed to be doing. Also whether the participant found himself or herself to fall into the high self-monitoring category or the low self-monitoring category. While the independent variable, which you, as the experimenter do not necessarily have, control over is the actual participants themselves, specifically a college undergraduate age 18-15 who is enrolled in Ramapo College. Unlike the target article I did not present the participants with actual subjects.

The survey asked them to imagine themselves in each situation listed and answer the question provided. Though our methods of conducting the experiment were different our ultimate goal was similar and in the end our results can be compared and analyzed. Results At the conclusion of my experiment I came to very intriguing results. Before I distributed the survey and collected my results I hypothesized that high self-monitoring people will date for much shorter periods of times and more frequently however when it comes to choosing a partner or friend they will more times then likely choose their partner.

And those who exhibit low self-monitoring will date for longer periods of times but when it comes down to doing activities with either a friend or partner they are more comfortable in choosing a friend. And in the end I believe we will see much more low self-monitoring people will be dating exclusively rather then those who are high self-monitoring. My results when the participants are dating exclusively and for the number of months are significant. A significant value (p-value) is anything less than . 05 and for that particular part I found my data to be . 048.

This allows me to conclude that the connection between the length of time a relationship is and a persons self esteem regarding whether they are a high or low self-monitor has a correlation. In addition, for the low self-monitors I found a mean of 14. 5667 and a standard deviation of 17. 25605. While high self-monitors showed a mean of 11. 9583 and a standard deviation of 9. 46609. However, this is the only part of my results that concluded in a significant finding. When I measured whether these high and low self-monitors would choose a partner or friend I received a p-value of . 60, which does not conclude in a significant finding. Here the low self-monitors had a mean of 1. 1222 and a standard deviation of . 22289. And the high self-monitors showed a mean of 1. 0972 and a standard deviation of . 18334. And lastly when I switched my focus to those participants who are not dating exclusively I found that these results were not significant as well. When I calculated the low and high self-monitors for how many dates each participants went on during the current year I received a p-value of . 890. Here the low self-monitors produced a mean of 1. 5682 and a standard deviation of 1. 7266. And lastly, the high self-monitors results were a mean of 1. 6182 and a standard deviation of 1. 71584. Discussion Through my experiment I focused on recreating Study 2 and Study 3 in the target article produced my Mark Snyder and Jeffry Simpson. In Snyder and Simpson’s article they found that Study 2 high self-monitors were more willing to say they would consider substituting their current partner for that of a friend of the opposite sex. And in Study 3 they found that high self-monitors stated they dated more different people in the past year having shorter relationships with them.

However, in contrary my experiment brought fourth slightly different results. I found that high self-monitors were actually less likely to substitute their current partner for a friend of the opposite sex. But that is where the differences end because as the rest of my results came in I saw multiple similarities between both of our studies. For the participants in my study who were not dating exclusively the high self-monitors were more likely to date more people for a shorter period of time which is exactly what Snyder and Simpson found. I think it was expected to find very similar results to there study.

Our participant database was constructed of a similar generation. We both pulled from a university and focused our interest on the undergraduate population. It is a fair statement to make that across generations dating and relationships take on there own meaning. So what is expected within a dating or even more serious relationship is different depending on your age and where you are in your personal life. So by me taking my participant pool from a similar age group as Snyder and Simpson it was inevitable that my results would be similar.

With both my own experiment and that conducted by Snyder and Simpson I do not see any ethical guidelines crossed. We discussed many in class mainly focusing on experimenter bias but it is clear through both procedures that no bias is presented. There is a possibly that demand characteristics could come into play with a study such as this, however, in specifically my experiment I do not believe this altered my results in anyway. Demand characteristics refer to a participant trying to interoperate the experimenter’s purpose and unconsciously change their own behavior.

But because I was not asking my participants to perform an action of any kind and simply answer questions this type of bias would not be a factor. Another topic discussed in class and could play parts in numerous experiments are confounds. These are underlying variables that could alter the results by showing a false correlation between the dependent and independent variable. With this type of experiment there are no room for confounds to make their way in and alter the results or validity of my results.

Lastly, in psychology we are always questing the construct validity. This is whether not not the measurement tool, which in this study refers to the survey, has the ability to accurately measure the concept being studied. In similar terms in reference to this study specially I believe that the survey construct and handed out to all the participants does properly measure whether a person personality and self-esteem meaning whether they are high or low self-monitors plays a role in their dating and relationship.

This study in all aspects of proper studies in the psychology field meets all standards. It passes ethical issues as well has covers all variables and any issues that do come along sometimes when conducting an experiment. And in conclusion I was able to find a clear connection between a person’s personality and their self-esteem with how they approach social situations with a possible significant other specially with undergraduate students at Ramapo College. References Hall, J. A. , Park, N. , Song, H. , & Cody, M.

J. (2010). Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal Of Social And Personal Relationships, 27(1), 117-135. doi:10. 1177/0265407509349633 Snyder, M. , & Simpson, J. A. (1984). Self-monitoring and dating relationships. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 47(6), 1281-1291. doi:10. 1037/0022-3514. 47. 6. 1281 Jones, M. (1993). Influence of self-monitoring on dating motivations. Journal Of Research In Personality, 27(2), 197-206. oi:10. 1006/jrpe. 1993. 1014 Norris, S. L. , & Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1999). Self-monitoring, trust, and commitment in romantic relationships. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 139(2), 215-220. doi:10. 1080/00224549909598375 Shaffer, D. R. , & Bazzini, D. G. (1997). What do you look for in a prospective date? Reexamining the preferences of men and women who differ in self-monitoring propensities. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(6), 605-616. doi:10. 1177/0146167297236004

Cite this Interpersonal Relationship and High Self-monitors

Interpersonal Relationship and High Self-monitors. (2016, Nov 14). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/interpersonal-relationship-and-high-self-monitors/

Show less
  • Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
  • Get help form professional writers when not sure you can do it yourself
  • Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay
  • Do not copy and paste free to download essays
Get plagiarism free essay

Search for essay samples now

Haven't found the Essay You Want?

Get my paper now

For Only $13.90/page