Self-monitoring as a determinant of self-disclosure reciprocity during the acquaintance process.

Abstract

The present experiment tests the hypothesis that one's self-monitoring abilities affect one's willingness to reciprocate important parameters of a partner's selfdisclosures during the acquaintance process. Subjects who had previously completed Snyder's Self-Monitoring Scale alternated with a confederate in disclosing private information on four personal topics. The confederate spoke first on each topic, presenting either highly intimate or. nonintimate information in response to all four issues. Content analyses of subjects' disclosures provided strong support for the experimental hypotheses: High self-monitors were more likely than low self-monitors to reciprocate the intimacy, emotionality, and descriptive content of the confederate's presentations when self-disclosing to this person. Analyses of postexperimental data suggested that high and low self-monitors processed information about confederates' social behavior similarly but were differentially motivated to use this information when formulating their own self-presentational strategies.Developing relationships between new acquaintances are characterized by the exchange of information about the selves (i.e., self-disclosure). Perhaps the most consistent finding in laboratory studies of the acquaintance process is the so-called "dyadic" or "disclosure reciprocity" effect: The best predictor of the level of self-disclosure that Person X will use in revealing himself or herself to Person Y is the level of disclosure that Person Y exhibited when relating to X (for literature reviews, see Archer, 1979;Chaikin & Derlega, 1974;Cozby, 1973). Typically, reciprocity of disclosure among acquaintances evolves as one member of the dyad assumes the role of "pacesetter" in respectThe authors are indebted to Shelly Barnette, William Combs, Martha McFadden, and Arthur Miltadis, who assisted us in collecting the data, and to Sally Humpheries and Dennis Benson, who served as raters for the content analyses of subjects' self-disclosures. We also wish to thank Gordon J. Chelune and William G. Graziano for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Can chameleons lead?

“…He goes on to cite research (Shaffer, Smith, & Tomarelli, 1982;Shaffer, Ogden, & Wu, 1987) indicating that HSMs and LSMs are equally accurate in their assessments of others' self-disclosures and argues that HSMs and LSMs process contextual cues in similar fashions. They are, however, differentially motivated when it comes to using the cues in shaping their self-presentational strategies.…”

"To carve nature at its joints": On the existence of discrete classes in personality.

“…Sample items are "I would probably make a good actor," "I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people," "I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations," and "I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone else or win their favor"; see Snyder, 1974, p. 531, for a complete list of the 25 items. In research using this measure, all of the hypotheses stated above, and many others, have received empirical support (e.g., Ajzen, Timko, & White, 1982;Becherer & Richard, 1978;Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1982;Danheiser & Graziano, 1982;Ickes, Layden, & Barnes, 1978;Krauss, Geller, & Olson, 1976;Kulik & Taylor, 1981;Lippa, 1976Lippa, , 1978aLippa, , 1978bLippa & Mash, 1979;Lippa, Valdez, & Jolly, 1979;Lutsky, Woodworth, & Clayton, 1980;McCann & Hancock, 1983;Paulhus, 1982;Rarick, Soldow, & Geiser, 1976;Ross, McFarland, & Fletcher, 1981;Shaffer, Smith, & Tomarelli, 1982;Snyder, 1974;Snyder, Berscheid, & Glick, 1985;Snyder & Cantor, 1980;Snyder & Gangestad, 1982;Snyder, Gangestad, & Simpson, 1983;Snyder & Kendzierski, 1982a, 1982bSnyder & Monson, 1975;Snyder & Swann, 1976;Snyder & Tanke, 1976;Tunnell, 1980;Tybout & Scott, 1983;Zanna, Olson, & Fazio, 1980;Zuckerma...…”

Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising.

“…They are adept at tailoring their behavior to fit social and interpersonal considerations of situational appro-priateness (Lippa, 1976) and, as a result, their behavior often displays marked situation-tosituation shifts in the images they convey to other people (Danheizer & Graziano, 1982;Shaffer, Smith, & Tomarelli, 1982). These high self-monitoring individuals are identified by their relatively high scores on the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974).…”