Self‐monitoring as a mediator of conformity

Abstract

A four-factor scale was proposed for measurement of self-monitoring tendency. Conformity data of 95 Japanese students in the Asch/Crutchfleld paradigm were analyzed using its subscales: social sensitivity, other-directedness, acting ability, and persona variability. Conformity pressure level (whether the preceding four or twòothers' unanimously picked a wrong choice) and other-directedness interacted: under high pressure, the higher the other-directedness, the more conforming responses. Also, under low pressure, conformity of those high on other-directedness was significantly lower than under high pressure, but there was no such difference for those low. Persona variability and gender interactively determined judgmental reaction time, as well as responses on a few post-experimental questions. The results indicated usefulness of the proposed four-factor measurement model. Further improvement of the scale through factor analytical methods and construct validation is recommended .

"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...…”

The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership

“…Bystanders seek to avoid undue suspicion from destructive leaders and their regimes, and thus tend to be high self-monitors who view passive compliance as necessary to avoid punishment (Bicchieri, 2006;Rarick, Soldow, & Geizer, 1976;Sankowsky, 1995). Such people tend to be especially influenced by the negative consequences of helping others in certain situations (Karakashian, Walter, Christopher & Lucas, 2006;Kulik & Taylor, 1981;White & Gerstein, 1987) and are less likely to report ethical violations due to concerns about retaliation from others (Fuller et al, 2007;Miceli & Near, 1992;Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003).…”

On alleviating the debilitating effects of accountability on bargaining: Authority and self‐monitoring

“…Low self-monitors exhibit behavior in situations that reflects their own standards. Indeed, research reveals higher correlations between the attitudes and behaviors of low than high self-monitors (Ajzen, Timko & White, 1982;Snyder & Swann, 1976;Snyder & Tanke, 1976;Zanna, Olson & Fazio, 1980), and also indicates that high self-monitors engage in less cross-situational consistency than lows (Rarick, Soldow & Geizer, 1976;Snyder & Monson, 1975).…”