As designed, participants respond ‘true’ or ‘false’ to each statement, but many researchers have asked respon-
dents to rate the degree to which each statement describes them on 5- or 7-point Likert-type scales.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
A meta-analysis showed that, averaged over numerous studies, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.71 for the
25-item SM Scale and 0.73 for the 18-item version ( Day, Shleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002 ). Furthermore, alpha
coefficients were slightly higher when items were scored on continuous scales (0.77) than when dichotomous
scoring was used (0.72).
Test/C0Retest
One month test /C0retest reliability for both the 25-item and 18-item SM Scales was 0.83 Gangestad & Snyder,
2000). Over a 2-year span, test /C0retest reliability was somewhat lower (0.55; Anderson, 1991 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
The 25-item and 18-item SM Scales correlate positively with public self-consciousness ( r50.32 and 0.22, respec-
tively) and social identity orientation ( r50.28 and 0.20, respectively; Lamphere & Leary, 1990 ). In addition, studies
have shown that, compared with low self-monitors, high self-monitors are more likely to enter into romantic rela-
tionships in order to foster useful social connections ( Jones, 1993 ), define their identities more strongly in terms of
the situation ( Fiske & von Hendy, 1992 ), display less consistency between their attitudes and behaviors ( Ajzen,
Timko, & White, 1982 ), and are more likely to use positive rather than negative tactics to manage their public
impressions (i.e., ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification as opposed to supplication and intimidation;
Bolino & Turnley, 2003 ). High self-monitors are more likely to mimic another person’s behavior unconsciously
when they are trying to affiliate with that individual than are low self-monitors ( Cheng & Chartrand, 2003 ). In work
settings, high self-monitors tend to receive better ratings of their work performance as well as more promotions
than low self-monitors, and they are also more likely to emerge as leaders within the organization ( Day et al., 2002 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The 25-item SM scale is unrelated to Machiavellianism, achievement anxiety, inner-other directedness, and
knowledge about the types of social performances necessary in a wide range of social situations ( Snyder, 1974 ).
Scores correlate weakly with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Psychopathic Deviate scale
(r52 0.20). The 25-item SM Scale has a weak negative correlation with scores on the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale ( r52 0.19).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Factor analytic studies have shown that the original SM Scale is multidimensional, using a variety of extraction
methods (principal axes, maximum likelihood, principal components) and both orthogonal and oblique rotations
(Briggs et al., 1980; Gangestad & Snyder, 2000 ). These findings are problematic because self-monitoring was con-
ceptualized as a unitary construct, and having multiple weakly-correlated factors renders the score difficult to
interpret ( Snyder & Gangestad, 1986 ). In general, the 18-item SM Scale is preferred because it shows greater evi-
dence of being unidimensional than the 25-item version ( Gangestad & Snyder, 2000 ).
Criterion/Predictive
Consistent with the idea that high self-monitors manage th eir impressions more than lows, research has shown that
high self-monitors use more expressive gestures, facial expressions, and vocal tone than low self-monitors ( Ickes &
Barnes, 1977; Snyder, 1974 ). Self-monitors also initiate conversations more than lows ( Ickes & Barnes, 1977 ), possi-
bly in an effort to glean information about others that can be used to manage their impressions effectively.
In a study that examined the relationship between self-monitoring and voting behavior, Girvan, Weaver, and
Snyder (2010) found that high self-monitors rated social consensus as more important to their decision about
which candidate to support than low self-monitors. In addition, high self-monitors took longer to decide who to
vote for than low-self monitors, presumably because obtaining social consensus information about candidates
takes time. Such findings support the notion that high self-monitors are more concerned than lows about behav-
ing in socially appropriate ways.453 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES