The dark side of self-monitoring: how highself-monitors view their romantic relationships.

Individuals differ with regard to self-monitoring. Although self-monitoring is positively related to social skills, little research informs how it influences relational processes. Because self-monitoring gives rise to impression management, it may promote less intimate communication and lower relational

quality. A survey of 97 (N = 97) undergraduate daters was conducted. Results revealed that self-monitoring was negatively related to intimate communication and relational quality. Intimate communication mediated the relationships between self-monitoring and relational quality. Thus, self-monitoring tendencies that enhance the quality of the communication skills of high self-monitors attenuate relational quality.

Keywords: Intimate Communication; Relational Commitment; Relational Satisfaction; Self-Monitoring

**********

Many consider communication to be a significant factor in establishing a quality relationship. More specifically, effective communication skills are thought to help initiate and enhance romantic relationships because they help individuals reach benchmarks and attain desired goals within the relationship (Dindia & Timmerman, 2003). Self-monitoring tendencies are positively related to communication skills. A high self-monitor is someone who is "particularly sensitive to the situational appropriateness of his or her social behavior and who uses these cues as guidelines for monitoring (that is, regulating and controlling) his or her expressive behavior and self-presentations" (Snyder, 1987, p. 14). High self-monitors are more socially skilled (Furnham & Capon, 1983), more likely to engage in affiliation cues with others (Cheng & Chartrand, 2003) and better able to manage their impressions (Turnley & Bolino, 2001) than are their low self-monitoring counterparts.

Not surprisingly, self-monitoring promotes success in a number of areas. High self-monitors are more effective negotiators (Jordan & Roloff, 1997), experience fewer conflicts with colleagues (Baron, 1989), are more likely to receive job promotions (Day, Schleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002) and are more likely to emerge as leaders (Day et al., 2002) than are low self-monitors. However, there is evidence suggesting that high self-monitors could have difficulty sustaining long-term relationships. With regard to jobs, high self-monitors have lower job commitment (Day et al., 2002) and are more likely to quit their jobs (Kilduff & Day, 1994) than are low self-monitors. In addition, high self-monitors are less committed to their dating relationships and more willing, than low self-monitors, to leave their current romantic partners for others (Snyder & Simpson, 1984). Finally, high self-monitors are more prone to divorce than are low self-monitors (Leone & Hall, 2003).

Unfortunately, research has not explored the basis for the link between the communication behavior of high and low self-monitors and their relational orientation. Paradoxically, it is quite possible that their abilities to engage in expressive control (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Snyder, 1974) could work against efforts to develop positive and quality romantic relationships. We conducted a research project to better understand why high self-monitors may form lower quality relationships. In developing our analysis, we begin by examining the characteristics of self-monitoring and how they influence relational communication and quality. We then present the results from a study designed to test our hypotheses.

Self-Monitoring and Relational Dynamics

Snyder (1987, p. 4) posits that there are "differences in the extent to which people monitor (observe, regulate, and control) the public appearances of self they display in social situations and interpersonal relationships." High self-monitors alter their self-presentation to adapt to the situation and/or social climate that they encounter. To do so, high self-monitors are thought to be skilled communicators who are sensitive to situational demands and can alter their emotional expressions so that they are appropriate to the situation (Snyder, 1974). In contrast, low self-monitors exhibit relatively stable and consistent behavior regardless of the situations they may encounter.

Snyder (1987) hypothesized that self-monitoring tendencies influence the kind of relationships that people form. He argues that a typical romantic relationship develops from a superficial stage to one in which relational partners explore fundamental values but that not all individuals progress at the same rate through the various stages. Snyder (1987) notes:

   The differing orientations [i.e., attachment styles] of people low
   and high in self-monitoring suggest not only that their
   relationships move through the stages at different rates, but also
   that they actually begin and end at different stages ... low low
   self-monitoring romances start at the value stage ... High
   self-monitors initiate dates on the basis of physical appearance
   and perhaps may never get to the value stage. (p. 79)

Hence, self-monitoring may cause an individual to form superficial relationships that are easily replaceable. Not surprisingly, high self-monitors are more likely than low self-monitors to leave their dating partners in favor of another person, to have dated a larger number of people, to have sex without commitment (Snyder, Simpson, & Gangestad, 1986) and, regardless of relational length, are more likely to have dating relationships of lower levels of intimacy and trust (Snyder & Simpson, 1984). Unfortunately, research does not adequately inform why self-monitoring leads to relationships of lower quality. We suspect that this may result from the communication skills associated with self-monitoring.

Self-Monitoring and Relational Communication

Individuals' self-monitoring tendencies could influence how intimately they communicate in relationships. While high self-monitors adapt their self-presentations in order to ensure that they properly fit a situation and/or social climate, low self-monitors, on the other hand, are prone to present themselves in a consistent fashion. In part, the impression management exhibited by high self-monitors is driven by attempts to achieve positive situational outcomes or favorable perceptions from others. When reviewing research on self-monitoring, Gangestad and Snyder (2000) noted:

   The studies in these categories can best be characterized as
   concerning the active construction of public selves designed to
   achieve social ends, a process perhaps most appropriately referred
   to as image projection. That is, the specific form of impression
   management practiced by high self-monitors may involve attempts to
   control such inference not merely by suppressing information about
   the self that could be construed by others in a negative way, but
   rather by actively constructing and cultivating public identities
   (that is, by projecting images) that entitle favorable outcomes.
   (p. 546)

Although image projection may allow a person to achieve short-term goals such as dampening conflict and gaining compliance, it may be counterproductive to achieving other relational goals.

Intimacy is very important to the development of close relationships. Through verbal and nonverbal intimate behaviors "(e.g., verbal disclosure, active listening, physical affection, sexual contact) individuals share with others that which is personal and private" (Prager, 2000, p. 231). High self-monitors' tendency to mask their true self or true feelings in order to appear positively to others and/or to yield positive outcomes may inhibit the degree of intimate communication in his or her relationship. Specifically, intimate communication involves interactions in which individuals confide in their partner about personal issues, emotions and feelings. Because such disclosures could involve releasing information that may be face threatening to the discloser or recipient and consequently deemed socially inappropriate, high self-monitors may avoid these and other such behaviors, which stymie relational development. Furthermore, high self-monitors' participation in intimate interactions may not be sincere disclosures of their true self (Snyder, 1974) and consequently, thwart the development of genuine relational intimacy. High self-monitors may become more "situationally guided" when facing decisions regarding self-disclosure (Shaffer, Ogden, & Wu, 1987, p. 95). Consequently, they may "reciprocate the important parameters of their partners' self-disclosures in order to curry favor and thereby increase their chances of obtaining positive outcomes" (Shaffer et al., 1987, p. 91). In contrast, low self-monitors hardly depend on situational cues to guide their behavior and hence, should be more willing to provide accurate portraits of their feelings to their partners. This logic and previous research led to the development of our first hypothesis:

H1: There will be a negative relationship between self-monitoring tendencies and intimate communication in a romantic relationship.

We suppose that these communication deficits may reduce the relational quality experienced by high self-monitors.

Self-Monitoring and Relational Quality

The ability to discuss personal issues in an open, constructive, and honest manner is thought to facilitate intimacy as individuals come to better understand one another and, if necessary, to be supportive of one another. Certainly, openness can sometimes hurt a relationship, but the general tendency to avoid such disclosures may retard relational quality. Self-disclosure fosters the very sense of intimacy that sustains close relationships (Prager, 2000; Reis & Shaver, 1988; Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004). Research shows that intimacy enhances levels of satisfaction, commitment, love, and trust in close relationships (Prager, 1995). High self-monitors, however, are less likely to engage in intimate interactions in which they share genuine emotions and personal disclosures with their partners. As a result, high self-monitors may not reap the benefits associated with being in intimate relationships, such as relational satisfaction (Meeks, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1998), relational stability, commitment, and love (Sprecher, 1987) and therefore, may have a tendency to find their relationships to be unsatisfying. Relational satisfaction is a strong predictor of relational commitment (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Le & Agnew, 2003; Rusbult, 1980) and mediates the relationship between interpersonal rewards and commitment (Bui, Peplau, & Hill, 1996). The investment model of commitment posits that the degree to which an individual is satisfied with his or her relational experiences significantly influences his or her level of relational commitment (Rusbult, 1983). Because of their inability to engage in regular and sincere intimate disclosures, high self-monitors are not expected to experience much relational satisfaction and hence, are relatively less committed to their relationships relative to low self-monitors. This analysis suggests the following hypotheses.

H2: There will be a negative relationship between self-monitoring tendencies and relational satisfaction.

H3: There will be a negative relationship between self-monitoring tendencies and relational commitment.

H4: Intimate communication will mediate the relationship between self-monitoring and relational satisfaction and commitment.

H5: The negative relationship between self-monitoring and relational commitment will be mediated by relational satisfaction.

Next we report the results of a study that tests our notions.

Method

Research Participants

A total of 188 students were recruited from the Communication Studies Research Pool at a private midwestern university and received two units of required course credit for their participation. Of these students, 97 were currently involved in a dating relationship while participating in this study and their data alone was analyzed for the present investigation. Approximately 62% (60) were female and 38% (37) male. The average age of respondents was 19.69 (SD = .94). Among these participants, 23 were classified as freshman, 39 as sophomores, 24 were juniors and 11 had senior status. The average length of their romantic relationships was 13.67 months (SD = 13.69). Using a measure created by Billingham (1987), we asked participants about the levels of emotional commitment in their romantic relationships. Ninety-three responded to the question. Seven (7.5%) described their romantic partner as someone they date occasionally, but to whom they are not emotionally attached. Six (6.5%) reported that they dated their partner often but felt no emotional commitment. Fifteen (16.1%) felt emotionally attached to their partner but were not in love. Twenty-two (23.7%) were in love with their partner. Fourteen (15.1%) were in love and would like to marry their partner but had not discussed marriage with him or her. Twenty-eight (30.1%) were in love and had discussed marriage but had not made any plans. One person (1.1%) was engaged to his/her romantic partner.

Measures

A total of five measures were utilized to assess the degrees of self-monitoring, intimate communication, levels of emotional commitment, relational satisfaction, and relational commitment associated with the participants' romantic relationships. (1) All multiple item scales were formed by summing the items and dividing by the total number of items.

Self-monitoring was assessed on a 25-item modified version of Snyder's (1974) self-monitoring scale. (2) Since its creation, this scale has been the subject of controversy (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). When forming the scale, Snyder (1974) chose items that reflected five sets of tendencies: (a) concern for social appropriateness of one's self-presentation, (b) attention to social comparison information as cues for acting socially appropriate, (c) ability to control one's self-presentation, (d) ability to adapt one's self-presentation to situational demands, and (e) the degree to which one's self-presentation is cross-situationally consistent. Because of the diversity of content, it is not surprising that some factor analyses have found it to be multidimensional (e.g., Briggs, Cheek, & Buss, 1980; Gabrenya & Arkin, 1980; Lennox, 1988), although a stable set of factors has not emerged (Hoyle & Lennox, 1991) and at least one study found it to be one-dimensional (Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1987). Although acknowledging its multidimensionality, Gangestad and Snyder (2000) noted "taxonomic analyses reveal that the structure of the self-monitoring items is consistent with their being a common latent variable that reflects two discrete classes of high and low self-monitoring individuals" and that the self-monitoring scale reliably predicts "phenomena related to expressive control and impression management" (p. 534). Because our focus is on expressive control, we treated the scale as unidimensional. Consistent with some researchers (e.g., Briggs et al., 1980) we modified the original dichotomous true/false format so as to be more continuous, 1 (always true) to 6 (always false). Scores were summed across items and divided by the total number of items. All items were coded so that higher self-monitoring behavior was indicated by higher scores(M = 3.81, SD = .43) and was reliable ([alpha] = .74).

Intimate communication was measured on a four-item modified version of an intimacy scale ([alpha] = .94, M= 6.16, SD = 1.18) developed by Roloff, Janiszewski, McGrath, Burns, and Manrai (1988). The scale items focus on the degree to which the respondent discusses personal matters or problems with the partner, confides in the partner and feels that the partner knows him or her. Subject responses ranged on a point scale from 1 (very much) to 7 (not at all).

Levels of emotional commitment were measured across seven statements characterizing the relational stage of romantic relationships (Billingham, 1987). (3) Subjects were asked to choose the statement that most closely described the level of emotional commitment in their relationship.

Relational satisfaction was measured on a reliable four-item scale ([alpha] = .76, M = 6.87, SD = 1.09) used by Rusbult (1983). Subject responses ranged on a point scale from 1 (very much) to 8 (completely).

Relational commitment measures were assessed on a reliable four-item scale ([alpha] = .88, M = 6.17, SD = 1.86) used by Rusbult, Johnson, and Morrow (1986). Subject responses ranged on a point scale from 1 (completely false) to 7 (completely true).

Results

Because self-monitoring is negatively correlated with relational duration (Snyder & Simpson, 1984), we were concerned that our statistical tests may yield artifactual associations. It is possible that high self-monitors may have difficulty forming lasting relationships and hence, unlike low self-monitors, they will report on relationships that are in the earlier stages of development. Because less mature relationships tend to have less intimate communication and are of lower relational quality than are those that are more developed, it is possible that any correlation between self-monitoring and our dependent variables is confounded by relational development. Hence, prior to testing the hypotheses, we correlated self-monitoring with relational characteristics. Findings demonstrated that self-monitoring correlates negatively with length of the relationship, r = -.20, p < .05, and with emotional commitment, r = -.18, p < .05. To guard against these confounds, for each hypothesis, we conducted a multiple regression in which we predicted a dependent variable from the respondent's self-monitoring and the two relational characteristics. In this way, we control for the correlation between self-monitoring and each relational commitment. One-tailed significance tests are used when testing a hypothesized relationship and all other tests are two tailed.

In all cases, we report both the unstandardized regression weights (B) and standardized betas ([beta]). Table 1 contains the correlations among all of our measures. The first hypothesis focuses on the relationship between self-monitoring and intimate communication. The remaining four hypotheses examine the relationship between self-monitoring, relational commitment and satisfaction, and a mediator, intimate communication. Tables 2 and 3 contain the relevant information about the regressions that tested our five hypotheses.

Our first hypothesis--there will be a negative relationship between self-monitoring tendencies and intimate communication in a romantic relationship--was fully supported. An additive model containing self-monitoring, relational length, and emotional commitment accounted for significant variance in intimate communication. Findings revealed self-monitoring was negatively related, and both relational length and emotional commitment were positively related with intimate communication.

The second and third hypotheses focus on the relationship between self-monitoring and relational commitment and satisfaction. Table 3 contains the information about the regressions that tested these hypotheses. We found support for our second hypothesis--there will be a negative relationship between self-monitoring tendencies and relational satisfaction. The additive model containing self-monitoring, relational length and emotional commitment accounted for significant variance in relational satisfaction. Self-monitoring was negatively related and emotional commitment was positively related with relational satisfaction. Relational length was not significantly related to relational satisfaction.

Our third hypothesis that there will be a negative relationship between self-monitoring tendencies and relational commitment was also fully supported. An additive model containing self-monitoring and emotional commitment accounted for significant variance in relational commitment. Self-monitoring was negatively related, and emotional commitment was positively related with relational commitment. Relational length was not a significant predictor of relational commitment.

Our fourth hypothesis proposed that the relationship between self-monitoring and relational satisfaction and commitment would be mediated by intimate communication. A number of means have been developed to test mediation effects, but most suffer from low statistical power and unacceptably high Type I errors (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). We chose an approach that provides a robust test (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). This test involves creating an indicator of the indirect effect (aft) from the product of the unstandardized regression coefficients of two terms: (a) self-monitoring and a mediator (i.e., intimacy communication) and (b) a mediator and relational quality (either satisfaction or commitment) controlling for self-monitoring. By using a bootstrapping method, one can create a sample-based estimate of the indirect effect and confidence intervals. In our case, we created 1,000 possible samples. If the 95% confidence interval does not contain zero, then the relationship is considered to be significant.

We first report the mediation tests for relational satisfaction. Only two of the four tests showed evidence of mediation. The confidence interval for the indirect effect of self-monitoring and intimate communication does not contain zero, [alpha][beta] = -.30, lower confidence limit = -.54; upper confidence limit = -.10. Thus the negative association between self-monitoring and relational satisfaction, B = -.88, p < .001, results in part from the negative association between self-monitoring and intimate communication, B= -.75, p < .01, and the positive association between intimate communication and relational satisfaction, B = .41, p < .001.

Next, we report the mediation tests involving relational commitment. With regard to relational commitment, three of the four mediation tests are statistically significant. The confidence intervals do not include zero for the indirect path from self-monitoring to intimate communication, [alpha][beta] = -.69, lower confidence limit = -1.17; upper confidence limit = -.27. Thus the negative association between self-monitoring and relational commitment, B = -.1.36, p < .001, results in part from the negative association between self-monitoring and intimate communication, B = -.75, p < .01, and the positive association between intimate communication and relational commitment, B = .91, p < .001.

Our fifth hypothesis predicted that the relationship between self-monitoring and relational commitment would be mediated by relational satisfaction. In support of this prediction, we found that the confidence interval related to the indirect effect did not include zero, [alpha][beta] = -1.15, lower confidence limit= -1.70; upper confidence limit = -.57. Hence, the negative relationship between self-monitoring and relational commitment, B = -.1.36, p < .001, partly results from the negative association of self-monitoring and relational satisfaction, B = -.88, p < .001, and the positive association between relational satisfaction and commitment, B = 1.30, p < .001.

Discussion

Our predictions were generally confirmed. Self-monitoring was negatively related to self-reported intimate communication, satisfaction, and commitment in a romantic relationship. Importantly, these relationships hold even after controlling for relational length and emotional commitment. Our mediation tests indicated that the negative relationships between self-monitoring with relational satisfaction and commitment result from lower levels of intimate communication. Furthermore, patterns in the table of regressions provided additional interesting conclusions from this study. In all cases, the direction of the regression weight for self-monitoring is in the opposite direction of those for relational characteristics (i.e., length and stage). This observation implies that patterns in relationships of greater length and emotional commitment are the opposite of the relational patterns reported by high self-monitors and thus, reinforces the notion that high self-monitors exhibit communication behaviors that are atypical of individuals in intimate associations.

Our findings are consistent with prior research that indicates that self-monitoring promotes social skills that can lead to goal accomplishment, but may also result in lower levels of relational quality. However, we add to this literature by identifying factors that appear to account for this relationship. Prior to this study, scholars concluded that high self-monitors adopt a superficial orientation toward relationships that is reflected in their lower commitment and willingness to leave relationships (Snyder & Simpson, 1984). We found that this demonstration of lower commitment levels could result from dissatisfaction arising from the lack of intimacy that high self-monitors experience when engaging in relational communication. In other words, the desire to alter one's personality to appropriately fit a given situation or social climate prevents high self-monitors from showcasing their true selves during intimate interactions with their romantic partners and also prompts them to avoid face-threatening interactions, of which disclosures potentially provide. Such impression management could be effortful to conduct, prompt feelings of being inauthentic, and could also reduce the ability of the self-monitor's partner to act in a supportive manner. If so, impression management could also prompt high self-monitors to experience lower levels of relational satisfaction and less commitment to the ongoing relationship. Contrastingly, low self-monitors are less likely to engage in such impression management behaviors and hence, are more likely to honestly express their concerns and emotions with their romantic partners. Although such openness could potentially lead to within couple conflict, it could also help their romantic partners to accommodate their needs. Such accommodations consequently increase the levels of relational satisfaction and commitment that low self-monitors experience and demonstrate in their relationships.

Interestingly, it is possible that a high self-monitor's partner might not be aware of relational problems. Research indicates that high self-monitors experience fewer conflicts than do low self-monitors and when in conflict, high self-monitors are more likely to adopt a collaborative and compromising style than are low self-monitors (Baron, 1989). Moreover, among husbands, self-monitoring facilitates the use of positive relational maintenance strategies such as building up their wife's self-esteem, handling conflicts cooperatively and being nice, courteous, and polite to her (Ragsdale & Brandau-Brown, 2005). Hence, the partner of a high self-monitor may perceive that he or she is in a harmonious relationship and assume that the high self-monitor shares this sentiment. Unfortunately, such harmony may simply reflect impression management. High self-monitors more so than lows believe that disagreement is always destructive (Haferkamp, 1994) and they may be masking their true unhappiness as a way of avoiding an argument. The partners of low self-monitors may have a different experience. Because their low self-monitoring partners are more likely to express their concerns and complaints, they are more confrontational. Consequently, the partners of low self-monitors may have a more accurate read of relational quality although any given interaction may be unpleasant.

Due to the target sample and target variables, this study does have its limitations. First, the population sample consisted of only undergraduate daters and thus, limits the generalizations that can be made from this study to reflect the self-monitoring tendencies in romantic relationships in the society. Because the sample relies mainly on the Communication Studies Research Pool, subjects may possess a higher degree of communication skills than would be observed in other samples. Indeed, we acknowledge that most reported that they engaged in a high degree of intimate communication. However, we would note that we were able to uncover statistically significant relationships even with relatively compressed variation. Second, because of the cross-sectional nature of our design, we cannot provide definitive evidence of causal direction. Given that self-monitoring is considered a stable trait, it is unlikely that communication and relational dynamics would produce it. However, it is possible that relational satisfaction and commitment could influence the type of communication that occurs. In other words, high self-monitors may enter relationships uncommitted and dissatisfied and that causes them to engage in less intimate communication. Only a longitudinal study can provide evidence of causal order, but we are more inclined to believe that the process develops after the relationship is formed. High self-monitors are concerned with social appropriateness and want to engage in actions that help others. This orientation would seem at variance with a rather cynical and pessimistic assessment of their relationships. However, it is possible that after a period of time, high self-monitors experience lower levels of satisfaction and commitment and disengage from intimate communication. Finally, we note that some of our effects sizes are small. Although a number of factors might have reduced the amount of variance accounted for, we suspect that it may have resulted from compressed variance. Most of our sample was composed of people who frequently engage in intimate communication with their partners and are satisfied and committed to their relationships.

The results of this study pose many different opportunities for future research. First, and foremost, a longitudinal study should be conducted with couples in order to understand how self-monitoring affects their relationships. In this study, only one romantic partner was surveyed, but the interplay between the two individuals involved in a romantic relationship could lead to important insights about self-monitors in romantic relationships as well as validating each others' findings. Such a research study could also lead to suggestions as to which pair of self-monitors (i.e., high/high, high/low, low/low) coupled together experience the highest degrees of quality and satisfaction. In addition, such an approach might investigate whether the partner's of high self-monitors are aware of the superficiality of their relational communication and if so, how they know and what, if anything, they do to compensate for it. Furthermore, such a design might examine whether high self-monitors are more likely than low self-monitors to terminate the relationship although they may attempt to do so in a socially acceptable way.

From this study, we discovered that high self-monitors perceive their relationships to be of lower quality than do low self-monitors. In this case, the advanced communication skills used by high self-monitors did not yield more satisfactory relationships. It is the authors' hope that this study will inspire future explorations and research of the complex effects of varying communication skills, or lack thereof, on the health and quality of all relationships.

References

Baron, R. A. (1989). Personality and organizational conflict: Effects of the Type A behavior pattern and self-monitoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 281-296.

Billingham, R. E. (1987). Courtship violence: The patterns of conflict resolution strategies across seven levels of emotional commitment. Family Relations, 36, 283-289.

Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1980). Analysis of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 679-686.

Bui, K., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1996). Testing the Rusbult model of relationship commitment and stability in a 15-year study of heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1244-1257.

Cheng, C. M., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Self-monitoring without awareness: Using mimicry as a nonconscious affiliation strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1170-1179.

Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 390-401.

Dindia, K., & Timmerman, L. (2003). Accomplishing romantic relationships. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 685722). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Furnham, A., & Capon, M. (1983). Social skills and self-monitoring. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 171-178.

Gabrenya, W. K., Jr., & Arkin, R. M. (1980). Self-monitoring: Factor structure and correlates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 13-22.

Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555.

Gudykunst, W. B., Yang, S., & Nishida, T. (1987). Cultural differences in self-consciousness and self-monitoring. Communication Research, 14, 7-34.

Haferkamp, C. J. (1994). Dysfunctional beliefs, self-monitoring, and marital conflict. Current Psychology, 13, 248-262.

Hoyle, R. H., & Lennox, R. D. (1991). Latent structure of self-monitoring. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 511-540.

Jordan, J. M., & Roloff, M. E. (1997). Planning skills and negotiator goal accomplishment: The relationship between self-monitoring, and plan generation, plan enactment, and plan consequences. Communication Research, 24, 31-63.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.

Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047-1060.

Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37-57.

Lennox, R. (1988). The problem with self-monitoring: A two-sided scale and a one-sided theory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 58-73.

Leone, C., & Hall, I. (2003). Self-monitoring, marital dissatisfaction, and relationship dissolution: Individual differences in orientations to marriage and divorce. Self and Identity, 2, 189-202.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.

Meeks, B. S., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1998). Communication, love, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 755-773.

Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: Guilford.

Prager, K. J. (2000). Intimacy in personal relationships. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 229-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for assessing indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.

Ragsdale, J. D., & Brandau-Brown, F. E. (2005). Individual differences in the use of relational maintenance strategies in marriage. Journal of Family Communication, 5, 61-75.

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck et al. (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367-389). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Roloff, M. E., Janiszewski, C. A., McGrath, M. A., Burns, C. S., & Manrai, L. A. (1988). Acquiring resources from intimates: When obligation substitutes for persuasion. Human Communication Research, 14, 364-369.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.

Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Determinants and consequences of exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Responses to dissatisfaction in adult romantic involvements. Human Relations, 39, 45-63.

Shaffer, D. R., Ogden. J. K., & Wu, C. (1987). Effects of self-monitoring and prospect of future interactions on self-disclosure reciprocity during the acquaintance process. Journal of Personality, 55(1), 75-96.

Sprecher, S. (1987). The effects of self-disclosure given and received on affection for an intimate partner and stability of the relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 115-127.

Sprecher, S., & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 857-877.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: WH Freeman and Company.

Snyder, M., & Simpson, J. A. (1984). Self-monitoring and dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1281-1291.

Snyder, M., Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. (1986). Personality and sexual relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 181-190.

Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of the Self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 351-360.

Notes

[1] We also measured honesty but because this measure turned out to be unreliable it was not analyzed in the present study.

[2] Sample scale items include: (1) I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them; (2) In different situations, and with different people, I often act like very different persons; and (3) I am not particularly good at making other people like me.

[3] The statements were: (1) Someone you date occasionally, but to whom you are not emotionally attached; (2) Someone you date often, but to whom you are not emotionally attached; (3) Someone to whom you are emotionally attached, but with whom you are not in love; (4) Someone with whom you are in love; (5) Someone with whom you are in love and would like to marry, but with whom you have never discussed marriage; (6) Someone with whom you are in love and have discussed marriage, but have made no plans; and (7) Someone to whom you are engaged.

An earlier version of this article was presented on the Interpersonal Communication Division Top Paper Panel at the 2006 meeting of the Eastern Communication Association in Philadelphia, PA. Data for this study were taken from the second author's senior honor's thesis, which was directed by the third author. Courtney N. Wright (MA, Northwestern University, 2006) is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. Adrienne Holloway (BA, Northwestern University, 2004) was an undergraduate student in the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. Michael E. Roloff (PhD, Michigan State University, 1975) is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. Correspondence to: Courtney N. Wright, Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-3545, USA. E-mail: c-wright@northwestern.edu

Table 1 Correlations

Variable                       1         2          3

1. Self-monitoring             --       -.20 *     -.18 *
2. Relational length                     --         .47 ***
3. Emotional commitment                             --
4. Intimate communication
5. Relational satisfaction
6. Relational commitment

Variable                       4         5         6

1. Self-monitoring           -.28 **    -.36 ***   -.32 **
2. Relational length          .45 ***    .29 **     .40 ***
3. Emotional commitment       .46 ***    .44 ***    .67 ***
4. Intimate communication      --        .50 ***    .62 ***
5. Relational satisfaction               --         .78 ***
6. Relational commitment                            --

* p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001.

Table 2 Summary of Regressions Predicting Intimate Communication
Measure

Variable                 [R.sup.2]      F        [beta]      B

Intimate communication      .31      13.09 ***
  Self-monitoring                                -.17 *     -.46 *
  Emotional commitment                            .31 ***    .24 ***
  Relational length                               .26 *      .02 *

Note. Due to missing data, N = 92. All significance tests are two
tailed except those involving self-monitoring which is one tailed.

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Table 3 Summary of Regressions Predicting Relational Satisfaction and
Relational Commitment

Variable                  [R.sup.2]      F         [beta]      B

Relational satisfaction      .27      10.99 ***
  Self-monitoring                                 -.28 **    -.69 **
  Emotional commitment                             .35 ***    .24 ***
  Relational length                                .07        .01
Relational commitment        .50      29.03 ***
  Self-monitoring                                 -.20 **    -.84 **
  Emotional commitment                             .60 **     .71 ***
  Relational length                                .07        .01

Note. Due to missing data, N = 92. All significance tests are two
tailed except those involving self-monitoring which is one tailed.

* p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001.