SCRIPTS AND SELF-MONITORING When Does Being a High Self-Monitor Really Make a Difference

Human Communication Research Vol. 10, No. 1, Fall 1983, 81-96

SCRIPTS AND SELF-MONITORING When Does Being a High Self-Monitor

Really Make a Difference?

WILLIAM DOUGLAS University of Houston

Two experiments examined the influence of script deviance and self-monitoring on recall of conversation and interaction entry techniques. While no differences were found in regard to recall, response repertoire was seen to vary systematically in both studies as a function of a self-monitoring x interaction type interaction. Moreover, the techniques of high self-monitors were judged to be more likely to promote friendly interaction with a targei rhan were those of low self-monitors. regardless of interaction type. These findings were discussed in terms of script theory.

Both Abelson (1976) and Schank and Abelson (1977) have argued that social performance is largely a product of learned episodic represen- tations or “scripts.” Specifically, Abelson (1976, p. 33) has defined a script as “a coherent sequence of events expected by the individual, involving him either as a participant or as an observer.” Because such sequences are abstracted summaries of similar and recurring events, they describe role-appropriate behavior across a broad range of contexts. An “initial interaction” script, for example, is specific to neither a particular interactant nor to a single encounter but, rather, indicates to a person actions characteristic of themselves and others in any first meeting. Thus, a script is a generic knowledge structure that enables understanding of particular event sequences.

Evidence of the usefulness of scripted knowledge has been provided by Spilich, Vesonder, Chiesi, and Voss (1979) and Chiesi, Spilich, and Voss (1979). The former authors distinguished between “high domain knowl-

William Douglas (Ph.D., Northwestern University) is an assistant professor of Speech Communication at the University of Houston.

81

82 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / September 1983

edge” (persons with a well-developed script) and “low domain knowledge” persons (persons with a poorly developed script) on the basis of the individuals’ understanding of baseball principles and baseball terminology. Both groups listened to a one-half inning account of a fictitious baseball game and were requested to summarize what they had heard. Spilich et al. (1979) observed that high-knowledge subjects recalled information more completely, more frequently recalled information in the order presented, and were better able to integrate. goal-related action than were low-knowledge subjects. Employing a similar methodology, Chiesi et al. (1979) reported that relative to their low-knowledge counterparts, high-knowledge persons more rapidly and more accurately distinguished between previously encountered and previously unencountered actions and generated significantly more high-probability outcomes to unfinished action sequences. The performance of high domain knowledge subjects in these analyses suggests that scripts not only allow persons to make sense of ongoing action in process but also function proactively, allowing persons to anticipate sequel behavior. Unanswered, however, is the question of who, in a social sense, are high domain knowledge persons? The position to be explored, here, is that they are “high self-monitors.”

Snyder (1974) has described a high self-monitor as one who is “particularly skilled at controlling and modifying his social behavior” (p. 532) and who does so via an “acute sensitivity to the cues in a situation which indicate what expression or self-presentation is appropriate and what is not” (p. 527). A low self-monitor, meanwhile, is posited to “express it as they feel it” (Snyder, 1974, p. 527) and to respond on the basis of relatively stable, internal dispositions. The high self-monitor’s social acuity might be expected to invest such persons with considerably more social knowledge than is prossessed by low self-monitors, thus suggesting that high self-monitors are, indeed, the social parallel to those high domain knowledge persons in the baseball studies of Spilich et al. and Chiesi et al. Moreover, their desire to behave in socially desirable ways, which has been seen to translate into pronounced behavioral variance across situations (Rarick, Soldow, & Geizer, 1976; Snyder, 1979), seems to require that high self-monitors develop scripts that are substantially more complex than those of low self-monitors. For the low self-monitor such variety is unnecessary, thus, a wide range of potential responses are at best poorly rehearsed and more probably are absent.

Douglas / SCRIPTS 8 SELF-MONITORING 83

The positive relationship between self-monitoring and the number of available responses may, however, be attenuated by the extent to which other actors in a particular situation behave in a typical manner. Dabbs, Evans, Hopper, and Purvis (1980) have reported a positive correlation (r = S2) between self-monitoring and the Ring and Wallston “r”(ro1e) scale, but an inverse correlation (r = -31) between self-monitoring and the Ring and Wallston “p” (person) scale. Snyder and Cantor (1979) have reported that high self-monitors provide more elaborate impressions of prototypic others than do low self-monitors, but are significantly less able to identify actions characteristic of themselves. These findings indicate that the high self-monitor is particularly adept in those situations wherein the actions of others are contextually appropriate and role congruent-that is, in scripted situations. High self-monitors are likely to be no more effective than low self-monitors in atypical situations, situations in which others’ idiosyncratic behavior suspends instantiation of the appropriate script, thereby restricting the number of responses available.

H 1: In situations that observers consider typical, high self-monitors will generate more potential behaviors for themselves than will low self- monitors. In situations that observers consider atypical, high and low self-monitors will generate an equal number of potential behaviors.

Social understanding and social behavior, Schank and Abelson (1977) have suggested, derive from specific knowledge (or scripts) and general knowledge (or plans). Although arbitrary, in that persons are presumed to employ scripts and plans in the same way and for the same purposes, the dichotomy does imply that behavior may vary not only because of particular situational constraints but also as a consequence of more general actor concerns. Moreover, since those concerns are not limited to a single situation, they are likely to produce contextually robust behavioral differences.

The importance of self-monitoring in this regard results from Snyder’s (1 979) proposition that the high self-monitor’s behavioral variance is enacted against a consistently “friendly, outgoing, and extroverted” (p.96) background. Low self-monitors, meanwhile, are considerably more willing to present themselves as “aloof, distant, and introverted”(p. 96). Indeed, Ickes and Barnes (1977) have reported that, in unstructured first encounters, talk was more frequently initiated by high than by low self-monitors and that high self-monitors were


perceived as having a greatkr need to talk than their low self-monitoring partners. Similarly, Dabbs et al. (1980) noted that high self-monitors exhibited speech patterns judged to be more enthusiastic than those displayed by low self-monitors. Thus, not only should high self- monitors develop more complex scripts than low self-monitors but, too, the verbal output that derives from those scripted sequences should facilitate friendly, ongoing interaction to a much greater extent than should the verbal routines of low self-monitors, regardless of potentially competing situational cues.

H2: Relative to low self-monitors, high self-monitors will generate behavior that is more likely to promote friendly interaction.

Scripts, then, enable persons to understand ongoing action. More- over, this process occurs automatically in that scripts are used “almost without thinking” (Schank & Abelson, 1977, p. 67). Clearly, however, not all event sequences are scripted. Instead, since a script is a “predetermined, stereotyped sequence of actions that defines a well- known situation” (Schank & Abelson, 1977, p. 41) persons are presumed to become cognitively active in either novel situations or situations wherein atypical action takes place (Langer, 1978). In contrast, when observed action appears familiar, persons are assumed not to attend to the ongoing sequence and to respond in a scripted manner, without thought. Such reduced levels of awareness have been demonstrated to impede information processing as persons presented with an unfamiliar stimulus consistently perform as well as persons induced to think about the stimulus and consistently outperform persons presented with a familiar. and overlearned stimulus in recall tasks (Langer & Imber, 1980; Langer & Weinman, 1981).

While the research of Langer and her colleagues indicates the effect on recall ability of either typical or atypical material, the research has not examined the effects of typical action that is interrupted by unusual action. In this regard, competing hypotheses can be generated. The argument can be made that recall of information will be enhanced because the occurence of atypical action will induce observers to become mindful and, therefore, attend more closely to the sequence. Conversely, the proposition that recall of typical action will be inhibited is also feasible. This assertion follows from Cantor and Mischel’s (1979) observation that deviance is overrepresented in memory, thereby “flooding” adjacent typical action.


H3: The intrusion of atypical action into an event sequence will either enhance or impede recall of adjacent typical action.

Langer and Imber (1980) have concluded that “much of the time people are not hearing what is being said to them or reading what has been written to them, as long as the structure of the communication is familiar” (pp. 360-361). This contention-that all persons are generally unaware of ongoing action-appears to be confounded by the high self-monitor’s habitual attention to external events (see above), espe- cially since high self-monitors have been shown to be more able than low self-monitors to recall information about target others upon whom they are outcome dependent (Berscheid, Graziano, Manson, & Denver, 1976).

H4: High self-monitors will recall more of an event sequence than will low self-monitors.

The studies to be reported here were designed specifically to test the hypotheses articulated above and, more generally, to examine the responses of high and low self-monitors to typical and atypical event sequences. The event sequence in both experiments was an initial interaction between strangers. This context was selected because persons have been shown to hold common expectations regarding the temporal order in which information is exchanged during initial interactions (Berger, Gardner, Clatterbuck, & Schulman, 1976) and to enact similar behaviors during such encounters (Duck, 1980). That is, persons share an “initial interaction” script.

EXPERIMENT 1

METHOD

Subjects. Fifteen males and 35 females enrolled in undergraduate communication courses at Northwestern University served as subjects for the study. The experiment was conducted outside of regular class meetings and respondents were offered the opportunity to win a lottery in exchange for their voluntary participation in the study.

Stimulus Materials. Two versions of an initial encounter between a male and a female were the materials used. One of the sequences


portrayed a typical first encoun’er in which the interactants discussed the male’s recent trip to Europe, a popular movie, an increase in the female’s college tuition, the male’s occupation, and the cost of apart- ments in the Chicago area. The encounter lasted 4 minutes and 15 seconds. The second sequence showed an atypical initial interaction. Included in this sequence were the same talk and action shown in the typical scenario that dealt with the male’s vacation in Europe, the popular movie, and apartment prices. However, located in the middle of the sequence was a series of events atypical of an initial interaction. The female disclosed that she had suffered a nervous breakdown and had spent several months in a mental institution. This disclosure came after 85 seconds of interaction. Thirty seconds later, the male spilled a drink over the female, prompting her to become abrasive and sarcastic and the male to become abusive. This action substituted for the discussion of college tuition and the male’s occupation contained in the completely typical sequence. The atypical interaction lasted 4 minutes, 10 seconds. Both sequences were videotaped in black and white.

Procedure. Subjects were randomly assigned to view either the typical or the atypical encounter. Before seeing the videotape, subjects were informed that the action sequence was a videotaped reenactment of an actual conversation, tape recorded at a recent party, and were instructed to assume that (1) they could overhear the conversation, and (2) as at any party, there was some chance that they would subsequently interact with any or all of the people they saw.

After viewing the videotape, subjects were required to (1) assess both how normal and how conflictual they had perceived the interaction to be, (2) provide all potential responses to a hypothetical statement, addressed to them by the male interactant, (3) respond to a recall measure, and (4) complete Snyder’s (1974) Self-Monitoring scale. Upon completion of this task, participants were debriefed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Self-Monitoring Scale. Use of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha showed the Self-Monitoring scale’s reliability to be .68. This is within the range reported by Snyder (1974). The sample mean score was 13.9 (SD = 3.95). A median split (Mdn 13.5) separated the sample into high and low self-monitors.

Douglas / SCRIPTS & SELF-MONITORING 87

Sequence Typicality1 Atypicality. Immediately after viewing a videotape, subjects indicated how much conflict they felt occurred during the interaction and the extent to which the observed encounter could be defined as normal for an initial interaction between strangers. Subjects used a four-item scale (“a great deal”= 3, “some”= 2, “a slight amount”= 1, “none” 0) to judge the amount of conflict and a six-item scale (ranging from “very normal” = 1 to “very abnormal” 6) to assess sequence normality.

Responses from these measures were entered as the dependent variable in separate two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs), in which the independent variables were interaction type (typical/ atypical) and self-monitoring (low/ high). Both analyses revealed a significant main effect due to interaction type. In regard to the measue of perceived conflict, those subjects in the “atypica1”condition rated the sequence as more conflictual than did subjects in the “typical” condition (mean atypical rating = 1.92, mean typical rating = 1.00; F (1,46) = 19.29, p < .001; eta2 = .31). Similarly, relative to subjects in the typical condition, those in the atypical condition judged the videotaped interaction as more abnormal (mean atypical rating= 4.72, mean typical rating 2.24; F (1,46) = 65.51, p < .001; eta2 .42). In neither analysis did any other effects approach statistical significance.

Response Range. Hypothesis 1 posited an interaction between interaction type and self-monitoring such that high self-monitors in the typical condition would generate signficantly more potential behaviors for themselves than would subjects in any of the other conditions. In order to test this prediction, participants were requested to list all of the responses they might make if, immediately following the encounter they had observed, the male interactant addressed them by saying, UExcuse me. Did you see that woman I was talking to? She’s a real freak.” This statement allowed the low self-monitors to “express it as they feel it” (Snyder, 1974, p. 527) while providing the high self-monitors opportunity to demonstrate their response range; it was therefore preferred over other approaches (e.g., a request for demographic information).

Independent judges counted the number of different and appropriate responses made by each subject. No responses were considered inap- propriate, and since interjudge agreement regarding the number of responses was complete (r = 1.0) the raw subject-response total was


TABLE 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Response Range Across Interaction Type and Self-Monitoring: Experiment 1

Interaction Type

Sel f-Monitoring Typical A typical

Low M = 1.42 M = 1.67 SD= .51 SD= .65

n = 1 2 n = 1 2

High M = 2.15 M = 1.31 S D = .ao SD= .4a

n = 13 n = 1 3

incorporated as a dependent variable in a 2 x 2 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), in which the independent variables were interaction type and self-monitoring. This analysis revealed no statistically significant main effects but did show the number of potential responses to be influenced by an interaction type x self-monitoring interaction (F (1, 46) = 9.56, p = .003; eta* .17).

Subsequent analysis of simple effects confirmed hypothesis 1, showing that high self-monitors generated more responses in the typical than the atypical condition (F(1, 46) = 11.86, p .001), high self- monitors in the typical condition generated more responses than did their low self-monitoring counterparts (F( 1,46) = 8.64, p .005), but the number of responses listed by low self-monitors was stable across conditions (F< l), as was the number of responses generated by subjects in the “atypical” condition (F(1,46) = 2.05, p = .16).

Recall. The recall measure was comprised of 28 questions, 14 of which dealt with material presented in the opening 85 seconds of interaction and 14 dealing with the interaction’s final 85 seconds. These encounter segments were common to conditions. Among the questions asked were the following: (I) What was the female speaker’s name? (2) What movies were mentioned during the conversation?(3) What was the male speaker drinking? (4) What sort of music did the male speaker prefer? Subject responses were scored by independent judges, agreement between the judges was absolute. Because the recall scores were derived from a series of dichotomous items and subsequently expressed as proportions, those scores were reconstructed using an arcsin transforma- tion (Kirk, 1968).


A 2 x 2 MANOVA indicated that recognition of the interaction's opening section did not vary systematically as a function of the factors under study (in all cases, F < 1). Recall of the final 85 seconds, however, while unaffected by self-monitoring, was influenced by interaction type, although the mean difference was not statistically significant (mean atypical score 1.67, mean typical score = 1.79; F( 1 , 46) 1.36, p = .25; power = .80). Thus, this study provided no substantive evidence that either self-monitoring or sequence typicality/ atypicality affect recall of information.

Discussion. The preceeding analysis provides clear support for the prediction that, in typical but not in atypical situations, high self- monitors are able to locate substantially more behavioral options for themselves than are low self-monitors. There was no indication, however, that such ability is associated with more effective information processing in that recall of the event sequences was not influenced by self-monitoring levels. Nonetheless, subsequent to viewing the typical encounter, high self-monitors did generate more behavioral alternatives than did low self-monitors (behavioral alternatives that were judged to be contextually appropriate). That is, the responses reflected situational cues or, in a larger sense, situational information. Thus, although high self-monitors apparently do not process more information than their low self-monitoring counterparts, there does seem reason to suppose that high self-monitors use more of the information they acquire. A second study was designed to test this argument. Additional objectives in the second analysis were to (1) test hypothesis 1 within a different subject population and (2) test hypothesis 2.

EXPERIMENT 2

METHOD

Subjects. Twelve males and 36 females enrolled in undergraduate communication courses at the University of Houston served as subjects. All subjects volunteered to participate in the experiment, which was conducted outside of regular class meetings.

Stimulus Materials. As in the first study, stimulus materials were videotaped portrayals of a typical and an atypical initial encounter between a male and a female. Local references contained in the initial recordings were removed and the sequences reenacted. The sequences


were also shortened in order to increase the salience of the atypical action. Thus, the typical encounter showed the interactants discussing the male’s European vacation, a popular movie, an increase in the female’s college tuition, and the male’s occupation. Similarly, in the atypical scenario, the interactants were shown discussing the male’s vacation and a popular movie, discussion that lasted 80 seconds. This sequence, however, concluded with the female’s disclosure regarding her nervous breakdown and the drink-spilling incident, both of which paralleled events included in the initial recordings. In this analysis, both sequences lasted 2 minutes, 20 seconds, and both were videotaped in color.

Procedure. The procedures in this study corresponded to those of the first experiment with these exceptions. First, rather than simply list all responses they might make to the male’s hypothetical statement, subjects were instructed to identify their most likely reply and list all other potential responses on a separate page, Second, subjects were not provided a recognition measure but, instead, were asked to identify in the videotaped recordings all pieces of information which they believed would help them interact with (1) the male and (2) the female.

RESULTS

The Self-Monitoring Scale. The reliability of the Self-Monitoring scale was assessed using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha and found to be 31. The sample mean score was 12.94 (SD 5.03) and the sample median 12.5. Subjects scoring above the median were considered high self-monitors in the context of this analysis.

Sequence TypicalitylAtypicality. Using the same scales as those described in experiment 1, subjects rated the videotaped interaction they had seen in regard to (1) the amount of conflict observed in the encounter and (2) the extent to which the encounter could be considered normal for an initial interaction. These judgments were entered as the dependent variable in separate two-way ANOVAs, in which the independent variables were interaction type (typical/ atypical) and self- monitoring (low/ high). In both analyses the only significant effect was due to interaction type. Relative to the ratings of subjects in the typical condition, respondents in the atypical condition rated the sequence they

Douglas / SCRIPTS 8. SELF-MONITORING 91

had seen as more conflictual (mean atypical=l.84, mean typical=0.78; F(1,44) 39.89, p< .001; eta2= .29) and more abnormal (mean atypical = 4.44, mean typical = 2.00; F(I,44) = 55.89, p < .001; eta* = .58).

Response Range. Subjects were required to respond to the same hypothetical statement used in experiment 1. In this study, however, their most probable reply was written on one page and all other potential responses listed on another. Two judges independently counted the number of different and appropriate responses made by each subject. Their agreement was complete.

A 2 x 2 MANOVA indicated that the total number of responses generated by subjects varied as a function of an interaction type by self-monitoring interaction (F(1,44) 4.46, p .04; eta2 .09).

An analysis of simple effects again revealed that high self-monitors in the typical condition generated more responses than did high self- monitors in the atypical condition (F( 1,44) = 4.34, p = .043) and that, in the typical condition, high self-monitors outperformed low self-monitors (F( 1,44) = I 1.21, p = .002). Meanwhile, no difference was found between the number of responses given by high and low self-monitors subsequent to viewing the atypical encounter nor between low self-monitoring groups.

Response Friendliness. Hypothesis 2 posited that, compared to low self-monitors, high self-monitors would generate responses more likely to promote friendly interaction. In order to test this prediction, two independent judges rated the reply that participants indicated they would most probably give to the male interactant’s statement in regard to the likelihood that the response would lead to further friendly interaction. The responses were typed onto cards and scored by the judges on a scale ranging from “very likely” (6) to “very unlikely” (1). Interjudge reliability on this task was .87.

The average of the judges’ratings was entered as a dependent variable in a 2 x 2 MANOVA. This analysis demonstrated that the primary responses of high self-monitors were judged as more likely to foster friendly interaction than those of low self-monitors (mean high self- monitor = 3.88, mean low self-monitor = 2.79; F(1,44) = 15.90, p < .001; eta2 = .27). The correlation between self-monitoring and the likelihood that the response would produce friendly interaction was calculated and found to be 3 3 (p < .05). Hypothesis 2, therefore, was confirmed.


TABLE 2

Means and Standard Deviations of Response Range Across Interaction Type and Self-Monitoring: Experiment 2

Interaction Type

Self-Monitoring Typical A typical

Low M = 0.90 M = 1.21 SD= 57 SD= 5 8

n = 1 0 n = 1 4

High M = 2.08 M = 1.36 SD = 1.19 SD = .81

n = 1 3 n = l l

Amount of Useful Information. Subjects were required to list separately all information presented in the videotaped conversation that they thought would be helpful if they were to interact with (1) the male and (2) the female. These pieces of information were counted by independent judges. Only that information contained in the common portion of the encounters (i.e., the first 80 seconds) was examined. Concerning information relating to the male, interjudge reliability was complete, and with regard to information relevant to the female, interjudge reliability was .98. The two scores-one pertaining to the male, the other to the female-were then entered into a 2 x 2 MANOVA.

This analysis showed that the amounts of information listed for the male and female were not influenced by the two independent variables. Power for a moderate effect size was .65 for this analysis. However, when the amounts of information listed were compared between the male and female target persons, subjects discovered more useful information relevant to the male target than the female target (mean male target = 1.38, mean female target ~ 0 . 9 0 ; correlated t (47) 3.80, p < .001). Furthermore, independent tests of high and low self-monitor responses revealed this overall difference to be due largely to a significant difference within the high self-monitoring group (high self- monitors: mean male target = 1.63, mean female target = 0.88, correlated t (23) = 3.62, p < .01; low self-monitors: mean male target = 1.13, mean female target = 0.92, correlated t (23) = 1.51, p < .lo).

Douglas / SCRIPTS 8. SELF-MONITORING 93

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In their analysis of social competence, Steffen and Redden (1977) observed that highly socially competent males possessed a broader response repertoire than did less socially competent males. Similarly, Wiemann (1977) has argued for a positive association between communicative competence and response flexibility, implying that more potential responses are available to highly communicatively competent individuals than to individuals low in communicative competence. The performance of high self-monitors in the analyses reported here clearly parallels that of highly socially competent subjects in the Steffen and Redden study. Subsequent to the typical encounter, high self-monitors generated significantly more responses to the male interactant’s statement than did low self-monitoring persons. Moreover, the present inquiry suggests scripts to be the mechanism that facilitates social effectiveness since (1) in atypical or unscripted situations, 110 inequity was discovered between the response repertoire of high self-monitors and that of their low self-monitoring counterparts, and (2) high self-monitors listed significantly more responses after viewing the typical encounter than after the atypical interaction.

The interaction between interaction type and self-monitoring concerning the number of subject responses indicates that, although high self-monitors have greater response flexibility in typical social contexts than do low self-monitors, that advantage does not generalize to situations in which other actors behave in ways that are considered atypical. Nonetheless, in both the typical and the atypical conditions, the responses that high self-monitors indicated as those they would most probably make were judged as generally more likely to promote further friendly interaction with the male target than were the primary responses of low self-monitors. This not only supports Snyder’s (1979) proposition that high self-monitors behave in consistently prosocial ways regardless of competing situational demands, but also suggests that scripted knowledge is hierarchical. That is, a high self-monitor enacts a specific behavior (e.g., to the male’s statement replies, “She seems like it to me. She was real aggressive.”) because that behavior fulfills an objective (i.e., to be friendly), an objective common to multiple scripts. In atypical situations wherein a well-rehearsed script is unavailable, the specific behavior is inferred from the more general


scripted objective. Similarly, in unscripted situations, a low self- monitor’s response is a function of a broad objective to be what Snyder (1979) has described as “aloof, distant, and introverted” (p. 96). Thus, the high self-monitor continues to behave in a manner consistently more friendly than the low self-monitor, regardless of sequence typicality/ atypicality .

While high self-monitors in these analyses generated social responses that differed both quantitatively and qualitatively from those of low self-monitors, those dissimilarities were not accompanied by differences in recall of the interaction sequences. Nor did sequence typicality/ atypicality influence subsequent recall. However, when subjects were requested to list information they believed would be useful if they were to interact with the male target, high self-monitors in the typical condition tended to discover more information than did respondents in the other conditions. Although this difference was not statistically significant, the pattern of findings does mirror that regarding the number of responses given by participants to the male interactant’s statement. In both instances, high self-monitors who viewed the typical interaction outperformed all other groups. This suggests that high self-monitors do not process more information than do low self-monitors but, rather, that high self-monitors are able to isolate necessary information more effectively than low self-monitors. This ability appears to be a function of scripts since, in the atypical condition, no difference was found between the amount of information listed by high and low self- monitors. Such a position is consistent with that of Tesser and Danheiser (1978), who have argued that scripts direct attention to critical aspects of a stimulus, thereby allowing persons to detect relevant information. Problematic is the issue of why similar differences were not apparent regarding information about the female. One possible explana- tion is that, because persons in these analyses were required to “interact” with the male, information concerning him was made more salient than that regarding the female. Certainly, participants generally found more useful information in regard to the male. However, separate analyses of high and low self-monitor responses revealed this overall difference to be due to differences within high self-monitoring subjects. Thus, if interaction with the male target did cause related information to become more salient, this occurred only among high self-monitors, suggesting that, relative to low self-monitors, high self-monitors possess more complex scripts, which allow them to isolate and verbally access useful information.

Douglas / SCRIPTS & SELF-MONITORING 95

The studies reported here suggest that scripts mediate both information acquisition and social behavior. However, since the investigation examined the way in which persons respond in the context of an initial interaction (a context in which communication tends to be highly structured) the generalizability of the conclusions remains untested. Too, while high self-monitors were more adept than low self-monitors in gaining entry into dyadic interaction, this analysis did not examine persons’ ongoing performance, thus leaving doubt as to the duration of the high self-monitor’s advantage. Nonetheless, present evidence indicates that self-monitoring and the typicality/ atypicality of action sequences have substantial impact on the ways in which individuals respond in social situations.

REFERENCES

ABELSON, R. P. Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. In J. S. Carroll & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition andsocial behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1976.

BERGER, C. R., GARDNER, R. R., CLATTERBUCK, G. W., & SCHULMAN, L. A. Perceptions in information sequencing in relationship development. Human Com- munication Research. 1976, 3, 29-46.

BERSCHEID, E., GRAZIANO, W., MONSON, T., & DERMER, M. Outcome dependency: Attention, attribution, and attraction. Journal of Personaliry and Social

CANTOR, N., & MISCHEL, W. Prototypes in person perception. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 12). New York: Academic Press, 1979.

CHIESI, H. L., SPILICH,G. J.,&VOSS, J . F. Acquisitionofdomain relatedinformation in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journalof VerbalLearningand Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18,257-273.

DABBS, J. M., EVANS, M. S., HOPPER, C. H., & PURVIS, J. A. Self-monitors in conversation: What d o they monitor? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

DUCK, S . W. Personal relationships research in the 1980’s: Towards an understanding of complex human sociality. Western Speech, 1980,44, 114-1 19.

ICKES, W., & BARNES, R. D. The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured dyadic interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977,35,3 15-330.

KIRK, R. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1968.

LANGER, E. J. Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1978.

LANGER, E. J. & IMBER, L. G. Role of mindlessness in the perception of deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980,39, 360-367.

Psychology, 1976, 34,978-989.

1980, 39,278-284.


LANGER, E. J., & WEINMAN, C. When thinking disrupts intellectual performance: Mindfulness on an overlearned task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

RARICK, D. L., SOLDOW, G. F., & GEIZER, R. S. Self-monitoring as a mediator of

SCHANK, R. C., & ABELSON, R. F. Scripts. plans, goals. and understanding. New

SNYDER, M . Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journalof Personalify and Social

SNYDER, M. Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experi- menfal socialpsychology (Vol. 12). New York: Academic Press, 1979.

SNYDER, M., & CANTOR, N. Thinking about ourselves and others: Self-monitoring and social knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 39,

SPILICH, G. J., VESONDER, G. T., CHIESI, H. L., & VOSS, J. F. Text processing of domain-related information for individuals with high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 275-290.

STEFFEN, J. J., & REDDEN, J. Assessment of social competence in an evaluation- interaction analogue. Human Communication Research, 1977,4, 31-37.

TESSER, A., & DANHEISER, P. Anticipated relationship, salience of partner and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1978,4, 35-38.

WIEMANN, J. M. Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human Communication Research, 1977, 3, 195-213.

1981, 7,240-243.

conformity. Cenfral Stales Speech Journal. 1976, 27, 267-271.

York: Wiley, 1977.

Psychology, 1974, 30,526-537.

222-234.

SCRIPTS AND SELF-MONITORING When Does Being a High Self-Monitor Really Make a Difference

Documents

Transcript of SCRIPTS AND SELF-MONITORING When Does Being a High Self-Monitor Really Make a Difference