Ramapo College of New Jersey
Change is inevitable and we as a society can do nothing to alter this from happening. From what is popular among the different generations to the different hairstyles and clothing options. We are always evolving as a society, except for one aspect in our lives. No matter what generation we were born into and how old we as a society are expected to follow the social norm ultimately finding his or her spouse and end in a committed relationship. Relationships are a huge topic today in researching socially how society acts. Constantly asking how do we find this one special person? There have been numerous experiments and researchers who have taken the time to examine and analyze this aspect in our lives. Specifically within this research paper I will be focusing on self-monitoring in relation to dating. The underlying similarity throughout each experiment and all the findings is the psychological construct of self-monitoring.
A theory that deals with expressive controls within an individual is what self-monitoring is defined as. People are overly concerned with how they are perceived buy a possible significant other to make them seem more desirable ending in a positive relationship. Within these self-monitoring people there are two separate categories defining the different personalities. There are both high self-monitors and low self-monitors. High self-monitors tend to closely monitor themselves. Those who fall into this category are more inclined to impress others and work for positive feedback.
In comparison, those who are defined as low self-monitors do not exert the same level of expressive controls. Those in this category tend to stay true to themselves and when in a social situations work off of their own beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions despite the social circumstance. In addition, low self-monitors are less observant and rely more on internal actions rather then falsifying themselves to come off as more desirable.
The descriptions of high self-monitors and low self-monitors are not ones that have recently made there way into our society. These terms have been floating around for numerous generations giving a plethora of time to researchers to extensively research the actions of both the high and low self-monitors spread throughout our society. It is clear that high self-monitors act extremely different in different situations where as low self-monitors have a more unified and consistent sense of self-expression. There is clear difference between the two and that has been extensively proven through the works of researcher over researcher. Norris and Zweigenhaft go on to experiment with a mixture of male and female participants in order to examine the relationship shown between self-monitoring and trust. They show a slight focus on commitment along with relationships specifically on college students in the US primarily (Norris, Stacy L., Zweigenhaft, Richard L).
David Shaffer and Dorris Bazzini’s research complied with the many descriptions of the self-monitors however, added a new factor to the mix. They found through their own experiments that there is little evidence in dating and self-monitors when the partners are selected from a broad pile of candidates. Consistently they found that men heavily weighted attractiveness when choosing a significant other. In addition, Shaffer and Bazzini do agree with the statements that certain people will alter themselves to be more attractive to others. Their findings come directly from an experiment, which included 50 male and 50 female undergraduate participants (Shaffer, David R., Bazzini, Dorris G).
Jeffrey Hall, Namkee Park, Hayeon Song, and Michael Cody take the theory of self-monitoring to another level. They examine the factor a bit further dealing with gender, self-monitoring, the big five personality traits, and demographic characteristics. They show through their...