Talk:Self-monitoring

message: This section is either incorrect (misrepresenting the research it cites) or does a bad job explaining something much more complex than what is presented here.  The section claims that "Cultures high on individualism focus on the self, not others. In individualistic cultures, knowing the context is not necessary to predict others' behavior, thus people from individualistic cultures are more likely to be high self-monitors. Cultures low on individualism (i.e., collectivist cultures), in contrast, value conformity to ingroups and group memberships. In collectivistic cultures, knowing the context and social status of the other person is essential to predicting his or her behavior, thus people from collectivistic cultures are more likely to be low self-monitors."  These claims are either exactly backwards – because context-dependence (attributed to collectivistic cultures) is associated with high self-monitors, while context-independence (attributed to individualistic cultures) is associated with low self-monitors – or the research is saying something much more complicated.  Does anyone have access to the research in question to see which it is, and fix this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.41.34 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Self-monitoring in individualist vs. collectivist cultures

message: There's a little ':)' in the history section. Wondering if that was intentional? Cheers :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.92.20 (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Smiley Face

message: Just to share sth. Does the trait vs situation debate really fit here? Behaviour of low self-monitors is not really dependent solely on traits, as they are more "truthful" to themselves. I believe the issue here is that self-monitoring can be described a process of inner self-control over internal stimuli with the aim of better social presentation (which is then not achieved as the mind does not have enough resources to switch attention on social stimuli and to react adequately on them). High self-monitoring does not mean being "dependent on the situation;" it rather means some people (HSM) do exhibit self-monitoring cognitive tendencies to a higher extent than other people (LSM). 
In addition, high self-monitoring is rather detrimental, as far as I remember some citations in the very generic social psychology workbook I read 7 years ago.) 
That was just short now. I hope I have the time to revise this article. It is a bit loose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.108.204 (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: hm

message: Hi, I think you did an excellent job of explaining this concept in a way that is easy for all to understand, however I do have some suggestions. The link you have for dramaturgy does not take the reader to the page for dramaturgy in sociology but to a page for theater which can be very confusing for someone who is not familiar with this topic. I also think the section on applying Self-Monitoring deserves further explanation. There are a lot of interesting findings on how high and low self-monitors behave in different situations and in their evaluations of others which could really improve the quality of this article and the general understanding of this topic. CStratton22 (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Hi, I think you did an excellent job of explaining this concept in a way that is easy for all to understand, however I do have some suggestions. Is it possible to give a more balanced view on the introduction on the flaws associated with being a super high self-monitor. It seems to me that the very low-self monitor is a monster. I think there is just as much evidence that the very high self-monitor would be too. Right? What would be the disadvantages of being a self monitor that does that to the extreme.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierrejcd (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Gabrenya, William K., Jr. "Self-Monitoring Scale." Self-Monitoring Scale. N.p., 01 Mar. 1980. Web. 01 Nov. 2016.
Caldwell, DF. "Boundary Spanning and Individual Performance: The Impact of Self-monitoring." APA PsycNET. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982. Web. 01 Nov. 2016.
O'Cass, Aron. "A Psychometric Evaluation of a Revised Version of the Lennox and Wolfe Revised Self-monitoring Scale." - O'Cass. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 7 Apr. 2000. Web. 01 Nov. 2016.
Sasovava, Zuzana. "Network Churn: The Effects of Self-Monitoring Personality on Brokerage Dynamics." Network Churn: The Effects of Self-Monitoring Personality on Brokerage Dynamics. N.p., 01 Dec. 2010. Web. 01 Nov. 2016.
Steve, By Snyder Mark; Gangestad, and Steven Gangestad. "Home." PsycNET. N.p., July 1986. Web. 01 Nov. 2016. 
Zaccaro, Stephen. "On the Nature of Self-monitoring: Matters of Assessment, Matters of Validity.Self-monitoring and Trait-based Variance in Leadership: An Investigation of Leader Flexibility across Multiple Group Situations." Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 76(2), Apr. 1991. Web.
Zaccaro, Stephen J. "Self-monitoring and Trait-based Variance in Leadership: An Investigation of Leader Flexibility across Multiple Group Situations." Journal of Applied Psychology, Apr. 1991. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjhaveri95 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals for potential sources to improve depth and detail of the article 

message: 1. Background - perhaps add information for the intervention tactics here and go more into the usage of the process
2. Historical context - add additional  information here, add examples of cases 
3. High and low self-monitors - break this down into subsections of "Scaling", "High vs. low self monitoring", and perhaps how cultures can play a role in this (merging the information from "individualist vs. collectivist cultures", and adding details on specific cultures)
4. Selecting a self-monitoring system - there is a lack of information on this, and perhaps it would be good to tie in the needs, usages, and the process type into high and low self-monitoring, and what types of system are accompanied by certain industries/sectors. 
5. Self presentation - we have this towards the end to clarify the meaning between self presentation and monitoring, this can draw perhaps from more recent articles and speak towards the ties that may occur. 
6. Controversy and Confusion - it would be good to end on this note to clarify how there might be misconceptions, and direct ideas of a different ideas and their similarities and differences (this would bring a good amount of information if the text is presented properly.
All in all, the idea behind a restructuring was to create subsections within the article and make the flow of the article more appealing to a visitor - the current layout provides information to begin with, but might be hard to jump topic from topic through read collectively (theres so indication of relation between the chunks aside that they're related to the article title).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicezha (talk • contribs) 18:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential restructuring of the article 

message: The first paragraph under the "Culture" heading in "Self-monitoring systems" ""Gudykunst et al., (1987) argued that individualism ...") appears verbatim elsewhere per googling, and appears to be taken straight from the source. I don't have time to track this down or check the rest of the article, but maybe someone else does? Jessicapierce (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issue 

message: Most of the recent literature on self-monitoring makes a distinction between acquisitive and protective self-monitoring. I have added two sentences to the intro paragraph to express this, however it might be prudent to create a new section describing how this arose in the scientific community, how it relates to metatraits (which should have a page of its own), etc. Cheers, MichaelMalek (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acquisitive vs Protective