UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff NNoorrtthh FFlloorriiddaa UUNNFF DDiiggiittaall CCoommmmoonnss UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship 2005 KKeeeeppiinngg FFrriieennddsshhiippss AAlliivvee:: SSeellff--mmoonniittoorriinngg aanndd MMaaiinntteennaannccee SSttrraatteeggiieess Nadia Nicol Flanigan University of North Florida Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd Part of the Psychology Commons SSuuggggeesstteedd CCiittaattiioonn Flanigan, Nadia Nicol, "Keeping Friendships Alive: Self-monitoring and Maintenance Strategies" (2005). UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 168. https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/168 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at UNF Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UNF Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Digital Projects. © 2005 All Rights Reserved KEEPING FRIENDSHIPS ALIVE: SELF-MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES by Nadia Nicol Flanigan A thesis submitted to the Department of Psychology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in General Psychology UNIVERSITY OF NORTH FLORIDA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES August, 2005 Unpublished work © Nadia Nicol Flanigan CERTIFICA TE OF APPROVAL PAGE The thesis of Nadia Nicol Flanigan is approved: (Date) Signature Deleted Christoph Leone, Ph.D., ChaIr ofCOImmttee Signature Deleted ember Accepted for the Department: Signature Deleted ?--27rOJ Minor H. Chamblin, Ph.D., Chair of Department of Psychology ~ted for the College: Signature Deleted Mark Workman, Ph.D., Dean of College of Arts and Science Signature Deleted 111 Table of Contents Abstract. ............................................................................................................................. .iv Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 Method .............................................................................................................................. 14 Participants ................................................................................... 14 Materials ..................................................................................... 14 Procedure .................................................................................... 33 Results ................................................................................................................................ 34 Preliminary Analyses ....................................................................... 34 Main Analyses .............................................................................. 35 Exploratory Analyses .......................................................................3 9 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 43 Plausible Alternative Explanations ............... .' ...................................... .46 Advantages and Strengths .................................................................. 52 Limitations ................................................................................... 52 Future Directions ........................................................................... 53 References ................................................ '" ....................................................................... 54 Vita ..................................................................................................................................... 61 IV Abstract The relationship between self-monitoring and use of maintenance strategies in friendships was examined. It was hypothesized that low self-monitors would engage in more idealization, report higher degrees of closeness, and report higher degrees of platonic love in their relationships with their best friends than would high self-monitors. Participants (81 females, 61 males) completed Snyder and Gangestad's (1986) revised Self- Monitoring Scale; Edmond's (1967) Marital Conventionalization Scale; Hendrick's (1988) Relationship Assessment Scale; the Diversity and Strength scales of Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto's (1989) Relationship Closeness Inventory; Aron, Aron, and Allen's (1998) Desirability, Probability, Desirability of the State, and Intensity Scales; and Sternberg's (1988) Triangular Love Scale. Low self-monitors reported engaging in a wider variety of activities with their best friends than did high self-monitors (p < .05), and low self-monitors reported slightly greater levels of satisfaction in their relationships with their best friends than did high self-monitors (p < .07). Plausible alternative explanations for these findings and suggestions for further research are discussed. Keeping Friendships Alive: Self-Monitoring and Maintenance Strategies People's close relationships with other people can be very influential in their lives. Friendships in particular can be relatively close relationships. Fehr (1996) describes friendship as a "voluntary, personal relationship, typically providing intimacy and assistance, in which the two parties like one another and seek each other's company" (p. 7). Some people have intimate relationships with their friends. These people may have a small network of friends with whom they interact and prefer to spend the majority of their time. Other people have distant relationships with their friends. These people may have a large network of friends with whom they interact and prefer to spend their time. The construct of self-monitoring is one variable that may be helpful in accounting for individual differences in how people maintain their friendships. Self-monitoring is the degree to which people try to control their self-presentation, verbal and nonverbal, in order to appear to behave socially appropriate in the presence of others (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Snyder, 1974, 1979, 1987). There are five conceptual dimensions in the self-monitoring construct. The first dimension is motivation to make one's self-presentation fit a particular social context. The second dimension is attention to a social context for cues as to how one should behave. The third and fourth dimensions are ability to modify one's behavior to fit a social context and use of that ability to actually modify one's self-presentation and behavior according to a social context. The fifth dimension is situational specificity of behavior. Individuals differ in their propensities to engage in self-monitoring (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; Snyder, 1974, 1979, 1987). Prototypical high self-monitors are individuals who closely attend to the behavior and expressions of other people in social situations Maintenance Strategies 2 because they are concerned with the situational and interpersonal appropriateness of their own behavior. High self-monitors have a high ability to control their nonverbal and expressive behavior to meet situational demands and use their ability to control their behavior in various situations to present themselves in a manner that is appropriate for a situation. High self-monitors tend to display a great deal of variability in their behavior across situations. On the other hand, prototypical low self-monitors are individuals who closely attend to their inner states (e.g., attitudes and feelings) in social situations because they are concerned with being themselves in social situations. Low self-monitors have a low ability to control their nonverbal and expressive behavior to meet situational demands. Low self-monitors, however, do select their words carefully in various situations in order to present an accurate image of themselves. Low self-monitors tend to display a great deal of consistency in their behavior across situations. High and low self-monitors differ in their conceptions of self. High self-monitors have "a repertoire of selves" (Snyder, 1987, p. 47). That is, high self-monitors possess a flexible sense of self. High self-monitors define themselves and explain their behavior according to social situations (Snyder, 1979). High self-monitors view themselves as pragmatic individuals who vary their behavior according to the roles of a situation (Snyder, 1987). High self-monitors report more variability across situations in their own behavior than in other people's behavior (Snyder & Monson, 1975). High self-monitors are more knowledgeable about how prototypic people of various trait dimensions behave in particular social situations than they are about how they themselves behave (Snyder & Cantor, 1980). In the context of a social gathering, for example, high self-monitors would be able to construct a mental image of how the prototypical extravert would act in that Maintenance Strategies 3 situation. Low self-monitors have a single, well-defined self (Snyder, 1987). That is, low self- monitors possess a stable sense of self. Low self-monitors define themselves and explain their behavior according to stable characteristics (Snyder, 1979). Low self-monitors view themselves as principled individuals who vary their behavior according to their attitudes and inner states (Snyder, 1987). Low self-monitors report more consistency across situations in their own behavior than in other people's behavior (Snyder & Monson, 1975). Low self-monitors are more knowledgeable about how they behave with respect to various trait dimensions in particular social situations than they are about how prototypic people behave (Snyder & Cantor, 1980). In the context ofa social gathering, for example, low self-monitors would be able to construct a mental image of how they would typically act in that situation. High and low self-monitors also differ in their orientations to their social worlds. High self-monitors choose their activity partners based on how skilled their potential partner is at a particular activity (Snyder, Gangestad, & Simpson, 1983). If, for example, high self-monitors wanted to playa game of basketball, they would choose to play that game with people who were good basketball players. High self-monitors would choose good basketball players even if those basketball players were not their close friends. Similarly, when given a choice to participate in an activity with either their current dating partner or a friend of the opposite sex who is skilled at that activity, high self-monitors are more likely to choose a friend ofthe opposite sex who is skilled at that activity than to choose their current dating partner (Snyder & Simpson, 1984). High self-monitors engage in audience segregation and prefer differentiated social worlds in which they can behave Maintenance Strategies 4 differently depending on the situation they are in and whom they are around (Snyder, 1987; Snyder et aI., 1983). On the other hand, low self-monitors choose their activity partners based on shared interests (Snyder et aI., 1983). If, for example, low self-monitors wanted to playa game of basketball, they would choose to play that game with their closest friends. Low self-monitors would choose their closest friends even if those close friends were not good basketball players. Similarly, when given a choice to participate in an activity with either their current dating partner or a friend of the opposite sex who is skilled at that activity, low self-monitors are more likely to choose their current dating partner than to choose a friend of the opposite sex who is skilled at that activity (Snyder & Simpson, 1984). Low self-monitors engage in audience homogenization and prefer undifferentiated social worlds in which they can be themselves regardless of the situation they are in and whom they are around (Snyder, 1987; Snyder et aI., 1983). In addition to the differences between high and low self-monitors in their orientations to social worlds, high and low self-monitors differ in their conceptions of romantic relationships. When initiating dating relationships, high self-monitors tend to focus on external appearances of potential dating partners whereas low self-monitors tend to focus on internal qualities of potential dating partners (Snyder, 1987; Snyder, Berscheid, & Glick, 1985). In their dating relationships, high self-monitors tend to be less committed than are low self-monitors (Snyder & Simpson, 1984). Snyder and Simpson found that high self-monitors tended to have more dating partners than did low self- monitors, had relationships that did not last as long as those of low self-monitors, were more willing than low self-monitors to end a relationship with a current partner in order to date someone else, and had lower levels of intimacy in their relationships than did low Maintenance Strategies 5 self-monitors. In their sexual relationships, high self-monitors tend to adopt an unrestricted orientation whereas low self-monitors tend to adopt a restricted orientation (Snyder, Simpson, & Gangestad, 1986). Snyder et ai. (1986) found that high self- monitors indicated having had more sexual partners than did low self-monitors in the past year and, overall, high self-monitors reported being more sexually experienced than did low self-monitors. In their marital relationships, high self-monitors tend to be less satisfied than low self-monitors with their marriages, and high self-monitors are more likely than low self-monitors to have had at least one marriage end in divorce (Leone & Hall, 2003). High and low self-monitors not only differ in their conceptions of romantic relationships, but high and low self-monitors also differ in their conceptions of friendship (Snyder & Smith, 1986). High self-monitors have an activity-based orientation toward their friendships. That is, high self-monitors' friendships are based on situations and activities. When initiating friendships and forming initial impressions of friends, high self-monitors place more importance on activity preference similarity than on attitude similarity (Jamieson, Lydon, & Zanna, 1987). When high self-monitors choose friends to participate in activities with them, high self-monitors choose friends who have some expertise at a particular activity (Snyder et aI., 1983). Consequently, high self-monitors tend to choose different friends for different activities. Ifhigh self-monitors wanted to playa card game, for example, they would choose to play that game with a person who was skilled at playing cards rather than a close friend with whom they shared interests. If high self-monitors wanted to go out and see a movie, for example, they might choose a different friend for that activity. To a high self-monitor, a friend is someone who is a