Self-Monitoring and Conformity: A Comparison of Self-Report and

Scher, Thompson UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)

Behavioral Measures

Nicole Scher, Tanya Thompson

Faculty Sponsor: Betsy L. Morgan, Department of Psychology

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the role of self-monitoring in relation to self-reported and behavioral

conformity. Ninety-three female undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory to psychology

course were administered a questionnaire packet consisting of the Lennox and Wolfe Revised

Self-Monitoring Scale (RSMS), a self-reported measure of conformity, and a series of vignettes,

both designed by the authors. A tertiary split was performed to yield groups of high and low self-

monitors, resulting in 31 participants for a behavioral measure of conformity. For the behavioral

measure, which took place approximately six weeks after the initial questionnaire, each participant

and three confederates were given six decision-making vignettes, three of which were included in

the initial questionnaire. The confederates answered uniformly on the previously seen vignettes,

opposite of what the participant had originally answered. Confederates split their answers on the

“new” vignettes in order to disguise the purpose of the study. The behavioral conformity score

was determined by the number of times the participant answered uniformly with the confederates

despite their original answers. Findings suggest that there is a significant relationship between

self-monitoring and behavioral conformity. No significant relationship exists between self-

monitoring and self-reported conformity. Additional studies should be conducted using larger,

gender balanced, and more ethnically diverse samples.

INTRODUCTION

The tendency to behave in ways that comply with social norms that are contrary to one’s private beliefs is

known as conformity. The most widely known studies of conformity are Asch’s (1951) line judgment tasks. Asch’s

research involved a naïve participant choosing one of three lines to which the stimulus line was closest in length. In

the classic condition, three confederates answered uniformly and incorrectly. Asch found that 76% of the

participants conformed at least once to the situation and indicated later on that they had actually believed the line to

be a different length than the expressed answer. Asch’s findings highlighted the extent to which the desire to be

liked by strangers overpowered the need to be right. Since that time, social psychologists have been trying

empirically to understand the conditions that promote conformity and the reasons behind conforming behaviors.

Whether it is the role of citizens in promoting genocide or a college student succumbing to the peer pressure of

drinking too much at a party, the issue of conformity is extremely important in understanding why people act as they

do. Conformity has traditionally been studied in relationship to situational variables; and, although lesser in

influence, personality factors also play a role in affecting the level of conformity. Situational factors, such as the

presence of an authority figure, are those that can be predicted from characteristics of a given situation; whereas

dispositional attributes are internal states which produce consistency across situations (Moos, 1969). Situational

factors associated with higher conformity include reduced accountability for actions (Quinn & Schlenker, 2002),

group size (Asch, 1955), and difficulty of task (Baron, Vandello & Brunsman, 1996). A variety of dispositional

attributes have also been shown to be associated with high conformity including low self-esteem (Berkowitz &

Lundy, 1957), high authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1988; Feldman, 2003), low social class (Fontaine, 1991), and being

female (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004).

One dispositional factor of interest to the study of conformity is self-monitoring. Self-monitoring is an internal

state combined of self-observation and self-control. By processing certain self-related information, people try to

control the attributions and impressions others form of them; therefore, self-monitoring is related to self-presentation

(Renner, Laux, Schütz, & Tedeschi, 2004). Individuals use their perceptions of how others view them as guidelines

for their behavior in certain situations. Snyder (1974) contended that self-monitoring is influenced by one’s external

cues as to what is socially appropriate. The level of self-monitoring a person displays has to do with how aware of a

situation they are, and the extent to which they change their behavior in accordance to their awareness of certain

situations. Traditionally, self-monitoring has been assessed by the use of scales, which allows researchers to

Scher, Thompson UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)

differentiate between high and low self-monitors.

Low self-monitors tend to guide their behavioral choices on the basis of relevant internal states such as values,

feelings, and dispositions. They are concerned that their behaviors accurately reflect their internal states (DeBono,

1987). The self-presentation and expressive behavior of low self-monitors seems to be controlled from within, rather

than monitored and altered to fit a given situation (Snyder, 1974). Low self-monitors react positively to situations in

which they have the opportunity to express their underlying beliefs and values (Snyder & DeBono, 1985). The

demands of social situations generally do not motivate them to change their behavior (Brown, White & Gerstein,

1989).

High self-monitors are more likely to control their self-presentation and expressive behavior (Snyder, 1974). An

individual who is considered to be a high self-monitor may be more skillful at using the expression and self-

presentation of others in social situations as guidelines for his/her own behavior. Snyder and Swann (1976) and

Snyder and Tanke (1976) found data suggesting that people who are considered to be high self-monitors can tolerate

greater inconsistency between their behaviors and their attitudes than people who are considered to be low self-

monitors. Correspondingly, someone who has a high concern for appropriateness would modify his/her behavior to

be in accordance with what he/she thinks to be the social norm. High self-monitors are more likely to vary their

behavior in response to situational changes than are low self-monitors (Ickes and Barnes, 1977). High self-monitors

should be more likely to display a higher level of conformity than individuals who are considered to be low self-

monitors. Although the relationship between self-monitoring and conformity behavior is plausible, very little

empirical research on the topic exists. Chen, Schechter and Chaiken (1996) found that high self-monitors showed

more attitude change motivated by impression management than did low self-monitors. The current study applies

self-monitoring theory more directly to a behavioral conformity situation.

Measuring Conformity

There are two common ways conformity is measured: self-report and behavioral observations. Observational

research involves the creation of a conformity situation where participants’ actual behavior in the situation is

observed and measured. The Asch studies (1951, 1957) are classic examples of laboratory based conformity

situations. Measuring actual conformity is time consuming for researchers and involves the use of confederates. In

more recent years, researchers have utilized computers to simulate conformity situations (Lee & Nass, 2002; Lee,

2006; Sassenberg & Boos, 2003). In Lee & Nass’s study, participants were led to believe that they would be

interacting with other participants via a computer. After reading hypothetical situations on a computer screen, they

were asked to make a decision after they saw that the other “participants” all chose the same answer.

Given the demands of measuring conformity in the laboratory, researchers have also attempted to measure

conformity via more traditional attitudinal or personality-type scales comprised of items to which participants

indicate how much the item captures their beliefs or propensities (Goldsmith & Clark, 2005; Levine, 2004; Rudman

& Fairchild, 2004). Goldsmith and Clark used a seven-point semantic differential format to present bipolar

adjectives such as compliant-defiant, inflexible-adapting, and differing-concurring to measure one’s tendency to

conform. The predictive validity of these scales for conformity in actual situations has not been determined. Finally,

another form of self-reported conformity prompts participants to reveal how they might react to the conformity

situations as indicated in written scenario (e.g., Berndt, 1979).

Actual levels of conformity tend to be much higher in behavioral measures than in self-reports. Given the high

premium placed on independence as a desired trait in the U.S. (Hsu, 1985) participants wishing to present

themselves in a positive manner would be less likely to report that they would conform. In addition, both experts

and laypeople underestimate the power of situational variables. One of the best known examples of how self-reports

may be inaccurate was noticed in Milgram’s study of obedience (1963). Participants were told to administer

electrical shocks to confederates disguised as fellow participants. Despite demands from the confederates to stop the

shocks, the participants were encouraged by the researcher to continue with the experiment. Milgram asked

psychiatrists, college students, and middle class adults how they would behave in the situation and how they thought

other people would behave in the same situation. Psychiatrists predicted that only one out of a thousand people

would go all the way to 450 volts, which was past the “Danger: Severe” level. However, in Milgram’s study, 65%

of the participants actually went all the way (Milgram, 1963). The degree of conformity was greatly underestimated

by those asked to predict the behavior of others because they relied on dispositional explanations rather than

situational variables.

The current study explored the relationship between self-monitoring, self-reported conformity, and a behavioral

measure of conformity. We expected to find a positive correlation between self-monitoring and self-reported

conformity. We also expected to find only a moderate relationship between self-reported conformity and behavioral

conformity. Finally, we expected to find a positive correlation between self-monitoring and behavioral conformity.

Scher, Thompson UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)

METHOD

Participants

Thirty one female, Caucasian undergraduate students (age 18-22; M = 19) enrolled in an introductory

psychology course at a midsized public Midwestern university received extra-credit for their participation in this

study. Given that prior research indicates gender differences in conformity in order to reduce the sample size

needed to gain sufficient power, only female participants were solicited. Participants were selected on the basis of

their scores on the Lennox and Wolfe (1984) Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (RSMS) administered in an initial

testing of 93 female participants. We performed a tertiary split to yield groups of high and low self monitors

resulting in 37 participants, 31 of whom were able to complete the study. Eighteen participants were classified as

low self-monitors (M = 35.83; range 28-39); whereas 13 participants were classified as high self-monitors (M =

50.00; range 47-55).

Materials

At the initial testing, all participants completed a questionnaire that included several measures including the

RSMS and two measures designed by the authors: a self-report measure of conformity and six behavioral vignettes.

Several other measures were included to mask the purpose of the study. The RSMS consists of 13 items measured

on a 6-point Likert-type scale. Seven of these items represent Ability to Modify Self-Presentation, which includes

statements such as “I have the ability to control the way I come across to people, depending on the impression I wish

to give them.” The other six items represent Sensitivity to the Expressive Behaviors of Others. These items include

statements such as “I can usually tell when I’ve said something inappropriate by reading it in the listener’s eyes.” In

past research, the RSMS has been found to be reliable and valid (Bearden, 1999; Shuptrine, Bearden, & Teel, 1990).

For the final sample of 31 participants in this study alpha = .87

The self-report measure of conformity was a nine-item scale designed with the intent to measure how likely the

participants would be to conform in hypothetical situations. The nine scenarios included an even distribution of

prosocial, neutral, and antisocial conformity situations (Range 14-55; M = 25; SD = 7.00). Scores for each

participant were added up to calculate a total self-report conformity score. Participants were asked to indicate what

they would do in a given situation and how certain they were of their decision based on a six-point Likert-type scale.

The following are two examples from the self-report conformity scale.

You are with a group of your friends and you are all trying to decide what to do this weekend. All of

your friends really want to go and see the new horror movie that just came out. You do not like

horror movies and would prefer to see something else. You tell your friends you want to see

something else but they tell you they really want to go see the horror movie. What do you do?

(Response choice was 1 “Definitely go to the movie” to 6 “Definitely not go to the movie.”)

You are sitting in class on the first day with three other friends when a person in your cube of your

dorm comes and sits next to you. Your friends do not like this person and start teasing this person

right away. You kind of like this person as a friend. What do you do? (Response choice was 1

“Definitely stick up for them” to 6 “Definitely join in the teasing.”)

The final measures of interest in the questionnaire packet were six behavioral vignettes designed for this study.

Each vignette described a situation in which the participant was asked to make a decision between two choices. In

pilot work, three of the vignettes were found to yield uniform responses. These three vignettes are shown below.

For the past semester, Mark has been mentoring Jordan, a middle-school teenager who has a very

poor family life. Mark has developed a really close relationship with Jordan, and he can tell how

much Jordan looks up to him and looks forward to their time spent together. With all of the

craziness that goes on at the end of the semester, Mark forgot that his last visit with Jordan is

supposed to be the night before his Biology final, a class that he has really been struggling with all

semester. He needs at least a B on the final to pass the class, and if he does not pass the class he

will lose his scholarship and may not be able to afford returning to college next semester. Mark

has to leave to go home for winter break immediately after the final, there would not be any other

time to see Jordan. Should Mark call Jordan and tell him how important it is that he stay and study

for this exam, or should he see Jordan and risk failing his Biology class and possibly dropping out

of school?

Scher, Thompson UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)

Participants were then asked if they would “ See Jordan” or “Study for the exam” and all of the participants

selected “study for the exam.”

At the end of this semester, Ashley will be graduating with a degree in Business Administration.

She has spent the past 8 weeks searching and applying for jobs. After several interviews, she

finally got a job offer in Minneapolis. The company is prepared to offer her a competitive salary

with excellent benefits and a month's worth of paid vacation. However, since Ashley is from the

Milwaukee area, if she took the job it would mean moving away from family and friends. Her

grandma is 91 years old, and has recently suffered a massive stroke. Her mom tells Ashley that her

grandma might not be around for much longer. Although this news is upsetting, Ashley was never

very close with her grandma. Ashley’s mother can get her a job at her firm but it is 60% of the pay

of the other job with little chance of advancement. Should Ashley take the job offer in

Minneapolis, or should she move back home to Milwaukee in order to spend more time with her

grandmother before she dies?

Participants were then asked if they would “ Take the Minneapolis job ” or “Take the Milwaukee job” and

all of the participants selected “take the Minneapolis job.”

Dan’s birthday is next week. His friends and he have a tradition where they all go out to eat for each

other’s birthdays, and whoever has the birthday gets to pick the restaurant. Dan hasn’t been to his

favorite restaurant in a long time, and he has really been looking forward to it. However, it is not the

cheapest place he could pick. One of his friends has been having a rough time this year financially,

and he knows it would be a struggle for that friend to be able to come and pay for his meal. Dan

would have no problem paying for his friend’s meal, but he is afraid of embarrassing him by

offering. Should Dan pick the more expensive restaurant and offer to pay for his friend’s meal, but

risk embarrassing him, or should he pick a different restaurant that he doesn’t like as much?

Participants were then asked if they would “ Pick the expensive restaurant ” or “Pick a less expensive

restaurant” and all of the participants selected “pick a less expensive restaurant.”

Procedure

At the time they completed the questionnaire component of the study, participants were given a unique

identifier and provided their contact information. Participants who were shown to be high or low self-monitors via

the tertiary split were contacted six weeks after the initial screening and invited to earn additional extra-credit points

by participating in an experiment studying “group decision-making processes.”

When each participant arrived for the second component of the study they followed signs indicating where to

wait for the decision-making processes experiment where three female undergraduate confederates playing the role

of additional participants were already waiting. The researcher read the names of the confederates, who were

trained to step forward in the order their names were called, and the name of the participant and led the group of four

into a small room. The rooms consisted of one square table and four chairs. Once everyone was seated, the

researcher said the following:

Thank you for coming back to complete the second part of this study, which measures decision-making

processes in group situations. We will you have you read a series of vignettes. After each vignette, we

would like to hear your decision about what you would do in the given situation. When stating your

decision, please choose from one of the two options instead of giving your own alternative. At the end we

will ask you to rate this experience.

The vignettes were then handed out individually on notecards. After everyone finished reading the vignette, the

researcher pointed to the first confederate and said “How about you start. Please tell us what you chose – and we can

just continue in a circle.” The researchers always made sure that the participant would be the last to answer. The first

vignette was new (the participant had not seen it in the previous questionnaire), and the three confederates split their

responses such that two of them answered one way and one gave the opposite answer. The next three vignettes were

those from the initial questionnaire that had yielded uniform responses and, for which, participant responses were

known. On each of these three vignettes, the confederates all answered the opposite of what the participant had

indicated in their questionnaire packet. To help disguise the purpose of the study, the last two vignettes were also

new, and, once again, the confederates split their answers. At the end of the experiment, the researcher said “Thank

Scher, Thompson UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)

you very much for your cooperation. The results and a debriefing statement will be emailed to you once all of our

data has been collected. Thanks and have a good night!”

The researchers led each group out a back door so as not to run into any future participants who might be

waiting.

RESULTS

The level of conformity was computed in two ways. Any participant who conformed at least once in the three

trials where the confederates answered uniformly in the direction opposite the participant’s original answer was

considered to have conformed. Secondly, the number of times a participant conformed was computed. Overall, 61%

of participants conformed at least once, whereas 39% never conformed. Of those who conformed, 53% conformed

once, 37% conformed twice and 10% conformed three times.

Our hypothesis that self-monitoring would be positive related to self-reported conformity was not supported.

For the initial larger sample r (93) = .01, ns, and for the final sample of high and low self-monitors r(31) = .03, ns.

Our hypothesis that there would be a moderate positive relationship between actual conformity and self-reported

conformity was also not supported r(31) = .09, ns. Finally, our hypothesis that self-monitoring would be related to

behavioral conformity was supported. Self-monitoring was positively related to behavior conformity r(31) .45, p <

.01, ns Low self monitors (n = 18) conformed an average of .61 times; whereas high self-monitors (n = 13)

conformed an average of 1.46, F (30, 1) = 7.36, p < .01. In a related finding, a higher percentage of high self-

monitors conformed than did low self-monitors (see Table 1), Χ

= 5.13; p < .05. Figure 1 displays the correlations

among the three major variables.

Figure 1. Correlations among self-monitoring, self-reported conformity, and behavioral conformity

Table 1. Percentages of Self-Monitors Who Conformed at Least Once

Conformity No Conformity

High Self-Monitors

(n = 13)

85% 15%

Low Self-Monitors

(n = 18)

44% 56%

Self-Report

Conformity

Behavioral

Conformity

r = .45; p < .01

r = .09, ns

r = .03, ns

Self Monitoring

Scher, Thompson UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)

DISCUSSION

Our hypothesis that a positive relationship between self-monitoring and behavioral conformity exists was

supported. High self-monitors were much more likely to conform than were low self-monitors. This finding

provides support for the theory that dispositional traits such as self-monitoring can affect conformity in actual

situations. We presume that the behavior of the high self-monitors in our behavioral conformity was affected by a

higher concern with what others would think of them than was the behavior of the low self-monitors. One aspect of

self-monitoring relates to individuals using their perceptions of what others think of them as guidelines for their own

behavior in certain situations (Snyder, 1974). Therefore, high self-monitors should be more likely to change their

expressed beliefs in direct relation to the behavior of others. Since low self-monitors are not as willing to change

their behavior in accordance to how others view them, they should not be as likely to go against their original views

in order to agree with the group.

Our results did not support the hypothesis that there would be a positive correlation between self-monitoring

and self-reported conformity. Perhaps the trait of self-monitoring is more evident in situations with an external cue,

such as the physical presence of others, than in written scenarios where the presence of others is merely

hypothetical. Another possible explanation for the non-significant finding is that individuals may not be as aware of

their self-monitoring behavior until they are in a situation involving others. If high self-monitors are not aware of

their tendencies to monitor their own behavior, they would be unlikely to correctly determine their actions in a given

situation. However, the authors have significant concerns regarding our scale’s ability to reliably measure self-

reported conformity. The reliability coefficient was very low (.14) and the correlation between self-reported and

actual conformity was non-significant. Given the power of situational variables associated with conformity, it is

possible that there is a very low probability of developing a valid and reliable self-report measure of conformity.

Another factor that may play a role in the inaccurate self-report of conformity behavior is that independent behaviors

are more desirable in an individualistic culture like the United States (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2005). Therefore,

when self-reporting behaviors, high self-monitors may have opted for the more “socially desirable” choices of acting

independent in the behavioral situation where the socially desirable outcome was to agree with the others. Overall,

if it is possible, a reliable and valid measure of self-reported conformity would need to be developed in order to

conduct further research on this topic.

This study includes some limitations that may have influenced the results. The major limitation is that our self-

reported conformity scale was not proven to be reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .14. The relationships between

self-monitoring and self-reported conformity, and behavioral conformity and self-reported conformity, might have

been significant given a reliable self-report measure. Because a period of six weeks lapsed between the initial

questionnaire and the behavioral measure, it is possible that outside influences in the participants’ lives caused them

to actually change their decisions in the behavioral vignettes. In this case, agreeing with the confederates would not

be considered as conformity. However, these chance events should have been evenly distributed between high and

low self-monitors. Finally, in order more to accurately generalize the findings of this study, additional studies

should be conducted using larger, gender balanced, and more ethnically diverse samples.

This study utilized a traditional behavioral situation in order to measure the relationship of self-monitoring and

conformity. The extent to which situational circumstances influence levels of conformity have been well established

(Quinn & Schlenker, 2002; Asch, 1955; Baron, Vandello & Brunsman, 1996). Dispositional factors influence

conformity to a lesser extent than situational factors; but also play a role. Our study provides strong behavioral

evidence for a relationship between self-monitoring and conformity for women. Additional research on this topic

with larger more diverse samples in terms of race, ethnicity, gender and age across a wider variety of conformity

situations should provide additional evidence that individuals who utilize perceptions of what others think of them

as guidelines for their own behavior will be more likely to conform in many circumstances.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the grant committee for funding this project and the students who served as

confederates for their time and help with our behavioral measure. We would also like to thank Betsy Morgan for

being our advisor and for all the guidance she has provided.

Scher, Thompson UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)

REFERENCES

Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow

(Ed.), Groups, leadership and men; research in human relations (pp. 177-190). Oxford, England: Carnegie

Press.

Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressures. Scientific American, 193(5), 31-35.

Asch, S.E. (1957). An experimental investigation of group influence. In Symposium on preventive and social

psychiatry. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task

importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915-927.

Bearden, W. O. (1999). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior

research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Berkowitz, L., & Lundy, R. M. (1957). Personality characteristics related to susceptibility to influence by peers or

authority figures. Journal of Personality, 25, 306-316.

Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental Psychology, 15(6),

608-616.

Brown, M.T., White, M. J., & Gerstein, L. H. (1989). Self-monitoring processes and Holland vocational preferences

among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 183-188.

Chen, S., Shechter, D., & Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-

motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262-275.

DeBono, K. G. (1987). Investigating the social adjustive and value-expressive functions of attitudes: Implications

for persuasion processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2), 279-287.

Feldman, S. (2003). Enforcing social conformity: A theory of authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 24, 41-74.

Fontaine, A. M. (1991). Impact of social context on the relationship between achievement motivation and anxiety,

expectations or social conformity. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(5), 457-466.

Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2005). Lives Across Cultures (3

ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Goldsmith, R. E., Clark, R.A., & Lafferty, B. A. (2005). Tendency to conform: A new measure and its relationship

to psychological reactance. Psychological Reports, 96, 591-594.

Hsu, L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A.J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture

and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 24-55). New York: Tavistock.

Ickes, W. & Barnes, R.D. (1977). The role of sex and self-monitoring in unstructured dyadic interactions. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 35(5), 315-330.

Lee, E. (2006). When and how does depersonalization increase conformity to group norms in computer-mediated

communication? Communication Research, 33(6), 423-447.

Lee, E., & Nass, C. (2002). Experimental tests of normative group influence and representation effects in computer-

mediated communication: When interacting via computers differs from interacting with computers. Human

Communication Research, 28(3), 349-381.

Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 46(6), 1349-1364.

Levine, F. J. (2004). Feeling strong: The achievement of authentic power. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic

Association, 52(1), 541-551.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.

Moos, R. H. (1969). Sources of variance in responses to questionnaires and in behavior. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 74(4), 405-412.

Quinn, A., & Schlenker, B. R. (2002). Can accountability produce independence? Goals as determinants of the

impact of accountability on conformity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 472-483.

Renner, K. H., Laux, L., Schütz, A., & Tedeschi J. T. (2004). The relationship between self-presentation styles and

coping with social stress. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17(1), 1-22.

Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural

stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,87(2), 157-176.

Sassenberg, K., & Boos, M. (2003). Attitude change in computer-mediated communication: effects of anonymity

and category norms. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6(4), 405-422.

Schuptrine, F. K., Bearden, W. O., & Teel, J E. (1990). An analysis of the dimensionality And reliability of the

Lennox and Wolfe revised self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54(3&4), 515-522.

Scher, Thompson UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4),

526-537.

Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of

advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 586-597.

Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. Jr. (1976). When actions reflect attitudes: The politics of impression management.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 1034-1042.

Snyder, M., & Tanke, E. D. (1976). Behavior and attitude: Some people are more consistent than others. Journal of

Personality, 44(3), 501-517.