to be less concerned about others’ perceptions of them and usually act in similar ways across situations (Kurt, Inman, & Argo, 2011). For instance, do you know someone who behaves in pretty much the same way no matter what setting she is in—perhaps is loud, profane, unkempt, and dressed in a baseball cap, T-shirt, and jeans regardless of the situation? She would be a low self-monitor. Compare her with a high self-monitor, who carefully selects his clothing and hairstyle to match social situations and tries hard to fit in with whomever he is with.
A high self-monitor tends to express different attitudes to different audiences—even if it entails endorsing attitudes that he doesn’t hold—and is more likely to mimic the behavior of others (Estow, Jamieson, & Yates, 2007; Leary & Allen, 2011). In contrast to low self-monitors, high self-monitors are more likely to act in accordance with social norms and are better able to read and respond to the interpersonal cues and emotions of others (Fuglestad & Snyder, 2010; Snyder, 1974). Differences between high and low self-monitors extend to romantic relationships—where the former focus more on surface characteristics such as physical attractiveness—and advertising—where image-oriented ads appeal to those at the high end of the scale (Snyder & DeBono, 1985). Some of my students have argued that self-monitoring is undesirable because it is overly conformist. However, they backpedal a bit when they realize how frequently they self-monitor and how important matching the behavior of others and fitting in are.
Bias Blind Spot: Believing that one is immune to cognitive biases that affect others
Interpersonal Self: Way we present ourselves to other people
Impression Management: Efforts to project the image of the self that a person wants others to have
Self-Monitoring: Extent to which people chronically think about how they appear to others and, as a consequence, change their appearance and behavior to fit the circumstances
The Spotlight Effect and the Illusion of Transparency
How would you feel if you were asked, while wearing a T-shirt with a large headshot of Justin Bieber, to enter a room with 6 college students, all of whom could potentially notice your shirt (and are unlikely to be Bieber fans)? Perhaps a bit embarrassed? How many of them would likely remember who was on your shirt? Well, if you were like the participants in a set of studies by Gilovich, Medvec, and Savitsky (2000), you’d think that more people took note of it than actually did. Irrespective of our dispositional self-monitoring level, many of us overestimate the extent to which other people are observing and noticing us—something called the spotlight effect (Gilovich et al., 2000; Lawson, 2010). In one study, participants wore a T-shirt displaying the somewhat embarrassing image of Barry Manilow when they entered a room of college students (See Figure 4.4). Participants later estimated that 46% of observers would remember the celebrity on the T-shirt, when in fact only 23% did. People similarly exaggerate how many others notice when they wear a nonembarrassing shirt or make positive or negative contributions to a group discussion or engage in another social blunder (Epley, Savitsky, & Gilovich, 2002; Gilovich et al., 2000). In effect, people tend to think they are in a veritable social spotlight.
A related phenomenon occurs with respect to how strongly we believe that others can “read” our emotions or detect lies that we utter merely by looking at our facial expressions. Social psychologists call this the illusion of transparency (Gilovich, Savitsky, & Medvec, 1998; Holder & Hawkins, 2007). For example, participants in one study were asked to hide their expressions of disgust while drinking unpleasant fluids and subsequently overestimated how many observers accurately perceived their true reaction (Brown & Stopa, 2007; Gilovich et al., 1998; MacInnis, Mackinnon, & MacIntyre, 2010). Both the spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency illustrate the fact that accurately understanding how other people perceive us can be challenging (Gilovich & Savitsky, 1999).
Figure 4.4 The Spotlight Effect
Source: Adapted from Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211–222.
Spotlight Effect: Overestimation of the extent to which other people are observing and noticing one
Illusion of Transparency: Incorrect belief that others can “read” our emotions or detect our lies merely by looking at our facial expressions
Getting Them to Like Me: Ingratiation
People often say “flattery will get you nowhere.” However, contrary to this common cliché, flattery will get you everywhere, unless it is too obvious (Westphal & Stern, 2007)! One of the best ways to get people to like you is to make them believe that you like them, and flattery is one strategy for accomplishing that (see Table 4.3) (Seiter, 2007). Ingratiation refers to attempts to get particular persons to like us, and ingratiation tactics include flattery, providing favors and gifts, agreeing with them, emphasizing that person’s positive qualities, and acting modestly (Jones, 1990; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010). As Jones (1990) noted, we like people who like us. At times we may we even go as far as to change our reported attitudes so that we appear to agree with those of an attractive member of the opposite sex who we expect to meet shortly (Rowatt, Cunningham, & Druen, 1998; Zanna & Pack, 1975).
Table 4.3
Ingratiation techniques can backfire, however, if they are seen as blatant attempts to gain favor (Brodsky & Cannon, 2006). Therefore, in order to be successful, ingratiation has to be conducted illicitly, so as not to be too obvious (Tal-Or, 2010b). There is a paradoxical aspect to ingratiation: Sometimes the very people we want to impress are high status individuals who are particularly attuned to attempts to garner favor (Jones, 1990). They are particularly skilled at recognizing when others try to ingratiate themselves. Fortunately, the target of ingratiation is more likely to believe that ingratiation tactics—such as compliments—are authentic or accurate than are neutral third parties (Varma, Toh, & Pichler, 2006). As you can see, ingratiation tactics are especially suited to obtaining the first self-presentational goal: to be seen as likable.
Ingratiation: Attempts to get particular persons to like us
Getting Them to Appreciate Me: Self-Promotion
Although it is important to be liked, there are times when we prefer to be seen as competent—as a capable student, barista, professor, and so forth (Proost, Schreurs, De Witte, & Derous, 2010). Self-promotion refers to efforts designed to convince others of one’s competence (Cialdini et al., 1976; Jones, 1990). As with ingratiation, there are a number of self-promotional tactics that may be employed. One is to demonstrate competence by performing the requisite behavior in front of those we want to impress (e.g., come watch me teach!). For example, study participants expecting to be contestants on a Jeopardy game show chose to sit in a more visible, prominent seat when they believed they would perform well—that they would know the answers—as compared to those who were less confident (Akimoto, Sanbonmatsu, & Ho, 2000). Another is simply by stating it: “I am a good teacher”—of course, be sure that you can back up your claim to competence! A third is by referring to other sources of objective information (“just look at my teaching evaluations and my teaching award!”) (Cialdini et al., 1976; Pfeffer, Fong, Cialdini, & Portnoy, 2006;
