Self-Presentation, Self-Monitoring, and the Self-Serving Bias in Causal Attribution

Arkin, Robert M.; Gabrenya, William K.; Appelman, Alan S.; Cochran, Susan T.

doi:10.1177/014616727900500116

Cited by 30 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, when the handicapping excuse was too salient, it would disrupt the illusion that it was indeed a legitimate reason for failure and would instead appear to be an intentional strategy to "cover up" the truth. Further evidence that situations increasing the salience of an excuse may ultimately reduce its use can be found in work by Arkin, Appelman, and Burger (1980), and by Arkin, Gabrenya, Appelman, and Cochran (1979).…”

Section: Explicitly Offering a Handicapmentioning

confidence: 98%

Self-Handicapping

Higgins

Snyder

Berglas

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of each new volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment. For further information please contact the publisher. rence, Kansas 66045 vii FOREWORDThe concept of self-handicapping can be legitimately anchored in a variety of intellectual contexts, some old and some newer. As this volume reminds us, Alfred Adler was perhaps the first to articulate the significance of various self-defeating claims and gestures for protecting the selfconcept. Thus the apparent paradox of "defeat" in the interests of "protection." More recently (but still more than 30 years ago), Heider's "naive psychology" added attributional rhetoric to the description of self-defeating strategies. While predominantly cognitive in its thrust, the attributional approach incorporated several motivational influences-especially those involving egocentric concerns. Heider hardly violated our common sense when he suggested that people are inclined to attribute their performances in a self-serving manner: the good things I caused; the bad things were forced upon me. The notion of self-handicapping strategies, proposed by Berglas and myself a little more than a decade ago, capitalized on these homely truths while adding a particular proactive twist. We not only make excuses for our blunders; we plan our engagements and our situational choices so that self-protective excuses are unnecessary. In doing so, we use our attributional understanding to arrange things so that flawed and failing performances will not be interpreted in ways that threaten our self-esteem.But do all of us do these things? Surely, the topics of excuse making-in the forms of procrastination, of distraction, of preparation failures, of headaches, colds, and hangovers-are so much a part of cultural lore that we can acknowledge our (occasional?) use of such explanations for failure in a self-mocking manner. A prominent concern of this volume are those points of transition between healthy egoix x FOREWORD centrism and pathological internalizations of self-handicapping styles.

show abstract

Section: Explicitly Offering a Handicapmentioning

confidence: 98%

Self-Handicapping

Higgins

Snyder

Berglas

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time as findings consistent with the self-monitoring formulation have accumulated, there clearly have been some failures to confirm hypotheses derived from the self-monitoring construct (e.g., Arkin, Gabrenya, Appelman, & Cochran, 1979;Cheek, 1982;Santee & Maslach, 1982;Schneiderman, 1980;Wolfe, Lennox, & Hudiburg, 1983;Zanna et al, 1980;Zuckerman & Reis, 1978). Of course, given the known effects of sampling variability, occasional failures to confirm hypotheses in specific samples must be expected even when genuine effects exist in the general population.…”

Section: Self-monitoring: Validity Of the Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.

Snyder¹,

Gangestad²

1986

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

877

803

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive network of empirical relations has been identified in research on the psychological construct of self-monitoring. Nevertheless, in recent years some concerns have been expressed about the instrument used for the assessment of self-monitoring propensities, the Self-Monitoring Scale. Both the extent to which the measure taps an interpretable and meaningful causal variable and the extent to which the self-monitoring construct provides an appropriate theoretical understanding of this causal variable have been questioned. An examination of reanalyses of studies of self-monitoring, analyses of the internal structure of the Self-Monitoring Scale, and further relevant data suggest that the measure does tap a meaningful and interpretable causal variable with pervasive influences on social behavior, a variable reflected as a general self-monitoring factor. We discuss the evaluation and furthering of the interpretation of this latent causal variable, offer criteria for evaluating alternative measures of self-monitoring, and present a new, 18-item Self-Monitoring Scale.According to theoretical analyses of self-monitoring, people differ in the extent to which they can and do observe and control their expressive behavior and self-presentation (e.g., Snyder, 1979). Individuals high in self-monitoring are thought to regulate their expressive self-presentation for the sake of desired public appearances, and thus be highly responsive to social and interpersonal cues of situationally appropriate performances.Individuals low in self-monitoring are thought to lack either the ability or the motivation to so regulate their expressive self-presentations. Their expressive behaviors, instead, are thought to functionally reflect their own enduring and momentary inner states, including their attitudes, traits, and feelings.A number of hypotheses-concerning, among others, the determinants of specificity and consistency in social behavior, the origins of linkages between attitudes and action, the dynamics of social interaction, and the nature and consequences of conceptions of self-have followed from these basic initial propositions. Research involving a measure of self-monitoring propensities (the Self-Monitoring Scale; for information on its reliability and validity, see Snyder, 1974) has provided empirical support for these and many more hypotheses about the cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal consequences of self-monitoring (e.g

show abstract

“…In addition, other research has raised serious questions pertaining to the self-monitor's sensitivity and responsiveness to others' self-presentations and to situational cues for appropriate behavior (e.g., Arkin, Gabrenya, Appelman, & Cochran, 1979;Dabbs, Evans, Hopper, & Purvis, 1980;Davis, 1978;Ickes & Barnes, 1977;Kleck et al, 1976;Ludwig, Franco, & Malloy, 1986;Miell & LeVoi, 1985;Schlenker, Miller, & Leary, 1983;von Baeyer, Sherk, & Zanna, 1981).…”

Section: The Matter Of Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity.

Briggs¹,

Cheek²

1988

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

231

276

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the evidence for a general factor of self-monitoring in six samples (N = 3,615). The results indicate the presence of two, relatively orthogonal, major factors (General Factors A and B). General Factor A, which presumably accounts for most of the empirical validity of the scale, correlated strongly with measures of the traditional personality dimension of social surgency such as exhibitionism, social potency, and extraversion. General Factor B is a weakened version of an earlier identified Other-Directedness factor, and it correlated positively with shyness and negatively with self-esteem. Additional analyses examined the 18-item revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale in terms of the extent to which it strengthens General Factor A, its relationship to the original version, its factor structure, and correlations with other personality measures. We discuss three flaws in the construct of self-monitoring: its assumption of the bipolarity of social and personal orientations, its assumption of uniformity among those who score high on the Self-Monitoring Scale, and its lack of clarity concerning the role of intentionality in self-presentational processes. We suggest that it is time to move beyond the construct presented by Snyder (1987) toward a more comprehensive investigation of self-presentation and social behavior.

show abstract

Self-Presentation, Self-Monitoring, and the Self-Serving Bias in Causal Attribution

Cited by 30 publications

References 5 publications

Self-Handicapping

Self-Handicapping

On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.

On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About