In yesterday’s post, I described two gym instructors I had casually observed – one was a social chameleon, presenting different images depending on whom he was talking to; the other presented a more consistent image in all her social interactions. I asked why this might occur; today, I will attempt to answer it.

I will outline the concept of self-monitoring, again drawing heavily on the field of social cognition. There are many other perspectives which could also explain this behaviour, I have chosen to describe my favourite explanation.

People are different in the degree to which they employ intentional control over their self-presentation (the image(s) they present to others). Self-monitoring looks at the extent to which a person attends to the social situation they are in as a guide to their behaviour, or whether they attend more to their own internal states.

A high self-monitor is someone who is more concerned about behaving in a socially appropriate way, and is more likely to monitor the situation they are in, rather than their own internal states. In doing so, they look for subtle cues in the social situation that suggest how they should behave. It is reported that they are more accurate at interpreting others’ non-verbal communication than someone who is a low self-monitor. However, they behave differently in different social situations (known as cross-situational inconsistency). Snyder (1987) asserts that when taken to the extreme, this social perceptiveness and sensitivity to the situation merely makes them look like “self-interested opportunists” who alter their opinions and behaviour to suit.

Conversely, a low self-monitor stays ‘themselves’ regardless of the situation they find themselves in, seldom adjusting to the social norms of a particular situation. They purportedly monitor their behaviour in relation to their own internal needs and behaviour, although Snyder (1987) asserts that when taken to the extreme they may appear insensitive, obtuse and uncompromising. Low self-monitors show cross-situational consistency as their behaviour is consistent in different situations.

It would seem that the gym instructor I described as a social chameleon is a high self-monitor, although I would have to argue that his perception of the social norms expected in different situations would not necessarily conform to everybody else’s. Likewise, the female gym instructor I described as consistent would seem to be a low self-monitor.

Yesterday, I mentioned self-disclosure briefly when outlining behaviour matching. In tomorrow’s post, I will look at self-disclosure in much more detail and whether a personal trainer can reveal too much (or too little) about themselves to their clients.