340 The Social Self
Meanwhile, the closer the relationship, the greater the
effect. You gain (or lose) more esteem if your spouse wins a
major award than if your hairdresser wins it. Thus the com-
parison process may be especially disruptive to close relation-
ships. If a romantic partner succeeds on something irrelevant
to your self-esteem, you may feel closer to that partner. If he
or she succeeds at something highly relevant to your own
goals, then you may feel jealous or threatened, and the inti-
mate relationship may be damaged (Beach, 1992). When the
comparison process makes you look bad, the only way to
limit the damage may be to reduce closeness. Research con-
firms that people distance themselves from someone who per-
forms too well on something that is highly relevant to their
own self-concepts (Pleban & Tesser, 1981).
Self-Monitoring
Snyder (1974, 1987) proposed an early and influential theory
about individual differences in how the self structures inter-
personal processes. He was first interested in cross-situational
consistency, stimulated by Bem and Allen’s (1974) suggestion
that some people are more consistent in their traits than others.
Snyder introduced the concept ofself-monitoringas an indi-
vidual difference, distinguishing between high self-monitors
and low self-monitors. A high self-monitor looks to others for
cues, modifying his or her behavior to fit the situation and the
people in it. A low self-monitor, on the other hand, is more
consistent and does not try to alter behavior very much across
situations. Subsequent research (Snyder & Swann, 1976)
showed that low self-monitors had high attitude-behavior
consistency: Their attitudes predicted their verdicts in a simu-
lated jury case. In contrast, high self-monitors’ attitudes did
not predict their behavior very well, probably because they
modified their statements on the jury case to fit the immediate
situational demands and cues. It seems that high self-monitors
do not see any necessary relation between their private be-
liefs and their public actions, and so discrepancies do not
bother them (Snyder, 1987). Thus, there is a basic difference in
how these two types of people regard themselves. Low self-
monitors believe that they have strong principles, and they
consistently strive to uphold them. High self-monitors see
themselves as pragmatic and flexible rather than principled.
They respond to the situation and do what they regard as
appropriate, which often includes altering their own self-
presentations.
Further research addressed the interaction patterns associ-
ated with the different levels of self-monitoring. Low self-
monitors base friendships on emotional bonds, and they
prefer to spend most of their time with the people they like
best. In contrast, high self-monitors base friendships on
shared activities. Thus they spend time with the people who
are best suited to the relevant activity. For example, the low
self-monitor would prefer to play tennis with his or her best
friend, regardless of how well the friend plays. The high self-
monitor would rather play tennis with the best tennis player
among his or her acquaintances (or the one best matched to
his or her own abilities). Consequently, the social worlds of
high self-monitors are very compartmentalized, with differ-
ent friends and partners linked to specific activities. On the
other hand, the social worlds of low self-monitors are rela-
tively uncategorized by activities, with friends chosen
instead on the basis of emotional bonds.
These interpersonal patterns carry over into romantic rela-
tionships (Snyder & Simpson, 1984; Snyder, 1987). For ex-
ample, high self-monitoring males choose dating patterns
based mainly on physical appearance, whereas low self-
monitors place more emphasis on personality and other inner
qualities. High self-monitors tend to have more romantic and
sexual partners than lows. When it comes to marriage, high
self-monitors again look for shared activities and interests,
whereas low self-monitors emphasize mainly the pleasures
and satisfactions of simply being together.Partner Views of SelfSwann (1996) advanced a simpler theory of how interper-
sonal relationships are shaped by self-views. Extending self-
verification theory, Swann argued that people prefer romantic
partners who see them as they see themselves. People are
sometimes torn between a desire to see themselves favorably
and a desire to confirm what they already think of themselves
(as we discussed earlier). If love is truly blind, a person in
love would see the beloved partner in an idealized way.
Would that be helpful or harmful?
Swann and his colleagues (Swann, Hixon, & De La
Ronde, 1992) have examined such dilemmas in various rela-
tionships, ranging from roommates to spouses. On a variety
of measures, they found that people would rather be with
someone who confirms their self-views (as opposed to some-
one who saw them favorably). People choose, like, and retain
partners who see them accurately. This research might ex-
plain why some people have partner after partner who treats
them badly: They somehow feel that they do not deserve to
be treated well. In this view, the idealizing effects of love are
dangerous and harmful to the relationship. Apparently people
want their friends and lovers to see all their faults.
However, a large independent investigation found that fa-
vorability is more important than consistency with self-
views. Murray, Holmes, and Griffin (1996a) found that
favorable views of one’s partner were associated with better