Читать книгу Health Communication Theory - Группа авторов - Страница 29

Self‐monitoring is defined as individuals’ tendency to “exercise control over their expressive behavior, self‐presentation, and nonverbal displays of affect” (Snyder 1979, p. 86). This tendency is shaped by one’s individual perspective, as well as by personal and social experiences. Snyder’s (1974, 1979) original 25‐item self‐monitoring scale was composed to capture individuals’ (i) concern for social appropriateness (e.g. “It’s important for me to fit into the group I’m with”); (ii) attention to social comparison (e.g. “I try to pay attention to the reactions of others to my behavior in order to avoid being out of place”); (iii) ability to control and modify one’s behavior and image (e.g. “In social situations, I have the ability to alter my behavior if I feel that something else is called for”); (iv) ability to adapt oneself to fit particular situations (e.g. “I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them”); and (v) ability to tailor one’s behavior and image to fit in (e.g. “In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons”). Since the conception of Snyder’s (1979) original scale, a revised shortened version of the self‐monitoring scale has been validated (e.g. 12‐items, Lennox and Wolfe 1984, O’Cass 2000), but there has been little recent measurement work on the scale.

As an audience segmentation variable, self‐monitoring allows for functional message matching (Briñol and Petty 2015; Carpenter, Boster, and Andrews 2013; Teeny, Briñol, and Petty 2016; Petty et al. 2017). Self‐monitoring is especially useful to promote health behaviors which may vary at the public versus private level (e.g. nutrition, exercise) as it has been successfully used to differentiate individuals in key compatible contexts (e.g. relationships, emotional displays, purchasing and brand selection, social media use; Graeff 1996; Kim, Seely, and Jung 2017; Oh et al. 2013; Snyder 1987). Compared to low self‐monitors, high self‐monitors tend to (a) identify socially‐appropriate expectations and adapt to them, and (b) seek to fit in with others, which results in them behaving differently in public versus private environments (DeBono 2006a, 2006b). High self‐monitors are easily influenced by advertising tactics that help them fit in (DeBono and Packer 1991; Shavitt, Lowrey, and Han 1992; Snyder and DeBono 1985), and they are more willing to try and maintain favorable attitudes toward products that help them look socially appropriate (DeBono and Packer 1991; Snyder and DeBono 1985). They need to look good in others’ eyes (Smith, Lair, and O'Brien 2019), they are notorious status seekers (Fuglestad and Snyder 2010), and impression managers (Kudret, Erdogan, and Bauer 2019), extrinsically motivated buyers (Shao, Grace, and Ross 2019), and more easily persuaded by attractive sources over expert sources (Evans and Clark 2012). In many respects, high self‐monitors are similar to individuals with high impression‐relevant involvement (Johnson and Eagly 1989). Conversely, low self‐monitors are less driven by social expectations or belonging, and their public and private behaviors are quite consistent with each other (DeBono 2006a, 2006b). Given these contrasts, health messages tailored to high self‐monitors ought to emphasize public gratification for the individual, improved social image, status, and need for belonging, and should be delivered by attractive sources. Such messages may involve a public pledge or affiliation with a visible cause, such as Susan G. Komen’s breast cancer awareness’ pink merchandize and fundraising runs (Susan G. Komen Foundation, n.d.), as well as organ donation logos and blood donation stickers for recognition. When addressing low self‐monitors, health communication campaigns may focus on intrinsically derived values, satisfaction, and using an expert source. Individuals with a range of self‐monitoring tendencies can create a host of challenges and opportunities for our priority audience. The final individual difference variable discussed in this chapter is sensation seeking.