Person. indtiid. D&T Vol. 12, No. 9, pp. 955-964. 199 I 0191-8869191 S3.00 +O.W Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright 0 1991 Pcrgamon Press plc DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL COMPETENCE: PERSONALITY AND COPING STYLE CORRELATES* MARK L. MILLER, RUSSELL S. OMENS and RANI DELVADIA Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2323 N. Seminary Ave., Chicago, IL 60614, U.S.A. (Received 7 August 1990) Summary-Many measures of social competence have arisen of late. Yet little evidence is available as to the extent of their empirical overlap, as well as their relationships with other individual difference variables. In this study we examine three constructs: functional flexibility, self-complexity and Lennox and Wolfe’s (1984; Journal of Personalify and Social Psychology, 46, 1349-13~) Revised Self-Monitoring Scale and concern for appropriateness. Results indicate, at best, only moderate degrees of overlap among these dimensions of competence. Self-complexity failed to correlate with any other measure in the study. Functional flexibility yielded a pattern of relationships indicating, if anything, hostility and maladjust- ment, as well as a disinclination toward the use of passive coping styles. The Lennox and Wolfe measures provided a wealth of relationships that are fairly consistent with their portrayal as reflecting independent styles of acquisitive and protective self-presentation. However, some of the results suggest caution in accepting this interpretation. We discuss the various implications of these results. INTRODUCTION The last 15 years has seen a proliferation of measures that purport to measure aspects of social competence, defined here as the cognitive, perceptual and behavioral skills that allow one to successfully adapt to the surrounding social world. Perhaps the earliest of these measures to receive wide use was Snyder’s (1974) Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS). Through the SMS, Snyder sought to assess individual differences in abilities and motivations to modify one’s self-presentation as a function of contextual demands. However, of late the SMS has received extensive criticism. Most notably, it has been argued that the multidimecsionality of the SMS, with its factors of acting, extraversion and other-directedness, makes for a chaotic measure of ultimately unclear import and interpretation (Briggs & Cheek, 1988; Briggs, Cheek & Buss, 1980; Lennox, 1988; Miller & Thayer, 1989). Accordingly, Lennox and Wolfe (1984) have sought to develop a Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (RSMS), one with a clearer, more theoretically based factor structure. They have also sought to isolate a separate construct with similarities to the other-directedness factor in the SMS which, Lennox and Wolfe argue, should be considered separate from the construct of self-monitoring. This construct is reflected in Lennox and Wolfe’s Concern for Appropriateness Scale (CAS). In this study we will evaluate Lennox and Wolfe’s RSMS and CAS. There have been other recent additions to the catalog of constructs that seem to reflect various facets of social competence. In the present study, we will consider two of these: Paulhus and Martin’s (1987, 1988) functional flexibility and Linville’s (1985, 1987) self-complexity. The dimensions of social competence In an attempt to derive measures that were more clearly reflective of the theoretical nature of self-monitoring, Lennox and Wolfe (1984) conducted a series of studies that led them to ultimately conclude that the essential nature of self-monitoring involved two features: the ability to modify one’s self-presentation and sensitivity to the expressive display of others. Each factor was uncorrelated or negatively correlated with a variety of indices of neuroticism and social anxiety, and tended to be positively associated with extraversion. This pattern of correlations seems to suggest that Lennox and Wolfe were successful in identifying a set of factors that are associated with positive social adaptation. *To avoid further delay, this paper has been published without the authors’ corrections. 95s
Transcript
Person. indtiid. D&T Vol. 12, No. 9, pp. 955-964. 199 I 0191-8869191 S3.00 +O.W Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright 0 1991 Pcrgamon Press plc
DIMENSIONS OF SOCIAL COMPETENCE: PERSONALITY AND COPING STYLE CORRELATES*
MARK L. MILLER, RUSSELL S. OMENS and RANI DELVADIA
Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2323 N. Seminary Ave., Chicago, IL 60614, U.S.A.
(Received 7 August 1990)
Summary-Many measures of social competence have arisen of late. Yet little evidence is available as to the extent of their empirical overlap, as well as their relationships with other individual difference variables. In this study we examine three constructs: functional flexibility, self-complexity and Lennox and Wolfe’s (1984; Journal of Personalify and Social Psychology, 46, 1349-13~) Revised Self-Monitoring Scale and concern for appropriateness. Results indicate, at best, only moderate degrees of overlap among these dimensions of competence. Self-complexity failed to correlate with any other measure in the study. Functional flexibility yielded a pattern of relationships indicating, if anything, hostility and maladjust- ment, as well as a disinclination toward the use of passive coping styles. The Lennox and Wolfe measures provided a wealth of relationships that are fairly consistent with their portrayal as reflecting independent styles of acquisitive and protective self-presentation. However, some of the results suggest caution in accepting this interpretation. We discuss the various implications of these results.
INTRODUCTION
The last 15 years has seen a proliferation of measures that purport to measure aspects of social competence, defined here as the cognitive, perceptual and behavioral skills that allow one to successfully adapt to the surrounding social world. Perhaps the earliest of these measures to receive wide use was Snyder’s (1974) Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS). Through the SMS, Snyder sought to assess individual differences in abilities and motivations to modify one’s self-presentation as a function of contextual demands.
However, of late the SMS has received extensive criticism. Most notably, it has been argued that the multidimecsionality of the SMS, with its factors of acting, extraversion and other-directedness, makes for a chaotic measure of ultimately unclear import and interpretation (Briggs & Cheek, 1988; Briggs, Cheek & Buss, 1980; Lennox, 1988; Miller & Thayer, 1989). Accordingly, Lennox and Wolfe (1984) have sought to develop a Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (RSMS), one with a clearer, more theoretically based factor structure. They have also sought to isolate a separate construct with similarities to the other-directedness factor in the SMS which, Lennox and Wolfe argue, should be considered separate from the construct of self-monitoring. This construct is reflected in Lennox and Wolfe’s Concern for Appropriateness Scale (CAS). In this study we will evaluate Lennox and Wolfe’s RSMS and CAS.
There have been other recent additions to the catalog of constructs that seem to reflect various facets of social competence. In the present study, we will consider two of these: Paulhus and Martin’s (1987, 1988) functional flexibility and Linville’s (1985, 1987) self-complexity.
The dimensions of social competence
In an attempt to derive measures that were more clearly reflective of the theoretical nature of self-monitoring, Lennox and Wolfe (1984) conducted a series of studies that led them to ultimately conclude that the essential nature of self-monitoring involved two features: the ability to modify one’s self-presentation and sensitivity to the expressive display of others. Each factor was uncorrelated or negatively correlated with a variety of indices of neuroticism and social anxiety, and tended to be positively associated with extraversion. This pattern of correlations seems to suggest that Lennox and Wolfe were successful in identifying a set of factors that are associated with positive social adaptation.
*To avoid further delay, this paper has been published without the authors’ corrections.
95s
956 MARK L. MILLER er al.
The CAS also yielded two factors, protective variability and protective social comparison. Each yielded significant positive relationships with neuroticism, indicating that they are associated with maladaptive social behavior.
Subsequent work by Wolfe, Lennox and Cutler (1986) provides support for an interpretation of the RSMS as measuring individual differences in an acquisitive self-presentation style, whereby one uses relatively active and manipulative strategies of self-presentation in an effort to win social approval and power. Conversely, the CAS purportedly assesses a more passive, self-protective style of self-presentation, so as to avoid social disapproval.
Paulhus and Martin (1987, 1988) have used a different conceptual strategy in investigating social competencies. Their emphasis has been on personality capabilities: capacities to successfully implement a particular form of situationally appropriate interpersonal behavior. The difference between the terms ability and capability lies in the latter’s recognition that with the need to successfully perform in a specific situation, comes anxiety that might well serve to make successful performance more difficult.
Thus far, Paulhus and Martin (1987) have succeeded in demonstrating that their index of ‘functional flexibility’ of behavior, the Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities (BIC), yields relatively mild correlations with more traditional measures of “typical” personality (generally in the 0.25430 range) and is positively related to self-esteem. Paulhus and Martin (1988) have also found that the BIC is, at best, moderately related to other indicators of social competence (e.g. self-monitoring, androgyny). They also showed that functional flexibility yielded relationships with self-esteem not obtained with Snyder’s SMS, and that peer ratings of flexibility demonstrated significant relationships with self-reports of flexibility.
The last of our social competence dimensions is Linville’s (1985, 1987) self-complexity. Linville argues that part of observed interindividual differences in affective variability can be accounted for by individual differences in the complexity of one’s self-representation. The self is seen as a cognitive knowledge structure, which stores and organizes the vast amounts of self-knowledge acquired over time. This structure is assumed to be multidimensional, in the sense that there are multiple aspects or features of self.
It follows, then, that people will differ in the complexity of their self-representation. Some people will have relatively simple self-concepts composed of but a few, overlapping, and, probably, very general features, while others will have relatively complex selves, composed of a large number of narrow, context-specific, independent aspects of self.
Linville asserts that, because high self-complexity represents a state wherein there are many self-aspects and because these multiple aspects are relatively independent, high self-complexity is likely to be associated with a lower level of affective variability. Given negative (or positive) feedback about the self or a high degree of life stress, the focus of the feedback or stress is likely to be a narrow, circumscribed component of the overall self-representation. As a result, the feedback or stressor will have little implication for the broader self. Persons with complex self-representations, then, will overall have little affective response to feedback or stress. Con- versely, persons with simple self-representations should be expected to react more extremely to feedback or stress (in either a positive or a negative direction, depending upon, for example, the valence of the feedback). Negative feedback, for instance, would permeate and have implications for the entire breadth of the self-concept, and so should lead to highly negative affective reactions.
The research described above suggests a number of issues that need to be addressed. First, to what extent are the dimensions of functional flexibility, concern for appropriateness, self- monitoring, and self-complexity tapping into similar or different facets of social competence? AS Paulhus and Martin (1988) suggest, self-monitoring bears conceptual and, at least for the original version of the scale, empirical overlap with functional flexibility. It would also seem reasonable to expect self-complexity to be positively associated with functional flexibility and self-monitoring, while being inversely correlated with concern for appropriateness. We also predict that functional flexibility and concern for appropriateness will be positively related, since Paulhus and Martin place emphasis in their conceptualization of capabilities upon performing a particular kind of behavior in situations that require (or are appropriate for) the behavior.
Our second concern is that of the relationship between dimensions of social competence and other components of the broader personality system. Thus far, functional flexibility has been
Social competence 957
examined strictly in relation to various facets of adjustment (e.g. self-esteem, anxiety) and of competence (e.g. androgyny). Similarly, work on the RSMS and CAS has primarily examined their relationship to a variety of markers of extraversion and neuroticism. Most strikingly, Linville’s measures of self-complexity have received virtually no explicit attention with regard to matters of construct validity.
Accordingly, a central focus of this study is to examine the relationship between functional flexibility, self-complexity, the RSMS, and the CAS and, because of its breadth of coverage of the personality domain, the Big Five personality factors (e.g. Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Goldberg, submitted; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Based upon previous research employing these measures, we predict that functional flexibility will be positively related to emotional stability (the inverse of neuroticism); the RSMS will be positively associated with extraversion and, possibly, emotional stability; and the CAS will be negatively correlated with emotional stability. Also, through a synthesis of a number of studies that have either directly related the original SMS with markers of the Big Five, or have allowed measures that have been related to the SMS to be interpreted in terms of the Big Five (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Furnham, 1989; McCrae & Costa, 1985; Riggio & Friedman, 1982), we predict that the RSMS will be negatively correlated with agreeableness, the CAS will be negatively related to conscientiousness, and that neither the RSMS nor the CAS will be related to culture. However, it is worth remembering that Lennox and Wolfe’s RSMS and CAS are designed to be revisions of the original SMS, rather than mirror images of it, so it may be that their correlates will not precisely reflect those of the SMS. Beyond usage of the Big Five, we will also include a variety of narrow-band measures, such as Fenigstein, Scheier and Buss’ (1975) Self-Consciousness Scale, so that we may examine how our dimensions of social competence relate to these other popular constructs. However, for the sake of brevity we do not present predictions between these measures and our dimensions of social competence.
We made no specific predictions for self-complexity’s relationship to other personality variables, since there is no previous research to guide us in making such predictions. As a general statement, we think that it is most likely that self-complexity will be related to dimensions of personality (such as extraversion and neuroticism) that are involved in affective functioning.
Our third objective in this study is to relate the competence dimensions to coping styles. It seems likely to us that if part of social adaptation involves coping with stressful life circumstances and the regulation of affective experience and expression, then facets of social competence should be involved in the shaping of these processes. At a general level we would expect that functional flexibility, self-monitoring and self-complexity should be positively associated with relatively active coping strategies (as opposed to strategies that involve more passive mechanisms, or disengaged strategies that essentially avoid the problem altogether). Concern for appropriateness should be associated with more passive or disengaged styles of coping.
Subjects
METHOD
A total of 98 DePaul University introductory psychology students (45 male and 53 female), with an average age of 20.49, participated in the study for research credit.
Procedure
Ss participated in the study either alone or in small groups of up to 10 people. The study involved the completion of two tasks. The first, a trait sort, provided a measure of self-complexity that was derived by Linville (1985, 1987). The second was a questionnaire packet that assessed a variety of dimensions of social competence, personality traits, and coping styles. Ss took approx. 1 hr to complete the tasks (30 min for the trait sort, and 30 min for the completion of the questionnaire).
Social competence measures
For the trait sort, Ss were given two recording sheets and 33 cards, each containing the name of one of 33 different traits, each with a corresponding number. In addition, each S was given a packet of 8 blank cards. Trait sorting instructions were patterned directly after Linville’s (1985)
958 MARK L. MILLER er al.
self-complexity measurement procedures. Respondents were asked to form as few or as many groups of traits that go together to form different components of the person’s self-concept. The content of the trait groups were left to the S to determine, and we did not ask the Ss to indicate what the various groups signified. It was stressed that not all traits needed to be used, and each trait could be used in more than one group. The 8 blank cards were available for Ss to write in the name and number of a trait that was to be used in more than one group.
To obtain a summary self-complexity score, an index of dispersion reflecting the number and distinctiveness of self-attributions was calculated. Developed by Linville (1985), and based on work by Scott, Osgood and Peterson (1979), an H-statistic was computed for each S based on the trait sort. This measure of dimensionality is the minimal number of independent binary attributes needed to reproduce the trait sort. The H-statistic is obtained as follows:
H = log,n-[l/n (&,log,ni)]
where n = the total number of traits (here n = 33). ni is the number of traits that appear in a particular group combination. [See Linville (1985) for further details on the H-statistic.] The maximum possible score is equal to log,n, which in this case is 5.04, with higher scores indicating more complex self-representations.
The questionnaire packet was completed next. Questionnaire-based measures of social compe- tence included measures of functional flexibility, self-monitoring and concern for appropriateness.
We used Lennox and Wolfe’s (1984) Revised Self-Monitoring Scale, with its two subscales of Ability to Modify Self-Presentation and Sensitivity to the Expressive Display of Others. This measure indexes one’s ability to sensitively modulate one’s self-presentations across situations. We also employed Lennox and Wolfe’s Concern for Appropriateness Scale, with its subscales of Protective Variability and Protective Social Comparison. CAS provides measures of the extent to which Concern for Appropriateness provides measures of the extent to which one uses others as foci of comparison and to which one changes one’s behavior to the demands of the present situation. Ratings were made on one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree) scales. Functional flexibility was measured by the short-form of the Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities (Paulhus & Martin, 1988). The BIC measure lists a series of 16 traits, and asks the S to rate their capability of performing each trait. Answers were provided on one (totally incapable) to five (easily capable) scales. The BIC provides a measure of how behaviorally versatile a person is capable of being.
Personality measures
The questionnaire also provided assessments of personality traits that included perfectionism, need for cognition, individuation, self-consciousness, self-esteem, attributional complexity and the Big Five personality factors (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and culture). Each scale is described below.
We used Cacioppo, Petty and Kao’s (1984) short-form version of the Need for Cognition Scale (NCS). The NCS taps a person’s interest in and motivation for complex cognitive activities. The NCS employed five point scales, with anchors ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The Perfectionism Scale (Burns, 1980) measures perfectionistic attitudes and cognitive styles. The Perfectionism Scale also employed five point scales with anchors of strongly disagree and strongly agree.
The next measure in the packet was Maslach, Stapp and Santee’s (1985) Individuation Scale. The Individuation Scale assesses one’s willingness to perform behaviors that would set one apart from others and cause one to be the focus of their attention. Scale anchors ranged from one (not at all willing to do this) to five (very much willing to do this).
The Individuation Scale was followed by Fenigstein et ah’ (1975) Self-Consciousness Scale, which has subscales of Private Self-Consciousness (chronic tendencies for self-evaluation and analysis), Public Self-Consciousness (habitual focus on the self as a social object), and Social Anxiety (worry and anxiety when placed in social situations). Scale anchors varied from one (extremely uncharacteristic of me) to five (extremely characteristic of me).
To measure self-esteem we employed the form A of the Texas Social Behavior Inventory (Helmreich & Stapp, 1974). Item responses were given on one (not all characteristic of me) to five (very characteristic of me) scale.
Social competence 959
Fletcher, Danilovics, Fernandez, Peterson and Reeder’s (1986) Attributional Complexity Scale (ACS) provided a measure of one’s interest in and use of complex casual schema and explanations. Responses to the ACS were produced on a one to seven response continuum (strongly disagree to strongly agree).
The final personality measure was Goldberg’s (submitted) standard bipolar adjectival scales, which provide indices of extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability (the reverse of neuroticism) and culture. For each pair of items, a nine-point response interval was provided. Higher scores represent higher levels of the trait (e.g. extraversion), and lower scores represent more extreme levels of the trait’s inverse (e.g. introversion). For this measure we used Goldberg’s “transparent” response format.
Coping factors
The final series of measures provided indices of coping styles. We used Carver, Scheier and Weintraub’s (1989) newly developed COPE Scale. This measure operationalizes 14 modes of coping and may be used in a stylistic or situation-specific format. For the present study, we asked each person to indicate how typically they used each item when coping with stress (i.e. the stylistic mode). One of the COPE scales, Alcohol-Drug Disengagement, uses a single item. The other scales are four-item scales. Each of the scales are listed in Table 1. Collectively, they would seem to tap approaches to coping that might be distinguished as to how active, passive or disengaged the person is during the coping process. Each item was rated on a one (I usually don’t do this at all) to four (I usually do this a lot) scale.
RESULTS
In Table 1 we present the means, standard deviations and alpha coefficients for all of the variables in the present study. The internal consistencies for the scales are generally quite good, with the
Table I. Means. standard deviations and internal consistencies for all variables
Variable (No. of questionnaire items) Mean SD Alpha
Social compPrence
SelFcomplexity
Functional flexibility (BIG) (16)
Self-monitoring (I 3 total)
Ability to modify self-presentation (7)
Sensitivity to express display of others (6)
Concern for appropriateness (20 total) Protective variability (7)
Protective social comparison (13)
Perfectionism (IO)
Need for cognition (I 8)
Individuation (12)
Private self-consciousness (IO)
Public self-consciousness (7)
Social anxiety (6)
Self-esteem (16)
Attributional complexity (28)
Extraversion (IO)
Agreeableness (IO)
Conscientiousness (IO)
Emotional stability (IO)
Culture (IO) Coping styles
Active coping (4)
Planning (4)
Suppression of competing activities (4)
Restraint coping (4)
Seeking instrumental social support (4) Seeking emotional social support (4) Positive reinterpretation and growth (4) Acceptance (4) Turning to religion (4)
possible exception of a couple of the COPE scales (though this is not surprising for four-item scales). The means and standard deviations are quite comparable to previously established norms. Since it has not been used by anyone other than Linville, and because the comparability of our data to Linville’s is of importance, we were especially concerned about the trait sort measure of self-complexity. Linville (1985, Study 1) obtained a mean of 2.857 and an SD of 0.756. Linville (1987) has also obtained a mean of 3.089 and an SD of 0.693. Therefore, our results appear to be quite consistent with Linville’s.
Intercorrelations of social competence measure
Intercorrelations among the social competence measures are presented in Table 2. There are no significant correlations between self-complexity and any other measure. Self-complexity appears to tap a unique component of social competence.
Table 2 also shows the RSMS to be positively correlated with functional flexibility, with the ability to modify self-presentation component being the primary source of this positive correlation. The RSMS is also positively correlated with the protective variability subscale of the CAS.
Finally, the RSMS and the CAS total scores are uncorrelated with one another. Each of the subscales of the RSMS are correlated with one another, as are the subscales of the CAS. It is interesting to note that protective variability, a subscale of the CAS, is as highly correlated with the ability to modify self-presentation component of the RSMS as the RSMS subscales are themselves correlated with each other.
Social competence and personality measures
Correlations between the social competence and personality measures are presented in Table 3. Once again, there are no significant correlations between self-complexity and any other measure.
Functional flexibility is significantly negatively correlated with two of the Big Five factors, agreeableness and emotional stability. The BIC is also correlated positively with private self- consciousness and with attributional complexity. Contrary to Paulhus and Martin (1987, 1988), we failed to obtain a significant correlation between functional flexibility and self-esteem.
The RSMS is positively correlated with individuation, private self-consciousness, self-esteem, attributional complexity, extraversion and culture, The ability to modify self-presentation com-
Table 3. Correlations of social competence and personality measures
SC FF RSM AMSP SEDO CA PV PSC
Perfectionism Need for cognition Individuation Private self-consciousness Public self-consciousness Social anxiety Self-esteem Attributional complexity Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Culture
l P < 0.05; l *P < 0.01; l **P <O.OOl, two-tailed. SC = self-complexity; FF = functional flexibility; RSM = revised self-monitoring; AMSP = ability to modify self-presentation;
SEDO = sensitivity to expressive display of others; CA = concern for appropriateness; PV = protective variability; PSC = protective social comparison.
Social competence 961
ponent is positively correlated with self-esteem and extraversion, and negatively correlated with social anxiety and agreeableness. The sensitivity to the expressive display of others subscale was positively correlated with private self-consciousness, attributional complexity and culture.
The last of the social competence measures, the CAS, is positively correlated with perfectionism, public self-consciousness and social anxiety, but negatively correlated with need for cognition, individuation, self-esteem, extraversion, conscientiousness and emotional stability. The protective variability subscale is positively correlated with perfectionism, private and public self-consciousness and social anxiety, and negatively correlated with self-esteem, extraversion, agreeableness, consci- entiousness and emotional stability. Protective social comparison yielded one positive correlation, with public self-consciousness. Its other significant correlates are all negative: need for cognition, individuation, self-esteem, conscientiousness, emotional stability and culture.
Social competence and coping measures
Correlations between the social competence and coping measures are presented in Table 4. Self-complexity is not significantly related to any of the coping style measures.
Functional flexibility is negatively correlated with three coping styles indicative of passive adjustments to stress: restraint coping, acceptance and turning to religion. It appears, then, that persons high in functional flexibility are relatively unlikely to use passive coping mechanisms.
The overall RSMS score is positively correlated with both active coping and planning, as are both of the RSMS subscales. The RSMS is also negatively correlated with behavioral and mental disengagement. The ability to modify self-presentation factor is negatively correlated with acceptance. The overall pattern of results indicates that high self-monitors, or at least those high on one of its components, are more active and less disengaged in their coping, relative to low self-monitors.
There are few coping style correlates of the CAS. Protective variability and the total CAS are negatively related with positive reinterpretation and growth. Protective social comparison and the total CAS are positively correlated with behavioral disengagement. Finally, protective variability is negatively correlated with seeking emotional social support.
DISCUSSION
Are the competence dimensions unique?
An examination of Table 2 indicates that most of the correlations are consistent with our expectations. On the whole, the magnitudes of correlations indicate that while there is some overlap among functional flexibility and the RSMS and the CAS, each seems to be assessing relatively unique sources of social competence. And, certainly, each are wholly separate from Linville’s (1985, 1987) self-complexity construct, which was uncorrelated with any other competence measure.
It is worth noting that the pattern of correlations yielded by functional flexibility suggests that it may not always be an index of competence but, rather, incompetence. The BIC was correlated
Table 4. Correlations of social competence and personality measures
SC FF RSM AMSP SEDO CA PV
Active coping -0.06 0.07 0.31.. 0.29” 0.23’ -0.05 -0.02
Planning -0.08 -0.02 0.29’. 0.23. 0.2s -0.13 0.0 I Suppression of competing activities 0.07 0.05 0.19 0.14 0.19 -0.11 -0.07
SC = self-complexity; FF - functional flexibility; RSM = revised self-monitoring; AMSP = ability to modify self-presentation; SEDO = sensitivity to expressive display of others; CA = concern for appropriateness; PV = protective variability; PSC = protective social comparison.
962 MARK L. MILLER et al.
with two subscales from the RSMS and the CAS that indicate individual differences in the willingness or ability to change one’s behavior. Yet the BIC was not correlated with the RSMS’s sensitivity to the expressive display of others component. Assuming that social cues from others are primary indicators of when, and how, one should appropriately change one’s behavior, the lack of a relationship between functional flexibility and sensitivity indicates that there will be many situations when the functionally flexible person will, in fact, display contextually inappropriate behavior.
The nature of functional flexibility
Functional flexibility was correlated with few personality traits or coping styles. While it was positively related to private self-consciousness and attributional complexity, it was negatively related to agreeableness, emotional stability and several relatively passive coping styles (e.g. acceptance). The lack of a significant relationship with self-esteem and the negative correlation with emotional stability represent failures to replicate the previous work of Paulhus and Martin (1987, 1988). The correlations with the coping styles indicate that the functionally flexible individual is unlikely to just lay back and accept an ongoing stressor. On the other hand, there does not seem to be any tendency for people high in functional flexibility to be especially active, planful capers, either.
The personality correlates of functional flexibility are somewhat disturbing. As we indicated above, the pattern of correlations that the BIC shared with the RSMS and the CAS would imply that flexible persons are not necessarily flexible in a contextually appropriate manner. The correlations with the Big Five Factors of agreeableness and emotional stability further provide a portrait of the functionally flexible person being, if anything, relatively hostile (the inverse of agreeableness) and maladjusted. Much more research appears to be needed before any strong conclusions may be drawn as to whether or not functional flexibility represents an indicator of competence and adjustment or incompetence and maladjustment.
Self-complexity
The complete inability of the self-complexity construct to correlate with anything at all was shocking, and certainly was unhelpful in telling us anything about its nature. One might draw two conclusions from the present results. One possibility is that the construct of self-complexity, or at least the trait sort operationalization of it, is lacking in validity. We think that this is unlikely since Linville (1985, 1987) and the first author (Miller & Posig, submitted) have shown that the trait sort measure operates in a theoretically useful manner. It would appear that the trait sort is an unlikely culprit.
A second, more likely possibility is that Linville has simply identified a truly unique psychological characteristic, or at least unique with respect to the trait and coping characteristics we assessed. In this study we measured fairly typical temperamental and behavioral traits. It may be that self-complexity, as a cognitive individual difference variable, is more related to other cognitive individual differences, such as intellect, breadth of categorization, field dependence and so forth. (Variables that we measured such as culture and need for cognition are indicators of interests in and values for cognition-related activities, rather than being measures of the kinds of cognitive styles and abilities to which we are alluding.) Future construct validation efforts should pay greater attention to these kinds of variables. Such studies may also need to place greater emphasis upon experimental strategies, in order to tease out situation-specific consequences of self-complexity.
At least one inference seems appropriate based upon the present results. If one views constructs such as self-esteem and emotional stability as strong indicators of personal adjustment, then the lack of relationships between these constructs and self-complexity would seem to imply that neither high nor low complexity are, by themselves, ‘good’. Rather, the value of being either high or low self-complex must be determined in conjunction with specific life circumstances.
The new measures of Lennox and Wolfe
Finally we turn to the new measures of Lennox and Wolfe (1984), the RSMS and the CAS. Consistent with our predictions, the RSMS, or at least one subscale of it, was positively correlated with extraversion, negatively correlated with agreeableness, and was uncorrelated with conscien-
Social competence 963
tiousness. We thought that there might be a positive relationship with emotional stability but this did not turn out to be the case. We also obtained an unexpected positive correlation between culture and overall RSMS scores as well as the sensitivity subscale. Higher scorers on the RSMS may thus be characterized as being relatively outgoing and sophisticated, but also somewhat hostile and antagonistic, relative to low scorers. Such a profile might be what one should expect for an individual whose self-presentation is geared toward winning social approval as well as social influence, especially if one interprets the combination of low agreeableness and high culture as indicating a somewhat guileful, manipulative stance towards others; further research to specifically pin down the psychological significance of these latter results would be important, however.
High scores on the RSMS were also associated with higher levels of individuation, self-esteem, attributional complexity and private self-consciousness. None of these correlations were significant for both of the subscales of the RSMS, indicating that the two scales are, to a slight extent, tapping into different facets of self-monitoring, as is intended. There is also a negative correlation between social anxiety and ability to modify self-presentation.
The correlations with the coping scales are consistent with Wolfe et al.3 argument that the RSMS assesses an acquisitive style of self-presentation. The total RSMS score, as well as both subscales, are positively correlated with the two clearest indicators of active coping strategies (active coping and planning), while also yielding several significant negative correlations with disengaged coping styles. The high self-monitor, as measured by the RSMS, appears to be less likely to avoid a stressful event altogether and more likely to use active coping strategies, relative to the low self-monitor. There appears to be little difference between low- and high self-monitors in terms of the use of passive coping styles.
Consistent with our expectations, we found that the CAS was negatively correlated with emotional stability and conscientiousness. However, inconsistent with our expectations, it, or one of its subscales, was also negatively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness and culture. While this profile may not ‘prove’ that the CAS assesses a protective self-presentation style, it certainly helps one to understand how it might lead one to become concerned with being self-protective. The other personality correlates of the CAS or its subscales reinforces the portrayal yielded by the Big Five. The correlates indicate that a person scoring high on the CAS exhibits a tendency toward excessive concern for one’s public and private appearances, a disinterest in complex cognitive tasks, and a general inability to function smoothly and confidently in public situations. Coping correlates of the CAS were few, but seemed to imply a preference for completely avoiding stressful situations or implementing relatively passive responses to stress.
The entire pattern of correlations for the RSMS and the CAS indicates that their conceptualiz- ation in terms of measuring acquisitive vs protective self-presentation styles may have some merit. High scores on the RSMS seem to be associated with successful social adaptation and an active, thoughtful approach to social life. Conversely, high scores on the CAS are apparently indicative of a withdrawn, unsuccessful, fearful approach to social interaction. These differing profiles would be consistent with the proposed differences in self-presentation styles.
Another way to determine whether or not the two measures each tap relatively coherent, single styles of self-presentation would be to examine whether or not the two subscales that form each overall measure yield differing correlates. If the RSMS and the CAS are to be justified as indexing coherent styles, then their subscales should yield similar patterns of relationships. For the RSMS there are a number of criterion measures with which one but not the other subscale is correlated. However, few of the differences are what one might think of as objectively large. It remains plausible, then, that the two subscales do in fact measure different components of the same overall self-presentation style. However, the CAS seems more problematic. There are a number of variables, most notably perfectionism, need for cognition, private self-consciousness, agreeableness and emotional stability, for which the differences in the correlations with protective variability and protective social comparison seem undesirably large, with some of the differences being statistically significant. These differences are not definitive evidence against the CAS tapping a coherent style of self-presentation, but they clearly do not support such a contention. Future research would profit by explicit attention to whether or not the subscales of the RSMS and, especially, the CAD combine to measure coherent, styles of self-presentation.
964 MARK L. MILLER et al.
REFERENCES
Briggs, S. R. & Cheek, J. M. (1988). On the nature of self-monitoring: problems with assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personalily and Social Psychology, 54, 663-678.
Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M. & Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personaliry and Social Psychology, 38. 679-686.
Burns, D. D. (1980). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, 14. 34-52. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 48, 306-307. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F. & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 261-283. Costa, P. T., Jr & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the five-factor model.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265. Digman, J. M. & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. Journal of Personaliry
and Social Psychology, 50, I 16-123. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F. & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory.
Journal of Consulring and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522627. Fletcher, G. J. O., Danilovics, P., Fernandez, G., Peterson, D. & Reeder. G. D. (1986). Attributional complexity: an
individual differences measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, JI, 875-884. Furnham, A. (1989). Personality correlates of self-monitoring: the relationship between extraversion, neuroticism, type A
behavior and Snyder’s self-monitoring construct. Personalily and Individual Differences, 10, 3542. Goldberg, L. R. (submitted). Standard markers of the Big-Five factor structure. Helmreich, R. & Stapp, J. (1974). Short forms of the Texas Social Behavior Inventory (TSBI), an objective measure of
self-esteem. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Sociery, 4, 473-475. Lennox, R. (1988). The problem with self-monitoring: a two-sided scale and a one-sided theory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 52, 58-73. Lennox, R. D. & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
46, 1349-l 364. Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: don’t put all of your eggs in one cognitive basket. Social
Cognition, 3. 94-120. Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of
Personaliry and Social Psychology, 52, 663676. Maslach, C.. Stapp, J. & Santee, R. T. (1985). Individuation: Conceptual analysis and assessment. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49. 729-738. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model
of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587-597. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. Jr (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90. Miller, M. L. & Posig, M. (submitted). Self-complexity moderates the effects of role conflict and role ambiguity on job
satisfaction and job affect. Miller, M. L. & Thayer, J. F. (1989). On the existence of discrete classes in personality: is self-monitoring the correct joint
to carve? Journal of Personalily and Social Psychology, 57, 143-155. Paulhus, D. L. & Martin, C. L. (1987). The structure of personality capabilities. Journal of Personamy and Social
Psychology, 52, 354-365. Paulhus, D. L. & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: a new conception of interpersonal flexibility. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 88-101. Riggio, R. E. & Friedman, H. S. (1982). The interrelationships of self-monitoring factors, personality traits, and nonverbal
social skills. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 7, 33-45. Scott, W. A., Osgood, D. W. & Peterson, C. (1979). Cognitive structure: theory and measurement of individual differences.
Washington, DC: Winston. Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526537. Wolfe, R. N., Lennox, R. D. & Cutler, B. L. (1986). Getting along and getting ahead: empirical support for a theory of
protective and acquisitive self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 356-361.
