Abstract

Self-selection of different employment opportunities was predicted to be a function of dispositional differences in self-monitoring. In two studies, participants read two job descriptions containing attributes that matched the skills and needs of either high self-monitors or low self-monitors. Participants then indicated which job they would accept if offered both jobs and subsequently completed the 25-item Self-Monitoring Scale. Scale responses were used to create univariate/categorical (high vs. low self-monitors) and bivariate/two dimensional (acquisitive, protective) indices of self-monitoring. In Study 1, low self-monitors and high self-monitors chose personally congruent jobs. These divergent choices were observed regardless of the way (univariate model, alternative bivariate model) self-monitoring was assessed. In Study 2, these self-monitoring differences were moderated by job status. These moderated choices of jobs were obtained when self-monitoring was assessed in its conventional and acquisitive (i.e., impression management for gain) forms but not in its protective (i.e., impression management for self-defense) form. In both studies, sex differences did not account for self-monitoring differences. These findings suggest on-the-job differences between high and low self-monitors may represent self-selection processes occurring before job-based experiences.

摘要

预测不同就业机会的自我选择是自我监控中的性格差异的函数。在两项研究中，参与者阅读了两份工作描述，其中包含与高自我监控者或低自我监控者的技能和需求相匹配的属性。然后，参与者指出如果同时提供这两种工作他们会接受哪项工作，并随后完成了 25 项自我监测量表。规模反应被用来创建自我监测的单变量/分类（高与低自我监控）和双变量/二维（获得性、保护性）指数。在研究 1 中，低自我监控者和高自我监控者选择了个人一致的工作。无论采用何种方式（单变量模型、替代双变量模型）评估自我监测，都可以观察到这些不同的选择。在研究 2 中，这些自我监控差异受到工作状态的影响。这些适度的工作选择是在自我监控以传统和获取性（即，印象管理以获得收益）形式而不是保护性（即，自我防御的印象管理）形式进行评估时获得的。在这两项研究中，性别差异都不能解释自我监测的差异。这些发现表明，高自我监控者和低自我监控者之间的在职差异可能代表了在基于工作的经验之前发生的自我选择过程。性别差异不能解释自我监测的差异。这些发现表明，高自我监控者和低自我监控者之间的在职差异可能代表了在基于工作的经验之前发生的自我选择过程。性别差异不能解释自我监测的差异。这些发现表明，高自我监控者和低自我监控者之间的在职差异可能代表了在基于工作的经验之前发生的自我选择过程。