Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2018, Vol. 50 Issue (10) : 1169-1179     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01169
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Self-monitoring in group context: Its indirect benefits for individual status attainment and group task performance
Qiongjing HU1,Xi LU2,Zhixue ZHANG3()
1 School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
2 College of Economics and Management, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
3 Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
Download: PDF(417 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Self-monitoring, as a personality trait, describes the extent to which an individual is attentive to social cues and regulates and adapts his/her own behaviors accordingly to achieve social appropriateness. In the process of group establishment and development, self-monitoring not only impacts the quality of interpersonal relationships but also influences both group interaction and group outcome. While prior studies have focused on the effects of self-monitoring at the individual level, researchers have generally ignored the effects at the group level and have not examined the role of self-monitoring in group dynamics over time. To fill this gap, this study examined the effects of self-monitoring within the context of group development.

In general, this research adopts a dynamic perspective to explore the effects of self-monitoring at both individual and group levels. Specifically, at the individual level, we attempted to examine how self-monitoring affects the positive sentiments held by other group members toward an individual and further influences the individual’s status attainment within the group; at the group level, we attempted to examine how group-mean self-monitoring affects group cohesion as well as the group performance in collaborative tasks. In addition, we intended to explore whether the effect of self-monitoring on positive sentiments changes over time and whether the effect of group-mean self-monitoring on group cohesion changes over time.

To test the hypotheses, we conducted a longitudinal study (three points in time) over one semester, deliberately choosing students from 32 freshmen dorms as the participants, and we collected data through both surveys and a behavioral task at three waves (T1, T2, and T3). The results showed that at the individual level, self-monitoring was positively related to positive sentiments held by other group members toward the focal person, and self-monitoring had a positive indirect effect on the focal person’s status attainment (indicated by status rating and friendship network centrality) via positive sentiments; at the group level, group-mean self-monitoring was positively related to group cohesion, and group-mean self-monitoring had a positive indirect effect on the group performance in a collaborative task via group cohesion. We also found that the positive effect of self-monitoring on group members’ positive sentiments toward the focal person increased over time (from T2 to T3).

This research makes several contributions to existing literature. First, we contribute to the self-monitoring literature by exploring the effects of self-monitoring at both individual and group levels. Our findings revealed that high self-monitors can not only build high-quality interpersonal relationships for themselves but also enhance group cohesion in a collective way. Second, we introduce a dynamic approach to studying self-monitoring. With the change of interactions among group members and with the group development over time, the effect of self-monitoring may change as well. Adopting the dynamic perspective can capture this changing track and thus deepen our understanding of the role of self-monitoring in the group context. Lastly, we contribute to status research by identifying an important antecedent of individual’s status attainment in group - positive sentiments held by other group members toward the focal person.

Keywords self-monitoring      status attainment      group performance      longitudinal study     
ZTFLH:  B849:C91  
Issue Date: 23 August 2018
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Qiongjing HU
Xi LU
Zhixue ZHANG
Cite this article:   
Qiongjing HU,Xi LU,Zhixue ZHANG. Self-monitoring in group context: Its indirect benefits for individual status attainment and group task performance[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(10): 1169-1179.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01169     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2018/V50/I10/1169
  
  
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4
1. 个体自我监控(T1) 4.69 0.67
2. 他人积极情感(T2) 4.84 0.92 0.18*
3. 他人积极情感(T3) 4.90 0.92 0.31*** 0.64***
4. 个体地位(T3) 5.08 0.98 0.04 0.41*** 0.62***
5. 友谊网络中心度
(T3)
0.78 0.34 0.01 0.28** 0.32*** 0.29**
  
变量 M SD 1 2 3
1. 群体自我监控
(T1)
4.69 0.30
2. 群体凝聚力(T2) 5.49 0.91 0.49**
3. 群体凝聚力(T3) 5.54 0.91 0.45* 0.60***
4. 群体任务绩效
(T3)
11.64 3.91 0.28 0.45** 0.45**
  
变量 模型1
他人积极
情感(T2)
模型2
他人积极
情感(T3)
模型3
个人地位(T3)
模型4
友谊网络
中心度(T3)
个体自我监控 0.25*
(0.12)
0.60***
(0.07)
-0.08
(0.12)
-0.03
(0.04)
他人积极情感(T2) 0.28**
(0.09)
0.42***
(0.09)
0.10**
(0.03)
样本量(群体水平) 32 32 32 32
样本量(个体水平) 122 122 122 122
偏差(deviance) 319.93* 250.27*** 311.67*** 64.40**
  
变量 模型1
群体凝聚力
(T2)
模型2
群体凝聚力
(T3)
模型3
群体任务绩效
(T3)
群体自我监控 1.47**
(0.48)
0.62
(0.50)
0.47
(1.22)
群体凝聚力(T2) 0.49**
(0.17)
0.89*
(0.40)
样本量 32 32 32
R2 0.24 0.39 0.21
F 9.22** 9.13*** 3.83*
  
路径 自变量→
中介变量(a)
中介变量→
因变量(b)
估计量(a × b) 偏差校正的
置信区间
个体自我监控(T1)-他人积极情感(T2)-个体地位(T3) 0.25 0.42 0.105 [0.006, 0.225]
个体自我监控(T1)-他人积极情感(T2)-友谊网络中心度(T3) 0.25 0.10 0.025 [0.001, 0.058]
群体自我监控(T1)-群体凝聚力(T2)-群体任务绩效(T3) 1.47 0.89 1.308 [0.105, 3.012]
  
[1] Anderson C., John O. P., Keltner D., & Kring A. M . ( 2001). Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81( 1), 116-132.
pmid: 11474718 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.116
[2] Bai F . ( 2017). Beyond dominance and competence: A moral virtue theory of status attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21( 3), 203-227.
pmid: 27225037 url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27225037
[3] Baldwin T. T., Bedell M. D., & Johnson J. L . ( 1997). The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40( 6), 1369-1397.
[4] Beal D. J., Cohen R. R., Burke M. J., & McLendon C. L . ( 2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88( 6), 989-1004.
pmid: 14640811 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989
[5] Bell S.T . ( 2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,92( 3), 595-615.
pmid: 17484544 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
[6] Bendersky C., &Shah N.P . ( 2012). The cost of status enhancement: Performance effects of individuals’ status mobility in task groups. Organization Science, 23( 2), 308-322.
url: http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/orsc.1100.0543
[7] Bradley B. H., Klotz A. C., Postlethwaite B. E., & Brown K. G . ( 2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98( 2), 385-392.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0029845
[8] Colbert A. E., Barrick M. R., & Bradley B. H . ( 2014). Personality and leadership composition in top management teams: Implications for organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 67( 2), 351-387.
url: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/peps.2014.67.issue-2
[9] Correl S.J., &Ridgeway C.L . ( 2003). Expectation states theory. In Delamater, J.(Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology
[10] Dabbs J. M., Evans M. S., Hopper C. H., & Purvis J. A . ( 1980). Self-monitors in conversation: What do they monitor? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39( 2), 278-284.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.39.2.278
[11] Day D. V., Schleicher D. J., Unckless A. L., & Hiller N. J . ( 2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta- analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87( 2), 390-401.
pmid: 12002965 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.390
[12] Devine D.J., &Philips J.L . ( 2000). Do smarter teams do better? A meta-analysis of team level cognitive ability and team performance. Paper presented at the 15th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans,LA.
[13] Diefendorff J. M., Croyle M. H., & Gosserand R. H . ( 2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66( 2), 339-357.
url: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0001879104000417
[14] Filho E., Dobersek U., Gershgoren L., Becker B., & Tenenbaum G . ( 2014). The cohesion-performance relationship in sport: A 10-year retrospective meta-analysis. Sport Science for Health, 10( 3), 165-177.
url: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11332-014-0188-7
[15] Flynn F. J., Reagans R. E., Amanatullah E. T., & Ames D. R . ( 2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91( 6), 1123-1137.
url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123
[16] Fredrickson B.L . ( 1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology,2( 3), 300-319.
pmid: 3156001 url: http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300
[17] Frey M.C., &Detterman D.K . ( 2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15( 6), 373-378.
[18] Frijda N. H. ( 1994). Varieties of affect: Emotions and episodes, moods, and sentiments. In Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 59-67). New York: Oxford University Press.
[19] Gangestad S.W., & Snyder M . ( 2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126( 4), 530-555.
[20] Hall R. J., Workman J. W., & Marchioro C. A . ( 1998). Sex, task, and behavioral flexibility effects on leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74( 1), 1-32.
[21] Hobfoll S.E . ( 1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44( 3), 513-524.
[22] Ickes W., Holloway R., Stinson L. L., & Hoodenpyle T. G . ( 2006). Self-monitoring in social interaction: The centrality of self-Affect. Journal of Personality, 74( 3), 659-684.
[23] James L.R .( 1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67( 2), 219-229.
[24] Jehn K.A., &Mannix E.A .( 2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44( 2), 238-251.
[25] Jenkins J.M .( 1993). Self-monitoring and turnover - the impact of personality on intent to leave. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14( 1), 83-91.
[26] Kelly J.R., &Barsade S.G . ( 2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86( 1), 99-130.
[27] Klein H.J., , &Mulvey P.W . ( 1995). Two investigations of the relationships among group goals, goal commitment, cohesion, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61( 1), 44-53.
[28] Klein K. J., Lim B.-C., Saltz J. L., & Mayer D. M . ( 2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47( 6), 952-963.
[29] LeBreton J.M., &Senter J.L . ( 2008). Answers to 20 Questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11( 4), 815-852.
[30] Lennox R.D., &Wolfe R.N . ( 1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46( 6), 1349-1364.
[31] LePine J.A . ( 2003). Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88( 1), 27-39.
[32] LePine J. A., Hollenbeck J. R., Ilgen D. R., & Hedlund J . ( 1997). Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology,82( 5), 803-811.
[33] Lin H.-C., & Rababah N .( 2014). CEO-TMT exchange, TMT personality composition, and decision quality: The mediating role of TMT psychological empowerment . Leadership Quarterly, 25( 5), 943-957.
[34] Liu X., &Zhang Z ( 2005). Process of interaction among members in simulated work teams. Acta Psychological Sinica, 37( 2), 253-259.
[34] [ 刘雪峰, 张志学 . ( 2005). 模拟情境中工作团队成员互动过程的初步研究及其测量. 心理学报, 37( 2), 253-259.]
[35] MacKinnon D. P., Fritz M. S., Williams J., & Lockwood C. M . ( 2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39( 3), 384-389.
[36] MacKinnon D. P., Lockwood C. M., & Williams J . ( 2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39( 1), 99-128.
[37] Magee J.C., &Galinsky A.D .( 2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2( 1), 351-398.
[38] Man D.C., &Lam S. S.K . ( 2003). The effects of job complexity and autonomy on cohesiveness in collectivistic and individualistic work groups: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24( 8), 979-1001.
[39] Mehra A., Kilduff M., & Brass D. J . ( 2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46( 1), 121-146.
[40] Mullen B., & Copper C .( 1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115( 2), 210-227.
[41] Norris S.L., &Zweigenhaft R.L . ( 1999). Self-monitoring, trust, and commitment in romantic relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139( 2), 215-220.
[42] Oh H., &Kilduff M .( 2008). The ripple effect of personality on social structure: Self-monitoring origins of network brokerage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93( 5), 1155-1164.
[43] Pettit N. C., Yong K., & Spataro S. E . ( 2010). Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46( 2), 396-401.
[44] Roberson Q.M., &Williamson I.O .( 2012). Justice in self-monitoring teams: The role of social networks in the emergence of procedural justice climates. Academy of Management Journal,55( 3), 685-701.
[45] Scott B. A., Barnes C. M., & Wagner D. T . ( 2012). Chameleonic or consistent? A multilevel investigation of emotional labor variability and self-monitoring. Academy of Management Journal, 55( 4), 905-1050.
[46] Scott B. A., Colquitt J. A., & Zapata-Phelan C. P . ( 2007). Justice as a dependent variable: subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92( 6), 1597-1609.
[47] Synder M .( 1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30( 4), 526-537.
[48] Synder M., & Cantor N . ( 1980). Thinking about ourselves and others: Self-monitoring and social knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39( 2), 222-234.
[49] Tofighi D., & MacKinnon D.P . ( 2011). RMediation: An R package for mediation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43( 3), 692-700.
[50] Tuckman B.W . ( 1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63( 6), 384-399.
[51] Turner R.G . ( 1980). Self-monitoring and humor production. Journal of Personality, 48( 2), 163-167.
[52] Turnley W.H., &Bolino M.C . ( 2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired image: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86( 2), 351-360.
[53] Tziner A., &Eden D . ( 1985). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70( 1), 85-93.
[54] Wang S., Hu Q., & Dong B . ( 2015). Managing personal networks: An examination of how high self-monitors achieve better job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 180-188.
[55] Watson D . ( 2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press.
[56] Watson D., & Clark L.A .( 1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, expanded form. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press
[57] Zaccaro S. J., Foti R. J., & Kenny D. A . ( 1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76( 2), 308-315.
[1] GUO Haiying; CHEN Lihua; YE Zhi; PAN Jin; LIN Danhua. Characteristics of peer victimization and the bidirectional relationship between peer victimization and internalizing problems among rural-to-urban migrant children in China: A longitudinal study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 336-348.
[2] ZHOU Xiao, WU Xinchun, WANG Wenchao, TIAN Yuxin.  Longitudinal linkages between social support, posttraumatic stress disorder, and posttraumatic growth among primary school students after the Ya’ an earthquake[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(11): 1428-1438.
[3] ZHAO Ying; CHENG Yahua; WU Xinchun; NGUYEN Thi Phuong. The reciprocal relationship between morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge among Chinese children: A longitudinal study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(11): 1434-1444.
[4] TU Yidong; LU Xinxin; GUO Wei; WANG Zhen. What Benefits Do Ethical Leaders Gain? Ethical Leadership, LMX Mean and Leaders’ Benefits[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(9): 1378-1391.
[5] LIANG Zongbao;ZHANG Guangzhen;DENG Huihua;SONG Yuan;ZHENG Wenming. A Multilevel Analysis of the Developmental Trajectory of Preschoolers’ Effortful Control and Prediction by Parental Parenting Style[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(5): 556-567.
[6] FAN Fang,GENG Fu-Lei,ZHANG Lan,ZHU Qing. Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms, Negative Life Events and Social Supports: A Longitudinal Study of Survival Adolescents following the 2008 Wenchuan Earthquake[J]. , 2011, 43(12): 1398-1407.
[7] Roger A. Dixon, Cindy M. de Frias.

Long-term Stability and Variability in Memory Compensation among Older Adults: Evidence from the Victoria Longitudinal Study

[J]. , 2009, 41(11): 1091-1101.
[8]

FANG Fu-Xi,Henry M. Wellman,LIU Yu-Juan,LIU Guo-Xiong,KANG Rong

. Longitudinal Perspectives: The Sequences of Theory-of-Mind Development in Chinese Preschoolers
[J]. , 2009, 41(08): 706-714.
[9] HU Jin-Sheng,YANG Li-Zhu. Illusion of Transparency between Individuals of High and Low Self-Monitoring[J]. , 2009, 41(01): 79-85.
[10] Xu Fen,Dong Qi,Yang Jie,Wang Weixin. ENGLISH PHONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN PRIMARY SCHOOL[J]. , 2005, 37(02): 218-223.
[11] Li Feng,Zhang De,Zhang Yulian Department of Education, Northeast Normal University. THE INTERACTION AETWEEN LOCUS OF CONTROL AND SELFMONITORING IN PREDICTING RESPONSES TO SITUATIONAL PRESSURES[J]. , 1992, 24(03): 39-44.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech