Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Self-monitoring, a concept introduced in the 1970s by Mark Snyder, describes the extent to which people monitor their self-presentations, expressive behavior, and nonverbal affective displays. [1] Snyder held that human beings generally differ in substantial ways in their abilities and desires to engage in expressive controls (see dramaturgy ...
For example, high core self-evaluation individuals may be more likely to seek feedback than low core self-evaluation individuals and, thus, will perceive higher levels of feedback at their job and higher job satisfaction. [23]
Snyder studies differences in self-monitoring, and how high or low levels of self-monotoring affect people's understanding of how they adjust to social settings. Snyder's 18-item personality scale can also serve as a device to communicate to people on where they fall on the two concepts of self-monitoring. [4]
Low-self monitoring enhances attitude-consistent behaviour because individuals are less influenced by external social cues or expectations. Individuals who are low self-monitors, act in accordance with their own beliefs and attitudes without adapting to social pressures so their behaviors are more aligned with their attitudes.
Self-monitoring. Ability to stand back and evaluate how you are doing (can also be thought of as "metacognitive" abilities) Makes "careless" errors; does not check work before handing it in; does not stop to evaluate how things are going in the middle of a task or activity; thinks a task was well done, when in fact it was done poorly; thinks a ...
Self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) concerns discrepancies between two people in a relationship. The theory posits an individual will maintain as well as enhance their self-esteem via a social comparison to another individual. [1] Self-evaluation refers to the self-perceived social ranking one has towards themselves. It is the continuous process ...
Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to believe they can master challenging problems and they can recover quickly from setbacks and disappointments. Individuals with low self-efficacy tend to be less confident and don't believe they can perform well, which leads them to avoid challenging tasks.
The most common approach to measuring the Dunning–Kruger effect is to compare self-assessment with objective performance. The self-assessment is sometimes called subjective ability in contrast to the objective ability corresponding to the actual performance. [7] The self-assessment may be done before or after the performance. [9]