Psychometric Report Self-monitoring Test -...

PsychTests.com advancing psychology and technology

tel 514.745.8272 fax 514.745.6242 CP Normandie PO Box 26067 l Montreal, Quebec l H3M 3E8 [email protected]

PPssyycchhoommeettrriicc RReeppoorrtt

SSeellff--mmoonniittoorriinngg TTeesstt

Copyright Plumeus Inc. 2003 2

Description: A 69-item test assessing an individual’s self-monitoring ability. The higher the score, the better equipped an individual is monitor his/her emotions and behavior and to adjust his/her behavior to the unique circumstances. In addition to a general score, scores on the following eight sub-scales are measured and interpreted.

Sub-Scores:

1. Intrapersonal (private) self-monitoring skills: ability to control one’s thoughts and emotions. 2. Interpersonal (public) self-monitoring skills: ability to express behavior adequately in social

situations. 3. Willingness to engage in interpersonal self-monitoring: willingness to self-monitor one’s

behavior in social situations 4. Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring: the ease with which one engages in

intrapersonal self-monitoring. 5. Ease with which you monitor your social behavior when in control of the situation: the ease with

which one monitors his/her social behavior when in control of a situation. 6. People's perception of your self-monitoring ability: others perception of your ability to self-monitor. 7. Sensitivity to social cues: the ability to modify one’s behavior in response to social cues. 8. Anger management: the ability to manage one’s anger effectively.

Reference: Sylvain, V., Jerabek, I. (2003). Self-Monitoring Test. Queendom.com. Sample Size: 11595 Sample Description: The study includes men and women, aged 6 to 100, who took the test on the Queendom.com website. Number of questions : 69


Descriptive Statistics See Annex 1 for Descriptive statistics


Distribution for the Self-monitoring Test The distribution of the scores is shown in red; the normal curve is represented by the black line plotted over it. The scores are displayed on the x-axis. Th e y-axis corresponds to the number of respondents who fall into the relevant score range.

Self-monitoring score

100.095.0

90.085.0

80.075.0

70.065.0

60.055.0

50.045.0

40.035.0

30.025.0

20.015.0

10.05.0

Overall self-monitoring score

Fre

quen

cy

2000

1000

0

Std. Dev = 12.54

Mean = 63.1

N = 11595.00


Intrapersonal self-monitoring score

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Intrapersonal self-monitoringF

requ

ency

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Std. Dev = 16.23

Mean = 57.0

N = 11595.00

Interpersonal self-monitoring score

100.095.0

90.085.0

80.075.0

70.065.0

60.055.0

50.045.0

40.035.0

30.025.0

20.015.0

10.05.0

Interpersonal self-monitoring

Fre

quen

cy

2000

1000

0

Std. Dev = 14.04

Mean = 63.1

N = 11595.00


Willingness to engage in interpersonal self-monitoring

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Willingness to engage in interpersonal

self-monitoring

Fre

quen

cy

3000

2000

1000

0

Std. Dev = 16.79

Mean = 68.9

N = 11595.00

Ease engaging - intrapersonal

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Ease engaging in intrapersonal

self-monitoring

Fre

quen

cy

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Std. Dev = 20.19

Mean = 54.5

N = 11595.00


Ease monitoring social behavior

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Ease monitoring social behaviorF

requ

ency

2000

1000

0

Std. Dev = 15.43

Mean = 66.2

N = 11595.00

Sensitivity to social cues

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Sensitivity to social cues

Fre

quen

cy

3000

2000

1000

0

Std. Dev = 12.41

Mean = 66.0

N = 11595.00


Anger management

100.090.0

80.070.0

60.050.0

40.030.0

20.010.0

0.0

Anger managementF

requ

ency

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Std. Dev = 17.75

Mean = 61.4

N = 11594.00


Reliability and Internal Consistency Overall Score

Score (69 items) Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.9153

Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.8300 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.9071 Guttman’s formula: 0.9068

Sub-scores

Intrapersonal (private) self-monitoring skills (29 items) Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.8879


Interpersonal (public) self-monitoring skills (30 items)

Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.8487 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.6962 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.8209 Guttman’s formula: 0.8197


Willingness to engage in interpersonal self-monitoring (7 items) Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.6399 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.3496 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.5216 Guttman’s formula: 0.5152

Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring (10 items)

Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.7669 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.5618 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.7194 Guttman’s formula: 0.7180

Ease with which you monitor your social behavior when in control of the situation (7 items)

Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: .5791 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.3289 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.4984 Guttman’s formula: 0.4796

People's perception of your self-monitoring ability (18 items) Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.8247 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.5974 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.7480 Guttman’s formula: 0.7448


Sensitivity to social cues (9 items) Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.4129 Split-Half Reliability Correlation between forms: 0.3468 Spearman-Brown formula : 0.5171 Guttman’s formula: 0.5147

Anger management (12 items) Inter-Item Consistency Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha: 0.8140



Criterion and Construct Validity 1. Relationship between field of work and self-monitoring characteristics: Question #1: What field do you work in? VALUE="1"> Advertising & PR VALUE="2"> Aerospace & Military VALUE="3"> Agriculture VALUE="4"> Airlines VALUE="5"> Automotive VALUE="6"> Chemicals VALUE="7"> Computers VALUE="8"> Electronics & Semiconductors VALUE="9"> Energy & Utilities VALUE="10"> Financial Services VALUE="11"> Food & Beverage VALUE="12"> Healthcare VALUE="13"> Industrial Goods & Services VALUE="14"> Internet & Online VALUE="15"> Media & Entertainment VALUE="16"> Pharmaceuticals VALUE="17"> Professional Services VALUE="18"> Real Estate VALUE="19"> Retail VALUE="20"> Telecommunications VALUE="21"> Transportation VALUE="22"> I don't work VALUE="23"> Education VALUE="24"> Information Technology VALUE="25"> Travel & Leisure VALUE="26"> Social Services


a) General Score Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their field of work. The best self-monitors work ed in the chemicals, professional services, and social services field, closely followed by individuals who worked in the transportation and advertising & PR groups. The unemployed were the worst self-monitors. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(26,6813) = 10.825 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND FIELD OF WORK

Field of work

Construction

Social Services

Travel & Leisure

Information Technolo

Education

I don't work

Transportation

Telecommunications

RetailReal Estate

Professional Service

Pharmaceuticals

Media & Entertainmen

Internet & Online

Industrial Goods & S

Healthcare

Food & Beverage

Financial Services

Energy & Utilities

Electronics & Semico

Computers

Chemicals

Automotive

AirlinesAgriculture

Aerospace & Military

Advertising & PR

Mea

n of

sel

f-m

onito

ring

scor

e

68

66

64

62

60

58


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their field of work. People working in the chemicals, transportation, industrial goods and services, professional services, and construction fields were the best at self-monitoring their thoughts and behaviors. Individuals who were unemployed had the hardest time self-monitoring their thoughts and behaviors. F(26,6813) = 8.556 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND FIELD OF WORK

Field of work

Construction

Social Services

Travel & Leisure


Education

I don't work

Transportation

Telecommunications

RetailReal Estate


Pharmaceuticals


Internet & Online


Healthcare

Food & Beverage

Financial Services

Energy & Utilities


Computers

Chemicals

Automotive

AirlinesAgriculture


Advertising & PR

Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore 64

62

60

58

56

54

52


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their field of work. People working in the chemicals, Internet and online, professional, transportation, information technology, and social services fields had the easiest time expressing their behaviors adequately in public. People who did not work had the most difficult time expressing their behaviors adequately in public, followed by people working in the automotive industry and food and beverages. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(26,6813) = 12.931 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND FIELD OF WORK

Field of work

Construction

Social Services

Travel & Leisure


Education

I don't work

Transportation

Telecommunications

RetailReal Estate


Pharmaceuticals


Internet & Online


Healthcare

Food & Beverage

Financial Services

Energy & Utilities


Computers

Chemicals

Automotive

AirlinesAgriculture


Advertising & PR

Mea

n of

Inte

rper

sona

l sel

f-m

onito

ring

scor

e 70

68

66

64

62

60

58


d) Willingness to self-monitor Significant willingness to self-monitor score differences were found among people depending on their field of work. People in the Internet and online group were the most willing to self-monitor their behavior, followed by the travel & leisure, professional services, financial services, chemicals, and advertising & PR fields. People working in the food and beverage field and people who did not work were the least willing to self-monitor their thoughts and behavior. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(26,6813) = 9.649 p < 0.0001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR AND FIELD OF WORK

Field of work

Construction

Social Services

Travel & Leisure


Education

I don't work

Transportation

Telecommunications

RetailReal Estate


Pharmaceuticals


Internet & Online


Healthcare

Food & Beverage

Financial Services

Energy & Utilities


Computers

Chemicals

Automotive

AirlinesAgriculture


Advertising & PR

Mea

n of

Will

ingn

ess

scor

e

76

74

72

70

68

66

64


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant main effects were found for ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring depending on one’s field of work. People working in the transportation, construction, and real-estate fields had the easiest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring behavior, closely followed by individuals working in airlines, chemicals, electronics & semiconductors, and professional services. People who did not work had the hardest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring behavior. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(26,6813) = 5.836 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND FIELD OF WORK

Field of work

Construction

Social Services

Travel & Leisure


Education

I don't work

Transportation

Telecommunications

RetailReal Estate


Pharmaceuticals


Internet & Online


Healthcare

Food & Beverage

Financial Services

Energy & Utilities


Computers

Chemicals

Automotive

Airlines

Agriculture


Advertising & PR

Mea

n of

eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal

62

60

58

56

54

52

50

48


f) Ease monitoring social behavior Significant main effects were found for ease monitoring social behavior depending on one’s field of work. People working in the Internet & online field had the easiest time monitoring their social behavior followed by those who work in the agricultural field. People working in the automotive field and those who don’t work had the hardest time monitoring their social behavior. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(26,6813) = 3.737 p < 0.0001 EASE MONITORING SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND FIELD OF WORK

Field of work

Construction

Social Services

Travel & Leisure


Education

I don't work

Transportation

Telecommunications

RetailReal Estate


Pharmaceuticals


Internet & Online


Healthcare

Food & Beverage

Financial Services

Energy & Utilities


Computers

Chemicals

Automotive

Airlines

Agriculture


Advertising & PR

Mea

n of

mon

itorin

g so

cial

beh

avio

r

72

70

68

66

64

62


g) Peoples perception Significant main effects were found for people’s perception of one’s self-monitoring abilities depending on their field of work. People perceived the individuals working in social services and advertising & PR as having the greatest ability to self-monitor their behavior. They also perceived people working in the automotive, agricultural, aerospace and military fields, and the unemployed as having the slightest ability to self-monitor their behavior. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(26,6813) = 3.737 p < 0.0001 PEOPLES PERCEPTION AND FIELD OF WORK

Field of work

Construction

Social Services

Travel & Leisure


Education

I don't work

Transportation

Telecommunications

RetailReal Estate


Pharmaceuticals


Internet & Online


Healthcare

Food & Beverage

Financial Services

Energy & Utilities


Computers

Chemicals

Automotive

Airlines

Agriculture


Advertising & PR

Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

80

78

76

74

72

70

68


h) Sensitivity to social cues Significant sensitivity to social cues score differences were found among people depending on their field of work. People working in advertising & PR and social services were the most sensitive to social cues. People who worked in the Internet & online and construction fields were the least sensitive to social cues. See Annex 2 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(26,6813) = 3.663 p < 0.0001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES AND FIELD OF WORK

Field of work

Construction

Social Services

Travel & Leisure


Education

I don't work

Transportation

Telecommunications

RetailReal Estate


Pharmaceuticals


Internet & Online


Healthcare

Food & Beverage

Financial Services

Energy & Utilities


Computers

Chemicals

Automotive

AirlinesAgriculture


Advertising & PR

Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

72

70

68

66

64

62


i) Anger management Significant anger management score differences were found among people depending on their field of work. Individuals working in social services, information technology, transportation and chemicals were the most efficient at managing their anger, closely followed by individuals working in the advertising & PR, electronic & semiconductor, energy and utility, and professional fields. Individuals who were unemployed or who worked in the agricultural, automotive, and food and beverages field were the least efficient at managing their anger. F(26,6813) = 8.469 p < 0.0001 ANGER MANAGEMENT AND FIELD OF WORK

Field of work

Construction

Social Services

Travel & Leisure


Education

I don't work

Transportation

Telecommunications

RetailReal Estate


Pharmaceuticals


Internet & Online


Healthcare

Food & Beverage

Financial Services

Energy & Utilities


Computers

Chemicals

Automotive

Airlines

Agriculture


Advertising & PR

Mea

n of

Ang

er M

anag

emen

t sco

re

68

66

64

62

60

58

56


2. Relationship between work position and self-monitoring characteristics: Question #2: What is your position? VALUE="1" > Senior Management VALUE="2" > Other Management VALUE="3" > Professional VALUE="4” > Technical VALUE="5” > Sales VALUE="6” > Administrative VALUE="7” > Other employed VALUE="8” > Homemaker/Full-time parent VALUE="9” > Student VALUE="10” > Retired VALUE="11” > Unemployed VALUE="12” > Not employed – Volunteer worker VALUE="13” > Not employed – Handicapped


a) General Score Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their position at work. The ‘Not employed – Handicapped’ group had the lowest overall self-monitoring score. The ‘Senior Management’ group had the highest overall self-monitoring score. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,6769) = 23.681 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND WORK POSITION

POSITION

Not Employed - Handi

Not Employed - Volun

Unemployed

Retired

Student

Homemaker/Full-time

Other employed

Administrative

SalesTechnical

Professional

Other Management

Senior Management

Mea

n of

Sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their position at work. The ‘Not employed – Handicapped’ group had the lowest intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The ‘Senior Management’ group had the highest intrapersonal self-monitoring score. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,6769) = 19.957 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND WORK POSITION

POSITION



Unemployed

RetiredStudent

Homemaker/Full-time

Other employed

Administrative

SalesTechnical

Professional

Other Management

Senior Management

Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

70

60

50

40


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their position at work. The ‘Not employed – Handicapped’ group had the lowest interpersonal self-monitoring score. The management and professional groups had the highest interpersonal self-monitoring score. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,6769) = 25.446 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND WORK POSITION

POSITION



Unemployed

RetiredStudent

Homemaker/Full-time

Other employed

Administrative

SalesTechnical

Professional

Other Management

Senior Management

Mea

n of

Inte

rper

sona

l sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


d) Willingness to self-monitor Significant willingness to self-monitor score differences were found among people depending on their position at work. The ‘Unemployed’ group had the lowest willingness to self-monitor score. The ‘Professional’ group had the highest willingness to self-monitor score, closely followed by the management and administrative groups. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,6769) = 23.654 p < 0.0001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR AND WORK POSITION

POSITION



Unemployed

RetiredStudent

Homemaker/Full-time

Other employed

Administrative

SalesTechnical

Professional

Other Management

Senior Management

Mea

n of

Will

ingn

ess

scor

e

76

74

72

70

68

66

64

62


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant main effects were found for ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring depending on one’s position at work. The ‘Not employed - handicapped’ group had the hardest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring. The ‘Retired’ and ‘Senior management’ groups had the easiest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,6769) = 13.564 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND WORK POSITION

POSITION



Unemployed

RetiredStudent

Homemaker/Full-time

Other employed

Administrative

SalesTechnical

Professional

Other Management

Senior Management

Mea

n of

eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal 70

60

50

40


f) Ease monitoring social behavior Significant main effects were found for ease monitoring social behavior depending on one’s position at work. The ‘Not employed - handicapped’ group had the hardest time monitoring their social behavior. The ‘Senior management’ group had the easiest time monitoring their social behavior. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,6769) = 5.886 p < 0.0001 EASE MONITORING THEIR SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND WORK POSITION

POSITION



Unemployed

RetiredStudent

Homemaker/Full-time

Other employed

Administrative

SalesTechnical

Professional

Other Management

Senior Management

Mea

n of

mon

itorin

g so

cial

beh

avio

r

70

68

66

64

62

60

58


g) Peoples perception Significant main effects were found for other’s perception of one’s self-monitoring abilities depending on one’s position at work. People perceived the ‘Not employed - handicapped’ group as having the least ability to self-monitor their behavior and the management, professional, administrative and volunteer groups as having the greatest ability to self-monitor their behavior. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,6769) = 15.241 p < 0.0001 PEOPLES PERCEPTION AND WORK POSITION

POSITION



Unemployed

RetiredStudent

Homemaker/Full-time

Other employed

Administrative

SalesTechnical

Professional

Other Management

Senior Management

Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

80

78

76

74

72

70

68

66

64

62


h) Sensitivity to social cues Significant sensitivity to social cues score differences were found among people depending on their position at work. The ‘ Unemployed’ group had the lowest sensitivity to social cues score. The management, professional, administrative and homemaker groups had the highest sensitivity to social cues score. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,32138) = 7.480 p < 0.0001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES AND WORK POSITION

POSITION



Unemployed

RetiredStudent

Homemaker/Full-time

Other employed

Administrative

SalesTechnical

Professional

Other Management

Senior Management

Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

69

68

67

66

65

64

63


i) Anger management Significant anger management score differences were found among people depending on their position at work. The ‘Not employed - handicapped’ group had the lowest anger management score. The management, professional, technical, administrative, volunteer and retired groups had the highest anger management score. See Annex 3 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,32138) = 15.707 p < 0.0001 ANGER MANAGEMENT AND WORK POSITION

POSITION



Unemployed

RetiredStudent

Homemaker/Full-time

Other employed

Administrative

SalesTechnical

Professional

Other Management

Senior Management

Mea

n of

Ang

er M

anag

emen

t sco

re

70

60

50

40


3. Relationship between suffering relationships and self-monitoring characteristics: Question #3: Do your relationships suffer as a result of your lack of self-control? VALUE="1" > Yes VALUE="2" > Sometimes VALUE="3” > No

a) General Score Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on whether or not their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control. The group that said their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the lowest overall self-monitoring score. The group that said that their relationships don’t suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the highest overall self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,7393) = 761.063 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND RELATIONSHIP HARDSHIPS

Relationship hardships

NoSomewhatYes

Mea

n of

Sel

f-m

onito

ring

scor

e

80

70

60

50

40


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on whether or not their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control. The group that said their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the lowest intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The group that said that their relationships did not suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the highest intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,7393) = 621.896 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND RELATIONSHIP HARDSHIPS


NoSomewhatYes

Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

70

60

50

40

30


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on whether or not their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control. The group that said their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the lowest interpersonal self-monitoring score. The group that said that their relationships did not suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the highest interpersonal self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,7393) = 572.485 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND RELATIONSHIP HARDSHIPS


NoSomewhatYes

Mea

n of

Inte

rper

sona

l sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

80

70

60

50

40


d) Willingness to self-monitor Significant willingness to self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on whether or not their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control. The group that said their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the lowest willingness to self-monitoring score. The group that said that their relationships did not suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the highest willingness to self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,7393) = 292.177 p < 0.0001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR AND RELATIONSHIP HARDSHIPS


NoSomewhatYes

Mea

n of

Will

ingn

ess

scor

e

80

70

60

50


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on whether or not their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control. The group that said their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the hardest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The group that said that their relationships did not suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the easiest engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,7393) = 328.097 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND RELATIONSHIP HARDSHIPS


NoSomewhatYes

Mea

n of

eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal

70

60

50

40

30


f) Ease monitoring social behavior Significant ease monitoring social behavior score differences were found among people depending on whether or not their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control. The group that said their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the hardest time monitoring their social behavior. The group that said that their relationships did not suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the easiest time monitoring their social behavior. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,7393) = 298.233 p < 0.0001 EASE MONITORING SOCI AL BEHAVIOR AND RELATIONSHIP HARDSHIPS


NoSomewhatYes

Mea

n of

mon

itorin

g so

cial

beh

avio

r

80

70

60

50


g) People’s perception Significant people’s perception score differences were found among people depending on whether or not their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control. The group that said their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control was perceived as having the least ability to self-monitor their behavior. The group that said that their relationships did not suffer as a result of their lack of self-control was perceived as having the greatest ability to self-monitor. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,7393) = 645.842 p < 0.0001 PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION AND RELATIONSHIP HARDSHIPS


NoSomewhatYes

Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

90

80

70

60

50


h) Sensitivity to social Cues Significant sensitivity to social cues score differences were found among people depending on whether or not their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control. The group that said their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the lowest sensitivity to social cues. The group that said that their relationships did not suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the highest sensitivity to social cues. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,7393) = 166.464 p < 0.0001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES AND RELATIONSHIP HARDSHIPS


NoSomewhatYes

Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

70

68

66

64

62

60

58


i) Anger management Significant anger management score differences were found among people depending on whether or not their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control. The group that said their relationships suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the lowest anger management score. The group that said that their relationships did not suffer as a result of their lack of self-control had the highest anger management score. The effects are robust. See Annex 4 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(2,7392) = 671.555 p < 0.0001 ANGER MANAGEMENT AND RELATIONSHIP HARDSHIPS


NoSomewhatYes

Mea

n of

Ang

er M

anag

emen

t sco

re

80

70

60

50

40


4. Relationship between self-esteem and self-monitoring characteristics: Question #4: How do you rate your self-esteem? VALUE="1"> 1 - Very low VALUE="2"> 2 VALUE="3"> 3 VALUE="4"> 4 VALUE="5"> 5 - In the mid-range VALUE="6"> 6 VALUE="7"> 7 VALUE="8"> 8 VALUE="9"> 9 VALUE="10"> 10 - Extremely high a) General Score Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their self-esteem level. Groups with the highest self-esteem levels had the highest overall self-monitoring scores. Groups with the lowest self-esteem levels had the lowest overall self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7643) = 176.500 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND SELF ESTEEM

Self-esteem

Extremely high

9

8

7

6

In the mid range

4

3

2

Very low

Mea

n of

Sel

f-m

onito

ring

scor

e

80

70

60

50


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their self-esteem level. Groups with the highest self-esteem levels had the highest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. Groups with the lowest self-esteem levels had the lowest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7643) = 313.386 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem

Extremely high

9

8

7

6

In the mid range

4

3

2

Very low

Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

80

70

60

50

40

30


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their self-esteem level. Groups with the highest self-esteem levels had the highest interpersonal self-monitoring scores. Groups with the lowest self-esteem levels had the lowest interpersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7643) = 75.103 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem

Extremely high

9

8

7

6

In the mid range

4

3

2

Very low

Mea

n of

Iner

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

80

70

60

50


d) Willingness to self-monitor Significant willingness to self-monitor score differences were found among people depending on their self-esteem level. Groups with the highest self-esteem levels had the highest willingness to self-monitor scores. Groups with the lowest self-esteem levels had the lowest willingness to self-monitor scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7643) = 30.564 p < 0.0001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR AND SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem

Extremely high

9

8

7

6

In the mid range

4

3

2

Very low

Mea

n of

Will

ingn

esss

core

76

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their self-esteem level. Groups with the highest self-esteem levels had the easiest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. Groups with the lowest self-esteem levels had the easiest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7643) = 297.647 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem

Extremely high

9

8

7

6

In the mid range

4

3

2

Very low

Mea

n of

eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal

80

70

60

50

40

30


f) Ease monitoring social behavior Significant ease monitoring social behavior score differences were found among people depending on their self-esteem level. Groups with the highest self-esteem levels had the hardest time engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring. Groups with the lowest self-esteem levels had the easiest time engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7643) = 51.831 p < 0.0001 EASE MONITORING SOCI AL BEHAVIOR AND SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem

Extremely high

9

8

7

6

In the mid range

4

3

2

Very low

Mea

n of

mon

itorin

g so

cial

beh

avio

r

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56


g) People’s Perception Significant people's perception score differences were found among people depending on their self-esteem level. People perceive groups with the highest self-esteem level as having the greatest ability to self-monitoring their behavior and the groups with the lowest self-esteem levels as having the least ability to self-monitor their behavior. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7643) = 65.953 p < 0.0001 PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION AND SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem

Extremely high

9

8

7

6

In the mid range

4

3

2

Very low

Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

90

80

70

60


h) Sensitivity to social cues Significant sensitivity to social cues score differences were found among people depending on their self-esteem level. Groups with the highest self-esteem levels had the highest sensitivity to social cues scores. Groups with the lowest self-esteem levels had the lowest sensitivity to social cues scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7643) = 29.046 p < 0.0001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES AND SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem

Extremely high

9

8

7

6

In the mid range

4

3

2

Very low

Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

72

70

68

66

64

62

60


i) Anger management Significant anger management score differences were found among people depending on their self-esteem level. These differences are non-linear. See Annex 5 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7643) = 2.213 p < 0.019 ANGER MANAGEMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM

Self-esteem

Extremely high

9

8

7

6

In the mid range

4

3

2

Very low

Mea

n of

Ang

er m

anag

emen

t sco

re

64

63

62

61

60

59


5. Relationship between embarrassing others and self-monitoring characteristics: Question #5: Has a partner/friend ever complained that you embarrassed him/her? VALUE="1">Yes, often VALUE="2">Yes, a few times VALUE="3">Yes, once or twice VALUE="4">No

a) General Score Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on whether they had ever been accused of embarrassing a friend or partner. The group that had never been accused of embarrassing their friends or partner had the highest overall self-monitoring scores. The group that had been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner the most often had the lowest overall self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(3,7501) = 361.418 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND EMBARRASSING OTHERS

Embarrassment

NoYes, once or twiceYes, a few timesYes, often

Mea

n of

Sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

70

60

50

40


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on whether they had ever been accused of embarrassing a friend or partner. The group that had never been accused of embarrassing their friends or partner had the highest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The group that had been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner the most often had the lowest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(3,7501) = 148.535 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND EMBARRASSING OTHERS

Embarrassment


Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

70

60

50

40


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on whether they had ever been accused of embarrassing a friend or partner. The group that had never been accused of embarrassing their friends or partner had the highest interpersonal self-monitoring scores. The group that had been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner the most often had the lowest interpersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(3,7501) = 253.784 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND EMBARRASSING OTHERS

Embarrassment


Mea

n of

Iner

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

70

60

50

40


d) Willingness to self-monitor Significant willingness to self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on whether they had ever been accused of embarrassing a friend or partner. The group that had never been accused of embarrassing their friends or partner had the highest willingness to self-monitoring scores. The group that had been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner the most often had the lowest willingness to self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(3,7501) = 180.126 p < 0.0001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR AND EMBARRASSING OTHERS

Embarrassment


Mea

n of

Will

ingn

esss

core

80

70

60

50

40


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on whether they had ever been accused of embarrassing a friend or partner. The group that had never been accused of embarrassing their friends or partner had the easiest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The group that had been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner the most often had the hardest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(3,7501) = 52.847 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND EMBARRASSING OTHERS

Embarrassment


Mea

n of

eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal

58

56

54

52

50

48

46

44


f) Ease monitoring social behavior Significant ease monitoring social behavior score differences were found among people depending on whether they had ever been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner. The group that had never been accused of embarrassing their friends or partner had the easiest time monitoring their social behavior. The group that had been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner the most often had the hardest time monitoring their social behavior. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(3,7501) = 179.554 p < 0.0001 EASE MONITORING SOCI AL BEHAVIOR AND EMBARRASSING OTHERS

Embarrassment


Mea

n of

mon

itorin

g so

cial

beh

avio

r

70

60

50

40


g) People’s perception Significant people’s perception score differences were found among people depending on whether they had ever been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner. People perceived the groups that had never been accused of embarrassing their friends or partner as having the greatest ability to self-monitor their behaviors. People perceived the groups that had been accused of embarrassing their friends or partner the most often as having the slightest ability to self-monitor their behaviors. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(3,7501) = 639.965 p < 0.0001 PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION AND EMBARRASSING OTHERS

Embarrassment


Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

90

80

70

60

50

40


h) Sensitivity to social cues Significant sensitivity to social cues score differences were found among people depending on whether they had ever been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner. The group that had never been accused of embarrassing their friends or partner had the highest sensitivity to social cues scores. The group that had been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner the most often had the lowest sensitivity to social cues scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(3,7501) = 186.834 p < 0.0001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES AND EMBARRASSING OTHERS

Embarrassment


Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

70

60

50


i) Anger management Significant anger management score differences were found among people depending on whether they had ever been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner. Individuals that had been accused of embarrassing their friends or partner once or twice had the highest anger management scores. Individuals that had been accused of embarrassing their friend or partner the most often had the lowest anger management scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 6 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(3,7501) = 3.010 p < 0.029 ANGER MANAGEMENT AND EMBARRASSING OTHERS

Embarrassment


Mea

n of

Ang

er m

anag

emen

t sco

re

62.5

62.0

61.5

61.0

60.5

60.0

59.5

59.0

58.5


6. Relationship between happiness and self-monitoring characteristics: Question #6: Rate yourself on a happiness scale from 1 to 10. VALUE="1"> 1 - completely unhappy VALUE="2"> 2 VALUE="3"> 3 VALUE="4"> 4 VALUE="5"> 5 - neither happy nor unhappy VALUE="6"> 6 VALUE="7"> 7 VALUE="8"> 8 VALUE="9"> 9 VALUE="10"> 10 - completely happy a) General Score Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their happiness self-rating. The happiest groups had the highest overall self-monitoring scores. The unhappiest groups had the lowest overall self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7709) = 206.188 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND HAPPINESS

Happiness

10-completely happy

98765- not happy/unhappy

4321-completely unhappy

Mea

n of

Sel

f-m

onito

ring

scor

e

80

70

60

50

40


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among groups depending on their happiness level. Groups that reported being happiest had the highest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. Groups that reported being the unhappiest had the lowest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7709) = 271.338 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND HAPPINESS

Happiness

10- completely happy



Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g 80

70

60

50

40

30


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among groups depending on their happiness level. Groups that reported being happiest had the highest interpersonal self-monitoring scores. Groups that reported being the unhappiest had the lowest interpersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7709) = 109.606 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND HAPPINESS

Happiness




Mea

n of

Inte

rper

sona

l sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

80

70

60

50

40


d) Willingness to self-monitor Significant willingness to self-monitor score differences were found among groups depending on their happiness level. Groups that reported being happiest had the highest willingness to self-monitor scores. Groups that reported being the unhappiest had the lowest willingness to self-monitor scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7709) = 55.436 p < 0.0001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR AND HAPPINESS

Happiness




Mea

n of

Will

ingn

ess

scor

e

80

70

60

50


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among groups depending on their happiness level. Groups that reported being happiest had the easiest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. Groups that reported being the unhappiest had the hardest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7709) = 251.482 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND HAPPINESS

Happiness




Mea

n of

eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal 80

70

60

50

40

30


f) Ease monitoring social behavior Significant ease monitoring social beahvior score differences were found among groups depending on their happiness level. Groups that reported being happiest had the easiest time monitoring social behavior. Groups that reported being the unhappiest had the hardest time monitoring social behavior. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7709) = 79.111 p < 0.0001 EASE MONITORING SOCI AL BEHAVIOR AND HAPPINESS

Happiness




Mea

n of

eas

e m

onito

ring

soci

al b

ehav

ior 80

70

60

50


g) People’s perception Significant differences were found between other people’s perception of one’s self-monitoring ability and happiness. Individuals who reported being happiest were perceived by others as having the greatest self-monitoring abilities. Individuals who reported being unhappiest were perceived by others as having the least self-monitoring abilities. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7709) = 99.317 p < 0.0001 PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION AND HAPPINESS

Happiness




Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

90

80

70

60

50


h) Sensitivity to social cues Significant sensitivity to social cues score differences were found among groups depending on their happiness level. Individuals who reported being happiest had the highest sensitivity to social cues scores. Individuals who reported being the unhappiest had the lowest sensitivity to social cues scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7709) = 37.025 p < 0.0001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES AND HAPPINESS

Happiness




Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56


i) Anger management Significant anger management score differences were found among groups depending on their happiness level. Individuals who reported being happiest had the highest anger management scores. Individuals who reported being the unhappiest had the lowest anger management scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 7 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7708) = 85.547 p < 0.0001 ANGER MANAGEMENT AND HAPPINESS

Happiness




Mea

n of

Ang

er M

anag

emen

t sco

re

80

70

60

50

40


7. Relationship between popularity and self-monitoring characteristics: Question #7: Rate your popularity in your social group? VALUE="1">1 - I am not popular at all VALUE="2">2 VALUE="3">3 VALUE="4">4 VALUE="5">5 - I'm one of the crowd (not bad but I am no star) VALUE="6">6 VALUE="7">7 VALUE="8">8 VALUE="9">9 VALUE="10">10 - I'm very popular

a) General Score Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their popularity self-rating. The group with the ‘I am not popular at all’ self-rating had the lowest overall self-monitoring score. Th e group with the ‘I’m very popular’ self-rating had the highest overall self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7543) = 71.588 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND POPULARITY

Popularity

10- I'm very popular

98765 - One of the crowd

4321 - I am not popular

Mea

n of

Sel

f-m

onito

ring

scor

e

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their popularity self-rating. The group with the ‘I am not popular at all’ self-rating had the lowest intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The group with the ‘I’m very popular’ self-rating had the highest intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7543) = 79.243 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND POPULAR

Popularity




Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g

70

60

50

40


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their popularity self-rating. The groups with the highest popularity ratings had the highest interpersonal self-monitoring score. The groups with the lowest popularity rating had the lowest interpersonal self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7543) = 27.992 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND POPULARITY

Popularity




Mea

n of

Inte

rper

sona

l sel

f-mon

itorin

g

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54


d) Willingness to self-monitor Significant willingness to self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their popularity self-rating. The groups with the highest popularity ratings had the highest willingness to self-monitor. The groups with the lowest popularity rating had the lowest willingness to self-monitor. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7543) = 27.992 p < 0.0001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF MONITOR AND POPULARITY

Popularity


98765- One of the crowd


Mea

n of

Will

ingn

ess

scor

e

72

70

68

66

64

62

60


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their popularity self-rating. The groups with the highest popularity ratings had the easiest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The groups with the lowest popularity rating had the hardest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7543) = 77.996 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND POPULARITY

Popularity




Mea

n of

eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal

70

60

50

40

30


f) Ease monitoring social behavior Significant ease monitoring social behavior score differences were found among people depending on their popularity self-rating. The groups with the highest popularity ratings had the easiest time monitoring their social behavior. The groups with the lowest popularity rating had the hardest time monitoring their social behavior. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7543) = 26.922 p < 0.0001 EASE MONITORING SOCI AL BEHAVIOR AND POPULARITY

Popularity




Mea

n of

eas

e m

onito

ring

soci

al b

ehav

ior 70

68

66

64

62

60

58


g) People’s perception Significant people’s perception score differences were found among people depending on their popularity self-rating. People perceived the groups with the highest popularity ratings as having the greatest self-monitoring abilities and the groups with the lowest popularity ratings as having the least self-monitoring abilities. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7543) = 65.881 p < 0.0001 PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION AND POPULARITY

Popularity




Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

80

70

60


h) Sensitivity to social cues Significant sensitivity to social cues score differences were found among people depending on their popularity self-rating. The groups with the highest popularity ratings had the highest sensitivity to social cues. The groups with the lowest popularity rating had the lowest sensitivity to social cues. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7543) = 40.778 p < 0.0001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES AND POPULARITY

Popularity




Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58


i) Anger management Significant anger management score differences were found among people depending on their popularity self-rating. The groups with the highest popularity ratings had the highest anger management scores. The groups with the lowest popularity rating had the lowest anger management scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 8 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(9,7542) = 17.291 p < 0.0001 ANGER MANAGEMENT AND POPULARITY

Popularity


98765- One of the crowd


Mea

n of

Ang

er M

anag

emen

t sco

re

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


8. Relationship between education and self-monitor characteristics: Question #8: What is the highest degree of formal education that you have achieved? VALUE="1" >Grade School VALUE="2">Some High School VALUE="3">High School Grad VALUE="4">Some College VALUE="5">College Grad VALUE="6">Post-Graduate Work VALUE="7">Post-Graduate Degree a) General Score Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their educational levels. The groups with the highest education had the highest overall self-monitoring scores. The groups with the lowest education had the lowest overall self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 9 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(6,7030) = 27.992 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND EDUCATION

Education

Post-Graduate Degree

Post-Graduate Work

College Grad

Some College

High School Grad

Some High School

Grade School

Mea

n of

Sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

68

66

64

62

60

58

56


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their educational levels. The groups with the highest educational levels had the highest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The groups with the lowest educational levels had the lowest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 9 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(6,7030) = 23.647 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND EDUCATION

Education


Post-Graduate Work

College Grad

Some College

High School Grad

Some High School

Grade School

Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their educational levels. The groups with the highest education had the highest interpersonal self-monitoring scores. The groups with the lowest education had the lowest interpersonal self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 9 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(6,7030) = 71.876 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND EDUCATION

Education


Post-Graduate Work

College Grad

Some College

High School Grad

Some High School

Grade School

Mea

n of

Inte

rper

sona

l sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54


d) Willingness to self-monitor Significant willingness to self-monitor score differences were found among people depending on their educational levels. The groups with the highest educational levels had the highest willingness to self-monitor scores. The groups with the lowest educational levels had the lowest willingness to self-monitor scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 9 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(6,7030) = 62.813 p < 0.0001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR AND EDUCATION

Education


Post-Graduate Work

College Grad

Some College

High School Grad

Some High School

Grade School

Mea

n of

Will

ingn

ess

scor

e

76

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant differences were found between ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring activities and their level of education. The groups with the highest educational levels had the highest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The groups with the lowest educational levels had the lowest intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 9 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(6,7030) = 9.996 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND EDUCATION

Education


Post-Graduate Work

College Grad

Some College

High School Grad

Some High School

Grade School

Mea

n of

eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal

60

58

56

54

52

50


f) Ease monitoring social behavior Significant differences were found between the ease monitoring social behavior and their level of education. The groups with the highest educational levels had the easiest time monitoring their social behavior. The groups with the lowest educational levels had the hardest time monitoring their social behavior. The effects are robust. See Annex 9 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(6,7030) = 9.294 p < 0.0001 EASE MONITORING SOCI AL BEHAVIOR AND EDUCATION

Education


Post-Graduate Work

College Grad

Some College

High School Grad

Some High School

Grade School

Mea

n of

eas

e m

onito

ring

soci

al b

ehav

ior

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62

61


g) People’s perception Significant differences were found between people’s perception of one’s self-monitoring activities and their level of education. People perceived the groups with the highest educational levels as having the highest self-monitoring abilities and the groups with the lowest educational levels as having the lowest self-monitoring abilities. The effects are robust. See Annex 9 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(6,7030) = 30.910 p < 0.0001 PEOPLES PERCEPTION AND EDUCATION

Education


Post-Graduate Work

College Grad

Some College

High School Grad

Some High School

Grade School

Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

78

76

74

72

70

68

66


h) Sensitivity to social cues Significant differences were found between one’s sensitivity to social cues and their level of education. The groups with the highest educational levels had the highest sensitivity to social cues scores. The groups with the lowest educational levels had the lowest sensitivity to social cues score. The effects are robust. See Annex 9 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(6,7030) = 12.747 p < 0.0001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES AND EDUCATION

Education


Post-Graduate Work

College Grad

Some College

High School Grad

Some High School

Grade School

Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

62


i) Anger management Significant differences were found between anger management and levels of education. The groups with the highest educational levels had the highest anger management scores. The groups with the lowest educational levels had the lowest anger management scores. The effects are robust. See Annex 9 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(6,7029) = 54.717 p < 0.0001 ANGER MANAGEMENT AND EDUCATION

Education


Post-Graduate Work

College Grad

Some College

High School Grad

Some High School

Grade School

Mea

n of

Ang

er M

anag

emen

t sco

re

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


9. Relationship between academic achievement and self-monitoring characteristics: Question #9: How did you do at school in terms of academic achievement? VALUE="1">Straight As/Top of the class VALUE="2">Pretty well but not in the top 5 VALUE="3">I was an average student VALUE="4">Below average VALUE="5">Poorly VALUE="6">Failed most classes

a) General Score Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their academic achievement. The groups who had the highest levels of academic achievement had the highest overall self-monitoring scores. The groups who had the lowest levels of academic achievement had the lowest overall self-monitoring scores. See Annex 10 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(5,7552) = 47.749 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Academic achievement

Failed most classes

Poorly

Below average

Average student

Not in the top 5

Straight As

Mea

n of

Sel

f-m

onito

ring

scor

e

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their academic achievement. The groups who had the highest levels of academic achievement had the highest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The groups who had the lowest levels of academic achievement had the lowest intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. See Annex 10 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(5,7552) = 32.447 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT


Failed most classes

Poorly

Below average

Average student

Not in the top 5

Straight As

Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

60

58

56

54

52

50

48

46


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their academic achievement. The groups who had the highest levels of academic achievement had the highest interpersonal self-monitoring scores. The groups who had the lowest levels of academic achievement had the lowest interpersonal self-monitoring scores. See Annex 10 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(5,7552) = 41.336 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT


Failed most classes

Poorly

Below average

Average student

Not in the top 5

Straight As

Mea

n of

Inte

rper

sona

l sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


d) Willingness to self-monitor Significant willingness to self-monitor score differences were found among people depending on their academic achievement. The groups who had the highest levels of academic achievement had the highest willingness to self-monitor scores. The groups who had the lowest levels of academic achievement had the lowest willingness to self-monitor scores. See Annex 10 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(5,7552) = 34.746 p < 0.0001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT


Failed most classes

Poorly

Below average

Average student

Not in the top 5

Straight As

Mea

n of

Will

ingn

ess

scor

e

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their academic achievement. The groups who had the highest levels of academic achievement had the easiest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring scores. The groups who had the lowest levels of academic achievement had the most difficult time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring with the exception of the ‘failed most classes’ group. This group had an average score for ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring See Annex 10 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(5,7552) = 20.311 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT


Failed most classes

Poorly

Below average

Average student

Not in the top 5

Straight As

Mea

n of

eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal

58

56

54

52

50

48

46

44


f) Ease monitoring social behavior Significant ease monitoring social behavior score differences were found among people depending on their academic achievement. The groups who had the highest levels of academic achievement had the easiest time monitoring their social behavior. The groups who had the lowest levels of academic achievement had the hardest time monitoring their social behavior. See Annex 10 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(5,7552) = 19.771 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT


Failed most classes

Poorly

Below average

Average student

Not in the top 5

Straight As

Mea

n of

Eas

e m

onito

ring

soci

al b

ehav

ior

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56


g) People’s perception and academic achievement Significant score differences were found among people depending on their self-monitoring ability as perceived by others and their academic achievement. People perceived the groups who had the highest levels of academic achievement as having the greatest self-monitoring abilities and the groups who had the lowest levels of academic achievement as having the least self-monitoring abilities. See Annex 10 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(5,7552) = 51.809 p < 0.0001 PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT


Failed most classes

Poorly

Below average

Average student

Not in the top 5

Straight As

Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

80

70

60

50


h) Sensitivity to social cues and academic achievement Significant sensitivity to social cues score differences were found among people depending on their academic achievement. The groups with the highest levels of academic achievement scores showed the greatest sensitivity to social cues whereas the groups with the lowest levels of academic achievement showed the least sensitivity to social cues. See Annex 10 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(5,7552) = 30.628 p < 0.0001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT


Failed most classes

Poorly

Below average

Average student

Not in the top 5

Straight As

Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

70

68

66

64

62

60

58


i) Anger management and academic achievement Significant anger management score differences were found among people depending on their academic achievement. The groups who had the highest levels of academic achievement had the highest anger management scores. The groups who had the lowest levels of academic achievement had the lowest anger management scores. See Annex 10 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(5,7551) = 46.867 p < 0.0001 ANGER MANAGEMENT AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT


Failed most classes

Poorly

Below average

Average student

Not in the top 5

Straight As

Mea

n of

Ang

er M

anag

emen

t sco

re

70

60

50

40


10. Relationship between ethnicity and self-monitoring characteristics: Question #10: Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? VALUE ="21">Black VALUE ="22">Chinese VALUE ="23">Filipino VALUE="24">Indian/Pakistani VALUE="25">Japanese VALUE="26">Korean VALUE="27">Latino VALUE="28">Other Asian VALUE="29">Other VALUE ="30">Native American VALUE ="31">Pacific Islander VALUE ="32">Puerto Rican VALUE ="33">White/Caucasian a) General Score and age group Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their ethnicity. Post hoc analyses revealed that the White/Caucasian, Indian/Pakistani, and Black groups were significantly more likely to self-monitor than the ‘other’ group. All other differences were non significant. See Annex 11 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,7438) = 3.189 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian

Puerto Rican

Pacific Islander

Native American

OtherOther Asian

LatinoKorean

Japanese

Indian/Pakistani

Filipino

Chinese

Black

Mea

n of

sel

f-m

onito

ring

scor

e

66

65

64

63

62

61

60

59


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring and ethnicity Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their ethnicity. Post hoc analyses revealed that the ‘Black’ group was significantly more likely to self-monitor (intrapersonal) than the ‘Chinese’ and ‘other’ groups. All other differences were non significant. See Annex 11 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,7438) = 2.916 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian

Puerto Rican

Pacific Islander

Native American

OtherOther Asian

LatinoKorean

Japanese

Indian/Pakistani

Filipino

Chinese

Black

Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore 64

62

60

58

56

54

52

50


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring and ethnicity Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on their ethnicity. Post hoc analyses revealed that the ‘Indian/Pakistani’’ group was significantly more likely to self-monitor (interpersonal) than the ‘Latino,’ ‘Native American,’ ‘White/Caucasian,’ and ‘other’ groups. All other differences were non significant. See Annex 11 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,7438) = 3.370 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian

Puerto Rican

Pacific Islander

Native American

OtherOther Asian

LatinoKorean

Japanese

Indian/Pakistani

Filipino

Chinese

Black

Mea

n of

Inte

rper

sona

l sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore 68

66

64

62

60

58


d) Willingness to self-monitor and ethnicity Significant willingness to self-monitor score differences were found among people depending on their ethnicity. Post hoc analyses revealed that the ‘Indian/Pakistani’’ group was significantly more willing to self-monitor than the ‘Native American,’ ‘White/Caucasian,’ and ‘other’ groups. All other differences were non significant. See Annex 11 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,7438) = 2.698 p < 0.001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR AND ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian

Puerto Rican

Pacific Islander

Native American

OtherOther Asian

LatinoKorean

Japanese

Indian/Pakistani

Filipino

Chinese

Black

Mea

n of

Will

ingn

ess

scor

e

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring There is a significant main effect for the ‘ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring’ score depending on one’s ethnicity. However, post hoc analyses revealed no individual differences between group scores. See Annex 11 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,7438) = 2.434 p < 0.004 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian

Puerto Rican

Pacific Islander

Native American

OtherOther Asian

LatinoKorean

Japanese

Indian/Pakistani

Filipino

Chinese

Black

Mea

n of

Eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal

64

62

60

58

56

54

52

50

48

46


f) Ease monitoring social behavior There is a significant main effect for the ‘ease monitoring social behavior’ score depending on one’s ethnicity. Post hoc analyses revealed that the ‘Indian/Pakistani’’ group was significantly more likely to engage in interpersonal self-monitor than the ‘White/Caucasian’ and ‘other’ groups. All other differences were non significant. See Annex 11 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,7438) = 3.080 p < 0.0001 EASE MONITORING SOCI AL BEHAVIOR AND ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian

Puerto Rican

Pacific Islander

Native American

OtherOther Asian

LatinoKorean

Japanese

Indian/Pakistani

Filipino

Chinese

Black

Mea

n of

eas

e m

onito

ring

soci

al b

ehav

ior 74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58


g) People’s perception Significant people’s perception score differences were found among people depending on their ethnicity. Post hoc analyses revealed that the ‘Black’ and ‘White/Caucasian’ groups were significantly more likely to be perceived as better self-monitors than the ‘Chinese,’ ‘Filipino,’ and ‘other’ groups. The ‘Latino’ group was also significantly more likely to be perceived as better self-monitors than the ‘Chinese’ group. All other differences were non significant. See Annex 11 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,7438) = 5.261 p < 0.001 PEOPLE’S PERCEPTION SCORE AND ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian

Puerto Rican

Pacific Islander

Native American

OtherOther Asian

LatinoKorean

Japanese

Indian/Pakistani

Filipino

Chinese

Black

Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

78

76

74

72

70

68


h) Sensitivity to social cues score Significant sensitivity to social cues score differences were found among people depending on their ethnicity. Post hoc analyses revealed that the ‘White/Caucasian’ group was significantly more likely to be sensitive to social cues than were the ‘Chinese,’ ‘Filipino,’ ‘Indian/Pakistani,’ ‘other Asian,’ and ‘other’ groups. All other differences were non significant. See Annex 11 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,7438) = 6.737 p < 0.001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES SCORE AND ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian

Puerto Rican

Pacific Islander

Native American

OtherOther Asian

LatinoKorean

Japanese

Indian/Pakistani

Filipino

Chinese

Black

Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

68

66

64

62

60


i) Anger management score Significant anger management score differences were found among people depending on their ethnicity. Post hoc analyses revealed that the ‘White/Caucasian’ group was significantly more likely to use anger management techniques than the ‘other’ group. All other differences were non significant. See Annex 11 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(12,7437) = 2.267 p < 0.007 ANGER MANAGEMENT SCORE AND ETHNICITY

Ethnicity

White/Caucasian

Puerto Rican

Pacific Islander

Native American

OtherOther Asian

LatinoKorean

Japanese

Indian/Pakistani

Filipino

Chinese

Black

Mea

n of

Ang

er M

anag

emen

t sco

re

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


11. Relationship between age groups and self-monitoring characteristics: Question #11: How old are you? VALUE="1" >10-15 years old VALUE="2">16-18 years old VALUE="3">19-24 years old VALUE="4">25-29 years old VALUE="5">30-34 years old VALUE="6">35-39 years old VALUE="7">40-49 years old VALUE="8">50-59 years old VALUE="9">60+ a) General Score Significant overall self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on age group. The 60+ group had the highest overall self-monitoring score. The 10-15 year old age group had the lowest overall self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 12 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,8362) = 64.297 p < 0.0001 OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND AGE GROUP

Age groups

60+50 - 5940 - 4935 - 3930 - 3425 - 2919 - 2416 - 1810 - 15

Mea

n of

Sel

f-m

onito

ring

scor

e

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56


b) Intrapersonal self-monitoring Significant intrapersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on age group. The 60+ group had the highest intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The 10-15 year old age group had the lowest intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 12 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,8362) = 37.703 p < 0.0001 INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND AGE GROUP

Age groups

60+50 - 5940 - 4935 - 3930 - 3425 - 2919 - 2416 - 1810 - 15

Mea

n of

Intra

pers

onal

sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52


c) Interpersonal self-monitoring Significant interpersonal self-monitoring score differences were found among people depending on age group. The older one gets, the higher their interpersonal self-monitoring score becomes. The effects are robust. See Annex 12 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,8362) = 88.900 p < 0.0001 INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING SCORE AND AGE GROUP

Age groups

60+50 - 5940 - 4935 - 3930 - 3425 - 2919 - 2416 - 1810 - 15

Mea

n of

Inte

rper

sona

l sel

f-mon

itorin

g sc

ore

80

70

60

50


d) Willingness to self-monitor Significant willingness to self-monitor score differences were found among people depending on age group. The 60+ group had the highest willingness to self-monitor score. The 10-15 year old age group had the lowest willingness to self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 12 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,8362) = 85.557 p < 0.0001 WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR SCORE AND AGE GROUPS

Age groups

60+50 - 5940 - 4935 - 3930 - 3425 - 2919 - 2416 - 1810 - 15

Mea

n of

Will

ingn

ess

scor

e

80

70

60


e) Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring There is a significant main effect for the ‘ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring’ score depending on age group. The 60+ group had the easiest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The 10-15 year old age group had the hardest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring score. The effects are robust. See Annex 12 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,8362) = 19.897 p < 0.0001 EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING AND AGE GROUPS

Age groups

60+50 - 5940 - 4935 - 3930 - 3425 - 2919 - 2416 - 1810 - 15

Mea

n of

Eas

e en

gagi

ng -

intra

pers

onal

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

52

50


f) Ease monitoring social behavior There is a significant main effect for the ‘ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring’ score depending on age group. The 60+ age group had the easiest time engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring. The 10 - 15 year old age group had the hardest time engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring. The effects are robust. See Annex 12 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,8362) = 14.272 p < 0.0001 EASE MONITORING SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND AGE GROUPS

Age groups

60+50 - 5940 - 4935 - 3930 - 3425 - 2919 - 2416 - 1810 - 15

Mea

n of

eas

e m

onito

ring

soci

al b

ehav

ior

72

70

68

66

64

62


g) People’s perception score There is a significant main effect for the ‘people’s perception of your self-monitoring abilities’ score depending on age group. The 60+ age group was perceived as having the best self-monitoring abilities. The 10 - 15 year old age group was perceived as having the worst self-monitoring abilities. The effects are robust. See Annex 12 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,8362) = 41.882 p < 0.0001 PEOPLES PERCEPTION SCORE AND AGE GROUP

Age groups

60+50 - 5940 - 4935 - 3930 - 3425 - 2919 - 2416 - 1810 - 15

Mea

n of

Peo

ple'

s pe

rcep

tion

scor

e

80

78

76

74

72

70

68


h) Sensitivity to social cues score and age group Significant sensitivity to social cues score differences were found among people depending on their age group. The older one gets, the more sensitive one becomes to social cues. See Annex 11 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,8362) = 6.737 p < 0.001 SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES SCORE AND AGE GROUP

Age groups

60+50 - 5940 - 4935 - 3930 - 3425 - 2919 - 2416 - 1810 - 15

Mea

n of

Soc

ial c

ues

scor

e

69

68

67

66

65

64

63


i) Anger management and age group Significant anger management score differences were found among people depending on age group. The older one gets, the higher one’s anger management score. The effects are robust. See Annex 12 for a table showing homogeneous subsets. F(8,8362) = 57.941 p < 0.0001 ANGER MANAGEMENT SCORE AND AGE GROUP

Age groups

60+50 - 5940 - 4935 - 3930 - 3425 - 2919 - 2416 - 1810 - 15

Mea

n of

Ang

er M

anag

emen

t sco

re

80

70

60

50


Gender differences Overall score difference: Gender differences were not significant for the overall self-monitoring score.

t(8270) = -0.972 p > 0.05 Mean difference: -0.33

Sub-score differences: Significant gender differences were detected in some sub-scores. While these effects are statistically significant, some may be of little theoretical interest due to small mean differences.

1) Men scored significantly higher than women on intrapersonal self-monitoring: t(8270) = -6.979 p < 0.0001 Mean difference: -3.00 2) In terms of interpersonal self-monitoring, no significant gender differences were

found: t(8270) = -0.716 p > 0.05 Mean difference: -0.28 3) Women scored significantly higher than men on willingness to self-monitor: t(8270) = 3.959 p < 0.0001 Mean difference: 1.86 4) Men scored significantly higher than women on ease engaging in intrapersonal

self-monitoring: t(8270) = -8.973 p < 0.0001 Mean difference: -4.72 5) Men scored significantly higher than women on ease engaging in interpersonal: t(8270) = -3.481 p < 0.0001 Mean difference: -1.47 6) Women scored significantly higher than men on people’s perception of their self-

monitoring abilities: t(8270) = 5.218 p < 0.0001 Mean difference: 2.18 7) Women scored significantly higher than men on sensitivity to social cues: t(8270) = 5.403 p < 0.0001 Mean difference: 0.4521 8) Men and women did not significantly differ in their anger management scores: t(8270) = -0.028 p > 0.05 Mean difference: -0.01


GROUP STATISTICS GENDER N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Self-monitoring score Women 6444 63.13 12.383 .154 Men 1828 63.47 13.126 .307

Intrapersonal self-monitoring score Women 6444 56.32 16.267 .203 Men 1828 59.32 16.134 .377

Interpersonal self-monitoring score Women 6444 63.07 13.874 .173 Men 1828 63.35 14.729 .344

Willingness score Women 6444 69.51 16.231 .202 Men 1828 67.65 18.154 .425

Ease/ability - intrapersonal Women 6444 53.49 20.342 .253 Men 1828 58.21 19.698 .461

Ease/ability - interpersonal Women 6444 65.82 15.198 .189 Men 1828 67.30 16.204 .379

People's perception score Women 6444 74.42 14.468 .180 Men 1828 72.25 16.082 .376

Social cues score Women 6444 66.73 11.881 .148 Men 1828 64.90 12.959 .303

Anger Management score Women 6443 61.33 17.605 .219 Men 1828 61.35 18.532 .433

INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST

t-test for Equality of Means t df Sig. (2-

tailed)Mean

DifferenceStd. Error

Difference95% Confidence

Interval of the Difference

Lower UpperSelf-monitoring

score-.972 2815.241 .331 -.33 .344 -1.007 .340

Intrapersonal self-monitoring score

-6.979 8270 .000 -3.00 .430 -3.846 -2.159

Interpersonal self-monitoring score

-.716 2812.058 .474 -.28 .385 -1.032 .480

Willingness score 3.959 2710.058 .000 1.86 .470 .940 2.784Ease/ability -intrapersonal

-8.973 3021.246 .000 -4.72 .526 -5.749 -3.687

Ease/ability -interpersonal

-3.481 2803.139 .001 -1.47 .424 -2.305 -.644

People's perception score

5.218 2721.495 .000 2.18 .417 1.359 2.994

Social cues score 5.403 2757.780 .000 1.82 .337 1.161 2.484Anger

Management score

-.028 2829.733 .978 -.01 .486 -.966 .939


Correlations

1) Weak positive correlations were found between age and overall self-monitoring, intrapersonal self-monitoring, ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring, people’s perception of your self-monitoring ability, and anger management.

2) Moderate positive correlations were found between age and interpersonal self-monitoring, and willingness to engage in self-monitoring.

3) A weak positive correlation was found between relationship hardships and sensitivity to social cues.

4) Moderate positive correlations were found between relationship hardships and willingness to engage in self-monitoring, ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring, and ease engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring.

5) Strong positive correlations were found between relationship hardships and overall self-monitoring, intrapersonal self-monitoring, interpersonal self-monitoring, people’s perception of your self-monitoring abilities, and anger management.

6) A weak positive correlation was found between self-esteem and sensitivity to social cues.

7) Moderate positive correlations were found between self-esteem and willingness to self-monitor, ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring, people’s perception of your self-monitoring abilities, and anger management.

8) Strong positive correlations were found between self-esteem and overall self-monitoring, intrapersonal self-monitoring, interpersonal self-monitoring, and ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring.

9) Weak positive correlations were found between embarrassing others and interpersonal self-monitoring, ease engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring, people’s perception of your self-monitoring abilities, sensitivity to social cues, and anger management.

10) Moderate positive correlations were found between embarrassing others and overall self-monitoring, intrapersonal self-monitoring, and ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring.

11) A weak positive correlation was found between happiness and sensitivity to social cues.

12) Moderate positive correlations were found between happiness and willingness to engage in self-monitoring, ease engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring, and people’s perception of your self-monitoring abilities.

13) Strong positive correlations have been found between happiness and overall self-monitoring, intrapersonal self-monitoring, interpersonal self-monitoring, and ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring.

14) Weak positive correlations were found between popularity and interpersonal self-monitoring, willingness to engage in self-monitoring, ease engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring, and anger management.

15) Moderate positive correlations have been found between popularity and overall self-monitoring, intrapersonal self-monitoring, ease engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring, sensitivity to social cues, and anger management.


16) Weak positive correlations have been found between education and overall self-monitoring, intrapersonal self-monitoring, people’s perception of your self-monitoring abilities, and anger management.

17) Moderate positive correlations have been found between education and interpersonal self-monitoring, and willingness to engage in self-monitoring.

18) Weak negative correlations have been found between academic achievement and overall self-monitoring, intrapersonal self-monitoring, interpersonal self-monitoring, willingness to engage in self-monitoring, ease engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring, people’s perception of your self-monitoring abilities, sensitivity to social cues, and, anger management.


Correlations (Continued) Self-

monitoring score

Intrapersonal self-monitoring

score

Interpersonal self-monitoring

score

Willingness score

Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring

Self-monitoring score

Pearson Correlation

1 .908 .907 .666 .764

Sig. (2-tailed)

. .000 .000 .000 .000

N 11595 11595 11595 11595 11595Intrapersonal self-monitoring score

Pearson Correlation

.908 1 .745 .459 .894

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 . .000 .000 .000

N 11595 11595 11595 11595 11595Interpersonal self-monitoring score

Pearson Correlation

.907 .745 1 .771 .609

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 . .000 .000

N 11595 11595 11595 11595 11595Willingness score Pearson

Correlation.666 .459 .771 1 .410

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 . .000

N 11595 11595 11595 11595 11595Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring

Pearson Correlation

.764 .894 .609 .410 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .

N 11595 11595 11595 11595 11595Ease engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring

Pearson Correlation

.715 .577 .784 .566 .542

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 11595 11595 11595 11595 11595People's perception score

Pearson Correlation

.830 .650 .672 .535 .454

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 11595 11595 11595 11595 11595Social cues score Pearson

Correlation.509 .387 .408 .333 .271

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 11595 11595 11595 11595 11595Anger Management score

Pearson Correlation

.859 .725 .863 .560 .518


Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 11594 11594 11594 11594 11594AGE Pearson

Correlation.190 .158 .221 .219 .116

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 8416 8416 8416 8416 8416Relationship hardships

Pearson Correlation

.394 .362 .356 .263 .270

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 7396 7396 7396 7396 7396Self-esteem Pearson

Correlation.366 .388 .302 .225 .348

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 7617 7617 7617 7617 7617Embarrassment Pearson

Correlation.202 .260 .107 .055 .258

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 7541 7541 7541 7541 7541Happiness Pearson

Correlation.430 .484 .325 .232 .471

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 7719 7719 7719 7719 7719Popularity Pearson

Correlation.266 .287 .162 .129 .288

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 7553 7553 7553 7553 7553Education Pearson

Correlation.183 .136 .225 .210 .085

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 7037 7037 7037 7037 7037Academic achievement

Pearson Correlation

-.156 -.126 -.152 -.136 -.086

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 7558 7558 7558 7558 7558


Correlations (Continued) Ease engaging in interpersonal self-monitoring

People's perception

score

Social cues score

Anger Management

score

AGE Relationship hardships

Self-esteem Embarrassment

.715 .830 .509 .859 .190 .394 .366 .202

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

11595 11595 11595 11594 8416 7396 7617 7541.577 .650 .387 .725 .158 .362 .388 .260

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

11595 11595 11595 11594 8416 7396 7617 7541.784 .672 .408 .863 .221 .356 .302 .107

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

11595 11595 11595 11594 8416 7396 7617 7541.566 .535 .333 .560 .219 .263 .225 .055

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

11595 11595 11595 11594 8416 7396 7617 7541.542 .454 .271 .518 .116 .270 .348 .258

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

11595 11595 11595 11594 8416 7396 7617 75411 .523 .315 .587 .071 .253 .215 .133

. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

11595 11595 11595 11594 8416 7396 7617 7541.523 1 .636 .740 .134 .360 .272 .151

.000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

11595 11595 11595 11594 8416 7396 7617 7541.315 .636 1 .420 .062 .198 .168 .100

.000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

11595 11595 11595 11594 8416 7396 7617 7541.587 .740 .420 1 .175 .380 .271 .107

.000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000

11594 11594 11594 11594 8416 7395 7616 7540.071 .134 .062 .175 1 .208 .229 -.155


.000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000

8416 8416 8416 8416 8416 7237 7452 7374.253 .360 .198 .380 .208 1 .503 -.208

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000 .000

7396 7396 7396 7395 7237 7396 7210 7093.215 .272 .168 .271 .229 .503 1 -.311

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . .000

7617 7617 7617 7616 7452 7210 7617 7298.133 .151 .100 .107 -.155 -.208 -.311 1

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .

7541 7541 7541 7540 7374 7093 7298 7541.284 .299 .182 .287 .035 .219 .368 .327

.000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .000 .000 .000

7719 7719 7719 7718 7546 7186 7440 7400.163 .255 .209 .122 .016 .115 .268 .226

.000 .000 .000 .000 .170 .000 .000 .000

7553 7553 7553 7552 7389 7052 7284 7257.077 .134 .091 .199 .426 .157 .211 -.101

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

7037 7037 7037 7036 6916 6654 6826 6766-.104 -.159 -.136 -.167 .066 -.108 -.108 -.067

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

7558 7558 7558 7557 7403 7083 7304 7244


Correlations (Continued) Happiness Popularity Education Academic achievement

.430 .266 .183 -.156

.000 .000 .000 .000

7719 7553 7037 7558 .484 .287 .136 -.126

.000 .000 .000 .000

7719 7553 7037 7558 .325 .162 .225 -.152

.000 .000 .000 .000

7719 7553 7037 7558 .232 .129 .210 -.136

.000 .000 .000 .000

7719 7553 7037 7558 .471 .288 .085 -.086

.000 .000 .000 .000

7719 7553 7037 7558 .284 .163 .077 -.104

.000 .000 .000 .000

7719 7553 7037 7558 .299 .255 .134 -.159

.000 .000 .000 .000

7719 7553 7037 7558 .182 .209 .091 -.136

.000 .000 .000 .000

7719 7553 7037 7558 .287 .122 .199 -.167

.000 .000 .000 .000

7718 7552 7036 7557 .035 .016 .426 .066

.002 .170 .000 .000


7546 7389 6916 7403 .219 .115 .157 -.108

.000 .000 .000 .000

7186 7052 6654 7083 .368 .268 .211 -.108

.000 .000 .000 .000

7440 7284 6826 7304 .327 .226 -.101 -.067

.000 .000 .000 .000

7400 7257 6766 7244 1 .378 .067 -.111

. .000 .000 .000

7719 7410 6887 7390 .378 1 .092 -.092

.000 . .000 .000

7410 7553 6771 7261 .067 .092 1 -.185

.000 .000 . .000

6887 6771 7037 6916 -.111 -.092 -.185 1

.000 .000 .000 .

7390 7261 6916 7558


ANNEX 1 - Descriptive Statistics Overall self-monitoring

score

Intrapersonal self-

monitoring score

Interpersonal self-

monitoring score

Willingness score

Ease engaging in intrapersonal self-monitoring

N Valid 11595 11595 11595 11595 11595Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 63.10 56.95 63.13 68.86 54.49Std. Error of Mean .116 .151 .130 .156 .188

Median 64.00 58.00 64.00 71.00 55.00Mode 70 57 67 77 61

Std. Deviation 12.541 16.229 14.037 16.790 20.194Variance 157.276 263.380 197.028 281.912 407.790

Skewness -.354 -.147 -.386 -.716 -.103Std. Error of

Skewness.023 .023 .023 .023 .023

Kurtosis .174 -.336 .126 .629 -.592Std. Error of

Kurtosis.045 .045 .045 .045 .045

Range 93 99 97 100 100Minimum 5 1 3 0 0

Maximum 98 100 100 100 100Percentiles 5 42.00 30.00 39.00 39.00 20.00

10 47.00 36.00 45.00 46.00 27.0015 50.00 40.00 49.00 53.00 32.0020 53.00 43.00 51.00 56.00 36.0025 55.00 46.00 54.00 59.00 40.0030 57.00 48.00 56.00 61.00 43.0035 59.00 51.00 58.00 64.00 46.0040 61.00 53.00 60.00 66.00 49.0045 62.00 55.00 62.00 69.00 52.0050 64.00 58.00 64.00 71.00 55.0055 66.00 60.00 66.00 73.80 58.0060 67.00 62.00 68.00 74.00 60.0065 69.00 64.00 69.00 77.00 63.0070 70.00 66.00 71.00 79.00 66.0075 72.00 69.00 73.00 80.00 70.0080 74.00 71.00 76.00 83.00 73.0085 76.00 74.00 78.00 86.00 77.0090 79.00 78.00 81.00 89.00 81.0095 82.00 83.00 84.00 91.00 87.0097 85.00 86.00 87.00 94.00 90.0099 89.00 91.00 91.00 100.00 96.00


ANNEX 1 - Descriptive Statistics (continued)

Ease engaging in interpersonal self-

monitoring

People's perception score

Social cues score

Anger Management

scoreN Valid 11595 11595 11595 11594

Missing 0 0 0 1Mean 66.19 73.48 66.03 61.40

Std. Error of Mean .143 .141 .115 .165Median 67.00 76.00 68.00 62.50

Mode 67 78 71 69Std. Deviation 15.425 15.187 12.410 17.753

Variance 237.935 230.637 154.012 315.153Skewness -.541 -.833 -.636 -.385

Std. Error of Skewness .023 .023 .023 .023Kurtosis .504 .701 .360 -.269

Std. Error of Kurtosis .045 .045 .045 .045Range 100 100 87 100

Minimum 0 0 11 0Maximum 100 100 98 100

Percentiles 5 39.00 45.00 43.00 30.0010 46.00 52.00 49.00 37.5015 50.00 57.00 53.00 42.5020 54.00 62.00 56.00 45.8325 57.00 65.00 59.00 49.1730 59.00 67.00 60.00 52.5035 61.00 70.00 62.00 55.0040 63.00 72.00 64.00 58.3345 66.00 74.00 66.00 60.0050 67.00 76.00 68.00 62.5055 69.00 78.00 69.00 65.0060 71.00 79.00 71.00 67.5065 73.00 81.00 72.00 70.0070 76.00 83.00 73.00 72.5075 77.00 84.00 76.00 75.0080 80.00 87.00 77.00 77.5085 81.00 88.00 79.00 80.0090 86.00 91.00 81.00 83.3395 89.00 94.00 84.00 87.5097 91.00 96.00 86.00 90.8399 97.00 98.00 88.00 95.00


ANNEX 2 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to field of work. OVERALL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Field of work 1 2

I don't work 1922 60.12 Automotive 68 61.66 61.66

Food & Beverage 337 62.09 62.09 Agriculture 50 62.98 62.98 Education 862 63.23 63.23

Retail 332 63.39 63.39 Aerospace & Military 139 63.88 63.88

Pharmaceuticals 59 64.47 64.47 Media & Entertainment 200 64.57 64.57

Computers 393 64.94 64.94 Construction 127 65.06 65.06

Healthcare 474 65.19 65.19 Real Estate 68 65.35 65.35

Airlines 16 65.38 65.38 Telecommunications 125 65.47 65.47

Electronics & Semiconductors 60 65.50 65.50 Energy & Utilities 42 65.79 65.79 Internet & Online 47 65.85 65.85

Industrial Goods & Services 138 66.09 66.09 Travel & Leisure 100 66.14 66.14

Information Technology 200 66.21 66.21 Financial Services 224 66.25 66.25

Advertising & PR 122 66.31 66.31 Transportation 79 66.71 66.71

Social Services 223 67.09 Professional Services 399 67.18

Chemicals 34 67.38 Sig. .092 .310

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 85.724. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD



Retail 332 56.04 56.04 Food & Beverage 337 56.07 56.07

Education 862 56.70 56.70 Agriculture 50 57.68 57.68

Media & Entertainment 200 57.89 57.89 Healthcare 474 58.66 58.66

Telecommunications 125 58.70 58.70 Computers 393 58.76 58.76

Aerospace & Military 139 59.50 59.50 Pharmaceuticals 59 59.61 59.61 Internet & Online 47 59.62 59.62

Financial Services 224 59.79 59.79 Real Estate 68 59.94 59.94

Advertising & PR 122 59.97 59.97 Information Technology 200 60.01 60.01

Social Services 223 60.20 60.20 Energy & Utilities 42 60.33 60.33

Airlines 16 60.88 60.88 Travel & Leisure 100 61.01 61.01

Electronics & Semiconductors 60 61.08 61.08 Construction 127 61.53 61.53

Professional Services 399 61.61 61.61 Industrial Goods & Services 138 61.85 61.85

Transportation 79 62.16 62.16 Chemicals 34 62.62

Sig. .082 .439 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 85.724. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD



Food & Beverage 337 61.23 61.23 Education 862 63.48 63.48

Retail 332 63.81 63.81 Agriculture 50 63.88 63.88

Aerospace & Military 139 64.46 64.46 Airlines 16 64.75 64.75

Construction 127 65.13 65.13 Real Estate 68 65.22 65.22 Healthcare 474 65.35 65.35

Media & Entertainment 200 65.47 65.47 Pharmaceuticals 59 65.71 65.71 Travel & Leisure 100 65.80 65.80

Telecommunications 125 65.87 65.87 Computers 393 65.93 65.93

Industrial Goods & Services 138 65.97 65.97 Energy & Utilities 42 66.07 66.07 Advertising & PR 122 66.37 66.37

Electronics & Semiconductors 60 66.48 66.48 Financial Services 224 66.69 66.69

Transportation 79 67.16 Social Services 223 67.29

Chemicals 34 67.50 Information Technology 200 67.56

Professional Services 399 67.57 Internet & Online 47 68.06



WILLINGNESS Tukey HSD


Food & Beverage 337 65.51 I don't work 1922 65.53 Automotive 68 66.72 66.72

Airlines 16 68.38 68.38 Electronics & Semiconductors 60 69.35 69.35

Retail 332 69.42 69.42 Travel & Leisure 100 69.50 69.50

Aerospace & Military 139 69.65 69.65 Education 862 69.74 69.74

Pharmaceuticals 59 70.58 70.58 Agriculture 50 70.62 70.62

Industrial Goods & Services 138 70.75 70.75 Construction 127 71.08 71.08

Energy & Utilities 42 71.21 71.21 Media & Entertainment 200 71.25 71.25

Computers 393 71.75 71.75 Real Estate 68 71.85 71.85

Transportation 79 72.06 72.06 Telecommunications 125 72.07 72.07

Healthcare 474 72.37 72.37 Advertising & PR 122 73.14 73.14

Chemicals 34 73.41 73.41 Financial Services 224 73.49 73.49

Social Services 223 73.64 73.64 Professional Services 399 73.72 73.72

Information Technology 200 73.90 73.90 Internet & Online 47 75.28



EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05Field of work 1

I don't work 1922 51.00Retail 332 52.72

Food & Beverage 337 53.74Automotive 68 53.84

Education 862 54.22Media & Entertainment 200 55.58

Telecommunications 125 55.89Healthcare 474 56.12

Social Services 223 56.33Computers 393 56.34

Advertising & PR 122 56.54Information Technology 200 56.66

Financial Services 224 56.81Agriculture 50 57.18

Energy & Utilities 42 57.26Pharmaceuticals 59 57.73Internet & Online 47 58.28Travel & Leisure 100 58.69

Aerospace & Military 139 58.83Industrial Goods & Services 138 58.94

Airlines 16 59.25Professional Services 399 59.31

Chemicals 34 59.53Electronics & Semiconductors 60 59.68

Real Estate 68 60.07Construction 127 60.59

Transportation 79 60.70Sig. .245



EASE ENGAGING IN INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD


Automotive 68 63.41I don't work 1922 63.96

Airlines 16 65.75Healthcare 474 66.26

Food & Beverage 337 66.39Industrial Goods & Services 138 66.51

Telecommunications 125 66.58Chemicals 34 66.97Education 862 67.12

Retail 332 67.31Advertising & PR 122 67.48Pharmaceuticals 59 67.51

Energy & Utilities 42 67.60Real Estate 68 67.74Computers 393 67.75

Social Services 223 67.78Transportation 79 67.91

Financial Services 224 67.93Media & Entertainment 200 68.39

Information Technology 200 68.54Professional Services 399 68.58

Electronics & Semiconductors 60 68.70Construction 127 68.80

Aerospace & Military 139 68.93Travel & Leisure 100 68.98

Agriculture 50 69.72Internet & Online 47 70.17

Sig. .403Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 85.724. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION OF YOUR SELF-MONITORING ABILITY Tukey HSD


Automotive 68 70.46 Agriculture 50 70.82

I don't work 1922 71.34 71.34 Aerospace & Military 139 72.13 72.13

Construction 127 72.64 72.64 Electronics & Semiconductors 60 73.18 73.18

Pharmaceuticals 59 73.46 73.46 Food & Beverage 337 73.53 73.53 Internet & Online 47 73.85 73.85

Education 862 73.98 73.98 Computers 393 74.84 74.84

Transportation 79 75.22 75.22 Retail 332 75.72 75.72

Media & Entertainment 200 75.82 75.82 Industrial Goods & Services 138 75.88 75.88

Information Technology 200 75.94 75.94 Real Estate 68 76.01 76.01

Energy & Utilities 42 76.02 76.02 Telecommunications 125 76.48 76.48

Travel & Leisure 100 76.53 76.53 Healthcare 474 76.57 76.57 Chemicals 34 77.15 77.15

Financial Services 224 77.28 77.28 Airlines 16 77.44 77.44

Professional Services 399 77.63 77.63 Advertising & PR 122 78.06 78.06

Social Services 223 79.17 Sig. .123 .092



SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES Tukey HSD


Internet & Online 47 63.89Construction 127 64.29I don't work 1922 64.99Agriculture 50 65.10

Aerospace & Military 139 65.23Automotive 68 65.34

Industrial Goods & Services 138 65.38Pharmaceuticals 59 65.56

Information Technology 200 65.58Computers 393 65.70Chemicals 34 65.79

Transportation 79 65.97Food & Beverage 337 66.00

Electronics & Semiconductors 60 66.32Energy & Utilities 42 66.40

Education 862 66.67Telecommunications 125 67.10

Real Estate 68 67.31Retail 332 67.33

Healthcare 474 67.38Travel & Leisure 100 67.81

Financial Services 224 67.86Professional Services 399 68.21

Airlines 16 68.44Media & Entertainment 200 68.88

Social Services 223 69.65Advertising & PR 122 70.17

Sig. .125Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 85.724. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


ANGER MANAGEMENT Tukey HSD


I don't work 1922 57.58Agriculture 50 58.87

Food & Beverage 337 58.92Automotive 68 59.45

Aerospace & Military 139 60.63Construction 126 60.85

Education 862 61.42Retail 332 62.51

Travel & Leisure 100 62.53Real Estate 68 62.68

Pharmaceuticals 59 63.32Internet & Online 47 63.37

Media & Entertainment 200 63.52Healthcare 474 63.93

Airlines 16 64.11Computers 393 64.46

Financial Services 224 64.67Telecommunications 125 64.73

Industrial Goods & Services 138 64.92Advertising & PR 122 65.24

Professional Services 399 65.45Electronics & Semiconductors 60 65.67

Energy & Utilities 42 65.79Chemicals 34 66.03

Social Services 223 66.15Transportation 79 66.26

Information Technology 200 66.52Sig. .151



ANNEX 3 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to position at work. OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Work position 1 2 3 4 5

Not Employed - Handicapped 23 54.09 Unemployed 523 59.18 59.18

Homemaker/Full-time parent 114 61.18 61.18 Student 2381 61.76 61.76 61.76

Other employed 468 63.27 63.27 63.27 63.27 Sales 390 63.52 63.52 63.52 63.52

Not Employed - Volunteer worker 48 63.90 63.90 63.90 63.90 Technical 485 65.23 65.23 65.23

Retired 67 65.42 65.42 65.42 Administrative 541 65.65 65.65 65.65

Professional 1013 66.61 66.61 Other Management 458 66.91 66.91

Senior Management 271 67.40 Sig. .061 .122 .182 .055 .290

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 122.859. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING SCORE Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Work position 1 2 3 4 5

Not Employed - Handicapped 23 45.48 Homemaker/Full-time parent 114 50.94 50.94

Unemployed 523 52.87 52.87 Student 2381 55.32 55.32 55.32

Other employed 468 56.65 56.65 56.65 56.65 Sales 390 57.25 57.25 57.25 57.25

Not Employed - Volunteer worker 48 57.71 57.71 57.71 57.71 Administrative 541 58.44 58.44 58.44

Technical 485 59.79 59.79 Professional 1013 60.69 60.69

Other Management 458 61.21 61.21 Retired 67 62.51

Senior Management 271 63.41 Sig. .272 .052 .243 .171 .053

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 122.859.


b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING SCORE Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Work position 1 2 3 4


Student 2381 61.29 61.29 Homemaker/Full-time parent 114 61.69 61.69 61.69

Other employed 468 63.41 63.41 63.41 Sales 390 63.68 63.68 63.68

Not Employed - Volunteer worker 48 64.17 64.17 64.17 Retired 67 64.46 64.46

Administrative 541 65.73 65.73 Technical 485 65.89 65.89

Professional 1013 67.30 Other Management 458 67.39

Senior Management 271 67.42 Sig. .830 .071 .292 .057



WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Work position 1 2 3 4 Unemployed 523 63.87

Not Employed - Handicapped 23 64.61 64.61 Student 2381 66.80 66.80 66.80

Other employed 468 69.15 69.15 69.15 69.15 Retired 67 69.45 69.45 69.45 69.45

Sales 390 69.59 69.59 69.59 69.59 Not Employed - Volunteer worker 48 70.10 70.10 70.10 70.10

Homemaker/Full-time parent 114 70.48 70.48 70.48 70.48 Technical 485 71.16 71.16 71.16

Other Management 458 72.46 72.46 Administrative 541 73.32 73.32

Senior Management 271 73.68 73.68 Professional 1013 74.23

Sig. .074 .080 .050 .414 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 122.859. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.



N Subset for alpha = .05 Work position 1 2 3 4

Not Employed - Handicapped 23 45.30 Homemaker/Full-time parent 114 47.49 47.49

Unemployed 523 50.29 50.29 50.29 Student 2381 52.88 52.88 52.88

Other employed 468 54.44 54.44 54.44 Not Employed - Volunteer worker 48 54.75 54.75 54.75

Administrative 541 54.90 54.90 54.90 Sales 390 55.51 55.51 55.51

Technical 485 56.85 56.85 Professional 1013 57.98 57.98

Other Management 458 58.72 58.72 Senior Management 271 62.27

Retired 67 62.40 Sig. .140 .088 .055 .094



EASE ENGAGING IN INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05Work position 1 2

Not Employed - Handicapped 23 60.48Homemaker/Full-time parent 114 62.87 62.87

Unemployed 523 62.97 62.97Retired 67 65.01 65.01

Not Employed - Volunteer worker 48 65.98 65.98Student 2381 66.03 66.03

Administrative 541 66.48 66.48Other employed 468 66.69 66.69

Technical 485 66.95Sales 390 67.31

Professional 1013 67.90Other Management 458 68.87

Senior Management 271 69.23Sig. .073 .058



PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Work position 1 2 3


Student 2381 72.82 72.82 Retired 67 73.60 73.60

Other employed 468 74.05 74.05 Homemaker/Full-time parent 114 74.47 74.47

Sales 390 74.54 74.54 Technical 485 74.96 74.96

Not Employed - Volunteer worker 48 76.85 Professional 1013 77.12

Senior Management 271 77.14 Administrative 541 77.44

Other Management 458 77.69 Sig. .462 .223 .295



SOCIAL CUES SCORE Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Work position 1 Unemployed 523 63.75

Not Employed - Handicapped 23 64.09 Retired 67 65.60

Technical 485 65.73 Student 2381 65.78

Sales 390 66.14 Not Employed - Volunteer worker 48 66.52

Other employed 468 66.66 Homemaker/Full-time parent 114 67.99

Senior Management 271 68.00 Administrative 541 68.04

Professional 1013 68.31 Other Management 458 68.55

Sig. .089 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 122.859. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


ANGER MANAGEMENT SCORE Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Work position 1 2 3


Homemaker/Full-time parent 114 59.63 59.63 Student 2381 59.73 59.73

Sales 390 60.89 60.89 Other employed 468 60.97 60.97

Administrative 541 64.11 64.11 Technical 485 64.44

Retired 67 64.73 Senior Management 271 64.87

Not Employed - Volunteer worker 48 65.40 Professional 1013 65.50

Other Management 457 65.66 Sig. .059 .068 .255



ANNEX 4 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to relationship hardships. OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Relationship hardships 1 2 3

Yes 531 48.40 Somewhat 4540 62.56

No 2325 69.17 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1184.081. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING SCORE Tukey HSD


Yes 531 39.23 Somewhat 4540 56.17

No 2325 64.04 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1184.081. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING SCORE Tukey HSD


Yes 531 49.11 Somewhat 4540 62.20

No 2325 69.37 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000





Yes 531 56.98 Somewhat 4540 68.33

No 2325 74.59 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1184.081. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD


Yes 531 37.56 Somewhat 4540 53.94

No 2325 61.06 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1184.081. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. EASE ENGAGING IN INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD


Yes 531 53.36 Somewhat 4540 65.78

No 2325 70.54 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000





Yes 531 57.27 Somewhat 4540 73.61

No 2325 80.16 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1184.081. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. SOCIAL CUES Tukey HSD


Yes 531 59.49 Somewhat 4540 66.21

No 2325 69.39 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 1184.081. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. ANGER MANAGEMENT Tukey HSD


Yes 531 41.96 Somewhat 4540 60.02

No 2324 69.54 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000



ANNEX 5 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to self-esteem. OVERALL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05Self-esteem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very low 391 51.912 237 53.583 654 56.624 650 59.34

In the mid range 1668 62.166 607 63.867 1236 66.168 1295 68.40

Extremely high 420 69.229 495 71.39

Sig. .305 1.000 1.000 .276 1.000 .973 1.000Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 553.286. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Self-esteem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Very low 391 40.33 2 237 41.66 3 654 46.00 4 650 49.70

In the mid range 1668 54.55 6 607 57.94 7 1236 60.91 8 1295 65.27

Extremely high 420 69.09 9 495 70.38

Sig. .850 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .879 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 553.286. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING SCORE Tukey HSD


Very low 391 54.34 2 237 56.16 56.16 3 654 58.17 58.17 4 650 60.35 60.35

In the mid range 1668 62.42 62.42 6 607 63.14 63.14 7 1236 65.61 65.61 8 1295 66.99

Extremely high 420 67.99 67.99 9 495 69.84

Sig. .421 .271 .179 .233 .997 .069 .093 .396 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 553.286. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR Tukey HSD


Very low 391 61.632 237 62.82 62.823 654 65.86 65.864 650 67.49 67.49

In the mid range 1668 68.69 68.69 68.696 607 69.02 69.02 69.027 1236 71.19 71.19 71.19

Extremely high 420 72.00 72.008 1295 72.439 495 73.61

Sig. .969 .059 .110 .863 .238 .072 .284Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 553.286. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.




Very low 391 35.70 2 237 35.97 3 654 40.94 4 650 44.66

In the mid range 1668 51.40 6 607 55.07 7 1236 58.55 8 1295 64.62 9 495 70.94

Extremely high 420 71.27 Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000


N Subset for alpha = .05 Self-esteem 1 2 3 4 5 6

Very low 391 58.64 2 237 58.71 3 654 61.89 4 650 63.72 63.72

In the mid range 1668 65.31 65.31 6 607 65.79 65.79 7 1236 67.81 67.81 8 1295 69.76 69.76

Extremely high 420 71.22 9 495 72.57

Sig. 1.000 .565 .383 .139 .471 .054 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 553.286. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION Tukey HSD


Very low 391 64.012 237 66.343 654 69.86


4 650 72.19 72.19In the mid range 1668 73.52 73.52

6 607 74.86 74.86 74.86Extremely high 420 75.60 75.60 75.60

7 1236 76.92 76.928 1295 78.19 78.199 495 79.87

Sig. .153 .151 .052 .295 .303 .067 .611Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 553.286. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. SOCIAL CUES Tukey HSD


Very low 391 61.432 237 62.80 62.803 654 64.04 64.044 650 65.47 65.47

In the mid range 1668 65.68 65.68 65.68Extremely high 420 66.77 66.77

6 607 67.42 67.42 67.427 1236 67.74 67.748 1295 69.09 69.099 495 70.11

Sig. .653 .770 .389 .155 .105 .358 .917Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 553.286. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.



N Subset for alpha = .05Self-esteem 1 2

2 237 59.449 495 59.94 59.948 1295 60.43 60.43

Very low 391 60.62 60.623 654 61.04 61.04

In the mid range 1668 61.76 61.764 650 61.88 61.887 1236 61.92 61.926 607 62.59 62.59

Extremely high 420 63.06Sig. .089 .096



ANNEX 6 – Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to embarrassing others. OVERALL SEL F-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Embarrassment 1 2 3 4

Yes, often 194 46.37 Yes, a few times 521 53.83

Yes, once or twice 2532 61.88 No 4258 66.39

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 519.223. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subse t for alpha = .05 Embarrassment 1 2 3 4



Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 519.223. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD




Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 519.223. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.






Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 519.223. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Embarrassment 1 2



Sig. .615 .053 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 519.223. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. EASE ENGAGING IN INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD




Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 519.223. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.






Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 519.223. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. SOCIAL CUES Tukey HSD




Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 519.223. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. ANGER MANAGEMENT Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Embarrassment 1 2

Yes, often 194 59.04 Yes, a few times 521 60.16 60.16

No 4258 61.46 61.46 Yes, once or twice 2532 62.03



ANNEX 7– Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to happiness. OVERALL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Happiness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 - completely unhappy 140 47.74 2 230 53.14 3 514 55.95 4 648 56.97

5 - neither happy nor unhappy 1137 59.85 6 888 61.75 7 1460 65.11 8 1562 68.20

10 - completely happy 357 68.31 9 783 71.73

Sig. 1.000 1.000 .941 .251 1.000 1.000 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 446.659. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD



5 - neither happy nor unhappy 1137 52.14 6 888 54.30 7 1460 59.20 8 1562 63.91

10 - completely happy 357 67.24 9 783 69.16

Sig. 1.000 1.000 .610 .400 1.000 1.000 .582 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 446.659. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.




1 - completely unhappy 140 49.20 2 230 54.76 3 514 57.29 57.29 4 648 57.80 57.80

5 - neither happy nor unhappy 1137 60.16 60.16 6 888 61.94 7 1460 64.75

10 - completely happy 357 66.75 8 1562 67.45 9 783 70.70

Sig. 1.000 .117 1.000 .190 .590 .071 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 446.659. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR Tukey HSD


1 - completely unhappy 140 55.33 2 230 63.10 3 514 63.36 63.36 4 648 65.00 65.00

5 - neither happy nor unhappy 1137 66.53 66.53 6 888 68.57 68.57 7 1460 70.57 70.57

10 - completely happy 357 70.78 70.78 8 1562 72.90 72.90 9 783 75.52

Sig. 1.000 .758 .092 .677 .558 .483 .303 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 446.659. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.




1 - completely unhappy 140 33.86 2 230 36.78 36.78 3 514 40.14 40.14 4 648 42.76

5 - neither happy nor unhappy 1137 48.95 6 888 50.75 7 1460 56.83 8 1562 62.53 9 783 68.97

10 - completely happy 357 69.46 Sig. .308 .135 .469 .893 1.000 1.000 1.000


N Subset for alpha = .05

Happiness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 - completely

unhappy140 55.71

2 230 57.63 57.63 3 514 59.67 59.67 4 648 61.02 61.02

5 - neither happy nor unhappy

1137 63.71 63.71

6 888 64.44 64.44 7 1460 67.50 67.50 8 1562 69.99 69.99

10 - completely happy

357 70.63 70.63

9 783 73.44 Sig. .636 .549 .935 .163 .999 .059 .252 1.000 .120






5 - neither happy nor unhappy 1137 71.20 71.20 6 888 73.31 73.31

10 - completely happy 357 75.30 7 1460 75.89 75.89 8 1562 78.61 78.61 9 783 81.39

Sig. 1.000 1.000 .280 .401 .140 .093 .080 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 446.659. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05Happiness 1 2 3 4 5

1 - completely unhappy 140 57.292 230 62.543 514 63.634 648 64.07 64.07

5 - neither happy nor unhappy 1137 64.78 64.7810 - completely happy 357 66.24 66.24

6 888 66.46 66.467 1460 67.77 67.778 1562 68.70 68.709 783 69.96

Sig. 1.000 .123 .073 .056 .145Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 446.659. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.





5 - neither happy nor unhappy 1137 57.86 57.86 6 888 59.92 59.92 7 1460 63.06 63.06

10 - completely happy 357 64.91 8 1561 66.18 9 783 70.20

Sig. 1.000 1.000 .444 .720 .146 .151 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 446.651. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


ANNEX 8– Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to popularity. OVERALL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Popularity 1 2 3 4 5

1 - I am not popular at all 289 53.14 2 176 55.93 3 351 57.17 4 392 58.27

5 - I'm one of the crowd (not bad but I am no star)

1619 62.30

6 885 64.12 64.12 7 1311 65.25 65.25 8 1353 65.85 65.85

10 - I'm very popular 571 66.74 9 606 66.94

Sig. 1.000 .084 .375 .448 .488 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 471.854. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Popularity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 - I am not popular at all 289 44.70 2 176 47.05 47.05 3 351 49.12 49.12 4 392 50.35


1619 54.94

6 885 57.41 57.41 7 1311 59.57 59.57 8 1353 60.66 60.66

10 - I'm very popular 571 62.63 62.63 9 606 62.82

Sig. .375 .566 .971 .302 .509 .075 .501 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 471.854. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.



N Subset for alpha = .05 Popularity 1 2 3


5 - I'm one of the crowd (not bad but I am no star) 1619 62.83 6 885 64.33 7 1311 64.62 8 1353 64.94

10 - I'm very popular 571 65.05 9 606 65.50

Sig. .117 .888 .089 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 471.854. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR Tukey HSD



5 - I'm one of the crowd (not bad but I am no star) 1619 69.23 6 885 69.48 7 1311 70.47 8 1353 70.80

10 - I'm very popular 571 70.81 9 606 71.42

Sig. .054 .974 .572 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 471.854. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.



N Subset for alpha = .05 Popularity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7



1619 51.59

6 885 53.99 53.99 7 1311 57.44 57.44 8 1353 59.22 59.22

10 - I'm very popular 571 62.08 9 606 62.11

Sig. .983 .173 .993 .669 .165 .928 .398 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 471.854. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. EASE ENGAGING IN INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD



5 - I'm one of the crowd (not bad but I am no star) 1619 65.83 6 885 67.09 7 1311 67.52 8 1353 67.87 9 606 68.78

10 - I'm very popular 571 68.94 Sig. .563 .200 .051




N Subset for alpha = .05 Popularity 1 2 3 4 5

1 - I am not popular at all 289 62.31 2 176 65.69 3 351 68.09 4 392 68.45


1619 73.05

6 885 75.17 75.17 7 1311 76.45 76.45 8 1353 77.01 77.01 9 606 78.05 78.05

10 - I'm very popular 571 78.19 Sig. 1.000 .077 .387 .054 .677

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 471.854. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Popularity 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 - I am not popular at all 289 59.47 2 176 61.30 61.30 3 351 62.09 4 392 63.64 63.64


1619 65.06 65.06

6 885 66.93 66.93 7 1311 68.10 68.10 8 1353 68.49 68.49

10 - I'm very popular 571 69.22 69.22 9 606 69.45

Sig. .336 .067 .696 .303 .082 .760 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 471.854. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.



N Subset for alpha = .05 Popularity 1 2 3 4

1 - I am not popular at all 289 53.01 3 351 56.58 56.58 2 176 57.33 4 392 58.07 58.07

5 - I'm one of the crowd (not bad but I am no star) 1619 61.20 61.20 6 885 62.77

10 - I'm very popular 571 62.88 7 1311 62.93 8 1352 63.18 9 606 63.25



ANNEX 9– Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to education. OVERALL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Education 1 2 3 4 5

Grade School 305 57.72 Some High School 1316 60.39 High School Grad 1125 62.88

College Grad 1315 64.86 64.86 Some College 1995 64.86 64.86

Post-Graduate Degree 633 66.84 66.84 Post-Graduate Work 348 67.43

Sig. 1.000 1.000 .051 .050 .978 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 657.740. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Education 1 2 3 4

Grade School 305 53.23 Some High School 1316 54.27 54.27 High School Grad 1125 56.43 56.43

Some College 1995 58.11 College Grad 1315 58.13

Post-Graduate Degree 633 61.39 Post-Graduate Work 348 61.54

Sig. .909 .188 .471 1.000 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 657.740. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.



N Subset for alpha = .05Education 1 2 3 4 5 6

Grade School 305 55.86Some High School 1316 59.00High School Grad 1125 62.42

Some College 1995 65.34College Grad 1315 65.65 65.65

Post-Graduate Degree 633 67.76 67.76Post-Graduate Work 348 68.59

Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .069 .926Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 657.740. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR Tukey HSD





Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 .052 .999 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 657.740. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.



N Subset for alpha = .05 Education 1 2 3



Post-Graduate Work 348 57.72 57.72 Post-Graduate Degree 633 59.15

Sig. .151 .106 .866 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 657.740. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. EASE ENGAGING IN INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD


Grade School 305 62.22 Some High School 1316 64.81 High School Grad 1125 66.28 66.28


Post-Graduate Work 348 68.11 Post-Graduate Degree 633 68.22

Sig. 1.000 .080 .237 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 657.740. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.



N Subset for alpha = .05 Education 1 2 3 4

Grade School 305 67.43 Some High School 1316 71.81 High School Grad 1125 74.07 74.07


Post-Graduate Degree 633 76.52 Post-Graduate Work 348 77.22

Sig. 1.000 .064 .083 .470 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 657.740. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES Tukey HSD


Grade School 305 63.24 Some High School 1316 65.06 65.06 High School Grad 1125 66.19 66.19

College Grad 1315 67.35 Some College 1995 67.57

Post-Graduate Work 348 67.67 Post-Graduate Degree 633 68.07








Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 .059 .895 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 657.691. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.


ANNEX 10– Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to academic achievement. OVERALL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Academic achievement 1 2 3

Poorly 115 54.09 Failed most classes 81 54.70

Below average 369 58.18 Average student 2296 62.66 Not in the top 5 3172 64.72

Straight As 1525 64.88 Sig. .994 1.000 .359

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 238.494. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Academic achievement 1 2

Poorly 115 47.73 Below average 369 50.76

Failed most classes 81 51.11 Average student 2296 56.10

Straight As 1525 58.62 Not in the top 5 3172 58.75





Failed most classes 81 53.60 Poorly 115 54.43


Straight As 1525 65.33 Sig. .987 1.000 .197

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 238.494. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR Tukey HSD


Poorly 115 57.24 Failed most classes 81 57.28

Below average 369 65.39 Average student 2296 68.35 68.35 Not in the top 5 3172 70.55

Straight As 1525 71.24 Sig. 1.000 .357 .387




N Subset for alpha = .05 Academic achievement 1 2

Poorly 115 45.59 Below average 369 47.86

Average student 2296 53.38 Failed most classes 81 54.32

Straight As 1525 55.62 Not in the top 5 3172 56.44

Sig. .826 .567 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 238.494. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. EASE ENGAGING IN INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05Academic achievement 1 2 3 4

Poorly 115 58.25Failed most classes 81 60.23 60.23

Below average 369 62.45 62.45Average student 2296 65.54 65.54Not in the top 5 3172 67.22

Straight As 1525 67.73Sig. .715 .609 .231 .621




N Subset for alpha = .05Academic achievement 1 2 3 4

Failed most classes 81 59.31Poorly 115 63.24

Below average 369 69.11Average student 2296 73.68Not in the top 5 3172 75.66

Straight As 1525 76.00Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 .489



Failed most classes 81 59.91 Poorly 115 60.79

Below average 369 62.58 62.58 Average student 2296 65.67 65.67 Not in the top 5 3172 67.39

Straight As 1525 68.29 Sig. .144 .054 .155





Failed most classes 81 47.73 Poorly 115 51.70 51.70


Straight As 1525 64.62 Sig. .128 .480 .052



ANNEX 11– Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to ethnicity. OVERALL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Ethnicity 1

Korean 31 59.81 Puerto Rican 38 60.97 Other Asian 100 61.06

Chinese 124 61.31 Filipino 77 61.32

Other 518 61.67 Native American 104 61.83

Latino 279 63.73 White/Caucasian 5567 63.73

Japanese 19 64.21 Black 299 64.78

Indian/Pakistani 273 65.20 Pacific Islander 22 65.41



INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Ethnicity 1 2

Korean 31 52.32 Chinese 124 54.01 54.01

Other Asian 100 54.08 54.08 Filipino 77 54.31 54.31

Native American 104 55.19 55.19 Other 518 55.76 55.76

Puerto Rican 38 55.92 55.92 White/Caucasian 5567 57.39 57.39

Latino 279 58.10 58.10 Indian/Pakistani 273 58.58 58.58

Black 299 59.95 59.95 Pacific Islander 22 60.68 60.68

Japanese 19 62.68 Sig. .170 .129

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 61.896. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTERPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD


Puerto Rican 38 58.95 Korean 31 59.97

Native American 104 60.38 Other 518 61.59

Japanese 19 61.74 Other Asian 100 62.53

Latino 279 62.70 Filipino 77 63.32

Chinese 124 63.48 White/Caucasian 5567 63.56

Black 299 64.23 Pacific Islander 22 66.27

Indian/Pakistani 273 66.90 Sig. .078





Japanese 19 62.84 Puerto Rican 38 65.18 65.18

Native American 104 65.26 65.26 Korean 31 66.13 66.13

Other 518 68.05 68.05 Filipino 77 69.03 69.03 Latino 279 69.12 69.12

White/Caucasian 5567 69.45 69.45 Pacific Islander 22 69.68 69.68

Chinese 124 69.74 69.74 Black 299 69.88 69.88

Other Asian 100 70.24 70.24 Indian/Pakistani 273 73.27

Sig. .380 .241 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 61.896. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. EASE ENGAGING IN INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD


Korean 31 49.39 Chinese 124 51.19 51.19

Other Asian 100 51.92 51.92 Filipino 77 52.75 52.75

Native American 104 53.27 53.27 Other 518 53.31 53.31

White/Caucasian 5567 54.63 54.63 Puerto Rican 38 55.08 55.08

Indian/Pakistani 273 56.99 56.99 Latino 279 57.18 57.18 Black 299 57.62 57.62

Pacific Islander 22 59.68 59.68 Japanese 19 62.16





Japanese 19 60.74 Korean 31 63.13

Puerto Rican 38 63.39 Other 518 64.12 64.12

Native American 104 65.23 65.23 Filipino 77 65.38 65.38

White/Caucasian 5567 66.44 66.44 Other Asian 100 66.58 66.58

Chinese 124 66.74 66.74 Latino 279 66.95 66.95 Black 299 67.61 67.61

Indian/Pakistani 273 69.71 69.71 Pacific Islander 22 72.77

Sig. .058 .082 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 61.896. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION Tukey HSD


Filipino 77 69.25 Chinese 124 69.45 Korean 31 69.97

Other Asian 100 70.35 Pacific Islander 22 71.82

Puerto Rican 38 71.84 Other 518 71.85

Japanese 19 73.05 Native American 104 74.33 Indian/Pakistani 273 74.50

Latino 279 74.68 White/Caucasian 5567 74.95

Black 299 75.65 Sig. .405



SENSITIVITY TO SOCIAL CUES Tukey HSD


Pacific Islander 22 61.18 Other Asian 100 61.83

Filipino 77 61.99 Chinese 124 62.48 Korean 31 63.74

Puerto Rican 38 64.37 Indian/Pakistani 273 64.56


Latino 279 65.62 Japanese 19 66.37

Black 299 66.39 White/Caucasian 5567 67.21

Sig. .202 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 61.896. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. ANGER MANAGEMENT Tukey HSD


Korean 31 54.95 Puerto Rican 38 56.62


Other Asian 100 60.23 Latino 279 60.23

Filipino 77 60.52 White/Caucasian 5566 62.02

Black 299 62.03 Chinese 124 62.10

Japanese 19 62.94 Indian/Pakistani 273 63.50 Pacific Islander 22 65.27



ANNEX 12– Homogeneous Subsets The following tables present the homogeneous subsets for all sub-scores with respect to age groups. OVERALL SELF-MONITORING SCORE Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05 Age groups 1 2 3 4 5

10 - 15 1383 58.27 16 - 18 1642 61.45 25 - 29 955 63.78 63.78 19 - 24 2073 63.82 63.82 30 - 34 688 64.63 35 - 39 489 65.26 65.26 40 - 49 669 67.61 67.61

60+ 95 69.44 50 - 59 377 69.47

Sig. 1.000 .097 .684 .101 .371 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 427.885. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. INTRAPERSONAL SELF-MONITORING Tukey HSD


10 - 15 1383 52.81 16 - 18 1642 55.31 55.31 25 - 29 955 56.72 19 - 24 2073 57.00 30 - 34 688 57.97 35 - 39 489 58.67 58.67 40 - 49 669 62.00 62.00 50 - 59 377 64.48 64.48

60+ 95 65.95 Sig. .344 .052 .057 .359 .916





10 - 15 1383 56.57 16 - 18 1642 60.38 19 - 24 2073 64.29 25 - 29 955 64.65 30 - 34 688 65.30 35 - 39 489 65.97 65.97 40 - 49 669 68.23 68.23

60+ 95 69.21 50 - 59 377 70.82

Sig. 1.000 1.000 .658 .243 .107 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 427.885. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed. WILLINGNESS TO SELF-MONITOR Tukey HSD

N Subset for alpha = .05Age groups 1 2 3 4 5 6

10 - 15 1383 61.4716 - 18 1642 65.8419 - 24 2073 69.8725 - 29 955 71.46 71.4630 - 34 688 71.70 71.7035 - 39 489 73.37 73.3740 - 49 669 75.34 75.3450 - 59 377 77.02

60+ 95 77.27Sig. 1.000 1.000 .760 .716 .679 .698




N Subset for alpha = .05 Age groups 1 2 3 4

10 - 15 1383 51.32 25 - 29 955 53.21 53.21 16 - 18 1642 53.36 53.36 19 - 24 2073 54.17 54.17 30 - 34 688 54.84 54.84 35 - 39 489 55.80 55.80 40 - 49 669 59.52 59.52 50 - 59 377 61.97

60+ 95 63.36 Sig. .202 .622 .144 .117



10 - 15 1383 63.15 25 - 29 955 65.54 65.54 16 - 18 1642 65.84 65.84 65.84 35 - 39 489 66.14 66.14 66.14 30 - 34 688 66.58 66.58 19 - 24 2073 67.10 67.10 40 - 49 669 67.97 67.97 67.97

60+ 95 68.85 68.85 50 - 59 377 70.93





10 - 15 1383 68.63 16 - 18 1642 72.56 25 - 29 955 74.76 74.76 19 - 24 2073 74.77 74.77 30 - 34 688 75.53 75.53 35 - 39 489 76.32 76.32 40 - 49 669 77.69 77.69 50 - 59 377 79.00

60+ 95 79.11 Sig. 1.000 .068 .075 .113


N Subset for alpha = .05 Age groups 1 2 3

10 - 15 1383 63.98 16 - 18 1642 65.44 65.44 19 - 24 2073 66.73 66.73

60+ 95 67.00 67.00 25 - 29 955 67.09 67.09 30 - 34 688 67.16 67.16 40 - 49 669 67.72 67.72 35 - 39 489 67.74 67.74 50 - 59 377 68.09





10 - 15 1383 54.37 16 - 18 1642 58.83 25 - 29 955 62.59 19 - 24 2073 62.89 62.89 30 - 34 688 63.24 63.24 35 - 39 489 63.98 63.98 40 - 49 669 66.36 66.36

60+ 95 67.96 50 - 59 377 69.72

Sig. 1.000 1.000 .960 .077 .100 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 427.885. b The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error levels are not guaranteed.

Psychometric Report Self-monitoring Test -...

Documents

Transcript of Psychometric Report Self-monitoring Test -...