High self-monitors are concerned with social appropriateness, whereas low self-monitors are concerned with self-congruence (Fuglestad & Snyder, 2010; Snyder, 1974). These self-monitoring characteristics are related to the dynamics of close relationships – particularly commitment (Leone & Hall, 2003; Simpson, 1987). Commitment is predicted from relationship satisfaction, investment, and alternatives (Rusbult, Agnew, & Arriaga, 2012). We explored these three variables as mediators of the connection between self-monitoring and commitment. Fifty couples (50 wives, 50 husbands) ages 19 to 72 completed the 18-item Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986) and the satisfaction, investment, quality of alternatives, and commitment subscales of Rusbult’s Investment Model (Rusbult et al. 2012). Except for spouses’ relationship satisfaction (r=.53), spouses’ self-monitoring (r=.03), commitment (r=.19), investment (r=.03), and alternatives (r=.08) were uncorrelated. We therefore analyzed wives’ and husbands’ data separately. Using a parallel mediation model (Hayes, 2013), there was a reliable indirect effect – mediated by satisfaction – of self-monitoring on commitment for wives (r= -.31). For husbands, there were reliable indirect effects – mediated by satisfaction (r=-.26) and alternatives (r=.31) – of self-monitoring on commitment. For wives and husbands, there were no reliable direct effects of self-monitoring on commitment. These findings extend our understanding of self-monitoring differences in commitment within close relationships. These findings have been replicated with a sample of individuals in romantic relationships. Future directions include examining effects at a dyadic level (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006) as well as assessing protective versus acquisitive forms of self-monitoring (Wilmot, 2015)
