False Feedback Influencing Self-Monitoring
False Feedback on a Personality Test:
Influencing Perceptions of Self-Monitoring
Lead Author Courtney L. Zinter
Co-Researchers Crystal Kroells & Abbey Weiler
Winona State University
Abstract
The effect of giving participants a fake description of their level of self-monitoring based
on false personality tests on participants self-perception was examined. The hypothesis
stated that participants would view themselves as higher or lower in self-monitoring after
receiving feedback about the way they should be based on their scores on false
personality tests. This study was based on the theory that people’s self-perceptions can
be altered by the ways other people view them and on the Barnum effect. The results did
not support the hypothesis. Participant’s scores on their self-monitoring pre-test and
post-test did not differ significantly in either condition.
False Feedback on a Personality Test:
Influencing Perceptions of Self-Monitoring
This study was based on the theory that people’s self-perceptions are affected by other people’s views of
them. The theory is based on different processes of identity development such as the looking glass, reflected
appraisal process and the process of role taking. The hypothesis was that participants would view themselves as
higher or lower in self-monitoring after receiving feedback about the way they should be based on their scores
on false personality tests.
Based on a study done by Snyder, Shenkel and Lowery, the Barnum effect is a phenomenon in which people
accept interpretations of their personality when they are found through assessments, especially when the
interpretations are rather vague (1977). According to the authors, the majority of research has consisted of
people participating in a personality test, waiting for their score, receiving an interpretation based on that score
and analyzing the accuracy of the description about themselves. The study looked at all of the research done in
this area in the 25 years prior to the study, and discussed the factors of gender, personality attributes and
intelligence
An archival research study, meta-analysis, done by Swann discusses the process of identity negotiation in
which the perceptions others have of a person and that person’s self-perception interact (1987). He found that
while people want others to see them the way see themselves, self-constructs are malleable and others play an
active role in helping people develop their self-construct.
According to a study done by Cast, Stets and Burke, people who are seen as credible or knowledgeable have
more influence on others self-perceptions (1999). They used married couples in their study to see if the higher
status spouse had more influence on how the lower status spouse perceived themselves. They found that in
married couples, the higher status spouse’s views on their significant other had an effect on their significant
1
False Feedback Influencing Self-Monitoring
other’s self-perception. It was less likely that the spouse’s self-perceptions would be changed by their spouse’s
views if the couple was equal in status.
Method
Participants
Forty-four participants in introduction level college psychology courses signed up to participate in this
study. Participants were given extra credit in their psychology courses for their participation.
Materials
Three personality tests were used for this study. The first was a 10 question personality test that measured
self-monitoring. The self-monitoring test was taken from a true or false scale and revised into a six-point scale.
The second test was a series of visual tasks; one was a 3-D dancer, one was an image that can be seen as either
an old woman or a young woman, one was an image of coffee beans which hid a man’s face within it and the
last was a picture with several eagles hidden in it. The third test was a combination of 41 questions taken from
different personality tests combined with the 10 questions from the self-monitoring test. The visual personality
test was administered on the researcher’s laptops. There was also a 8.5 inch by 2 inch slip of paper in which
participants were asked to rate how much a self-monitoring description fit them. There were three different
self-monitoring descriptions; one was a description for low self-monitoring, another was a description for high
self-monitoring and the last was called “active” self-monitoring which was used so participants would think
there were more than just two categories. A personality workbook was used for the researchers to falsely score
the visual task as well as a stopwatch to time portions of the visual test.
Design and Procedure
Participants, who signed up for the study, were randomly assigned to receive either the high self-monitoring
description or the low self-monitoring description upon arrival. Participants were told they were going to take
three personality tests. They were first asked to fill out the self-monitoring questionnaire. Next they went
through a PowerPoint of visual “personality” tasks which the researchers pretended to score. Participants then
received a description of their level of self-monitoring. They read their description and the researcher read a
copy aloud. On a scale of one to six, participants rated how much the description fit their personality. Next the
participants took the 51 question survey of personality. Participants were told that some questions may be
similar, but were asked to answer them anyway and told to do all the tests based on initial reactions. Following
the third test, participants were debriefed and thanked for their time.
Results
An independent samples t-test showed that the self-monitoring condition had no significant effect on
participant’s scores on a self-monitoring test, t ( 42 ) = -0.895, p = .376. The scores did, however, go in the
correct direction. Participants in the high self-monitoring condition had average pre-test scores ( M = 34.13, SD
= 5.01) that were lower than their post-test scores ( M = 34.5, SD = 6.41). Participants in the low selfmonitoring condition had average pre-test scores ( M = 33.27, SD = 5.87) that were higher than their post-test
scores ( M = 32.77, SD = 5.42). The scores for the high condition increased by an average of .45 points and the
scores for the low condition decreased by an average of .5 points. There was a significant effect of the
descriptions on how much people agreed with their description, t ( 43 ) = 27.46, p = .000.
Figure 1. The average test scores on a self-monitoring pre-test and post-test by participants given
high or low self-monitoring descriptions based on a false score on a personality test.
2
False Feedback Influencing Self-Monitoring
Self-Monitoring Scores
Pre test
3
Post Test
35
34.5
34.5
34.14
34
33.5
33.27
32.77
33
32.5
32
31.5
High
Condition
Low
Discussion
The hypothesis stated that participants would view themselves as higher or lower in self-monitoring after
receiving feedback about how should be based on their scores on false personality tests. It was predicted that
participants would score higher on their self-monitoring post-test if they received the high self-monitoring
description and they would score lower on their post-test if they received the low self-monitoring description.
The study did not support the hypothesis, but the average scores for each condition went in the direction
predicted. Scores for the high self-monitor condition increased during the post-test and scores for the low selfmonitor condition decreased. Also, there was significance for the Barnum effect, meaning participants agreed
with the description they received. All but one of the participants agreed with their description.
After the study was complete, some potential problems were detected. The differences in pre-test and posttest scores may have been significant had there been more participants in the study. Another problem was that
the questions on the self-monitoring survey weren’t as neutral as the other questions on the third personality
test. If the questions were re-worded, participants may not have recalled them from the first test to the third
test. In the same sense, b y increasing the time between the first and third personality tests, participants may not
have recalled them as easily either. Another option would have been to make both tests longer; putting
irrelevant questions on the first test would have made it less obvious.
References
Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 38, 679-686.
Cast, A. D., Stets, J. E. & Burke, P. J. (1999). Does the self conform to the views of others? Social Psychology
Quarterly. 62, 68-82.
Snyder, C. R. (1977). Acceptance of personality interpretations: The "Barnum Effect" and beyond. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 45, 104-112.
False Feedback Influencing Self-Monitoring
Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 53, 1038-1051.
4