Using the United States presidential campaign as an example, in this article I discuss the challenges politicians face in balancing between behaving as a high self-monitor and a low self-monitor.
In my education as a psychologist, I was taught about a personality characteristic known as self-monitoring. It refers to the extent to which people keep track of the impressions they are making on others in social situations.
High self-monitors do more of this keeping track than do low self-monitors. The benefit of self-monitoring is that it makes it easier for the person to fit into various social situations and get along with the people in them because the person regularly monitors and adjusts their behaviour to give off a positive impression.
Low self-monitors tend to fit in less well than do high self-monitors but they enjoy the benefit of acting consistently with their attitudes, values and principles more than do high-self monitors. High self-monitors and low self-monitors are often referred to as ‘pragmatic’ and ‘principled’ respectively.
Although there are individual differences in whether someone leans toward being a low self-monitor or a high self-monitor, there is an ongoing attempt by most people to balance the two ways of thinking, feeling and behaving to gain the benefits of being a low self-monitor while also enjoying the benefits of being a high self-monitor. That is, people attempt to fit into social situations while also trying to behave consistently with their attitudes, values and principles.’
Balancing these two elements of self-monitoring is easier said than done. The challenges inherent in the balancing act are evident in politics. Politicians are faced regularly with the goal of being principled on the one hand while being pragmatic on the other hand. The current United States presidential campaign features many examples of these challenges faced by Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and Republican candidate Donald Trump. I will discuss these in the following sections...[more]