Body Language in Business Part 5

However, interviewers can easily be biased too. Charming, outgoing, lively, attractive people leave better impressions than their introverted, shy, less attractive but equally competent counterparts. Hence the structured selection interview. The traditional, rambling, unstructured interview relies on instinct and intuition and feeds prejudice, particularly judgments made based on body language, which may or may not be relevant to the job. They are desperately unreliable and invalid. The structured interview is different. It ensures that all candidates are asked identical questions in the same order. In addition, the questions are limited to salient features of the candidate's ability, knowledge and skills. Further, when evaluating the candidate after the interview, a consistent logical and mathematical scoring system is used. The interviewers are also trained in what to look for, thus the structured interview certainly moderates the bias against those who are less attractive.

So there are two morals here: one for the interviewer and one for the interviewee. With litigation mania and ever more lawsuits around fairness in selection, it pays to introduce structured interviews. In short, this means focusing on job-related factors, and evaluating actuarially rather than intuitively. For the interviewee: attending Weight Watchers, wearing make-up and high-heeled shoes, whatever works for you, can make a difference.

Perhaps beauty is not in the eye of the beholder after all. But it pays to know that books are judged by their covers. In this sense, we communicate by our appearance, which we can do something about. We can dye our hair and have plastic surgery. We can have laser surgery on our eyes, wear contact lenses or spectacles of many different styles. We communicate our age, values, wealth and status by how we present ourselves to the world. We "make a statement" with our looks alone.

LIPSTICK INDEX AND FOUNDATION FACTOR.

It has been known for some time now that sales of make-up increase during bad times. Shares of leading lipsticks brands jumped up immediately after 9/11, and the recession current at the time of writing has proved to be particularly successful for sales of liquid foundation.

These facts do not come across as particularly surprising. Many speculate that make-up helps women "to put on a brave face" during times of instability. Others are more practical minded and point out to the general trend of downsizing in a recession: it makes economic sense to buy an inexpensive lipstick to spice up an already-worn outfit than to spend money on a new dress.

Either way, make-up's primary function is to reduce or draw attention to facial features. Lipstick helps women to "paint on a smile"; and it accentuates and corrects the shape of the lips. Foundation's main purpose is to create a flawless complexion, to smooth out skin imperfections, to make the face glow, wholesome and fresh. Overall, it is all to do with beauty, which, in turn, is a.s.sociated with youth and fecundity, and these qualities are desirable whatever the current state of economic affairs.

DRESS.

The whole fas.h.i.+on business is designed to enable people to send signals about wealth, taste and values, as well as to make in- and out-group statements (that is, who is in the tribe, who are "their people"). Clothes make a strong visual statement about how you see yourself. They are the value system of the individual made visible. Notice the way that jewelry, watches, spectacles and so on are marketed, often emphasizing the communication functions of each item. Various consultants make a good living advising business people about which colors they should choose or avoid, as well as about types of material and clothes that will make them look taller, slimmer, more serious or part of a particular group.

Badges, rings or cufflinks can indicate allegiance to groups or to organizations often educational that one has been a.s.sociated with in the past. Ties, for men, can signal hobbies (golf-club designs), humour (male chauvinist pigs), as well as club members.h.i.+p. One of the American investment banks, for example, pioneered "pink s.h.i.+rt Fridays" for their employees, to build the team spirit, encourage loyalty and promote pride in group belonging. Spectacles can be used to emphasize facial features or to give an impression of studiousness, frivolity or practicality. The material used for clothing and accessories crocodile-skin products, ivory or fur, for example can indicate ecological values, or lack of them. Fas.h.i.+on consciousness the keen sense of what is currently in (and out) is another signal that may be sent by clothes. "Power dressing" seeks to imbue the wearer with significance. People tend to accentuate and hide certain features in order to attract or distract. The signalling system of clothes is not perfect. Noise in the system originating from subgroups, and cultural differences in meaning, inevitably leads to some messages becoming lost or mixed up.

We have all had the embarra.s.sment of arriving at a party either overor under-dressed. It is embarra.s.sing because we signal our expectations about formality, measured by the guests, food, wine and so on. Being under-dressed can insult the hosts; while being over-dressed insults your intelligence. Both mean you read the invitation wrongly; you made a social gaffe.

s.e.xuality, power and wealth may be signalled by subtle dress-code cues, but only those "in the know" can pick these up. Ultimately, dress signals personality and values more than other specific messages. One can also make "fas.h.i.+on statements", but only the fas.h.i.+on-conscious will be able to read them. There is also the rather sad spectacle of the "fas.h.i.+on victim" who invests, in every sense, far too much in the signalling system. One can be taught the language of dress but it is too crude a communication system to be particularly useful.

Some people are more "clothing aware" than others. It has been suggested that clothing choice and awareness relate to: * manipulation: people can wear outfits aimed at deception for their own ends; * social cla.s.s: better-educated people from a higher social cla.s.s are sometimes more clothes-sensitive, though some "at the top" flout clothes sense while some "at the bottom" are extremely clothessensitive; * self-concept: clothes are a second skin and reveal confidence; * social values: clothes can indicate conservatism or radicalism, and where one stands on the practical/impractical (sensible/creative) dimension; * mental health: disturbed people often wear bizarre clothing, or pay little heed to their appearance.

Clothing has an effect on both wearer and observer. People may use clothes to try to induce a state of well-being in others. It has been demonstrated that you are more likely to give information to someone if you like the way he or she is dressed. The fact that clothes affect the wearer is embodied in the simple phrase, "When I look good, I feel good."

Uniformed organizations hotels, airlines or nursing services, for example have to consider how their uniforms suggest not only cleanliness and efficiency but also status and rank. Clients prefer to see their professionals dressed in a certain way to indicate the latters' education and know-how, and to signal an appropriate relations.h.i.+p between "them" and "us".

But clothing choice at work may be severely limited by dress codes even by "dress-down" days, on which people are required to wear "casual" clothes. Dress "off duty" may be more revealing, because it is less constrained. The idea is that your clothes not only reflect your att.i.tude but also influence it. People are supposedly more comfortable in more relaxed clothing. Dressing down, in theory, lowers stress, blurs false barriers between "Chiefs and Indians" and promotes general well-being. This may or may not be true, and requires verification and specification: when, for whom, where, and why.

What are the rules for, and effects of, dress? Some organizations rejoice in having a smart uniform. Airlines probably come top of the uniform league outside the military. Not only are the uniforms smart and fas.h.i.+onable, but staff have to follow rigorous rules about such aspects as how they wear their hair; how much jewelry they are allowed; even rules about fingernail length and color.

Various organizations, such as rail companies, that gave up uniforms, have reintroduced them. For the customer, uniforms have many advantages. First, staff are easily identifiable. It's often embarra.s.sing, in a bookshop, for example, perhaps asking several people (customers) for a.s.sistance before you find the person you need (actual staff). Second, you can (usually) distinguish the person in charge; that is, uniforms give a signal of rank. Third, uniformed staff can reinforce the brand. They can wear the logo and literally make the brand come alive.

Some uniforms are as much functional as fas.h.i.+onable. Others are meant to improve hygiene or safety. On the other hand, some organizations either have dated, tacky uniforms that few could wear with pride, or allow staff to add idiosyncratic touches. Fast-food outlets often have semi-uniformed staff.

Read a child's storybook and you will see that everyone on the high street seems to have an outfit. The baker with his tall hat; the butcher with his ap.r.o.n; the tailor with his tape measure. Thus it is not surprising that many people have come to expect their professionals to be dressed in a particular way. Indeed, there are strong a.s.sociations evoked by various types of clothes (see Table 3.1). A few years ago the British Journal of Psychiatry published a paper showing six pictures of male and female doctors. They went from the formal collar and tie, white coat and stethoscope slung around the shoulder to the completely dresseddown doctor in "smart casual" wear. What did people prefer? They liked the professional medical look with the white coat the best.

TABLE 3.1 Interpretations of various modes of dress Some people are lucky to have attire choice at work: the lecturers may choose to wear smart suits or casual outfits. There is also choice within the uniform. Sometimes there are uniforms for special occasions. People expect and like to see a university's Vice Chancellor in full finery for a graduation, or undertakers in old-fas.h.i.+oned formal attire for a funeral.

Dress in all organizations follows a spoken, or rather an unspoken code. Dress code is part of the corporate culture and something newcomers pick up soon after joining an organization. Certain things are de rigueur and some are taboo. It has been said that you had to be very rich, very senior (or very stupid) to wear a brown suit or brown shoes in the City.

They used to say "If you want to get ahead, get a hat". Perhaps that applies to all apparel: dress for success. Dress alone is not enough to become successful but it can certainly send an instant message of status, professionalism and allegiance. It is a communication system, as all fas.h.i.+on-conscious people know.

COLOR.

People color their hair, they have preferred colors in their wardrobe. Some people seem only to wear black, others choose highly saturated colors. Skin color for centuries has been a carrier of many stereotypical messages. Color conveys meaning.

The same is true for business. Virgin has a bright, saturated red; Barclays a distinctive turquoise; Lufthansa a goldish-yellow, and BP a range of greenish yellows. Aer Lingus's green has changed over the years, as did Air Canada's red.

In our culture there are color codes. Red is the color for danger: it means stop, prohibited, on fire. Yellow and black used together mean warning of danger. Black lettering on a yellow background is the optimum for legibility. Green means safety, exit, rescue services. Blue is for helpful signage.

There are idioms and adages which refer to color. We talk about being "off color", "coming out with flying colors", "sailing under false colors". There is also "feeling blue" and being "green with envy".

Yet a lot of nonsense is spoken about color. This is the evidencefree, naively enthusiastic world of color therapy and color consultants. There is an army of chromophiles offering psychological diagnoses and interventions and claiming that it is possible to change or enhance image by the use of color: you can become more intellectual if you wear blue-greys or blue-greens or muted blues; appear more secure if you combine earth tones or deep shades of colors with "bright accents" of gold, ivory or white.

Color can be used for several purposes. It can enhance various perceptual effects like distance, temperature and excitement. Red, yellow, violet and brown "bring things closer" while blue and green help make things look further away. Orange and yellow imply warmth; blue and green are cool colors. And green (mental hospital green in particular) is meant to be "restful"; while red is stimulating and violet aggressive. You may be able to make a (deceptively small) room look bigger through colored paint or light. Or you may make a cold room look and "feel" cosy.

Color is known to also affect mood. In general, colors at the long wavelength end of the spectrum such as red and orange can induce feelings of high arousal, while short wavelength colors such as blue and green induce feelings of calm. A number of studies have made comparisons of the arousal properties of various pairs of colors. Thus, violet has been shown to produce greater arousal than green; red produces more arousal than blue. Red lighting produces greater arousal than either blue or green. The above demonstrations used measures of physiological arousal. At a more subjective level, it has also been found that people feel more excited and stimulated by red, orange and yellow than by green and blue. Blue tends to a.s.sociate more with feelings of being calm, peaceful and serene. Green has no strong a.s.sociation at a psychological level with such descriptions of how one feels.

Further, color can influence how well people learn new things or perform on educational tasks. Color coding, for example, has helped people distinguish between broad categories of things and actions (e.g. hot/cold, on/off). Coding has helped people develop maps of their environment or mental guides to help them find their way around complex buildings. Color can help to attract or direct attention to different aspects and features of complex materials such as maps and diagrams, and can thus serve as an aid to learning and performance. The different arousal properties of colors can also be useful. Warm colors, because they are arousing, facilitate activity and may help certain tasks. The wrong colors under the wrong circ.u.mstances can, however, be a hindrance to learning. It has been found that some people prefer cooler colors when working on complicated mental tasks, while warmer colors are often preferred when doing boring, repet.i.tive things.

Sometimes color also affects behavior but usually only under certain circ.u.mstances. Work with the mentally ill has indicated that different colored lighting can produce different reactions and patterns of behavior among patients. Specific examples of this were that magenta had a quieting effect in one study, while its replacement with white light after one month caused patients to get much more excited. Blue had a prolonged quieting, soothing effect which was noticed by staff and patients alike. Yellow used with depressed patients had a slight stimulating effect, and red produced even more stimulation.

The color of ink has been found to affect handwriting: handwriting with green ink is nearer to normal than when done with red ink. The performance of factory workers has also been found to vary with lighting color. One study, which examined men working at factory machines, measured output under the effect of different colored lights. White was best, while colored lighting produced signs of nervous excitement. There was no evidence of a stimulating effect of red or a soothing effect of blue.

Thus color can, indeed, be used effectively to change stimulation levels and memory, improve signage, communicate urgency and safety and, of course, improve the aesthetic beauty of the environment.

However, color affects behavior only tangentially, spasmodically and in the short-term, through affective and cognitive mechanisms. That is, moods and memories are most obviously affected by color. There are, nevertheless, clear and consistent findings on color a.s.sociations and preferences.

Females show a greater preference for red, violet and yellow and a greater dislike of green than males. They also prefer highly saturated, brighter colors than do males. Still, we don't know if this is true in other cultures and other historical periods, or indeed why this s.e.x difference occurs. There is evidence that color preference is culturally learnt, as different colors have very different a.s.sociations across different cultures. This inevitably limits the generalization of these findings.

Extraverts tend to prefer arousing, warm colors (such as red), while introverts prefer cool, calming colors (for example, green). Extraverts choose and prefer bright, pure colors, whereas introverts prefer more subtle shades. Sensation-seekers prefer red, while sensation-avoiders prefer blue.

Young children seem to a.s.sociate different colors with different emotions: love, anger, and pain with red and black; happiness, strength and "life" with blue; and honesty with white. As they get older, children s.h.i.+ft away from a preference for warmer colors (especially yellow) to cooler colors (in particular, blue).

Dark-eyed people tend to prefer colors at the red end of the spectrum, and light-eyed people at the blue end. This is probably because of the presence of a pigment, melanin, in dark-eyed people, which acts as a light s.h.i.+eld.

Colors have symbolic a.s.sociations, but these vary across cultures. In the West, colors often have these meanings: * Red charity, divine love * Green faith, gladness, hope and joy * Black wisdom, constancy, as well as evil, falsehood, error * White purity, truth * Blue hope, faith, modesty and fidelity * Yellow jealousy and change.

Design and marketing people take color seriously. Color has symbolic value. Color creates impressions. Color can be memorable. However, there is no evidence to suggest that color works in more subtle ways on the human psyche; your perceived gravitas will not be affected by the particular hues in your tie.

CONCLUSION.

This chapter looks at how we present ourselves, and in particular at how we make statements with our clothes and our attempts to look more attractive. The cosmetic and fas.h.i.+on industries are dedicated exclusively to serving modern humans' powerful needs to present themselves in a particular way (though many would argue that businesses exploits these motives or creates them artificially).

We change our clothing and our appearance regularly to send messages. Some people are more skilled at this than others. It is not simply a question of style or fas.h.i.+on sense. Many differences in this ability stem from cultural upbringing (some are more conscious of their appearance than others) as well as individual inclinations to follow the "horde" or "fit the bill". The entertainment industry has "wardrobe" department dedicated to making sure that people look right for their roles. Politicians and high-flying executives are sometimes given advice on what and what not to wear: from color of tie to jewelry.

Nevertheless, everybody acknowledges the communicative power of physical attractiveness. It seems to transcend both geographical and temporal borders. Ancient Greek and Roman statues of perfectlyshaped male and female bodies will always inspire awe and admiration. Though many non-Western cultures have had different standards of beauty, these art works are still appreciated worldwide, and not the least for the attractiveness of the models. Hence the attempts of people to look more attractive to their colleagues at work.

4.

COMMUNICATING ATt.i.tUDES, EMOTIONS AND PERSONALITY.

SHOWING EMOTIONS.

Body language sends messages messages about emotions, att.i.tudes and personality. Therapists have argued that it can shed new light on the dynamics of inter-family relations.h.i.+ps: that, at times, it is a signal from the unconscious. This is because, to a large extent, we express our emotions most clearly through our body language. We do this partly because we cannot help it; we can "do no other", because strong states such as guilt, shame, embarra.s.sment, anger, boredom and s.e.xual excitement have strong physiological reactions. We "leak" our emotions because our central nervous system reactions can cause blus.h.i.+ng, sweating, pupil dilations, changes in breathing and so on.

We also express our emotions nonverbally because we do not always have the vocabulary to express them verbally. Occasionally people do not have enough insight into their emotions or feel the need to report them even if they wanted to do so. Indeed, it has been reported that on occasion people notice their physiological reactions and nonverbal communication and infer their emotional states from these. Thus, if I notice I am sweating, I conclude that I am anxious.

A famous "shaky bridge" experiment showed how easily we misattribute emotions. An attractive female researcher stopped young men on either a wobbly wooden bridge or a solid stable one and asked them to answer a set of questions. She gave them her number to discuss the details of the study further if they wished to do so. Not surprisingly, more men from the "shaky bridge" condition called up the girl. Walking on an unstable surface can be a tense experience even for the bravest among us. In response to the potential danger, hormones rush through the body preparing it for the "fight or flight" response. However, s.e.xual attraction produces similar kinds of bodily reactions: palms of the hands sweat, pupils dilate, and heartbeat intensifies. Therefore men in the experiment misattributed their excitement to being attracted to the researcher, not to their fear of walking over the bridge.

Various body signals are related to the messages we send. Facial expressions, eye movements, gestures, posture and tone of voice all deliberately (or unconsciously) give clear impressions about how we feel. As part of growing up in our culture we learn how to decode emotions in other people. There are tests that allow researchers to investigate the accuracy and reliability with which people interpret a combination of signals such as anger, contempt, disgust, fear, joy or surprise.

EMOTIONAL LABOR.

Are some jobs, such as selling or working in the burgeoning hospitality industry, unique? Some jobs have a pretty intangible product, called service, and some are heavily reliant on state-of-the-art technology. What does it take to succeed in the service industries?

Staff in people industries (customer service, hospitality) do have common features. They are selected to be jolly, optimistic, attentive and empathic. They have to be considerate "people-people". Further, they need to have consistently high presentation standards.

In the early 1980s, in a study of airline steward staff, a researcher, Arlie Russell Hochschild, wrote a book called The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. In this book she argued for a new concept: emotional labor. She pointed out that many jobs require physical and mental labor, but some, uniquely, require emotional labor.

The idea is simple: service staff are required to express emotions they do not necessarily feel. They are required to smile, to be positive, to appear relaxed whatever they are actually feeling. Hochschild called this surface acting. However, in some jobs people are almost required to feel the emotions they are expected to display. This is called "deep acting". The idea is that (canny) customers can spot the false display of emotion, so service staff in these circ.u.mstances have to learn the "inside-out smile".

So such service staff have to learn to become method actors. They must really experience emotions to be able to portray them convincingly. Karl Marx said that workers were alienated from the products of their labor. Equally, Hochschild believed that service workers, whose emotions are "managed and controlled" by their employers, become alienated from their real feelings. The sorts of emotions shown are patience, friendliness, curiosity, while suppressing boredom, frustration and anger.

Thus service staff have not to be inauthentic but (sort of) learn authenticity. Hochschild believed this costs too much, in that it causes psychological damage in the long term. Yet there remains controversy, not so much about the concept but rather if it is essentially damaging in the way it estranges workers from their true feelings.

One way to control and aid expression of emotion is through the use of scripts. Service staff are encouraged to act to learn their lines; to portray a character. This teaches them the appropriate emotions, which may, in time, become how they truly feel.

There is nothing new in scripts. Sociologists in fact argue that they are a good thing, because they can both help workers to distance themselves from their "performance" and reduce the likelihood of a mishap. Young staff seem to like scripts. They help in interactions with difficult and demanding customers, and control volatile exchanges. As they become more confident, quite often staff personalize the (suggested) script with their own idiosyncrasies. Staff believe scripts help and protect them. Further, everybody knows that it is just surface acting.

Similarly, uniforms can act like stage clothes. They can inform and protect. They help to identify who is who. Is a uniform a barrier? Does it mark people as servile and powerless? Much depends on how smart it is, what is it that people are serving, and who are the customers.

Service staff have to "fake" being eternally polite, cheerful and courteous. They have to cope with people being rude, dismissive or over-familiar. Some have to deal with uninvited s.e.xual innuendo.

All service staff have a "backstage" in the galley, the kitchen, even the cloakroom. Here they can be themselves, let off steam, react in the way that they would naturally. Behind the scenes they can mock difficult customers. They can get their own back and enjoy the camaraderie of the oppressed. Rest breaks are times to become the real self; to take off the make-up; to recover a sense of self-worth.

Training reduces the negative effects of emotional labor. What is more, some people are clearly more suited in terms of their emotional "make-up" for service jobs. Emotional labor requirements also differ from culture to culture. However, are service jobs becoming increasingly de-skilled? Evidently not, if social and emotional skills are taken into consideration.

Acting is as much nonverbal as verbal. The office, certainly the shop, the restaurant and the hotel all represent a stage that requires a certain amount of acting.

ABILITY, ACCURACY AND SKILL.

Are some people simply better nonverbal communicators than others? How, when and why have they acquired the implicit and explicit knowledge and skill to be expert communicators?

Tests have been devised to measure this, but one thing seems clear: self-appraisal is not a good predictor of actual skill. All too often, those with surprisingly little insight and skill believe they are very good nonverbal communicators, while those with considerable knowledge underestimate their ability. Nearly everybody believes they are a good listener, which is demonstrably false. And others genuinely believe they can nearly always detect when people are lying to them, which is, undoubtedly, not the case. Self-awareness of nonverbal sensitivity and flexibility is therefore not a very good measure of it.

However, we do know that: 1. Gender: overall, females are better decoders than men. They read emotions better and are better lie detectors, though it does seem that men may be better at detecting (and, perhaps, responding to) anger.

2. Age: people get better as they get older, but this skill peaks around the mid-twenties.

3. Intelligence: there is a very small positive relations.h.i.+p between intelligence and nonverbal communication. Studies on children have, however, shown that bright children are better at nonverbal communication, which may also help their achievements in school because it improves their relations.h.i.+ps with teachers and peers.

4. Personality: data from tests shows that people who are extroverts rather than introverts; stable as opposed to anxious; agreeable more than disagreeable; open rather than closed to experience; instrumental rather than fatalistic; and democratic compared to autocratic, do a better job of sending and receiving nonverbal communication.

5. Race: results are mixed, but it seems that people quite naturally are better at decoding the messages of those of the same race.

6. Mental patients: most psychotic patients have a particular difficulty with nonverbal communication, as do those on the autism/Asperger syndrome spectrum. Indeed, for the latter group, it is their inability to read body language signals that most clearly defines their condition. However there are some mental disorders, such as antisocial or narcissistic personality disorders, that make sufferers particularly good at nonverbal communication. There is also some evidence that neurotic people maybe very perceptive at decoding the emotional signals of others, but surprisingly unable to control their own.

Those who decode well do not necessarily send well, though the two are closely related. Being proficient at sending nonverbal messages is a function of many things: experience and practice; knowledge and skill; motivation and confidence. The issue lies mainly in self-awareness and emotional control.

One characteristic that seem to summarize this skill has been called self-monitoring. Snyder (1974) came up with the concept of selfmonitoring, a personality trait that is very much to do with awareness and flexibility. Self-monitoring is the tendency to notice (visual, vocal, verbal) cues for socially appropriate behavior and to modify one's own behavior accordingly (see Table 4.1). Individuals can be cla.s.sified into two groups with regard to their level of self-monitoring. Those who score highly on the trait of self-monitoring are characterized by sensitivity to social clues indicating socially appropriate behavior, and using those cues to modify self-presentation. Low self-monitors are thought to be relatively insensitive to social cues, and tend to maintain a consistent self-presentation across different situations. High self-monitors emphasize the public self and, like actors, seem to be asking "What role should I be playing in this situation?" Low self-monitors are more interested in their personal value systems and private realties. The central question asked by the low self-monitors is "How can I look like the person I truly am?"

Clearly, high self-monitors are good at reading nonverbal cues and adjusting their behavior accordingly. Socially, they are highly flexible and adaptable.

Snyder (1987) distinguished between the hard and soft sell in advertising the former being about quality (for example, intrinsic merit, functional value) and the latter about image. He argued and demonstrated that high self-monitors rated image-orientated advertis.e.m.e.nts and products as being more appealing and effective, and would be willing to pay more for the product. By contrast, low self-monitors reacted more favorably to product-quality orientated advertis.e.m.e.nts. He also showed that the same principle applied when encouraging a person not to consume a product. Thus high selfmonitors may be put off smoking because of the consequences of bad breath and smelly clothes, while low self-monitors may be more concerned with health consequences (for example, coughing, sore throat).

TABLE 4.1 Self-monitoring High self-monitoring consumers are those who purchase the sleek, flashy, sporty-looking car despite its possibly poor performance and handling characteristics, the ones who use the toothpaste that make their teeth look the whitest (even if it threatens the enamel of their teeth), and the ones who drink the "super premium" beer that special imported beer that says something about its drinker's status (even if it tastes no better than the less expensive domestic brands). These image-conscious high self-monitors clearly choose form over function.

By contrast, low-self-monitoring consumers purchase the nutritious breakfast cereal (even if it isn't the one endorsed by the Olympic gold medal winner), the ones who use the mouthwash that is purported to kill the most bacteria (even if it does leave their breath with that faint medicinal odour), and the ones who choose the energy-efficient refrigerator (even though it's not available in the most designer-styled finish). They choose function at the expense of form.

Snyder (1987) published his short measure of the self-monitoring trait, which you are welcome to try for yourself. There are 18 statements, which you might judge as being true or false of you. Put a T if you agree with the statement or an F if you disagree with it. Then check your score against the explanation provided below. Test yourself!

1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people.