Good Date: Bad Marriage Partner?
by
Suzanne Hadley
on Feb 21, 2008 at 3:00 PM
According to this article on LiveScience, people who are socially awkward may have an edge in long-term relationship success. Research shows that some of the best daters make the worst marriage partners. The reason? Good daters often self-monitor.
Popular people who monitor themselves carefully in social situations and thereby appear to be the most socially appropriate are often highly sought after as romantic partners, a study finds, but these people show less satisfaction and commitment in relationships than socially-awkward people.
Self-monitors have that magical aptitude for fitting into any social group, because they "screen their words and behavior to suit the people around them." While self-monitors are popular and often successful in their jobs, they may flounder in relationships. Northwestern University professor of communication studies Michael E. Roloff, who conducted the study, explains:
"The desire to alter one's personality to appropriately fit a given situation or social climate prevents high self-monitors from presenting their true selves during intimate interactions with their romantic partners," Roloff said. "High self-monitors are very likeable and successful people. However, it appears they’re just not deep."
Let me be honest here. Women flock to the self-monitor. This person appears to be what we're looking for because, well...he's talented at making himself appear to be what we're looking for. Being aware of this may shed some scales from our eyes as we evaluate potential matches.
Conversely, the researchers found that low self-monitors — people who are the least concerned with social appropriateness and are unlikely to mask their feelings or opinions to avoid confrontation or preserve their self-image — are more committed to and more satisfied with their relationships.
Keeping this in mind, don't be excessively dazzled by the talented dater. And don't rule out the guy who's less socially polished -- he may turn out to be the better match.
1. JM had the following to say on Feb 21 at 3:43 PM:
Interesting article, Suzanne. Although I don't think it's just women who flock to the self-monitor. Men also flock to the woman who flatters them and appears agreeable.
And from what the article says, it sounds like a bit of self-monitoring is a good thing. The "socially awkward" may be more satisfied in their relationships, since it's so hard for them to get into one, they appreciate the relationship once it happens. But the study didn't say that the partners of the socially awkward are more satisfied.
"Fortunately, Roloff said, self-monitoring is normally distributed, so most people end up with a partner who falls somewhere in the middle. A person who moderately self-monitors may have great social skills and the ability to be unguarded with their partner when necessary."
2. Mrs. B had the following to say on Feb 21 at 4:02 PM:
YES. So true. For the longest time I had a crush on "that guy" in high school who everyone swooned over. Ironically, in college he was my now-husband's roommate so I got to know him outside of the high school scene. He's a great people-person, and he's a sweet guy, but it would never have worked out between us! My husband is REAL, deep, and wonderful, but can definitely socially awkward sometimes (although he's come out of his shell a little more now). But I think that adds to the intricacies of our relationship - he's not afraid to not be perfect and that is way more attractive than someone who fakes being all-together all the time. And I find his quirks very cute anyway :)
3. BDB had the following to say on Feb 21 at 4:11 PM:
Are reprints of the article available? Perhaps my church should hand them out in the packets for the next women's retreat...
4. Alex C. had the following to say on Feb 21 at 4:41 PM:
HAHAHAHA!!!! I've got to show this to my mom, she's always talking about how girls will never want to date me because of some of the things I do.
I've always been a low "self monitor" because don't really like having to hide my feelings or my personality depending on the situation.
5. Patricia had the following to say on Feb 21 at 5:03 PM:
Ok...but why focus on women? The article said both sexes do this....
6. Rachael had the following to say on Feb 21 at 5:15 PM:
One thought about 'social awkwardness' - my guess is that many 'socially awkward' people are not uncomfortable in every social setting. It's possible they may too 'self-monitor' or adapt in more comfortable environments and in settings where they have a role that assumes more power or responsibility.
In my case, my comfortable sides don't seem to emerge when I'm in situations where I can't easily jump/butt into a conversation, when I have no idea about or interest in a topic that is being discussed by people that don't attempt to draw people into the conversation, etc. However, as I'm sure many people do, I can adapt to certain settings. Sometimes I end up being the talkative one, especially if there seems to be a need to keep the conversation going or lively or if I feel comfortable with the people or with the subject matter. An ability to adapt to some degree is useful; most of us probably do it to an extent, and it wouldn't mean we'd be any less genuine in our relationships than we'd be if we always expressed our uncomfortability. Sometimes we might feel like we are 'acting'. I think I expressed this feeling with regard to teaching when I was a practicum student. I could be mistaken, but I think my teacher had responded that that acting side will become part of who you are, or something. When I teach I generally don't seek to display insecurity unless I deem it acceptable or unless it happens by default (maybe if I blush or something...). But I think that those sides are also a part of who I am and that it's not necessarily acting to choose to show the more confident sides.
So I guess, when people 'adapt' or show different sides in different settings, it doesn't necessarily mean they are being fake, or not genuine, but I wonder if the problem with self-monitors comes when people who do that are being intentionally fake (and maybe flatter/smooth talk people?) for selfish gain (we're all selfish, but I mean *especially* for selfish gain), or if they do it with an air of arrogance, seeking to be cool while looking down on or ignoring others in the same group?
7. Beth had the following to say on Feb 21 at 5:33 PM:
I totally agree with this post. The way I expressed the same basic thought is that "people come in packages." In other words, I could have gone with the smooth-talking, popular guy, but I knew a couple of those guys, and I knew they also had a habit of not being exactly honest. I went with the sincere, "average" guy I knew I could trust. I would make the same choice again.
8. Laura had the following to say on Feb 21 at 6:10 PM:
Interesting article. I'm definately socially awkward (I don't think I stopped blushing for a week after my first date!) but my fiance is very confident in public, loves public speaking etc. I can see the truth in the article, though, thanks!
9. Bridget had the following to say on Feb 21 at 6:30 PM:
So the fact that I've never managed to even get a date means I'll be the perfect wife? Cool.
10. Louise had the following to say on Feb 21 at 6:43 PM:
Interesting concept.
I am somewhat socially awkward, but I also am NOT good at long term relationships.
The article sounds like an interesting read, so I will definitely check it out!
11. jen had the following to say on Feb 21 at 8:01 PM:
I've always thought that the more sought-after and popular daters make worse marriage partners also, but for a different reason--I think people who are used to being in high demand may face more temptations after marriage just due to their sheer popularity. I think that's part of why celebrity marriages rarely last--it's hard to stay committed to one person when women/men are throwing themselves at you left and right. For us regular people, we're probably just grateful to find one person who accepts us as we are and are willing to marry us!
12. Tim had the following to say on Feb 21 at 8:13 PM:
Interesting. I'm actually a communication studies grad student, and have read Roloff's work before. Courtney Wright, the co-author of the article, just came to speak to my department last week. This is definitely cool stuff, given the overwhelmingly positive way in which we've always viewed and taught self-monitoring in comm studies circles.
13. Suzanne had the following to say on Feb 21 at 8:25 PM:
Patricia,
I focused on women because I was writing this from my perspective. You're correct that the article says both sexes do this.
14. Sylvia had the following to say on Feb 21 at 8:54 PM:
I think there is another factor here too. I think a lot of people who are socially awkward are apt to learn to have hobbies and interests on their own, and not to depend on others as much for amusement, and support.
People who are very successful and making others enjoy their company, can come to rely on it. Other people are fairly readily available to feed their emotional needs.
People who to whom this art is a great strain, may learn more easily deal with their emotional needs apart from other people. This comes in very handy in marriage, where many people realize for the first time that no matter how wonderful she is, a wife cannot meet every possible need all the time. I think "socially awkward" people can be more ready for that.
I think the the opinion that socially skilled people are "just not deep" isn't really fair. I think it is just all to easy for them to use their social skills as a crutch rather than dealing with issues that other people are somewhat forced to.
15. L had the following to say on Feb 21 at 8:54 PM:
Yay! There's hope for me! I'm socially awkward and have always thought this was a fault. Maybe it's not so bad after all... Now if only a guy would realize that...
16. J had the following to say on Feb 21 at 9:25 PM:
Funny, as I was reading this post, I frowned, thinking of what a great guy my very socially adept boyfriend is. He's quite outgoing and friendly, the kind of person who can talk to anyone and who everyone loves.
I was thinking, 'hey, this can't be right. My guy doesn't fit this mold at all.'
Then I remembered when we first started dating. The only time I've seen him nervous in a social situation was at the very beginning of our dating relationship. So maybe he fits the mold after all?!
(Incidentally, one of the things I like best about him is how well and easily he connects with others. I, on the other hand, am a little shyer and take a little longer to connect. I think it's good the way we balance each other out!)
17. DannieA had the following to say on Feb 21 at 11:12 PM:
I had to giggle at the term *socially awkward*
You know as a speech therapist, socially awkward and/or socially inappropriate terminology usually comes out when discussing a child under the Autism Spectrum, so it feels weird reading that term under this context.
18. Louise had the following to say on Feb 22 at 5:44 AM:
Okay, I read the article.
The message appears to be that socially awkward people are more "what you see is what you get" so if one decides to initiate a serious relationship based on first impressions there should be fewer surprises as you get to know him/her.
19. Christina had the following to say on Feb 22 at 6:20 AM:
huh...to some agree, I've always considered some people daters and others spouses.
I'm a "spouse", where dating me simply to date is not really an option simply due to my mentality - I'm too serious for a fun date =p
I'm also not inclined to be who I'm not in social situations, therefore having a difficult time holding down an idle conversation about nothing in particular. VERY socially-awkward >.<
20. Leah had the following to say on Feb 22 at 6:35 AM:
I thought there was some current trend with the women being attracted to 'nerds' (and, therefore, often the less socially apt)... which seems almost the opposite of what this suggests :P
Anyway, I'm engaged to a nerd who is very outgoing and likeable, so I think I win on all aspects :D
Alex C- I think learning to hide your real feelings is important. Our real feelings are often wrong and we need to learn to pull ourselves into line and to force out the wrong feelings. It reminds me of one time when me and my fiance (then boyfriend) went to his best friend's place. He and I had just had an argument and he said he didn't want to go anymore because he'd have to "fake" being happy and he didn't like having to put a mask on. I told him it wasn't putting a mask on, it was pulling his feelings into line. Four hours later when we left his friend's place I asked him if he regretted going. The answer? Of course not. His happiness wasn't fake. There was no mask. He'd just had to pull his feelings into line.
That is what I think is a necessary part of self-monitoring. I wouldn't want a person who didn't self-monitor.
Patricia- the post was written by a woman, so it only makes sense that she'd write about the female attitude.
21. J.T. had the following to say on Feb 22 at 8:58 AM:
There is hope for my fellow computer-nerds and geeks after all! I'll believe it when I see it.
22. Carrie (the original) had the following to say on Feb 22 at 9:59 AM:
J.T., one of the biggest nerds I have ever known is in his early 20s, married for two years, and his wife just gave birth to their first child.
23. Andrea had the following to say on Feb 22 at 10:11 AM:
I am going to go read that article over my lunch break. I like it already.
And I couldn't agree more: in my eyes, at least, an honest and genuine (if somewhat awkward) person is much more appealing as either a friend or a date, and ESPECIALLY as a marriage partner.
24. Christina had the following to say on Feb 22 at 10:32 AM:
Lol J.T.
I've dated 2 computer nerds and was pretty happy in both relationships :)
I honestly prefer the nerd, tbh...Just need one a little more outgoing then me >.<
25. BDB had the following to say on Feb 22 at 11:44 AM:
Hmmm...two observations on the article.
I see this extreme self-monitoring behavior with top sales people. These are individuals who carefully craft an image of success and fun - work hard/play hard kind of thing. Everything is always happy.
But these individuals also tend to exclude anyone as soon as it's clear that the person won't make them money. E.G. early in my career, before I was a decision-maker, these kinds of people couldn't be bothered to talk to me. When I moved into a decision-making role, these same slick guys were now making all sorts of promises...just because their glossy brochure says they can do something, it doesn't mean they can actually deliver.
I've observed that these image-conscious people tend to deal very poorly with serious issues in life - such as cancer. It may be that they've crafted their image precisely because they are terribly insecure that they cannot face hard problems - so they run away and surround themselves with people who only want to be "fun." These are the folks that crash the hardest when something serious happens that they can't control.
26. BDB had the following to say on Feb 22 at 11:47 AM:
Oh! It also reminds me of something I read once by an investor. If you find yourself in the room with a chandelier and someone taking notes about what you "want," you've been had.
When investing, he always looked around for the guy in the wrinkled brown suit on the executive team. That inside guy is the one actually making sure the business keeps running, though he's probably also awkward with people he doesn't know. If the only people their are the slick "outside" guys, it's not a good investment.
27. lynne had the following to say on Feb 22 at 1:42 PM:
I loved the article, but it's important to remember that social awkwardness and self-monitoring behavior do not have a 1.00 correlation. This means you can't say, "Wow, they're so good socially (or extraverted), probably a high self-monitor and not good marriage/relatinship potential."
For example, my husband and I are both extraverts, but I'm definitely the higher self-monitor, but not the smarmy, all things to all people kind, or my husband wouldn't have talked to me, much less married me : )
Social monitoring is distributed on a normal curve, so like a lot of things, it means 64% of the populations falls "within normal limits" (1 standard deviation above and below the mean for you non-stat geeks).
This is why it's good to date someone long enough to have some sort of crisis and see how they react. Life of the party types, can be REAL, emotionally committed spouses. Socially awkward types can be emotionally unavailabe spouses.
Sorry to be such a geek (is there a limit to how many math terms can be used in a post?)
28. obewan had the following to say on Feb 22 at 2:29 PM:
lynne:
I got a kick out of your stats tie in. I am a 6 Sigma Greenbelt at work. I suppose I could use my Minitab software program to analyze my dates if I only had more of them! But you did not say where the monitor types fall. Are they in the tail of the bell curve? I suppose I would really be worried about the top bottom 5%!
29. Amy had the following to say on Feb 22 at 3:34 PM:
I hope this applies to women too. I'm not a good self-monitor, while I have a fairly large circle of influence and many friends, I have a really bad filter. If that makes me better in a committed relationship, yeah, too bad no one will date me to get far enough to find that out. :( Oh well
30. John had the following to say on Feb 22 at 5:13 PM:
Interesting article. I don't think I fit in to either of the molds though. Ask any of my good friends and they will tell you that I'm plenty deep - I love in depth conversations on politics, theology, personal struggles, walking with the Lord, and everything else. I have best friends who know my deepest struggles and hopes.
But I also realize that to be successful in the world, and to make a better breadwinner, I have to "self-monitor". I've learned to communicate with different people in different situations, and this calls for showing different sides of myself. It's all about communication and perception - how else can you expect to find great success in the business world?
But then when I'm with my closest friends again, the social barriers come down, and we are entirely real with each other.
It's all about knowing the situation.
31. Robin Munn had the following to say on Feb 22 at 10:35 PM:
This strikes me as yet another way to phrase the age-old advice on dating: "Just be yourself."
Yes, you always want to be able to self-monitor a little to make sure you're being polite and appropriate to the social setting around you. And you probably won't want to pour out the deepest secrets of your heart on a first date.
But if you're constantly self-monitoring and putting up an "acceptable" false front as a relationship progresses and gets deeper, then the person your date is getting to know (and perhaps falling in love with) isn't really the true you. Which means that he or she is in for some real disappointment at some point down the road.
On the other hand, if over the course of time you can be open enough to just be yourself, and let your date see who you really are, warts and all, and he/she still falls in love with you... And if he/she can be as open with you... You'll be well set for a very successful marriage, because there won't be any nasty surprises.
Have you ever read the French play Cyrano de Bergerac? Cyrano is a poet at heart, but he has a large and ugly nose that he feels very sensitive about. He feels certain that the woman he loves, Roxanne, won't be able to love him back because she'll find his nose too hideous. There's another young man named Christian who's in love with Roxanne, and Cyrano gives Christian some of the poetry he's written, for Christian to pass off as his own. Christian woos Roxanne with Cyrano's poetry, and wins her heart and her hand in marriage.
I've always wondered what would have happened later in life, though, if that had been a real story. At what point would Roxanne have started to complain to Christian, "Why don't you write me poetry any more? What happened to the poet I fell in love with?" She would have been in for a very large disappointment once she finally found out -- and she would find out -- that Christian didn't actually write the poems he had wooed her with.
Be yourself. That's who you're hoping that someone will fall in love with, after all. If you put on a false pretense, you'll know that he/she isn't falling in love with the actual you. Just be who you really are, and then if he/she does fall in love with you, you'll know it can last.
32. Derek had the following to say on Feb 23 at 8:37 PM:
personally, i see the self-monitors as wearing a mask, almost. they don't want others to see who they really are, so they appear as something else. i don't know if this is an incorrect assumption or not, but that is how i view them. but then again, perhaps they are the mask...(i suppose i would consider myself socially awkard, then). i have one friend who is a self-monitor and only a few times i have seen the "real" him/her. it's quite interesting, really.
33. BDB had the following to say on Feb 24 at 12:49 AM:
Robin Munn wrote (#32):
>>Have you ever read the French play Cyrano de Bergerac? <<
Oh! I saw the Steve Martin movie with that plot...and those characters...
34. Jo had the following to say on Feb 24 at 1:36 AM:
I find it vaguely insulting, the implication that to be a good self monitor and be easy and sociable in a variety of situations is widely considered here to be a negative thing.
As Lynne (#21) said, the vast majority of people are 'within normal limits'. I am comfortable in a lot of situations, and I'm probably quite good at seeming fairly comfortable even when I'm not. And yes I "screen [my] words and behavior to suit the people around [me]", but I see that as a partner, not an alternative, to 'being myself'. Myself (or yourself) is not a simplistic being that has to say everything that comes into its head, that has to act on every feeling it has. Myself is a broad, intricate being that can make choices about how to behave, can think about its audience when speaking and can find a healthy balance between acting purely on instinct and changing everything about itself to suit other people.
In other words, I agree with Leah. A degree of self monitoring is necessary in social relationships, the ability is wired into us by God. Yes, some of us are better at it than others, but this article seems to give an excuse to those who find self monitoring difficult, and discourage them from working to develop this skill. It also gives us no credit for being able to spot an extreme self monitor - come on. Most of us know when someone is being excessively charming, and we know it's an act. Most women don't 'flock' to guys like that.
Being a normal good self monitor is not (usually) a negative thing. In fact as Christians, we're SUPPPOSED to be constantly monitoring our behaviour to fit what he's asking of us. If we tailor our behaviour to other people at the expense of God, then it's a negative thing. But if we tailor our behaviour first to Him and then to the people around us, how can it be bad?
35. Leah had the following to say on Feb 24 at 7:54 AM:
Derek.. go back and read my comment (#20)... I highlight the importance of self-monitoring and how it is not necessarily wearing a mask.
36. EmilyR had the following to say on Feb 24 at 10:56 AM:
See, Jane Austen had it right! Mr. Wickham looked like the better match, but it was cold and grumpy-seeming Mr. Darcy Lizzie chose in the end. :-)
37. Ruth had the following to say on Feb 24 at 1:35 PM:
There has to be balanced though. Sometimes saying and doing whatever you think is not the best. Think Lydia from Pride and Prejudice. Lacking "Social Monitoring" leads to disgust and a lack of respect from others. Just like on one would not want to marry a person who is being something they are not (a "high self monitor") no one could respect a person who does not posess some propriety and sense of what is approprite to say when and where. Lack of discernment is childishness. Children, young children, tend to say whatever and do whatever whenever but do not understand the effect of thier words or actions. A mature person does self monitor because they understand that there is a time and place for certain conversations and behaviors. Honestly, while I want a man who is outgoing, can kid around and is not afraid of looking stupid, it is important that he know when it is the time and place for that behavior. A certain level of maturity is required to understand that balance. This is what I am working on, understanding the balance.
38. Kelly had the following to say on Feb 24 at 5:35 PM:
Hmmmm... I am an "awesome first date" (as someone once said). But that rarely leads to a long-term relationship. I focus so much on making it an enjoyable evening and being the perfect 'date' that perhaps I don't let my true personality shine through.
I remember one date in particular where the guy and I were laughing together almost the whole time, and he told me he hadn't had so much fun in ages, and then never called. Maybe he was mis-representing himself too.
39. Derek had the following to say on Feb 24 at 9:00 PM:
Leah, i see what you were saying, but this is only one instance. if someone constantly does this, and they never show their feelings, then it seems to me that the mask is all i ever see. (i'm not trying to be disagreeable, i'm just trying to spark a debate). personally, i have a friend i have known about my whole life. i'd say i know him/her pretty well. (s)he has opened up a few times to me, which is when i would say i saw the real him/her. in public and around other friends, (s)he showed very little emotion and won't talk about deep topics in his/her life. (he/she has even admitted to this.)
40. Fred had the following to say on Feb 25 at 11:46 PM:
Jo (#34),
If a person is being excessively charming then you wouldn't know it - if you do see through them then they are not being charming.
It's not our behaviour we change for God it's our heart.
I agree that some self-monitoring is necessary but if a person is monitoring themselves in any way it is putting on a mask - not matter how good or bad or necessary it is and even if that mask then becomes a reality.
41. Rachael had the following to say on Feb 26 at 8:24 AM:
While it might seem that any self-monitoring is a mask (comment 40), I might not agree with that.
My sister has told me people have indicated that she's not who she really is or/and have questioned who she is. I think it's insensitive for them to have done that. She is an amazing person, and I was her roommate for many years, so I know her pretty well. I think she told me she asked her husband who she really is, and I think he said that she is both/all those sides. You know, our hearts our deceptive. Only God truly knows our hearts. What a comfort that is. Different sides of me come out at different times. Sometimes it might be a mask or partial-mask or forced (when I'm in a position of 'power' or when I feel the need to step up [like if everyone else is quiet]). But what about those times when I'm incredibly uncomfortable in a particular setting? I feel my personality/ character is suppressed in those settings. So even though on the surface I think 'that's not who I really am', it must be part of 'who I am', since it can happen. Some people have many sides, and different ones come out at different times unintentionally. Sometimes/often it seems it can be more of an adaptation thing than a mask thing. While it might be good for some people to question their genuineness and motivations, for others it might not be productive to overthink the matter. For some/all, it might just be best to remember that their identity comes from Christ. Sinners saved by His grace. Weak people who can be transformed by His strength.
42. Jo had the following to say on Feb 26 at 10:05 AM:
Fred (#40)
"If a person is being excessively charming then you wouldn't know it - if you do see through them then they
are not being charming."
It depends what you mean by 'excessively charming'. A lot of people are charming, but I think 'excessive charm' is obvious to most people, at least when they're watching objectively. Of course if you're the one being charmed it's a lot harder to spot, but I find I'm usually still vaguely aware that I'm falling for an act.
"It's not our behaviour we change for God it's our heart."
I disagree. God changes our heart, and we change our behaviour. I think those two things go alongside each other. I do understand what you mean about putting on a mask, however I think there's a big difference between pretending to be someone you're not and trying to be someone you're not yet. The former is acting like you're good when inside you're not (like the Pharisees), but the latter is saying "Okay God, I'm not the person you want me to be. But I want to change, I believe you're changing me, and I'm going to do whatever I can to help that change along".
If acting differently to one's nature is 'putting on a mask', then all of us Christians are faking it. The reality is that we're more than just a mass of genes and experiences. Our choices make us who we are.
43. Rachael had the following to say on Feb 26 at 7:50 PM:
Jo (42),
Oh, good point! Trying to be s.o. you're not vs. trying not to be s.o. you're not yet...ah. Semantics.
It helps give me clarity in how to think about the hypocrisy issue; thanks!
44. Fred had the following to say on Feb 27 at 8:37 PM:
Rachael (#41),
Any behaviour can stem from a part of ourselves and so nothing we do is a complete mask but my thinking is simply along the lines of if you smile when you are sad it's a mask (not that it's inherently right or wrong).
Jo (#42),
"It depends what you mean by 'excessively charming'."
So you mean like a try-hard.
"I disagree. God changes our heart, and we change our behaviour."
The thing is that we change our behaviour because we want to and so if it's not in our hearts it doesn't matter how we behave. It just sounded like you were saying that it was only our behaviour that was important - you are right though and I agree that it's not wrong to try and act how we know we should.
I suppose our disagreement is over the mask for our feelings and the mask for our desires. The pretending would fall into the former and the trying into the latter and I was thinking about the former and you (and Rachael) the latter.
45. Scott had the following to say on Mar 3 at 12:39 AM:
There's hope at last!