Snyder and Gangestad examine the Self-Monitoring Scale, a widely used measure of self-monitoring, and address concerns about its validity and interpretation. They argue that the scale effectively measures a general self-monitoring factor, a latent variable influencing social behavior. Despite criticisms that the scale may measure multiple variables rather than a single construct, factor analyses suggest a general factor underlying the scale. The authors present a new 18-item version of the scale. They also discuss the implications of factor analysis, noting that while rotated factors may appear distinct, they share common genetic influences. The general self-monitoring factor, which accounts for much of the scale's variance, is shown to correlate with various social behaviors. The authors challenge the notion that the scale is flawed due to multiple factors, arguing that the general factor is a meaningful construct. They also address concerns about the scale's validity and suggest that further research is needed to clarify the relationships between the factors and external variables. The authors conclude that the Self-Monitoring Scale remains a valid and useful measure of self-monitoring, despite ongoing debates about its structure and interpretation.Snyder and Gangestad examine the Self-Monitoring Scale, a widely used measure of self-monitoring, and address concerns about its validity and interpretation. They argue that the scale effectively measures a general self-monitoring factor, a latent variable influencing social behavior. Despite criticisms that the scale may measure multiple variables rather than a single construct, factor analyses suggest a general factor underlying the scale. The authors present a new 18-item version of the scale. They also discuss the implications of factor analysis, noting that while rotated factors may appear distinct, they share common genetic influences. The general self-monitoring factor, which accounts for much of the scale's variance, is shown to correlate with various social behaviors. The authors challenge the notion that the scale is flawed due to multiple factors, arguing that the general factor is a meaningful construct. They also address concerns about the scale's validity and suggest that further research is needed to clarify the relationships between the factors and external variables. The authors conclude that the Self-Monitoring Scale remains a valid and useful measure of self-monitoring, despite ongoing debates about its structure and interpretation.