English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The current study compared the Q-test, a colloquial measure of self-monitoring, to the reliable and validated 18-item Self-Monitoring Scale-Revised (Gangestad & Snyder, 1985). Self-monitoring theory contends that individuals differ on how they regulate their self-presentation, and via self-observation individuals can adjust their behaviors to accommodate social situations (Snyder, 1987). Tracing the capital letter “Q” on the forehead can supposedly provide a rough measure of self-monitoring. The “Q” can be traced on the forehead in two different orientations. It can be traced such that its tail is placed in such a way that it is pointing towards the person’s left shoulder, making the capital “Q” readable to their audience. It can also be traced in such that its tail is placed in such a way that it is pointing towards the person’s right shoulder, making the capital “Q” readable to the person. In theory, a “Q” that is readable to others corresponds to high self-monitors and “Q” readable to the individual corresponds to low self-monitors. Results showed that the Q-test carries some merit; the correlation between the Q-test and Gangestad and Snyder’s (1985) 18-item Self-Monitoring Scale-Revised was statistically significant

The Q-test: Know your self-monitoring style in 6 seconds