The 2008 U.S. presidential election was the first race since 1928 in which there was no executive incumbent running. We used this opportunity to test the hypothesis that self-monitoring would predict how and when voters, particularly independents who may be less likely to use political party affiliation as their primary criteria, decide which candidate to support. Results showed that high self-monitors rated information that was indicative of social consensus as more important to their decisions than did low self-monitors, especially if the information source reflected the opinion of an identifiable individual, not simply aggregate data. As predicted, high self-monitors also took longer to decide which candidate to support than did low-self monitors. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.