Impression Management and the job
interview:
Is this a deadly combination when you want
to hire the perfect candidate?
April 2010
Bachelor-thesis
By: Jurriaan Offringa
Student number: 0342025
Supervisor: Ute-Christine Klehe
1
Abstract
Everyday people come across many different social situations. Sometimes people
alter their behavior in some of these situations in order to be well percieved or to
reach some goal. A form of this behavior is called Impression Management (IM). In
this thesis IM will be thoroughly explained and the influence of IM on job interviews
will be examined. IM behavior exists of many different tactics and also the motives
behind IM are different. Research has found that IM has a big influence on job
interviews. IM has led to higher performance evaluations in interview situations.
Applicants used more IM tactics when answering situational questions rather than pas
behavioral questions. And more IM tactics were used by applicants during role-plays
than by situational interviews.
2
Table of contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Impression Management
3.
p. 4
2.1
Motivation behind and Construction of Impression Management p. 5
2.2
Critical look at Impression Management
p. 7
2.3
Model of Impression Management
p. 8
Differences in Impression Management use
p. 9
3.1
Individual charateristic
p. 9
3.2
Applicant and Interviewer characteristics
p. 10
4.
Job Interview
p. 11
5.
Impression Management and the job interview
p. 12
5.1
Influence Impression Management tactics
p. 12
5.2
Behavioral description and situational interview
p. 13
5.3
Different assessment tools
p. 14
5.4
HR situations
p. 15
5.5
Measuring faking
p. 16
Conclusion & Discussion
p. 17
6.1
Implications
p. 17
6.2
Difficulties and further research
p. 18
6.
7.
Literature
p. 19
3
1.
Introduction
The way people are perceived by others is for many people very important. It
affects everybody’s daily life. Everyday people will get into a lot of different social
situations where they often act such a way to be positively perceived by others. This
happens from the moment people step out of their doors till the moment people come
home. It happens when going to the bakery, school, the gym and specifically when
going to work. Since work takes a big place in people’s life, people here might have
quite a big interest in acting in a social desirable way.
The term ‘impression management’ (IM) refers to the attempt people make to
influence the impressions others form on their behavior. Impressions people make
have an effect on how people are perceived, evaluated, and treated. Sometimes people
alter their behavior on purposive in order to influence the way they are perceived by
others. This is part of Impression Management, and also called ‘self-presentation’.
Leary & Kowalski (1990) broke Impression Management down to two distinct
processes. The first one is ‘impression motivation’ and the second one is ‘ impression
construction’. People try to influence the impressions others form of them in most of
their interactions with others. Often this doesn’t happen on purpose. But in some
situations people are very motivated to alter and control their behavior to create a
particular impression by other people. For example when this type of behavior is
necessary to achieve a goal. Next to this motivation for impression management
Leary & Kowalski (1990) looked at the construction of it. They found several IM
tactics people used to control their impressions on others.
According Duval & Wicklund (1972) there are situations where people may
not process their thoughts in a self-relevant fashion. For example in moments of joy.
Some patterns of self-presentation are also overlearned, habitual and unconscious
behavior (Hogan, 1982; Hogan et al., 1985; Schlenker, 1980). On the other hand there
are situations where people are very self-aware and pay a lot of attention to
appearance and behavior (Bush, 1980). This often happens in situations where the
importance of a ‘right’ impression is important, like for example job interviews.
4
2.
2.1
Impression Management
Motivation behind and Construction of Impression Management
Why are people motivated to engage in impression management behavior?
Leary & Kowalski (1990) believed that IM has three primary self-presentation
motives and goals, namely maximizing one’s reward-cost ration in social relations,
enchancing one’s self-esteem, and facilitating the development of desired identities.
So making a right impression will increase the chances of a right outcome. Also
people will be motivated in IM behavior in order to boost their self-esteem, and in
particularly when they expect feedback from others. And last people can act in a way
to make their ‘new characteristics’ their own.
In the theoretical scheme of Leary & Kowalski (1990) Impression motivation
consists of three central factors: Goal relevance of impressions, Value of desired goals
and Discrepancy between desired and current image. They claim that people will use
IM when fulfilling one or more goals such as earlier described. Here publicity is an
important factor. The more public one’s behavior has, the more likely somebody is
concerned how he/she will appear to others and the more motivated to engage in IM
behavior. The more important a goal is to someone the more IM tactics will be used.
So people try harder to act in a social desirable way with their bosses and teachers
than with their friend (E. E. Jones et al., 1965; Kowalski & Leary, in press; Stires &
Jones, 1969). According to Beck (1983) motivation increases as a function of the
value of desired goals. So when a lot is at stake, for example at a job interview, the
job applicant will be highly motivated to manage his/her impressions in order to get
the job. Also people are more motivated to engage in IM behavior when interacting
with people who are powerful, attractive, or of high status (Schlenkler, 1980). This
happens because people with these characteristics are likely to have a strong impact
on getting valued outcomes, affecting people’s self-esteem and facilitating the
development of desired identities. The last factor that is mentioned that motivates IM
is the discrepancy between the image one has of him or herself and the image they
believe people already hold. When people believe that others have a different
impression of them, than they can be motivated to manage their impressions in order
to fill the gap.
5
To complete the model Leary & Kowalski (1990) have used five factors which
all determine the impression content. In short these factors are: Self-Concept, desired
and undesired identity images, role constraints, target’s values and current or potential
image. So if the decision is made on which impression people want to make, the
following process is how will they make that impression?
With regard to the self-concept people often value different aspects of
themselves and want to show these in curtain situations. Sometimes they will also use
IM in order to make sure others will perceive them ‘accurately’. People can act in
such a way that they know will end up in a successful impression. So they know on
forehand they can pull this off. According to Schlenker (1980) people sometimes
hesitate to claim images that are inconsistent with how they see themselves and the
possibility they can behave in such a way. The question, which raises is how far can
people go with behaving in such way that might go against the values of themselves?
Buss and Briggs (1984) suggested that in superficial relationships this kind of
behavior occurs more often. For example in occupations like teachers, politicians and
salespeople. As relationships become more intense it will be more difficult for people
to maintain this ‘altered’ behavior. An interesting fact is that people who are high in
public self-consciousness, show less congruency between their private and public
selves than people do with a low public self-consciousness. People are also affected in
their self-presentation style not only in the way they really are, but also in the way
they like to be (Schlenker, 1985). This means that the desirable identity image refers
to who someone thinks he/she likes to be and what he/she actually can be. So people
can tend to create impressions that are biased when looking at the desired identity. So
in short, people sometimes try to live up quite much to their desired identities, but
staying within the boundaries of the reality. The public impression is part of an
interaction between the self-concept and desired-undesired identity images.
In some particular situations people carry out different roles. It is important to
fulfill this role the appropriate way with the appropriate behavior. Impressions that are
made that don’t belong to the particular role can lead to a loss of effectiveness in the
role and can also lead to a loss of right to enact that role (Goffman, 1959). This leads
to the result that a lot of people have to act in a way which is in line with the behavior
expected in this role. An other construct of impression is Target Values. Here research
has shown that people form their public images to the perceived values and
preferences of significant others (Carnevale, Pruitt, & Britton, 1979; Forsyth et al.,
6
1977; Gaes & Tedeschi, 1978; Gergen, 1965; R. G. Jones & Jones, 1964; Mori et al.,
1987; Reis & Gruzen, 1976; von Baeyer, Sherk, & Zanna, 1981; Zanna & Pack,
1975). And even if people think a negative presentation of their selves is valued than
they think important other people will value this negative behavior (Jellison &
Gentry, 1978). And impressions people are trying to make are affected by the social
image they have at this moment and also on the image they might have in the future.
For example the possibility that others may learn some information from them in the
future Leary & Lamphere (1988).
2.2
Critical look at Impression Management
In the past researchers had a preference for intrapsychic explanations that had
a focus on cognitive and emotional processes of the individual, without looking at the
social context. Later researchers began looking at situations through an Impression
Management perspective, where they challenged the dominance of intrapsychic
theories. They had a lot of ‘new’ explanations for experimental findings. But referring
to the IM theory might be misleading because there are several theories about IM. So
which is the right one? According to Schlenker (1980) it is hard to define a right IM
theory because for example a desirable identity varies heavily from one culturalhistorical setting to another. Maybe IM is just a highly over learned habit or script
where the original function is long forgotten (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Schlenker,
1980). Some of the questions asked in the article of Tetlock & Manstead (1985) like
for example ‘what are the tactics of and motivation of IM’ are already answered by
new researches. But since the article originates from 1985 this is explainable. These
questions were already answered in my previous chapter.
It is hard to find any formal theoretical structure to interpret IM findings.
Methodological ways to distinguish IM from intrapsychic explanations have led to a
lot of ‘between-theories’ explanations. Tetlock & Manstead (1985) reviewed six
methodological strategies that were being used to distinguish IM from intrapsychic
explanations. They thought that none of the strategies had any thorough evidence.
Since it is really hard to set those two explanations apart from each other they propose
that researchers should focus on the fundamental principles of psychological
functioning that will unify and organize all these research findings within one
7
theoretical framework. This framework should focus on the psychological processes
that are common to the two classes of explanation. According to Tetlock & Manstead
(1985) this framework is needed to put an end on the huge conflicts between IM and
intrapsychic explanations of research findings.
2.3
Model of Impression Management
Bozeman en Kacmar (1997) tried to create a process-oriented model of IM in
organizations. They thought the interpersonal dynamics in IM was a largely
unexplored facet and they tried to integrate multiple concepts and areas that were
related to IM in one cybernetic framework. A cybernetic model is able to describe
human functioning accurately by providing a continues, cyclical view of behavior that
is flexible and adaptive.
The cybernetic model of IM is shown in figure 1. and starts with an actor, which
is someone who can assess tactics that are needed for an encounter, and the actor can
try to produce a desired image. The actor reference goal: the desired social identity
contains several factors, like situational factors, individual differences and target
characteristics. The second step is de comparison between the current and the desires
identity of an actor. This leads to an outcome process, where the process of IM takes
place. So what kind of scripts and plans are necessary to obtain the goal. After this is
done the implementation of IM starts with verbal and non-verbal behavior. Then the
impact of this behavior on the target is the next step. So what does the target think of
this kind of behavior. Then the actor gets feedback from the target. This feedback is
then processed by the actor and leads to the comparator and from then on the behavior
will follow this cycle again. What makes the model so important is that it explicitly
includes both actor and target roles. In this way implications for both roles can be
made. It also claims that IM is a feedback-driven phenomenon that introduces
implications for organizations and managers.
8
Figure 1. A Cybernetic Framework of Impression Management
3.
3.1
Differences of Impression Management use
Individual characteristics
Since impression Management is used differently by people it is very
interesting to take a closer look at different sorts of variables and the effect of those
on the use of Impression Management. Bolino and Turnley (2003) took a closer look
at different styles of IM and the relation of this with three different individual
differences, namely men/women, High and Low –self monitors, so how well aware
are people of themselves and the last one is High and Low Machiavellianism. In
others words how manipulative and cynical somebody is and if they hold high
standards of morality (Christie & Geis, 1970).
First they identified five different sorts of IM (Jones and Pittman, 1982). The
first one was Ingratiation, where people seek ways to be viewed as likeable by
flattering others or by doing favors for others. Second is Self-promotion. Here people
9
want be viewed as competent by touting their accomplishments and abilities. The
third tactic is Exemplification, where people seek a way to be viewed as dedicated by
putting the call of their duties extremely on number one. The fourth tactic is
Supplication, where people want to be viewed as needy by showing their limitations
or weaknesses. And the last one is Intimidation. Here people want to be viewed as
intimidating by treating people with disrespect or by bullying people. Bolino &
Tunley (2003) used three different stages of the five sorts of IM tactics. They used
positives, aggressives and passives for each sort.
Bolino & Tunley (2003) found that men, in comparison to women used higher
levels of Impression management tactics. Men were more aggressive in their use of
IM tactics than women. Women on the other hand were more passive and behaved in
less IM behaviors then men. They also found that high self-monitors were more likely
to be positive rather than aggressive or passive than low self-monitors. So people who
are more sensitive on how people think of them use more positive IM tactics. Low
self-monitors tend to be more aggressive or passive. So high self-monitors didn’t use
more IM tactics then low self-monitors, but they tried to emphasize more on those
behaviors that tried to obtain favorable attributions. They also found that the majority
of the aggressive group was made of high Mac’s. But high Mac’s also took a great
part in the passive section, which wasn’t expected. Finally they found that individuals
were mostly liked if they used a combination of positive IM tactics or when they used
relatively low levels of IM across all IM types. When individuals used high levels of
the IM tactics they were less likely seen as a nice workgroup colleague.
3.2
Applicant and interviewer characteristics
IM behavior doesn’t stand on it’s one. There are several factors that have an
influence on it. Research of Delery and Kacmar (1999) focused on the different
factors and their influence on IM. Here are some of those factors: applicant selfmonitoring, self-esteem, locus of control, age, training and interviewer
communication apprehension. A clear distinction was made between interviewer and
applicant characteristics.
Delery and Kacmar (1999) found that the less apprehensive the interviewer
was, the more likely it was that applicants were using entitlements. However,
10
interviewer apprehension had a negative relation to the IM tactics: enhancement and
self-promotion). There is a possibility that entitlements are easier to alter during an
interview in order to make an adjustment to the interviewer’s style. Also age,
experience and tenure all had a connection with IM tactics. Older, more experienced
and longer tenured interviewers appeared to discourage the use of entitlements and
encouraged the use of enhancements and self-promotion. On the side of the applicant
characteristics little evidence was found for the influence of applicant characteristics
and the use of IM tactics on interviews. The only finding was that the greater the selfesteem of the applicant, the less likely he/she is to use entitlements. A possible
explanation for this finding was formulated by Dinner et al. (1972). They suggested
that people with little self-esteem may be more engaged in tactics to increase their
self-worth. By using entitlement people could increase their perceptions of self-worth.
The more internal locus of control people had, the more entitlements were used.
4.
Job interview
When someone is applicating for a job there is a big chance somebody will
come across a job interview as part of the assessment. The job interview is very
common and popular assessment tool nowadays to see if someone is capable enough
for the ‘future’ job. A lot of different factors can have an influence on the job
interview, so for example how people are being evaluated through the interview.
Accroding to Dipboy (1992) non-verbal cues could bias the interviewer ratings. Also
first impressions in the interview seem to have a big influence on the outcome.
Dougherty, Turban, & Callender (1994) found that after four minutes of a thirty
minute interviewers already have their decision made about applicants. And so there
are a lot of factors that can have an impact on the job interview. Job interviews also
may be biased by IM, so people might act in such way they want to be perceived in
order to get their goal: The job. This is where we will take a closer look at in the next
chapter, and will give an answer to the question what IM for an influence has on job
interviews.
11
5.
5.1
Impression Management and the job interview
Influence Impression Management tactics
Since there are many factors that influence job interviews it is interesting to
look at the influence of impression management. IM consist of different sorts of
tactics, so what is the influence of each of those tactics on IM and their outcomes.
Also it is interesting to look at the situations where IM takes place. Do different
situations use different kinds of IM tactics? This chapter will give answers to these
questions.
Stevens and Kristof (1995) looked at the different tactics of IM and the
relationship between the IM tactics and their interview outcomes. They set two types
of tactics apart. First there are the assertive tactics and next to this the defensive
tactics. Ingratiating tactics represent the most assertive IM behaviors that were
studied. These tactics would evoke liking or interpersonal attraction. One of the
ingratiation tactics is other-enhancement, which means the verbal praises of another
person. A second tactic is opinion conformity, where people use verbal endorsement
of the attitudes or values held by the target individual. Also self-promotion is part of
the assertive tactics, where people use positive statements to obtain some particular
factors like respect or competence (Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986).
Next to the assertive tactics people can also use defensive IM tactics. Two
types of these tactics are mentioned by Schlenker and Weigold (1992). The first one is
the excuse people make to claim not to be responsible. The second tactic is
justification, where people claim that their behavior isn’t as bad as it seams. When
looking at the results Stevens and Kristof (1995) found that applicants used more selfpromotion tactics than ingration tactics. They also found that applicants used much
more assertive than defensive tactics on job interviews, which also was expected.
They also found a positive relationship between applicant IM and the interview
outcomes. So interview outcomes were influenced by the amount of IM tactics used.
Research of Wei-Chi Tsai, Chien-Cheng Chen and Su-Fen Chiu (2005)
searched for answers to the question what the influence of verbal tactics of IM and
non-verbal tactics were on interview structure, customer-contact requirement and the
length of the interview. They found no clear evidence that the greater the structure of
12
the interview was, the weaker the relationship between self-focused IM tactics and the
evaluation of the interviewer. But for non-verbal behavior the opposite was true. The
greater the structure of the interview, the weaker the relationship was between nonverbal IM tactics and interviewer evaluation. They also found that the lower extend of
customer contact that was required for the job, the weaker the relation was between
self-focused IM tactics and the evaluation by the interviewer. For non-verbal IM
tactics this wasn’t the case. Research of Rynes (1993) indicated that sales
representatives often can conceal there characteristics which may benefit the
organization. Wei-Chi Tsai, Chien-Cheng Chen and Su-Fen Chiu (2005) also found
that the longer the interview the weaker the relationship between self-focused IM
tactics and interviewer evaluation. Again this wasn’t the case for non-verbal IM
tactics.
5.2
Behavioral description and situational interview
An other research also take a close look at the influence of verbal and nonverbal IM tactics and their influence on behavioral description and situational
interviews. Often is argued that IM would have a less stronger effect on structured
interviews in comparison to unstructured interviews. (eg., Campion, Palmer, &
Campion, 1997; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994; Salgado & Moscoso, 2002). The level of
questions and response scoring standardization might give applicants less space for
IM tactics, because every applicant is asked the same questions, where little
opportunity is to control the interview (Campion et al., 1997; Dipboye & Gaugler,
1993; Stevens & Kristof, 1995). So if structured interviews might reduce effects of
IM tactics it is important to also look at different types of interviews.
One of these different interviews is the behavior description interview. With
this type of interview questions are asked related to previous life and job experiences
related to knowledge, skills and abilities that were required for the job. In situational
interviews the questions are future-oriented, where people are placed in hypothetical
future situations and are asked how they would handle in those situations. Although
some evidence was found by Stevens and Kristof (1995) that interviews which used
an experience-based questions format resulted in less verbal IM tactics as compared
to unstructured interviews, the distinction between behavior description interviews
13
and situational interviews weren’t made. Research by Ellis et al. (2002) found that
ingratiation tactics (other-focused) were more used when answering situational
interviews, than self promotion (self-focused) tactics that were more used when
answering experience-based questions. Maybe this was found because situations in
the past can activate past competence or accomplishment cues. Where in situational
interviews this past experience misses applicants probably try to flatter the
interviewer or try to conform to attitudes, values or opinions of the interviewer.
Peeters and Lievens (2006) have also taken a look at the defensive IM tactics
used by behavioral discription interviews and situational interviews. Where was
expected that people might get defensive in trying to explain why some outcomes
from the past were negative. This tactic is hard to use in situational interviews where
behavior from the ‘future’ is discussed. Peeters and Lievens (2006) found that people
who were instructed to present themselves favorably used more verbal IM tactics, but
for nonverbal IM tactics (like eye contact, notting, smiling and gestures) this wasn’t
the case. They also found that candidates used more other-focused tactics in
situational interviews than in behavioral description interviews, where people in
behavioral description interviews used more self-focused and defensive verbal tactics
than in situational interviews. The use of self-focused verbal tactics, defensive verbal
tactics and nonverbal tactics all were positively related to overall interview
evaluations, except for other-focused tactics.
5.3
Different assessment tools
When looking at research it can be concluded that IM has an influence on
interviews. However it is also interesting to look if IM also has an influence on other
kinds of assessment methods. And if so, on which assessment method is the influence
the most? McFarland, Ryan and Kriska (2003) tried to get an answer to these
questions. Since unstructured interviews are the most commonly used method for
individual assessment (Ryan & Sackett, 1998) it is interesting to see what the effects
of IM are on the three main assessment method categories, like psychometric
approaches (standardized tests), observational tools (role-plays), and interview-based
methods (Jeanneret and Silzer, 1998).
14
The research of McFarland, Ryan and Kriska (2003) focused on role-plays and
situational interviews. In a role-play people have to act out what he/she would do in a
given situation. So here IM in the role-play isn’t only about an impression to convey,
but also drawing someone’s resources to act out that impression. Acting in role-plays
requires a lot of an individual’s cognitive resources (Brotheridge & Lee, 2002;
Richard & Gross, 2000). This strain of acting could lead to exhaustion (Grandey,
2000). However the structured situational interview is a very consistent method where
candidates should have a very good idea of what to expect during the interview. The
question here rises if the frequency of IM tactics differ across methods and have a
relation with the final promotion scores. A general support was found for the theory
that IM tactics and ratings and final promotion scores were more strong and positive
in the situational interview than in the role-play. This could be due to the great
complexity of role-plays that could inhibit IM tactics and could also lead to less
effective IM use. And the stronger relationship between the situational interview and
assessor ratings in comparison to the role-play could be the consequence of giving
individuals a big opportunity to use cognitive resources more appropriate in
combination with IM tactics.
In both assessment methods more other-focused tactics were used then selffocused tactics. Interestingly a consistency was found for the use of other-focused
tactics in structured interviews and role-play, which leads to the idea that otherfocused tactics used in one method are also used in other methods. This wasn’t the
case for self-focused tactics. Finally Role-plays resulted in less IM than in situational
interviews.
5.4
HR situations
A lot of research has been done on influences of IM on for example job
interviews. However, little research has been done on IM influences on different
situation like employment interviews, performance appraisal and training. With
performance appraisal we mean the quality of the job performance that is measured. It
was found that subordinates who engaged in IM tended to get higher performance
ratings than did subordinates who did not engage in it (Wayne and Kacmar, 1991).
15
Little research has been done on IM influence on training. Although a study
by Ferris and Porac (1984) somewhat related was to this subject. They found that
individuals set higher goals when their performance on a task was viewed by others
than when this wasn’t the case. They argued that subjects used a goal-setting activity
as a form of self-focused IM, when performance didn’t differ under conditions.
Findings from the research of Kacmar and Carlson (1999) indicated that self-focused
IM led to higher performance evaluations in interview and training situations. This
while other-focused IM more effective was in the performance appraisal situation.
Overall the use of self-focused tactics produced better results on performance ratings
than other-focused tactics. From all three situations highest performance was found
on training situations, followed by performance appraisal and then interview. The
training performance was different from the interview and performance appraisal.
This suggests that in training situations the use of self-focused IM tactics is most
effective in training situations. Kacmar and Carlson (1999) also suggest that focusing
the attention to another in an interaction should increase the effect the other feels,
where trainers had more affect for their trainees than appraisers had for their appraises
and interviewers for their applicants.
5.5
Measuring faking
According to Leary & Kowalski (1990) and Levin & Zickar (2002) faking is
based on constructs of social desirable responding and IM. Where social desirability
defined is as a tendency for people to present themselves in a socially favorable light
(Edwards, 1957; Holden & Fekken, 1989). Also IM refers to faking because it refers a
distortion of responses in order to create a favorable impression. But faking is here
distinguished from self –deception and unintentionally distorting responses.
Levashina and Campion (2007) defined faking in the employment interview a
deceptive IM or the conscious distortion of answers to the interview questions in
order to obtain a better score on the interview and/or otherwise create favorable
perceptions.
So would people fake during the interview? Maybe people want to meet the
requirements of the interview question. People could add or delete information or
people could make up information (Hopper & Bell, 1984; Knapp & Comadena,
16
1979). The research of Levashina and Campion (2007) focused on three groups of IM
behavior, namely assertive tactics, defensive tactics and last ingratiation. Since many
people who engage in job interviews read books on how to prepare themselves
(Palmer, Campion, and Green, 1999) Levashina and Campion (2007) analyzed books
to identify strategies on how to improve performance in the employment interview
and how to fake without lying. The three sources of IM identified 125 faking
behaviors. Of these 95 items, 52 were related to image creation, 21 to image
protection, and 22 items to ingratiation. Based on these behaviors the Interview faking
behavior (IFB) scale was developed by Levashina and Campion (2007). When people
who engaged in several employment interviews filled in the IFB.
Levashina and Campion (2007) found that faking occurred more often when
people answered situational questions rather than past behavioral questions. What
they also found was that applicants didn’t use more faking tactics when there was no
follow-up questioning during structured interviews. The average mean scores on the
IFB scale pointed out that all types of faking occurred more often in situational
interviews with follow-up questioning than past behavioral interviews with no followup questioning.
6.
6.1
Conclusion & Discussion
Implications
After looking at all the researchers it can be concluded that IM has a big
impact on job interviews. Now raises the question: What can be done to reduce the
effects of IM on job interviews. Because in some cases people might be hired by
passing a job interview using a lot of IM tactics, who otherwise wouldn’t be hired. So
what can be done to prevent this kind of ‘bias’?
First of all, since IM was used more often when people had to answer
situational questions rather then pas behavioral questions people who have to assess
applicant should make more use of behavioral questions to reduce bias. Also a followup interview could be a right thing to do to see if the behavior of the applicant still in
line is with the thoughts of the former interview. People also use less IM tactics
17
during experience-based interviews then in unstructured interviews. So experienced
based interviews should be used more often in the future.
Since people use less IM during role-plays than in situational interviews
people should also use this tool more often. Because people have to focus on their
acting they have less time to perform IM tactics. In all sorts of assessments the most
tactics that were used were other-focused. So interviewers or people using other
assessment methods should keep this in mind when interacting with the applicant.
But now we know more about IM and the influence on job interviews it is up
to people using the assessment tools to make use of these findings. If they do so, they
can reduce the effects of IM and will most probably hire applicants who are a better
fit for the job than the applicants they used to hire.
6.2
Difficulties and further research
A lot of information of IM is known through research. Now what really important is:
What is done with this information. At this moment there has been little research (or
no research that I’m aware of) that looked a difference between the past of using
interviews and at recent use of interviews or other assessment tools in order to reduce
the IM effects. So when you look on the long term: did all the research about IM lead
to a better understanding of it and did that lead to a better use of interviews or other
assessment methods. This could be a very interesting study to see if all the research
have led to some practical differences.
18
7
Literature
von Baeyer, C. L., Sherk, D. L., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Impression management in
the job interview: When the female applicant meets the male (chauvinist) interviewer.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 45-51.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). More than one way to make an Impression:
Exploring profiles if Impression Management. Journal of Management, 29, 141-160.
Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. Michelle. (1997) A Cybernetic Model of Impression
Management Processes in Organizations. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 69, 9-30.
Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. 2002. Testing a conservation of resources model of
the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 57–
67.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety San Francisco: Freeman.
Buss, A. H., & Briggs, S. (1984). Drama and the self in social interaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1310-1324.
Carnevale, P. J. D., Pruitt, D. G., & Britton, S. D. (1979). Looking tough: The
negotiator under constituent surveillance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
5, 118-121.
Campion, M.A., Palmer, D.K. and Campion, J.E. (1997) A review of structure in the
selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50, 655–702.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. 1970. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic
Press.
19
Delery, J. E., & Kacmar, K. Michelle. (1998). The influence of Applicant and
Interviewer Characteristics on the Use of Impression Management. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 28, 1649-1669.
Dinner, S., Lewkowicz, B., & Cooper, J. (1972). Anticipatory attitude change as a
function of self-esteem and issue familiarity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 24,407-412.
Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western.
Dipboye, R.L. and Gaugler, B.B. (1993) Cognitive and behavioral processes in the
selection interview. In N. Schmitt and W.C. Borman (Eds), Personnel selection in
organizations, 135–170.
Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Callender, J. C. (1994). Confirming first
impressions in the employment interview: A field study of interviewer behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 659-665.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New
York: Academic Press.
Ellis, A.P.J., West, B.J., Ryan, A.M. and DeShon, R.P. (2002) The use of impression
management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 1200–1208.
Ferris, G. R., & Porac, J. F. (1984). Goal setting as impression management. Journal
of Psychology, 117, 33-36.
Gaes, G. G., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1978). An evaluation of self-esteem and impression
management theories of anticipatory belief change. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 14, 579-587.
20
Gergen, K. J. (1965). The effects of interaction goals and personalistic feedback on
the presentation of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 413-424.
Godfrey, D. K., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C. G. (1986). Self-promotion is not ingratiating.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106-115.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday Anchor.
Grandey, A. 2000. Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize
emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 95–110.
Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 55-89.
Hogan, R., Jones, W. H., & Cheek, J. M. (1985). Socioanalytic theory: An alternative
to armadillo psychology. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life, 175-198.
Hopper, R., & Bell, R. A. (1984). Broadening the deception construct. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 70, 288 –302.
Huffcutt, A.I. and Arthur, W. (1994) Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview
validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184–190.
Jeanneret, R., & Silzer, R. 1998. An overview of individual psychological assessment.
In R. Jeanneret & R. Silzer (Eds.), Individual psychological assessment: Predicting
behavior in organizational settings: 3–26.
Jellison, J. M., & Gentry, K. W. (1978). A self-presentation interpretation of the
seeking of approval. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 227-230.
Jones, E. E., Gergen, K. J., Gumpert, P., & Thibaut, J. W. (1965). Some conditions
affecting the use of ingratiation to influence performance evaluation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 613-625.
21
Jones, R. G., & Jones, E. E. (1964). Optimum conformity as an ingratiation tactic.
Journal of Personality, 3Z 436-458.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic selfpresentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self, 1, 231262.
Kacmar, K. Michele, & Carlson, D. S. (1999). Effectiveness of Impression
Management Tactics across Human Resource Situations. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 29, 1293-1315.
Knapp, M. L., & Comadena, M. E. (1979). Telling it like it isn’t: A review of theory
and research on deceptive communications. Human Communication Research, 5, 270
–285.
Kowalski, R. M., & Leary, M. R. (in press). Strategic self-presentation and the
avoidance of aversive events: Antecedents and consequences of self-enhancement and
self-depreciation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression Management: A Literature
Review and Two-Component Model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.
Leary, M. R., & Lamphere, R. (1988). Exclusionary self-presentation in a selfpresentational dilemma: Effects ofincongruency between self- perceptions and target
values. Unpublished manuscript.
Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring Faking in the Employment
Interview: Development and Validation of an Interview Faking Behavior Scale.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1638-1656.
Levin, R. A., & Zickar, M. J. (2002). Investigating self-presentation, lies, and bullshit:
Understanding faking and its effects on selection decisions using theory, field
research, and simulation. In J. M. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.), The psychology of work:
Theoretically based empirical research, 253-276.
22
McFarland, L. A., Ryan, A. M., & Kriska, S. D. (2003). Impression Management Use
and Effectiveness Across Assessment Methods. Journal of Management, 29, 641-661.
Mori, D, Chaiken, S., & Pliner, P. (1987). "'Eating lightly" and the self-presentation
of femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 693-702.
Palmer, D. K., Campion, M. A., & Green, P. C. (1999). Interviewing training for both
applicant and interviewer. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.), The employment
interview handbook, 337–353.
Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2006) Verbal and Nonverbal Impression Management
Tactics in Behavior Description an Situational Interviews. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 14, 206-222.
Reis, H. T., & Gruzen, J. (1976). On mediating equity, equality, and self-interest: The
role of self-presentation in social exchange. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 12, 487-503.
Richards, J. M., & Gross, J. J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: The cognitive
costs of keeping one’s cool. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 410–
424.
Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1998). Individual assessment: The research base. In R.
Jeanneret & R. Silzer (Eds.), Individual psychological assessment: Predicting
behavior in organizational settings: 54–87.
Salgado, J. and Moscoso, S. (2002) Comprehensive meta-analysis of the construct
validity of the employment interview. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 11, 299–324.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
23
Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The
self and social life, 65-99
Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving
impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 133-168.
Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, Amy L. (1995). Making the Right Impression: A Field
Study if Impression Management During Job Interviews. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 587-606.
Tetlock, P. E., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1985). Impression Management Versus
Intrapsychic Explanations in Social Psychology: A Useful Dichotomy? Psychological
Review, 92, 59-77.
Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2005). Exploring Boundaries of the Effects of
Applicant Impression Management Tactics in Job Interviews. Journal of
Management, 31, 108-125.
Rynes, S. L. 1993. Who’s selecting whom? Effects of selection practices on applicant
attitudes and behavior. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in
organizations, 240-274.
Stires, L. D., & Jones, E. E. (1969). Modesty vs. self-enhancement as alternative
forms of ingratiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 172-188.
Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). The effects of impression management on the
performance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 48, 70-88.
Zanna, M. P., & Pack, S. J. (1975). On the self-fulfilling nature of apparent sex
differences in behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 583-591.
24