, .ERE in

.115 .

c 1
wfiw. 5
x3 Ly. ..
. gin”:
diam ..
nu... .
.97. A,

.1 i

.1 I
39.1 a
a.

[I 1’,
in...“ . .r
.ur‘n ‘

, a" h. 53.9mm: 9.5..
3.1.45.6...3...” 51.130 . i v
. 1....)...:. (lift?) Ix .. q. .,
.113... . ii. I Jan,
3 . S; in." X .

. . rt. 2‘ I .n

1 V

.II. . . . >

3 .

41-3...

. V
- .. I...
.s k. 31::
“3.5.9.335: 6...»an
.1:3..fi...u..2.:. .r
fivfifififikg, 3; a .
£1.43". Itréllt tflai‘, .

- Cf. ‘fll T")!I. :73.’. I

:.....me. ”.345... Ad...

HP. k. n... ”1.3
I: :ftfr :c.
.333. hull.

, .
z. : ..
..-..nn...1.H&a
i. . it.
..: ”vi:

In .

3.!!1‘ it?

3.... 1.5.19.1.)
if)?!

.1... 3

a i It .533.
Xenfiflzé n-.. ..
.r I:

 

fir
. WI: .10”?

tfimwmz .lquHuMm: . , . . , 1NfiWfl§<zflfl

.m. . . 3%.... géfiig
:n: . . .... 41.3.2: I

1..

Jam
hf; LIBRARY
g Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT
INTERVIEW:

TRANSLATING A DESIRED IMAGE INTO DESIRABLE
BEHAVIORS

presented by

Kelly A. Delaney-Klinger

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Management

 

 

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature
5/02 9/0 5'

Date

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW:
TRANSLATING A DESIRED IMAGE INTO DESIRABLE BEHAVIORS

By

Kelly A. Delaney-Klinger

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Management

2005

ABSTRACT
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW:
TRANSLATING A DESIRED IMAGE INTO DESIRABLE BEHAVIORS
By

Kelly Ann Delaney-Klinger

Using Leary’s (Leary, 1996; Leary & Kowalski, 1990) theory of impression
management, I examined the impression management process within the context of the
employment interview. In particular, I explored the image(s) job applicants believe are
important to project in the employment selection process, particularly in the face-to-face
interview. I also tested the extent to which applicants can translate a particular desired
image into specific and related impression management strategies. Embedded within this
second research question were several other questions including the extent to which
applicant attributes or perceptions of attributes impact this translation.

The hypotheses were tested using a two-step process. Individuals participated in
an initial data-gathering and training session, where they received a job description for a
management consultant that highlighted one of two desired images (smart, personable).
They also either received general interview training or training developed to highlight
impression management techniques. At a later date, they completed a videotaped mock
interview in which they were asked a series of structured questions. The videotapes were
coded to identify impression management tactics. Therefore, the independent variables in
this study were either manipulated or gathered through self-report. The dependent
variables were measured through the use of a survey instrument and ratings of interview

behaviors.

The study utilized 108 undergraduates who represented a large variety of non-
business majors. Results suggested that participants identified an expected set of
characteristics (smart, personable, hardworking) that are associated with applicants likely
to receive positive outcomes from interviews. However, participants rated a collection of
other characteristics as more important in receiving the positive outcome from an
interview. In examination of the second major question, translating a desired image into
particular impression management behaviors, I discovered that participants used
significantly more self-promotion statements in the interview than ingratiatory
statements, regardless of the image the job required. Further examination failed to find
any impact of actual qualifications (GMA, social skills) or impression management
training on the use of impression management tactics, except when sub-samples of the
data were analyzed. Implications of this work and directions for future research are also

discussed.

This degree is dedicated to my loving husband, John, and my wonderful boys,

Andrew and Matthew. You help me remember what is truly important in life.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following individuals who assisted me in the completion of this
dissertation. These include my committee, Frederick Morgeson (chair), John Hollenbeck,
Ann Marie Ryan, and Linn Van Dyne, the Management Department, and Michael
Johnson. Special thanks go out to those people who provided the moral support I needed
to get through this process: Chris Meyer, Stephen Humphrey, Cindy Devers, Sue
Polhamus, Anne Downey, and Federico Aime. Most importantly, I want to thank my

parents, Albert and Carol Delaney, for giving me the background to reach this point.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORY, AND HYPOTHESES ............................................ 8
Chapter Overview ........................................................................................................... 8
Clarifying the Constructs of Impression Management and Self-Presentation ................ 8
Desired Image ............................................................................................................... 11
Translating Desired Image into Impression Management Behaviors ........................... 22
Other Influences on Impression Management Behaviors ............................................. 26
Impression Management Training ............................................................................ 27
Actual Applicant Attributes vs. Desired Image Characteristics ............................... 29
Important Control Variables ..................................................................................... 33
Study Summary ............................................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER 3
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 38
Power Analysis and Recommendations ........................................................................ 38
Participants .................................................................................................................... 38
Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 38
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 40
Training Conditions ...................................................................................................... 44
Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 48
General Information ...................................................................................................... 48
Evaluation of Applicant Prototypes (Hla & Hlb) ........................................................ 49
Behavioral Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 51
Control Variables .......................................................................................................... 52
Interview Coding .......................................................................................................... 53
Image Manipulation Check ........................................................................................... 54
Hypotheses 2 and 3 (image-) impression management tactic) .................................... 56
Hypothesis 4: Impact of applicant attributes ................................................................ 57
Training Manipulation .................................................................................................. 59
Post Hoc Analyses for Image-Impression Management Relationships ........................ 61

vi

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 71
Overview of Problem and Theory ................................................................................. 71
Applicant Prototypes ..................................................................................................... 72
Behavioral Hypotheses-Impact of Desired Image ........................................................ 75
Behavioral Hypotheses-Applicant Attributes and IM Training .................................... 79
Future Research Directions ........................................................................................... 85
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 87

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 89

APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................... 98

APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................. 109

APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................. 116

APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................. 126

APPENDIX F .................................................................................................................. 143

APPENDIX G ................................................................................................................. 146

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 151

vii

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

LIST OF TABLES

Constructs and Items or Measures ............................................................ 90

Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency and Importance Ratings for

Desired Prototypes .................................................................................... 92
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Variables ............ 93
Hierarchical Regression Analyses: H2a—3b .............................................. 94
Hierarchical Regression Analyses: H4a-4b .............................................. 95
Hierarchical Regression Analyses: HSa-Sb .............................................. 96

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Analyzing Self-Promotion by Question
.................................................................................................................. 97

viii

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

LIST OF FIGURES

Representation of Hypothesis 4a: Predicted moderation of social skill
level on the relationship between the desired image of and the impression
management behavior of ingratiation ....................................................... 99

Representation of Hypothesis 4b: Predicted moderation of general mental
ability on the relationship between the desired image and the impression
management behavior of self-promotion ................................................ 100

Representation of Hypothesis 5a: Based on the “faking” perspective, the
predicted moderation of impression management training on the
relationship between social skills and the impression management
behavior of ingratiation ......................................................................... 101

Representation of Hypothesis 5b: Based on the “faking” perspective, the
predicted moderation of impression management training on the
relationship between general mental ability and the impression
management behavior of self-promotion ............................................... 102

Tabular display of research and created conditions ................................ 103

General Mental Ability Moderates Image-Self-Promotion Relationship
(Training manipulation was successful) ................................................ 104

General Mental Ability Moderates Image-Self-Promotion Personal Traits
Relationship (Training manipulation was successful) ............................ 105

Impression Management Training Moderates Social Skills-Other
Enhancement Relationship (Image manipulation was successful) ......... 106

Self-Promotion of Skills Statements as a Result of Question Topic and
Format ..................................................................................................... 107

Self-Promotion of Personal Traits as a Result of Question Topic and
Format ..................................................................................................... 108

ix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Impression management has been most often described as the process by which
one person, the actor, attempts to affect perceptions of him or her held by another person,
the target (Schneider, 1981). This construct grew out of Goffman’s (1959) drarnaturgical
perspective which suggested that most social interactions involve a process by which an
individual attempts to fulfill the expectations associated with a particular social role. This
involves an iterative process of determining which characteristics should be displayed,
displaying those characteristics to the audience, assessing the extent to which the
audience forms the desired perceptions, and attempting to correct any inconsistencies in
the established image (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997). Because this process is a normal
component of all social interactions (Goffman, 1959), it should certainly be considered an
expected activity within an organization (Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1989).

One organizational process that seems likely to trigger impression management is
employee selection or hiring (Feldman & Klich, 1991; Kacmar & Carlson, 1999). From
the organization’s point of view, the major goal of selection is to attract and identify the
applicant most likely to meet the employer’s requirements for successful job performance
(Barber, 1998). Therefore, the applicant’s mission should be to convince the employer
that he or she does, in fact, meet those requirements by projecting an image consistent
with the organization’s expectations. This mission is likely to be particularly important
within the employment interview, which is one of the most common selection tools.

The employment interview typically provides a context conducive for impression

management: the outcomes of the situation are important, the actor (interviewee) feels

some degree of self-consciousness, and the actor is of lower status than the target
(interviewer) (Kacmar & Carlson, 1999). During this important and intense social
interaction, an applicant must display a desired image that is likely to lead to a positive
outcome for the applicant. Yet, even anecdotal evidence suggests that many applicants
are either unwilling or unable to do this successfiilly. For instance, in a survey of hiring
organizations, Messmer (1999) demonstrated that applicants may actually create
unfavorable images of themselves during employment interviews:

When asked why she wanted the job, a recent graduate replied, ‘I ’m here for a
paycheck... isn ’t everyone? ’ m 266)

When asked where she saw herself in five years, the candidate replied, ‘How am I
supposed to know—isn ’t that your job? ’ (o. 266)

A new graduate came to his interview wearing sunglasses and licking a lollipop.

He commented to the hiring manager, ‘This is my style... you can take it or leave

it. ’ m 281)

These examples demonstrate that even though impression management is a
normal part of social interaction (Goffman, 1959), not everyone is able to manage the
process successfully. Qualified applicants who are unable to identify the image they
should be creating and/or translate that image into behavioral strategies to positively
influence the audience will be at a disadvantage in the selection process. Conversely, if
unqualified applicants are able to translate a desired image into impression management
strategies, they may gain an advantage over their more qualified competitors. In either
case the organization will suffer because the most qualified applicants will not be
identified in the selection process. This suggests that understanding the nature of the
desired image and its impact on applicant behavior will prove beneficial to both

applicants and the organizations seeking to hire them.

Given Goffman’s (1959) assertion that the behaviors within the impression
management construct are a normal part of social interactions, it is also valuable to
clarify impression management theory through an in-depth examination of the process.
Therefore, this paper seeks to add value to theory and practice by examining two related
research questions within the employment selection (interview) context: What image(s)
do applicants believe is (are) important to project? To what extent do applicants actually
translate the desired image(s) into impression management tactics designed to favorably
influence the audience?

The overall impression management literature is rich with theoretical perspectives
developed in the years since Goffinan’s (1959) work. In this paper I will utilize the
perspective of Leary (Leary, 1996; Leary & Kowalski, 1990) as a lens to better inform
and enrich our understanding of the role of impression management in the employment
process. This perspective offers some direction for understanding the image(s) held by
applicants and the behaviors likely to be used to display the image(s). It also allows for
the opportunity to expand the theoretical and practical knowledge of impression
management, first in the employment context, and later in a broader organizational
environment.

Leary and Kowalski (1990) described impression management theory through the
use of a two-component model, organizing existing and proposed theory into impression
motivation and impression construction. The first broad category or description of the
process, impression motivation, is the “desire to create particular impression in others’
minds, but may or may not manifest itself in overt impression-relevant actions” (p. 35).

As Kacmar and Carlson (1999) suggested, the employment selection process, by its very

nature, should elicit impression motivation from most applicants. Therefore, this portion
of the model is not the focus of the present study. In fact, I assume that whether they seek
to gain a positive outcome from the interviewer or protect or enhance personal identity or
image (Leary & Kowalski, 1990), job applicants will care about the impressions they
create and exhibit at least some degree of impression motivation.

The second broad category within the impression management process identified
by Leary and Kowalski (1990) is impression construction. This refers to the alteration of
behaviors in order to affect the impressions held by others. It also consists of the two
main issues I am examining in the present study: the impressions people try to project
(desired images) and the actual tactics or behaviors used to project those images.

In later work Leary (1996) provided more detailed descriptions of the impressions
or images people try to project. He suggested that these images are a function of both the
situation and the individual involved. He detailed an extensive list of characteristics that
are likely to influence which personal aspects or attributes are managed in a particular
situation. These include a variety of norms related to social behavior, gender, culture, role
and the specific context, as well as the target’s values and expectations and the actor’s
current and private images. In fact, Leary’s (1996) discussion implies that a desired
image is unique to the particular situation and individual. In contrast, I will utilize a
different norm-related process also described by Leary (1996), prototype matching or
correspondence, to propose that there are commonly held desired images within the
employment selection process. I suggest that job applicants actually share some
prototypes as to which type of person is likely to be considered as desirable by an

organization.

The second process included in Leary and Kowalski’s (1990) broad theoretical
category of impression construction is the process of deciding how to create a particular
image. . .“such as deciding whether to create the desired impression via self-description,
nonverbal behavior, or props...” (p. 36). Within the employment interview context, I am
focusing on the most obvious behaviors applicants use, verbal statements. Leary and
Kowalski (1990) cite the work of Jones and Pittman (1982) to provide general
propositions as to how certain impressions are created. Jones and Pittman (1982)
described the impression management goals associated with particular impression
management strategies. However, neither their work nor that of Leary (Leary, 1996;
Leary & Kowalski, 1990) makes particular propositions as to how a certain image will
likely be displayed within an employment interview. In this paper, I seek to make the
connections between the desired images and actual impression management behaviors
more obvious and test a variety of these linkages.

In the interview horror stories excerpted earlier, it is doubtful that the applicants
had an understanding of a commonly accepted and acceptable desired image. Yet, even if
they had, it is possible that they would not know how to translate that image into actions
or possibly be able to successfully enact the impression management strategies. Bozeman
and Kacmar (1997) suggested in their marriage of control theory and Leary and
Kowalski’s (1990) impression management theory that the overall process is iterative,
allowing for the impact of feedback from the audience and learning on the part of the
actor. Leary’s (1996) theory does not preclude this form of learning, but does little to
advance it. I seek to add to overall impression management theory by investigating the

extent to which applicants can, in fact, be directed to enact a particular desired image.

Within this focus on image construction are several additional issues that I will
examine. As described earlier, Leary (Leary, 1996; Leary & Kowalski, 1990) proposed
that the images people seek to create are a function of various personal and situation
characteristics. One of these is the individual’s self-concept. Leary (1996) suggested that
the self-concept serves to limit the impressions people seek to make. Although
individuals tend to display the characteristics of which they are proud, they tend to focus
on those that they actually possess. In addition, Leary (1996) describes the work of
Schlenker (1975; 1980), in which he demonstrated that the image individuals seek to
create is also limited by the way they believe they are or will be considered by the target
audience. In essence, if I know that you have information about me that leads you to
believe that I do or do not possess a particular quality, I will impression manage to that
information. Both of these conditions suggest that the applicant’s impression
management will be shaped by his or her perceptions of self and the particular attributes
possessed. In the present study I propose that the levels of certain attributes possessed by
the applicants will, therefore, serve to limit or enhance the applicant’s impression
management process.

In summary, within the present paper I seek to use Leary’s (Leary, 1996; Leary &
Kowalski, 1990) theory of impression management to enhance understanding of the
impression management process within the context of the employment interview. I seek
to examine two broad research questions. First, what image(s) do job applicants believe
are important to project in the employment selection process, particularly in the face-to-
face interview? Second, can applicants translate a particular desired image into specific

and related impression management strategies? Embedded within this second research

question are several other questions including the extent to which applicant attributes or
perceptions of attributes impact this translation.

My examination of these questions offers the potential for better understanding
the impact of impression management from both the applicant and organization
perspective. If applicants can or can be shown how to translate a desired image into
concrete representations of that image, they will be more likely to be successful in a
variety of job markets. It would then be possible to better prepare job seekers for the
process. As long as the images the applicants portray are accurate reflections of their
attributes, their impression management will be beneficial to the hiring organization
because it will be able to better identify and select the individuals displaying the desired
attributes. In contrast, if applicants are not bound by self-concept or current image as
Leary (1996) suggested, organizations may find the validity of the selection process
reduced by the applicant’s impression management.

Ultimately, the ability to recognize the desired image and translate that into
appropriate impression management behaviors can be extended to a variety of other
organizational contexts. For instance, employees are often called upon to create a
particular image in the eyes of a customer, client, coworker, or supervisor. Doing so can
ofien mean the difference between continued business or employment relationships and
the dissolution of those relationships. In addition, impression management is not just an
individual-level phenomenon. Teams and entire organizations are typically required to
create and maintain particular images. Therefore, gaining a better understanding of the
process within the employment interview context can serve to inform understanding of

more macro-level manifestations of impression management.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORY, AND HYPOTHESES
Chapter Overview

Utilizing the theoretical framework developed by Leary (1996; Leary &
Kowalski, 1990), I will present a model of impression management within an
employment interview context that describes the relationships between the impressions
the applicant identifies as important to create for the interviewer and the actual behaviors
enacted to create those impressions. In addition, I will describe several of the
characteristics of the situation and individual likely to influence the relationships between
identifying and enacting particular images. Within this chapter I will review the literature
and propose relevant hypotheses pertinent to each section of the model.
C larijying the Constructs of Impression Management and Self-Presentation

A review of the impression management literature (Gardner & Martinko, 1988;
Gofi’man, 1959; Jones, 1964; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Leary, 1996; Leary & Kowalski,
1990; Martinko, 1991; Schlenker, 1980; Schlenker & Pontari, 2000; Schlenker &
Weigold, 1992; Schneider, 1981; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984; Tedeschi & Riess, 1981)
suggests that there has been a lack of agreement as to how to label and define the process
by which an individual tries to shape the way he/she is perceived by others. In addition,
some researchers have chosen to focus exclusively on the related construct of self-
presentation (Jones, 1964; Jones & Pittman, 1982) rather than on impression
management. Still others have suggested that impression management and self-

presentation are interchangeable terms for the same set of behaviors (Arkin & Shepperd,

1989; Cialdini, 1989).

In this study I use the term impression management to represent the overall
process of attempting to manage the information presented to an audience and the
resulting impressions created by that information. The focus of that information may
directly concern the actor or may be related to objects or relationships affiliated with that
actor (e. g., resume, previous employer, fiiends). Self-presentation is, thus, a subset of
impression management in which the focus is on presenting information directly related
to the self. This approach is consistent with that taken by Schlenker and Pontari (2000)
who expanded on the definitional approach taken in Schlenker (1980). I suggest that the
overall heading of impression management is always appropriate for “the process by
which individuals attempt to control the impressions others form of them” (Leary &
Kowalski, 1990, p. 34) but may not be clearly descriptive when the focus is on
controlling the personal, self-related information presented to a target audience.

The context of the present study is the employment interview in which individuals
will typically present information about themselves and about the things with which they
have been associated. Therefore, this study will utilize the term impression management
to allow for the possibility of an examination of a broader range of Goffman’s (1959)
performance behaviors. For instance, the inclusive term of impression management will
be applicable to verbal statements about the applicant’s skills, abilities, and other
personal qualities, as well as to statements about the schools, clubs, and jobs with which
the applicant is affiliated. This will avoid the need to categorize the former as self-
presentation and the latter as impression management, or some other variation in

terminology.

Before proceeding with a detailed description of the proposed model, it is
important to clarify an important theoretical and philosophical issue concerning
impression management: the veracity of the images applicants create in the impression
management process. Outside the boundaries of sociology (Goffman, 1959) and social
psychology (Leary, 1996; Leary & Kowalski, 1990), impression management has often
been associated with the presentation or manipulation of false information about an actor
(Paulhus, 1984). This alternative but pervasive perspective typically equates managing
one’s impressions with lying. This implies that if an applicant tries to demonstrate that
he/she is a valuable, conscientious employee, that person must be “faking” or lying. This
connotation of impression management has become commonplace in the literature on the
use of personality measures in selection, but it is not consistent with basic theories
(Leary, 1996; Leary & Kowalski, 1990) of the process.

Most researchers describing the impression management process have made it
clear that the information presented by the actor is not automatically false. This can be
traced to Gof’fman’s (195 9) original perspective that suggested that people my present
false information, but there is no reason to think that lying would be normal or expected
behavior. According to Rosenfeld and Giacalone (1991) impression management
behaviors involve “sincere components of mainstream social behavior” (p. 6). In
addition, Jones and Pittman (1982) stated that even strategic self-presentation does not
have to be false nor be divergent from what they describe as the phenomenal or real self.
Therefore, there is no theoretical reason why all or even most impression management

would be based on the use of false information (Leary, 1996).

10

Given the nature of the employment selection process, it is obvious why
researchers and practitioners are concerned about the extent to which impression
management reflects positive but relatively accurate information about a job candidate.
As a result, many researchers have examined the veracity of information applicants
provide during the completion of a variety of selection devices, with emphasis on the use
of personality measures. To the extent that this research may transfer to the interview
setting, it is important to recognize one of the implicit assumptions inherent in the
literature on faking in personality and other assessments. These studies suggest that
individuals can determine the image they are supposed to create, have the ability to create
this image, and are lying if they do, in fact, manage to create that image.

As described above, there is no theoretical suggestion that all or most images
created are false. Also, as described in the introduction, there has been little work done to
investigate the process by which individuals identify the image they should create, and
even less to determine whether they can actually create the desired image. Therefore, it
would seem appropriate to better examine the impression management process within the
interview context before attempting to identify potential “fakers” or examine the impact
that “faking” has on the outcomes of interviews.

Desired Image

After examining several of the basic characteristics and assumptions underlying
impression management, it is time to turn to the particular aspects of the process that are
of concern to this study. As suggested earlier, I assume that most applicants are
sufficiently motivated by the nature of the interview process to try to influence the

impressions held by others (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Even if an applicant is less

11

interested in a particular job opening, it is not likely that that person would want to
jeopardize his/her self-image by performing badly. The first step in my model, therefore,
is the identification or realization of a desired image (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997). Within
the employment context, the applicant must form an expectation of the type of image
needed to effectively compete for the open position or make a supposition as to what (and
who) the hiring company is seeking.

Once people become motivated to manage their impressions in a particular

encounter, they face the task of deciding precisely the kinds of impressions they

would like others to form. Sometimes, only one impression will achieve their goals
in the interaction, and the choice is clear. In other instances, the self-
presentational choice is quite large. we must choose which aspects of

ourselves to emphasize in a given social encounter. (Leary, 1996; pp. 65-66)
Leary (1996) proposed a number of personal and situational factors that influence the
choice or identification of the desired image. I will briefly examine these factors and then
focus on one aspect of these factors that can predict and explain the process by which job
applicants determine a desirable applicant image.

One of the personal factors that shape a desired image is the current social image
the individual believes he/she represents. The current image is associated with the
information the audience possesses or is likely to possess in the near future. This
constrains the realm of possible images that the individual will desire to create by
suggesting what will be believable to the audience. For instance, if the actor believes that
the audience already knows of his or her strengths and weaknesses, he or she is more
likely to create an image that matches that information. In fact, Schlenker (1975) and

Baumeister and Jones (1978) empirically demonstrated that previous information

impacted the images participants attempted to create.

12

Within the employment setting, the current image may be linked to the types of
information the applicant has already provided the interviewer: application, resume,
letters of reference, and other personal contacts. As Schlenker (1980) suggested, the more
public that information is, the more likely it will impact applicant behavior. Given the
nature of the typical employment practices, especially those for entry-level positions, it is
not always clear how much information any one interviewer has about an applicant prior
to that interaction. For instance, resumes and applications may have been submitted
electronically or mailed to a generic collection point, rather than to a particular recruiter
or hiring manager. Unless the interviewer is displaying that information to the applicant,
it may not be obvious how much he/she knows about the interviewee. This may mean
that the image options an applicant has available are broader in this type of ambiguous
situation, but it is still likely that applicants try to project images that closely reflect their
true characteristics.

The second personal factor Leary (1996) proposed as an influence on the desired
image is the individual’s private self or existing self-image, what Rhodewalt (1986)
referred to as the phenomenal self. In essence, as long as individuals are reasonably self-
aware and not trying to intentionally distort their image, they will seek to create
impressions consistent with their self-concept. As an applicant, therefore, I would try to
present the real me, at least as I see myself. In a related issue, Leary and Kowalski (1990)
proposed that presenting the “real” self is also the result of the fact that most people have
an internalized ethic against lying. Presenting oneself in a way that deviates from the real

self would violate this ethic. Therefore, the image that an applicant will seek to represent

13

will generally be relatively similar to his/her self-image and be at least subjectively
“true.”

In addition to the personal factors of a current social image and the private self,
Leary (1996) suggested that the images individuals seek to create through impression
management are also strongly influenced by two broad situational factors. The first of
these outside influences is based on the desire to live up to the image expectations of the
audience. Leary (1996) proposed that individuals have an underlying goal of matching
the target’s (audience’s) values or preferences. These include both overall and general
values/preferences and values/preferences specific to a particular context. Although these
qualities tend to vary across cultures, Leary (1996) proposed that there is ofien general
agreement as to which impressions are valued within a particular culture. In fact, he cited
a personal study in which students were asked to identify the impressions they did and
did not wish others to form of them. The impressions students indicated were important
to make were appearing friendly, intelligent, attractive, fun, outgoing, sincere, funny,
caring, and easy to talk to. In contrast, Leary’s participants suggested that students do not
wish to be seen as boring, conceited, stupid, obnoxious, superficial, self-centered,
unattractive, or mean. This mini-survey offered some evidence that at least students have
a common sense of what an audience may expect or wish to see within a social
interaction.

The final contextual factor Leary (1996) proposed as influencing the image an
individual will seek to display concerns the overall social context, and in particular the
norms and roles expected as part of that context. Leary (1996) described a number of

self-presentational norms, “norms that are relevant to the impressions people should

14

convey of themselves” (p. 67). These include basic social norms such as maintaining
decorum, modesty, matching the degree and nature of self-presentation of the audience,
presenting oneself consistently across time and situations, and matching the expectations
of one’s gender and culture. Although certainly relevant to the employment context, it is
his description of social roles and the identification of these important roles that may
offer an important lens for understanding how applicants identify the image(s) they
should present in an interview situation.

Leary (1989; Leary & Kowalski, 1990) suggested that individuals rely on the
specifics of social roles (Sarbin & Allen, 1968) to meet the demands of the situation. The
actors invoke the necessary characteristics of relevant roles through the mechanism of
prototype correspondence or matching (Cantor & Mischel, 1979; Leary, 1989).
Individuals will seek to demonstrate a match between themselves and the characteristics
perceived to be critically important for a particular role or position category. For the
typical job applicant, this will involve matching the characteristics perceived important
for the “best” or “desired” applicant role, which is the role the applicant believes will
likely lead to positive employment outcomes, such as additional interviews or offers of
employment.

Leary (1989) illustrated this concept within the context of leadership, but it is
relatively easy to apply to the employment selection context. Absent specific and direct
knowledge of the organization’s preferences for the “desired applicant,” applicants likely
come into the selection process and attempt to match the characteristics and expected
behaviors of a best-applicant prototype. Cantor and Mischel (1979) built on work by

Snyder and Cantor (1979) to suggest the following process: “In the prototype-situation

15

strategy, the actor focuses on the demands of the situation, imagining a prototype of the
ideal person for that situation and using that prototype image to guide his/her own choice
of behavior” (p. 42).

The use of an ideal applicant prototype would seem to be particularly relevant for
the employment selection process. No one, however, has made predictions as to exactly
what this prototype would entail. Therefore, in order to describe the desired image(s)
within an interview context, I will turn to general empirical research on interviews and
other selection devices and the advice offered by the popular press. This combination of
empirical and practical information should yield a picture of what image(s) applicants are
likely to believe are associated with the ideal applicant prototype and which image(s) are
likely to guide their behaviors in the interview context.

A number of studies have examined the applicant characteristics or behaviors
generally seen as desirable from the organization’s perspective. In a pre-screening
context, Brown and Campion (1994) found that recruiters characterized biodata from the
resumes and applications they reviewed as reflecting a variety of ability and other
attributes. These included language, math, interpersonal, leadership, motivation,
intelligence, and “well-roundedness.” Although Brown and Campion (1994) did not
examine the impact of these abilities after applicants had been selected for additional
contact, it is reasonable that these attributes would continue to be important in the
interview stage of selection. This seems to be supported by similar research targeted to
the interview context.

Hakel and Schuh (1971) examined 730 applicant-related statements reviewed by

independent groups of interviewers. They found that interviewers rated 22 items with

16

consistent favorableness and frequency levels across seven occupations and classified
them into two basic categories: personal relations and the attributes of a good citizen.
Posner (1981) interviewed students, and faculty, as well as recruiters/interviewers to
determine which applicant attributes were most important in the selection process. All
three groups agreed that applicants should demonstrate future potential and
communications ability to increase their likelihood of success in the selection process.

Dunn, Mount, Barrick, and Ones (1995) examined the importance of personality
characteristics and general mental ability in managers’ evaluations of applicants. Hiring
managers were given descriptions of hypothetical job candidates and asked to rate the
applicants on hirability. Dunn et al. (1995) found that managers viewed
conscientiousness and general mental ability as most important relative to the eventual
hirability ratings. These findings also suggest a general organizational preference for
candidates who demonstrate higher levels of these attributes.

Taylor and Sniezek (1984) also surveyed recruiters to determine the topics
commonly included in interviews. Their participants demonstrated agreement on four
areas: applicant career goals, career selection logic, communication skills, and
interpersonal abilities. Dipboye (1994) and Harris (1999) examined the content of
structured interviews to conclude that that type of interview was most focused on
identifying the knowledge, skills, and abilities (Dipboye, 1994) and procedural and job-
related knowledge (Harris, 1999) of the applicants. These studies focused on slightly
different constructs, but taken together suggest that there is some consistency in the
attributes generally sought by the organization in a typical interview. These studies

suggest that interviewers tend to emphasize general and specific knowledge and abilities,

17

personality, communication skills, and other interpersonal abilities when seeking to fill a
position.

The meta-analytic findings of Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, and Stone (2001) also
provide empirical support for a degree of consistency in the interview process. Huffcutt et
a1. (2001) examined 338 ratings of interview content from 47 interview studies and
concluded that the characteristics being evaluated in a typical interview are reflective of
seven basic construct categories. The categories Huffcutt et al. (2001) identified, in order
of frequency, were Basic Personality Tendencies, Applied Social Skills, Mental
Capability, Knowledge and Skills, Interests and Preferences, Physical Attributes, and
Organizational Fit.

The Huffcutt et a1. (2001) study suggested that organizations and interviewers and
those researchers who study the employment situation tend to share relatively similar
views of which types of characteristics should be evaluated in an interview. The exact
nature of these characteristics would be determined by the particular job or position being
filled, but it seems reasonable that for many of these categories, applicants with more of
the quality would likely be perceived as more valuable. For instance, applicants who have
strong applied social skills, high levels of mental capability, and greater levels of
knowledge and skills would most likely be valued above those with lower levels of these
constructs. The studies described earlier (Dipboye, 1994; Harris, 1999; Posner, 1981;
Taylor & Sniezek, 1984) suggested that recruiters and interviewers do acknowledge the
importance of these qualities. The question remains, however, as to what applicants

believe is important.

18

In contrast to this research, there has been considerably less attention paid to the
job applicant’s perspective of a desirable candidate. Although limited in its focus,
research on “faking” and distortion in personality tests may offer a glimpse of the image
individuals believe applicants should demonstrate. This rather large body of literature has
sought to determine the extent to which individuals exaggerate or distort their responses
when completing personality inventories as part of an employment selection process. In
the majority of these studies, participants, usually undergraduates, are asked to complete
a personality inventory under varying conditions (McFarland, Ryan, & Ellis, 2002;
Paulhus, Bruce, & Trapnell, 1995; Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, & Powell, 1995). One of
these typically involves the premise of portraying themselves as the best applicants for a
job. Respondents in these studies scored higher on conscientiousness, extraversion,
agreeableness, and emotional stability (or lower in neuroticism) under the applicant
conditions than under other instructional frames. Rosse, Stecher, Miller, and Levin
(1998) found a similar pattern when comparing actual applicants to incumbents on a job.
Taken together, these studies suggest that individuals generally believe that applicants
should display high levels of positive personality characteristics.

Fletcher (1981) conducted one of the only studies that attempted to identify the
common beliefs applicants hold specifically about interviews and self-presentation
strategies. Respondents demonstrated consensus on the importance of seven self-
presentational strategies: being honest, enthusiastic, thorough in response, and willing to
argue a point, maintaining eye contact, admitting lack of knowledge when appropriate,
and selling the self as the right person for the job. The sample was relatively small (63)

and consisted only of undergraduates in psychology. However, the results do seem

l9

consistent with those studies described earlier. In addition, given that many
undergraduates do find themselves on the job market and do complete any number of
interviews, their expectations for the interview are relevant to the present study where the
focus will be on applicants pursuing entry-level positions after college graduation.

Given the large number of resources available to the typical job hunter, it is likely
that most applicants have read or heard information from practical popular-press sources
as to how they should behave in interviews. An examination of guides on interviewing
available in the library of a large Midwestern university revealed a number of suggestions
or directions aimed at job hunters (Eyler, 1996; Hawk, 1998; Krannich & Krannich,

1998; Messmer, 1999; Yeager & Hough, 1990). For example, Eyler (1996) suggested that
interviewees have a number of goals during an interview, which include being interesting
and likeable, avoiding negative impressions, establishing credibility, maintaining a
positive attitude, and showing interest in the company. These certainly match the goals of
basic impression management (Arkin,1981; Baumeister, 1989; Jones & Pittman, 1982; ).

Other authors focused on identifying the qualities sought by employers. Hawk
(1998) suggested that applicants are judged as to the extent to which they match two
basic dimensions of fit: technical competence (KSA’s and experience) and distinguishing
qualities (combination of mental abilities and personality). Hawk (1998) also suggested
that ideal applicants would be clear communicators, self-motivated, team players, hard
workers, and honest. Krannich and Krannich (1998) also suggested that employers
evaluate the education, skills, experience, interpersonal ability, likeability, and
communication skills of applicants. Messmer (1999) concurred that employers are

concerned with both ability and non-ability factors. As a final illustration, Yeager and

20

Hough (1990) described seven key evaluation factors that demonstrate an applicant’s
likelihood of success. These factors included aggressiveness and enthusiasm,
communication skills, success record, rational thought process, maturity, planning and
organizational skills, and reaction to pressure. Clearly, the advice offered to applicants in
these books is congruent with the interview categorization scheme described by Huffcutt
et al. (2001).

Interestingly, the self-help books described above often directly addressed the
issue of creating a desirable image for the prospective employer while still maintaining
self-consistency. For instance, Messmer (1999) suggested, “With a little practice and
experience, you can learn to create whatever impression you want to create during a job
interview. The question, though, is how far you really want to take this skill” (p. 258).
Yeager and Hough are more direct in their advice to applicants, “Being sincere and
forthright, while at the same time targeting your presentation to the needs of the
interviewer, is the best approach” (p. 6). Assuming that applicants follow the advice
included in these books, the earlier assertion that most people do not automatically use
impression management to lie or fake their way through an interview would seem
supported.

Based on the research and practical advice described above, I propose that job
applicants will desire to create or match one or more general applicant prototypes
associated with the employment selection process. These general applicant prototypes
include the following basic characteristics applicable to virtually any job applicant:
hardworking (conscientious), personable (social skills), and smart (general mental

ability). These characteristics are also consistent with the results of Leary’s (1996) survey

21

of students which suggested that desired impressions included appearing sincere,
friendly, outgoing, friendly, and easy to talk to. This suggests that if applicants are asked
which characteristics are associated with and important for creating the image of a
desirable applicant, they will be more likely to identify these three prototypes. This is
further summarized in the following hypotheses:

H] a: Three general prototypes (personable, smart, hardworking) will be

identified with greater frequency than any other prototypes when respondents are

asked to identijjz the image (3) applicants should project in an interview.

Hlb: Three general prototypes (personable, smart, hardworking) will exhibit

mean importance ratings higher than those of other rated prototypes.

It may be possible to identify other prototypical components of the desired image,
but those listed above are consistent with the types of measures generally researched and
implemented in the selection context: personality, general aptitude, and interpersonal
skills. (Huffcutt et al., 2001; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998) Therefore, the prototypes
identified and studied here offer a first attempt at understanding the process by which job
applicants identify the image or images of greatest relevance for the particular selection
process.

Translating Desired Image into Impression Management Behaviors

Once job applicants identify an image that they wish to project in an interview,
the next step in the impression management process would be to utilize one or more
tactics to implement that image and create the desired reaction on the part of the
audience, the interviewer. This suggests that it is necessary to identify the impression

management tactics that would be used within an interview context and predict the extent

to which they are triggered by the desired image. Following the approach taken by Leary

22

(1996), I will focus on two of the impression management behaviors initially proposed by
Jones (1964) and elaborated upon by Jones and Pittman (1982): ingratiation and self-
promotion. This coincides with the emphasis of other impression management research
(Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002; Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Stevens & Kristof, 1995).
Although non-verbal behaviors may occur in the manifestation of these strategies, I will
examine only verbal statements to better reflect the general reliance on verbal interactions
in employment interviews.

I have posited that an applicant seeks to create an image in an interview that
matches one or more applicant prototypes. The general applicant prototypes involve the
projection of an image of being a generally desirable candidate. In the present study I will
examine the impact of two desirable prototypes: personable and smart. The first of these
prototypes, being seen as personable, reflects an image of being pleasant, easy to interact
with, and able to communicate with others. The most obvious intention of this image is to
create an impression of overall likeability, a goal consistent with the impression
management strategy of ingratiation. According to Jones (1964; and Pittman, 1982)
ingratiatory tactics are enacted to increase the audience’s liking for the actor and are more
clearly associated with a generally favorable or desirable image rather than a job-specific
one.

Ingratiation actually includes a variety of behaviors all designed to gain positive
regard from the audience (Jones and Pittman, 1982). In keeping with prior research on
ingratiation, I will focus on two of these behaviors: other-enhancing and opinion
conformity (Ellis et al., 2001; Kacmar et al., 1992; Stevens, 1997; Stevens & Kristof,

1995). Other-enhancing statements consist of directly or indirectly praising or flattering

23

the interviewer (Kacmar et al., 1992). Opinion conformity would be demonstrated with
verbal agreement with various comments, beliefs, or values stated by the interviewer
(Ellis et al., 2001; Kacmar, Delery, & Ferris, 1992). Both of these behaviors or statement
types would help to create the image that the interviewee fits a desirable, general
applicant prototype of appearing personable. In addition, given the social dynamics in
place during an employment interview (i.e. interviewer possesses greater power over the
outcomes of the interview) it is likely that individuals would attempt to build a stronger
relationship with an interviewer by praising him/her or the company or demonstrating
similarities with that individual.

The second general applicant prototype predicted to be relevant for creating a
desired image in the interview process is that of appearing to be smart, or generally
intelligent. This is typically referred to as general mental ability (GMA) or general
cognitive ability and is thought to reflect a basic intellectual capability that extends across
all aspects of work. GMA has been shown to be particularly useful and valid within the
selection process (Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Hunter, 1986; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
Literature reviewed earlier offered evidence that the relevance of GMA in the selection
process and in recruiter preferences is generally accepted (Brown & Campion, 1994;
Dunn et al., 1995; Huffcutt et al., 2001; Hawk, 1998; Messmer, 1999). Thus, applicants
are likely to wish to appear generally smart, able, and competent. This overall goal is
consistent with the impression management strategy of self-promotion, which has been
examined in a number of contexts, including that of the interview (Delery & Kacmar,

1998; Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Franke, 2002; Stevens, 1997).

24

Verbal statements reflecting the aims of self-promotion are believed to be
important within the typical interview setting (Kacmar et al., 1992). Self-promotion
involves the presentation of information that will suggest or confirm that the applicant
possesses general and particular knowledge, skills, abilities, or experience (Jones &
Pittman, 1982). These might be direct statements or indirect examples that demonstrate
what are believed to be the important qualities for the position (Ellis et al., 2002). The
applicant hopes that the interviewer will identify the applicant as smart and capable. To
do this, applicants would provide information that demonstrates that they are, in general,
very intelligent or otherwise qualified for the job. This might include statements about the
applicant’s GPA or general assertions of the strength of the applicant’s abilities.

These theoretical linkages between a desired image and the behavior(s) most
likely to create that image suggest that individuals will emphasize the use of an
appropriate impression management tactic when required. They do not imply, however,
that individuals will only utilize 93 type of tactic. Given the failures described earlier, it
seems likely that individuals will try a variety of tactics but employ one with greater
frequency. In the employment context of the present study, the expected linkages
between image and tactic are likely to be identifiable in two different ways.

First, when jobs differ in the desired image for successful applicants, I would
expect there to be differential patterns of impression management tactic use between the
two jobs to reflect the theoretical image-tactic relationship. Hypotheses 2a and 2b predict
these sorts of patterns:

H2a: Applicants wishing to create an image consistent with the general applicant

prototype of “personable ” will utilize more ingratiatory statements than
applicants wishing to create an image of “smart. ”

25

H2b: Applicants wishing to create an image consistent with the general applicant
prototype of “smart” will utilize more self-promotion statements than applicants
wishing to create an image of “personable. ”
Second, although individuals are likely to use a variety of impression management tactics
within the interview context, theory suggests that they will implement the tactics with
differing frequency. Hypotheses 3a and 3b reflect the differential use predictions:
H3a: Applicants wishing to create an image consistent with the general applicant

prototype of “personable ” will utilize more ingratiatory than self-promotion
statements.

H3 b: Applicants wishing to create an image consistent with the general applicant

prototype of “smart ” will utilize more self-promotion than ingratiatory

statements.
Other Influences on Impression Management Behaviors

I have proposed that absent specific prior knowledge, the typical job applicant
determines the image or impression that he/she wishes to create based on one of several
general applicant prototypes. The applicant may then utilize one or more impression
management behaviors in order to create that image or images. As I suggested earlier, it
is logical to assume that the typical applicant has the desire or motivation to enact the
desirable image. I would, therefore, expect them to utilize the impression management
tactics to do so. Previous impression management research (Ellis et al., 2002; McFarland,
Ryan, and Krsika, 2002) however, demonstrated that certain individuals actually use very
few impression management tactics, even when they should. This suggests that there are

other factors that affect the selection and use of impression management behaviors.

26

Impression Management Training

From the applicant’s perspective, failure to utilize impression management
behaviors can prove detrimental if, in fact, these behaviors do result in positive outcomes
from the audience. Previous research has offered some evidence that using impression
management within the employment context can contribute to obtaining positive
employment outcomes. For instance, Gilmore and Ferris (1989) demonstrated that
interviewers gave higher ratings of performance and slightly more positive hiring
recommendations to applicants who used impression management behaviors. In addition,
Fletcher (1990) found that interviewers rated applicants as more assertive and better able
to express themselves when those applicants had indicated an intention to be assertive in
the interview situation. In a meta-analysis of ingratiation behaviors and outcomes,
Gordon (1996) found a small positive relationship between the use of ingratiation and
performance appraisal ratings and a larger positive relationship between the ingratiation
tactics and audience judgments of interpersonal attraction (liking). In a field setting, Ellis
et a1. (2002) found a positive relationship between the use of ingratiatory tactics and
interviewer assessments.

In general, then, there seems to be evidence that at least some level of impression
management tactics can lead to favorable audience ratings and responses. This suggests
that it may be in the applicants’ best interests to learn how to better present themselves or
manage their impressions within the interview. In the case of entry-level applicants, such
as those graduating from college, it becomes important for those individuals to find ways
to set themselves apart from one another, particularly in times of tight labor markets.

Universities often try to find ways to do this through career center services and

27

educational programs. Yet, as suggested earlier, research has typically demonstrated a
relatively low base rate for impression management behaviors (Ellis et al., 2002;
McFarland et al., 2002). Given the need to observe impression management behaviors in
order to test the proposed image/behavior links, I chose to create and utilize an
impression management training program to increase the likelihood that study
participants will engage in such behaviors within a controlled setting.

The concept and process of interview training or coaching is not new to this
study. A number of researchers have examined the impact of typical forms of interview
training on interview performance (Campion & Campion, 1987; Maurer, Solamon, &
Troxtel, 1998; Maurer, Solamon, Andrews, & Troxtel, 2001; Riggio & Throckmorton,
1988). Results of these studies have been mixed. Campion and Campion (1987) and
Riggio and Throckmorton (1988) failed to find any significant impact of interview
training on interview ratings or outcomes. On the other hand, Maurer et al. (1998; 2001)
found in a field setting that interview coaching did lead to increased interviewer
evaluations. In all of these studies, the emphasis of the training was on characteristics of
the interview process but also included more general interview advice. None actually
explicitly examined the issue of identifying the desired image and then managing that
image through appropriate impression management techniques.

In this study I will use a training program that includes an emphasis on both the
desired image and the behaviors that should be utilized to create that image. This training,
contrasted with an employment-related control training program will be designed to
translate basic impression management theory (Jones and Pittman, 1982) into practical

behavioral suggestions. Again, the assumption is that this program will make it more

28

likely that participants will demonstrate a variety of impression management behaviors
within the controlled context of the study. Details on the exact nature of the training
programs are included in the Method Section.

Actual Applicant Attributes vs. Desired Image Characteristics

In clarifying the construct of impression management, I provided a brief review of
the literature that suggested that impression management should not be equated with the
construct of faking (Paulhus, 1984). As Leary (Leary, 1996; Leary & Kowalski, 1990)
suggested, individuals, including job applicants, may recognize the need to present
themselves in a favorable light. Yet, doing so does not mean that they are presenting false
information. In fact, Leary and Kowalski (1990) proposed that most individuals are
constrained by an internalized ethic against lying so that they will generally not present
false information about themselves. In addition, impression management theory suggests
that other factors may limit the impression construction process (Leary & Kowalski,
1990).

Gardner and Martinko (1988) theorized that the image individuals will seek to
create is limited by a number of characteristics actually possessed by the actor. For
instance, certain demographic characteristics such as age, race, and gender restrict the
image an applicant will seek to match. Obviously, if an older, white, male applicant
believes that a particular job or organization requires an employee who is younger,
female, and of minority status, that applicant will be unable to project the desired image,
no matter how great the motivation for the job. In addition, Jones and Wortrnan (1973)
and Schlenker (1980) suggested that an applicant’s level of status or power and skill and

ability would naturally limit the image they attempt to project through impression

29

management. Although some applicants may attempt to portray themselves falsely, most
will be guided by the overall believability of the image and seek to maintain consistency
with their true self-image (Schlenker & Weigold, 1992).

This emphasis on projecting truthful images has direct implications for the desired
image prototypes described earlier. Gardner and Martinko (1988) suggested that
individuals only create and manage impressions that are based in reality. If the desired
image for a particular job (or in general) is being “smart”, and the applicant in question
does not possess high levels of “smart”, then the applicant will not exhibit many
behaviors designed to create a strong but false image of being “smart.” In effect, this
intention to create images based on reality would nullify or at least reduce the potential
for faking in the employment interview. Therefore, counter to the faking perspective, I
propose that actual applicant attributes moderate the relationship between the desired
image and the utilization of impression management behaviors such that applicants
possessing higher levels of a desired image attribute will engage in higher levels of the
associated impression management behaviors.

For instance, Hypothesis 43, listed below and displayed pictorially in Figure 1,
focuses on the impact of the image and the applicant’s level of social skills on the number
of ingratiatory statements made in an interview. As suggested earlier, it is expected that
applicants seeking to create a desired image of “personable” will utilize more ingratiatory
statements than those trying to create a desired image of “smart.” However, in keeping
with the theory of Gardner and Martinko (1988), I propose that social skills will function
as a moderator of the relationship between the desired image and the use of ingratiation

statements. The result is that individuals with high levels of social skills will make more

30

ingratiatory statements when the image requires it. This is depicted with the obvious
difference in slopes between the lines associated with those with low social skills and
those with high social skills.

When the focus is on the number of self-promotion statements made in the
interview, a similar sort of relationship is predicted by Hypothesis 4b and is displayed in
Figure 2. It is expected that applicants seeking to create a desired image of “smart” will
utilize more self-promotion statements than those trying to create a desired image of
“personable.” Again, this effect will be increased by the extent to which individuals score
highly on the associated applicant attribute, GMA. The greatest number of self-promotion
statements will be made by individuals with the highest levels of GMA. Theoretically,
this prediction, along with that involving the “personable” conditions, is consistent with
the impression management literature which suggests that people will emphasize actual
or true characteristics about themselves when appropriate for the desired image.

H4a: Applicant social skills moderates the relationship between the desired image

and the use of ingratiatory statements, such that people with high social skills will

make the most ingratiatory statements when attempting to appear “personable. ”

H4b: Applicant general mental ability moderates the relationship between the

desired image and the use of self-promotion statements, such that people with

high levels of general mental ability will make the most self-promotion statements
when attempting to appear “smart. ”

I have suggested that, based on a review of impression management literature,
applicant impression management behavior is most likely to be based on a truthful
display of attributes related to the desired image. In contrast, the faking literature would
suggest that individuals are especially likely to display inauthentic images within this

context. The present study offers the opportunity to examine these conflicting viewpoints.

In particular, the use of impression management training offers the possibility to test

31

whether individuals may leam what to do/how to create a particular image and then
implement that strategy regardless of their actual attributes. Earlier, I examined actual
applicant attributes as a potential moderator. With this perspective, it is possible to
suggest that any direct relationship between attributes and the use of impression
management tactics is moderated by participation in training.

If individuals are able to fake their responses in an interview setting, I would
expect that those who have been trained in impression management would be able to
overcome many personal deficiencies in the desired attributes. For instance, even if they
actually possess low levels of social skills (“personable”) or GMA (“smart”),
participation in impression management/interview training would enable them to make
the statements associated with the relevant desired image, to the extent that they are more
likely to be viewed by an interviewer as actually possessing higher levels of the desired
attribute. This suggests that training would compensate for low levels of the desired
attribute, thus reducing the impact of actual attribute levels on the relationships between
the desired images and impression management behaviors. However, as described in
Hypotheses 5a and 5b and displayed in Figures 3 and 4, I do not predict that training will
completely eliminate the impact of the applicants’ actual levels of desired attributes.

Within the contexts of the present study and the faking perspective, the highest
levels of impression management would be demonstrated by those individuals who
possess high levels of the desired prototype attribute and who have received impression
management training. The lowest levels would be demonstrated by those who possess
low levels of the desired prototype attribute and who have not received such training. The

effect of the training would be seen most clearly with those who have lower levels of the

32

desired prototype attribute but who have received impression management training. This
is summarized in the following hypotheses:

H5a: Participation in impression management training moderates the
relationship between applicant social skills and the use of ingratiatory statements, such
that the rank order for number of statements made by the applicants will follow this
pattern (high to low): high social skills/training, low social skills/training, high social
skills/no training, low social skills/no training.

H5b: Participation in impression management training moderates the
relationship between applicant general mental ability and the use of self-promotion
statements, such that the rank order for number of statements made by the applicants will
follow this pattern (high to low): high general mental ability/training, low general mental
ability/training, high general mental ability/no training, low general mental ability/no
training.

Important Control Variables

My proposed model of impression management suggests that applicants in an
interview setting possess at least a general idea of what image is desirable. Then, to the
extent that those applicants possess the attributes relative to the desired image, they will
utilize more/less impression management strategies to create the appropriate impression
for the audience, the interviewer. In order to best examine this basic relationship it is
necessary to also understand and control for the other factors not related to the present
study that may directly affect the implementation of impression management strategies.
A review of theory and research in impression management within a variety of settings,
including the employment interview, suggests that there are a number of other variables
that may impact the use of impression management tactics. These involve other
characteristics of the applicant (actor), interviewer (audience), and situation.

The first variable likely to impact the use of impression management tactics is the

applicant’s gender. Gilmore, Stevens, Harrell-Cook, and Ferris (1999), building on the

work of Ferris and Judge (1991), proposed that gender would impact the use of various

33

strategies based upon its historical relationship with power and status and association
with differential patterns of openness in presentation of information, suggesting a greater
use of tactics by men. In a research setting, Bolino and Tumley (2003) found that men
used more impression management strategies, fitting what they labeled as “aggressive”
impression managers while women were more selective in enacting strategies, suggesting
they are “passives.”

Another individual difference related to the use of impression management
tactics is the construct of self-monitoring. Following from the dramaturgical perspective
that underlies impression management, Snyder (1974) detailed the construct of self-
monitoring to address the extent to which people observe and control their self-
presentations and expressive behaviors. “The self-monitoring individual is one who, out
of concern for social appropriateness, is particularly sensitive to the expression and self-
presentation of others in social situations and uses these cues as guidelines for monitoring
his own self-presentation” (1974: 528). This individual evaluates the situation and then
determines the type of person he/she should be under those conditions (Snyder, 1979).

Self-monitoring has likely implications for the interview context. Bolino and
Tumley (1999) found a positive relationship between the level of self-monitoring and the
use of three impression management tactics: self-promotion, ingratiation, and
exemplification. Fandt and Ferris (1990) found that high self-monitors were more likely
to engage in information manipulation. Given the emphasis on ingratiation and self-
promotion in this study, it is important to measure and potentially control for applicant

levels of self-monitoring within this interview setting.

34

I have suggested that individuals engage in impression management in order to
demonstrate that they match some desired image. This implies that when the situation
requires, every individual should implement some impression management. However,
research (Ellis et al., 2002; McFarland et al., 2002) suggests that many individuals fail to
demonstrate that they actually are desirable candidates. Anecdotally, most hiring
managers are able to describe situations in which a candidate, clearly qualified for the
position, fails to perform well in the interview. One possible explanation of poor
interview performance is that the individual becomes so anxious about communicating
with the interviewer in a situation of heightened importance that he/she is unable to
perform well in that setting. This suggests that communication apprehension
(McCroskey, 1982) may impact the volume of statements made in an interview, thus
reducing the likelihood that the individual will engage in impression management tactics.
Although this is an interesting phenomenon, it is not the focus of the present study.
Therefore, I will measure and control for communication apprehension if necessary.

Another individual difference likely to have a direct impact on impression
management is an individual’s level of interview experience. Gilmore et al. (1999)
proposed that applicants’ experience levels with the interview process would be related to
the use of impression management. Applicants who have had more interviews are
assumed to have a better understanding of the process and are more likely to attempt to
manage the image they create. Fletcher (1990) found that student job candidates with
greater interview experience reported greater intentions to use impression management
tactics in upcoming interviews. Kristof-Brown et a1. (2002) found that individuals who

had prior interview training, typically involving mock interview experiences, engaged in

35

more self-promotion within the interview than did those without interview training. It
would appear that an applicant’s overall experience with the interview may also impact
the use of impression management strategies in the interview.

Interviews are obviously not one-person monologues. The impact of the audience
on the applicant’s behavior is at the heart of impression management. Therefore, it is
important to identify and control for aspects of the interviewer that may influence the
applicant’s impression management strategies. Research by Delery and Kacmar (1998),
found that age, experience level, and organizational tenure of the interviewer were
positively associated with the use self-promotion. In the present study, I will control for
these differences in my selection of interviewers.

Finally, I will also control for the type of questions utilized in the interview. Ellis
et al. (2002) found that even within a structured interview, question format was
associated with different patterns of impression management. In general, past behavior
questions require applicants to describe previous experiences that are related to the
KSA’s relevant to the job. Situational questions are hypothetical in nature and require
applicants to detail what their actions would be if a particular situation were to occur.

In a field setting, Ellis et a1. (2002) found that virtually all applicants engaged in
some impression management activities and that question type was related to the specific
strategies utilized. Situational questions were associated with the use of ingratiation, and
past behavior questions were associated with self-promotion. In the present study, it was
predicted that the “personable” prototype would be associated with the use of
ingratiation. Situational questions likely cue the applicant to engage in these behaviors

because that question type is less bound to specific demonstrations of competence. In

36

contrast, past behavior questions are thought to cue the need to demonstrate competence
(Ellis et al., 2002). This is the goal of behavior I predicted to be associated with the
general applicant prototype of being smart: self-promotion. This suggests that the nature
of the interview itself may lead applicants to rely on one form of impression management
over another. Therefore, in the present study, applicants will be asked both types of
questions for each of the desired images.
Study Summary

In summary, I have used the impression management theory set forth by Leary
(Leary, 1996; Leary & Kowalski, 1990) as a lens to study the process as it occurs within
the employment interview context. I have proposed that job applicants enter the interview
process with a prototypical understanding of what the desired image is in that situation.
They then seek to construct that desired image through various impression management
strategies. Building upon the work of Leary (1996) and others, I proposed that the process
of translating the desired image into specific impression management behaviors is
moderated by the extent to which the applicant actually possesses the attributes
associated with the desired image. In addition, the controlled setting utilized in this study
offers the opportunity to examine the contrasting perspectives of impression management
as bound by an individual’s true self (Leary, 1996) and impression management as the
deliberate manipulation of (typically false) information (Paulhus, 1984). The results of
this study have implications for both the applicant and interviewer within the selection

context as well as for other organizational processes.

37

CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Power Analysis and Recommendations
To determine the sample size necessary for this study, I relied on the process and tables
suggested in Cohen and Cohen (1983) and Cohen (1988). I used the following
assumptions to estimate the number of participants required to achieve a power of .80 in
the resulting statistical analyses: alpha, two-tailed of .05, and an expected medium effect
size of .30, which is typically expected in the behavioral sciences (Cohen, 1988). Based
on these criteria, a minimum sample size of 114 was suggested.
Participants
Actual participants for the study were 108 upper class undergraduates at a large
Midwestern university. They were recruited from a management course primarily taken
by non-business majors. Completion of the study allowed them to fulfill a basic research
requirement within the course. Of those participating, 51% were male and 49% were
female. F orty-five percent were classified as juniors, with the remaining 55% seniors.
This corresponded to a mean participant age of 22.48 (sd = 1.84). Students represented
the following levels of racial diversity: 75% white, 13% black, 7% Asian, 2% Hispanic,
and the remaining 3% indicated multiple races. Finally, participants self-reported 17
different majors, spread throughout a variety of colleges within the university.
Procedures
Participants signed up to complete this study, selecting from a variety of dates and
times available. They were asked to schedule themselves for two sessions to simulate a

typical entry-level selection process. The first session was to complete paperwork similar

38

to that of the application process and to participate in a selection-related training
program. The second session was a 30-minute mock interview.

Once participants were scheduled, each session was randomly assigned to either
the control or impression management training conditions, with the goal of approximately
equal participants in each. In each condition, groups of students ranging between 4 and
18 (mean = 12) met in a classroom setting. Participants were first asked to complete a
questionnaire about which attributes or characteristics they felt important to display in a
typical job interview. They also completed a variety of surveys and tests, including the
Wonderlic Personnel Test, the Self-monitoring Scale, the Social Skills Inventory, and the
Personal Report of Communication Apprehension. Finally, they completed a survey to
determine basic demographic and experiential characteristics.

Upon completion of the surveys and instruments, participants were randomly
assigned to receive a job description that emphasized one of the general applicant
prototypes: smart or personable. These job descriptions are found in Appendix C. The
descriptions were created to mimic a job posting that had been listed on the university
career placement website. The descriptions were identical except for the section detailing
the job requirements. In one case, the qualities listed were components of being
“personable”, including interpersonal/communication skills, ability to make presentations
to others, sensitivity to others, friendliness. In the other description, the qualities listed
were components of being “smart” (Guion, 1998): analytical skills, problem solving
skills, and general reasoning. Participants were given a copy of the job descriptions and
asked to read through them, as well as to review them before the next phase of the

process.

39

The second part of Session 1 involved participation in either impression
management training or general interview training, which was the control condition.
These sessions are detailed below. Upon completion of the training, participants were
given instructions as to how to proceed in Session 2. All participants were asked to limit
discussion of the study with others until the project was completed. They were then given
a basic information sheet detailing the procedures for the second part of the study (when,
where to report). Participants reported to Session 2, the mock interview, within an
average of 16.21 days (sd = 8.74) of completing Session 1. These interviews are detailed
below.

An overview of the experimental conditions is included in Figure 5.

Measures

Major individual difference variables included in the model and measured within
Session 1 of the study included general cognitive ability, personality, and social skills.
General cognitive ability (“Smart”) was measured by the Wonderlic Personnel Test,
which is a short test that provides evidence as to the level at which an individual learns,
understands instructions, and solves problems (Wonderlic, 2002). It contains 50 questions
that are administered within a 12-minute period. The publisher expects internal
consistency to range from .88 to .94 based on work by McKelvie, 1989.

Social skills were assessed through completion of three of the six scales in the
Social Skills Inventory (Riggio, 1986; Riggio & Carney, 2003). This self-report
instrument is designed to measure basic social communication skills. For this study, three
of the dimensions, social expressivity, social sensitivity, and social control, were of

relevance. Social expressivity refers to a general skill in verbal expression and ability to

40

engage others in social discourse (Riggio, 1986) (a = .90). While this appears to be
conceptually related to extraversion, the particular behaviors involved may occur
independently of the personality trait. Social sensitivity refers to the ability to interpret
verbal communication of others and sensitivity to the norms for appropriate social
behavior (a = .84). The third component, social control, includes general skill in role-
playing and social presentation (a = .78). Along with extraversion and agreeableness,
these dimensions were proposed to represent the operationalization of the “personable”
general applicant prototype. Sample items from the 881 can be found in Appendix G.
Items were rated on a scale of 1 (Not at all Like Me) to 5 (Exactly Like Me).

Self-monitoring was measured using the 18-item revised version of the Self-
Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). As recommended by Briggs and Cheek
(1986) and utilized by Tumley and Bolino (2001), a 5-point scale, ranging from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) was used rather than the true-false format used
by Snyder and Gangestad (1986). Two examples of the items included in this instrument
are the following: “In different situations and with different people, I often act like very
different persons. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to
please someone or win their favor (reverse coded).” Internal consistency for the self-
monitoring scale was .74.

Communication anxiety or apprehension was measured with the Personal Report
of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) (McCroskey, 1982). The PRCA-24 consists
of 24 statements related to a variety of interpersonal communication situations.
Respondents indicate the degree to which they agree with each statement using a five-

point scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree). Sample questions include the

41

following: “I am very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting. While conversing
with a new acquaintance, I feel very relaxed.” The PRCA—24 has consistently been shown
to exhibit internal consistency levels of .90 or higher. In the present study, the internal
consistency was .95.

Attributes of the desired image for a typical applicant were obtained following
procedures similar to those used in basic prototype research (Fehr, 198 8). Participants
were asked to think of a typical job that graduating college seniors might seek. They were
asked to identify general knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics that likely
would make the applicant appear attractive and desirable in the interview. Several of
these qualities were given as examples (professional, on-time (punctual), work
experience). Respondents were asked to rate each attribute in terms of its importance for
obtaining a desirable interview outcome, using a scale of 1 (not important) to 5
(extremely important). Finally, they were asked to rate the extent to which they possessed
each of the attributes, using a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a very large extent).

Demographics and interview and work experience were determined through
responses to a series of items. For instance, they were asked to provide estimates of the
amount of experience they have had. (How many job interviews have you had in the last
five years?) They also responded to questions that asked them to rate the extent to which
they have performed a variety of interview activities, using a scale that ranged from 1
(not at all) to 5 (to a very large extent). Examples of the activities they rated were,
“received formal training in interview techniques and received advice from people who
have completed interviews.” The interview experience questions were based on the work

of Fletcher (1990), Delery and Kacmar (1998), and Kristof-Brown et a1. (2002).

42

In both training conditions, participants completed the same short pre-test and
post-test afier the training. This was designed to focus their attention on the main points
of the training prior to completing the interview portion of the study. The pre-/post-tests
were also designed to provide a quick manipulation check that the participants had at
least gained declarative knowledge; those participants gaining knowledge from the
training should have been able to list/repeat the major topics discussed during that
training. The format of the pre-test was similar to a classroom short-answer quiz with
participants being asked to generate basic terms and ideas about the topic of the training.
In fact, participants were asked to respond to the following questions: 1. Which sources
of information might you use to determine what an employer is really looking for in a job
applicant? (List as many as you can.) 2. A successful job applicant usually wants to

demonstrate to the interviewer that he/she is , , , and . 3 Why is

 

it so important that you be honest in an interview?”

In the post-test, participants were asked the same three questions again and then
were asked to identify the most and least valuable aspects of the training. Differences
between pre- and post-test performance should have been related to the topics covered
during the course of the training. They were also asked to rate the extent to which they
planned to use the information on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a very large extent) and
rate the amount learned in the training on a scale of l (I learned nothing.) to 7 (I learned
many new things).

The major constructs of interest and items not protected under copyright are listed

in Table 1. The unpublished surveys used in the study are included in Appendix D.

43

Training Conditions

The impression management training program was created after a review of key
studies of the impact of general interview training (Campion and Campion, 1987; Maurer
etal., 1998; Maurer et al., 2001; Riggio and Throckmorton, 1988). Although the studies
differed in their outcomes, most suggested a similar format for the training. Lectures on
the strategies and tips for effective interviewing were combined with role-plays to allow
participants to become involved in the training. The present training was created to match
this format and utilized sources from the behavioral sciences (Jones and Pittman, 1982),
as well as practical sources of interview advice (Collegegradcom, 2004; Jobweb.com,
2004; Lorenz a & b, 2004; Martin, 2004; Messmer, 1999; Peterson,2004).

The lecture portion of the impression management training program involved two
basic topic areas. The first was identifying what an employer looks for in an applicant.
This, in essence, was to focus attention on the identification of a desired image, although
those terms were never used. The lecture encouraged participants to rely on several
sources of information about a job to determine the requirements or desired attributes: the
job description or advertisement, company information, and current employees. Sample
job advertisements were then shown with the desirable qualities highlighted.

The second portion of the lecture was an application of four of the five self-
presentational processes identified by Jones and Pittman (1982): ingratiation, self-
promotion, exemplification, and supplication, although these were never identified by
name. The fifth strategy, intimidation was omitted from the training for obvious reasons.
The lecture first detailed the four goals that underlie the strategies: appear likeable,

competent, of high moral character, and in need of the opportunity. Then, participants

44

were given suggestions as to how to demonstrate those characteristics. Finally, examples
of possible responses to a series of behavioral interview questions were described.

Participants were then divided up into teams of two or three. They were asked to
assume the roles of interviewer, interviewee, and observer and to rotate through these
roles during the remainder of the training. Participants were asked to assume that they
were applying for the position of an Assistant Event Coordinator. A short advertisement
adapted from a local newspaper was displayed. Participants were asked to study the ad
and try to identify the characteristics it required and those characteristics they possessed.
They then role-played through three different questions. After each question, the
interviewer and observer were asked to provide the interviewee with feedback on the
response. lnforrnal monitoring of the feedback suggested that participants were providing
each other with examples of what to say, reminders about how to say answers, and
general personal advice about the interview process. The training session then ended with
the short post-test that was described earlier and procedural reminders of the second part
of the study.

The control condition was created to mimic the time requirement and general
focus of the interview training. After completing the same measures and pre-test,
participants were given an interview training session that focused on common interview
tips (e. g. what to wear; how to speak). Participants were n_o_t given information on
identifying a desired image or implementing particular impression management
strategies. To ensure that this focus was the only way in which the training programs
differed, participants in the control training completed the same hands-on practice

activity. Also, as in the impression management training program, the session ended with

45

completion of the same short post-test and procedural reminder for the second part of the
study.
Interviews

Upon arriving at the second portion of the study, the mock interview, each
participant was greeted by an interviewer who was unaware of the conditions to which
the applicant had been assigned. The participant was directed to take a seat facing the
camera. The interviewer then read a standard set of instructions to the applicant to
explain the interview and videotape process. After allowing for questions, the interviewer
turned on the video camera. Each participant was given 30 minutes to respond to the
questions, and the interviewer took notes as each was answered. The average time spent
in the interview was 18.38 minutes (sd = 4.46). At the end of the interview, the
interviewer turned off the video camera, thanked the participant, and escorted him/her to
the exit.

Two interviewers were hired to complete the study. They were required to have
had prior work experience to participate. Both were white males in their early 40’s, of
similar stature and hair color. One was a senior graduate student, and the other was a
manager in a local firm. They were trained in the overall interview process prior to their
first interviews. They were also instructed to dress formally, as would be typical in an
interview and discouraged from providing any verbal or nonverbal feedback to the
participants.

The interview consisted of a series of 12 structured questions designed to measure
aspects of “personable” and “smart.” “Personable” questions emphasized the following

components to match the construct definition and job description described earlier: being

46

pleasant, interacting with others, making oral presentations, being sensitive to others’
needs, and active listening. “Smart” questions were also designed to match the construct
definition provided by Guion (1998) and represented in the employment advertisement.
Components of the “smart” questions included solving problems, reading verbal/ graphic
materials, number facility, general reasoning, demonstrating knowledge of principles and
processes, and planning events and procedures.

Previous interview research has demonstrated an effect of question type on the
use of impression management tactics. For instance, (Ellis et al., 2002), found that
situational interview questions (e.g., “What would you do if you were in the following
situation?” were associated with the use of ingratiation tactics. Experienced-based or past
behavior questions (e. g., “Tell me about a time when. . .”) were associated with self-
promotion. The present interview utilized both question formats to control for these
effects. The final question of the interview was developed to serve as a check of the
desired image manipulation. It required interviewees to think back to the job description
they had read and indicate which skills and abilities they possessed that would be
desirable in that situation.

The interview protocol and questions are contained in Appendix F.

47

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

General Information

A basic evaluation of the data suggested that sample means for the main
independent variables (GMA, social skills, self-monitoring, and communication
apprehension) were of levels similar to those found by the publishers and in previous
studies. In general, none of the variables seemed to exhibit evidence of restriction of
range. Evaluation of the dependent variables suggested no restriction of range in the
identification of prototypes and the use of self-promotion statements. However,
restriction of range was a potential problem for the use of ingratiatory statements in the
interview condition; participants exhibited little use of that impression management
strategy.

The fact that ingratiation behaviors tend to be used less frequently than self-
promotion behaviors is in keeping with results of previous impression management
research. For instance, Ellis et a1. (2002) found that although individuals in an interview
situation utilized a variety of impression management tactics, they relied more heavily on
self-promotion than ingratiation. Mean values for each impression tactic, across seven
interview questions, were as follows: m self-promotion: 4.58 (sd = 4.64); m ingratiation:
3.03 (sd = 3.46). In the current study using 12 interview questions, the disparity between
ingratiation and self-promotion was far greater (m self-promotion: 13.74 (sd =6.72); m
ingratiation: .60 (sd = 1.00)). As with the Ellis et a1. (2002) study, the present study used
a structured interview context, which further increased the likelihood that participants

would self-promote more than ingratiate. However, the context of the present study

48

(mock interview) contrasted with that of the Ellis et a1. (2002) study (actual), likely
further reducing the use of ingratiation.
Evaluation of Applicant Prototypes (H1 a & H] b)

To determine the prototypes applicants hold, respondents completed the applicant
characteristics questionnaire, which asked them to indicate which characteristics were
important for interview success and then rate those characteristics for overall importance.
Responses were coded as to the extent to which they fell into one of four categories, each
representing an overall prototype: personal, smart, hardworking, and other. The coding
scheme used was based on the prototype descriptions also used to create the resulting
interview questions, thus providing a set of stable terms or characteristics associated with
each prototype. Each time a participant listed a characteristic associated with a prototype,
the coders indicated a point in that prototypical category (Ex. Friendly = “personable”;
intelligent = “smart”; dependable=”hardworking").

A sample of ten percent of participant responses was coded by both the
experimenter and an independent reviewer who was blind to the purpose and conditions
of this study. The raters averaged 81% agreement across all participant statements.

A more detailed coding scheme is included in Appendix G. The means and
standard deviations of the frequencies and importance ratings associated with each of the
four response categories can be found in Table 2. The frequency data reflects an average
of the total number of statements made within each of the applicable prototype
categories. The importance ratings reflect average ratings on a 5-point importance scale.

Hypothesis la suggested that applicants would identify the general prototypes of

personable, smart, and hardworking with greater frequency than any other prototypes. A

49

t-test indicated that on average, respondents identified the three general prototypes more
than other prototypes (general prototypes: M = 4.33 characteristics listed; other
prototypes: M: 3.39 listed), t (107) = 3.44, p < .01. This offered support for Hypothesis
1a.

Hypothesis 1b suggested that applicants would rate the three general prototypes as
more important, relative to other rated prototypes. A t-test indicated that on average,
respondents did not rate the importance of the three general prototypes higher than other
prototypes. In fact, using a 5-point importance scale, respondents rated the other
prototypes as more important than the general prototypes (general prototypes: M = 3.03,
other prototypes: M= 3.63), t (106) = 4.57, p < .01). This contradicted Hypothesis 1b.

Additional Analyses

In addition to the three general prototypes, participants also identified a number of
“other” prototypes as relevant to the selection process. The participants in the current
study represented a variety of educational backgrounds, but all were taking an
organizational behavior course designed to highlight the characteristics and behaviors
associated with successful management practices. Therefore, I Was interested to see if
there were any consistently identified “other” prototypes. Based on the results of a post-
hoc analysis I determined that the most common characteristics, along with the
percentage of participants endorsing them, were the following: leadership skills (44%),
flexibility (25%), group/team skills (22%), and honesty/integrity (19%). Two of these,
leadership and teams, corresponded to topics covered in the management course from

which participants were recruited. This suggests that not only do applicants rely on

50

multiple prototypes to determine what is important for interview success, but they are
also influenced by non-employment related experiences.

In addition, I examined the relationships among the three general prototypes of
personable, smart, and hardworking in more detail. Comparisons within the general
category found significant differences among the three prototypes in terms of
identification frequency. Participants identified the personable prototype (M = 2.29, sd =
1.48) significantly more frequently than either the hardworking (M = 1.13, sd = 1.10) (t
(107) = 7.37,p < .01) or smart (M= .81, sd= .89) (t (107) = 10.17,p <.01) prototypes. In
addition, participants identified the hardworking prototype significantly more frequently
than the smart prototype (t (107) = 2.81,p < .01).

An examination of the frequency data found that participants rated the personable
prototype (M = 3.96, sd = .93) as significantly more important for achieving positive
interview outcomes than either the smart (M =2.35, sd = 2.16) or hardworking prototypes
(M = 2.77, sd = 2.15) (t (106) = 7.20, p < .01). However, there was no significant
difference in importance ratings of the smart and hardworking prototype categories.
Behavioral Hypotheses

The remainder of the hypotheses in this study pertained to the process by which
an individual translates a particular desired image into relevant impression management
behaviors. Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations between
the relevant individual characteristics and the use of ingratiation and self-promotion

within the interview.

51

Control Variables

It should be noted that I initially theorized that a number of other applicant-related
variables (gender, self-monitoring, communication apprehension, interview experience,
interviewer, and question type) were likely to be related to individuals’ behaviors in the
interviews and suggested that these variables be controlled for either through
experimental design or statistical inclusion. Examination of the relationships among the
variables in the study suggested that gender, social skills, and the interviewer were
related to some or all of the dependent variables. Therefore, in the tests of hypotheses not
involving these individual differences, gender (dummy coded 0 = males, 1= females) and
social skills (as measured with the Social Skills Inventory) will be included as statistical
controls.

Preliminary analyses also found significant differences between the two
interviewers, particularly in the self-promotion measures, despite the fact that one
interviewer completed only 10 of the 108 interviews. Participants had scheduled
themselves for interview times with no knowledge of the interviewer. In addition,
available times were scattered throughout the semester, with no timing difference
between the two interviewers. Although both interviewers followed the written structured
interviews, feedback from the interviewers and preliminary examination of the interview
tapes suggested that the interviewer associated with increases in the dependent variables
had most likely provided more positive non-verbal responses to the participants. While it
is possible to dummy code for interviewer and control for these differences statistically, I
decided to eliminate the small subset of interviews instead. Thus, the total number of

interviews used in the second part of the study was reduced to 98.

52

Interview Coding

As described in the Method section, respondents completed the second portion of
the study by participating in a mock interview. Each respondent’s interview was
videotaped to allow for more careful evaluation of impression management behaviors.
After the videotapes were compiled, the researcher, blind to the specific conditions
associated with each participant, coded the impression management statements made in
each tape. Due to the exploratory nature of the present research, the single coder was
utilized. The coding guidelines and examples of each impression management tactic can
be found in Appendix G.

It should be noted that the coding was done as conservatively as possible, to better
mimic feedback and evaluation of real interviewers. Anecdotal evidence from impression
management researchers has suggested that interviewers often confuse self-promotion
with a simple statement of fact (McFarland, 2005). In the present study, self-promotion
was defined as the presentation of information that will suggest or confirm that the
applicant possesses general and particular knowledge, skills, abilities, or experience
(Jones & Pittman, 1982). Ingratiation was described as including other-enhancing
statements, directly or indirectly praising or flattering the interviewer (Kacmar etal.,
1992), and opinion conformity statements, verbal agreement with various comments,
beliefs, or values stated by the interviewer (Ellis et al., 2001; Kacmar, Delery, & Ferris,
1992). In the present study I did not count comments made using the “you” pronoun as
impression management (e. g., “You need to listen carefully any time you are dealing with

a client”) because they did not involve the direct presentation of information about the

53

applicant (self-promotion) or generally meet the descriptions of either form of
ingratiation.

Across the 12 interview questions, 100% of the respondents engaged in some
level of self-promotion. On average, participants made 13.74 self-promotion statements
per interview (sd = 6.72). In contrast, only 35% of participants utilized any ingratiatory
statements. The overall average number of ingratiatory statements made during the
interview was .60 (sd = 1.00). This reliance on self-promotion is in keeping with results
from previous impression management research (Ellis et al., 2002).

Image Manipulation Check

Within the current study, I performed a basic check of the image manipulation
through responses to three basic questions. First, after completing the 12 structured
questions in the interview, participants were asked to indicate any qualities they felt
would made them a favorable candidate for the job. The expectation was that in this
open-ended question, individuals would list at least a subset of the qualities from the job
description. Analysis of that question showed that only 45.9% of all participants
mentioned any of the prototype specific qualities associated with their corresponding
desired images. A t-test of the image conditions (smart/personable) suggested differing
responses based on image condition. Participants in the smart condition correctly
identified the desired image significantly more than those in the personable condition (m
smart=.76, (sd = .43); m personable = .15 (sd =.36); t =7 .66, p < .01.

Another way to assess the extent of the impact of the image manipulation on
participants involved written completion of a statement at the end of the interview that

asked participants to list the skills, abilities, or qualities required by the job. The coding

54

system used to determine the applicant prototypes was used to determine whether or not
individuals identified “smart” and/or “personable” qualities or skills. Across conditions
78.6% of respondents listed “personable” qualities as required for the job, while only
34.7% included “smart” qualities. An examination of the written lists of important job
skills revealed some interesting patterns. For instance, in the smart condition, 90% of
participants listed personable characteristics and 24% listed smart characteristics. In the
personable condition, 66.7% listed personable characteristics and 45.8% listed smart
characteristics. This is in contrast to the results of the interview question manipulation
check described above. Possible explanations for these conflicting results will be detailed
later, but it is interesting to note that the pattern of written responses seems much more
similar to the responses on the written prototype survey. Therefore, the format of these
checks may have elicited different response sets.

It should be noted here that although a pilot study of the extent to which the
images impacted impression management behaviors was not conducted, a pilot of the job
descriptions was. Prior to the study, a small sample of 12 undergraduates was asked to
review both the smart and personable job descriptions and describe the overall nature of
the qualifications being sought for each. Twelve out of 12 participants clearly and
correctly identified the personable condition, while 11 out of 12 identified the smart. This
suggested that individuals reading the job descriptions should have been able to identify
the main qualifications being sought for the position. Again, possible explanations for the
inconsistencies in the image manipulation in the current study will be described later, but

it seems likely that the time lag between receiving the job description and completing the

55

interview and the fact that participants in this study were instructed but not required to
read the job description likely reduced the potential impact of the image manipulation.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 (image 7‘ impression management tactic)

Hypotheses 2a-3b predicted the patterns of impression management strategies
used when a respondent was expected to demonstrate a particular desired image, either
personable or smart. These hypotheses were examined through the use of hierarchical
regression with dummy coding (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) in order to account for variance
explained by the control variables. For example, when comparing the differences in the
use of ingratiation statements in the image conditions, I coded the “personable” image as
a “1” and the “smart” image as a “0.” If the regression parameter is significant, then the
mean number of statements is significantly different. Statistical power to detect a small
effect (d =.20) was 40% and 89% to detect a medium effect (d = .50; p < .05, one-tailed;
Cohen, 1988).

Hypothesis 2a predicted that respondents in the “personable” image condition
would use more ingratiatory statements than respondents in the “smart” image condition.
This hypothesis was not supported (use of ingratiatory statements in personable
condition: M = .58, sd = .99; use of ingratiatory statements in smart condition: M = .62,
sd = 1.03; A R 2 = .00, B = .04, t = .167, n.s.). Hypothesis 2b predicted that respondents
in the “smart” image condition would use more self-promotion statements than
respondents in the “personable” image condition. This hypothesis also was not supported
(use of self-promotion statements in smart condition: M = 14.56, sd = 7.00; use of self-
promotion statements in personable condition: M = 12.90, sd = 6.37; A R 2 = .00,

B = -.71, t = -.53, n.s.).

56

Hypothesis 3a proposed that within the personable desired image condition
respondents would use more ingratiatory than self-promotion statements. This hypothesis
was not supported (use of ingratiatory statements in personable condition: M = .58, sd =
.99; use of self-promotion statements in personable condition: M = 12.90, sd = 6.37). In
fact, results were opposite of those predicted with the use of self-promotion statements
being significantly higher than the use of ingratiatory statements (A R 2 = .65, B = -12.34,
t = -13.01, p < .01). In a similar fashion, Hypothesis 3b proposed that within the smart
desired image condition respondents would use more self-promotion statements than
ingratiatory statements. This hypothesis was supported (use of self-promotion statements
in smart condition: M = 14.56, sd = 7.00, use of ingratiatory statements in smart
condition: M= .62, sd= 1.03; A R 2 = .66, B = -13.86, t = 44.03, p < .01).

See Table 4 for a summary of results for Hypotheses 2a-3b.

Hypothesis 4: Impact of applicant attributes

In addition to examining the mean differences in the use of the impression
management tactics, I sought to also examine the impact of several other variables on the
process by which individuals translate a desired image into a particular impression
management behavior. Hypotheses 4a and 4b proposed that the relationship between the
desired image and the use of impression management tactics would be moderated by
respondents’ actual level of the desired quality. It was expected that individuals
possessing higher levels of the actual characteristic associated with the desired image
would exhibit more impression management behaviors than those low in the desired

characteristic.

57

Hypothesis 4a proposed that the level of social skills an individual possessed
would moderate the relationship between the desired image and the use of ingratiatory
statements, such that the difference between the number of ingratiatory statements made
in the “personable” and “smart” conditions would increase. I used moderated hierarchical
regression to test for the interaction between image (“personable”, “smart”) and social
skills when predicting the number of ingratiatory statements made. I entered the control
variable applicable to this analysis (gender) in Step 1 of the regression. I entered the main
effects — image and social skills level as measured by the Social Skills Inventory—at Step
2 and the interaction term (image x social skills) at Step 3. This allowed me to isolate the
variance due to the interaction term (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). This hypothesis was not
supported (AR 2 for interaction term = .00, B = -.24, t = -.46, ns). The results of the
regression analyses can be found in Table 5.

Hypothesis 4b proposed that the level of general mental ability an individual
possessed would moderate the relationship between the desired image and the use of self-
promotion statements, such that the difference between the number of self-promotion
statements made in the “smart” and “personable” conditions would increase. I used
moderated hierarchical regression to test for the interaction between statement type
(“personable”, “smart”) and general mental ability. I again entered the control variables
(gender, communication anxiety, and interviewer) in Step 1 of the regression and then
entered the main effects — image and GMA level as measured by the Wonderlic
Personnel Test —at Step 2 and the interaction term (image x GMA) at Step 3. This
hypothesis was not supported (AR 2 for interaction term = .01 , B = -.23, t = -.93, ns). The

results of the regression analyses can be found in Table 5.

58

Training Manipulation

In order to increase the likelihood that participants exhibited impression
management behaviors within the study, I decided to provide them with training in the
interview and/or impression management process. As was described earlier, this also
allowed me to examine the potential impact of training on impression management use,
with the underlying goal of determining whether individuals could be taught to
impression manage falsely. Although the training was not, by itself, a variable of interest
in the present study, it is important to determine whether the format of the training (basic
interview information vs. impression management training) had any significant impact on
interview behavior.

I tested the impact of training through several analyses. First, I examined the
extent to which individuals were able to identify the main applicant goals taught in the
training session. These corresponded to the goals underlying basic impression
management strategies of self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, and supplication.
As described earlier, individuals were asked to answer three questions prior to
completing a training session and the same questions at the end of training (1. Which
sources of information might you use to determine what an employer is really looking for
in a job applicant? (List as many as you can.) 2. A successfirl job applicant usually wants

to demonstrate to the interviewer that he/she is , , , and . 3 Why

 

is it so important that you be honest in an interview?”) The same pre- and post- tests were
used for both the control and impression management training sessions.
Difference scores between pre and posttest performances were determined for

each participant. An examination of the performance changes found that 51.2% of

59

participants had a difference score of +1 or higher, a rough measure of the gain in
declarative knowledge about the applicant/1M goals. The remaining participants showed
no such gain. More importantly, I performed hierarchical regressions to examine the
statistical impact of training on self-promotion and ingratiation. Using the same control
variables as in the other analyses (gender and social skills), I found no significant effect
for training on either the use of self-promotion or ingratiation. Effects of the training
program for that 51.2% who demonstrated an increase in declarative knowledge will be
described later.

Hypotheses 5a and 5b proposed that participation in an impression management
training session would also impact the relationship between the desired image and
implementation of an impression management strategy. Hypothesis 5a predicted that
impression management training would moderate the relationship between applicant
social skills and the use of ingratiatory statements, such that individuals with lower levels
of social skills but who received impression management training would use more
ingratiatory tactics than those without training. Similarly, Hypothesis 5b predicted that
impression management training would also moderate the relationship between applicant
general mental ability and the use of self-promotion statements. Once again, I utilized
moderated hierarchical regression to test for the interaction between social skills/ general
mental ability and impression management training. As shown in Table 6, training did
not moderate the relationship between social skills and impression management (A R 2
interaction term = .01, B = .45, t =.85, n.s.), nor did it moderate the relationship between

general mental ability and impression management (A R 2 = .00, B = .08, t = .30, n.s.).

60

Post Hoc Analyses for Image-Impression Management Relationships

Given the insignificant and/or inconsistent findings reported above, it is important
to determine which factors contributed to the failure in both the image and training
manipulations, as well as attempt to identify which hypotheses might have been
supported by studying the participants for whom the manipulations worked. Each set of
post hoc analyses will be described below under an appropriate label.

Earlier I indicated that a manipulation check was conducted to identify those
individuals for whom the image manipulation (via job description) succeeded. The most
straightforward check involved the final, open-ended question in the interview.
Participants were asked to refer back to the job description they had received and indicate
the skills or abilities important for that job. As reported above, approximately 46% of the
participants correctly identified characteristics associated with the image to which they
had been randomly assigned. Although this only yields a sample of 45, I decided to
further examine the study’s hypotheses using this select group.

One of the first checks I performed was to determine which characteristics may
have differed between the two groups (image worked, image did not work). Although
remarkably similar on virtually all individual difference characteristics, such as level of
social skills and GMA, 84% of the individuals who correctly reported their image
condition were in the smart condition, with only 16% in the personable condition. It is
important to remember that the prior evaluations of the job descriptions showed a
generally consistent tendency to correctly identify the important characteristics being
sought by the fictitious company. Still, this imbalance might have contributed to the null

findings described before.

61

Selecting the participants for whom the image manipulation check was positive, I
reran the previous set of analyses to determine if perhaps the predicted relationships held
when only looking at the proper image manipulations. Hypotheses 2 and 3 predicted the
nature of the impression management behaviors associated with the particular images.
Once again, Hypothesis 2a predicted that individuals in the personable group would
exhibit more ingratiation than individuals in the smart group (AR 2 = .00, B = -.15,

t = -.33, ns). Hypothesis 2b predicted that individuals in the smart condition would self-
promote more than those in the personable condition (AR 2 = .05, B = -4.57, t = -1.56, ns).
Even with the group of individuals for whom the image manipulation worked, there was
no support for these hypotheses.

Similarly, Hypotheses 3a predicted that individuals themselves would rely more
on ingratiation behaviors when applying for the “personable” job, and Hypothesis 3b
predicted they would utilize more self-promotion behaviors when applying for the
“smart” job. Once again, the same patterns of results were found. Basically, individuals
relied more on self-promotion than ingratiation, regardless of whether they were in the
smart or personable conditions, even when they correctly identified the conditions to
which they were assigned (H3a: A R 2 = .89,p <.01, B = -9.29; H3b: A R 2 = .69,p <.01,
B = -14.14).

Hypothesis 4a predicted that the relationship between image and the use of
ingratiation would be moderated by the applicant’s level of social skills. Hypothesis 4b
predicted that the relationship between desired image and the use of self-promotion
would be moderated by the applicant’s level of general mental ability. As with the full

sample, neither hypothesis was supported (H4a: A R 2 = .04, ns; H4b: A R 2 = .00, ns).

62

The actual applicant attributes did not moderate the relationship between the desired
image and the extent to which impression management tactics were used.

Hypotheses 5a and 5b were loosely based on the possibility demonstrated by the
faking literature in personality assessment that individuals could be taught how to present
characteristics associated with a particular image, regardless of whether those
characteristics were actually associated with their true selves. As indicated earlier, there
was no support for either hypothesis within the full sample. When the image
manipulation variable was used to select those for whom the manipulation worked,
Hypotheses 5a and 5b were still not supported for the overall use of self-promotion or
ingratiation (H5a: A R 2 = .02, ns; H5b: A R 2 = .01, ns).

To better explore the present data, I also chose to identify the participants who
demonstrated an increase in declarative knowledge about the use of impression
management in the interview process. Those individuals for whom the pre-post test
difference variable was positive were selected (N=53). There were no significant
differences on any of the individual difference variables between those individuals who
demonstrated an impact of training and those who did not, including the participants’
distributions in the image conditions. Yet, I hoped that if those individuals had learned
something in the interview training programs, they might be better suited to demonstrate
the relationships between images and impression management behaviors.

The first two sets of hypotheses (H2-H3) were reanalyzed using the reduced
sample. Once again, image was not associated with the use of a particular impression
management strategy (HZa: A R 2 = .00, ns; H2b: A R 2 = .00, ns). Also, once again,

analyses of the restricted sample found that individuals still relied more on self-

63

promotion tactics than ingratiation (H3), regardless of the image to which they had been
assigned (H3a: A R 2 = .61,p<.01, B = -12.73; H3b: A R 2 = .63,p<.01,

B = -13.30).Although the training had some impact on those participants, it did not
appear that what they learned was translated into the expected image-behavior
relationship.

The next pair of hypotheses (H4a, H4b) was once again rerun to utilize data only
from those demonstrating a positive impact from the training. Hypothesis 4a predicted
that the relationship between desired image and ingratiation would be moderated by level
of social skills. This hypothesis was not supported, even with those for whom training
worked (A R 2 = .01, ns). Hypothesis 4b predicted that the relationship between the
desired image and self-promotion would be moderated by level of general mental ability,
such that individuals higher in general mental ability would self-promote more than those
lower in general mental ability. When training seemed to increase declarative knowledge,
this relationship was significant (A R 2 = .08, p < .05). The form of this interaction is
graphed in Figure 6.

The final pair of hypotheses (H5a, H5b) was also reanalyzed, using data only
from those participants seemingly affected by the impression management training
program. Hypothesis 5a predicted that training would moderate the relationship between
applicant social skills and the use of ingratiation. Hypothesis 5b predicted that training
would moderate the relationship between applicant general mental ability and the use of
self-promotion. With the reduced sample, neither hypothesis was significant

(H5a: A R 2 = .00, ns; H5b: A R 2 = .00, ns).

64

Following the analyses with the individuals for whom training worked, I also
identified the sample of participants who demonstrated that both the image and training
manipulations worked. The resulting sample was only 25 individuals. The entire set of
behavioral hypotheses was run using this small sample, but no new relationships were
discovered. Once again, the relationships within participants by which individuals were
found to self-promote more than ingratiate, regardless of the image condition, was still
significant (H3a: A R 2 = .9l,p<.01, B = -9.00; H3b: A R 2 = .68,p<.01, B = -12.81)

It was briefly mentioned earlier in the description of the coding process used with
the videotaped interviews that behaviors were coded as either one of two forms of
ingratiation (opinion conformity, other enhancing) or one of three forms of self-
promotion (self-promotion of skills, self-promotion of personal traits, self-promotion of
other characteristics). For the original analyses and those just described using the sub-
samples for whom one or both manipulations worked, the dependent variables were
composites or totals of the separate impression management tactics, yielding one value
for self-promotion and one for ingratiation. In returning to the data in an attempt to better
understand what had happened in the present study, I broke these overall impression
management tactics into their individual components and reassessed the predicted
relationships where the components of the dependent variables would be considered valid
measures. Also, once again, I performed multiple analyses using the full sample, and the
samples selected by the success of the manipulations.

Given all these analyses, only two new relationships were found to be significant.
Again, although I will describe those relationships here, it must be considered that these

findings may be due to chance; a total of 160 new analyses were run using the individual

65

dependent variables, rather than the composites. By chance alone, I would expect 8-16
relationships to be significant. Still, for completeness sake, I will describe these
additional findings. First, when using the sample of participants for whom the training
had an impact (N =53), I discovered that general mental ability moderated the relationship
between image and the use of self-promotion (H4b), when that involved the self-
promotion of personal (rather than skill or other) characteristics (A R 2 for the interaction
term= .11, B = -.48, t = -2.62, p < .01). This relationship is pictured in Figure 7.

The other result that emerged from these detailed analyses was that within the
sample of individuals for whom the image manipulation worked (N =45) training did
moderate the relationship between social skills and the other enhancement category of
impression management (H5a) (A R 2 = .09, B = .22, t = 2.15, p < .05). This relationship
is pictured in Figure 8.

Within the Method section I described the nature of the interviews conducted in
the present study. As indicated there, individuals answered 12 structured interview
questions and one open-ended question (used as an image manipulation check). Because
prior research (Ellis et al., 2002) had found an effect of interview question on the use of
impression management tactics, I created a mix of interview questions that were crossed
by question format (situational, past behavior) and question topic (smart, personable).
There were three questions within each cell of the resulting 2 x 2 matrix to yield an
interview of a more realistic length. For the main analyses described above, individuals’
interview responses were coded first as subsets of self-promotion (s-p skills, s-p personal
traits, s-p other traits) and ingratiation (opinion conformity, other enhancement) and later

as totals for overall self-promotion and ingratiation. These values were found by

66

summing behaviors across the 12 structured interview questions, thus yielding overall
interview values.

While these sums make sense when thinking about impression management
within an entire interview, they do not provide a detailed picture of individual responses
throughout the course of the interview. For example, as a whole, participants tended to
self-promote more than they ingratiated. Breaking it down further, individuals seemed to
use the three forms of self-promotion differently. Initial inspection of the data suggested
that certain questions likely were associated with different types of impression
management. Therefore, it made sense to examine the impact that question format
(situational/past behavior) and question topic (smart/personable) had on the use of
impression management behaviors.

The same self-promotion and ingratiation dependent variables described above
(self-promotion total, s-p skills, s-p personal, s-p other, ingratiation total, other
enhancement, and opinion conformity) were first calculated within question format
groupings (situational vs. past behavioral) and question topics (smart, personable), such
that each group of questions had its own set of dependent variables. The intention was to
utilize these subcomponents to determine if differential behavior patterns emerged
between individuals, depending on how the dependent variables were calculated. A
preliminary check of the reliability of these groupings, using a typical internal
consistency measure indicated that these categorizations were not internally consistent.
Alpha levels ranged from .31 to .51, depending on the dependent variable of interest.
Thus, I felt that it was infeasible to utilize these dependent variable formats in any further

analyses.

67

At the individual level, it became apparent that there were differential patterns of
self-promotion behaviors by question. So an additional post hoc analysis was conducted
to test the impact of question format (situational, past behavior) and question topic
(smart, personal) on the use of impression management. In essence, the question became,
to what extent do individuals tailor their responses based on the nature of the questions
being asked. Prior research had indicated an effect of question format. For instance, Ellis
et a1. (2002) found that situational questions tended to elicit ingratiation behaviors, while
experience-based, or past behavior questions, elicited self-promotion behaviors. In the
present study, questions were combinations of these formats and the topics listed above.
Therefore, I conducted a test of these moderated relationships using the 2 x 2
combination of question formats and topics and the various impression management
behaviors.

The question format by topic relationship was significant for both the self-
promotion of skills and personal traits variables. For the self-promotion of skills variable,
the interaction of format and topic was significant (A R 2 = .01, B = -.37, t = -3.82,

p < .01) and for the self-promotion of personal traits, the interaction of format and topic
was also significant (A R 2 = .03, B = .66, t =6.87, p < .01). The summary of results for
both analyses, detailing both main effects and interactions can be found in Table 7.
Graphical representations of these relationships can be found in Figures 9 and 10. In both
cases, data suggests that individuals do tailor their use of impression management tactics
based on the format and topic of the questions. This may help explain the lack of impact
of image as created by the job description. Further interpretation. of these results can be

found in the Discussion section.

68

In the initial description of prior impression management research, it was
predicted that a number of other variables would likely be needed as control variables
because they had been shown previously to be related to the dependent variables, the use
of impression management tactics. These variables included gender, self-monitoring,
communication apprehension, social skills, and interview experience. As reported earlier,
only gender and social skills were shown to have any direct relationship with the
variables of interest. Therefore, those variables were included as controls where
necessary.

It is possible, when considering the impact of these individual difference variables
that rather than having a direct impact on the use of impression management, they may
moderate the important relationships being studied here. For instance, in the predicted
relationships between image (smart, personable) and impression management tactic and
training (impression management, control) and impression management tactic, it is
possible that the individual difference variables serve to moderate those relationships. For
instance, perhaps the personable image is associated with the use of ingratiation when
individuals have had a great deal of experience with interviews rather than for those
individuals new to interviewing. Similarly, perhaps communication apprehension serves
to moderate the relationship between image and impression management, such that those
who suffer from higher levels of this anxiety are less likely to impression manage under
the smart condition. The possible moderating effects are numerous, given these important
individual difference variables.

These arguments led me to test the possible moderating effects of each of the

individual difference variables on the relationships between image and impression

69

management and training and impression management. Once again, I used both the
composite measures of impression management (self-promotion and ingratiation) and the
individual components (self-promotion skills, self-promotion personal, self-promotion
other, opinion conformity, and other enhancement). No significant moderating effects
were found. This suggests that both gender and social skills are best treated as main

effects.

70

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

This chapter summarizes the study results and discusses the theoretical and
practical implications. It also includes a description of several limitations of the study. In
addition, future research needs are discussed throughout the chapter.

Overview of Problem and Theory

According to Goffrnan (1959) impression management is a normal and expected
part of every social interaction. It is expected that this would certainly hold true for the
process of employee selection, in general, (F eldman & Klich, 1991; Kacmar & Carlson,
1999) and the employment interview in particular (Kacmar & Carlson, 1999). Yet
anecdotal (Messmer, 1999) evidence suggests that individuals do not always properly
manage the impressions they create for interviewers.

Why do applicants fail to create the sort of image that will land them a job or at
least additional interviews or other selection processes? Leary (1996) and Leary and
Kowalski (1990) suggest that a potential explanation is that individuals fail in their
impression construction activities. In particular, two basic explanations are that
individuals identify the wrong image they wish to create through impression management
or that they identify the correct image but are unable to translate that into appropriate
impression management behaviors or tactics. Little to no research has been conducted to
address these issues. Therefore, the present study sought to study the extent to which job

“applicants” identify particular characteristics as important for interview success and the

71

ways in which individuals attempt to translate a particular desired image into specific
impression management behaviors.

In particular, I sought to identify the extent to which individuals identified three
prototypes (smart, personable, hardworking) as associated with applicants who are
successful in employment interviews. I also attempted to manipulate the desired image
(smart, personable) to test the extent to which individuals are able to translate the image
being sought by the hiring organization (via a job description) into the specific
impression management tactics of self-promotion and ingratiation as described by Jones
and Pittman (1982). In addition, I utilized two interview training programs (impression
management-related, general interview tips) to investigate whether individuals could be
helped to impression manage more and/or more effectively.

Applicant Prototypes

Participants were asked to identify the characteristic prototypes associated with
individuals who receive second interviews, job offers, etc., as well as the importance of
those characteristics in achieving a positive outcome in the interview. Using basic
prototype methodology, I found support for the first hypothesis; participants did identify
the prototypical characteristics of smart, personable, and hardworking with greater
frequency than all other characteristic prototypes. In particular, there seemed to be an
emphasis on the personable prototype, which was listed with greater frequency than
either the smart or hardworking prototypes. When it comes to identifying important
prototypes for interview success, applicants apparently first think of the personal and

social skills that are involved in interacting with others, particularly interviewers.

72

Participants in the study demonstrated some consistency in the “other” prototypes
they generated. As described earlier, 44% of participants suggested that demonstrating
leadership characteristics is an important prototype for ensuring success in the
employment interview. In addition, common responses also included flexibility,
group/teamwork, and honesty. One thing important to consider is the nature of the
educational experiences of the study participants. These individuals were recruited from a
management course designed for non-business majors. Interestingly, two major topics
and components of that course are leadership and teamwork. In addition, most sections of
that course have some emphasis on ethics, in light of recent corporate events, and the
dynamism of business. That may help to explain the characteristics listed within the other
category. It also suggests that individuals in this early career phase may utilize various
sources from their education to determine what organizations and recruiters may be
looking for in a job candidate.

Although these participants identified the three prototypes of personable, smart,
and hardworking more frequently than the other prototypes, they rated the other
prototypes as more important for interview success than the three general prototypes.
This suggests some contradiction in the identification of the prototypical characteristics
or images individuals associate with the selection process. One possible explanation for
this contradiction is that potential applicants consider the general prototypes of smart,
personable, and hardworking as necessary but not sufficient for interview success. They
may perceive these images as something that should be enacted at a minimum, but not as
something that will make an applicant successful over others in the interview. In essence,

if I am interviewing for a job, I have to appear to be smart, personable, and hardworking

73

to be considered at all, but it is my management of other impressions (leader, team
player, adaptable) that will actually get me another interview or an actual job offer. These
other prototypical images are what will distinguish me from the competition.

One of the findings about the identification of desired image prototypes was the
under-identification of the smart prototype. The behavioral results described later will
suggest that individuals are actually sensitive to this prototype. When asked to generate a
list of characteristics, they relied more heavily on the other prototype characteristics. This
may have been the result of a misinterpretation of instructions for the desired prototype
survey. For instance, the basic instructions asked respondents to think of a typical job a
student might want following graduation and envision themselves as the interviewer
seeking to fill that position. They were then asked to think of the following: “On top of
the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other qualities required for the specific position, what
other, general, qualities would you look for in the applicants?” Additional instructions
reminded them to write as many characteristics as they could that would be associated
with someone who would “obtain a second interview, site visit, or offer of employment.”

Given the fact that they were asked to discount the knowledge, skills, and
abilities. . ., they may have determined that “smart” characteristics were included in this
list. The instructions were intended to prevent respondents from listing the characteristics
associated with a very specific job title. It is possible, however, that smart became a
“given” for any job and thus not listed. It would be valuable to ask another sample of
individuals to describe their interpretation of the instructions, in order to determine if this

misinterpretation did impact the results of the current study.

74

Behavioral Hypotheses-Impact of Desired Image

The second portion of the study examined the extent to which individuals utilized
various impression management tactics within a mock interview situation. For instance,
Hypotheses 2a and b predicted that individuals would associate and use particular
impression management tactics as a result of the desired image being sought by the
“employer.” In particular, I predicted that individuals attempting to create an image of
“personable” would rely on ingratiatory statements, while individuals attempting to
create an image of “smart” would rely on self-promotion. At least as manipulated in the
present study through the use of varying job descriptions, there was no impact of image
on the use of these impression management tactics, no matter how the data was
aggregated or approached.

Information described in the Results section suggested that there were two basic
means for conducting a manipulation check of the desired image conditions. The first
check, the final, open-ended interview question that asked individuals to list qualities
important for the current job, was the one utilized to statistically identify those for whom
the manipulation had worked. Examination of this statistic, yielded some interesting
results. First of all, only 45.9% (about 45 individuals) of all participants correctly
identified the desired image to which they had been randomly assigned. Of that 45.9 %,
76% (34) were in the smart condition and the remainder in the personable condition.
Although a small pilot sample had been able to identify the desired image of each of the
job description manipulations, participants in the main study apparently could either not
identify the image, had not tried to identify the image, or else could not remember it

when asked.

75

The second way in which the image manipulation check was performed involved
a written list of qualities individuals were asked to generate following the interview. With
this open-ended, written question, results were quite different from the verbal interview
response. In fact, 78.6% (about 77) of the participants identified personable traits as being
required in the job and the rest smart. This pattern remained the same within the two
image conditions. It would appear that these two question formats yielded very different
results. The written question and the corresponding results are similar to those of the
initial applicant attributes questionnaire and may reflect the same, general viewpoint
about the interview process rather than the specifics of the job for which individuals
interviewed.

Thus far, the present study has suggested that individuals share some common
ideas as to which qualities are associated with successful applicants. The second, overall
research question was to what extent individuals are able to translate a particular image
into specific impression management behaviors. It is clear from the manipulation check
that at least as presently worded, the initial proposition (Hypotheses 23 & 2b) can not be
tested properly here because participants did not clearly realize the image desired for the
job.

There are several reasons why the image manipulation may have failed. First of
all, it is possible that the wording in the job descriptions was not sufficiently clear or
obviously associated with a particular prototype. Qualities associated with each prototype
were included in a description of job qualifications. Given the prose-format of this
information, it is possible that it simply did not stand out. Perhaps a listing of the

qualifications would have been more effective. Secondly, it is possible that participants

76

simply did not process the job description properly. For instance, anecdotal evidence
suggested that a number of individuals never actually read the job description before
attending the mock interview. Interestingly, the lack of knowledge about the job seems to
echo recruiters’ complaints that applicants do not come to interviews prepared with an
adequate knowledge of the job for which they are applying (Messmer, 1999).

This suggestion that applicants go into an interview without a clear understanding
of what a recruiter may be seeking, has several implications for the theory being tested
here. First of all, if individuals do attempt to enact a desired image through impression
management, perhaps they rely on more situational or current cues, such as what occurs
within the interview itself. Or, perhaps overall desired image does not actually drive
impression management behaviors. Maybe behavior patterns are more individualistic so
that individuals have a tendency to behave or impression manage according to their own
style within social interactions. This raises the interesting possibility that no image
manipulation would have led to the predicted results and provides a potential direction
for future research.

It must also be mentioned that some may suggest that given that the interview was
a mock one — individuals did not actually stand to win/lose a job—participant motivation
was too low to be affected by any manipulations. Although this was a mock interview,
applicants were still under a great deal of pressure to look their best, or at least to avoid
looking foolish. Conditions were designed to elicit this motivation. For instance, the
interviews were conducted in an office setting, with the interviewer sitting behind the
desk. The interviewers were sufficiently older than the participants and dressed in

traditional formal business dress. In addition, the interviews were taped, which also

77

heightened the participants’ self-consciousness. It was evident in my coding of the
interviews, that most people at least began the process with visual and auditory symptoms
of nervousness. This was independently confirmed by interviewer reactions and even
participant self-reports. So, it would seem that any lack of results was not due to a lack of
motivation on the part of participants.

One assumption of the present study was that individuals are likely to use a
variety of impression management techniques, even if they do tend to emphasize a
particular one. Hypotheses 3a and b predicted that within each image condition (smart
and personable), individuals would tend to utilize more frequently the tactic theoretically
associated with that image. I proposed that individuals in the personable condition would
ingratiate more than self-promote, and individuals in the smart condition would self-
promote more than ingratiate. The personable-ingratiation relationship was not supported,
while the smart-self-promotion prediction was. It must be noted, however, that in reality,
individuals self-promoted more than they ingratiated, regardless of the image they were
supposed to be portraying.

This reliance on self-promotion is actually in keeping with previous impression
management research (Ellis et al., 2002) that demonstrated that ingratiation behaviors are
generally less likely to occur, particularly in structured interview settings. Given the
discussion above about the failure of the image manipulation and the possible
explanations, this finding could be considered in a different light. Perhaps individuals just
find it easier to self-promote than ingratiate, especially in situations where the interview
is closely controlling the path of the conversation within the interview. Also, given the

negative connotation that ingratiation often has (brown-nosing, kissing-up, etc.), perhaps

78

individuals simply feel more comfortable and confident about directly presenting
information about themselves. Perhaps desired image is simply not considered as a
relevant factor by individuals within key social interactions.
Behavioral Hypotheses-Applicant Attributes and 1M Training

It was reported in the Results section that roughly only half of the participants in
the study demonstrated any gain in declarative knowledge of the interview and/or
impression management process. Thus, it is not surprising that the training manipulation
failed to have any overall impact on the proposed relationships. Although individuals
who did demonstrate some change in knowledge did display some significant behaviors,
the question here is why did the training not have a stronger impact on the participants?

There are several potential weaknesses with the training program and/or process
used here. When I created the impression management training, I attempted to provide
information about various impression management strategies without deliberately
identifying those behaviors. There is the possibility, therefore, that the description of the
behaviors was simply not obvious or strong enough to create a new knowledge base. It is
also possible that participants failed to take the training seriously. Motivation during the
longer “application” phase of the study may have been lower than that during the
interview phase because there was no real pressure on participants. Although everyone
participated in a role play exercise, feedback on their responses came from fellow
students. It may be that more structured, authoritative feedback Would have helped
impact participants’ understanding of the process.

It is also possible that by its very nature, interview training is ineffective. Earlier,

I described that there were mixed results in prior interview training research. For

79

instance, Campion and Campion (1987) and Riggio and Throckmorton (1988) failed to
find any significant impact of interview training on interview ratings or outcomes. It may
be that the impression management process is simply too complex to be easily altered by
a class-like training program. This was a one-time experience. Perhaps more repetition of
the key points would have led to an increase in knowledge and/or eventual transfer of
training. One way to determine the potential of a training program is to examine the
impact on the individuals for whom the existing manipulation did work. Those results
were described earlier in the Results section and will be described in more detail below.
Hypotheses 4a and b were designed to examine the impact that actual applicant
characteristics had on the translation of a desired image into the associated impression
management tactic. It was predicted that individuals actually possessing higher levels of
the associated characteristic (smart = general mental ability; personable = social skills)
would utilize even more of the tactic. This was based on impression management theory
(Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker & Weigold, 1992)
which suggests that individuals tend to project relatively accurate or truthful images of
themselves. Therefore, “smart” people applying for a job requiring “smart” people would
be expected to self-promote more than others. Individuals high in social skills would be
expected to ingratiate more when applying for a job designed for “personable”
individuals. Neither hypothesis was supported when the full data set or one containing
only those individuals for whom the image manipulation worked was analyzed.
Hypothesis 4b (training moderates the relationship between GMA and self-
promotion) was significant, however, within the group of individuals for whom the

training manipulation was significant. The first analysis used the overall self-promotion

80

variable. Counter to my predictions the moderation exhibited a completely crossed
relationship, as Figure 6 indicates. For those individuals higher in general mental ability,
the relationship was generally as expected with higher levels of self-promotion in the
smart condition. Contrary to prediction, however, individuals lower in general mental
ability actually self-promoted more in the personable condition when compared to the
smart. In essence, they self-promoted most in what is theoretically the wrong situation.

When the dependent variable was broken down into components of self-
promotion, interpretation of the interaction changed. For instance, the moderated
relationship was only significant when using the self-promotion of personal traits
variable. Logically I expected that individuals would self-promote personal traits more in
a condition that valued personal traits (almost viewing this form of self-promotion as
representing the same goals as ingratiation). However, in this study it was those lower in
GMA who seemed to better match their behaviors to the image condition, self-promoting
personal traits more in the personable than smart conditions. In contrast, individuals
higher in GMA seemed less able to promote personal traits in the condition best suited to
that practice.

Hypotheses 5a and b were proposed in contrast to Hypotheses 4a and b, using the
basic assumption underlying the faking definition of impression management (Paulhus,
1984) as applied to the employment interview. As described earlier, impression
management is sometimes thought to reflect a deliberate attempt to create a false image
in an effort to obtain a positive outcome. So, in the interview context, the concern is that
individuals could create a false impression that they matched the desired image for a

particular job, and thus be selected for a job that they actually are not qualified to fill.

81

In this study, it was proposed that the relationship between an individual’s actual
qualities and the use of related impression management tactics (assumes a main, not
moderated, effect or role for social skills and general mental ability) could be affected by
participation in an impression management training program. In essence, individuals
possessing lower levels of the desired characteristics would still be able to present
themselves as matching that image by utilizing more impression management tactics. As
with Hypotheses 4a and b, there was no support for this moderated relationship across the
full sample.

Once again, additional analyses were run on the sub-samples of participants for
whom the image manipulation and/or training manipulation showed evidence of impact.
Only one additional relationship was found to be significant within that sub-sample who
demonstrated an effect of the image condition. In that case, the prediction that training
would moderate the relationship between social skills and a particular form of
ingratiation, other enhancement, was supported. As predicted by Hypothesis 5a,
impression management training did lead to a greater use of other enhancement tactics,
regardless of actual level of social skills. Interestingly, however, individuals with higher
levels of social skills only used this form of ingratiation more when trained to do so. This
suggests that individuals can be trained to use this ingratiation tactic even when they
possess lower levels of the accompanying attributes, but that the trained individuals who
use this tactic most do have more of the skills to support it.

One of the remaining sets of post—hoc analyses sought to better understand the
pattern of impression management tactics individuals used in response to the various

types of questions in the interview. As described previously, the interview consisted of

82

questions representing two formats (situational, past behavior) and two major topics
(smart, personable). Prior research (Ellis, et al., 2002) suggested that past behavior
questions tend to elicit self-promotion while situational questions are associated with
ingratiation. The additional question in the current study was to what extent does the
major content or topic of the questions serve to direct responses?

Using the same theoretical arguments provided here about the expected
relationship between image and behavior, one might expect a similar relationship when
looking at the topic of the question. This assumes that individuals listen carefully to a
particular question and then attempt to provide the appropriate information from the use
of impression management. So, for instance, when a particular question focuses on a
personable issue, individuals should present personal-type information through
ingratiation and perhaps even the self-promotion of personal traits. In contrast, when a
question focuses on a smart issue, individuals should present skill-related information
through self-promotion, and particularly through the self-promotion of skills.

In this analysis the impression management tactics were once again broken down
into the individual components. Largely due to the small base rate for the ingratiation
measures, there were no significant relationships among topic and format when using
these variables. This supported the informal impression as to the differential patterns
involved in impression management in the interview. With both the self-promotion of
skills and personal traits, however, question format significantly moderated the
relationship between the question topic and self-promotion of skills and personal traits.

As Table 8 and Figure 9 indicate, past behavior questions were associated with

higher levels of self-promotion of skills. In addition, individuals self-promoted skill

83

information more when the question was about smart (skill) characteristics or issues. The
statistically significant interaction of question topic and format suggests that question
topic has the strongest impact when the question format was past behavioral.

Also as expected and indicated in Table 8 and Figure 10, past behavior questions
were associated with higher levels of self-promotion of personal traits. Similarly,
individuals self-promoted personal traits more when the question was about personable
characteristics or issues. Once again, the effect of question topic was heightened when
the question format was past behavioral.

Taken together, these analyses provide an interesting glimpse at applicant
impression management behavior. Even though the image manipulation did not work in
the present study, participants did tailor their responses. When asked to answer questions
related to smart issues, they highlighted their smart qualities through self-promotion of
skills. When asked to answer questions related to personable issues, they highlighted their
personable qualities through self-promotion of personal traits. Even though the
personable-ingratiation link was not supported, it seems likely that individuals are
attempting to reach the same outcome by telling the interviewer how personable they are,
rather than doing it indirectly through ingratiation.

This suggests that the impression management process may be far more complex
than the basic process theories have suggested. Rather than relying on an overall image to
guide impression management behaviors, individuals may rely on cues provided in the
particular interview questions. Interviewers may solicit particular kinds of impression
management and prevent others through the questions they ask. From the applicant

perspective, this could indicate that the use of impression management in the interview

84

may prove more detrimental than helpful to an applicant’s chance of receiving a positive
outcome from the interview. Applicants may actually be led astray by the questions,
winning the battle (answering the specific question) but losing the war (presenting an
overall, desirable candidate image).

Future Research Directions

As described above, the present study offered a number of potential implications
for both theory and empirical examination of impression management. Given the mostly
null findings of the present study, I have identified several issues or approaches that I
would like to advance in future research.

One of the contributions of the study that offers the potential for other research is
the use of prototype methodology to gain an understanding of what early-career
individuals think about the selection process. The results described here suggested some
conflict between the identification of important prototypes and the actual importance
levels associated with those prototypes. Because the method used in this study was rather
broadly focused, it would be valuable in future work to further discriminate the images
that serve as minimum requirements from those that will make the applicant successful in
the interview. In addition, it is important to remember that the interview process involves
a social interaction between two (or more) individuals. This study did not look at the
extent to which recruiters/interviewers identify the same prototypical images. Nor did it
determine general tendencies to weight certain images as more important than others in
extending positive interview outcomes. Additional work focusing on the interviewer

would offer valuable insight into this aspect of impression management.

85

Given this partial support for the prototype process suggested by Leary (1996), it
would be also useful to determine the extent to which these prototypes are held by
applicants at different career stages, as well as by hiring organizations and/or recruiters.
As suggested earlier, the first part of the impression management process is to identify a
desired image. So, do applicants of varying career stages identify different desired
images? To what extent do those images match those of the organization? If such
agreement exists, then failure to impression manage would seem to be the result of a lack
of ability in implementing the tactics or the use of the wrong tactics, even though the
individuals started out with the correct image goal. Clearly, more work on the
identification of the desired image would be useful in finding ways to make unsuccessful
job seekers more likely to obtain a positive interview outcome.

Another interesting issue that deserves additional research is to more clearly
examine the issue of a desired image. Do individuals actually try to enact the prototypes
they view as important? If so, perhaps a stronger manipulation of desired image would
yield a better understanding of how that image is translated into particular impression
management behaviors. However, as discussed earlier, perhaps the identification of a
desired image is more subtle and complex than the overall prototype would suggest. Even
if individuals enter an interview with a particular prototype in mind, perhaps they focus
more on the particular nature of the interview or interviewer to try to enact a desired
image. The results from the analyses of individual question responses suggest that
applicants are able to draw cues to desired behavior from the questions themselves.

At this individual level it would be interesting to determine what other cues or

pieces of information shape impression management behavior within the interview.

86

Studying impression management within actual, not mock interviews, would provide a
better indication of how the interviewers themselves influence the image applicants
attempt to create. The present study found that very minimal differences in interviewer
behavior can have a serious impact on the use of impression management. It would be
valuable to explore those factors in more detail.

Other results suggested that when training works, it can impact the impression
management process, even if indirectly. Therefore, it may be valuable to determine
whether any traditional sort of training could be used to improve applicants’ impression
management. For those populations finding it difficult to land a job (late-career job
changers, chronically unemployed), it would be very beneficial if a system could be
developed to make them more successful in the interview process.

Finally, one of the major questions not answered in the current study is to what
extent do these variables and the use of these impression management tactics lead to
better applicant performance in the interview. Prior research has demonstrated that using
impression management tactics can be associated with more favorable recruiter ratings.
What about those individuals who utilize one tactic over another or who seem to be
impression managing to the incorrect image. Perhaps interviewer assessments of
performance can be explained by the nature of the relationships tested here.

Conclusion

The present study was one of the first attempts to better understand the impression
management process by highlighting the first part of the process, identifying the desired
image, and the resulting translation of that image into actual impression management

behaviors. It suggested that utilizing the theoretical lens of prototypes could be a very

87

useful way to examine the images considered desirable within the employment interview
context. Future work would be well-served to utilize prototype theory and techniques.

This study was also one of the first to attempt to manipulate the desired image to
determine the impact that has on applicant behaviors. Additional research that reduced
the current limitations and extended this study to other and perhaps more realistic
employment situations is needed.

Some would suggest that the null findings here could be seen as evidence that
individuals often fail to utilize impression management techniques, thereby reducing the
possibility that false impression management or faking will affect the selection process.
From the organization’s perspective, this would be a very helpful (non) finding.
Changing perspectives, however, these null findings could suggest that applicants,
particularly those in the early career stage, may not be maximizing their chances to obtain
a job because they are not adequately managing the impressions created. In either case, it

is fair to say that there is still much to learn about the impression management process.

88

APPENDIX A

Tables

89

Table 1

Constructs and Items or Measures

 

Constructs

Items or Measures

 

General Mental Ability
(“Smart’D

Wonderlic Personnel Test

 

Social Skills

Social Skills Inventory (Riggio, 1986)

 

Self-Monitoring

Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986)

 

I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people. (R)

 

At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say
things that others will like. (R)

 

I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. (R)

 

I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I
have almost no information.

 

I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain others.

 

I would probably make a good actor.

 

In a group of people, I am rarely the center of attention. (R)

 

In different situations and with different people, I often act like
very different persons.

 

I am not particularly good at making people like me. (R)

 

I’m not always the person I appear to be.

 

I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in
order to please someone or win their favor. (R)

 

I have considered being an entertainer.

 

I have never been good at games like charades or
improvisational acting. (R)

 

I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people
and different situations. (R)

 

At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going. (R)

 

I feel a bit awkward in public and do not show up quite as well
as I should. (R)

 

I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight fact (if
for a right end).

 

I may deceive people by being fiiendly when I really dislike
them.

 

Communication
Apprehension

Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24)
(McCroskey, 1982)

 

 

I dislike participating in group discussions.

 

 

90

 

 

Constructs

Items or Measures

 

(Comm. App., cont.)

Generally, I am comfortable while participating in group
discussions. (R)

 

I am tense and nervous while participating in group
discussions.

 

I like to get involved in group discussions. (R)

 

Engaging in a group discussion with new people makes me
tense and nervous.

 

I am calm and relaxed while participating in group discussions.

(R)

 

Generally, I am nervous when I have to participate in a
meeting.

 

Usually, I am comfortable when I have to participate in a
meeting. (R)

 

I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express
an opinion at a meeting.(R)

 

I am afraid to express myself at meetings.

 

Communicating at meetings usually makes me uncomfortable.

 

I am very relaxed when answering questions at a meeting. (R)

 

While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance,
I feel very nervous.

 

I have no fear of speaking up in conversations. (R)

 

Ordinarily, I am very tense and nervous in conversations.

 

Ordinarily, I am very calm and relaxed in conversations. (R)

 

While conversing with a new acquaintance, I feel very relaxed.

(R)

 

I’m afraid to speak up in conversations.

 

I have no fear of giving a speech. (R)

 

Certain parts of my body feel very tense and rigid when I am
giving a speech.

 

I feel relaxed when giving a speech. (R)

 

My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving
a speech.

 

I face the prospect of giving a speech with confidence. (R)

 

While giving a speech, I get so nervous I forget facts I really
know.

 

Gender

Male (dummy coded 0); Female (dummy coded l)

 

 

Interview Experience

 

How many job interviews have you had in the last five years?

0*)

 

Note: Only items not protected by copyright are included here.

91

 

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency and Importance Ratings for Desired
Prototypes

 

 

Frequency Importance
Prototype M SD M SD
Total of General Prototypes 4.33 2.32 3.03 1.16
Personable 2.39 1 .48 3.96 .93
Smart .81 .89 2.35 2.16
Hardworking 1.13 1.10 2.77 2.15
Other Prototypes 3.39 2.10 3.63 1.01

 

N = 108 participants

Note: Average frequency values reflect the number of prototypical characteristics listed
by participant. Average importance values reflect the average ratings from an importance
scale that ranged from 1 (Not Important) to 5 (Extremely Important).

92

.5. V 9.2.. .mo. V a...
2.8 cocoa .8855 8363.885 A2883 .1. _ 632 u 8 .8280
”Ocofiowmcfiz :ommmoazfil ”263.52: ommmmuov wager—- ”$398831 ”EEmuov owns:

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Variables

 

 

.3 n 2 .682.
-- :. 8.- 8.- 2. t.- 2: 8. 2.- NS :8 flosfiom coonoE-hum
-- 8.- 2. 8. 8.- 8.- :. 8.- 2: 8. 6.832% 828388:
- 8.- 8 8. 3.- 2.- 8. 9% :8 ban? 3:8on 585$
-- :2. :3.- :. 8. t.- :.. Hm :38- m=§m 38m
- .18.- 8.- 8. 2.- 8. £8 macoHEoEEom
-- 2. 2. :8. on: 8.8 3252. cosmogaeoo
-- 8.- 8. -- -- 8250
-- 8. -- -- mama-SH
- - - owns:
a w w o m w m m 8 QM E 058.2;

 

93

Table 4

Hierarchical Regression Analyses: H2a-3b

 

 

 

 

 

Variable R 2 A R 2 B

H2a: Dependent variable: Number of ingratiatory

statements

1. Social Skills .02

2. Gender .02 .00

3. [mag .02 .00 .04
H2b: Dependent variable: Number of self-

promotion statements

1. Social Skills .06*

2. Gender . 10 .04*

3. Image .10 .00 -.71
H3a: Image = Personable
Dependent variable: Number of statements

1. Social Skills .00

2. Gender .01 .01

3. Statement type .66 .65" -12.34**
H3b: Image = Smart
Dependent variable: Number of statements

1. Social Skills .02

2. Gender .03 .01

3. Statement type .69 .66" -13.86**

 

Note. N = 98. The control variables for the hierarchical regressions were gender and
social skills. Gender was coded 0=male, 1=female. Statement type was dummy coded

0=self-promotion, l=ingratiation.
*p < .05 "p <01

94

Table 5

Hierarchical Regression Analyses: H4a-4b

 

 

Variable R 2 A R 2 B
H4a: Dependent variable: Number of ingratiatory
statements
1. Gender .00
2. .02 .02
Image .04
Social skills .34
3. Image x social skills .02 .00 -.24

 

H4b: Dependent variable: Number of self-
promotion statements

1. Social Skills .06"‘
2. Gender . 10 .04*
3. .1 1 .01
Image -.69
GMA -.05
4. Image x GMA .11 .00 -.23

 

Note. N = 106. The control variable for the first hierarchical regression was gender,
which was coded 0=male, 1=female. The control variables for the second hierarchical
regression were gender (0=male, 1=female) and social skills.

*p < .05 "p <01

95

Table 6

Hierarchical Regression Analyses: H5a-5b

 

 

Variable R 2 A R 2 B

Dependent variable: Number of ingratiatory

statements

1. Social Skills .02 .33

2. Gender .02 .00 -.05

3. Training .03 .01 .20

4. Social Skills x Training .04 .01 .45
Dependent variable: Number of self-promotion

statements

1. Social Skills .06* 4.04*

2. Gender .10“ .04* 4.43*

3. GMA .10 .00 -.05

4. Training .1 1 .01 .65

3. GMA x Training .11 .01 .08

 

Note. N = 106. The control variables for the hierarchical regressions were gender and
social skills. Gender was coded 0=male, 1=female. Training was coded 0=basic interview
training, 1=impression management training.

*p < .05 “‘p <01

96

Table 7

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Analyzing Self-Promotion by Question

 

 

 

Variable R 2 A R 2 B
Dependent variable: Number of Self-Promotion of
Skills Statements
1. Social Skills .00
2. Gender .01 .01M -.12
3. Question Topic .19 .18" -.81
4. Question Format .24 .06" .45
5. Topic x Format .25 .01** -.37
Dependent variable: Number of Self-Promotion of
Personal Traits
1. Social Skills .01" .179
2. Gender .01 .00 -.095
3. Question Topic .21 .20" .88
4. Question Format .27 .06“ .47
5. Tgic x Format .30 .03" .66

 

Note. N = 98. The control variables for the hierarchical regressions were social skills and
gender. Gender was coded 0=male, 1=female. Question topic was coded 0=smart,
l=personable. Question format was coded 0=situational, 1=past behavioral.

*p < .05 Mp <01

97

APPENDIX B

Figures

98

Figure 1

Representation of Hypothesis 4a: Predicted moderation of social skill level on the
relationship between the desired image of and the impression management behavior of
ingratiation.

Number of
Ingratiation
Statements High Social Skills

Low Social Skills

 

 

Smart Personable

Image

99

Figure 2

Representation of Hypothesis 4b: Predicted moderation of general mental ability on the
relationship between the desired image and the impression management behavior of self-
promotion.

 

 

Number of
Self-
Promotion .
Statements ngh GMA
Low GMA
Smart Personable

Image

100

Figure 3

Representation of Hypothesis 5a: Based on the “faking” perspective, the predicted
moderation of impression management training on the relationship between social skills
and the impression management behavior of ingratiation.

Number of _ .
Ingratiation Traimng
Statements /

No Training

 

 

Low High
Social Skills

“Personable” Desired Image

101

Figure 4

Representation of Hypothesis 5b: Based on the “faking” perspective, the predicted
moderation of impression management training on the relationship between general
mental ability and the impression management behavior of self-promotion.

Number of
Self-
Promotion Training

No Training

 

 

Low High
GMA

“Smart” Desired Image

102

Figure 5

Tabular display of research and created conditions.

 

 

PERSONABLE SMART
Social Skills General Mental Ability
Low High Low High
Training Control
IM Training

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Personable/ Smart and the Training conditions were created through random
assignment to condition. The applicant attribute variable is actually a continuous variable,
displayed here in this form for illustrative purposes only.

103

Figure 6

General Mental Ability Moderates Image-Self-Promotion Relationship

(Training manipulation was successful).

 

 

 

 

- + — Lower GMA
—I— Higher GMA

 

 

 

Smart Personable

IMAGE

Note: (N = 53)
Y-Axis = Number of Self-Promotion Statements.

104

 

 

Figure 7

General Mental Ability Moderates Image-Self-Promotion Personal Traits Relationship
(Training manipulation was successful).

 

 

 

- + - Lower GMA
4 * —I—Higher GMA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Srmrt Personable

Note: (N = 53)
Y-Axis = Number of Self-Promotion of Personal Traits Statements.

105

Figure 8

Impression Management Training Moderates Social Skills-Other Enhancement
Relationship
(Image manipulation was successful).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.5
3 _
2 5 — /
2 ‘ - + — No IM Training
1.5 - + IM Training
1 _
0.5 - " ---------- 9
0 -
Low Social Skills High Social Skills
Note: (N= 44)

Y-Axis represents number of other enhancement statements.

106

Figure 9

Self-Promotion of Skills Statements as a Result of Question Topic and Format

 

1.4
1.2 _
1..

 

0-3 j + Situational

0.6 i + Past Behavior
0.4 l
0.2 r

O -
Srrmt Personabk:

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUESTION TOPIC

Note: (N = 98).
Y-Axis represents the number of Self-Promotion of Skills Statements

107

Figure 10

Self-Promotion of Personal Traits as a Result of Question Topic and Format

 

1.6
1.4 i
1.2 ‘

 

+ Situational

0.8 ~ .
+ Past Behavror

0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

Snnrt Personable
QUESTION TOPIC

Note: (N = 98).
Y-Axis represents the number of self-promotion of personal traits statements.

108

APPENDIX C

Job Descriptions Used in Study

109

(Personable)
Job Description and Interview Directions
Instructions
Assume that you are applying for the job listed in the attached description. You have
been contacted by Spartan Management Consultants for an interview. To prepare for the
interview, read the job description carefully and be prepared to assume the role of

applicant in the upcoming interview.

Please assume that this is a job that you would really like and that you are motivated to
obtain an offer from Spartan Management Consultants.

To benefit most from this experience, please take the interview seriously, acting and
responding as you would in a real interview.

Please plan to arrive (LOCATION) at your scheduled time.
If you are unable to make this session, please utilize the scheduling website (INSERT

WEB ADDRESS) to change your date and time. Remember, you need to complete the
interview portion of this study to receive credit in your class.

110

Job Listing

 

Spartan Management Consultants

Leadership Development Program-Consultant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Job Type Location Wag: Hours
Full Time Entry Training in East Salary is negotiable Mon-Fri,
Level Lansing, MI 40 hrs/week
Assignment to be
determined
Company Description

Spartan Management Consultants is one of the world’s premier research-based
management consulting firms. We employ many of the world’s leading business
professionals, with specializations in a variety of processes and industries, including
accounting, finance, human resource management, packaging, merchandising
management, agribusiness, construction, engineering, communications,
telecommunications, along with many others.

Job Qualifications

Applicants are required to be within one year of graduating from an accredited
undergraduate program. Spartan Management Consultants encourages students of all
majors and backgrounds to apply for the Leadership Development Program.

Because of the constant interactions with others, we will only hire individuals who can
demonstrate strong interpersonal and communication skills. Successful applicants will
have strong written and spoken communication skills, be able to make both formal and
informal presentations, be sensitive to the needs of our clients, able to listen to others, and
possess a friendly and pleasant manner.

Successful applicants will also demonstrate the following skills and abilities: ability to

multi-task in a fast-paced environment, general computer and intemet skills, and a desire
to learn.

lll

 

Job Description

As a member of the Leadership Development Program, Spartan Management Consultants
will invest in your talent with an initial phase of intensive learning and training. You will
then move into a full-time career at your designated office and take on challenging client
assignments. Our consultants work directly with our varied clients across all industries,
establishing long-term partnerships, listening, educating, and helping clients to
implement customized business systems and strategies. You will begin your career with
us with a focus on the specific knowledge and skills acquired from your major area or
work background. We offer many opportunities to increase that knowledge and those
skills or to develop a new focus and specialization.

Spartan Management Consultants is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

112

(Smart)
Job Description and Interview Directions
Instructions
Assume that you are applying for the job listed in the attached description. You have
been contacted by Spartan Management Consultants for an interview. To prepare for the
interview, read the job description carefully and be prepared to assume the role of

applicant in the upcoming interview.

Please assume that this is a job that you would really like and that you are motivated to
obtain an offer from Spartan Management Consultants.

To benefit most from this experience, please take the interview seriously, acting and
responding as you would in a real interview.

Please plan to arrive (LOCATION) at your scheduled time.
If you are unable to make this session, please utilize the scheduling website (INSERT

WEB ADDRESS) to change your date and time. Remember, you need to complete the
interview portion of this study to receive credit in your class.

113

Job Listing

 

Spartan Management Consultants

Leadership Development Program-Consultant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Job Type Location Wage Hours
Full Time Entry Training in East Salary is negotiable Mon-Fri,
Level Lansing, MI 40 hrs/week
Assignment to be
determined
Company Description

Spartan Management Consultants is one of the world’s premier research-based
management consulting firms. We employ many of the world’s leading business
professionals, with specializations in a variety of processes and industries, including
accounting, finance, human resource management, packaging, merchandising
management, agribusiness, construction, engineering, communications,
telecommunications, along with many others.

Job Qualifications

Applicants are required to be within one year of graduating from an accredited
undergraduate program. Spartan Management Consultants encourages students of all
majors and backgrounds to apply for the Leadership Development Program.

Because of the nature of our client projects, we will only hire individuals who can
demonstrate strong intellectual abilities. Successful applicants will have the ability to
think creatively, be able to analyze data and other information, solve problems quickly
and accurately, determine solutions for a variety of customer problems, and learn new
skills quickly.

Successful applicants will also demonstrate the following skills and abilities: ability to

multi-task in a fast-paced environment, general computer and internet skills, and a desire
to learn.

114

 

Job Description

As a member of the Leadership Development Program, Spartan Management Consultants
will invest in your talent with an initial phase of intensive learning and training. You will
then move into a full-time career at your designated office and take on challenging client
assignments. Our consultants work directly with our varied clients across all industries,
establishing long-term partnerships, listening, educating, and helping clients to
implement customized business systems and strategies. You will begin your career with
us with a focus on the specific knowledge and skills acquired from your major area or
work background. We offer many opportunities to increase that knowledge and those
skills or to develop a new focus and specialization.

Spartan Management Consultants is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

115

APPENDIX D

Questionnaires Used in Study

116

Applicant Characteristics Survey

Think of a typical job that a student might want immediately upon graduation from
Michigan State University. Now, imagine that you are the interviewer who will be
conducting all the selection interviews for this position. In addition to the knowledge,
skills, abilities, and other qualities required for the specific position, what other, general,
qualities would you look for in the applicants you are interviewing?

Please follow the instructions listed below:

1. In the column headed, “Applicant Characteristics”, please write as many
general characteristics as you can to describe an applicant who will likely obtain
a second interview, site visit, or offer of employment. Several examples have
been included for you.

2. For each characteristic you identified, how important is that characteristic for
obtaining a second interview, site visit, or offer of employment? Please rate each
characteristic in the column headed “Importance” using the scale below:

 

 

Somewhat Extremely
Not Important Important Important Very Important Important
1 2 3 4 5

 

3. For each of characteristics you identified, please rate the extent to which YOU
possess this quality in the column headed “My Ratings” using the scale below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To a limited To a moderate To a very large
Not at all extent extent To a large extent
extent
1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE APPLICANT MY RATINGS
CHARACTERISTICS
Professionalism
l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
On-time (punctual)
l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Work experience
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

117

 

 

 

 

APPLICANT
CHARACTERISTICS

MY RATINGS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMPORTANCE
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4

 

 

2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4

 

118

 

Employment Interview Image Study

Please read the following questions carefully and respond as honestly as possible. You
may be asked to fill in blanks, circle the correct response, or provide some other
information.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Please answer the following questions by either circling or filling-in the appropriate
response for each item.

 

In what year were you born? 19
Gender: male female
Student Rank:
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Other

What is your major?

 

Race/Ethnicity (mark all that apply):

American Indian or Alaskan Native

Asian

Black or African-American

Hispanic (person of Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

White

INTERVIEW AND WORK EXPERIENCE

How many job interviews have you had in the last five years?

 

How many job interviews have you had this school year (2004-2005)?

 

Have you ever participated in mock (practice) job interviews? Yes
No

If you circled yes, how many?

 

Please indicate the approximate month and year of your most recent job interview.

 

119

Are you currently searching for a job? Yes No
If you circled yes, which type? F ull-time Part-time Internship

How many job interviews do you expect to participate in before the end of the
semester? ‘

 

In order to learn more about the interview process, have you ever used the following
sources?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book Yes No
Newspaper article Yes No
Magazine article Yes No
Website Yes No
Video/DVD Yes No
Audio tape/CD Yes No
Career Center Yes No
Other source ‘Yes No
Please
identify:

 

Have you been employed in any capacity during the last five years? Yes
No

If you circled yes, how many jobs have you held?

 

Please list the title of the job you have now or most recently had:

 

120

 

INTERVIEW AND WORK EXPERIENCE, continued

Please use the following scale to indicate the extent to which you have performed

each of the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To a limited To a moderate To a very
Not at all extent extent To a large large extent
extent
1 2 3 4 5

Received formal training in interview 1 3 4 5
techniques
Talked with other applicants about 1 3 4 5
interviewing
Received advice from people who have 1 3 4 5
completed interviews
Acquired information about the job 1 3 4 5
interview process
Talked with faculty, friends, or family 1 3 4 5
about a management consultant job
Been in contact with someone I 3 4 5
employed as a management consultant
in order to learn about the job
Read materials that described a 1 3 4 5
management consultant position
Heard information about the l 3 4 5

management consultant position

 

121

 

BELIEFS ABOUT THE JOB INTERVIEW

Please use the following scale to indicate your level of CONFIDENCE about
performing the following activities:

 

 

Not at all Slightly Moderately Largely Extremely
confident confident confident confident confident
I 2 3 4 5

 

When thinking about interviewing for a job, how confident are you in your ability to

 

 

 

 

Convince the interviewer that you are 1 2 3 4 5
hardworking

Demonstrate your knowledge and 1 2 ~ 3 4 5
expertise

Convince the interviewer that you are 1 2 3 4 5
smart

Describe your skills and abilities in an 1 2 3 4 5

attractive way

 

Convince the interviewer that you have 1 2 3 4 5
strong interpersonal skills

 

Convince the interviewer that you are 1 2 3 4 5
the best person for the job

 

 

 

Obtain an offer for a second interview 1 2 3 4 5
Make the best impression on the 1 2 3 4 5
interviewer

Persuade the potential employer to 1 2 3 4 5

consider you for a job

 

 

 

 

Market your skills and abilities I 2 3 4 5
Get your points across in the job 1 2 3 4 5
interview

Prepare for the interview 1 2 3 4 5

 

122

 

 

Study Evaluation

Please take a few moments to respond to the questions listed below. This is a chance
for you to evaluate the surveys and questions that you had to complete in the study.

Please use the following scale to indicate your level of A GREEMEN T with the

following statements concerning the this study:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neither Agree
Strongly Disagree nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Disagree
1 2 3 4 5
I tried my best. 1 2 3 4 5
It was hard to keep my mind on the 1 2 3 4 5
uestions.
These tests were too easy for me. 1 2 3 4 5
I became tired during the study. 1 2 3 4 5
While answering questions, I
concentrated and tried to do well 1 2 3 4 5
I found myself losing interest and not
paying attention in the study. 1 2 3 4 5
I found this study too simple. 1 2 3 4 5
The questions were ambiguous and 1 2 3 4 5
unclear.
I was motivated to do well in this study 1 2 3 4 5
During the study, I was bored 1 2 3 4 5
I found this study interesting and l 2 3 4 5
challenging
I have not been feeling well lately and
this affected my performance in the 1 2 3 4 5
study
I just didn’t care how I did in this study 1 2 3 4 5

 

123

 

 

 

I get distracted when completing tests
and surveys of this type.

 

I felt frustrated because many of the
questions were too difficult

 

 

I was preoccupied with how much time
I had lefi in the study

 

124

 

What was the job for which you completed the mock interview?

 

Briefly list the skills, abilities, or other qualities this job required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

APPENDIX E

Interview Protocol

126

Interview Script

Applicant Number

 

Interviewer Name

 

Date/Time

 

GREET THE APPLICANT
(Stand and greet the applicant with a handshake. Welcome him/her to the interview.)

Hi, I am . I will be assuming the role of the interviewer in this situation. I have
some instructions I need to read to you before we begin.

INSTRUCTIONS TO READ TO APPLICANT

The purpose of this meeting is to conduct a structured interview for the position of
management consultant. A structured interview means that the questions are based on an
analysis of the requirements of the job, and all applicants are asked the exact same
questions. A structured interview also means that as the interviewer, I will be listening
carefully to your responses and taking notes. Please try to ignore my note taking. This
type of interview is quite common in organizations because it is designed to give all
candidates a fair and equal chance to communicate their job-related skills and knowledge.

As you were informed earlier, your responses will also be videotaped. The purpose of the
tape is to be able to better describe interview behavior across many different applicants.
Please try to ignore the video camera and do the best you can in the interview. For the
purpose of this situation, please assume that this job is one which you would really like to
obtain, if this were an actual interview.

After the completion of the study, the researcher will provide you with feedback about
your general performance in the interview situation. I will not present you with any
feedback today.

This interview will last a maximum of 30 minutes. The quality of your responses are
more important than answering all of the questions on my list. Please do not rush through
your answers.

You will be asked a series of questions about your qualifications for the management
consultant position. Some of these are hypothetical questions that ask you to talk about
what you would do in a particular situation in the future. Some questions are focused on
things you have done in the past. You may refer to work, class, or other organizational
experiences to answer these questions.

127

I will be asking the questions in order and there will be very few follow-up questions.
Please listen carefully and answer each question directly. In order to give every applicant
the same experience, I cannot elaborate on the questions, but I can repeat them.

Do you have any questions?

(TURN ON THE VIDEO CAMERA)

128

(Situational Interview Question — Measuring Personable)

Question: In our company culture, we believe it is very important to be pleasant with our
clients and display a good-natured attitude in all of our interactions in order to build
strong relationships with the clients.

How would you display a positive attitude if your client were unpleasant or difficult to
work with?

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Provides an Provides specific
only. Ignores client example of what examples of what
Descriptions behaviors. being pleasant and he/she would say or
displaying a do to be pleasant and
positive attitude display a positive
would entail but attitude. Includes
does not provide examples of how to
direction for change client’s
changing client’s responses.
reactions.
I always have a I would be pleasant I would be pleasant
positive attitude and polite in all my and polite in all my
Examples interactions with interactions with the
the client, even client. I would ask
when the client was the client what I
not pleasant in could do to make the
return. relationship better.
Or I might stress
how important it is
that we have a
pleasant working
relationship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:

129

 

(Past Behavior Interview Question — Measuring Smart)

Question: We believe that in order to be successful in this job you have to be creative and
able to generate original ideas and solutions for the problems our clients experience.

I am interested in hearing about a time when you encountered a new problem and had to
solve it on your own.

First, briefly describe the situation that involved facing a new problem.
(Wait for response)
Now, explain how you solved the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Provides a Provides a
only. Does not description of the description of the
Descriptions provide a specific particular situation particular situation
situation. being referenced. being referenced.
Explanation is Explanation is
general. detailed—describes
problem solving
process.
I am good at In one of my In one of my
problem solving. management management classes
Examples classes, I had to I had to solve a
solve a problem problem described in
described in a case. a case. First, I
described the
problem. Then, I
brainstormed and
identified potential
solutions. I
determined the
strengths and
weaknesses of each
solution, and then I
selected the best
option.
Notes:

130

 

(Past Behavior Interview Question - Measuring Personable)

Question: In all of our projects, our consultants must build strong working relationships

with the clients.

I would like to hear about a time when you had to meet a new person and develop a

working relationship with him or her.

First, please describe a situation when you met someone new.
(Wait for response)
Now, explain how you built or developed the relationship.

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Provides a Provides a
only. Does not description of the description of the
Descriptions provide a specific particular situation particular situation
situation. being referenced. being referenced.
Explanation is Explanation is
general. detailed—describes
relationship-building
process.
I find it easy to make When I started a When I started a new
friends, build new job, I was job, I was assigned
Examples relationships. assigned to work to work with another

 

 

 

with another
person. I built a
good relationship
with him.

 

 

person. I built a good
relationship with him
by being friendly and
approachable. I
asked him questions
and listened carefully
to the answers.

 

Notes:

131

 

(Past Behavior Interview Question - Measuring Smart)

Question: This job requires you to read a variety of materials to evaluate and solve our
clients’ problems.

I would like to hear about a time when you had to read a lot of written information in
order to complete a project or assignment at work or in class.

First, briefly describe the situation that required you to read a lot of information.
(Wait for response)
Now, explain how you dealt with all of the information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Provides a Provides a
only. Does not description of the description of the
Descriptions provide a specific particular situation particular situation
situation. being referenced. being referenced.
Explanation is Explanation is
general. detailed—describes
process for managing
large quantity of
reading.
I am a good reader. In one of my In one of my classes
classes, we had a we had a huge
Examples huge reading load, reading load, with
with approximately approximately 100
100 pages of pages of reading a
reading a week. I week. I broke the
managed it well. sections down to
create daily
assignments and
made sure that I took
notes on each
section.
Notes:

132

 

(Past Behavior Interview Question — Measuring Personable)

Question: Although our consultants tend to specialize in different areas, we expect
everyone to have the ability to make oral presentations to the client or talk with people, as
I am with you.

I would like you to describe a time when you had to make an oral presentation to
someone else and what you did to make it successful.

First, please describe the situation that required the oral presentation.
(Wait for response)
Now, explain how you made the presentation successful.

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer only. Provides a Provides a
Does not provide a description of the ‘ description of the
Descriptions specific situation. particular situation particular situation
being referenced. being referenced.
Explanation is Explanation is
general. detailed—describes
problem solving
process.
I have had to make In one of my In one of my
lots of oral management management classes,
Examples presentations. classes, I had to I had to make a
make a presentation about a
presentation about case. I organized the
a case. I did a great material well,
job. practiced several
times before the
class, and spoke
clearly, maintained
eye contact, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:

133

 

(Situational Interview Question - Measuring Smart)

Question: As part of this job, you may be asked to create a budget for each client project
and track all of your hours and expenses. This can be a very important part of our work.

Briefly describe how you would estimate or track project expenses.

(Wait for response)
What software or other tools, if any, would you need to calculate the expenses?

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Provides a general Provides a more
only. description of the detailed description

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptions process and/or tools of the process and
used to create the tools used to create
budget or track the budget and track
expenses. exmnses.

I would carefully I would identify all I would use excel to
track expenses. the necessary create a spreadsheet

Examples expenses for the listing all expected
project and keep expenses. Then, I
track of each would carefully track
expense the exact amount
accordingly. Or, I spent for each part of
would use excel to the process.
track every expense
on the project.

Notes:

134

 

(Situational Interview Question — Measuring Personable)

Question: Assume for a moment that one of your clients is a company that shares with its
employees almost all information about its processes, financial standings, and future

goals.

The client complains that you are being too secretive in the process you are using to
identify and solve their problems.

What you would do to make the client happy without exposing confidential information?

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Recognizes it is Recognizes it is
only. important to meet important to meet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptions the client’s needs. the client’s needs.
Provides general Provides more
description of what specific description
might be done to of what might be
provide more done to provide
information. more information.

I would share more I would tell the I would tell the
information with client that I client that I
Examples them. Or, I would recognize it is recognize it is
tell them I could not important to important to provide
share confidential provide them with them with more
information. more information. I information. I would
would give them set up a meeting or
more information provide some type of
about how I was regular updates to
doing things. employees,
describing as much
of the process as I
ethically could.
Notes:

135

 

(Situational Interview Question — Measuring Smart)

Question: Assume that you have just been assigned to a new client who believes that
employee turnover is too high for her company.

You have been given access to employee survey results and other reports that indicate
employment practices. You are also able to interview several groups of current

employees.

How would you use this information to analyze the problem?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Describes a general Describes a more
only. process of detailed process of
Descriptions combining reading and
information from evaluating the
the written reports written reports and
with interview data conducting thorough
or focuses only on interviews to
one form of determine problem.
information.
I would analyze the I would carefully I would read through
information read through all the the reports and
Examples carefiilly. reports and/or identify the trends in
gather interview employment history.
data. I would also
interview employees
about their plans to
stay/leave and about
their perceptions of
the company. I
would combine this
information to
determine if there is
a problem.
Notes:

136

 

(Situational Interview Question — Measuring Personable)

Question: We have found that our clients tend to have very different expectations as to

how our consultants work with them.

Some clients will expect you to take charge of the situation and tell them what to do.
Others prefer you to work with them or sometimes for them.

How would you determine the best way to treat or interact with the clients?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Describes a general Describes a more
only. process of detailed process of
Descriptions determining client determining client
expectations. expectations.
I would work the I would work to I would use the
way they want me find out what they initial meeting with
Examples to. expect of me. the client to
determine their
working style. I
would ask them how
they envisioned our
working relationship.
Notes:

137

 

(Past Behavior Interview Question — Measuring Smart)

Question: Our consultants typically begin their careers as experts in the areas in which
they have had the most experience. Typically, this involves providing our clients
information related to a major field of study in college.

Think about what you have learned in your major at Michigan State University.

I would like you to describe one instance when you have had to teach or demonstrate
some theory or practice from your major to another person.

First, briefly describe the situation that required you to demonstrate your knowledge.
(Wait for response)
Now, explain how you shared the specific information with the other person(s).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Provides a Provides a
only. Does not description of the description of the
Descriptions provide a specific particular situation particular situation
situation. being referenced. being referenced.
Explanation is Explanation is
general. detailed.
I taught someone In my internship I In my internship I
abou “x” from my was asked to show was asked to show
Examples major. my boss how to do my boss how to do
“x” or tell my boss “x” or tell my boss
about a new theory about a new theory
from my major. from my major. I set
aside time and gave
him a little
presentation on that
topic. I also gave a
list of sources for
finding out more
about it.
Notes:

138

 

(Past Behavior Interview Question - Measuring Personable)

Question: We believe that the some of the most important actions a consultant can take
are to ask our clients questions and listen carefully to their answers to determine what the
client really thinks.

I would like you to talk about a time when you had to listen carefully to someone in order
to accomplish a task or project.

First, briefly describe the situation when you had to listen carefully.

(Wait for response)
Now, explain how you obtained the information you needed to complete the task or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

project.
1 3 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Provides a Provides a
only. Does not description of the description of the
Descriptions provide a specific particular situation particular situation
situation. being referenced. being referenced.
Explanation is Explanation is
general. detailed.
I had to listen well In one of my In one of my classes,
once. classes, we were we were assigned a
Examples assigned a very very difficult task.
difficult task. I had Our teacher lectured
to listen carefully on the assignment
to the lecture to one day. I had to
figure out how to listen carefully to the
do it. lecture to figure out
how to do it. I also
asked a number of
questions to make
sure I knew what I
was doing.
Notes:

139

 

(Situational Interview Question — Measuring Smart)

Question: For each project we have to organize a meeting with all relevant employees

(typically 20 or more) to provide them with the results of our work.

Let’s assume you have completed a project with one of our clients. You now have to
design and run a feedback session for all the hiring managers.

Please describe the steps you would take to plan or organize the meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Marginal Answer Good Answer Excellent Answer
General answer Provides a general Provides a more
only. outline of the steps detailed outline of
Descriptions necessary to put the steps necessary
together such a to put together such a
meeting. meeting.
I would organize the I would schedule I would work with
meeting well. the meeting at a my contact at the
Examples good time, company to schedule
organize the results the meeting for the
of our study, and best time/place. I
make sure as many would organize the
people as possible results and determine
could come. who would be
involved in running
the meeting. Any
documents I needed
would be copied and
distributed at the
appropriate time. I
would follow-up
with anyone not able
to attend the
meeting. . ..
Notes:

140

 

Final Questions:

Before coming into this interview, you received and read a job description
that gave you an idea of the skills and abilities we are looking for in this
position. Please describe the skills and abilities you possess that would make
you a good fit for this job.

141

AT END OF 30 MINUTES:

That is the end of our time here. Thank you for participating in this exercise. We hope
that this practice interview will be helpful to you. As I suggested at the beginning of our
meeting, you will receive feedback on your interviewing skills when this study is
completed.

(Stand and escort person to door.)

Thank you again for participating.

142

APPENDIX F

Copyright Letter and Sample Items from Social Skills Inventory

143

v 1690 Woodside Road, Suite 202, Redwood City, CA 9406]
m I‘Id garden (650) 261-3500 Fax (650) 261-3505 www.mindgarden.com

Date: Febma r5 5*“, 2004

To whom it may concern:

This letter is to grant permission for KeLLg beta meg-winger
to use the following purchased copyright material:

Instrument SocLaL slams Inventory}

Author Ron/tam E. Riggio

for her/his thesis research.

In addition, 5 sample items from the instrument may be reproduced for
inclusion in a proposal or thesis.

The entire measure may not at any time be included or reproduced in other
published material.

Sincerely,

Vickie Jaimez
Director of Operations

144

Sample Items from the Social Skills Inventory

Social Expressivity

I enjoy giving parties.

It takes people quite a while to get to know me.

Social Sensitivity

Criticism or scolding rarely makes me feel uncomfortable.

Social Control

I can be comfortable with all types of people—young and old, rich and poor.

I find it very difficult to speak in front of a large group of people.

145

APPENDIX G

Coding Guidelines

146

Coding Schedule for Applicant Attributes Questionnaire

Instructions:
Using the categorization scheme provided below, identify each statement with the
following codes:

P = personable

S = smart
H = hardworking
O = other

Do not count duplicate (identical) statements more than once.

Once statements have all been identified with a code, use the tracking sheet to indicate
how many of each category an individual listed. Use a tick mark (tally) to keep track and
then write the totals in the appropriate boxes. Also, list the importance ratings for each
item listed in a category.

Personable

 

 

 

Agreeableness Interprets verbal communication well
Applied social skills Knows how to act
Assertive

 

Attentive to others

Listening skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communication skills/communicative Outgoing
Convincing Personality (good)
Cooperative Pleasant

Easy to talk to Polite

Engages others Sincere
Extraversion Socially sensitivity
Friendly Verbally expressive

 

Interacts well with others

Well-spoken

 

Interested in others

 

 

Interpersonal abilities

 

 

147

 

Smart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ability to learn Intellectual

Able Intelligent

Able to read verbal/ graphic materials Planning skills

Brainy Problem solver

Bright Quick (quick learner)

Clever Recognizes signs of trouble in
equipment/human interactions

Cognitive skills

Competent

Correct own mistakes Sharp

Gifted Smart/smarts

High GPA Think on feet
Understands how things work

Hardworking

Accountable
Careful
Conscientious
le
Detail oriented

Efficient
Goal setter

Meticulous

Special Notes:

Characteristics counted should be related to characteristics of the applicant, not activities

the applicant has performed.

Examples of items that shouldn’t be counted:

-Difficulty of coursework
-Honors received
-Extracurricu1ar activities

148

Reliable
'ble

Well
Work ethics

 

 

Video Coding Guidelines

General Instructions

While watching/listening to the videotaped interviews, please indicate the number of
statements in each category, for each question. If respondents display any unusual or
interesting patterns of statements, please indicate that in the notes section. For example, if
a respondent uses the same self-promotional statement over and over, please note that.

Self-Promotion

Refers to statements that are intended to persuade the interviewer that the applicant
possesses positive qualities or traits. The applicant tries to make others think that he or
she is competent in general ability dimensions (e. g., smart) or specific skills (e. g., writing
reports). May include listing/describing skills or items resulting from skills (e. g.,
excellent problem solving skills, high GPA, familiarity with 12 different software
programs). May appear fact-based but goal is to demonstrate competence.

In this study, code for two types of self-promotion: statements of intellectual abilities and
social skills.

Intellectual abilities: statements referring to any characteristics of being smart —
problem solving, verbal abilities, mathematical abilities, etc.

Social skills: statements referring to any characteristics of having strong social
skills: good listener, resolves conflict, has lots of friends, good communicator, etc.

EXAMPLES:

Self-Promotion Skills/Abilities

“I’ve developed similar spreadsheets...”

“I’m good at coming up with a list of charges and working with Excel.”

“I’m the manager there. . .I come up with lots of new ideas.”

“I am a major, so I know how to ...”

“I read carefully.”

“The assignment was long, but it didn’t take me long. I made sure that I knew

everything.”

Self-Promotion Social SkflLs

“I can tell by looking and talking with them what kind of person they are.”
“I would be able to make them (clients) happy.”

“I am outgoing and courteous.”

“I have a good way of sensing people.”

“I had to fit in with everyone...”

“I have a lot of experience with presentations.”

149

Inthiation Technigues: Opinion Conformity

Refers to statements in which applicant indicates his/her opinions, beliefs, or values are
like those of the interviewer/company. May include statements that begin with “I agree
with your/the company’s views/values/beliefs about ...” May be in direct response to
interviewer statements or may refer to information contained in the job/company
information.

EXAMPLES:

“I agree that communication is very important.”

“I think this (what was suggested) is the number one way to fix the problem.”
“I agree that listening is very important.”

“That (situation described in question) is very important.”

“Sitting down and listening, as you described it, is the best way.”

Ingratiation Technigues: Other Enhancement
Refers to statements that include a favorable evaluation of the interviewer or company.

Includes statements that praise or flatter (e. g., “I think you do a great job asking these
questions.” “This company seems like an exciting place to work.” “It must be hard to talk
with so many applicants, but you are really good at it.”)

EXAMPLES:

“This (the interview) is interesting.”

“Like you listen carefully to determine what you want (in an employee)...”
“I would love doing the job I would be doing.”

“I understand where the firm is coming from...”

150

REFERENCES

Arkin, RM. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J .T. Tedeschi (Ed), Impression
management theory in social psychological research, (pp. 311-333). New York:
Academic Press.

Arkin, R.M., & Shepperd, J .A. (1989). Self-presentation styles in organizations. In In
R.A. Giacalone & P.Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the
Organization, (pp. 125-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Arvey, R.D., Strickland, W., Drauden, G., & Martin, C. (1990). Motivational components
of test taking. Personnel Psychology, 43, 695-716.

Barber, A.E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Baumeister, RF. (1989). Motives and costs of self-presentation in organizations. In R.A.
Giacalone & P.Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization,
(pp. 57-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baumeister, R.F., & Jones, EB. (1978). When self-presentation is constrained by the
target’s knowledge: Consistency and compensation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36, 608-618.

Bolino, M.C., & Tumley, W.H. (1999). Measuring impression management in
organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy.
Organizational Research Methods, 2: 187-206.

Bolino, M.C., & Tumley, W.H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression:
Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management, 39: 141-
160.

Bozeman, D.P., & Kacmar, KM. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management
processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 69, 9-30.

Briggs, S.R., & Cheek, J .M. (1988). On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with
assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 663-678.

Brown, B.K., & Campion, MA. (1994). Biodata phenomenology: Recruiters’ perceptions
and use of biographical information in resume screening. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 897-908.

151

Campion, M.A., & Campion, J.E. (1987). Evaluation of an interviewee skills training
program in a natural field experiment. Personnel Psychology, 40, 675-691.

Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypes in person perception. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 12, (pp. 3-52). New York:
Academic Press.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for
personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92:
111-135.

Cialdini, RB. (1989). Indirect tactics of image management: Beyond basking. In R.A.
Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization,
(pp. 125-139.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2"d Ed. ).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J ., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2”! Ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Delery, J.E., & Kacmar, KM. (1998). The influence of applicant and interviewer
characteristics on the use of impression management. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 28: 1649-1669.

Dipboye, R.L. (1994). Structured and unstructured interviews: Beyond the job-fit model.
In G.R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
Vol. 12, (pp. 79-123). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Dunn, W.S., Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., & Ones, DS. (1995). Relative importance of
personality and general mental ability in managers’ judgments of applicant
qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 500-509.

Ellis, A.P.J., West, B.J., Ryan, A.M., & DeShon, RP. (2002). The use of impression
management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type? Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87: 1200-1208.

Eyler, DR. (1996). Job interviews that mean business: Powerful strategies for turning
interviews into jobs in a competitive job market. New York: Random House.

Fandt, P.M. & Ferris, GR. (1990). The management of information and impressions:
When employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 45: 140-158.

F ehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557-5 79.

152

F eldman, D.C., & Klich, NR. (1991). Impression management and career strategies. In
R. Giacalone & P. Rosenfe1d(Eds.), Applied impression management: (pp.67-80).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Ferris, G.R., & Judge, TA. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political
influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17: 447-488.

Fletcher, C. (1981). Candidates’ beliefs and self-presentation strategies in selection
interviews. Personnel Review, 10, 14-17.

Fletcher, C. (1990). The relationships between candidate personality, self-presentation
strategies, and interviewer assessments in selection interviews: An empirical
study. Human Relations, 43, 739-749.

Gaffin, NM. (2004). Recruiters’ top 10 resume pet peeves. Retrieved from
http://resume.monster.com/articles/petpeeves/.

Gardner, W.L., & Martinko, M.J. (1988). Impression management in organizations.
Journal of Management, 14, 321-338.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

Giacalone, R.A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1986). Self-presentation and self-promotion in an
organizational setting. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126: 321-326.

Giacalone, R.A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1989). Impression management in organizations: An
overview. In R. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the
organization (pp. 1-4). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gilmore, D.C., & Ferris, GR. (1989). The effects of applicant impression management
tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15, 557-564.

Gilmore, D.C., Stevens, C.K., Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, GR. (1999). Impression
management tactics. In R.W. Eder & M.M. Ham's (Eds.), The employment
interview handbook: 321-336. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Gordon, RA. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and eValuations: A meta-
analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 54-70.

Guion, RM. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hake], M.D., & Schuh, A.J. (1971). Job applicant attributes judged important across
seven diverse occupations. Personnel Psychology, 24, 45-52.

153

Harris, M.M. (1999). What is being measured? In R.W. Eder & M.M. Harris (Eds.), The
employment interview handbook: (pp. 143-157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Hawk, BS. (1998). What employers really want: The insider 's guide to getting a job.
Chicago: VGM Career Horizons.

Huffcutt, A.I., Conway, J .M., Roth, P.L., & Stone, NJ. (2001). Identification and meta-
analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment
interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897-913.

Hunter, J .E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitude, job knowledge, and job
performance. Journal of vocational behavior, 29, 340-362.

Hunter, J .E., & Hunter, RF. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.

Interview Prep (July 3, 2004). Retrieved from http://www.collegegrad.corn/jobsearch/15-
1(-7).shtml.

Jones, EB. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton,
Century, Crofts.

Jones, E.E., & Pittman, TS. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-
presentation. In J.Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self Vol. I (pp.
231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jones, E.E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown,
N.J.: General Learning Press.

Kacmar, K.M., & Carlson, D.S. (1999). Effectiveness of impression management tactics
across human resource situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 1293-1315.

Kacmar, K.M., Delery, J .E., & Ferris, GR. (1992). Differential effectiveness of applicant
impression management tactics on employment interview decisions. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1250-1272.

Krannich, C.R., & Krannich, R.L. (1998). Interview for success: A practical guide to
increasing job interviews, offers, and salaries. 7'” Ed. Manassas Park, VA: Impact
Publications.

Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M.R., & Franke, M. (2002). Applicant impression

management: Dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter
perceptions of fit and similarity. Journal of Management, 28: 27-46.

154

Kowalski, R.M., & Leary, MR. (1990). Strategic self-presentation and the avoidance of
aversive events: Antecedents and consequences of self-enhancement and self-
depreciation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26: 322-336.

Leary, MR. (1989). Self-presentational processes in leadership emergence and
effectiveness. In R.A. Giacalone & P.Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management
in the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Leary, MR. (1996). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal
behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Leary, M.R., & Kowalski, RM. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and
two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

Lorenz, K. (2004a). No joke: Foolish mistakes job seekers make. Retrieved from
http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/M SN/CareerAdvice/ 1 95 .htrn.

Lorenz, K. (2004b). Hiring manager secrets: The 5 smartest interview moves. Retrieved
from http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/MSN/CareerAdvice/142.htm.

Martin, C. (2004). Interviewers’ pet peeves. Retrieved from
http://interview.monster.com/articles/petpeeves/.

Martinko, M.J. (1991). Future directions: Toward a model for applying impression
management strategies in the workplace. In R.A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld
(Eds.), Applied Impression Management, (pp. 259-277). Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.

Matuson, RC. (2004). Should you use a chronological or functional resume? Retrieved
from http://resume.monster.com/articles/functional.

Maurer, T., Solamon, J ., Andrews, K.D., & Troxtel, DD. (2001). Interviewee coaching,
preparation strategies, and response strategies in relation to performance in

situational employment interviews: An extension of Mauer, Solamon, and Troxtel
(1998). Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 709-717.

Maurer, T.J., Solamon, J .M., & Troxtel, DD. (1998). Relationship of coaching with
performance in situational employment interviews. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 128-136.

McCroskey, J .C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical communication (4“ Ed).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McFarland, L. (2005). Making the right impression: Impression management in the
employment interview. Symposium conducted at the 20’” Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologi, Los Angeles, CA.

155

McFarland, L.A., Ryan, A.M., & Ellis, A. (2002). Item placement on a personality
measure: Effects on faking behavior and test measurement properties. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 78, 348-369.

McFarland, L.A., Ryan, A.M., & Kriska, SD. (2002). Field study investigation of
applicant use of influence tactics in a selection interview. The Journal of
Psychology, 136: 383-398.

McKelvie, SJ. (1989). The Wonderlic Personnel Test: Reliability and validity in an
academic setting. Psychological Reports, 65, 161-162.

Messmer, M. (1999). Job hunting for dummies. 2"“! Ed. Foster City, CA: IDG Books.

Paulhus, D.L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 46, 598-609.

Paulhus, D.L., Bruce, M.N., & Trapnell, RD. (1995). Effects of self-presentation
strategies on personality profiles and their structure. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 100-108.

Peterson, T. (2004). Prepare for interviews with a recruiter’s advice. Retrieved from
http://interview.monster.com/articles/recruiterQA2/.

Posner, 3.2. (1981). Comparing recruiter, student, and faculty perceptions or important
applicant and job characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 34, 329-339.

Resume checklist. (July 8, 2004). Retrieved from
http://www.collegegrad.com/jobsearch/3-19.shtm1.

Resume tutor. (July 8, 2004). Retrieved from http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/ecep/resume.

Rhodewalt, F. (1986). Self-presentation and the phenomenal self: On the stability and
malleability of self-conceptions. In R.F. Baumeister (Ed), Public self and private
self, (pp. 117-142). New York: SpringerVerlag.

Riggio, RE (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 649-660.

Riggio, R.E., & Carney, DR. (2003). Social Skills Inventory Manual (2“! Ed). Redwood
City, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Riggio, R.E., & Throckmorton, B. (1988). The relative effects of verbal and nonverbal

behavior, appearance, and social skills on evaluations made in hiring interviews.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 331-348.

156

Rosenfeld, P., & Giacalone, RA. (1991). From extreme to mainstream: Applied
impression management in organizations. In R. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.),
Applied impression management, (pp. 67-80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Rosse, J.G., Stecher, M.D., Miller, J.L., & Levin, RA. (1998). The impact of response
distortion on preemployment personality testing and hiring decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83 , 634-644.

Sarbin, R.R., & Allen, V.L. (1968). Role theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychologz, 3"! Ed, Vol. 1, (pp.488-567). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.

Schlenker, BR. (1975). Self-presentation: Managing the impression of consistency when
reality interferes with self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32, 1030-1037.

Schlenker, BR. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and
interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker, BR. (1984). Identities, identifications, and relationships. In V.J. Derlega
(Ed), Communication, intimacy, and close relationships: 71-104. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.

Schlenker, B.R., & Pontari, BA. (2000). The strategic control of information: Impression
management and self-presentation in daily life. In A. Tusser, R.B. F elson, & J .M.
Suls (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on self and identity (pp.199-232).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Schlenker, B.R., & Weigold, M.F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression
regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43 , 133-168.

Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J .E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of
research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

Schmit, M.J., Ryan, A.M., Stierwalt, S.L., & Powell, AB. (1995). Frame-of-reference
effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 607-620.

Schneider, DJ. (1981). Tactical self-presentations: Toward a broader conception. In J .T.
Tedeschi (Ed), Impression management: Theory and social psychological
research (pp. 23-40). New York: Academic Press.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 30: 526-537.

157

Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed), Advances in
experimental social psychology, Vol. 12: 85-128. New York: Academic Press.

Snyder, M. & Cantor, N. (1979). Testing hypotheses about other people: The use of
historical knowledge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 330-342.

Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1996). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of
assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
125-139. '

Stevens, CK. (1997). Effects of preinterview beliefs on applicants’ reactions to campus
interviews. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 947-966.

Stevens, C.K., & Kristof, AL. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of
applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80: 587-606.

Taylor, M.S., & Sniezek, J .A. (1984). The college recruitment interview: Topical content
and applicant reactions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 5 7, 157-168.

Tedeschi, J.T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the
organization. In S. Bacharach & E.J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in sociology of
organizations, 3, (pp. 31-58). JAI Press.

Tedeschi, J .T., & Reiss, M. (1981). Verbal strategies in impression management. In C.
Antaki (Ed), The psychology of ordinary explanations of social behaviour, (pp.
271-309). London: Academic Press.

Ten steps to a successful interview. (June 29, 2004). Retrieved from
http :// w. j obweb.com/Resources/Library/ Interviews/ 10_Steps_to_a_02_01 .htm

Top 10 tips for an internet friendly resume. (July 9, 2004). Retrieved from
http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Custom/M SN/CareerAdvice/CLR_Top1 OTipsForAn
Inteme tFriendlyResume.

Tumley, W.H., & Bolino, MC. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding
undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression
management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 351-360.

Wonderlic & Associates (1983). Wonderlic Personnel Test manual. Northfield, IL:
Author.

Yeager, N.M., & Hough, L. (1990). Power interviews: Job-winning tactics fi'om Fortune
500 recruiters. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

158

Your guide to resume writing. (July 8, 2004). Retrieved from
http://www.jobweb.com/resumes_Interviews/resume_guide/how_to.htm.

159

   

myngyrym