impression management

A dramaturgical perspective on

Impression Management

The influence of audience characteristics

Maastricht University

Faculty of Economics and Business Administration

Maastricht, 10th of June 2008

Noortje Goethals

i178322

Thesis supervisor: S. Uitdewilligen

Second supervisor: A. van Iterson

Master Thesis

N. Goethals. A dramaturgical perspective on impression management: The influence of audience characteristics

1

Abstract

Impression management is the process by which people attempt to influence the

images that others have of them (Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan, 1995). This research

investigates the influence of audience characteristics on the impression management process

using a dramaturgical perspective. More specifically, it examines audience’s status, power,

attractiveness, liking, and intimidation as perceived by the actor and the influence of these

characteristics on the impression management process. In addition, the influence of actor-

audience similarity in Big Five personality dimensions is investigated. To test the hypotheses,

the study uses dyads that contain members and candidates of fraternities and sororities. This

study overcomes problems that previous studies have by using validated taxonomies

developed by other researchers and applying a polynomial regression analysis to measure

actual personality similarity. The results suggest that audience’s status, power, and

intimidation as perceived by the actor have a significantly positive influence on actor’s

impression management behaviour, while audience’s attractiveness has a significantly

negative influence on actor’s use of supplication. Moreover, actor and audience’s similarity in

Conscientiousness was significantly related to actor’s use of exemplification and supplication,

and audience’s performance rating of the actor. Actor and audience’s similarity in Openness

to Experience was significantly related to audience’s performance rating of the actor. These

results suggest that the characteristics of the audience play an important role in the impression

management process. Implications of the findings are discussed along with recommendations

for future research.


2

Content

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Introduction and problem statement.................................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Relevance of the topic ....................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Research method ............................................................................................................................................... 9

1.4 Structure of the thesis........................................................................................................................................ 9

2. Theoretical background.................................................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Historical background ..................................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Definition and scope of impression management ........................................................................................... 11

2.4 Why do people manage impressions? ............................................................................................................. 14

2.5 Organizational dramaturgy.............................................................................................................................. 15

2.5.1 The actor ................................................................................................................................................. 17

2.5.2 The audience ........................................................................................................................................... 19

2.5.3 The stage ................................................................................................................................................. 21

2.5.4 The script................................................................................................................................................. 23

2.5.5 The performance...................................................................................................................................... 24

2.5.6 The reviews.............................................................................................................................................. 25

2.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 25

3. Impression management tactics ..................................................................................................................... 27 3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 27

3.2 Nonverbal impression management behaviour ............................................................................................... 27

3.3 Verbal impression management behaviour ..................................................................................................... 30

3.3.1 Assertive impression management tactics ............................................................................................... 30

3.3.2 Defensive impression management tactics .............................................................................................. 33

3.4 Impression management dimensions............................................................................................................... 33

3.5 Impression management taxonomy................................................................................................................. 34

3.5.1 Ingratiation.............................................................................................................................................. 35

3.5.2 Self-promotion ......................................................................................................................................... 37

3.5.3 Exemplification........................................................................................................................................ 37

3.5.4 Supplication............................................................................................................................................. 38

3.5.5 Intimidation ............................................................................................................................................. 39

3.6 Personality and impression management ........................................................................................................ 40

3.6.1 Extraversion ............................................................................................................................................ 41

3.6.2 Agreeableness.......................................................................................................................................... 42

3.6.3 Conscientiousness ................................................................................................................................... 42

3.6.4 Openness to Experience .......................................................................................................................... 43

3.6.5 Neuroticism ............................................................................................................................................. 43

3.6.6 Self-monitoring........................................................................................................................................ 44

3.6.7 Situation-based and person-based constraints ........................................................................................ 46

3.7 Audience characteristics.................................................................................................................................. 47

3.7.1 Similarity and liking ................................................................................................................................ 47

3.7.2 Power ...................................................................................................................................................... 49

3.7.3 Status ....................................................................................................................................................... 50

3.7.4 Physical attractiveness ............................................................................................................................ 51

3.8 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 53

4. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 54 4.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 61

5. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 63 5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 63

5.2 Sampling design.............................................................................................................................................. 63

5.3 Research design............................................................................................................................................... 64

5.4 Method of data collection................................................................................................................................ 65

5.5 Measures ......................................................................................................................................................... 65

5.5.1 Members’ questionnaires ........................................................................................................................ 65


3

5.5.2 Candidates’ questionnaires ..................................................................................................................... 68

6. Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 71 6.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 71

6.2 Descriptive statistics........................................................................................................................................ 71

6.3 Testing of hypotheses...................................................................................................................................... 73

6.3.1 Hypothesis 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 73

6.3.2 Hypothesis 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 76

6.3.3 Hypothesis 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 77

6.3.4 Hypothesis 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 83

6.4 Model overview .............................................................................................................................................. 84

7. Discussion and limitations .............................................................................................................................. 86 7.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 86

7.2 Discussion and implications............................................................................................................................ 86

7.3 Limitations and future research....................................................................................................................... 90

8. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 92

Reference list ....................................................................................................................................................... 94

List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................... 111

Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................ 113


4

1. Introduction

1.1 Introduction and problem statement

Impression management not only happens, it is expected to happen. To some extent,

we are constantly evaluating impressions of others and try to make a favourable impression

ourselves. For instance, we adapt our behaviour and manners to the situation, change our

appearance to the right circumstance, and try to manage our body language to conceal hidden

anxieties or untruths. Self-presentation is not something new: even prehistoric and primitive

people were already concerned about their appearance. Cosmetics, clothing, jewellery and

other aids to physical attractiveness were universally used to present positive identities to

others and are still used today (Tedeschi, 1981). Hence the need to be perceived as favourable

by others is from all times. As Leary et al. (1990) notice as well, people have an ongoing

interest in how they will be perceived and evaluated by others, even in relatively ordinary

situations at home, work, or school.

Impression management is the process by which people attempt to influence the

images that others have of them (Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan, 1995). The sociologist

Goffman (1959) was one of the first to provide insight into the use of impression management

in social interaction. Following Wortman and Linsenmeier’s (1977) suggestion that

impression management findings in social psychology research may be generalized to

organizational settings, organizational researchers began to study impression management

(e.g. Giacalone, 1985; Yukl & Falbe, 1990). Currently, impression management is recognized

as commonly occurring in organizational settings (Bolino & Turnley, 1999) and is often

investigated with the use of a classification system developed by Jones and Pittman (1982).

Their model measures five impression management tactics–namely ingratiation, self-

promotion, exemplification, supplication, and intimidation–and is the only theoretical model

that has been validated empirically (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Moreover, impression

management behaviour is often analysed with the use of a dramaturgical perspective. This

perspective implies that social and organizational life can be viewed similar to a theatrical

play, as actors who play different roles for different audiences (Schlenker, 1980). As Westrup

(1996, p.25) explains, the dramaturgical metaphor “assists in showing the social processes

that are acted out”. Schreyögg and Höpfl (2004) argue that theatre can show how a thing is

constructed, sustained, and managed. The dramaturgical perspective will also be applied to

this research.


5

According to Leary et al. (1990), at the most generic level the motive to engage in

impression management comes from the same motivational source as all behaviour; that is to

maximize expected rewards and to minimize expected punishments. Since one of the most

important goals and outcomes of social life is to attain status in the groups to which one

belongs (Anderson et al., 2001), public failures and embarrassing events compel people to

engage in impression management strategies designed to counter or repair the damaged image

(Goffman, 1955).

Since impression management is a means to influence others in political or social

environments, it is largely an interpersonal phenomenon (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Gilmore et

al., 1999; Knouse, 1994; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Thacker & Wayne, 1995). According to

Byrne’s (1971) similarity-attraction paradigm, individuals who possess similar individual

characteristics will perceive one another as similar and will be attracted to each other. This

relational demography can influence actor’s perception of the situation and his1 subsequent

impression management tactics. For instance, similarity between a supervisor and subordinate

is positively related to supervisor’s liking of a subordinate (Judge & Ferris, 1993; Tsui &

O’Reilly, 1989). Gardner (1992) claims that key characteristics like status, power, and

attractiveness of the audience have a strong influence on the way people present themselves.

Moreover, Jones and Wortman (1973) emphasize that power, status, and size of the audience

enhance actor’s awareness of the situation and increase his self-awareness. Since those

situational and relational variables shape actor’s perception of the situation, it can encourage

or discourage the use of specific impression management tactics.

This research seeks to further our understanding of impression management by

exploring the relationship between the status, power, attractiveness, liking, and intimidation of

the audience as perceived by the actor, and actor’s subsequent impression management

behaviour. In addition, the relationship between the different impression management tactics

used by the actor and audience’s evaluation of the actor’s performance, moderated by

audience’s level of self-monitoring, will be investigated. Moreover, the influence of

personality similarity between the actor and the audience on actor’s definition of the situation,

use of impression management tactics, and audience’s performance ratings of the actor will be

explored.

Hence, the research question of this thesis is:

1 In this research, gender exclusive language may refer to a male as well as to a female individual.


6

What is the influence of audience characteristics on actor’s impression management

behaviour and audience’s performance rating of the actor?

The research question will be answered by means of a literature review and an

empirical research part. To gain a deeper understanding of the existing literature and to

answer the central question, the literature review will proceed as follows. First I will give an

introduction to the theoretical background of impression management. Then, I will describe

which variables and relationships affect the impression management process. I will explain

the different impression management tactics that have been identified in the existing literature

and how can they be classified. Finally, I will look at the influence of audience’s personality

and characteristics on actor’s impression management behaviour. This final part of the

literature review will lead to hypotheses, which will be tested in the empirical part of this

research.

In order to answer the hypotheses in the empirical research part, candidates and

members of fraternities and sororities will be examined. This setting was chosen because in

long-term groups, like a fraternity or sorority, members spend a substantial amount of time

together and have a wide range of interactions. Moreover, these organizations are known to

have some hierarchical organization (Keltner et al., 1998; Montgomery, 1971), especially

during their hazing period. Because the need for impression management and the probability

of using it increases with an increase in power discrepancy (Schlenker, 1980), a fraternity and

sorority during their hazing period provides an interesting sample.

1.2 Relevance of the topic

Dramaturgy or its equivalent impression management clarifies behaviour in

organizational settings (Gardner, 1992). According to Rosenfeld et al. (1995), evolutionary

psychology states that impression management is a universal phenomenon since it evolved as

a way of regulating human friendship behaviours. Through a norm of reciprocity, helping

others and expecting them to help you in return, friendship supports human survival. In this

way, impression management signals that one is sincere about giving to others and it

facilitates the perception of insincerity of the other party. As Pinker (1994, p.3) explains: “In

humans, long-term reciprocity creates an arms race of impression management. Everyone

tries to show signs of integrity (exceeding that in actual behaviour) while developing a

hypersensitive radar for such hypocrisy in others.”


7

For managers nowadays, recognizing others’ impression management tactics and

managing their own image is becoming more significant, since work events create pressures

for quick decisions, leading to inferences based on a certain impression (Gardner, 1992).

When people do not acknowledge the influence of impression management behaviour, they

run the danger of performing poorly by making the wrong decisions based on a quick

inference or they can be innocently downgraded to a lower job because of a poor self-

presentation. As Gardner (1992, p.34) explains: “The success of both individuals and

organizations as a whole depends, to a degree, on the skill with which impressions are

managed”.

Since impression management behaviours can influence people’s success and the

chance of promotion within an organization, a conceptual review of impression management

tactics in the area of management is valuable. Moreover, impression management behaviour

may be a tool to generate support for a certain action. Because impression management

behaviours can be conscious and controlled, they can also be manipulated by the manager to

gain organizational and personal success (Gardner et al., 1988).

Especially for human resource managers, impression management is a powerful force

that is important to understand. Human resource managers are assigned to assess future

employees’ skills, abilities, and potentials that are not tangible or clearly defined. Moreover,

they are subject to the employee’s ability to create the impression of having those skills that

are useful, scarce and excellent (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). As Wexler (1986) claims, impression

management is seen as a new competence: “more and more people are engaged in generating

nothing that is tangible at all, indeed, in generating services, resulting in an entirely new

game–one in which man no longer sutures his notion of competence in his struggle with

things, but now and in the near future in his ability to impress upon people his or her worth”

(Wexler, 1986, p. 253-254).

Impression management should not only be seen as dysfunctional within an

organization, it can also achieve organizational goals. For instance, it facilitates interpersonal

relationships and increases harmony within the organization, it can accurately portray positive

events or persons and it can assist in making quick decisions. This functionality should not be

mistaken with truth: impression management strategies may be functional but deceptive, or

dysfunctional but truthful. To conclude, incorporating impression management in today’s

research provides a better understanding of how organizational processes are affected by

people’s concerns over how they are being perceived by others (Rosenfeld et al., 1995).


8

1.3 Research method

The central research question will be answered by means of a literature review, which

is the theoretical foundation for the hypotheses, and an empirical research part which makes

use of cross-sectional data. This data is derived from questionnaires that were distributed to

fraternities and sororities in Maastricht and Eindhoven, and completed by students that were

still a candidate as well as students that were a member of the fraternity or sorority.

Candidates’ impression management tactics were measured using Jones and Pittman’s (1982)

self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, and supplication. Moreover, candidates

answered how they perceived the status, power, attractiveness, liking, and intimidation of a

member. Furthermore, to investigate if actual similarity in personality between the candidate

and member has an influence on candidate’s definition of the situation, use of impression

management tactics, and member’s performance rating of a candidate, Big Five personality

traits were used to measure openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness. In

addition, the moderating role of audience’s self-monitoring on performance ratings was

explored by the use of the Self-Monitoring Scale of Snyder and Gangestad (1986).

1.4 Structure of the thesis

The remainder of this thesis is subdivided into two parts: chapter two and three consist

of a literature research, on which the hypotheses are based that will be tested in the second

part. Chapter two contains the historical background and the definition and scope of

impression management. Moreover, it explains the motivation to engage in impression

management behaviour, and discusses the organizational dramaturgy perspective. Chapter

three will focus on the various impression management tactics that exist, and the influence of

situational variables and personality on actor’s use of impression management tactics. Based

on this literature overview, hypotheses are drawn which are discussed in chapter four. The

fifth chapter describes the methodology used to test the hypotheses. In chapter six the data

will be analysed and explained, followed by the discussion of these results in chapter seven.

Moreover, chapter seven will reveal the limitations of this research, and provides

recommendations for future research. Finally, chapter eight presents the conclusion.


9

2. Theoretical background

2.1 Introduction

This chapter, together with chapter three, will provide the theoretical foundation for

this research. First, the historical background of impression management will be discussed.

Second, the definition and scope of impression management will be examined. The chapter

continues to reflect upon the question why people actually engage in impression management

behaviour. Furthermore, the impression management process is explained by the use of a

dramaturgical perspective developed by Goffman (1959). The main elements of this

dramaturgical model, that is the actor, the audience, the stage, the script, the performance, and

the reviews will be discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. The chapter provides a conclusion

at the end.

2.2 Historical background

A number of different metaphors are used to describe people that use impression

management tactics. One of Shakespeare’s most famous sentences is probably said by Jaques

in Shakespeare’s As You Like It: “All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely

players” (II.vii.139-42). However, this classic statement of the dramaturgy of life is only

midway through the long history of the world as stage; it already dates back to classical Greek

theatre in which references were made about humans as theatre puppets (Burns, 1972;

Riggens, 1993). Moreover, the word ‘person’ has its roots in the Latin word ‘persona’ which

meant a mask used by a character in a play (Schlenker, 1980). Plato, in Philebus, wrote about

the ‘great stage of human life’, which was an often occurring philosophy during

Shakespeare’s time (Burns, 1992). Comparable ideas are found in Horace and Seneca’s works

and in those of the early Christians (Curtius, 1967). In addition, William James (1890) argues

that people have multiple selves of which they show different sides in various situations: “a

person has as many social selves as there are distinct groups of people about whose opinions

he cares. He generally shows a different side of himself to each of these different groups”

(1890, p.294). Nicolas Evreinoff, a Russian dramatist, introduced the concept of theatrocracy

in 1927: actions are governed by rules of the theatre. “Examine any ... branch of human

activity and you will ... see that kings, statesmen, politicians, warriors, bankers, businessmen,

priests, doctors, all pay daily tributes to theatricality, all comply with the principles ruling on

the stage” (Evreinoff, 1927, p.8).


10

In the last 50 years, theatrocracy has also been applied to the study of organizations

and social processes (Schreyögg et al., 2004). Goffman (1959), who based his dramaturgical

approach on Shakespeare in his book ‘Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’, is seen as the

founding father of impression management research in current social psychology. As a

sociologist, Goffman focuses primarily on behaviour that occurs in public settings, thereby

connecting onstage behaviour and impression management with all social behaviour. He

views people as actors engaging in performances, in various settings which are seen by

audiences. The environment provides the setting and context within which actors perform for

an audience. Within this environment actor and audience behaviour and characteristics

combined with environmental signals lead to stimuli that are perceived by the actor and the

audience (Gardner & Martinko, 1988). This means that the actor is on stage and acting in

ways that will produce the most favourable impression (Gardner, 1992).

While Goffman (1959) applied impression management as a tool for smooth

interactions, social psychologists like Edward Jones later on labelled impression management

as serving more specific purposes such as gaining power and influencing others. During the

1970s, the impression management perspective became very popular among laboratory-

oriented experimental social psychologists and in the mid 1980s, more organizational studies

emerged to use the impression management framework (Giacalone, 1985; Giacalone &

Rosenfeld, 1986). To date, most empirical studies on impression management concentrate on

the situational or individual factors that influence a certain impression management behaviour

or tactics that affect outcomes like promotions, performance appraisal ratings, and career

success (Bolino et al., 2003).

2.3 Definition and scope of impression management

Impression management is defined as the process by which people attempt to

influence the images that others have of them (Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan, 1995).

Regardless of the specific context in which it is used, the general goal of impression

management is to create a particular impression in others’ minds (Leary & Kowalski, 1990;

Rosenfeld et al., 1995). First, I will explain the different characteristics of impression

management, and then I will contrast it with two related concepts.

According to several theorists (Schlenker, 1980; McFarland, 2005) impression

management can be both conscious and unconscious. As Leary and Kowalski (1990)

acknowledge as well, at one extreme people are unaware of others’ reactions to them, while


11

on the other extreme people are conscious about the aspects of themselves that others can

observe, such as their appearance and behaviour. Since impression management behaviour

can be overlearned, habitual and unconscious, humans engage in impression management

behaviour without considering what they are actually doing. With reference to Jones and

Pittman (1982), people should be cautious in using impression management tactics since one

carries the risk that it will be perceived negatively; for every desired image, there is a

corresponding undesired image at risk. For instance, an individual using self-promotion would

like to be seen as competent, though he risks to be perceived as arrogant instead.

In addition, impression management research has mostly concentrated on purposive

behaviour like verbal, non-verbal, and artifactual behaviours that influence the images that

other people have of the actor (Schneider, 1981). However, people often exercise impression

management behaviour without considering their own behaviour. In such instances,

impression management tactics become overlearned habits and scripts. As Schlenker (1980)

concludes, a great deal of impression management behaviour appears to be nonpurposive

since it occurs automatically without conscious thought or control. Regarding purposive

behaviours, Jones and Pittman (1980) have identified ingratiation, self-promotion,

intimidation, exemplification, and supplication as impression management tactics, which will

be dealt with in more detail in chapter three.

Another distinction can be made between the calculated impression and the secondary

impression. The calculated impression is the change of perception that the actor aims to create

in the audience, while the secondary impression refers to audience inferences that were not

specifically intended or desired by the actor. For instance, someone who wants to claim

happiness might be seen as superficial, or even as a liar. As Schneider (1984) exemplifies, this

does not always mean that, from the actor’s point of view, the secondary impression is

undesirable. However, this impression depends on the unexpected inferences by the audience

and is thus by definition less under the control of the actor. One should not underestimate the

impact of the secondary impression, since it has the capacity to alter the meaning of the

calculated impression and can even destroy it (Schneider, 1981). The distinction between the

calculated and secondary impression creates a crucial dilemma when engaging in impression

management behaviour: how to create a calculated impression without damaging it through

creating an unfortunate secondary impression? According to Schneider (1981), successful

impression management depends primarily on the ability of the actor to control a wide range

of behaviours: “the successful actor takes what are normally uncontrolled cues for a

secondary impression and makes them ingredients for his calculated impression” (1981, p.38).


12

Not only present behaviours but also past inferences are essential in this process, since the

audience already formed an impression of the actor.

Impression management can be compared and contrasted with other concepts that have

appeared in the literature. Among these are ingratiation (Schneider, 1981) and self-

presentation (Schlenker, 1980). As Schneider (1981) clarifies, impression management is not

similar to ingratiation or approval seeking. For instance, it is possible to imagine a high-status

person who tries to create an impression of imperfection to make the subordinate feel better

about himself, instead of gaining approval. Jones and Pittman (1980) propose that

intimidation and supplication are part of their five impression management tactics; these two

tactics are used by people to make others fear them or feel sorry for them.

Some theorists like Schlenker (1980) and Schneider (1981) make a distinction

between the terms impression management and self-presentation, even though most literature

uses these terms interchangeably. Schlenker (1980) classifies impression management as the

“attempt to control images that are projected in real or imagined social interactions” while

self-presentation is applied to situations in which the created impression is “self-relevant”

(Schlenker, 1980, p.6). Schneider (1981) claims that self-presentation can be seen as a close

cousin of impression management, but still is dissimilar: “Impressions can be managed by

means other than self-presentation, and presentations may be used for goals other than

impression management” (Schneider, 1981, p.25). Schneider (1981) mentions that

impressions of an individual can also be controlled by a third party.

Several theorists propose that self-presentation not only attempts to influence the

impressions that others form, but also has an influence on the impression the actor has about

himself (Greenwald & Breckler, 1985; Hogan, Jones & Cheek, 1985; Schlenker, 1985). This

in fact can be regarded as self-presentation to the self (Leary et al., 1990), as people are

motivated to preserve particular beliefs about themselves (Greenwald & Breckler, 1985).

Overall, impression management can be seen as a broader and more encompassing term than

self-presentation (Leary et al., 1990).

To conclude, impression management behaviour can be both conscious and

unconscious, purposive as well as non-purposive. Moreover, it can result in calculated as well

as secondary impressions. As Schneider (1981) clarifies, impression management is not

similar to ingratiation, since ingratiation only constitutes one kind of impression management

tactic. In addition, Schlenker (1980) and Schneider (1981) point out that self-presentation is

more limited and less encompassing than impression management. In the next section, I will

explain the reasons why people engage in impression management behaviour.


13

2.4 Why do people manage impressions?

There are numerous reasons suggested by theorists why people engage in impression

management behaviour. Not only can impression management behaviour be explained as a

way to define people’s role in society, it can also be used to enhance people’s identity or self-

esteem, or to obtain status or power. All of these reasons will be discussed next.

Goffman (1956) claims that impression management behaviour is simply part of a

ritual in which selves are sacred objects. We actually think we should be nice to others in

order to maintain our own honour in interactions. In this way, impression management defines

social interactions and people’s role in them, which in turn guides audiences’ reactions

(Goffman, 1959).

People can also engage in impression management behaviour to enhance their identity

or self-esteem. For instance, Baumeister and Tice (1986) argue that besides using impression

management as a social function, people attempt to make their public selves consistent with

their ideal selves through impression management. In addition, Leary and Kowalski (1990)

explain that people engage in behaviours that show off certain characteristics that can

contribute to their identity, since people derive their identity from society (Cooley, 1902;

Mead 1934). Moreover, impression management can induce compliments and praise that

boost people’s self-esteem (Schneider, 1969) and it affects people’s self-evaluation of their

performances (Darley & R.G. Goethals, 1980; Filter & Gross, 1975).

According to Felson (1981), a more common type of explanation is that humans use

impression management to obtain status. The driving force behind the seeking of status would

be primary and secondary rewards: status creates power, which makes it easier to obtain such

rewards. This idea is corroborated by findings from Jones (1964) indicating that humans who

are in dependent positions are more likely to engage in impression management and

cooperative face-work. Jones and Pittman (1982) propose that impression management

behaviour can increase people’s power over others, and thus one can influence others’

behaviour in a desired way. However, as Felson (1981) puts forward, these status and power

seeking reasons do not explain why people also engage in impression management behaviour

in front of strangers. Perhaps this is because status can become an end as well as a means

toward other goals, so that status in itself is rewarding enough. Moreover, Tedeschi and Riess

(1981) suggest that impression management can also be seen as a defence mechanism against

negative comments and to enhance positive impressions.


14

In general, people are motivated to create an image that generates the highest value,

however they also consider the costs that occur if they fail to create the desired image. Factors

like sanctions determine how motivated people are to engage in impression management

behaviour (Schlenker, 1980).

According to Schneider (1981), the problem is that there are no sophisticated models

of the motivation behind impression management. As he puts forward, there are several

studies that provide important information about the abilities of actors to modify their verbal

presentations to gain approval, however these studies do not explain what actors assume will

be generally approved or how actors make inferences about them (Jones & Gergen, 1965).

Felson (1981) declares as well that it is rarely discussed why persons are so concerned about

situational identities.

However, there are several theorists that claim that personality traits have an influence

on the need to manage impressions. For instance, research suggests that individuals who

possess high as opposed to low levels of self-monitoring ability, Machiavellianism, need for

approval, and social anxiety have a greater need to manage impressions (Christie & Geis,

1970; Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982). These personality traits will be discussed more in depth in

chapter three.

Important to note is that interpersonal behaviour does not always involve impression

management behaviour. Jones and Pittman (1980) found that impression management is

unlikely to happen with high involvement tasks in which people become completely absorbed

in the activity. Moreover, expressive behaviours like joy and anger, routine actions, and

situations in which people want to present their authentic self are not likely either to be

influenced by impression management.

To conclude, there are different individual motives underlying impression

management. As Schlenker (1980) acknowledges, in one or another situation, everyone uses

impression management. Or as Buss et al. (1984, p.1311) explain: “social behaviour is often

the outcome of a compromise between external demands for conformity or maintaining

appearances (self-presentation) and one’s personal needs, impulses and dispositional

tendencies (individuality)”.

2.5 Organizational dramaturgy

As was mentioned before, the theatre metaphor is in fact thousands of years old. In

classical Greek theatre, humans were already portrayed as marionettes in the hands of the


15

gods and reference was made to human life as tragedy and comedy (Curtius, 1967). At the

early 20th century, within sociology the dramaturgical metaphor developed. This metaphor

implies that social and organizational life can be viewed similar to a theatrical play, with each

of us playing different roles for different audiences (Schlenker, 1980). With reference to

Wood (2002), our daily interactions with other people are situated along two extremes; the

natural situation in which spontaneity predominates and the theatrical situation, in which the

actor has the tendency to manipulate his impression.

Goffman (1959), who based his dramaturgical approach on Shakespeare, claims that

the theatre and our daily life have a lot of similarities in common; we possess scripts that

allow us to know what to expect in situations, we select words and gestures to show our

personality, and we use props like furniture and trophies that project relevant information. A

good performance provides praise, self esteem and perhaps a pay raise, while a poor

performance brings criticism, disrespect or even the loss of job. In our daily life, there is also

the availability of a backstage: a place out of sight of the audience, for example at home

(Schlenker, 1980).

One should make a distinction between Burke’s (1945, 1972) view of seeing the world

as if it were a stage, called dramatism, or Goffman’s (1959) approach of seeing the world as

staged, called the dramaturgical perspective. Burke uses dramatism as a way of interpretation

of the actions and social communication of humans and focuses on the macro perspective. In

contrast, Goffman focuses on individual interactions and reflects upon the roles and

performances of humans. Goffman sees the stage as a metaphor; reality and stage are two

distinct things (Wood, 2002). As Goffman (1959, p.72) states “All the world is not, of course,

a stage, but the crucial ways in which it isn’t are not easy to specify”. Burke’s view is that life

is not like a drama; life is a drama (Burke, 1978). Since impression management deals with

the way people manage their impressions as if they are an actor on stage and part of a

theatrical performance, I will analyze impression management behaviour in this study with

the use of Goffman’s dramaturgical model. As Westrup (1996, p.25) explains, the

dramaturgical metaphor can “assist in showing the social processes that are acted out”.

Similarly, Schreyögg and Höpfl (2004) argue that theatre can show how a thing is

constructed, sustained, and managed. For instance, nearly all organizations nowadays use

role-playing in management development workshops, theatrical presentations of new

products, or theatre as an intervention (Petzold, 1972; Schreyögg, 1999).

The use of theatrical methods in organizations creates a splitting experience: it divides

reality into the usual, familiar reality and the reality as it appears on stage (Schreyögg &


16

Höpfl, 2004). Therefore, it has to be acknowledged that the theatre and social life are not

synonymous. With reference to Goffman (1959), one of the basic differences between life and

theatre is that there are three parties in a play–actors, other characters, and audience–while in

real life there are only audience and actor. Furthermore, humans can even play both parts

themselves, since we can also ‘talk to ourselves’. Moreover, the stakes in social life are much

higher and the audience would be more committed to its own performances and less

committed to play its part in sustaining a successful performance (Schreyögg & Höpfl, 2004).

Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical perspective of social interactions is illustrated by

Gardner and Martinko’s framework (figure 1 in appendix) which displays all the

interrelationships between the variables that affect the impression management process. Also

the moderating role of personality is incorporated in this figure. The main elements of the

dramaturgical model, that is the actor, the audience, the stage, the script, the performance, and

the reviews will be discussed in the next paragraphs.

2.5.1 The actor

Shakespeare observed that all people are different and fulfil different roles in their

lives. However, the extent to which we desire and claim a certain role depends on someone’s

characteristics, personality, cognitions, and state of mind. All of these factors have an

influence on the way the actor perceives the situation and engages in impression management

behaviour. These factors will be discussed in detail next.

People’s physical attributes such as gender, race, weight, and someone’s skills,

attitudes, values, beliefs, and status have an influence on actor’s definition of the situation

(Gardner, 1992; Jones & Wortman, 1973). For example, attractive individuals are more

successful at looking confident, sociable, and warm compared to unattractive people (Kleinke,

1975). Likewise, high versus low status actors are more successful at maintaining positive

traits and abilities, and high versus low skilled persons are more effective at providing a

positive image without being labelled as manipulative (Gurevitch, 1984). Moreover, Goffman

(1959) emphasizes in his dramaturgical analysis that audience characteristics as well can

influence actor’s perception of the situation. For instance, status, power, attractiveness, and

familiarity have a great impact on the way the actor presents himself (Jones, 1964). The

influence of audience characteristics on actor’s perception of the situation will be discussed in

depth in the next paragraph.

Personality traits like self-monitoring ability, Machiavellianism, need for social

approval, and social anxiety have an influence too on actor’s presentation to others. For


17

instance, actors who score high on self-monitoring have a greater need to manage impressions

in comparison to people who score low on self-monitoring. As Caldwell et al. explain (1982,

p.329): “For example, high self-monitors are more adept at adjusting their behaviour to the

situation, less consistent over time, less receptive to ingratiation, and more likely to engage in

information manipulation”. High Machiavellians are more manipulative and persuasive than

low Machiavellians. Furthermore, high Machiavellian actors are less averse to use deceitful

tactics and thus more likely to misrepresent themselves (Christie & Geis, 1970). Actors with

high needs for approval fear rejection and use impression management tactics to get accepted

(Crowne & Marlow, 1964). Moreover, actors high in social anxiety tend to display modest

self-presentations because they are insecure about their ability to present more favourable

images (Weary & Arkin, 1981).

The actor’s definition of the situation is the primary causal variable that influences

impression management behaviour (Gardner et al., 1988). Actor’s personality traits do not

only influence the actor’s presentation to others, but also mediate actor’s definition of the

situation (Friedlander & Schwartz, 1985; Tetlock & Manstead, 1985). As Goffman (1959,

p.42) puts forward: “personality traits such as self-monitoring ability, Machiavellianism, need

for social approval and social anxiety account for differences in the way in which people

interpret identical sets of stimuli”.

There are substantial theories that indicate the influence of actor’s cognitions on

impression management (Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi, 1981). For example, through self-

observation and opinions given by others, humans create self-constructs that produce one

overall self-concept, like being competent. This self-concept of both the actor and the

audience influences the definition of the situation by outlining the identities of both

(Schlenker, 1980). Moreover, people within organizations develop causal attributions for their

colleagues’ behaviours and outcomes. For instance, when employees observe that ingratiating

colleagues are repeatedly promoted they may conclude that interactions with superiors require

ingratiation (Gardner et al., 1988). In this way, actors develop causal relationships between

impression management tactics used and audience responses (Gioia & Manz, 1985).

Additionally, actors constantly assess their ability to successfully engage in impression

management behaviour, called self-efficacy expectations (Bandura, 1977). Since self-

presentations can become internalized over time, they influence the future use of certain

impression management tactics.

Also actors’ state of mind has an influence on their definition of the situation and

subsequent use of impression management tactics. It seems likely that in many situations


18

affective states like love, joviality, hatred, or anger will impact upon the actor’s perspective

(Jones & Pittman, 1980). For instance, the use of intimidation tactics is more likely when the

actor is angry instead of happy over something that happened. Research is needed to explore

this relationship in more depth (Gardner et al., 1988).

To conclude, a combination of variables influences actor’s perception of the situation.

Some of them are not highly changeable like someone’s personality or demographics, others

depend on external or situational factors such as actor’s state of mind. Besides the variables

discussed above two other variables come into play: actor’s motivation to engage in

impression management behaviour, and the process through which actors select certain

stimuli, called selective perception. Selective perception will be discussed in more detail in

the next paragraph, while the motivation of the actor to engage in impression management has

been discussed in the previous section.

2.5.2 The audience

The audience is an essential element in the impression management model. As is

illustrated by the figure of Gardner and Martinko (1988), audience’s definition of the situation

is influenced by environmental, actor, and audience characteristics. However, not only

audience’s definition of the situation has an influence how they judge actor’s behaviour, the

characteristics of the audience influence actor’s definition of the situation as well (Gardner &

Martinko, 1988). Moreover, like in the actor’s situational definition, a range of cognitive,

motivational, and affective processes influence audience’s definition of the situation (Gardner

et al., 1988). First, I will elaborate on the influence of audience characteristics on audience’s

definition of the situation. Second, the influence of audience characteristics on actor’s

definition of the situation will be discussed.

What holds for the actor also holds for the audience: people’s physical attributes such

as gender, race, weight, and someone’s skills, attitudes, values, beliefs, and status influence

audience’s definition of the situation. (Gardner, 1992; Jones & Wortman, 1973). In addition,

audience’s perception of similarity between themselves and the actor influence three

dimensions of their impressions: ability, sociability, and manipulativeness (Gurevitch, 1984).

As Gurevitch explains, although actors engaging in self-promotion create a favourable

impression, they also create an undesirable secondary impression of manipulation and

unsociability. These effects are more prominent for high levels of perceived similarity, which

proposes that actors should consider audience similarity when engaging in impression

management behaviour. In addition, in their study Flynn et al. (2001) found that people will


19

be more likely to form positive impressions of demographically similar people and negative

impressions of demographically different people. Gurevitch (1984) also recommends to avoid

boosting about skills that are part of audience’s self-esteem.

Similar to actor’s personality that mediates actor’s definition of the situation

(Friedlander & Schwartz, 1985; Tetlock & Manstead, 1985), audience’s personality mediates

audience’s definition of the situation and the appropriateness of actor’s behaviour (Gardner et

al., 1988). Jones and Baumeister (1976) discovered that audience members who are low self-

monitors are relatively unaffected by the motivational context of the situation and accept the

actor’s behaviour at face value. The evaluations of actors done by an audience that consist of

high self-monitors are affected by the context. For instance, people who score high on self-

monitoring react more negatively to suspected ingratiators than low self-monitors, most

probably because they are more familiar to the actor’s behaviour. In addition, audiences with

high as opposed to low needs for approval are less likely to consider flattery as inappropriate

since it offers them the approval they seek (Jones & Baumeister, 1976).

A key determinant of audience attributions and reactions is the perceived congruence

between the actor’s actual behaviour and audience’s expectation of actor’s behaviour

(Schneider, 1981). As Goffman (1959) acknowledges as well, actors remain ‘in-face’ as long

as their behaviour is considered to be appropriate for the situation. On the contrary, when the

impression management behaviour is considered to be unsuitable for the occasion, the actor is

‘out-of-face’ and undesirable reactions are more likely to occur.

Not only have audience characteristics an influence on audience’s definition of the

situation, they can also influence actor’s definition of the situation. In his dramaturgical

analysis, Goffman (1959) emphasizes the influence of the audience on actor’s perception of

the situation. This is illustrated in figure 1 in the appendix, for instance, power and status,

attractiveness, familiarity, and size have a great impact on the way the actor presents himself

(Jones, 1964). For example, people are more aware of the impression they create when

interacting with a high status person like a top executive in comparison to a low status person

(Allen et al., 1979; Jones, Gergen, & Jones, 1963). Research on ingratiation proves that self-

enhancing claims (Jones et al., 1963; Ralston, 1985) and flattery (Kipnis & Vanderveer, 1971)

take place more often in the presence of high status audiences than in the presence of low-

status audiences. The same holds for audience’s power; as actor’s perception of the power of

an audience increases, actor’s self-awareness increases as well (Jones & Wortman, 1973;

Schlenker, 1980). Additionally, actors are more concerned about impressing attractive instead

of unattractive audiences (Zanna & Pack, 1975).


20

Audience familiarity sometimes limits the claims that can be made (Baumeister &

Jones, 1978) while it can also serve as a liberating factor since actors will feel accepted and

thus be more themselves (Schlenker, 1980). Kleinke (1975) notices that first impressions are

highly durable and resistant to change, so it can also be the case that actors are more

concerned about creating a positive first impression during an interaction with an unfamiliar

audience. For instance, Bohra and Pandey (1984, p.222) suggest that “other-enhancement is

less risky with an acquaintance because a less embarrassing situation is created for the target

if any unwarranted compliments are used by the ingratiator”. At present, there is little

empirical research on this relationship, however conceptual studies have proposed that actors

present themselves differently to familiar and unfamiliar audiences (Jones & Wortman, 1973;

Weary & Arkin, 1981).

Currently, there is no empirical evidence of a relationship between the size of the

audience and actor’s impression management behaviour, although communication research

points out that audience size influences both verbal and nonverbal messages (Bostrom, 1970;

Wilmot, 1979). According to Bostrom (1970), there is an increase in overall interactions

between people when the size of the group increases, however individuals have fewer

opportunities to communicate in larger groups since they experience a greater competition for

time. In addition, actors’ self-awareness and perception of the situation increase when the

number of people present increases (Jones & Wortman, 1973).

Together, these cognitive, motivational, and affective processes shape audience’s

impression of the actor, which in turn has an effect on audience behaviour; desired

impressions are likely to produce favourable audience responses, while undesired impressions

tend to produce negative responses. Moreover, audience characteristics like power and status,

attractiveness, familiarity, and maybe size affect the actor’s perception of the situation and his

subsequent impression management behaviour (Friedlander & Schwartz, 1985). Chapter three

will discuss these characteristics into more detail.

2.5.3 The stage

Most likely people are always on stage; playing to a direct real audience or a

simplified imaginary audience (Buss & Briggs, 1984). Goffman (1959) argues that the

environment provides the setting that includes “the furniture, decor, physical layout, and other

background items that supply the scenery and stage props for impression management”

(Goffman, 1959, p.13).


21

With reference to Davis (1984), the physical setting in which the impression

management occurs consists of several elements that influence the quantity and quality of

signs that actors receive: the physical structure such as furniture, the physical stimuli such as a

ringing phone, and symbolic artefacts like certificates hanging on the wall. For instance,

employees who have their office close to the office of the boss will receive more signs and

opportunities for upward influence (Gardner et al., 1988).

Moreover, the culture and norms within an organization also offer cues for impression

management (Wexler, 1983). Organizational policies, stories, and strategies teach, support,

and demonstrate the behaviour that is considered to be appropriate within the organization

(Trice & Beyer, 1984). As Buss et al. (1984) put forward, actors have to take into account a

set of unwritten rules, which fall under the heading of the stagecraft. These rules are

comparable to the rules we have in daily life; rigid protocols, which only occur on ceremonial

occasions, traditional models of social interaction, and even politeness can be considered as a

rule of courtesy. Organizational norms like dress code and performance expectations have an

influence on the behaviours appropriate for the situation and thus place a constraint on the

impression management behaviour applicable (Weary & Arkin, 1981). Moreover, the type of

work being done has an important influence on the images an actor can claim; employees

performing highly specialized tasks are able to claim higher levels of expertise than

employees engaging in more basic tasks (Ralston, 1985).

Situational dimensions are developed through actors’ cognitive processes. For

instance, some situations are better suited for positive impression management than others,

which is called favourability (Schlenker, 1980). Other situations can involve ambiguous tasks

which stimulate the use of tactics like ingratiation, since members do not see evaluation to be

part of task performance (Ralston, 1985). Jones and Pittman (1980) and Friedlander and

Schwartz (1985) claim that actors are more likely to be self-aware in novel instead of routine

social situations. The characteristics of the audience, the setting and circumstances influence

the novelty of the situation.

To conclude, aspects like the physical setting in which the impression management

behaviour takes place, the organizational culture and norms, the type of work, and the specific

situation are all part of the stage on which the actor performs. Gardner and Martinko (1988)

claim that there probably will be a range of other situational variables that define the actor’s

definition of the situation. However, research on these variables is incomplete and difficult to

produce since these variables simultaneously interact with each other.


22

2.5.4 The script

Due to people’s experiences over time, they gain knowledge about a certain sequence

of events and anticipate how a similar situation will set off. According to Abelson (1976) we

gather information, create constructs, make causal attributions, and form mental pictures of

people and events. Based on these elements Abelson developed a theory of social cognition

called script theory. The basic element of a script is a vignette; which contains basic

information that people store in their mind like the people involved, the situation, and the

meaning for a scene. As Abelson (1976) explains, without the structure of the vignette, each

of these components loses meaning because it lacks a context (Abelson, 1976; Jenkins, 1974).

Cognitive scripts assist both the actor and the audience in defining the situation and are also

learned through observing others (Gardner & Martinko, 1988). Without a script, a situation

becomes a chaos of events, without reason or pattern and thus the actor’s behaviour might

become chaotic as well.

For most activities that become a routine, people have the tendency to overlearn the

scripts and apply them mindlessly. Other situations, which are unfamiliar, will lead to the

creation of original scripts (Gardner, 1992). People often hold on to scripts unconsciously like

routine greetings, however they can also consciously adept their scripts until one is created

that fits the situation, creates a good impression, and minimizes expected costs (Gioia &

Manz, 1985; Schlenker, 1980).

Many impression management behaviours are based on scripts that are cued by the

situation; the appropriate smile when the boss tells a joke, giving a complement to a

supervisor or self-complimenting oneself are often based on scripts that are learned in the past

and are triggered by cues in a particular situation. Since people have different learning

histories they might approach the same event with different scripts in mind, however, through

socialization, there is significant harmony among the scripts applied by members of any

particular group in society (Schlenker, 1980).

Actors use their self-concept and perception of audience expectations in defining their

roles (Schlenker, 1980). For instance, an employee can engage in a variety of roles within the

organization: superior, peer, and salesperson. Actors learn a cognitive script for a specific role

and make use of this script to satisfy audience’s expectations (Gioia & Manz, 1985). Through

impression management, people try to control the scripts people use when they think about

them. The roles that actors consider to take on are constrained by the characteristics of the

actor, as well as the knowledge of the audience regarding the background and reputation of

him. Therefore, the role expectations of each party are influenced by the history of the


23

relationship between the actor and the audience (Goffman, 1959). To conclude, roles provide

scripts of how we are expected to behave, and these scripts influence our behaviour

(Schlenker, 1980).

2.5.5 The performance

When people engage in social interactions, real or imagined, they participate in

performances. Performances are, with reference to Goffman (1959, p.15): “All the activity of

a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the other

participants.” The favourable or unfavourable impression that one creates defines the way we

appear in social life, and other’s reactions are influenced by this impression. The attributes

that an actor creates affect the way we are treated and the outcome from social interaction. As

sociologist Nelson Foote (1951, p. 17) claims: “every man must categorize his fellows in

order to interact with them. We never approach another person purely as a human being or

purely as an individual.”

An actor’s total performance comprises a combination of verbal, nonverbal, and

artifactual behaviours, influenced by actor’s interaction motives. For instance, some actors

want to be viewed as likeable, competent, or morally worthy (Gardner, 1992). I will elaborate

on these verbal and nonverbal behaviours in chapter three.

According to Schlenker (1980), performances are frequently dramatized or idealized.

A dramatized performance leaves no doubt how the actor views the situation, and thus the

audience knows what is going on. For instance, a student can exaggerate his performance in

class too much and as a result loses track of what the teacher is explaining. An idealized

performance fulfils, or maybe exceeds, the stereotypes that the audience holds. A priest can

present himself as more dedicated and humble than he believes himself to be. However, it is

difficult to make a distinction between a dramatized performance and an idealized

performance. As Goffman (1959, p.59) makes clear: “Sometimes when we ask whether a

fostered impression is true or false we really mean to ask whether or not the performer is

authorized to give the performance in question”. Moreover, actors are often taken in by their

own performance and believe that they really are the image that they project. So performances

that were previously inaccurate self-reflections turn out to be accurate as the self-concept

changes (Schlenker, 1980). Consequently, social reinforcements can change the self-concept,

identity and action of the actor (Jones, 1973). Actor’s total performance is the vital

component that influences how well the audience rates the actor. Therefore, chapter three will


24

elaborate on actor’s impression management behaviour and performance. The next paragraph

will discuss the reviews of the audience in more depth.

2.5.6 The reviews

The success of the impression management tactic being applied depends on the degree

of congruence between the actor’s performance and audience’s definition of the situation.

When congruence is high, the actor can probably create the desired impression and a

favourable response as result. If the audience considers the performance to be out of place,

negative reactions are more likely to occur. The actor perceives the response of the audience

and creates a causal attribution for the success or failure of his performance. If the actor

creates the desired response, he will perceive a high level of congruence and connects this

desired response with his performance. As a result, the impression management tactics

utilized are reinforced and more likely to be used in the future. On the contrary, actors view

audience’s behaviour as inappropriate when they fail themselves, and respond by choosing a

new target, altering their performance, or redefining the situation (Gardner & Martinko,

1988).

It is important to note that the environment, person, and behaviour interact in a

dynamic mode which reflects a social learning theory point of view (Bandura, 1977). Namely,

actor and audience behaviour can have an impact on the environment and on the

characteristics and perception of each other. For instance, when an actor acquires promotion

by using ingratiation, the status and power of both the actor and audience will change.

By using the framework of Goffman (1959), the process through which an actor

engages in impression management behaviour and the audience forms impressions about the

actor has been described. However, additional research is needed to describe for instance each

variable in more detail, and audience reactions to various impression management tactics.

2.6 Conclusion

This chapter introduced the concept of impression management and its historical

background. As is explained, dramaturgy dates back to classical Greek theatre (Burns, 1972;

Riggens, 1993), but is still applied to organizations and social processes nowadays

(Schreyögg et al., 2004).

In addition, the definition and scope of impression management was discussed.

Impression management behaviour can be both conscious and unconscious, purposive as well


25

as non-purposive, and can lead to calculated as well as secondary impressions. Sometimes

theorists refer to impression management as ingratiation or self-presentation, however these

terms are less encompassing than impression management.

There are various reasons why people engage in impression management behaviour.

The motivation of the actor and other elements such as the audience, the stage, the script, the

performance, and the reviews are present in Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical model, which

was discussed in paragraph 2.5.

All in all, it becomes evident that impression management behaviour is a complex

phenomenon, in which a lot of elements have an influence on both the actor and the audience.

Next chapter will elaborate on the different types of impression management behaviour.


26

3. Impression management tactics

3.1 Introduction

This chapter will elaborate on the types or classifications of impression management

behaviour that exist, and the influence of personality traits and audience characteristics.

First, I will define the fields of nonverbal impression management behaviour and

verbal impression management behaviour. Then, verbal impression management behaviour

will be divided up into assertive and defensive impression management tactics. Furthermore,

impression management dimensions like purposiveness and authenticity will be discussed,

followed by Jones and Pittman’s (1982) impression management taxonomy. Moreover, the

influence of personality traits on impression management behaviour will be examined, as well

as specific audience characteristics that have an influence on actor’s behaviour. In the end, a

conclusion will be provided.

3.2 Nonverbal impression management behaviour

Although nonverbal behaviour plays an important role in general person perception,

impression management literature has not investigated expressive behaviours that extensively

as verbal behaviours (Schneider, Hastorf, & Ellsworth, 1979). Nonverbal behaviour contains

expressions like smiles, frowns, and yawns that can reflect the mood or even deeper feelings

of the actor. In addition, nonverbal behaviours can convey many other kinds of information as

well like cues relevant to opinions, moods, physical states such as fatigue, and cognitive states

such as comprehension (DePaulo, 1992). This paragraph will explain the underlying theory of

nonverbal expressions and the three general categories of nonverbal behaviour. In addition, I

will clarify why nonverbal behaviour is useful, how it can be manipulated, and what

influences the encoding and decoding process of nonverbal impression management

behaviour.

Some of the most prominent scientific scholars, such as Wundt, Titchener, and Hull

have written about nonverbal expressive behaviour (Goldstein, 1983), but one of the most

ground-breaking pieces is the ‘Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals’ written by

Charles Darwin (1872/1965). In this book, Darwin notes how animals and humans express

and signal their emotions to others, and he examines the universal nature of facial

expressions: “the young and the old of widely different races, both with man and animals,

express the same state of mind by the same movements” (Darwin, 1872, p.352).


27

Three general categories of nonverbal behaviours have been the focus of sociologists:

body language, space use, and paralanguage. Body language encompasses the sending and

receiving of messages based on cues from body position, like facial expression, and body

movement, such as gestures. Space use refers to the encoding and decoding of cues on the

basis of interpersonal distancing behaviours, for instance standing close to each other, seating

arrangements, and territorial claims like declaring a certain room to be yours. Space use has

an influence on the formation of an impression and can be used for impression management

behaviour. Paralanguage concerns the nuances of vocal tone and pacing, for example, the

rapidity of speech, hesitations, and pauses (Schlenker, 1980).

Nonverbal behaviours can be useful to create an impression about interpersonal style

traits like warmth, sincerity, and modesty, and can reflect an emotional state like happiness.

Furthermore, most influential is the way nonverbal impressions interact with verbal

behaviours and as a result transform the meaning of the overall impression. For instance, the

interpretation of a compliment is reinforced by the friendly facial expression of the actor, or

weakened by the actor’s intonation of voice (Schlenker, 1980).

As DePaulo (1992) notes, in the absence of any clear motive to think otherwise, in

general people assume that others see them rather similarly to how they see themselves

(DePaulo et al., 1987; Kenny & DePaulo, 1991). So people suppose that their personality is

noticeable to others even when they do not attempt to make their personality apparent.

Though when a situation occurs in which they want to come across as exactly the kind of

person they believe they are, people try to intentionally construct their identity (Cheek &

Hogan, 1983; Hogan, 1982; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). As DePaulo (1992, p.210) clarifies:

“The process is one of deliberate control of expressive behaviours for self-presentational

purposes, but the goal is accuracy rather than dissimulation or exaggeration or shading of the

truth”.

Nonverbal behaviour occurs more spontaneously than verbal behaviour, yet prior

research demonstrates that people can successfully express feelings and play roles that are

contradictory to their private states (DePaulo, 1992; Lippa, 1976; Toris & DePaulo, 1985).

For instance, in a research conducted by Toris and DePaulo (1985) people could realistically

present themselves as extraverted or introverted, despite their actual levels of extroversion or

introversion. In contrast, many researchers focus on nonverbal behaviour that occurs

spontaneously and unregulated, like emotions and traits. However, as DePaulo (1992) points

out, the remarkable aspect of nonverbal behaviour is that it is rarely totally unregulated.


28

Interestingly, people assume that in order to detect deception of the actor, facial

expressions are being controlled (Ekman & Friesen, 1974). In contrast, study shows that facial

expressions do no seem to reflect if an actor is lying, since the actor knows that the audience

is paying attention to such facial cues and thus tries to control his cues (LaFrance & Mayo,

1978). However cues related to stress and anxiety are likely to leak through. For instance,

people who are lying engage in less frequent body movements, talk more slowly, exhibit more

speech errors (Mehrabian, 1971) and are hesitant in their speech (Harrison, Hwalek, Raney, &

Fritz, 1978). LaFrance et al. (1978, p.115) also claim that “deceivers do too little or too much

of what most people do when telling the truth”. For example, research suggests that liars talk

more than nonliars (Harrison et al., 1978), liars smile more often (Mehrabian, 1971) while

sometimes liars smile less (McClintock & Hunt, 1975). To conclude, facial expressions do not

reveal if an actor is lying, but there are other cues like body movements to detect someone’s

lies (Schlenker, 1980).

With reference to Snyder (1974), there are individual differences in the encoding and

decoding process of nonverbal behaviour. Some people are more sensitive to the cues that

refer to inappropriate behaviour and in the degree to which they can control their own

nonverbal expressions than others. Moreover, in situations in which accurate information

about the actor is valuable and the use of verbal behaviour is limited, people seem to be more

concentrated on nonverbal cues. For instance, people are at their best behaviour on a job

interview, but nonverbal cues can suggest how they really feel and thus recruiters pay extra

attention to people’s nonverbal behaviour. In addition, research on the readability of

spontaneous and faked expressions found that positive expressions are in general easier to

read from people’s faces than negative expressions (Buck, 1984; Wagner, MacDonald, &

Manstead, 1986).

When encoding and decoding nonverbal behaviour one has to consider the context as

well in which the behaviour occurs, since the context can change the meaning. For instance, a

hand gesture can be interpreted differently when the actor is smiling or appears to be angry.

Moreover, these meanings are influenced by cultural and social-group variations. While the

expression of strong emotions through facial expressions and voice tones is equivalent across

cultures (Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Weitz, 1974), most other nonverbal behaviour has different

interpretations. Whereas in some cultures it shows respect to look down, like in Japan and

Mexico, in the United States it shows respect by being visually attentive (Henley, 1977).

Moreover, standing close to one another when interacting is more common in Latin American

countries than in North European countries (Argyle, 1976; Henley, 1977).


29

As DePaulo (1992) concludes, nonverbal impression management behaviour can be

quite effective, even when people do not truthfully express their existing emotions or fake the

emotions that they do not experience. As she puts forward, those insincere nonverbal

expressions are more effective in creating the desired impression to the audience than

people’s spontaneous emotional expressions. As has become clear from the literature

overview, under the right conditions, even a controlled expression that does not convey the

truth can be very effective in generating a positive response from the audience.

3.3 Verbal impression management behaviour

Verbal impression management behaviour can be split up into two broad categories of

tactics: assertive and defensive tactics (e.g., Stevens & Kristoff, 1995; Tedeschi & Melburg,

1984). People make use of assertive tactics to create images that promote desirable qualities

(Jones & Pittman, 1982), while defensive tactics are employed to maintain a particular image,

minimize deficiencies, or avoid looking bad in response to a predicament (Schlenker, 1980).

Both tactics will be discussed next.

3.3.1 Assertive impression management tactics

Assertive impression management tactics are used to obtain and encourage a

favourable impression (Tedeschi & Norman, 1985) and consist of ingratiation tactics and self-

promotion tactics (Howard & Ferris, 1996; Kacmar, Delery, & Ferris, 1992). Ingratiation

tactics, sometimes called other-focused tactics, are classified as behaviours that are created to

evoke interpersonal liking or attraction (Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977) and are the most

extensively studied assertive impression management behaviours (Stevens et al., 1995). Self-

promotion tactics, or self-focused tactics, refer to the positive statements to describe oneself,

so that it appears that the self-promoter has the relevant skills and possesses other positive

qualities (Kacmar et al., 1992). Both ingratiation and self-promotion tactics will be discussed

in the next paragraphs.

Ingratiation tactics/other-focused tactics

One type of ingratiation is opinion conformity, in which a person expresses opinions,

values, or beliefs that are assumed to be held, or can assumed to be held by the target (Jones,

1964). With reference to Byrne (1961) opinion conformity creates interpersonal attraction

since people like other people whom they identify to be similar to themselves. Though


30

opinion conformity can enhance interpersonal liking (Schlenker, 1980; Stevens et al., 1990), it

can also backfire when contextual signs reveal that the actor is dependent on the target’s

outcome (Jones et al., 1968).

A second form of ingratiation is other enhancement, which involves a favourable

evaluation of the target by an individual (Wayne & Kacmar, 1991). Other enhancement is

influenced by the principle of reciprocal attraction; people are attracted to others who seem to

be attracted to them (Byrne, 1961). Studies conducted in a laboratory setting demonstrate that

other enhancement increases interpersonal attraction, even when contextual cues imply that

the actor may have hidden intentions for giving the favourable evaluation (Schlenker, 1980).

Another form of ingratiation is favour doing, which utilizes the ‘norm of reciprocity’

so that the social norm suggests that we should help or pay back those who do favours for us

(Gouldner, 1960). Ingratiators seek to elicit liking rather than an exchange of gifts, so that

liking can influence for instance promotions or performance evaluations in the future

(Rosenfeld et al., 1995).

Jones’ (1964) final type of ingratiation is self-enhancement, in which the person

projects his best characteristics to the audience. One factor related to the success of self-

enhancement is audience’s background information about the claim and how easy it is for

them to check if the actor is lying or not.

Bohra and Pandey (1984) suggest that instrumental dependency, name-dropping, and

situation-specific tactics are ingratiation strategies too. When using instrumental dependency,

the actor lets the audience member know that he is entirely dependent on him. Name-dropping

involves the use of the name of a third, generally powerful person during the conversation

with the target person. When someone engages in situation-specific behaviour, the person

takes care of the personal likings of the audience member and makes an effort to provide

things related to this liking.

Ingratiation as part of Jones and Pittman’s (1982) impression management taxonomy

will be discussed more in depth in paragraph 3.5.1.

Self-promotion tactics/self-focused tactics

Contradictory to ingratiation tactics, which are used to create liking, self-promotion is

utilized to elicit specific character attributions like being competent or respectful (Godfrey et

al., 1986; Gardner & Martinko, 1988). There are several specific tactics that can be used to

effectively promote oneself (e.g. Schlenker, 1980).


31

One type of self-promotion is the use of entitlements, by which people claim

responsibility for positive outcomes, even if the credit is unjustified (Schlenker, 1980). As

Ellis et al. point out (2002, p. 1202): “For example, last week we dealt with a four-alarm fire,

and thanks to my superior physical abilities, we managed to get everyone out of the building

without injury”.

Enhancements, in contrast, are used when a person who is responsible for a certain

positive event claims that the value of the event is more positive than it initially appears to be

(Stevens & Kristof, 1995).

A third self-promotion tactic is overcoming obstacles, which deals with how the

person circumvented problems that hindered the progress towards a goal (Stevens & Kristof,

1995). To apply this tactic, the individual should show that a problem was present and that it

could have hindered the process (Ellis et al., 2002).

Lastly, Ellis et al. (2002) refer to a tactic called specific self-promoting utterances,

which refers to statements that have the intention to persuade a target to believe that a person

possesses positive qualities or traits. The individual attempts to make others think that he is

competent in either general ability dimensions like intelligence or specific skills like being

able to play a musical instrument.

With reference to McFarland et al. (2005), five other tactics can be categorized as self-

focused tactics as well. For instance, basking in reflected glory is used when a person claims

an association with high status people or a famous institute in order to enhance his own image

(Fletcher, 1989). Moreover, the use of specific past events or actions in personal stories can

convey a positive picture of a person, because it provides evidence of a self-promotional

claim (Stevens & Kristof, 1995). For example, when a person engages in the impression

management tactic entitlements, the context of the personal story can facilitate the target’s

understanding (McFarland et al., 2003). In addition, intimidation and supplication can be

classified as self-focused as well. If a person uses intimidation, he appears to be threatening in

order to have others view him as dangerous. Supplication refers to tactics that demonstrate

someone’s weakness and incompetence by advertising the person’s shortcomings. By this, the

actor wants to evoke sympathy from others. Furthermore, setting a clear goal for oneself or

for someone else can be labelled as self-focused as well.

To conclude, there are many tactics that can be used to promote oneself: the use of

entitlements, enhancements, overcoming obstacles, specific self-promoting utterances,

basking in reflected glory, past events, and setting a clear goal. In addition, Jones and


32

Pittman’s (1982) supplication and intimidation can be classified as self-focused as well. These

tactics will be explained into detail in paragraph 3.5.4 and 3.5.5 respectively.

3.3.2 Defensive impression management tactics

Whereas the assertive impression management tactics mentioned previously are

designed to reinforce the image of the person, defensive impression management tactics are

designed to protect or repair one’s image (Higgins, Snyder, & Berglas, 1990; Schlenker,

1980; C. R. Snyder, Higgins, & Stucky, 1983). Excuses are statements in which the actor

claims that he is not responsible for a negative outcome or the negative consequences of an

action. In contrast, justifications are claims in which the actor takes responsibility for the

outcome of his behaviour but advocates that it is not as bad as it seems (Stevens & Kristof,

1995). If the actor takes responsibility for a negative outcome and acknowledges that certain

actions were not acceptable and should be punished, he uses the apology tactics (Tedeschi &

Melburg, 1984). McFarland et al. (2005, p. 954) add disclaimers as a defensive tactic.

“Disclaimers are attempts to remove oneself from possible negative results that may occur in

the future”. Though these tactics can minimize the negative attributions that result from

someone’s behaviour (Schlenker & Weigold, 1992), previous research has not provided

sufficient evidence whether these tactics are used and to what extent (Stevens et al., 1995).

3.4 Impression management dimensions

With reference to Gardner and Martinko’s (1988) framework, there are several

dimensions that have an influence on impression management behaviour. First, one can make

a distinction between purposive impression management in which the actor chooses specific

verbal or nonverbal behaviour (Schneider, 1981). Nonpurposive behaviour, as Tetlock and

Manstead (1985) note, occurs when actors are not aware of their impression management

behaviour. With reference to Schlenker (1980), a lot of impression management behaviour

occurs automatically without conscious thought.

Second, authenticity, or the degree to which the behaviour is in line with the actor’s

self-concept, is vital. If the audience considers the performance to be faked, the reputation of

the actor is lost. Moreover, there can be social sanctions (Schlenker, 1980).

Third, the positiveness of the image that the actor depicts is a dimension too. People

who aim to gain approval from the audience are more likely to present a positive image of

themselves than people who want to portray an accurate image. However, there are situations


33

in which it is advantageous to portray a modest self-presentation. For instance, when the actor

experiences a public failure, he is more likely to promote himself on attributes that are

irrelevant and is more modest about the attributes relevant to failure (Gardner & Martinko,

1988).

Fourth, Goffman (1959) notices that actors often use their impression management

behaviour to create team performances. This is also reflected in organizations that use stories,

myths, and rituals to stimulate teamwork (Wexler, 1983). Moreover, people’s demographic

characteristics shape the identity of the team and the definition of the situation (Goffman,

1959).

Lastly, as already discussed, one can make a distinction between assertive and

defensive impression management behaviour. Favourable situations are expected to elicit

assertive tactics such as opinion conformity or flattery (Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977),

while unfavourable situations are expected to evoke defensive tactics like accounts and

apologies (Friedlander & Schwartz, 1985).

As is explained, besides the variables discussed in chapter two, there are other

dimensions like purposiveness, authenticity, positiveness, teamwork, and assertiveness which

have an influence on the impression management behaviour of the actor as well. Next

paragraph deals with the measurement of impression management behaviour.

3.5 Impression management taxonomy

Researchers propose several different theoretical frameworks to measure impression

management. For instance, Bozeman and Kacmar (1997) developed a cybernetic model that

integrates multiple concepts that are related to impression management, like feedback and

script theory. Wayne and Ferris (1990) empirically derived a model that examines the

determinants of exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate dyads.

In this research, the impression management taxonomy of Jones and Pittman (1982)

will be used. This framework is well suited, since it is the only theoretical model that has been

validated empirically (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Moreover, it proposes five different tactics

that include an extensive range of behaviours that are likely to occur in groups: ingratiation,

self-promotion, exemplification, supplication, and intimidation (Jones & Pittman, 1982). So,

impression management will be measured as a multidimensional construct. All of these tactics

will be discussed in the next paragraph.


34

Previous theory suggests that people are expected to use different types of impression

management (Jones, 1990; Jones & Pittman, 1982). For instance, several theorists found that

some people have an all or nothing approach to engage in impression management behaviour

(Farmer & Maslyn, 1999; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988). As Bolino and Turnley (2003) conclude

in their study, some individuals use relatively high levels of impression management tactics,

while others use relatively low levels of impression management tactics. Moreover, one can

make a distinction between the people who only use the positive tactics ingratiation, self-

promotion, and exemplification, and use supplication and intimidation less frequently. Others

employ relatively high levels of all five impression management tactics. In contrast, some

people use relatively low levels of all five impression management tactics.

Impression management can also be measured by observation, and thus one would be

able to capture non-verbal impression management as well. However most studies using this

approach are conducted in a laboratory setting and thus the results are more difficult to

generalize to organizational settings. Therefore, this research makes use of the Jones and

Pittman (1982) taxonomy, validated by Bolino and Turnley (1999), which is based on existing

impression management theory, captures a large domain of impression management

behaviours, and is useable in organizational settings. Each of the five impression management

tactics will be discussed in the upcoming paragraphs.

3.5.1 Ingratiation

The most common and most studied impression management technique is ingratiation.

Ingratiation refers to a collection of related acquisitive impression management tactics that

have as common goal to make the actor more liked and attractive to others (Jones, 1990).

Jones (1964) was the first theorist who described ingratiation, and defined it as: “a class of

strategic behaviours illicitly designed to influence a particular other person concerning the

attractiveness of one’s personal qualities” (Jones, 1964, p.11). Later theorists argue that

ingratiation is a common, often successful way of organizational social influence (Ralston,

1985; Ralston & Elsass, 1989) and can also be unconsciously exercised by the actor (Liden &

Mitchell, 1988). Rosenfeld et al. (1995) state that ingratiation can facilitate interpersonal

relations and enhance harmony within the organization. Especially for people who are part of

a minority and often need to please the majority group members, ingratiation can be crucial,

since it can counteract the stereotypes that other majority group members hold (Allison &

Herlocker, 1994).


35

Ingratiation stands out in impression management literature because its single goal is

gaining attractiveness, its emphasis is on pleasing others, its focus is on short-run profit, and

there is a strong likelihood that there is a difference between the projected image and the

actor’s beliefs (Schlenker, 1980). With reference to Jones (1964), people engage in

ingratiation to enhance their own actual power in a relationship, thereby reducing their

dependence on the other. Because the need for ingratiation and the probability of using it

increases with an increase in power discrepancy (Schlenker, 1980), the hierarchical

organization stimulates the use of ingratiation. By engaging in ingratiation, the employee

limits the supervisor’s options to punish and control him (Rosenfeld et al., 1995).

However, it is difficult to make a distinction between normal behaviour and

ingratiation since most people want to be liked by others. Behaviours like giving

compliments, agreeing with someone’s opinion or doing favours may or may not be part of

the ingratiation attempt. Schlenker (1980) notices that the motive of the actor is the main

distinction between sincere behaviour and illicit behaviour.

There is also a risk when engaging in ingratiation: the consequences of failed

ingratiation lead to being more disliked than when the actor started to use ingratiation (Arkin

& Sheppard, 1990). This is referred to as the ingratiator’s dilemma. In general, the higher the

person’s need to engage in ingratiation, the more likely it is that the attempts will be noticed

and fail (Jones, 1990). Jones and Pittman (1980) suggest that the decision to engage in

ingratiation should be determined by three factors. The motivational component determines

how important it is for the actor to be liked by the audience. The cognitive component refers

to how successful the ingratiation will be, while the ethical factor refers to the extent in which

the ingratiation is considered appropriate for the situation. As Rosenfeld et al. (1995)

conclude, ingratiation can be an effective tactic of social influence among people, but there is

a risk at stake. Gordon (1996) found in his meta-analytic investigation of 69 studies of

ingratiation that the effectiveness of ingratiation is influenced by the type of ingratiation used,

the transparency of the ingratiation, and the direction of the ingratiation (e.g., peer vs.

supervisor).

To sum up, ingratiation can be a successful way of organizational social influence,

however the actor takes a risk when using this tactic. The actor should outweigh how

important it is, how successful ingratiation will be, and if ingratiation is considered

appropriate for the situation. In addition, the effectiveness of ingratiation is influenced by

other factors such as the type of ingratiation used and the direction of the ingratiation attempt.


36

3.5.2 Self-promotion

In contrast to ingratiation which focuses on being liked, the goal of self-promotion is

to be seen as competent (Jones, 1990). With reference to Giacalone and Rosenfeld (1986), the

actor focuses on either the general ability dimensions like intelligence or on specific skills, for

instance to be able to play a musical instrument. Self-promotion has not been studied that

extensively as ingratiation, however theorists have subdivided self-promotion into three other

tactics: entitlements, enhancements, and overcoming obstacles (Schlenker, 1980). These have

been discussed in paragraph 3.3.1.

Self-promotion tactics may be related to ingratiation since people can use both tactics

at the same time, for instance by giving a compliment and describing one’s skills (Rosenfeld

et al., 1995). However, these tactics are not always equally achievable; a study conducted by

Godfrey et al. (1986) found that it was easier to be a successful ingratiator than a successful

self-promoter.

Several researchers found that the use of self-promotion tactics have a positive effect

on people’s evaluations in interviews (e.g., Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Kacmar & Carlson, 1999;

Kristof-Brown et al., 2002). However, others suggest that engaging in self-promotion can be

risky (e.g., Wayne & Ferris, 1990) or intimidating in some situations (Jones & Pittman, 1982).

For instance, when the audience member feels he is being manipulated, he will act negatively

to the impression management behaviour. Stevens and Kristof (1995) found a positive

relationship between self-promotion and performance assessments, while Ferris et al. (1994)

found a negative relationship between self-promotion and performance. Jones and Pittman

(1982) suggest that self-promotion tactics are more likely to be successful when the image

being claimed is difficult to verify. So when the actor uses self-promotion in an interview, the

image being claimed is likely to be perceived as true since the interviewer cannot verify it,

while the supervisor of the actor has a greater ability to distinguish a self-promotion tactic

from an accurate description. To conclude, some researchers found a positive relationship

between the use of self-promotion tactics and performance, while other researchers suggest

there is a negative relationship. As a result of these conflicting findings, it is complicated to

determine the true nature of self-promotion and performance ratings.

3.5.3 Exemplification

Exemplification constitutes managing the impressions of integrity, self-sacrifice, and

moral worthiness (Jones & Pittman, 1982). For instance, someone who always shows up early

at work or takes work home everyday is an exemplifier. Exemplifiers let others know that


37

they work hard and engage in self-sacrifice, but with this behaviour, they take the risk that

others view them as arrogant or even hypocrite (e.g., Gilbert & Jones, 1986; Rosenfeld et al.,

1995; McFarland et al., 2003). Turnley & Bolino (2001) found that exemplifiers are more

likely to be seen as dedicated and are unlikely to be perceived as lazy by peers, since

exemplifiers work harder and are more committed when others pay attention to them.

In addition, research indicates that some impression management tactics seem to have

more in common than others (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). Ingratiation, self-promotion, and

exemplification are all tactics employed by people who want to make a positive impression on

others. In contrast, supplication and intimidation are likely to have negative repercussions.

Turnley & Bolino (2003) claim that actors who use positive impression management tactics,

like exemplification, are perceived more favourably than actors who engage in negative

impression management tactics like supplication and intimidation. Both negative impression

management tactics are examined in the upcoming paragraphs.

3.5.4 Supplication

When the actor engages in supplication, he exploits his own weakness to influence

others (Jones, 1990; Jones & Pittman, 1982). By showing his incompetence, the individual

tries to activate a powerful social rule known as ‘the norm of social responsibility’ that states

that we have to help others. Thus, successful supplication is the opposite of self-promotion

(Rosenfeld et al., 1995).

Although Becker and Martin (1995) found that some employees engage in

supplication, it is likely that supplication will be infrequently used by people since being

perceived as needy is not desirable in most situations. Given that women often face greater

obstacles in being perceived as competent (Heilman et al., 1992; Rudman, 1998), women may

be particularly hesitant to engage in impression management behaviours that make them look

less capable (Bolino & Turnley, 2001).

There is not that much research done on the influence of supplication on performance

ratings (Bolino & Turnley, 2001). On the one hand, someone who appears to be needy or

helpless will receive a lower performance rating, while in certain conditions it can also lead to

higher performance ratings. For instance, Longenecker et al. (1987) suggest that superiors

sometimes give a higher performance rating to employees for whom they feel sorry.

Moreover, supplicators may make supervisors feel superior to others (Jones & Pittman, 1982).

Bolino & Turnley (2001) found that supplication has a positive relationship with performance

evaluations among male employees, but a negative relationship among female employees. So


38

even though supplication, like other impression management tactics, can backfire, in some

situations it can lead to a favourable performance rating. However more research should be

done to investigate the relationship between this particular impression management tactic and

performance ratings.

3.5.5 Intimidation

People who engage in intimidation try to gain social power by being feared and

appearing dangerous (Arkin & Sheppard, 1990). As Jones and Pittman (1982, p. 238) explain:

“the intimidator advertises his available power to create discomfort or all kinds of psychic

pain”. With reference to Rosenfeld et al. (1995), intimidation is more probable to take place in

nonvoluntary relationships like the one between supervisors and subordinates. Because of the

social structure in organizations subordinates often have no other means than using

ingratiation to influence others, while supervisors have already the ability to control people’s

salary and performance evaluations. This can create an atmosphere of intimidation.

Though intimidation can be seen as the opposite of ingratiation (Jones & Pittman,

1982), successful intimidation often brings forth ingratiation. As Rosenfeld et al. (1995, p. 53)

make clear: “The liking and acceptance presented in response to intimidation is in reality

strategic impression management–an attempt to counter or neutralize the intimidator’s

influence attempts”. Within organizations, intimidation is usually a form of downward

influence, from higher to lower power individuals (Rosenfeld et al., 1995).

With regard to intimidation, little empirical research has been done to investigate the

effect of intimidation on performance ratings, and the results produced both positive and

negative effects (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Wayne & Liden,

1995). For instance, Yukl and Tracey (1992) claim that intimidation might enhance the

employee’s ability to get the job done and may lead to being perceived as a hard-charging

employee. As a result, the supervisor will rate this employee more favourably. In contrast,

organizations who value teamwork and cohesiveness will give intimidating people lower

performance ratings (Falbe & Yukl, 1992).

To conclude, Jones and Pittman’s (1982) taxonomy provides us five impression

management tactics which are very different from eachother. Ingratiation and self-promotion

are the tactics that have been researched the most, while exemplification, supplication, and

intimidation are relatively new. However, for all five tactics it still is ambiguous in which

situations they will lead to a positive or negative performance rating. Since many personality


39

traits have been associated with the use of these impression management tactics, they will be

discussed in the upcoming paragraph.

3.6 Personality and impression management

Personality traits refer to stable patterns of thought, emotion, and behaviour that are

constant over time and explain people’s behaviour across different situations (Costa &

McCrae, 1989; Funder, 2001). Within organizations, personality traits can influence

organizationally relevant behaviour such as interview success, performance, and leadership

(e.g. Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1982; Barrick & Mount 1991; Caldwell & Burger, 1998).

Likewise, evidence from a variety of research literature suggests that in daily life, personality

can predict behaviour as well (Hogan & Holland, 2003; Mount et al., 1994). For instance,

some people are anxious how they appear to others, while some people are relatively

unconcerned. Some people monitor their own actions carefully, while other people do not

consider the impact that each gesture can have on the audience.

Many personality traits have been associated with the use of impression management

tactics. For instance, trait theory (Allport, 1937) proposes that personality traits reflect the

way people think and act. The Five Factor Model of Personality, or the Big Five (e.g.

Digman, 1990; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999) is at the core of modern personality research and

has achieved widespread acceptance as an important description of personality traits. The five

factors are usually described as Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional

Stability/Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience.

Moreover, self-monitoring is generally considered to be a personality trait, however it

is not represented in the Five Factor Model of Personality (Day et al., 2002; Digman, 1990).

A recent meta-analysis by Schleicher and Day (2002) proves that self-monitoring has a

moderately high correlation with Extraversion, and a low correlation with the other Big Five

traits. Except for the correlation with Extraversion, these intercorrelations are lower than

those for the Big Five traits with each other (Mount et al., 2005). With reference to Schleicher

and Day (2002), a possible explanation could be that self-monitoring is more strongly related

to skills related to manage one’s image instead of the motive to impress others. Barrick et al.

(2005) conclude that self-monitoring is more a skill than a trait, and probably a combination

of the too. However, it is not a substitute for one of the Big Five factors.

Some research suggests that the relation between personality and behaviour can be

moderated by situational factors (Mischel, 1973, 1979). That is, one has to make a distinction

between strong and weak situations. In strong situations, there are standardized expectations


40

which guide behaviour, and thus individuals will act in similar ways regardless of their

personality. In contrast, in weak situations, expectations regarding appropriate behaviour are

more ambiguous and people are more careful how to behave.

All factors of the Five Factor Model of Personality and self-monitoring will be

discussed in the next paragraphs, as well as the influence of situational factors on personality.

3.6.1 Extraversion

Extraversion is defined as a personal orientation towards other people (Flynn et al.,

2001). People who are extraverted are more likely to be sociable, talkative, and outgoing,

while those that are more introverted are more likely to be reserved and shy (John, 1990).

Extraverts feel comfortable with social interaction and aspire to struggle for and obtain

rewards (Lucas et al., 2000). Extraverted people tend to show more information through both

verbal and nonverbal cues than introverted people do (Park & Kraus, 1992). Moreover, in

comparison to introverted people, extraverted people are expected to effectively express

characteristics that are otherwise more difficult to judge, like skills, knowledge, values, and

interests (e.g., Fletcher, 1987; Tullar, 1989). As a result, extraverts are more likely to use

assertive verbal statements about their qualifications like self-focused tactics than introverts

would do (Kristof-Brown et al., 2002). Furthermore, extraverted people interact more often

with people in their environment, and convey personal information to those people (John,

1990). By this, extraverted people can counteract negative stereotypes held by others, since

the personal information can be disconfirming evidence (Flynn et al., 2001). So being

extraverted can be useful for demographically different people in order to enhance the

impressions that others hold of them (Gaertner et al., 2000). On the contrary, introverted

demographically different people do not offer disconfirming evidence and as a result may

continue to suffer from negative stereotypes (Flynn et al., 2001). In addition, with reference to

Barrick et al. (2002), extraversion is the most important personality trait that has an influence

on people’s efforts to gain power and dominance within a status hierarchy.

To sum up, based on the literature review it seems likely that extraverts are more

sociable and outgoing, show more information when communicating, and express

characteristics that are difficult to judge more effectively than introverts. As a result, it is

likely that extraverts engage in assertive verbal statements more often than introverts would

do. Moreover, being extraverted grants you some advantages in life; it is easier to obtain

power or to enhance the images that others hold of you.


41

3.6.2 Agreeableness

People high on agreeableness are generous, considerate, trustful, and willing to help

others (Bernardin et al., 2000). Persons at the high end of agreeableness have cooperative

values and a preference for positive interpersonal relationships, while people at the low end of

the dimensions can be described as manipulative, suspicious, self-centred, and ruthless (Costa

& McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990). Moreover, high agreeable people are more likely to focus

on others than on themselves during interactions (Kristof-Brown et al., 2002). For instance,

they try to feel comfortable and to evoke interpersonal attraction and liking (Kristof-Brown et

al., 2002). So it is likely that people high on this trait use other-focused impression

management tactics more often than self-focused tactics. In addition, people high on

agreeableness are expected to use defensive impression management behaviour less often than

people low on agreeableness since high agreeable people are less concerned about protecting

their own image (Van Iddekinge et al., 2007).

3.6.3 Conscientiousness

High conscientiousness people pay attention to excellence, are very careful, quite

systematic, and care about the impression they are conveying to others (Levy et al., 2004). As

Scheier and Carver (1981, p. 198) explain: “conscientiousness is an awareness of and a

responsivity to the impressions that are being made on others”. For instance, women high in

conscientiousness wear more makeup (Miller & Cox, 1982) and both women and men pay

more attention to clothes (Solomon & Schopler, 1982).

In working situations, employees high in conscientiousness are more likely to take

initiative in solving problems, to be organized, to stay dedicated to work performance, to

comply with policies, and to stay focused on tasks in comparison to low conscientiousness

employees. For instance, Barrick and Mount (1991) suggest that conscientiousness can be

seen as the will to work hard. Moreover, it has been the most reliable personality trait of job

performance across all types of work and occupations (Barrick et al., 2001).

There is some evidence that people high in conscientiousness have a better

understanding of the kinds of self-presentational tactics that create a positive impression

(Holtgraves & Scrull, 1989). It can be the case that they possess a high motivation to learn

what impresses others (DePaulo, 1992). However, a side effect of high conscientiousness

people is that they appear less credible than low conscientiousness people when attempting to

deceive using impression management tactics (Riggio, Tucker, & Widaman, 1987).


42

3.6.4 Openness to Experience

People high on Openness to Experience are intellectually curious and tend to look for

new experiences and original ideas. These people can be described as creative, imaginative,

reflective, innovative, and untraditional. People low on Openness to Experience can be

described as conventional and not analytical.

There is no empirical evidence or intuitive reason to relate Openness to Experience

with people’s ability to work together. Being imaginative, curious, and creative can facilitate

people’s performance depending on the job or situation, but these characteristics do not

necessarily improve interpersonal communication (Barrick, 2005). However, there are studies

that prove that Openness to Experience is positively correlated with the Universal Diverse

Orientation, a scale that measures awareness and acceptance of both similarities and

differences between people (Strauss & Connerley, 2003; Thompson et al., 2002). People who

score high on this scale bond with other people that are similar to them and at the same time

understand and appreciate that people are different (Strauss & Connerley, 2003). So, these

people appreciate other’s unique qualities and like to have a diversity of contact in their

interpersonal relations (Thompson et al., 2002).

In sum, people high on Openness to Experience are creative and curious, and

appreciate people that are similar to them, while they also like people who are different to

them. The relationship between Openness to Experience and performance ratings is unclear.

3.6.5 Neuroticism

Neuroticism characterizes the difference in adjustment and emotional stability in

individuals. Individuals who score high on Neuroticism are likely to experience a number of

negative emotions such as anxiety, depression, impulsiveness, and vulnerability, and negative

self-conscious emotions such as embarrassment (Costa & McCrae, 1992). People low on

Neuroticism are generally self-confident, calm, and relaxed (Matzler et al., 2006). With

reference to Peeters et al. (2006), it is likely that neurotic people will not engage in assertive

tactics that show self-confidence, but will rather employ defensive tactics to restore the

negative images that they believe are built around them. In clinical and psychiatric studies,

neuroticism proved to be related to a greater use of defensive tactics (e.g., Avia et al., 1998;

Spinhoven et al., 1995).

Moreover, neurotic people are likely to use influence tactics that can be characterized

as immature and ineffective. For instance, when trying to be successful, they do not display

knowledge, take on leadership, or show autonomy (Kyl-Heku & Buss, 1996). Overall, traits


43

associated with Neuroticism are usually valued negatively; however more negatively for men

than for women (Hampson et al., 1987). Brody (2002) found that expressions like sadness,

depression, fear, or shame are non-masculine and are therefore evaluated more negatively for

men than for women. In addition, Gross and John (2001) conclude that men use suppression

of emotions more often than women and consistently score lower on Neuroticism measures

(Benet-Martinizez & John, 1998; Costa et al., 1992).

To conclude, Neuroticism can lead to cause a fixation on one’s own problems instead

of paying attention to cues provided by the environment. This can lead to rejection by others

and a further reduction in the person’s self-esteem. However, the causal direction of this

relationship is not clear; it can also be the case that because of rejection within a group, a

person experiences neurotic symptoms (Chaikin et al., 1975).

3.6.6 Self-monitoring

When engaging in impression management behaviour, people need to effectively

control and synchronize a variety of verbal and nonverbal expressions. Mark Snyder (1974)

suggests that there are individual differences in the extent to which people can monitor and

control their expressive behaviours, which he calls their self-monitoring ability. “The self-

monitoring individual is one who, out of a 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” (Snyder, 1974, p. 528). First, the

characteristics associated with high self-monitoring will be explained. Second, the drawbacks

of being a high self-monitor are mentioned. Third, I will reflect on self-monitoring and

impression management behaviour.

High self-monitors have the ability to successfully control their expressive behaviours

and have the motivation to look for cues that indicate what is socially appropriate (Turnley &

Bolino, 2001). For instance, high self-monitors are better in pretending to be angry, sad,

happy, surprised, or guilty, even when they do not feel this way (Snyder, 1974). Moreover,

high self-monitors pay attention to audiences to receive cues what they should do in a

particular situation. As Schlenker (1980) explains, high self-monitors identify the situation

and utilize the information they find. In contrast, low self-monitors “typically express what

they really think and feel” (Snyder, 1987, p. 5).

Several theorists investigated the influence of self-monitors in the organization. For

instance, Day and Kilduff (2003) conclude that high self-monitors are more socially skilled

and as a result prefer to work in sales and management positions. High self-monitors are


44

expected to get more promotions (Kilduff & Day, 1994), are more likely to fill leadership

roles (Day et al., 2002; Zaccaro et al., 1991) and take on central positions within organizations

(Mehra et al., 2001).

There is also a side effect: high self-monitors appear to be less consistent over time in

their behaviour than low self-monitors. This is because high self-monitors change their

behaviour all the time to adapt to the situation, thus presenting themselves in different ways.

In contrast, low self-monitors express a high correspondence between their actual feelings and

beliefs and their subsequent behaviour (Snyder & Swann, 1976; Snyder & Tanke, 1976). So

although the high self-monitor is more able to adapt in social interactions, this often comes at

the expense of his own attitude at that moment (Schlenker, 1980).

Self-monitoring has often been associated with impression management tactics used in

everyday interaction (Friedman & Miller-Herringer, 1991; Ickes, Reidhad, & Patterson, 1986;

Levine & Feldman, 1997). For instance, high self-monitors are more likely to engage in

impression management behaviour than low self-monitors (Roberts, 2005). Moreover, high

self-monitors are expected to project an image as favourably as possible with the use of

impression management tactics, and they can maximize their performance since they are

skilled to adapt their behaviour to the situation (Peeters et al., 2006). Other studies suggest as

well that high self-monitors are better at controlling their behaviours for impression

management reasons (Arkin et al., 1979; Miller & Schlenker, 1978). For instance, when

telling a lie, high self-monitors control the pacing of their speech; they speak at the same rate

as when they are telling the truth (Siegman & Reynolds, 1983). High self-monitors also have

the ability to pose emotions both with their faces and with their voices (Riggio & Friedman,

1982; Snyder, 1974). Moreover, Higgins and Judge (2004) conclude that self-monitoring is

positively related to ingratiation and self-promotion. Bolino and Turnley (2003) found that

high self-monitors favour positive impression management strategies. Furthermore, others

claim that self-monitoring leads to a higher intention to fake and to higher faked behaviour

(Mueller-Hanson et al., 2003). However, the research findings are mixed; other studies did not

find support for a relationship between self-monitoring and the use of impression

management tactics (Anderson et al., 1999; Delery & Kacmar, 1998).

There are situations in which the high self-monitor decides that impression

management behaviour is too risky such that the potential cost of failing outweighs the benefit

of the favourable impression (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). As Elliott (1979) puts forward, when

high self-monitors will tell a lie to another person, they first acquire more information about

that person to create a more effective lie, even though there can be costs to obtain that


45

information. Moreover, it is relatively difficult to change others’ impressions, particularly

when others have negative expectations about someone’s identity (Darley & Fazio, 1980;

Snyder & Stukas, 1999).

Finally, high self-monitors are better in perceiving the ingratiation tactics used by

others. Given that high self-monitors are more sensitive to social cues and more able to adept

to an audience, they also notice when others do the same. In addition, high self-monitors

appear to react more negatively to suspected ingratiation than do low self-monitors (Jones &

Baumeister, 1976).

To summarize, high self-monitors can successfully control their expressive

behaviours, which provides them an advantage while using impression management tactics.

Moreover, high self-monitors look for cues that indicate what is socially appropriate (Turnley

& Bolino, 2001). However, because high self-monitors adapt to the situation, it can come at

the expensive of their own attitude at that moment (Schlenker, 1980). Overall, high self-

monitors are more likely to engage in impression management behaviour than low self-

monitors, and are probably more successful in this too.

3.6.7 Situation-based and person-based constraints

With reference to Barrick (2005), people’s behaviour is a function of the

characteristics of the situation and the personality of someone, since both factors can facilitate

or impede someone’s behaviour. Therefore, theorists claim that personality traits have the

largest influence on someone’s performance when a person’s behaviour is unconstrained by

the situation (Bem & Allen, 1974; Weiss & Adler, 1984). For instance, in their study Barrick

and Mount (1993) conclude that the level of autonomy in a job creates a situational constraint;

when there was low autonomy, personality traits did not predict performance since there was

consistency in behaviour. On the contrary, when a job was high in autonomy and had many

ambiguous demands, people had a substantial discretion to engage in behaviours that were in

line with their personality traits.

Interestingly, some characteristics of people can also constrain behaviour, which can

limit the expression of personality traits too. For instance, Witt et al. (2002) found that

employees low on Agreeableness displayed a variety of uncooperative and selfish behaviours

towards others, which led to lower supervisory ratings of job performance, even though the

employee was highly conscientious. As Barrick (2005) suggests, it can also be the case that

self-monitoring interacts with personality traits to influence performance. Since high self-

monitors have a strong desire to be perceived favourable, the individual decides to engage in a


46

very narrow, limited set of behaviours related to making a good impression on others, which

can be a constraint on the expression of the Big Five personality traits. In contrast, low self-

monitors attempt to be authentic and as a result, their behaviour is not constrained. So

personality traits are expected to predict behaviour more accurately for low self-monitors

instead of high self-monitors.

To conclude, there are external and internal factors that have an influence on

someone’s behaviour. Certain situations encourage compliance and as a result a person cannot

behave differently even if he would like to. Other situations are restricted by the person itself.

As Barrick (2005) suggests, both situation-based and person-based constraints on behaviour

should be investigated into more depth.

3.7 Audience characteristics

As was already explained in paragraph 2.5.2, audience characteristics have an

influence on actor’s definition of the situation. For instance, the power, status, and

attractiveness of an audience have a great impact on the way the actor presents himself. This

paragraph will elaborate on these variables, and start with two additional variables: similarity

and liking.

3.7.1 Similarity and liking

One of the most firmly established results in social psychology is the positive

correlation between interpersonal affect and similarity among people on a variety of

dimensions like attitudes, personality, and demographic characteristics (Byrne, 1969, 1971).

Several theorists have pointed out the influential role that personality similarity plays in

organizational behaviour. For instance, research revealed that personality similarity is

associated with higher quality leader-member exchange (e.g. Ashkanasy & O’Connor, 1997;

Bauer & Green, 1996), organizational commitment, and job satisfaction (Meglino et al., 1989,

1991). Moreover, performance ratings can be influenced by the similarity effect between rater

and ratee as well (Wexley & Klimoski, 1984). However, there is not that much empirical

research done on the relationship between rater and ratee similarity.

Two different theories exist to explain how similarity can influence behaviour and

subsequent performance ratings. Byrne’s (1969, 1971) similarity-attraction paradigm claims

that people who possess similar individual characteristics and attitudes perceive one another

as similar and will be attracted to each other. Several experiments in social psychology


47

provide support for this theory (Berscheid & Walster, 1969; Jamieson et al., 1978). This

interpersonal affect based on perceived similarity may influence performance ratings either

directly (e.g. Dipboye, 1985; Turban & Jones, 1988; Wexley et al., 1980) or through a variety

of cognitive processes (DeNisi et al., 1984; Feldman, 1981; Isen et al., 1978).

The other theory suggests that interpersonal similarity may actually influence people’s

behaviour. For instance, Bauer and Green (1996) explain that personality similarity has a

large influence on trust building between leaders and members in developing relationships.

Since people acquire not that much information about the other early in a developing

relationship, they are inclined to trust people who are similar to themselves. Moreover, many

theorists have claimed that personality similarity makes it more likely that people will

interpret behaviours and environmental factors similarly. These shared perspectives facilitate

communication between people and are thus important for effective interactions (Engle &

Lord, 1997; Meglino et al., 1991; Miles, 1964). In addition, personality similarity enhances

the amount of communication between people (e.g. Engle & Lord, 1997; Zenger & Lawrence,

1989), social integration into an organization (O’Reilly et al., 1989), and diminishes role

conflict and role ambiguity (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989; Turban & Jones, 1988). Likewise, it can

influence actor’s perception of the situation and his subsequent impression management

behaviour (Gardner, 1992). To conclude, personality similarity can lead to enhanced

interpersonal relationships and higher job performance.

In addition, there is a strong relation between perceived similarity and liking according

to social psychology research and organizational literature. This is because psychologically

healthy people have the tendency to identify themselves to be similar to others that they

consider desirable (Byrne, 1971; Cialdini & DeNicholas, 1989; Lewicki, 1983; Swann et al.,

1992). French and Raven (1959) conclude that being liked can be described as referent power,

since the liked individual gains influence and trust (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). Furthermore,

if an actor is liked by the audience, his accounts, enhancement, and entitlement claims are

more likely to be accepted (Tedeschi & Riess, 1981).

Moreover, from the audience point of view, liking has an enduring effect that will

influence later performance ratings. For instance, liking can mask performance shortages, or

the audience member may grant the actor more resources and support than disliked actors.

Additionally, when actually rating the performance of the actor, audience members have the

tendency to recall the positive behaviour of the liked person and the negative behaviour of the

disliked person (Wayne & Liden, 1995).


48

Although the two underlying theories have a different perspective, the influence of

personality similarity on for instance organizational commitment and job satisfaction is

evident. Moreover, there is a strong relation between similarity and liking which can influence

performance ratings. Therefore, these two variables are expected to have a large influence on

the impression management process.

3.7.2 Power

With reference to Raven and Koslowsky (1998), social power can be defined as the

resources that are available to one person, which can be used to influence another person to do

what the other person would not have done otherwise. However, as the researchers point out,

compliance is not only a function of the power sources actually used but also of the powers

believed to be accessible by the powerholder.

The possession and maintenance of power is one of the most motivating processes in

society (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). For instance, power is an essential concern for many

employees (Gioa & Sims, 1983). A number of power typologies exist, and perhaps the most

important one is that of French and Raven (1959). According to French and Raven (1959),

compliance occurs because the powerholder exercises one or more types of power: reward,

coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert power. Reward power is the capability to change to

other things one desires or to remove things you do not like by using monetary or

nonmonetary compensation (French & Raven, 1959). Coercive power happens when the

powerholder has the ability to punish a person if he does not comply. Legitimate power occurs

when a person acknowledges that the powerholder has the right to make requests and as a

consequence feels forced to fulfil the requests (Raven & Rubin, 1976). Referent power results

when a person identifies with the powerholder and therefore fulfils the powerholder’s requests

(French & Raven, 1959). Expert power occurs when one relies on the knowledge of the

powerholder (Raven & Rubin, 1976).

Many theorists suggest that people use confirmation strategies when they interact with

others that they consider to be powerful, since they can gain social approval and resources

from powerholders (Hilton & Darley, 1985; Snyder & Stukas, 1999). For instance, Kipnis et

al. (1980) suggest that ingratiation is used frequently to make a good impression on superiors

and peers. Jones and Wortman (1973) indicate that ingratiation is positively related to

audience attractiveness, status, and power. The literature concerning the influence of power

on people’s use of impression management tactics is not that elaborate, and often is combined


49

with the perceived status of the audience. Therefore, next paragraph will discuss this issue in

more detail.

3.7.3 Status

In accordance with many theorists, status has a significant impact on social life and on

personality. Adler (1930) was one of the first theorists that claimed that humans are basically

social creatures, motivated by the ‘striving for superiority’. This is also reflected in

hierarchies which exist in all social groups, like peer groups, teams, work organizations, and

neighbourhood communities (Bernstein, 1981; Buss, 1988; Mazur, 1985).

Status comprises three main components (Anderson et al., 2001). First, status causes

asymmetrical amounts of attention, so that people who are higher in the hierarchy obtain more

attention than those who are lower in the hierarchy (Chance, 1967; Fiske, 1993). As a result,

high status people are more prominent, visible, and well-known. Second, status causes a

difference in the amount of respect and esteem one receives; high status members are more

respected (Barkow, 1975; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1978; Goldhamer & Shils, 1939). Third, high status

people are granted more influence on group decisions and processes (e.g., Bales et al., 1951,

Berger et al., 1972).

One should make a distinction between face-to-face status in groups and

socioeconomic status. Face-to-face status is defined by the context and related to a particular

group (Berger et al., 1972; Owens & Sutton, 1999; Savin-Williams, 1979), while

socioeconomic status is a more global characteristic defined by education, occupation, and

income. Consequently, people can have a low level of socioeconomic status but have a high

level of status within their face-to-face group (Anderson et al., 2001).

Goffman (1959) proposes that the status of the audience has a strong influence on self-

presentations. Research suggests that people are more likely to engage in impression

management behaviour when they interact with people who are powerful, of high status,

attractive, or likable, than with people who possess these characteristics in a smaller amount

(Schlenker, 1980). This is because people of high status are more likely to be in a position to

award a positive outcome (Gergen & Taylor, 1969; Jones et al., 1963). As other theorists

conclude as well, people are more likely to engage in impression management behaviour

when the social and psychological benefits of pleasing others are higher (Leary & Kowalski,

1990; Major et al., 2000; Pandey, 1986). Likewise, research confirms that people judge

interactions with people who possess high status and power to be more important than their

interactions with people who lack status and power (Allen et al., 1979; Jones et al., 1963).


50

These findings suggest that audience’s status increases actors’ awareness of their image and

as a consequence encourages impression management behaviour (Jones et al., 1963; Ralston,

1985).

To conclude, the motivation to engage in impression management behaviour is higher

when people interact with high status or powerful people in contrast to low status or powerful

people (Gergen & Taylor, 1969; Jones et al., 1963).

3.7.4 Physical attractiveness

Even prehistoric and primitive people were already concerned about self-presentation;

cosmetics, clothing, jewellery, and other aids to physical attractiveness were universally used

to present positive identities to others and are still used today (Tedeschi, 1981). First, the

advantages of physical attractiveness will be mentioned, then the existing literature will be

discussed and a conclusion will be drawn.

In general, physical attractiveness is a valued characteristic (Buss & Kenrick, 1988;

Eagly et al. 1991; Feingold, 1992). For instance, during social interactions people pay more

attention to physically attractive people than to less attractive people (Karraker, 1986; la

Freniere et al., 1983). Moreover, being physically attractive can provide various positive

social outcomes like having more friends (Feingold, 1992) and even making more money

(Roszell et al., 1989). As Riggio acknowledges as well (1986, p. 655): “two decades of

research have shown that physically attractive persons have a distinct advantage in

interpersonal encounters because they tend to make a more favourable impression on others”.

Sabatelli and Rubin (1986) claim that attractive people are better at communicating emotions

spontaneously using their facial expressions than less attractive people are. Larrance and

Zuckermand (1980) posit that physically attractive people are also better at faking emotions

with their faces. When physically attractive people are telling an effective lie, they will be

more successful to control their nonverbal behaviour than less attractive people (DePaul et al.,

1988). Since attractive people are probably used to being the centre of attention, they can be

more skilled at controlling their nonverbal behaviour and they may also be less self-conscious

about those behaviours. For some people spontaneous expressions can be difficult to control

and may hinder their nonverbal impression management, however physically attractive people

who are confident and not self-conscious are not influenced by this (DePaulo, 1992).

In addition, physically attractive people are often influenced by halo effects; others

grant them numerous positive characteristics which are actually not related to that person

(Ashmore & Longo, 1995; Eagly et al., 1991). This inaccurate perception can gain attractive


51

people a higher status in groups (Anderson et al., 2001). For instance, French and Raven

(1959) suggest that attractiveness could be a power resource since others want to be liked by

the attractive person and thus comply with him. Moreover, Tedeschi (1974) acknowledges the

influence of attractiveness in liking too, claiming that an attractive person is more likely to be

rewarded by those who like him than those who do not like him.

However, with reference to Ashmore and Longo (1995), a review of the existing

literature shows that only a few empirical studies have researched physical attractiveness, that

the evidence is limited and that there is not a clear link between attractiveness and

interpersonal influence. As they point out, one has to make a distinction between the

interaction of same sex or mixed sex people. Research simply shows that men are more likely

to do a favour for a physically attractive woman rather than for an unattractive woman

(Ashmore & Longo, 1995). Even though it is thought that physical attractiveness is more

valued among women than in men (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Buss & Kenrick, 1998) the

research of Anderson et al. (2001) suggests that only physically attractive men are able to

obtain a higher status in a same sex fraternity. The sorority finding indicates that being

physically attractive is not linked to status in groups consisting of solely women. As

Anderson et al. (2001) clarify, it can be the case that men value physically attractive friends

more than women do (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Moreover, physically attractive men can have

more success when dating, which can contribute to higher status in a group (Feingold, 1992).

“In other words, a women’s physical attractiveness might give her greater access to potential

dating partners and greater popularity, but not increase her prominence, respect, and influence

among other women” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 122). A possible bias could be that in

comparison to other people the sorority and fraternity members may represent a fairly

restricted range of physical attractiveness. As Anderson et al. (2001) put forward, physical

attractiveness is often a criterion to be included in a fraternity or sorority which can result in a

higher overall level of attractiveness.

As was discussed in this paragraph, numerous theorists assume or found in their study

that being physically attractive grants you various positive social outcomes. However, other

researchers point out that the evidence is limited and that one should make a distinction

between gender and groups consisting of same sex people or mixed groups. Since

attractiveness is often (unconsciously) a criterion to be included in a fraternity or sorority, this

research will examine attractiveness in same sex groups.


52

3.8 Conclusion

This chapter discussed the types or classifications of impression management

behaviour that exist, and the influence of personality traits and audience characteristics.

First, a distinction was made between nonverbal and verbal impression management

behaviour. Nonverbal behaviour contains expressions like smiles, frowns, and yawns that can

reflect the mood, physical states, and cognitive states of the actor. Verbal impression

management behaviour can be divided into assertive and defensive impression management

tactics. People make use of assertive tactics to create images that promote desirable qualities,

while defensive tactics are employed to maintain a particular image, minimize deficiencies, or

avoid looking bad in response to a predicament.

Second, I mentioned the dimensions that, besides the variables discussed in chapter

two, have an influence on the impression management behaviour of the actor as well. These

dimensions are purposiveness, authenticity, positiveness, teamwork, and assertiveness.

Third, Jones and Pittman’s (1982) impression management taxonomy was discussed,

including each of the five impression management tactics. For instance, ingratiation can be an

effective tactic to employ, however the actor should outweigh how successful the ingratiation

will be and if the ingratiation tactic is considered appropriate for the situation.

Since personality traits have been associated with the use of impression management

tactics, I described Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional

Stability/Neurotism, and Openness to Experience and their relation to impression

management. For instance, extraverts are more likely to use assertive verbal statements about

their qualifications like self-focused tactics than introverts would do. In contrast, high

agreeable people are more likely to focus on others than on themselves during interactions

and as a result will use other-focused impression management tactics more often than self-

focused tactics. In addition, high self-monitors are more likely to engage in impression

management behaviour than low self-monitors, and are probably more successful in

impression management.

Fifth, audience characteristics like power, status, and attractiveness were explained in

detail. Moreover, similarity and liking have a large influence on actor’s definition of the

situation too.

Chapter two and three provided the theoretical foundation on which the hypotheses

will be built. These hypotheses will be discussed in the next chapter.


53

4. Hypotheses

Based on the theory discussed in chapter two and three, this chapter will develop the

hypotheses that are going to be investigated in this research. As will be explained into depth

in chapter five, the sample used in this research consists of members and candidates of

fraternities and sororities. For clarification matters, the words ‘actor’ and ‘audience’ are in

this part of the research replaced by ‘candidate’ and ‘member’ respectively.

First, audience characteristics and their relationship with impression management

behaviour will be discussed. Second, the relation between impression management behaviour

and performance ratings will be explained. Third, actual personality similarity and its

influence on the perceived audience characteristics by the candidate, candidate’s use of

impression management tactics, and member’s performance rating will be investigated.

Fourth, the influence of self-monitoring will be explained. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn

and the model depicting the relationships will be displayed.

H1: Audience characteristics

As Goffman (1959) proposes, the status of the audience has a strong influence on

actor’s self-presentation. Previous research suggests that people are more likely to engage in

impression management behaviour when they interact with people who are powerful, of high

status, attractive, or likable, than when they interact with people who possess these

characteristics in a smaller amount (Schlenker, 1980). As other theorists conclude as well,

people are more likely to engage in impression management behaviour when the social and

psychological benefits of pleasing others are higher (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Major et al.,

2000; Pandey, 1986). For instance, high status people are in the position to award a positive

outcome (Gergen & Taylor, 1969; Jones et al., 1963). Moreover, other theorists claim that

people use confirmation strategies when they interact with others they consider to be powerful

(Hilton & Darley, 1985; Snyder & Stukas, 1999). Therefore, it is predicted that a high status

and powerful audience increases actor’s motivation to use impression management tactics

H1a: The perceived status of the member will be positively related to candidate’s use of


H1b: The perceived power of the member will be positively related to candidate’s use of



54

Although the research about attractiveness is limited (Ashmore & Longo, 1995),

according to some researchers people are generally more concerned about impressing

attractive instead of unattractive audiences (Schlenker, 1980; Zanna & Pack, 1975).

Moreover, French and Raven (1959) suggest that attractiveness could be a power resource

since people want to be liked by an attractive person and thus comply with him. It is therefore

expected that there is a positive relationship between perceived attractiveness of the member

by the candidate and the use of impression management tactics by the candidate.

H1c: The perceived attractiveness of the member will be positively related to candidate’s use

of impression management tactics.

With reference to French and Raven (1959), liking can be seen as referent power since

the liked individual gains influence and trust. Moreover, if the candidate likes the member, the

candidate is more likely to trust him and believe his communications. In addition, if the

candidate perceives that the member likes him, he will expect that his impression

management behaviour is more likely to get accepted, and he will be less likely to be harmed

by the member. Furthermore, a person is more likely to be rewarded by those who like him

than those who do not like him. It is therefore predicted that perceived liking by the member,

and liking of the member, will have a positive effect on candidate’s use of impression

management tactics.

H1d: Candidate’s liking of a member and perceived liking by a member will be positively

related to candidate’s use of impression management tactics.

As was defined in the theoretical framework, social power constitutes of the resources

available to influence another person to do what the other person would not have done

otherwise (Raven & Koslowsky; 1998). As the literature points out, people try to gain social

power through intimidation (Arkin & Sheppard, 1990) which is usually a form of downward

influence (Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Based on a few articles that discuss intimidation and other

forms of coercion in American fraternities and sororities, I expect that intimidation can be

present in Dutch fraternities and sororities as well (Finkel, 2002). Moreover, the social

structure of a fraternity and sorority is the same as the social structure of organizations:

candidates have no other means than using ingratiation to influence others, while members

already have the ability to reward or punish the candidate’s performance. As Rosenfeld et al.


55

(1995) point out, this social structure can create an atmosphere of intimidation, which in turn

elicits strategic impression management to counter or neutralize the intimidator’s influence

attempts.

H1e: Perceived intimidation of a member will be positively related to candidate’s use of


H2: Impression management behaviour and performance ratings

Regardless of the specific situation in which it is used, the general aim of impression

management is to create a particular impression in others’ minds (Leary & Kowalski, 1990;

Rosenfeld et al., 1995). Impression management behaviour is now recognized as commonly

occurring in organizations (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Most previous research in

organizational settings concentrates on the effectiveness of impression management behaviour

in creating favourable images and accomplishing career success (Turnley & Bolino, 2001).

For instance, several researchers conclude that supervisors gave more favourable evaluations

of subordinates who engaged in impression management behaviour (e.g. Wayne & Kacmar,

1991; Wayne & Liden, 1995).

The literature about ingratiation suggests that ingratiation can create a favourable

impression on the audience and as a result can enhance liking and performance ratings (Ellis

et al., 2002; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977). For instance, a

study conducted by Wayne and Ferris (1990) suggests that employees who engage in

ingratiation receive higher performance ratings than employees who do not use ingratiation

tactics. In a meta-analysis conducted by Gordon (1996), ingratiation tactics are generally

positively related to performance evaluations and interpersonal attraction. However, the type

of ingratiation used, the transparency, and the direction of the ingratiation have an influence

on this relationship. In contrast, there are researchers who found that ingratiation has a

negative effect on performance outcomes (e.g., Thacker & Wayne, 1995).

The research on self-promotion and performance presents mixed results. For instance,

several researchers conclude that self-promotion has a positive effect on someone’s evaluation

in interviews (e.g., Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Kacmar & Carlson, 1999; Kristof- Brown et al.,

2002). Others suggest that there is a negative relationship between self-promotion and

performance, which can be explained by the risk that is associated by engaging in impression

management tactics (e.g., Wayne & Ferris, 1990). For instance, when the audience member

feels he is being manipulated, he will act negatively to the impression management behaviour.


56

Jones and Pittman (1982) suggest that self-promotion tactics are more likely to be successful

when the image being claimed is difficult to verify. Like the research on ingratiation, the

literature on self-promotion indicates mixed results.

Besides ingratiation and self-promotion, exemplification is another positive

impression management tactic. Turnley & Bolino (2001) found that exemplifiers are more

likely to be seen as dedicated and are unlikely to be perceived as lazy by peers, since

exemplifiers work harder and are more committed when others pay attention to them. Even

though exemplification can backfire as well (Gilbert & Jones, 1986), I expect that there is a

positive relationship between exemplification and performance ratings.

The last impression management tactic in this study, supplication, is used when

candidates exploit their own weakness in order to influence others (Jones, 1990; Jones &

Pittman, 1982). As is the case with other impression management tactics, supplication can

backfire as well. If the supplicator exaggerates, he will be seen as less favourably. The

relationship between supplication and performance ratings is not researched in depth (Bolino

& Turnley, 2001). On the one hand, someone who appears to be needy or helpless will receive

a lower performance rating, while in certain conditions it can also lead to higher performance

ratings (Longenecker et al., 1987). As Jones and Pittman (1982) explain, people who engage

in supplication may make supervisors feel superior to others which can lead to a positive

performance rating. Bolino & Turnley (2001) found that supplication has a positive

relationship with performance evaluations among male employees, but a negative relationship

among female employees.

As is the discussed in the literature overview, a person who engages in impression

management behaviour carries the risk of being perceived negatively, since impression

management tactics can backfire (Jones & Pittman, 1982). As Higgens et al. (2003) conclude

as well, the results of other studies reveal a lack of consistent findings. However from an

expectancy theory perspective, a candidate is only likely to use impression management

behaviour if he believes that this will lead to a favourable impression by the member. So

based on most theoretical studies, and the goal of impression management itself, I expect that

there will be a positive relationship between the use of impression management tactics by the

candidate and member’s performance rating of that candidate.

H2a: The use of impression management tactics by a candidate will be positively related to

member’s performance rating of that candidate


57

H3: Personality similarity

Social and situational variables can operate as cues that can create stereotypes or

categories. These categories, in turn, may influence audience’s evaluation of an actor

(Dipboye, 1985). One of these cues is similarity (Byrne, 1971; Turban & Jones, 1988; Wexley

& Klimoski, 1984). Most research that discusses performance ratings investigates the

influence of demographic similarity (e.g. Judge & Ferris, 1993; Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989;

Wayne & Liden, 1995). However, empirical research on the relationship between personality

similarity and performance ratings is sparse (Antonioni et al., 2001; Bauer & Green, 1996).

Similarity in general is already found to be related to performance ratings. For

instance, Miles (1964) found that supervisors provided higher ratings to people whose

attitudes were similar to their own. Similarly, Senger (1971) found that a rater ratee similarity

in values results in high ratings. Moreover, personality similarity is associated with higher

organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989, 1991).

Some theorists found that actual similarity in positive affectivity, which is comparable to

extraversion, was significantly related to performance ratings (Bauer & Green, 1996).

Ashkanasy and O’Connor (1997) concluded that actual similarity in achievement values,

which is comparable to conscientiousness, had a significant relationship with higher quality of

leader member exchange. However, Straus et al. (2001) did not find a significant relationship

between actual personality similarity and performance ratings in their data sets, except for one

situation: similarity in emotional stability was related to peer ratings. In contrast, perceived

similarity was significantly related to performance ratings. Likewise, research that discusses

demographic similarity presents mixed results as well; Hamner et al. (1974) found that

students gave higher performance ratings to interviewees of the same race, while other

researchers found no evidence that supervisors rated employees of similar race, age, or sex

higher (Cleveland & Landy, 1981; Mobley, 1982; Wexley & Pulakos, 1983). Since this

research uses quite homogeneous groups, demographic similarity will not be investigated.

Byrne’s (1971) ‘similar-to-me’ hypothesis claims that people will rate other people

higher the more similar they are to the ratee or the more similar they believe they are to the

ratee. Turner’s (1987) self-categorization theory can be an explanation for this. Self-

categorization theory (Jacson et al., 1991; Tsui et al., 1992; Turner, 1987) assumes that people

place themselves in social categories like age and gender. The need for a positive self-identity

causes people to evaluate those people who are more similar to them more positively.


58

Since research about actual personality similarity yields mixed results, it is difficult to

draw a firm conclusion about the effect of actual similarity or the mechanisms by which

actual similarity affects performance ratings. However, if actual similarity leads to perceived

similarity, so Byrne’s (1971) ‘similar-to-me’ hypothesis, I expect that there is a positive

relationship with member’s performance rating.

Hypothesis 3a: Member’s actual similarity to the candidate on personality dimensions will be

positively related to member’s performance rating of that specific candidate.

Another theory suggests that interpersonal similarity may actually influence people’s

behaviour in work settings. Not only has personality similarity an influence on trust building

(Bauer & Green, 1996), it also facilitates communication between people since both parties

interpret behaviours and environmental factors similarly (Engle & Lord, 1997; Meglino et al.,

1991; Miles, 1964). Moreover, personality similarity enhances the amount of communication

between people (e.g. Engle & Lord, 1997; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989), leads to social

integration into an organization (O’Reilly et al., 1989), diminishes role conflict and role

ambiguity (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989; Turban & Jones, 1988) and adds confidence to both

parties (Turban & Jones, 1988). As Wexley et al. (1980) explain, people who see others

similar to themselves are more able to understand others’ actions and to predict others’ future

behaviours. This similarity can be considered as a form of accurate communication with

feelings of interpersonal satisfaction (Newcomb, 1956). So, actual similarity can lead to

similar perceptions of the work environment which reduces uncertainty and role ambiguity.

As Turban and Jones (1988) put forward, if personality similarity leads to a better insight into

what influences a higher performance rating, insight instead of bias might lead to higher

performance ratings. In addition, the ratee can focus on the activities that the rater finds

important, which improves subsequent performance (Turban & Jones, 1988). Antonioni et al.

(2001) found that ratee’s self-esteem, confidence, and trust in the rater increases with rater-

ratee similarity, which is consistent with the argument that similarity can have an influence on

actual behaviour. Based on the limited amount of research, one can conclude that is it

expected that personality similarity leads to enhanced interpersonal relationships. If ratee’s

self-esteem and trust in the rater increases, it is likely that personality similarity is positively

related to member’s perceived attractiveness and liking by a candidate. Moreover, it is

expected that personality similarity is negatively related to the perceived status, power, and

intimidation used by a member as observed by a candidate.


59

Hypothesis 3b: Member’s actual similarity to the candidate on personality dimensions will be

positively related to candidate’s perceived attractiveness and liking of a candidate.

Hypothesis 3c: Member’s actual similarity to the candidate on personality dimensions will be

negatively related to candidate’s perceived status, power, and intimidation of a candidate.

Based on the theory discussed, it can also be the case that personality similarity has a

direct effect on the use of candidate’s impression management tactics. For instance, when

dyads with similar personalities communicate better and trust each other more, the need to

engage in impression management behaviour can reduce.

Hypothesis 3d: Member’s actual similarity to the candidate on personality dimensions will be

negatively related to candidate’s impression management behaviour.

Previous discussion suggests that personality similarity will have a negative or

positive effect on a variable, regardless of whether both the candidate and member will score

high or low on each of the Big Five dimensions. However, Antonioni et al. (2001) found in

their study that for some personality dimensions, there can be a difference when both people

score high or low on a specific dimension. For instance, performance ratings were higher

when both people scored high on Conscientiousness and Agreeableness than when both

people scored low on these two dimensions. This can be explained since a high level of

Conscientiousness is related to being disciplined, responsible, and focused on goals (Barrick

& Mount, 1991; Piedmont et al., 1991). Moreover, people high on Conscientiousness expect

that others will behave similarly to themselves, and they value other people’s Conscientious

behaviours. Similar results were found when both people scored high on Agreeableness, but

only if the work behaviours involved a large social component (Antonioni et al., 2001).

Extraversion and Openness to Experience are not investigated in the research by Antonioni et

al. (2001). Since these findings can influence this research too, it is definitely something to

take into account. Chapter six will reflect upon this.

H4: Self-monitoring

Self-monitoring is the difference in the extent to which people can monitor and control

their expressive behaviours (Snyder, 1974). High self-monitors have the ability to


60

successfully control their expressive behaviours and have the motivation to look for cues that

indicate what is socially appropriate (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). High self-monitors identify

the situation and utilize the information they find (Schlenker, 1980). Day and Kilduff (2003)

conclude that high self-monitors are more socially skilled, and are more likely to fill

leadership roles (Day et al., 2002; Zaccaro et al., 1991). Research by Jones and Baumeister

(1976) suggests that high self-monitors are more capable to perceive the ingratiation tactics

used by others than low self-monitors are. Moreover, since high self-monitors are more

sensitive to social cues and adept their behaviour to an audience, they also notice when others

do the same. In addition, high self-monitors appear to react more negatively to suspected

ingratiators than do low self-monitors. It is therefore expected that self-monitoring has a

moderating effect on the relationship between impression management tactics used by the

candidate and performance ratings given by the member.

H4: Member’s Self-monitoring will function as a moderator with a negative effect on the

relation between candidate’s use of impression management tactics and member’s

performance rating of that candidate.

4.1 Conclusion

This chapter discussed all the hypotheses that will be tested in this research to answer

the problem statement. In addition, figure 4.1 provides an overview of all the linkages

between the variables. Chapter five will continue with the research methodology of this study.


61

Figure 4.1: overview of all hypotheses

Audience personality

• self-monitoring

Similarity

• Big Five

Impression Management

tactics used by A-lid

• self-promotion

• ingratiation

• exemplification

• supplication

Audience Characteristics

• perceived status of member

• perceived power of member

• attractiveness of member

• liking of member

• perceived intimidation

Performance

rating

H1 H2

H3 H3

H4

H3


62

5. Methodology

5.1 Introduction

This chapter introduces the research methodology that is applied in this study. First, I

will explain the sampling design in which the sample unit being studied and the sampling

methods used are explained. Second, the research design is discussed, followed by the method

of data collection. The subsequent paragraph discusses the measurements being used, in

which first the member’s questionnaires will be explained, and after that the candidate’s

questionnaires.

5.2 Sampling design

Most empirical work on the behavioural determinants of social outcomes relies on ad

hoc groups: people experimentally assigned to groups that exist only for short periods of time

and who work together on a specific task. However, the disadvantage of short-term groups is

that members do not have time to detect the individual’s cheating ways (Anderson et al.,

2001). Therefore, in this research the members and candidates of 2 fraternities and 7 sororities

are studied, since these members have a broad range of interactions across an extensive period

of time. Moreover, these organizations are known to have some hierarchical organization

(Keltner et al., 1998; Montgomery, 1971), especially during their hazing period.

The fraternities and sororities that I investigate are either all male or all female

organizations, and are groups that are part of a large student organization, or groups that are

so-called ‘independent fraternities or sororities’ which are a group on their own. These

fraternities and sororities are all located in Maastricht, except for one which is located in

Eindhoven. Some fraternities or sororities just finished their hazing period in which the

candidates become members, others still had some weeks left. On average the hazing period

lasted 11.2 weeks. Since the fraternities and sororities were selected based on the criterion

that at least one of the members was known to me, the so-called ‘contact-person’ of the group,

this study uses convenience sampling. In this way, it was more effective to obtain a large

number of questionnaires, since fraternity and sorority evenings are generally not intended to

be visited by outsiders.

Completed questionnaires are obtained from 39 members and 41 candidates, which is

a response rate of 88%. However due to incomplete or mismatched dyads the final sample

consists of 36 dyads. The mean age of the members is 21.1 years with a minimum of 19 years


63

and a maximum of 24 years. The mean age of the candidates is 18.9 years with a minimum of

18 years and a maximum of 19 years. Of the respondents is 16.7% male and 83.3% female.

5.3 Research design

This study researches the influence of audience characteristics on actor’s impression

management behaviour and its impact on actor’s performance rating given by the audience.

The literature review provided a foundation for this study, and in the empirical research part

the hypotheses will be tested. This study can be categorized as a descriptive study, since it

aims to find out more about a phenomenon by means of testing hypotheses (Wisker, 2001).

Since the data is collected at a single point in time, this study is cross-sectional. Moreover,

this research can be classified as deductive, as the hypotheses are inferred from theory

(Blumberg et al., 2005).

Because this research deals with confidential data, printed self-completed

questionnaires were used. In order to answer the research question, members and candidates

were paired and had to fill in a questionnaire which addressed questions about themselves and

their partner. So each member reflected upon the candidate, and each candidate reflected upon

the member. This is because some interpersonal characteristics as personality similarity and

perceived audience characteristics are driven partly by the characteristics of the person itself,

as well as by the relationship that both persons have. As Kenny (2006) explains, the

measurement reflects both the candidate and the member and is therefore fundamentally

dyadic. This research employs a standard dyadic design, in which each person is linked to

one, and only one, other person. Because one set of variables is measured for the candidate

and another set is measured for the member, the dyad can be treated statistically as a single

case.

Two questionnaires were designed: one specifically for the member and one for the

candidate. The front page explained that the goal of the research was to study the behaviour of

people. Moreover, it reassured that the questions did not discuss the hazing period in itself,

but reflected upon the behaviour of students during this period. In addition, I explained the

details of the questionnaires itself and made clear that all data would be treaty confidentially.

These instructions were provided in Dutch since all participants would be Dutch.

Furthermore, the front page assessed the demographic characteristics of the student, such as

age and study. The remaining pages of the questionnaires were in English, since all


64

established and validated measurements are originally in English. I will elaborate on these

measurements in paragraph 5.5. Moreover, both questionnaires can be found in the appendix.

5.4 Method of data collection

The ‘contact-person’ of the fraternity or sorority facilitated the distribution of

questionnaires and made sure that pairs were created within the group. Since the maximum

number of dyads obtainable was restricted by the number of candidates, candidates were

automatically asked to volunteer in this research. In contrast, fraternity or sorority members

were randomly selected by means of a randomizer to make sure that each member had an

equal chance to participate. Each contact-person would then ask if both candidate and

member were interested in participating in the research, and if necessary, other people would

be assigned until the number of members equalled the number of candidates. Then candidate

and member were paired by me, to ensure that participants could not choose their own

‘partner’.

Each contact-person would distribute the questionnaires among the students. The

students were asked to fill them in privately without discussing them with others; some

students did this at home and others completed the questionnaire during a sorority or

fraternity evening. After they completed them, the contact-person would place them in an

envelope and sealed the envelope, to make sure that no one could read the answers of others.

It was written in the questionnaire that the data of the questionnaires would be treated

confidentially. After several call-backs and follow-ups, the response rate was 88%, and after

eliminating the noncomplete dyads, the final sample consists of 36 dyads.

5.5 Measures

5.5.1 Members’ questionnaires

Personality similarity

Many personality theorists have tried to explain the complexity of human personality

and searched for a taxonomy that could adequately describe people. It was not until research

by Fiske (1949), Tupes and Christal (1961), Norman (1963), McCrae and Costa (1987), and

Goldberg (1990) that an agreement was reached with regard to the structure of a personality

taxonomy (Lim & Ployhart, 2006). Many researchers now judge the Five Factor Model of


65

Personality (FFM), consisting of Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,

Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience, to be an adequate categorization of personality

characteristics. Personality similarity in this study will be measured using four out of the five

factors, namely Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to

Experience.

Because many of the existing FFM inventories are proprietary, Goldberg (1992)

developed the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) which measures the FFM directly.

Increasingly, researchers are using the IPIP scales in their research (e.g., Brost, 2001; Eaker &

Walters, 2002; Heaven et al., 2001; Lim & Ployhart, 2004; Mihura et al., 2003).

Another instrument to measure the FFM is NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992),

which is also the primary instrument specifically developed to measure the FFM (Rolland et

al., 1998). Its shorter version, the NEO-FFI, consists of 60 items (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

However, a study conducted by Lim and Ployhart (2006) found a reasonably good fit for the

FFM underlying the IPIP scales and interchangeability of it with the NEO-FFI. As Lim and

Ployhart (2006) conclude, in researches in which time or money is a constraint, the IPIP

scales will be a very valuable alternative to the NEO-FFI.

To measure each factor of the FFM, the IPIP taxonomy uses 10 items in the short

version or 20 items in the long version, in which each item is assessed using a scale ranging

from (1) very inaccurate to (5) very accurate. With reference to Goldberg (1999), the scores

on this scale have relatively high reliability and convergent validity with other measures of

personality. Moreover, Goldberg (2006) found that the long and short item scales are highly

correlated, around 0.95 on average, so I decided to use the shorter scale in order to limit the

amount of questions in the questionnaire.

Important to note is that actual personality similarity will be measured instead of

perceived personality similarity. As Strauss et al. (2001) point out, one would expect that if

two people are actually similar they would perceive themselves to be similar. So, actual

similarity would lead to perceived similarity. However, some studies found that perceived

effects are stronger than actual effects on performance ratings (e.g. Cable & Judge, 1996). To

measure actual personality similarity, the IPIP taxonomy will be asked to both members and

candidates of the fraternity or sorority.

In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for the candidates and members respectively

turned out to be Extroversion (0.83 & 0.87), Agreeableness (0.73 & 0.64), Conscientiousness

(0.81 & 0.82), and Openness to Experience (0.56 & 0.67). Cronbach’s alpha for Openness to

Experience is below the proposed value of 0.7 (DeVellis, 2003) and thus the reliability of this


66

scale is critical. In contrast, the other 3 factors have a relatively high Cronbach’s alpha and

thus a good internal consistency.

Self-monitoring

Self-monitoring was measured using the 18-item version of the Self-Monitoring Scale

(Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). This shortened 18-item scale is more reliable than the original

25-item measure (Snyder, 1974) with which it correlates at a 0.93 level (Snyder & Gangestad,

1986). Gangestad and Snyder (2000) conducted a comprehensive review of several hundred

studies of behavioural differences between high and low self-monitors using the self-

monitoring scale, which provided evidence for the scale’s predictive and construct validity.

The Self-Monitoring Scale assesses each item on a 5-point scale ranging from (1)

strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Items include: “I find it hard to imitate the behaviour

of people” and “I’m not always the person I appear to be”. A pilot study revealed that some

students had difficulty interpreting some of the items, and therefore a couple of adjustments

were made to the scale. In item 4, the word ‘impromptu’ was changed into ‘spontaneous’, in

item 13 ‘charades’ was replaced by ‘imitating’, in item 16 ‘show up’ was changed into

‘appear’, in item 17 ‘end’ was changed into ‘reason’, and in item 18 ‘mislead’ was translated

into ‘deceive’. The self-monitoring score indicates the probability that an individual is a high

or low self-monitor (Gangestad & Snyder, 1985). In the present research, Cronbach’s alpha

for the 18-item scale is 0.7, which reveals a good internal consistency of the scale.

Performance

A study conducted by Wayne and Liden (1995) tested if subordinates’ impression

management behaviour had an influence on performance ratings through supervisors’ liking

of and perceived similarity to subordinates. For this study, Wayne and Liden (1995)

developed four items to measure performance ratings. These items asked the supervisor how

acceptable the performance of the subordinate was, and responses were made on a scale

ranging from (1) unacceptable to (5) outstanding. In this study, I used the same four items,

however some of the items were revised to make the questions applicable to sorority and

fraternity situations. For instance, one of the questions was: “Rate the overall level of

performance that you observe for this A-lid”. In addition, 2 items developed by Tsui (1984)

that were also used in the study of Wayne and Liden (1995) are used in this study. After

revising supervisor and subordinate into member and candidate, these items ask how strongly

the member agrees with the statement that describes the candidate’s performance. Responses


67

were made on a scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. A sample item

from this scale is: “(name candidate) is superior to other Aspirant-leden”. In the current study,

Cronbach’s alpha for the 6-item scale is 0.79.

5.5.2 Candidates’ questionnaires

Impression management tactics

In this study, four of Jones and Pittman’s (1982) impression management tactics are

measured using Bolino and Turnley’s (2003) impression management scale: ingratiation, self-

promotion, exemplification, and supplication. This scale measures the extent to which people

in organizational settings engage in these impression management behaviours. In this study,

some of the items were revised to make the questions applicable to sorority and fraternity

situations. The measurement asked how accurate each of the 17 statements was in describing

the candidates’ behaviour towards a particular member during the hazing period. Responses

were made on a scale ranging from (1) very inaccurate to (5) very accurate. Ingratiation, self-

promotion, and exemplification were measured using 4 items, and supplication was measured

with 5 items. A sample item from the self-promotion scale is: “I let him/her now that I am

valuable to the fraternity/sorority.” A sample item from the ingratiation scale is: “I do

personal favours for (member’s name) to show that I am friendly.” A sample item from the

exemplification scale is: “I arrive at my sorority/fraternity early to look dedicated”. A sample

item from the supplication scale is: “I act like I know less than I do so people will help me

out”.

In this research, Cronbach’s alpha is: Ingratiation (0.67), Self-promotion (0.59),

Exemplification (0.63), and Supplication (0.84). As Briggs and Cheek (1986) recommend, for

scales with fewer than ten items, it is more appropriate to look at the mean inter-item

correlation for the items. They propose an optimal range for the inter-item correlation of 0.2

to 0.4. In this study, the mean inter-item correlations are Ingratiation (0.32), Self-promotion

(0.25), Exemplification (0.31), and Supplication (0.55). So although Cronbach’s alpha is for

most items below the advisable 0.7 (DeVellis, 2003), the items do meet Briggs and Cheek’s

criterion. Consequently, the mean inter-item correlation suggests that the internal consistency

of the scales is good.


68

Status

On the basis of the theoretical framework, status in a fraternity or sorority is defined as

the difference in respect, prominence, and influence among the members. I used two

indicators to measure social status, derived from two kinds of data sources. First, assuming

that members gain status by occupying a certain position within the fraternity or sorority, I

used an open-ended question which investigated if the members currently take up a prominent

role within their organization. For instance, some members are president or member of the

hazing commission. Since it is difficult as an outsider to attach a weight to a certain position,

these answers were later recoded into a dummy variable, in which a 1 is given to students who

do not occupy a prominent position, and a 2 is given to students who currently possess a

prominent role. Overall, 17 students do not occupy such a position, and 18 students do. There

was 1 missing value. In addition, candidate’s perceived status of the member will be used as a

variable in this research. The candidate rated the prominence of a particular member using 2

items on a scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, which was created

by Anderson et al. (2001). A sample item of this scale is: “(name member) is very prominent

in my sorority/fraternity”. The coefficient alpha reliability of these 2 items was 0.68, with an

inter-item correlation of 0.51.

Power

Power was measured using a modified version of Raven and Koslowsky’s (1998)

Interpersonal Power Inventory (IPI). With reference to French and Raven’s (1959) original

taxonomy, if a target complies, it would be a result of the powerholder employing one or

more of the following types of power: reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, or expert power.

The IPI comprises 44 items which reflect 7 other types of social power besides the original

taxonomy. Based on the literature review, this research utilized 8 items which are related to 4

types of power: reward, coercive, legitimate, and referent power. Candidates reflected upon

the behaviour of the member by responding on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1)

strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. For instance, a sample item from the coercive power

is: “(name member) could give me undesirable tasks.” In this study, Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients are: reward power (0.59), coercive power (0.82), legitimate power (0.54), and

referent power (0.29). Since each form of social power is measured by only 2 items, and

Cronbach’s alpha is quite sensitive to the number of items in a scale, the mean inter-item

correlation is also investigated. In this study, the mean inter-item correlations are reward

power (0.43), coercive power (0.69), legitimate power (0.37), and referent power (0.16).


69

Besides referent power, the items meet Briggs and Cheek’s (1986) criterion and are thus

reliable. Only referent power has a very low inter-item correlation and Cronbach’s alpha and

therefore the results including this scale should be treated with caution.

Physical Attractiveness

Member’s perceived physical attractiveness was measured using one item of Ahearne

et al.’s (1999) three-item scale. The item of this scale is: “(name member) has an attractive

appearance”. In addition, Pontari and Schlenker (2000) assess attractiveness using a scale that

measures confidence, friendliness, and intelligence. This research uses one item of each, so

the total attractiveness measure constitutes 4 items. Cronbach’s alpha is 0.54, and the inter-

item correlation is 0.25.

Liking

Candidates’ liking of the fraternity or sorority member was measured with two items

of Wayne and Liden’s (1995) three item measure. The items of the scale are: “We like

eachother very much” and “I like (name of member) very much as a person”. So this measure

also investigated if the candidate perceives that the member liked him. Cronbach’s alpha for

the scale is 0.8, and the inter-item correlation is 0.66.

Perceived intimidation

Perceived use of intimidation tactics by a member was measured using two items of

Bolino’s and Turnley’s (2003) impression management scale. Since this scale measures the

extent to which a person engages in impression management behaviour, the items were

slightly revised to measure the perceived intimidation tactics used by the member instead of

the actual intimidation behaviour. Therefore, this measure cannot be compared to the

impression management tactics, but constitutes a measure on its own. A sample item of this

scale is: “(name member) uses intimidation to get me to behave appropriately”. The candidate

rated the perceived intimidation of a particular member using 2 items on a scale ranging from

(1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is 0.74, and the

inter-item correlation is 0.59.


70

6. Results

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter I will test the hypotheses that were constructed in chapter 3. All

analyses in this chapter are conducted using SPSS 15.0. First, the descriptive statistics will be

provided. Second, each hypothesis will be investigated and discussed. In the end, the model

and its significant relations will be displayed. Chapter 7 will discuss the results of this chapter

and its implications in more depth.

6.2 Descriptive statistics

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the variables of hypothesis 1, 2

and 4 are presented in table 6.1. One indicator of the impression management tactics used by

candidates during the hazing period is the mean rating as shown in table 6.1. Means of most

tactics are below the scale midpoint of 3; only self-promotion is slightly above 3. This

suggests that, on average, candidates did not report to use much impression management

tactics. In addition, candidates perceived the attractiveness and liking of the member as quite

high, and the use of intimidation by the member as quite low.

Variable Mean Std. Dev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Status 3,21 0,67 ,441 * -,042 -,090 ,503 ** -,123 ,330 ,327 ,491 ** ,347 * ,031 ,263

2. Power 3,34 0,53 ,125 ,109 ,550 ** ,230 ,319 ,324 ,506 ** ,546 ** -,125 ,098

3. Attractiveness 3,90 0,41 ,496 ** -,283 ,235 -,076 ,058 -,291 -,039 -,076 ,127

4. Liking 3,92 0,65 -,310 ,215 ,059 ,178 -,050 ,133 ,231 ,211

5. Intimidation 2,58 0,92 ,186 ,222 ,225 ,482 ** ,463 ** -,172 -,036

6. Self-promotion 3,24 0,53 ,117 ,188 -,099 ,414 * ,225 ,235

7. Ingratiation 2,79 0,56 ,180 ,445 ** ,658 ** -,198 -,096

8. Exemplification 2,85 0,66 ,404 * ,724 ** ,110 ,126

9. Supplication 1,99 0,67 ,728 ** -,060 ,093

10. IM total 2,71 0,39 ,018 ,127

11. Performance 3,23 0,56 ,165

12. Self-monitoring 3,04 0,37

Table 6.1. Correlations, means, and standard deviations of the variables of hypothesis 1, 2, and 4.

*p<.05 **p<.01

IM total is composed of self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, and

supplication, which is reflected by its high correlation with these variables. The variable

Power is composed of coercive power, reward power, and legitimacy power and reflects the

power of the member as perceived by the candidate. Referent power is left out since Principal

Component Analysis revealed that the 8 items in the questionnaire are driven by three


71

components: reward power, coercive power, and legitimacy power. In addition, as can be seen

in table 6.2, coercive power, reward power, and legitimacy power show a strong, positive

relationship with impression management behaviour. In contrast, referent power has no

significant correlation with impression management behaviour. Furthermore, the summed

three items of power have an even stronger relationship (r = .546, p = .001) with impression

management behaviour in comparison to the original four summed items (r = .487, p = .004).

Moreover, table 6.2 confirms that the correlation with status and intimidation improves when

referent power is dropped. Therefore, reward power, coercive power, and legitimacy power

are summed and are labelled ‘power’ in table 6.1 and in subsequent discussions of the results.

Variable Mean Std. Dev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Power (4 items) 3,34 0,53 ,958 ** ,626 ** ,549 ** ,639 ** ,684 ** ,368 * ,375 * ,487 ** -,124

2. Power (3 items) 3,29 0,62 ,736 ** ,285 ,572 ** ,695 ** ,441 * ,550 ** ,546 ** -,125

3. Coercive power 3,19 1,14 -,052 ,036 ,277 ,322 ,544 ** ,307 -,123

4. Referent power 3,49 0,62 ,445 ** ,270 -,079 -,338 * ,028 -,014

5. Reward power 3,03 0,82 ,248 ,293 ,227 ,413 * -,063

6. Legitimacy power 3,57 0,75 ,260 ,306 ,372 * -,004

7. Status 3,21 0,67 ,503 ** ,347 * ,031

8. Intimidation 2,58 0,92 ,463 ** -,172

9. IM total 2,71 0,39 ,018

10. Performance 3,23 0,56

Table 6.2. Correlations, means, and standard deviations of power, status, intimidation, IM total, and

performance. *p<.05 **p<.01

It is interesting to see the very strong positive relation between audience’s power and

candidate’s impression management behaviour, and between intimidation and impression

management behaviour. Moreover, the correlation between status and impression

management behaviour is high as well, suggesting a strong relationship between perceived

status and candidate’s use of impression management tactics. Noteworthy is the strong

relationship between perceived status and perceived intimidation. Apparently when a

candidate judges the member to possess high status within the sorority or fraternity, the

candidate considers the member to be intimidating. This argument also holds for supplication,

and the relationship with status, power, and intimidation. Thus the more a candidate perceives

that the member possesses high status, power, or can use intimidation, the more he will

engage in supplication, or in impression management tactics in general.

In addition, there is a strong relationship between attractiveness and liking. So when a

candidate perceives the member as attractive, he likes the member and perceives that the

member likes him. None of the variables have a significant relation with performance ratings,


72

however based on the literature review for most variables this is also not expected. The next

paragraph will deal with the hypotheses of this research.

6.3 Testing of hypotheses

6.3.1 Hypothesis 1

Standard multiple regression is used to assess if the five independent variables predict

the use of impression management behaviour. Preliminary analyses are conducted to

investigate if there are no violations of the assumptions of normality, linearity,

multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity (Hair et al., 2006). The normal probability plot of the

regressed standardized residuals shows no deviation from normality. In addition, the

scatterplot of the standardised residuals demonstrates that the residuals are roughly

rectangularly distributed. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) suggest that, in order to detect outliers

by Mahalanobis distances, one should use an alpha level of 0.001. Since this study employs

five independent variables, this study does not exceed Mahalanobis’ critical value of 20.52.

Furthermore, as is measured by Cook’s distance, there is no concern for a very influential case

on the model since the maximum value of this statistic is 0.246. Only cases with values larger

than 1 are a potential problem (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

I will first report a model predicting general impression management behaviours and

then two models predicting two impression management tactics separately.

Model R² Adj. R² Model Sig. Variables Unstandardized coefficients Stan. Coefficients Sig.

B Std. Error

1 ,382 ,268 ,018 (Constant) 1.425 ,700 ,052

Status ,041 ,105 ,070 ,701

Power ,223 ,129 ,352 ,094

Attractiveness -,121 ,175 -,126 ,495

Liking ,150 ,110 ,249 ,185

Intimidation ,117 ,094 ,276 ,224

Table 6.3: regression; impression management as dependent variable

Table 6.3 displays the standard multiple regression with impression management

tactics as dependent variable. As Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) recommend, when a small

sample is involved R² tends to overestimate the true value in the population. Instead, adjusted

R² provides a better estimate of the true population value. As can be seen in table 6.3, 26.8%

of the variance in the dependent variable impression management is explained by the model.

This model is significant at p<.05.


73

The standardised coefficients suggest that the variable power makes the strongest

unique contribution to explaining impression management, when the variance explained by all

other variables is controlled for. In addition, the standardised coefficients of intimidation and

liking are high as well, however none of these variables make a statistically significant

contribution to the equation.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that perceived status, power, attractiveness, liking, and

intimidation of the member would be positively related to candidate’s use of impression

management tactics. As shown in table 6.3, only perceived power manifested a marginally

significant relationship (p<.1) with candidates’ use of impression management tactics.


B Std. Error

2 ,467 ,368 ,003 (Constant) 1.439 1.117 ,209

Status ,290 ,168 ,289 ,095

Power ,405 ,205 ,372 ,059

Attractiveness -,624 ,279 -,378 ,033

Liking ,150 ,176 ,145 ,401

Intimidation ,051 ,150 ,070 ,735

Table 6.4: regression; supplication as dependent variable

Table 6.4 shows model 2 in which supplication is the dependent variable instead of all

the impression management tactics. The adjusted R² of this model is very high at .368, which

means that 36.8% of the variance in the dependent variable supplication is explained by the

model. Noteworthy is the marginally significant (p<.1) positive influence of status and power

on supplication, and the significant (p<.05) negative influence of attractiveness on

supplication. Even though attractiveness was not significant in model 1, it is significant in

model 2. Status was not significant in model 1, however in model 2 it has a marginally

significant positive effect on candidate’s use of impression management behaviour. So,

attractiveness and status were not related to general impression management behaviour;

however, they significantly predicted the specific impression management tactic supplication.


B Std. Error

3 ,246 ,109 ,156 (Constant) 1,411 1,044 ,188

Status -,284 ,157 -,360 ,081

Three Power ,082 ,192 ,096 ,673

Attractiveness ,309 ,260 ,238 ,246

Liking ,158 ,164 ,192 ,352

Intimidation ,253 ,139 ,441 ,082

Table 6.5: regression; self-promotion as dependent variable.


74

Table 6.5 illustrates model 3 in which self-promotion is the dependent variable. The

adjusted R² of this model is not that high at .109, however the model has some interesting

findings. For instance, status has a significant (p<.1) negative contribution to the model, while

in previous models status had a positive contribution. In addition, intimidation has a

significant (p<.1) positive contribution to the model. This is in the same direction as

compared to model 1 and 2, however it was not significant in previous models. The models

that employ ingratiation and exemplification as dependent variables show no noteworthy

results and are therefore not published.

To conclude, hypothesis 1a stated that the perceived status of the member is positively

related to candidates’ use of impression management tactics. Status aspects manifest a

positive relation with the use of impression management tactics but the results indicate a more

nuanced relationship. It does have a significant positive contribution when supplication is the

dependent variable. In contrast, it has a significant negative contribution when self-promotion

is the dependent variable. Therefore, H1a is partially supported.

Hypothesis 1b claimed that the perceived power of the member is positively related to

candidates’ use of impression management tactics. In model 1, perceived power is

significantly (p<.1) related to candidates’ use of impression management tactics. As can be

seen in model 2, perceived power has a large positive influence on supplication, while on self-

promotion the influence of power is not significant. Therefore, H1b is partially supported; the

perceived power of the member is significantly positively related to candidate’s use of

impression management tactics, and supplication in specific, but it does not have a significant

contribution when ingratiation, self-promotion, or exemplification are the dependent variable.

Hypothesis 1c proposed that the perceived attractiveness of the member is positively

related to candidate’s use of impression management tactics. Contrary to what was expected,

the beta coefficient of attractiveness had a negative sign on impression management tactics,

although this was not significant. However, it is negative and significant (p<.05) when

supplication is the dependent variable. Therefore, hypothesis 1c is rejected; in the overall

model the direction of the relationship is negative, and on supplication there is a significantly

negative influence of attractiveness.

Hypothesis 1d suggested that candidate’s liking of a member and perceived liking by a

member is positively related to candidate’s use of impression management tactics. In all three

models, liking is in the expected direction, but none of these are significant at the 10 percent

level. So, these results give no indication about a relationship between liking of the target and

the use of impression management tactics.


75

Hypothesis 1e stated that the perceived intimidation by a member will be positively

related to candidate’s use of impression management tactics. When impression management

tactics and supplication are the dependent variables, the betacoefficient of intimidation

signifies the expected direction, but is not significant. However, it does have a significant

influence on self-promotion (p<.1). In addition, table 6.1 shows that intimidation has a robust

correlation with impression management tactics (p<.01). So, this hypothesis is partially

supported.

6.3.2 Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 predicts that the use of impression management tactics by a candidate

will be positively related to member’s performance rating of that candidate. Standard multiple

regression is used to assess the ability of the four impression management tactics to predict

member’s performance rating. Again, preliminary analyses are conducted to ensure no

violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity

(Hair et al., 2006).


B Std. Error

1 ,114 -,008 ,457 (Constant) 2,828 ,791 ,001

Self-promotion ,259 ,198 ,242 ,200

Ingratiation -,265 ,201 -,262 ,197

Exemplification ,080 ,168 ,095 ,636

Supplication ,035 ,182 ,042 ,847

Table 6.6: regression; performance as dependent variable

After several standard multiple regressions, it turns out that regressing the four

impression management tactics on performance leads to a non-significant model with a very

low adjusted R², as can be seen in table 6.6.

The standardised coefficients suggest that ingratiation and self-promotion have the

strongest unique contribution to explaining performance ratings, when the variance explained

by all other variables is controlled for. However, none of the variables make a statistically

significant contribution to the equation. As can be seen in table 6.1 as well, the correlations

between the independent variables and the dependent variable performance are negative in the

case of ingratiation and supplication, and positive for self-promotion and exemplification.

Self-promotion is significant at the 10% level. Taken together, these results provide no

support for hypothesis 2.


76

6.3.3 Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3a proposes that member’s actual similarity to the candidate on personality

dimensions is positively related to member’s performance ratings of that specific candidate. In

order to test these effects, I used the polynomial regression approach proposed by Edwards

(1994) to avoid the problems associated with difference scores. With reference to Edwards

(1994), difference scores are less reliable than their components, and often explain less

variance than their components. The following equation is used:

Z = b0 + b1 (candidate personality) + b2 (member personality) + b3 (candidate personality)² +

b4 (candidate personality * member personality) + b5 (member personality)²

Variable B SE B B SE B B SE B B SE B

Intercept -10,06 10,94 6,913 17,11 -4,564 5,78 -37,61 12,67

Candidate personality 2,70 3,47 7,73 3,52 2,441 1,89 14,1 4,43

Member personality 3,97 3,96 -9,60 6,75 1,76 2,34 9,51 4,94

Candidate personality² ,128 ,415 -1,09 ,447 -,256 ,223 -1,53 ,519

Candidate * Member personality -,954 ,530 ,341 ,851 -,223 ,319 -,958 ,590

Member personality² -,010 ,448 ,985 ,585 -,079 ,254 -,909 ,577

Model R²

Model adjusted R²

Model Sig.

Conscientiousness Openness

,168

,024

Extraversion Agreeableness

,226

,140

,328

,208

,354

,238

,348 ,106 ,039 ,025

Table 6.7: polynomial regression results of personality similarity on performance rating

As shown in table 6.7, personality similarity for extraversion and agreeableness is not

related to performance ratings given to the candidate by the member. In contrast,

conscientiousness and openness are significantly related to performance ratings (p<.05).

Figure 6.1 shows the response surface for conscientiousness similarity and figure 6.2 for

openness to experience similarity. As can be seen in figure 6.1, the higher the

conscientiousness of the member and the candidate, the higher the performance rating given

by the member to the candidate. This suggests that not only personality similarity in itself has

an effect on member’s performance rating, but also the level of conscientiousness. So when

both candidate and member score high on conscientiousness, the performance rating given is

higher than when both candidate and member score low on conscientiousness. This is even

more strongly reflected in figure 6.2 for openness to experience. Performance ratings given by

the member are extremely low when both member’s and candidate’s openness to experience

traits are low too.


77

0123450

12

345

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Performance rating

Candidate's Conscientiousness

Member's

Conscientiousness

12-14

10-12

8-10

6-8

4-6

2-4

0-2

Figure 6.1: Response-Surface for Conscientiousness similarity and performance rating

01

2345

0

1

23

45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Performance rating

Candidate's Openness

Member's

Openness

0-5

-5-0

-10--5

-15--10

-20--15

-25--20

-30--25

-35--30

-40--35

Figure 6.2: Response-Surface for Openness to Experience similarity and performance rating


78

When both member and candidate score high on this trait, the performance rating tends to be

more positive. To conclude, hypothesis 3a is partially supported: personality similarity has no

significant effect on performance ratings when considering extraversion or agreeableness, but

has a significant effect on conscientiousness and openness to experience.

Hypothesis 3b proposes that member’s actual personality similarity to the candidate is

positively related to candidate’s perceived attractiveness and liking of the member. In

addition, hypothesis 3c states that actual personality similarity will be negatively related to

candidate’s perceived status and power of a member, and perceived intimidation by a

member. Again polynomial regressions are used to test these hypotheses. Table 6.8 shows the

output of these regressions. As can be seen, none of the models reach significance at the 10%

level. Therefore, hypotheses 3b and 3c have to be rejected since there is not enough evidence

that personality similarity has an effect on status, power, attractiveness, liking, and

intimidation.

Finally, hypothesis 3d suggests that member’s actual personality similarity to the

candidate will be negatively related to candidate’s impression management behaviour. As

table 6.9 displays, most of the models do not reach significance. However, similarity in

conscientiousness between the member and candidate is significantly related to

exemplification (p<.01) and supplication (p<.1). Figure 6.3 and 6.4 display the response

surfaces for conscientiousness similarity and candidate’s use of exemplification and

supplication respectively. With respect to the use of exemplification, when both candidate and

member score high on conscientiousness, candidates are less likely to engage in

exemplification. In addition, a candidate is most likely to engage in exemplification when he

scores high on conscientiousness, and the member scores low. However, when both candidate

and member score below the scale midpoint of 3, the candidate still engages in more

exemplification. In contrast, candidates will be very likely to use supplication when they are

highly conscientious and members score very low on conscientiousness. When both member

and candidate score very low on conscientiousness, the candidate does not use supplication.

To conclude, hypothesis 3d is partially accepted: similarity in conscientiousness has a

significant effect on exemplification and supplication, but not on self-promotion and

ingratiation. In addition, when both people are highly conscientious, the candidate will less

likely engage in exemplification. The candidate is more likely to use exemplification when

the member scores low on conscientiousness. Furthermore, when both people are low on

conscientiousness, the candidate will not use supplication. In contrast, when the candidate is


79

highly conscientious, he is more likely to use supplication. To conclude, hypothesis 3d is

partially supported.


Status

Intercept 5,569 6,281 -15,69 21,43 10,37 7,666 17,97 16,63

Candidate personality ,643 3,08 6,01 4,41 -,236 2,53 2,5 5,76

Member personality -2,01 3,26 3,90 8,45 -4,14 3,09 -10,4 6,31

Candidate personality² -,426 ,471 -,622 ,560 ,134 ,298 -,764 ,672

Candidate * Member personality ,621 ,476 -,362 1,06 -,132 ,425 ,652 ,778

Member personality² ,003 ,475 -,301 ,733 ,649 ,336 1,15 ,731

Model R²

Model adjusted R²

Model Sig.

Power

Intercept 3,517 6,309 -28,39 20,57 -1,831 7,802 18,93 16,93

Candidate personality -2,42 3,51 3,05 4,29 -,344 2,61 -2,66 5,85

Member personality 2,05 3,82 12,5 8,28 3,04 3,21 -6,21 6,40

Candidate personality² ,429 ,622 -,010 ,568 ,288 ,314 -,080 ,693

Candidate * Member personality -,239 ,583 -,766 1,02 -,438 ,441 ,859 ,871

Member personality² -,112 ,501 -1,11 ,724 -,206 ,356 ,472 ,792

Model R²

Model adjusted R²

Model Sig.

Attractiveness

Intercept -3,246 3,725 16,13 12,88 8,103 4,758 -4,441 9,676

Candidate personality 1,60 1,83 -4,69 2,65 -1,13 1,57 -2,50 3,36

Member personality 2,22 1,94 -1,43 5,08 -1,05 1,92 7,35 3,67

Candidate personality² -,019 ,279 ,178 ,336 ,134 ,185 ,495 ,391


Member personality² -,112 ,282 -,287 ,441 ,141 ,209 -,857 ,425

Model R²

Model adjusted R²

Model Sig.

Liking

Intercept -3,467 5,715 15,28 21,97 11,87 8,16 -18,83 15,89

Candidate personality ,142 2,81 ,313 4,52 -1,44 2,69 8,49 5,51

Member personality 4,08 2,97 -6,16 8,66 -3,02 3,28 5,08 6,03

Candidate personality² ,555 ,428 -,001 ,574 -,018 ,317 -,598 ,642

Candidate * Member personality -1,22 ,433 -,046 1,09 ,391 ,452 -1,42 ,743

Member personality² ,055 ,432 ,793 ,752 ,243 ,358 -,009 ,698

Model R²

Model adjusted R²

Model Sig.

Intimidation

Intercept 11,01 8,782 -13,64 29,93 ,522 11,67 34,43 24,04

Candidate personality -6,39 4,31 5,83 6,16 -,623 3,86 -9,19 8,34

Member personality 1,23 4,56 3,09 11,8 1,73 4,70 -9,36 9,12

Candidate personality² ,532 ,658 -,915 ,782 ,297 ,454 ,360 ,972

Candidate * Member personality ,727 ,665 ,263 1,48 -,334 ,646 2,00 1,12

Member personality² -,484 ,664 -,549 1,02 -,114 ,513 ,335 1,06

Model R²

Model adjusted R²

Model Sig. ,595 ,501 ,866 ,589

-,038 -,160

,153

,012

,388

,886

,111 ,129

,294 ,316

,197

,059

,202

,065

,229

,081

,060

-,115

,870

,260

,133

,102

,220

,086

-,095

,801

,053 ,078

,245

,778

,019

,366

,065

,124

,851 ,619

,113 -,104 -,080

,240

-,037

,177 ,171

-,105 ,047

,181

,039 ,033

,115

-,102

,068 ,117

,462

-,007

Openness

,137

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness

,163

Table 6.8: polynomial regression results of personality similarity on status, power, attractiveness, liking, and

intimidation respectively.


80


Self-promotion

Intercept 1,239 4,992 3,992 16,02 -3,888 6,304 -4,514 13,4

Candidate personality -1,68 2,45 4,45 3,29 2,65 2,08 ,690 4,64

Member personality 2,24 2,59 -4,42 6,32 1,74 2,54 3,08 5,08

Candidate personality² ,480 ,374 -,855 ,419 -,288 ,246 ,076 ,542


Member personality² -,069 ,377 ,102 ,548 -,131 ,277 -,330 ,589

Model R²

Model adjusted R²

Model Sig.

Ingratiation

Intercept -1,613 5,301 -17,33 18,577 3,638 6,934 -0,501 14,37

Candidate personality -,186 2,60 1,37 3,82 1,76 2,29 1,39 4,98

Member personality 2,84 2,75 8,11 7,32 -2,09 2,79 -,207 5,45

Candidate personality² ,314 ,397 ,011 ,486 -,287 ,270 -,182 ,581

Candidate * Member personality -,627 ,401 -,303 ,924 ,067 ,384 ,009 ,672

Member personality² -,087 ,401 -,818 ,636 ,251 ,305 ,105 ,632

Model R²

Model adjusted R²

Model Sig.

Exemplification

Intercept 2,634 6,040 -7,671 22,61 10,908 6,28 -24,92 16,98

Candidate personality 2,83 2,96 3,91 4,65 -,624 2,07 9,95 5,89

Member personality -2,82 3,13 1,65 8,91 -4,11 2,53 6,45 6,44

Candidate personality² -,200 ,453 -,372 ,591 ,351 ,245 -,759 ,687

Candidate * Member personality -,497 ,457 -,231 1,12 -,445 ,348 -1,39 ,795

Member personality² ,696 ,457 -,124 ,774 ,763 ,276 -,263 ,746

Model R²

Model adjusted R²

Model Sig.

Supplication

Intercept -2,097 6,165 -18,42 22,142 -,353 7,332 1,001 17,47

Candidate personality -,857 3,39 5,30 4,55 1,75 2,43 4,27 6,02

Member personality 3,26 3,59 4,79 8,72 -,640 2,96 -3,65 6,60

Candidate personality² ,491 ,592 -,400 ,580 -,047 ,286 -,757 ,702

Candidate * Member personality -,916 ,576 -,593 1,10 -,269 ,407 ,276 ,809

Member personality² ,065 ,467 -,249 ,76 ,201 ,326 ,385 ,766

Model R²

Model adjusted R²

Model Sig. ,301 ,612 ,058 ,902

,039 -,043 ,180 -,117

,180 ,111 ,304 ,053

,255 ,932 ,005 ,544

,053 -,118 ,329 -,027

,188 ,041 ,428 ,124

,718 ,639 ,468

,238

,111

,128

-,065 -,061 -,008

,088 ,095 ,140

,534

,553

,839 ,400

-,024

-,028

-,095 ,009

,122

,119

,066 ,155

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness

Table 6.9: polynomial regression results of personality similarity on self-promotion, ingratiation,

exemplification, and supplication respectively.


81

0123450

1

2

3

4

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Exemplification

Member's Conscientiousness

Candidate's

Conscientiousness

16-18

14-16

12-14

10-12

8-10

6-8

4-6

2-4

0-2

Figure 6.3: Response-Surface for Conscientiousness similarity and the use of exemplification.

01

234

5

0

1

2

34

5

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Supplication

Member's Conscientiousness

Candidate's

Conscientiousness

7-8

6-7

5-6

4-5

3-4

2-3

1-2

0-1

-1-0

Figure 6.4: Response-Surface for Conscientiousness similarity and the use of supplication.


82

6.3.4 Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 suggests that member’s self-monitoring acts as a moderator with a

negative effect on the relationship between candidate’s use of impression management tactics

and member’s performance rating of that candidate. Each impression management tactic will

be tested using two regressions. The following equations will be used in order to detect a

moderating effect:

Performance rating = b0 + b1 (impression management tactic) + b2 (self-monitoring)

Performance rating = b0 + b1 (impression management tactic) + b2 (self-monitoring) + b3

(impression management tactic * self-monitoring)

The results of these regressions are show in table 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, and 6.11 for

ingratiation, self-promotion, exemplification, and supplication respectively.


B Std. Error

1 ,059 ,000 ,374 Ingratiation -,183 ,174 -,181 ,301

Self-monitoring ,216 ,258 ,144 ,409

2 ,158 ,077 ,142 Ingratiation 2,52 1,42 2,49 ,087

Self-monitoring 2,60 1,27 1,73 ,049

Ingr * Self-m. -,865 ,452 -2,97 ,065

Table 6.8: Self-monitoring as a moderator on the relationship between ingratiation and performance rating


B Std. Error

1 ,065 ,0065 ,341 Self-promotion ,229 ,229 ,199 ,264


2 ,069 -,021 ,523 Self-promotion -,300 1,49 -,260 ,841

Self-monitoring -,400 1,64 -,267 ,809

Selfp. * Self-m. ,173 ,481 ,359 ,721

Table 6.9: Self-monitoring as a moderator on the relationship between self-promotion and performance rating


B Std. Error

1 ,036 -,025 ,559 Exemplification ,078 ,148 ,092 ,600


2 ,094 ,006 ,375 Exemplification -1,61 1,20 -1,34 ,191

Self-monitoring -1,37 -1,37 -1,18 ,248

Exemp. * Self-m. ,563 ,398 1,41 ,168

Table 6.10: Self-monitoring as a moderator on the relationship between exemplification and performance rating


83


B Std. Error

1 ,094 ,006 ,375 Supplication -,063 ,149 -,076 ,671


2 ,068 -,025 ,540 Supplication 1,53 1,49 1,82 ,310

Self-monitoring 1,23 ,938 ,814 ,201

Supp. * Self-m. -,524 ,487 -2,08 ,289

Table 6.11: Self-monitoring as a moderator on the relationship between supplication and performance rating

The regressions show that none of the models are significant. Even though

ingratiation, self-monitoring, and the moderating effect of self-monitoring on the relationship

between ingratiation and performance rating are significant at the 10% level, this does not

lead to an overall significant model. The outcomes of table 6.8 to table 6.11 are not totally

unexpected since hypothesis 2 was already rejected. As can be seen in table 6.6, the main

relationship between the impression management tactics and performance ratings was not

significant which makes it hard to detect a moderating effect on this relationship. To

conclude, there is no support for the moderating effect of self-monitoring on the relation

between impression management tactics and performance ratings. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is

not supported.

6.4 Model overview

Figure 6.5 displays the significant relations of the variables as tested by the

hypotheses. Chapter 7 will discuss the implications of these results and the limitations of this

research.


84

Figure 6.5. Significant relations of the variables as tested by the hypotheses. Green lines represent a positive

relationship, while red lines indicate a negative relationship.

Audience personality

• self-monitoring

Performance

rating

• attractiveness of member

• perceived status of member

• perceived power of member

• liking of member

• perceived intimidation

• self-promotion

• ingratiation

• exemplification

• supplication

• IM tactics summed

• Extraversion

• Agreeableness

• Conscientiousness

• Openness to Experience

Similarity in:


85

7. Discussion and limitations

7.1 Introduction

This chapter will discuss the results of chapter 6, its implications and

recommendations for future research. Chapter 8 will provide the conclusion of this research.

7.2 Discussion and implications

The present study investigated whether audience characteristics have an influence on

actor’s use of impression management tactics and on audience’s performance rating of the

actor. In addition, personality similarity between the actor and audience and its influence on

the impression management process was investigated. This study builds on previous research

in several ways. First, this study focused on four out of five impression management tactics of

Jones and Pittman (1982), four of the Big Five personality factors (Goldberg, 1992), and six

audience characteristics that were expected to play a role in the impression management

process: status, power, attractiveness, liking, intimidation, and self-monitoring. These

variables were all measured using taxonomies developed by previous researchers. In addition,

the methodological problems associated with difference scores were avoided by applying

polynomial regression analyses as proposed by Edwards (1994). So this study provides a

comprehensive overview of audience characteristics that influence actor’s impression

management behaviour and audience’s performance rating of the actor.

The present study found support for some of the hypotheses. First, hypothesis one

predicted that audience characteristics influence actor’s impression management behaviour.

The results suggest that status of the audience as perceived by the actor has a positive

influence on actor’s use of supplication, and a negative influence on actor’s use of self-

promotion. Since supplication is also said to be the opposite of self-promotion (Rosenfeld et

al., 1995) it is not surprising that supplication and self-promotion act in opposite direction. So

actors are more likely to show their incompetence and engage in less self-promotion when the

audience is considered to be high status. The existing literature has not investigated this issue

in depth. However, with reference to Jones (1964), some impression management tactics like

favour doing can become too obvious when the audience is considered to be high status.

Therefore, less noticeable impression management tactics can be more effective in such a

situation. Since supplication uses tactics like appearing to be needy or helpless, it could be

that supplication is more effective than more transparent impression management tactics


86

(Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Moreover, future research should make a distinction between

internal and external audiences, since in most organizationally focused researches high status

audiences tend to be outsiders. In this research this is not the case, since both low and high

status members are part of the same group. Therefore, this could have influenced the results.

As expected, perceived power of the audience was positively related to actor’s use of

impression management tactics in general, and supplication in particular. It is possible that

this is because powerful people are in the position to award a positive outcome (Gergen &

Taylor, 1969; Jones et al., 1963). The literature concerning the influence of audience’s power

on actor’s use of impression management tactics is often combined with the perceived status

of the audience. So, as was the case with status, supplication is a less obvious impression

management tactic and therefore more accepted with high status and high power audiences.

Perceived attractiveness of the audience only had a significant negative relationship

with actor’s use of supplication. Although the literature about impression management and

attractiveness is limited, it was expected that people are generally more concerned to impress

an attractive instead of an unattractive audience (Schlenker, 1980; Zanna & Pack, 1975).

Since supplication is considered to be a ‘negative’ impression management tactic, it can be

the case that actors do not want to appear needy in front of an attractive audience, but instead

use positive impression management tactics. However, future research should determine if

this is the case, since existing literature does not discuss this issue and this research does not

provide enough evidence for this relationship.

Contrary to what was predicted, liking did not have any significant result on actor’s

use of impressions management tactics. Even though this was not researched in previous

studies, it was expected that liking would have a positive relationship with impression

management behaviour. This is because if the actor is more liked by the audience, his

entitlements, accounts, and enhancements are more likely to be accepted (Tedeschi & Riess,

1981).

Perceived intimidation of the audience only had a significant positive effect on self-

promotion. So the more the audience was perceived as intimidating, the more the actor would

engage in self-promotion. With reference to Rosenfeld et al. (1995), audience’s intimidation

can elicit actor’s strategic impression management to counter or neutralize the audience’s

intimidation attempts. However no existing literature explains why an actor would use self-

promotion instead of another impression management tactic to do this. To conclude, audience

characteristics as perceived by the actor such as status, power, attractiveness, and intimidation

have a significant influence on actor’s use of specific impression management tactics.


87

Hypothesis two predicted that the use of impression management tactics by an actor

was positively related to audience’s performance rating of that actor. Contrary to what was

expected, the results provided no support for this hypothesis. Since most impression

management tactics were below the scale midpoint of 3, actors did not use that much

impression management tactics. On average, performance was rated slightly above 3. In this

sample, there is no significant relation between impression management tactics used and

audience’s performance rating. However, some researchers claim that there is a positive

relationship between ingratiation and performance ratings (Ellis et al., 2002; Tedeschi &

Melburg, 1984; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977). Others found a negative effect on

performance outcomes (e.g., Thacker & Wayne, 1995). Likewise, the research on self-

promotion and performance ratings presents mixed results. As Higgens et al. (2003) conclude

as well, the results of other studies reveal a lack of consistent findings, and future research

should determine which factors influence the relationship between the use of a certain

impression management tactic and a performance rating given.

Personality similarity was hypothesized to be positively related to performance

ratings. The results suggest that actor and audience similarity in Conscientiousness has an

influence on audience’s performance rating of the actor. This is similar to previous findings

that possibly Conscientiousness is the most important individual characteristic in a

performance setting (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Antonioni et al., 2001). People who are highly

conscientious are more able to focus on goals and are disciplined, responsible, and structured

(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Piedmont, McCrae, & Costa, 1991). Sometimes Conscientiousness

is also described as a ‘will to achieve’ (Digman & Takcmoto-Chock, 1981). In contrast,

people who are low on Conscientiousness are classified as unproductive, unorganized, or

irresponsible (Costa & McCrae, 1992). As Antonioni et al. (2001) put forward, people who

are highly conscientious value other’s conscientious behaviours more than people who are

low on Conscientiousness. It can be the case that a high conscientious audience appreciates a

high conscientious actor. Another explanation can be that people who are both high on

Conscientiousness achieve more, and receive a higher performance rating because of this.

Similarity in Openness to Experience was also significantly related to audience’s

performance rating of the actor. Previous research did not investigate the relationship between

Openness to Experience and performance ratings. As Barrick et al. (2005) explain, the

characteristics that are associated with Openness to Experience are not necessarily linked to

improved interpersonal communication or performance ratings. However, some studies found

support that Openness to Experience is positively correlated with the Universal Diverse


88

Orientation, a scale that measures awareness and acceptance of both similarities and

differences between people (Strauss & Connerley, 2003; Thompson et al., 2002). People who

score high on this scale appreciate other’s unique qualities and like to have a diversity of

contact in their interpersonal relations (Thompson et al., 2002). Moreover, people who score

high on this scale bond with other people that are similar to them. Therefore, it could be the

case that if both actor and audience score high on Openness to Experience, the audience

appreciates the actor more and as a result rates the performance of the actor higher.

It was also predicted that personality similarity was positively related to actor’s use of

impression management tactics. Similarity in Conscientiousness had a significant influence on

actor’s use of exemplification and supplication. The response surface suggested that no matter

how the actor scored on Conscientiousness, if the audience was low on Conscientiousness, the

candidate would engage in more exemplification and supplication. Since highly conscientious

people care about the impression they are conveying to others (Levy et al., 2004), it can be the

case that they also pay more attention to other’s impressions. Therefore, the actor would feel

at less risk to engage in exemplification or supplication when he knows the audience member

will not discover his impression management attempts. Since the literature about supplication

and exemplification is still limited, more studies should be conducted to test when these

impression management tactics will be used by actors and how an audience responds to these

tactics. Personality similarity was not significantly related to audience’s status, power,

attractiveness, liking, and intimidation as perceived by the actor.

Finally, it was predicted that self-monitoring had a moderating effect on the

relationship between actor’s use of impression management tactics and member’s

performance rating of the actor. Since the relationship between impression management

tactics used and performance ratings given was not significant, I could not find support for the

moderating effect of self-monitoring either.

In conclusion, the purpose of this study was to examine audience’s characteristics that

have an influence on the impression management process. Some characteristics like perceived

status, power, attractiveness, and intimidation have an influence on some specific impression

management tactics used by the actor. In addition, personality similarity in Conscientiousness

had a significant influence on performance ratings, actor’s use of exemplification and

supplication. Moreover, personality similarity in Openness to Experience had an influence on

audience’s performance rating. This research contributes to our understanding of audience’s

influence in the impression management process. Next paragraph will discuss the limitations

of this study and provides directions for the future.


89

7.3 Limitations and future research

A number of weaknesses of the current study should be acknowledged. First, the

limitations concerning the sample will be discussed, second the limitations regarding the

research design and measurements will be investigated.

An important strength of this study is the focus on one kind of group: fraternities and

sororities are naturalistic social groups where members spend a great amount of time together.

So this study provides a clear picture of the characteristics that predict candidate’s use of

impression management tactics and member’s evaluation of this. However, such a clear focus

is also a limitation, since it does not provide information about the influence of audience

characteristics in other groups. For instance, the extent to which these results can be

generalized to a workplace setting and to more hierarchical relationships remains an issue for

future research.

One consequence of collecting data from candidates and members was that the sample

sizes available were small and non-random. Moreover, the sample was heavily female which

may have influenced the results. Future research needs to determine if these restrictions

affected the current results.

The research design applied and measurements used lead to some limitations as well.

For instance, impression management is portrayed as a linear process in which people become

motivated to use impression management tactics, and then use them. However, this process is

in reality dynamic and recursive. Furthermore, one potential weakness is that I only

investigated five audience characteristics that are perceived by the actor or candidate: status,

power, attractiveness, liking, and intimidation. In reality, there can be more audience

characteristics that come into play in the impression management process, for instance the

size of the audience, or the affective state of the audience. Moreover, the use of nonverbal

impression management behaviour in this setting needs to be investigated. A strong point is

that I examined four verbal impression management tactics, and used four of the Big Five

personality traits. With respect to other studies, this is quite elaborate.

An advantage of this research is the reduction of common method bias that has been

characteristic of some impression management studies. It is possible that when all data are

collected from the same source, mood or response tendencies can influence the relations

between variables (Mitchell, 1985; Schmitt & Klimoski, 1991). Since I measured personality

similarity by both the candidate and the member, instead of the same source, common method


90

bias is slightly reduced. However, audience characteristics are answered from the actor’s

point of view, and can therefore be influenced by response tendencies.

The use of self-reported questionnaires can lead to socially desirable answers. For

instance, some Big Five personality questions like ‘I’m friendly’ will generally be rated as

high. Thus, rather than using self-reported questionnaires, multiple sources could be used to

assess candidate’s and member’s personality. In addition, the questionnaire reflected back on

the hazing period, which can lead to a bias in answers since this period lasted on average 11

weeks. For instance, candidate’s use of impression management tactics can be different at the

beginning of this period in comparison to the end of the hazing period.

This research used the Big Five IPIP taxonomy by Goldberg (1992), the Self-

Monitoring Scale of Snyder and Gangestad (1986), and the impression management scale

validated by Bolino and Turnley (2003). In addition, other variables were measured using

measurements that were validated by other researchers. These scales are by no means

exhaustive. For instance, there are other types of impression management tactics like opinion

conformity which are not measured by Bolino and Turnley’s scale. Although the scales in the

questionnaires demonstrated good internal reliability, some of the variables were measured

using only a few items due to survey length considerations.

Finally, this study did not consider why candidates did or did not use impression

management tactics by examining the candidate’s point of view. It would be interesting to

investigate if different reasons for using impression management tactics lead to different

performance ratings.

Impression management is a complex, reciprocal process, which involves a range of

variables. More research is needed to replicate the findings in various contexts. For instance,

impression management behaviour and the influence of audience’s characteristics in an online

environment in which people do not communicate face-to-face would be interesting to

conduct.


91

8. Conclusion

The current study researched whether audience characteristics have an influence on

actor’s use of impression management tactics and on audience’s performance rating of the

actor. More specifically, it examined audience’s status, power, attractiveness, liking, and

intimidation as perceived by the actor, and actor’s use of ingratiation, self-promotion,

exemplification, and supplication. In addition, personality similarity between the actor and

audience and its influence on the impression management process was investigated with the

use of Big Five personality dimensions.

The research used dyads that contain members and candidates of fraternities and

sororities. Taxonomies that were developed by different researchers were used in the

questionnaires that were distributed among the fraternities and sororities.

The present study found support for some of the hypotheses. Hypothesis one

suggested that audience characteristics influence actor’s impression management behaviour.

As became clear after several standard multiple regressions, the status of the audience as

perceived by the actor has a positive influence on actor’s use of supplication, and a negative

influence on actor’s use of self-promotion. Moreover, perceived power of the audience was

positively related to actor’s use of impression management tactics in general, and supplication

in particular. Perceived attractiveness of the audience only had a signficant negative

relationship with actor’s use of supplication, while perceived intimidation had a significant

positive effect on self-promotion. So, audience’s status, power, attractiveness, and

intimidation as perceived by the actor have a significant influence on actor’s use of specific

impression management tactics. In contrast, there was no evidence found for a relationship

between actor’s use of certain impression management tactics and audience’s performance

rating of the actor. Similarly, some researchers found a negative relationship, while other

researchers found a positive relationship between these variables. As was explained in chapter

7, more research should determine which factors influence the relationship between the use of

a certain impression management tactic and a performance rating given.

To test actor-audience similarity and its relationship with other variables, polynomial

regression analyses were conducted as proposed by Edwards (1994). The results suggest that

actor and audience similarity in Conscientiousness was significantly related to actor’s use of

exemplification and supplication, and audience’s performance rating of the actor. Actor and

audience’s similarity in Openness to Experience was significantly related to audience’s

performance rating of the actor.


92

To conclude, the results of this research suggest that the characteristics of the audience

play an important role in the impression management process. From the extensive literature

review, the empirical results, and the discussion it follows that future research should

investigate audience characteristics and its influence on the impression management process

into more depth in order to draw firm conclusions.

.


93

Reference list

Abelson, R. P. (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. Cognition

and social behaviour. Lawrence Erlbarum Associates.

Adler, A. (1930). Individual psychology. In C. Murchinson (Ed.), Psychologies of 1930 (pp.

395-405). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A., & Mayes, B. T. (1979).

Organization politics: Tactics and characteristics of its actors. California Management

Review, 22 (1): 77-83

Allison, S. T., & Herlocker, C. E. (1994). Constructing impressions in demographically

diverse organizational settings: A group categorization analysis. American Behavioral

Scientist, 37: 637–652.

Allport, G. W. 1937. Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Henry Holt.

Anderson, C., John, O.P., Keltner, D., Kring, A.M. (2001). Who attains social status? Effects

of personality and physical attractiveness in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 2001, Vol. 81, No. I, 116-132

Anderson, N., Silvester, J., Cunningham-Snell, N. and Haddleton, E. (1999). Relationships

between candidate self-monitoring, perceived personality, and selection interview outcomes.

Human Relations, 52, 1115–1131.

Argyle, M. (1976). Social interactions. Science. Vol. 194, 4269, 1046-1047. Arkin, R.M

(1981). "Self-presentation styles", in Tedeschi, J.T (Eds). Impression Management Theory

and Social Psychological Research, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp.311-33.

Ashkanasy, N.M., O'Connor C. (1997). Value congruence in leader-member exchange.

Journal of Social Psychology, 137. 647-662.

Ashmore, R. D., & Longo, L. C. (1995). Accuracy of stereotypes: What research on physical

attractiveness can teach us. In Y. Lee, L. J. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype

accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences (pp. 63-86). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Avia, M.D., Sanchez-Bernardos, M.L., Sanz, J., Carrillo, J. and Rojo, N. (1998) Self-

presentation strategies and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 108–

114.

Bales, R. F., Strodtbeck, F. L., Mills, T. M., & Roseborough, M. E. (1951). Channels of

communication in small groups. American Sociological Review, 16, 461-468.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Barkow, J. H. (1975). Prestige and culture: A biosocial interpretation. Current Anthropology,

16, 553-572.


94

Barrick M.R, Mount M.K, Judge T.A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning

of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? Personality and

Performance, 9, 9–30.

Barrick MR, Mount MK. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance:

A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Barrick MR, Mount MK. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the

Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1),

111–118.

Barrick, M.R., Parks, L., Mount, M.K. (2005). Self-monitoring as a moderator of the

relationships between personality traits and performance. Personnel Psychology, 58, 745-767

Bauer TN. Green SG. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test.

Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1538-1567.

Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1986). Four selves, two motives, and a substitute process

self-regulation model. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 63-74). New

York: Springer-Verlag.

Baumeister, R.F, & Jones, E.E. (1978). When self-presentation is constrained by the target's

knowledge: Consistency and compensation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

36, 608-618

Becker, T. E., & Martin, S. L. (1995). Trying to look bad at work: Methods and motives for

managing poor impressions in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 174-199.

Bem, D.J, Allen A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for

cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506–520.

Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and ethnic

groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729-750.

Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction.

American Sociological Review, 37, 241-255.

Bernardin, H. J., Cooke, D. K., & Villanova, P. (2000). Conscientiousness and agreeableness

as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2): 232–236.

Bernstein, I. S. (1981). Dominance: The baby and the bathwater. Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 4, 419-457.

Bohra, K. A., & Pandey, J. (1984). Ingratiation toward strangers, friends, and bosses. Journal

of Social Psychology, 22,117-222.

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley,W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations:

A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research

Methods, 2: 187–206.


95

Bolino, Mark C.; Turnley, William H. (2003) More Than One Way to Make an Impression:

Exploring Profiles of Impression Management, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 Issue 2, 141-

160.

Bostrorn, R. (1970). Patterns of communicative interaction in small groups. Speech

Monographs, 37: 257-263.

Bozeman, D. P., &Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management

processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69: 9–

30.

Brody, L. R. (2000). The socialization of gender differences in emotional expression: Display

rules, infant temperament, and differentiation. In H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion:

Social psychological perspectives (pp. 24-47). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Buck, R. (1984). The communication of emotion. New York: Guilford Press.

Burke, Kenneth. (1978). Questions and Answers about the Pentad. College Compositions and

Communication, 29, 330-335.

Burns, E. (1972). Theatricality: A Study of Convention in the Theatre and in Social Life.

London: Cox and Wyman.

Burns, T. (1992). Erving Goffman. London: Routledge

Buss, A. H. (1988). Dominance. In A. H. Buss (Ed.), Personality: Evolutionary heritage and

human distinctiveness (pp. 196-222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Buss, A. H., & Briggs, S. (1984). Drama and the self in social interaction. Journal of


Buss, D. M, & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective

on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert & S.

T. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982-1026). Boston:

McGraw-Hill

Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 62, 713-715.

Byrne, D. (1971) The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press

Caldwell DF, O’Reilly CA III. (1982). Boundary spanning and individual performance: The

impact of self-monitoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 124–127l.

Caldwell, D. R, and J. M. Burger (1998). "Personality characteristics of job applicants and

success in screening interviews." Personnel Psychology, 51: 119-136.


96

Caldwell, D.F, & O'Reilly, C.A., III. (1982). Responses to failure: The effects of choice and

responsibility on impression management. Academy of Management Journal. 25, 121-136. In

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal

of Management, 14:321–338.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control theory

approach to human behavior. New York: Springer- Verlag.

Chance, M. R. A. (1967). Attention structure as the basis of primate rank order. Man, 2, 503-

518.

Cheek, J. M., & Hogan, R. (1983). Self-concepts, self-presentations, and moral judgments. In

J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 249-

273). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chrustie, R., & Geis, FL. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Cialdini, R., & de Nicholas, M. (1989). Self-presentation by association. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 626–631.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Pl-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P.X, McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO

five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley.

Curtius, E. R. (1967) European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Darley, J. M., & Goethals, G. R. (1980). People's analyses of the causes of ability-linked

performances. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13,

pp. 1-37). New York: Academic Press.

Darley, J., & Fazio, R. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social

interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35: 867–881.

Darwin, C. (1965). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. New York: Appleton.

(Original work published 1872)

Davis, T.R.V. (1984). The influence of the physical environment in offices. Academy of

Management Review, 9, 271-283.

Day, D.V., Kilduff, M. (2003). Self-monitoring personality and work relationships: Individual

differences in social networks. In Barrick MR, Ryan AM (Eds.), Personality and work:


97

Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 205–228). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Day, D.V., Schleicher D.J., Unkless A.L., Hiller N.J.. (2002). Self-monitoring personality

atwork: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology,

87(2), 390–401.

Delery, J.E. and Kacmar, K.M. (1998) The influence of applicant and interviewer

characteristics on the use of impression management. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

28, 1649–1669.

DeNisi A.S., Cafferty T.P., Meglino B.M. (1984). A cognitive view of the perrnrmance

appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human

Perforrtiance, 6, 109-155.

DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin,

111, 203-243.

DePaulo, B. M., Kenny, D. A., Hoover, C. W, Webb, W., & Oliver, P. V. (1987). Accuracy of

person perception: Do people know what kinds of impressions they convey? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52,303-315.

Digman J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual

Review .f Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Dipboye R.L. (1985). Some neglected variables in research on discrimination in appraisals.

Academy of Management Review. 10, 116-127.

Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is

good, but...: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype.

Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W (1975). Unmasking the face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of


Elliott, G. C. (1979). Some effects of deception and level of self-monitoringvon planning and

reacting to self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1282-1292.

Engle E.M., Lord R.G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member exchange.

Academy of Management Journal, 40, 988-1010.

Evreinoff, N. 1927 The theatre in life. New York: Benjamin Blom.

Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics

and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–652.


98

Farmer, S. M., & Maslyn, J. M. 1999. Why are styles of upward influence neglected? Making

the case for a configurational approach to influences. Journal of Management, 25: 653–682.

Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111,

304-311.

Feldman J.M. (1981). Beyond attributional theory: Cognitive processes in performance

appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 127-148.

Felson, R. B. (1981). Ambiguity and bias in the self-concept. Social Psychology Quarterly,

44, 64-69.

Ferris G.R, Judge T.A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence

perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447–488.

Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. 1994. Subordinate influence

and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 58: 101–135.

Filter, T. A., & Gross, A. E. (1975). Effects of public and private deviancy on compliance

with a request. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 553-559.

Finkel, A. (2002). Traumatic injuries caused by hazing practices. The American Journal of

Emergency Medicine, 20, Issue 3, 228-233

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American

Psychologist, 48, 621-628.

Fletcher, C. (1989). Impression management in the selection interview. In Robert A.

Giacalone & Paul Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization: 269–281.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flynn, F., Chatman, J. A., & Spataro, S. (2001). Getting to know you: The influence of

personality on impressions and performance of demographically different people in

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 414– 442.

Foote, N. (1951). Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological

Review, Vol. 16, 1, 14-21.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A.

Zander, Group dynamics (pp. 150-167). New York: Harper & Row.

Friedlander, M.L., & Schwartz, G.S (1985). Toward a theory of strategic self-presentation in

counseling and psychotherapy Journal of Consulting Psychology, 32, 483-501

Friedman, H.S. and Miller-Herringer, T. (1991) Nonverbal display of emotion in public and in

private: Self-monitoring, personality, and expressive cues. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 61, 766–775.

Funder DC. (2001). The personality puzzle (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.


99

Gaertner, S. L, J. F. Dovidio, B. S., Banker, M. Houlette, K. M. Johnson, and E. A. McGlynn.

(2000). "Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization,

recategorization, and mutual differentiation," Group Dynamics, 4 (1): 98-114.

Gardner, W. I. (1992). ‘Lessons in Organizational Dramaturgy: The Art of Impression

Management’, Organizational Dynamics 21(1): 33–47.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal

of Management, 14:321–338.

Gergen, K. J., & Taylor, M. G. (1969). Social expectancy and self-presentation in a status

hierarchy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 79-92.

Giacalone, R. A. (1985). On slipping when you thought you had put your best foot forward:

Self-promotion, self-presentation, and entitlements. Group and Organization Studies, 10, 61-

80.

Giacalone, R.A., and Rosenfeld, P. (1986) Self-presentation and Self-promotion in an

Organizational Setting, Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 126 Issue 3,

Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986). Exemplification: The selfpresentation of moral

character. Journal of Personality, 54, 593-615

Gilmore D.C., Stevens C.K., Harrell-Cook G., Ferris G.R. (1999). Impression management

tactics. In Eder R.W., Harris M.M.(Eds.), The employment interview handbook. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The politics of the employment interview. In R. W.

Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. (1983). Perceptions of managerial power as a consequence of

managerial behavior and reputation. Journal of Management, 9, 7-26.

Gioia, D.A.,& Manz, C.C. (1985). Linking cognition and behavior: A script processing

interpretation of vicarious learning. Academy qf Management Review, 10, 527-539.

Godfrey, D. K., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C. G. (1986). Self-promoting is not ingratiating. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106- 1 15.

Goffman, E. (1955). On facework. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231.

Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday

Goldhamer, H., & Shils, E. A. (1939). Types of power and status. American Journal of

Sociology, 45, 171-182.

Goldstein, A. G. (1983). Behavioral scientists' fascination with faces. Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior, 7, 223-255.


100

Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: a meta-analytic

investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 54–70.

Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 47,73-80.

Greenwald, A. G., & Breckler, S. J. (1985). To whom is the self presented? In B. R. Schlenker

(Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 126-145). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2001). Measuring individual differences in emotion regulation:

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Gurevitch, Z.D. (1984). Impression formation during tactical self-presentation. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 47, 262-270.

Hair, J. F., Black, B., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate Data

Analysis. Prentice Hall

Hamner. W. G.. Kim. J. S.. Baird. L.. & Bigoness. W. (1974). Race and sex as determinants

of ratings by potential employers in a simulated work sampling task. Joumal of Applied

Psychology, 59. 705-711.

Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., & John, O. P. (1987). Category-breadth and social-

desirability values for 573 personality terms. European Journal of Personality, 1, 241-258.

Henley, N. M. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Higgins, R. L., Snyder, C. R., & Berglas, S. (1990). Self-handicapping: The paradox that

isn’t. New York: Plenum Press.

Hilton, J., & Darley, J. (1985). Constructing other persons: A limit on the effect. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 21: 1–18.

Hogan J, Holland B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job performance

relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100– 112.

Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska

symposium on motivation, 29, 55-89. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Hogan, R., Jones, W. H., & Cheek, J. M. (1985). Socioanalytic theory: An alternative to

armadillo psychology. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 175-198). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Holtgraves, T, & Srull, T. K. (1989). The effects of positive self-descriptions on impressions:

General principles and individual differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15,

452-462.


101

Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. (1996). The employment interview context: social and

situational influences on interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26,

112–136.

Ickes, W., Reidhead, S. and Patterson, M. (1986) Machiavellianism and self-monitoring: As

different as ‘‘me’’ and ‘‘you’’. Social Cognition, 4, 58–74.

Ilgen, D.R., Favero, J.L. (1985). Limits in generalization from psychological research to

performance appraisal process. Academy of Management Review, 10, 311-321.

Ilgen, D.R., Feldman, J.M. (1983). Performanee appraisals: A process focus. In Cummings

L.L., Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 5, 141-197. Greenwich, CT:

JAl Press.

Isen AM, Sharker TE, Clark MS, Karp L. (1978). Positive affect, accessibility of material in

memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36

James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.

John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural

language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation.

In: J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self: Vol. 1, 231–262. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, E. E., Gergen, K. J., Gumpert, P., & Thibaut, J. W. (1965). Some conditions affecting

the use of ingratiation to influence performance evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 1,613-625.

Jones, E. E., Stires, L. K., Shaver, K. G., & Harris, V. A. (1968). Evaluation of an ingratiator

by target persons and bystanders. Journal of Personality, 36, 349-385.

Jones, E. E.. Gergen, K. I.. & Jones, R. G. (1963). Tactics of ingratiation among leaders and

subordinates in a status hierarchy. Psychological Monographs. 77(3): whole no. 566.

Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Jones, E.E., & Baumeister, R.F. (1976). The self-monitor looks at the ingratiator. Journal of

Personality, 44, 654-674.

Jones, S. C. (1973). Self and interpersonal evaluations: Esteem theories vs. consistency

theories. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 185-199.

Jones. E.E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown, NJ:

General teaming Press. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452–468.

Judge T.A., Ferris G.R. (1993). Social context of performance evaluation decisions. Academy

of Management Journal, 36, 80-105.


102

Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1999). Effectiveness of impression management tactics

across human resource situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29: 1293–1315.

Kacmar, K. M., Delery, J. E., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). Differential effectiveness of candidate

IM tactics on employment interview decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22:

1250–1272.

Karraker, K. H. (1986). Adult attention to infants in a newborn nursery. Nursing Research,

35, 358-363.

Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1991). Do we know how others view us? An empirical and

theoretical account. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kilduff M., Day D.V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on

managerial careers. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047–1060.

Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward-influence styles: Relationship with

performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33: 528–542.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S.M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics:

Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

Kipnis, D.. & Vanderveer, R. (1971). Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 17: 280-286.

Kleinke, C.L. (1975). First impressions. The psychology of encountering others. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Knouse SB. (1994). Impressions of the resume: The effects of applicant education,

experience, and impression management. Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol 9, 1.

Kristof-Brown, A., Franke, M., & Barrick, M. R. (2002). Influences and outcomes of

candidate impression management use in job interviews. Personnel Psychology, 28: 27–46.

Kyl-Heku, L. M., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Tactics as units of analysis in personality

psychology: An illustration using tactics of hierarchy negotiation. Personality and Individual

Differences, 21, 497-517.

La Freniere, P., & Charlesworth, W. R. (1983). Dominance, attention, and affiliation in a

preschool group: A nine-month longitudinal study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 55-67.

LaFrance, M., Mayo, C. (1978). Cultural aspects of nonverbal communication. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations.

Larrance, D. T., & Zuckerman, M. (1981). Facial attractiveness and vocal likability as

determinants of nonverbal sending skills. Journal of Personality, 49, 349-362.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and

two component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 34–47.


103

Leary, Mark R.; Nezlek, John B.; Downs, Deborah (1994) Self-presentation in everyday

interactions: Effects of target familiarity and gender composition. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, Vol 67 (4), 664-673.

Levine, S.P. and Feldman, R.S. (1997) Self-presentational goals, selfmonitoring, and

nonverbal behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 505–518.

Levy, P. E., Williams, J.R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: a review and

framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30, 881.

Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1989). Ingratiation in the development of leadermember

exchange. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the

organization (pp. 343-396). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lippa, R. (1976). Expressive control and the leakage of dispositional introversion-

extraversion during role-played teaching. Journal of Personality. 44, 541-559.

Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of

employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1: 183–193.

Lucas, R.E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E.M. and Shao, L. (2000) Cross-cultural evidence for

the fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol

79, 3, 452-468.

Major, B., Quinton, W., McCoy, S., & Schmader, T. (2000). Reducing prejudice: The target’s

perspective. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: 211–237. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mayes, B.T., and Allen, R.W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational politics. Academy

of management review, 2, 672-678

Mazur, A. (1985). A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups. Social Forces,

64, 377-402.

McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business

Review, 54, 100-110.

McFarland, L., Ryan, A.M., Kriska, S. (2003) Impression Management Use and Effectiveness

Across Assessment Methods. Journal of Management 2003; 29; 641

McFarland, L.; Yun, G. ; Harold, C.; Viera, L. ; Moore, L. (2005). An examination of

impression managemnet use and effectiveness across assessment center exercises: the role of

competency demands. Personnel Psychology, 58, 4, 949-980.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C., Adkins, C.L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate

culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual

outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424-432.


104

Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C., Adkins, C.L. (1991). Value congruence and satisfaction with a

leader: An examination of lhe role of interaction. Human Relations, 44, 481-495.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., Brass, D.J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-

monitors: Implications forworkplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46,

121– 146.

Mehrabian, A. (1971). Nonverbal betrayal of feeling. Journal of Experimental Reseach in

Personality.

Miles, R.E. (1964). Attitudes toward management theory as a faetor in managers'

relationships with their supervisors. Academy of Management Journal, 7, 308-314.

Miller, L. C., & Cox, C. L. (1982). For appearance's sake: Public selfconsciousness and make-

up use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5,748-751.

Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality.

Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.

Mischel, W. (1979). On the interface of cognition and personality: Beyond the person-

situation debate. American Psychologist, 34: 740-754.

Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., Scullen, S.M., Rounds, J. (in press). Higher order dimensions of

the Big Five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology,

58, 447–478.

Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C. I. (2003). Faking and selection:

Considering the use of personality from select-in and select-out perspectives. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 88: 348-355.

O'Reilly CA, Caldwell DF, Barnett WP (1989). Work group demography, social integration,

and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-27.

Owens, D. A., & Sutton, R. I. (1999). Status contests in meetings: Negotiating the informal

order. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 25-35).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pandey, J. (1986). Sociocultural perspectives on ingratiation. Progress in Experimental

Personality Research, 14: 205– 229.

Park, B., S. Kraus (1992). Consensus in initial impressions as a function of verbal

information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18:439-^46.

Peeters, H., Lievens, F. (2006). Verbal and nonverbal impression management tactics in

behaviour description and situational interviews. International journal of selection and

assessment. 14, 3.

Pettigrew, A. (1973). The politics of organizational decision-making. London: Tavistock


105

Petzold, H. (1972) ‘Situationsanalyse und intensiviertes Rollenspiel in der Industrie’ in

Angewandtes Psychodrama in Therapie, Pädagogik, Theater und Wirtschaft. Hilarion Petzold

(ed.), 358–372. Paderborn: Junferman.

Piedmont, R.L., McCra,e R.R., Costa, P.T. (1991). Adjective Check List scales and the

fivefactor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630-637.

Pinker, S. (1994). Is there a gene for compassion? New York Times Book Review.

Ralston, D. A., & Elsass, P. M. (1989). Ingratiation and impression management in the

organization. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), lmpression management in the

organization. pp. 235-2503, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ralston, D.A. (1985). Employee ingratiation: The role of management. Academy of

Management Review, 10. 477-487

Raven, B. H., & Rubin, J. Z. (1976). Social psychology: People in groups. New York, NY:

John Wiley & Sons.

Raven, B. H., Schwarzwald, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Conceptualizing and measuring a

power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,

307-332.

Riggens, S. H. (1993) ‘Life as Metaphor; Current Issues in Dramaturgical Analysis’,

Semiotica 1(2): 153–65.

Riggio, R. E., & Friedman, H. S. (1982). The interrelationships of self-monitoring factors,

personality traits, and nonverbal social skills. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 7, 33-45.

Riggio, R. E., Tucker, I, & Throckmorton, B. (1987). Social skills and deception ability.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 568-577.

Riggio, R. E., Tucker, I, & Widaman, K. F. (1987). Verbal and nonverbal cues as mediators

of deception ability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 126-145.

Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: professional image construction in diverse

organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 30, No. 4 685-711

Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in

organizations: Theory, measurement, and practice. New York: Routledge.

Roszell, P., Kennedy, D., & Grabb, E. (1989). Physical attractiveness and income attainment

among Canadians. Journal of Psychology, 123, 547- 559.

Sabatelli, R. M., & Rubin, M. (1986). Nonverbal expressiveness and physical attractiveness as

mediators of interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10, 120-133.

Saucier G, Ostendorf F. (1999). Hierarchical subcomponents of the Big Five personality

factors: A cross-language replication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76 (4),

613–627.


106

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1979). Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents. Child

Development, 50, 923-935.

Schleicher DJ, Day DV. (2002). Establishing a nomological network for self-monitoring

personality: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and

interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schlenker, B. R. (1985). Identity and self-identification. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and

social life (pp. 65-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression

regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 133-168.

Schneider, D. J. (1969). Tactical self-presentation after success and failure. Journal of


Schneider, D. J. (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.

Schneider, D. J., Hastorf, A. H., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1979). Person perception. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Schreyögg, G. and Höpfl, H. (2004) ‘Theatre and Organization: Editorial Introduction’,

Organization Studies 25(2): 691–704.

Schreyögg, Georg 1999 ‘Definition und Typen des bedarfsorientierten Theatereinsatzes in

Unternehmen’ in Unternehmenstheater: Formen — Erfahrungen — Erfolgreicher Einsatz.

Georg Schreyögg and Robert Dabitz (eds), 3–22. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

Siegman, A. W., & Reynolds, M. A. (1983). Self-monitoring and speech in feigned and

unfeigned lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1325- 1333.

Snyder M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 30, 526–537.

Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stucky, R. J. (1983). Excuses: Masquerades in search of

grace. New York: Wiley.

Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. J. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive,

motivational, and behavioural activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology,

50: 273–303.

Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1976). When actions reflect attitudes: The politics of

impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1034- 1042.


107

Snyder, M., & Tanke, E. D. (1976). Behavior and attitude: Some people are more consistent

than others. Journal of Personality. 44. 510-517.

Solomon, M. R., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 508-514.

Spinhoven, P., Vangaalen, H.A.E. and Abraham, R.E. (1995). The defense style

questionnaire: A psychometric examination. Journal of Personality Disorders, 9, 124–133.

Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of

candidate impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80:

587–606.

Stevens, C. K., Mitchell, T. R., & Tripp, T. M. (1990). Order of presentation and verbal

recruitment strategy effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1076-1092.

Strauss, J. P., Connerly, M. L., & Ammermann, P. A. (2003). The "Threat Hypothesis",

personality, and attitudes toward diversity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39 (32-52).

Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn

and Bacon

Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the

organization. In S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of

organizations: Vol. 3, 31–58. Greenwich. CT: JAI Press.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B. R.

Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 293–322). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tedeschi, J.T (1981). Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research,

Academic Press, New York, NY

Tedeschi, J.T.; Riess, M. (1981) Identities, the phenomenal self, and laboratory research, In:

J.T. Tedeschi. Impression management theory and social psychological research. New York:

Academic Press.

Tetlock, P.E., & Manstead, A. S.R. (1985). Impression management versus intrapsychic

explanations in social psychology: A useful dichotomy? Psychological Review, 92, 59-77.

Thacker, R.A.,Wayne, S.J. (1995). An examination of the relationship between upward

influence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Management, 21, 739–756.

Toris, C, & DePaulo, B. M. (1984). Effects of actual deception and suspiciousness of

deception on interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

47,1063-1073.

Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1984). Studying organizational cultures through rites and

ceremonials. Academy cf Management Review, 9, 653-669.


108

Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. I. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance

of relational demography in superior-subordinates dyads. Academy of Management Journal,

32, 402-423.

Turban, D.B., Jones, A.P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and

mechanism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 228-234.

Wagner, H. L., MacDonald, C. J, & Manstead, A. S. R. (1986). Communication of individual

emotions by spontaneous facial expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

50, 737-743.

Wayne, S.J., Ferris, G.R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-

subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and a field study. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 75, 487-i99,

Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). The effects of impression management on the

performance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48:

70–88.

Weary, G , & Arkin, R.M. (1981). Attributional self-presentation. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes,

& R.F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 3, pp. 223-246). New York:

Eribaum.

Weiss, H.M., Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 6, 1–50.

Weitz, S. (1972). Attitude, voice, and behavior: A repressed affect model of interracial

interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24,14-21.

Westrup, C. (1996) ‘The Play of Information Systems Development’, Information Technology

and People 9(2): 24–42.

Wexler, M. (1983). Pragmatism, interactionism, and dramatism: Interpreting the symbol in

organizations. In L.R. POndy, PJ. Frost, G. Morgan, & TC. Dandridge (Eds.), Organizational

Symbolism (pp. 237-253). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wexley, K.N., Alexander, R.A., Greenawalt, S.P., Couch, M.A. (1980). Attitudinal

congruence and similarity as related to interpersonal evaluations in manager-subordinate

dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 320-330.

Wexley, K.N., Klimoski, R. (1984). Performance appraisal: An update. In Rowland K.M.,

Ferris, G.R. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 2, 35-79).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wilson, D. H., Gap, Z., & Rhein, H. von, Jr. (2001). Leben mit RSI [To live with RSI].

Journal of Psychiatry, 102 (4), 10-36.

Wilmot, W. W. (1979). Dyadic communication. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.


109

Witt, L.A., Burke, L.A., Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. (2002). The interactive effects of

Conscientiousness and Agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

87, 164–169.

Wood, T. (2002) ‘Spectacular Metaphors’, Journal of Organizational Change Management

5(1): 11–20.

Wortman, C.B., & Linsenmeier, J.A.W (1977). Interpersonal attraction and techniques of

ingratiation in organizational settings. In B.M. Staw & G.R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions

in organizational behavior (pp. 133-178). Chicago: St. Clair Press

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and

lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132–140.

Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates,

peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535.

Zaccora SJ, Foti RJ, Kenny DA. (1991). Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in

leadership: An investigation of leader flexibility across multiple group situations. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 76, 2, 308-315.

Zanna, M.P, & Pack, S.J. (1975). On the self-fulfilling nature of apparent sex differences in

behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 583-591.

Zenger, T.R., Lawrence, B.S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of

age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal,

32, 353-376.


110

List of Figures


111

Figure 1. Key variables and major relationships in the impression management process. From: Impression

Management in organizations (p.323), by W. Gardner and M. Martinko, 1988, Journal of Management, vol.

14, 2.


112

Appendix

Vragenlijst dispuutslid


Beste student,

Voor mijn master International Business schrijf ik op dit moment mijn scriptie over het gedrag van mensen.

Hiervoor wil ik gebruik maken van disputen met dispuutsleden en A-leden. Deze vragenlijst gaat niet

inhoudelijk in op de A-tijd zelf, maar vraagt naar het gedrag van de studenten tijdens deze periode.

Je zou me erg helpen door deze vragenlijst in te vullen!

De vragen zijn in het Engels; lees ze goed door (overleg niet met anderen) en omcirkel het juiste antwoord.

Er zijn 2 vragenlijsten: een voor dispuutsleden en een voor A-leden (of studenten die net A-lid af zijn). Je

vormt altijd 1 paar: dwz, 1 A-lid beantwoordt vragen over zichzelf en over het dispuutslid. Hetzelfde

dispuutslid vult de vragen in voor het A-lid. Ter verduidelijking zijn de namen al ingevuld.

Alle gegevens zullen vertrouwelijk behandeld worden, en worden gecodeerd om anonimiteit te garanderen.

Dus de persoon waarover jij de vragen invult zal niet jouw antwoorden te zien krijgen.

Alvast bedankt voor je medewerking!

Noortje Goethals

Voornaam:

Leeftijd:

Studie:

Lichting dispuut:

Functie binnen dispuut (bijv commissie, bestuur): 0 nee 0 ja, ……

Aantal leden dispuut:

A-tijd:

- nog bezig, begonnen in:

- afgelopen sinds: A-tijd duurde weken

Als je geïnteresseerd bent in de resultaten van dit onderzoek, noteer dan je emailadres hieronder:

E-mail adres:


Geef voor de volgende statements aan in hoeverre ze op jou betrekking hebben in het dagelijkse leven:

Very Inaccurate

Inaccurate Neutral Accurate Very accurate

1. I am the centre of the party 1 2 3 4 5

2. I feel comfortable around people 1 2 3 4 5

3. I don't talk a lot 1 2 3 4 5

4. I don't mind being the centre of

attention

1 2 3 4 5

5. I have little to say 1 2 3 4 5

6. I start conversations 1 2 3 4 5

7. I don't like to draw attention to myself 1 2 3 4 5

8. I am quiet around strangers 1 2 3 4 5

9. I keep in the background 1 2 3 4 5

10. I talk to a lot of different people at

parties

1 2 3 4 5

11. I am not interested in other people's

problems

1 2 3 4 5

12. I make people feel at ease 1 2 3 4 5

13. I feel others' emotions 1 2 3 4 5

14. I take time out for others 1 2 3 4 5

15. I’m friendly 1 2 3 4 5

16. I am not really interested in others 1 2 3 4 5

17. I am interested in people 1 2 3 4 5

18. I feel little concern for others 1 2 3 4 5


Very Inaccurate


19. I sympathize with other's feelings 1 2 3 4 5

20. I insult people 1 2 3 4 5

21. I am always prepared (e.g study) 1 2 3 4 5

22. I pay attention to details (e.g study) 1 2 3 4 5

23. I get tasks done right away (e.g study) 1 2 3 4 5

24. I make a mess of things 1 2 3 4 5

25. I often forget to put things back in

their proper place

1 2 3 4 5

26. I like order 1 2 3 4 5

27. I avoid my tasks (e.g study) 1 2 3 4 5

28. I leave my belongings around 1 2 3 4 5

29. I demand a lot of myself in my work 1 2 3 4 5

30. I follow a schedule 1 2 3 4 5

31. I have a rich vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5

32. I have a vivid imagination 1 2 3 4 5

33. I have excellent ideas 1 2 3 4 5

34. I have difficulty understanding abstract

ideas

1 2 3 4 5

35. I am full of ideas 1 2 3 4 5

36. I use difficult words 1 2 3 4 5

37. I spend time reflecting on things 1 2 3 4 5


Very Inaccurate


38. I do not have a good imagination 1 2 3 4 5

39. I am quick to understand things 1 2 3 4 5

40. I am not interested in abstract ideas 1 2 3 4 5

De volgende statements gaan over (naam) tijdens de A-tijd periode. Geef aan in welke mate je het ermee eens

bent.

Unacceptable Below average

Average Above average

Outstanding

1. to what extent do you feel that (naam)

is performing the tasks during the A-tijd

the way you would like them to be

performed?

1 2 3 4 5

2. to what extent has (naam)'s

performance met your own expectations?

1 2 3 4 5

3. what is your personal view of (naam)

in terms of overall effectiveness during

the A-tijd?

1 2 3 4 5

4. rate the overall level of performance

that you observe for this A-lid

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly

disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

agree

5. (naam) is superior to other Aspirant-

leden

1 2 3 4 5

6. If I were in (naam)’s shoes, I would

change the way the A-tasks have been

done

1 2 3 4 5


Geef voor de volgende statements aan in hoeverre ze op jou betrekking hebben:

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of

other people

1 2 3 4 5

2. At parties and social gatherings, I do not

attempt to do or say things that others will

like

1 2 3 4 5

3. I can only argue for ideas which I

already believe

1 2 3 4 5

4. I can make spontaneous speeches even

on topics about which I have almost no

information

1 2 3 4 5

5. I guess I put on a show to impress or

entertain others

1 2 3 4 5

6. I would probably make a good actor 1 2 3 4 5

7. In a group of people I am rarely the

center of attention

1 2 3 4 5

8. In a different situation and with

different people, I often act like very

different persons

1 2 3 4 5

9. I am not particularly good at making

other people like me

1 2 3 4 5

10. I'm not always the person I appear to

be

1 2 3 4 5

11. I would not change my opinions (or

the way I do things) in order to please

someone or win their favor

1 2 3 4 5

12. I have considered being an entertainer 1 2 3 4 5

13. I have never been good at games like

imitating or improvisational acting

1 2 3 4 5


Strongly disagree


14. I have trouble changing my behavior

to suit different people and different

situations

1 2 3 4 5

15. At a party I let others keep the jokes

and stories going

1 2 3 4 5

16. I feel a bit awkward in public and do

not appear quite as well as I should

1 2 3 4 5

17. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a

lie with a sraight face (if for a right

reason)

1 2 3 4 5

18. I may mislead people by being friendly

when I really dislike them

1 2 3 4 5

Dank je wel voor het invullen van deze lijst!

Vragenlijst A-leden

Beste student,

Voor mijn master International Business schrijf ik op dit moment mijn scriptie over het gedrag van mensen.

Hiervoor wil ik gebruik maken van disputen met dispuutsleden en A-leden. Deze vragenlijst gaat niet

inhoudelijk in op de A-tijd zelf, maar vraagt naar het gedrag van de studenten tijdens deze periode.

Je zou me erg helpen door deze vragenlijst in te vullen!

De vragen zijn in het Engels; lees ze goed door (overleg niet met anderen) en omcirkel het juiste antwoord.

Er zijn 2 vragenlijsten: een voor dispuutsleden en een voor A-leden (of studenten die net A-lid af zijn). Je

vormt altijd 1 paar: dwz, 1 A-lid beantwoordt vragen over zichzelf en over het dispuutslid. Hetzelfde

dispuutslid vult de vragen in voor het A-lid. Ter verduidelijking zijn de namen al ingevuld.

Alle gegevens zullen vertrouwelijk behandeld worden, en worden gecodeerd om anonimiteit te garanderen.

Dus de persoon waarover jij de vragen invult zal niet jouw antwoorden te zien krijgen.

Alvast bedankt voor je medewerking!

Noortje Goethals

Voornaam:

Leeftijd:

Studie:

Als je geïnteresseerd bent in de resultaten van dit onderzoek, noteer dan je emailadres hieronder:

E-mail adres:

Vragenlijst A-lid

Geef voor de volgende statements aan in hoeverre ze op jou betrekking hebben in het dagelijkse leven:

Very Inaccurate


1. I am the centre of the party 1 2 3 4 5

2. I feel comfortable around people 1 2 3 4 5

3. I don't talk a lot 1 2 3 4 5

4. I don't mind being the centre of

attention

1 2 3 4 5

5. I have little to say 1 2 3 4 5

6. I start conversations 1 2 3 4 5

7. I don't like to draw attention to myself 1 2 3 4 5

8. I am quiet around strangers 1 2 3 4 5

9. I keep in the background 1 2 3 4 5

10. I talk to a lot of different people at

parties

1 2 3 4 5

11. I am not interested in other people's

problems

1 2 3 4 5

12. I make people feel at ease 1 2 3 4 5

13. I understand others' emotions 1 2 3 4 5

14. I take time for others 1 2 3 4 5

15. I’m friendly 1 2 3 4 5

16. I am not really interested in others 1 2 3 4 5

17. I am interested in people 1 2 3 4 5

18. I feel little concern for others 1 2 3 4 5

Vragenlijst A-lid

Very Inaccurate


19. I sympathize with other's feelings 1 2 3 4 5

20. I insult people 1 2 3 4 5

21. I am always prepared (e.g study) 1 2 3 4 5

22. I pay attention to details (e.g study) 1 2 3 4 5

23. I get tasks done right away (e.g study) 1 2 3 4 5

24. I make a mess of things 1 2 3 4 5

25. I often forget to put things back in

their proper place

1 2 3 4 5

26. I like order 1 2 3 4 5

27. I avoid my tasks (e.g study) 1 2 3 4 5

28. I leave my belongings around 1 2 3 4 5

29. I demand a lot of myself in my work 1 2 3 4 5

30. I follow a schedule 1 2 3 4 5

31. I have a rich vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5

32. I have a vivid imagination 1 2 3 4 5

33. I have excellent ideas 1 2 3 4 5

34. I have difficulty understanding abstract

ideas

1 2 3 4 5

35. I am full of ideas 1 2 3 4 5

36. I use difficult words 1 2 3 4 5

37. I spend time reflecting on things 1 2 3 4 5

Vragenlijst A-lid

Very Inaccurate


38. I do not have a good imagination 1 2 3 4 5

39. I am quick to understand things 1 2 3 4 5

40. I am not interested in abstract ideas 1 2 3 4 5

Geef voor de volgende statements aan in welke mate het jouw gedrag naar (naam) toe beschrijft tijdens de

A-tijd

Very Inaccurate


1. I talk proudly about my experience and

skills

1 2 3 4 5

2. I make (naam) aware of my talents or

qualifications

1 2 3 4 5

3. I let him/her know that I am valuable to

the sorority/fraternity

1 2 3 4 5

4. I make (naam) aware of my

accomplishments during the A-tijd

1 2 3 4 5

5. I compliment (naam) so I will be seen

as likeable

1 2 3 4 5

6. I take an interest in (naam)'s personal

life to show that I am friendly

1 2 3 4 5

7. I praise (naam) for his/her

accomplishments so (naam) will consider

me a nice person

1 2 3 4 5

8. I do personal favors for (naam) to show

that I am friendly

1 2 3 4 5

9. I stay at my sorority/fraternity late so

people will know that I am hard working

1 2 3 4 5

Vragenlijst A-lid

Very

Inaccurate Inaccurate Neutral Accurate Very

accurate

10. I try to appear busy, even at times

when things are slower

1 2 3 4 5

11. I arrive at my sorority/fraternity early

to look dedicated

1 2 3 4 5

12. I spend time on my sorority/fraternity

at day/night or on weekends to show that I

am dedicated

1 2 3 4 5

13. I act like I know less than I do so

people will help me out

1 2 3 4 5

14. I try to gain assistance or sympathy

from (naam) by appearing needy in some

areas

1 2 3 4 5

15. I pretend not to understand something

to gain (naam)'s help

1 2 3 4 5

16. I act like I need assistance so (naam)

will help me out

1 2 3 4 5

17. I pretend to know less than I do so I

can avoid an unpleasant assignment

1 2 3 4 5

Geef voor de volgende statements aan in welke mate het (naam) beschrijft tijdens de A-tijd:

Strongly disagree


1. (naam) could give me undesirable tasks 1 2 3 4 5

2. (naam) could make things unpleasant

for me

1 2 3 4 5

Vragenlijst A-lid

Strongly disagree


3. I respected (naam) and did not want to

disagree

1 2 3 4 5

4. (naam) had the right to request that I do

my tasks in a particular way

1 2 3 4 5

5. I saw (naam) as someone I could

identify with

1 2 3 4 5

6. (naam) could help me receive special

benefits

1 2 3 4 5

7. I had an obligation to do as (naam) said 1 2 3 4 5

8. A good evaluation from (naam) could

lead to an increase in respect in my

sorority/fraternity

1 2 3 4 5

9. I consider (naam) to have a high status

in my sorority/fraternity in comparison

with the rest

1 2 3 4 5

10. (naam) is very prominent in my

sorority/fraternity

1 2 3 4 5

11. (naam) has an attractive appearance 1 2 3 4 5

12. I consider (naam) to be friendly 1 2 3 4 5

13. I consider (naam) to be confident 1 2 3 4 5

14. (naam) is intelligent 1 2 3 4 5

15. (naam) makes clear that he/she can

make things difficult to me when I push

too far

1 2 3 4 5

16. (naam) uses intimidation to get me to

behave appropriately

1 2 3 4 5

17. I like (naam) very much as a person 1 2 3 4 5

18. We like eachother very much 1 2 3 4 5

Dank je wel voor het invullen van deze lijst!

impression management

Documents