1

Use of Impression Management Tactics in Job Interviews

in Japan

経営学系 ビジネスコース

23C15031

TAKAŠMANOV ANA

2

Abstract

Previous researches on impression management (IM) have focused on several areas,

such as antecedents, tactics in the selection process, feedback seeking, performance

appraisal, career success and leadership. This paper explores how individuals use IM

in the selection process in Japan, where collectivistic culture is seemed to be shared. I

analyze questionnaire samples of Japanese undergraduate and graduate students who

have completed the process of job hunting, examining the influence of social skills

and allocentrism/idiocentrism on the use of IM tactics. Furthermore, I examine the

moderating power of social skills and gender role orientation between gender and IM

tactics. My findings suggest how social skills have a direct effect on the use of

pointing out obstacles tactics and assertiveness tactics, while allocentrism has a direct

effect on the use of accommodation tactics. Social skills moderate the relationship

between gender and the use of individual excellence tactics, indicating that women

use this tactics more frequently when their social skills are high, while gender role

orientation moderates the relationship between gender and pointing out obstacles

tactics, indicating that women use this specific tactics more only when gender role

orientation is high. These findings suggest new insight into the culturally influenced

IM tactics.

3

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to my

advisor Professor Tomoki Sekiguchi. This paper would not have been possible

without his guidance, encouragement and support. I wish to thank him from my heart

for his thoughtfulness and patience during these last three years.

I would also like to express my deep gratitude to my advisor Professor Toshio

Kobayashi for his valuable advice and guidance. I would also like to show my

appreciation to Professor Koichi Nakagawa, Professor Dony Dahana Wirawan and

Professor Sotaro Katsumata for letting me distribute questionnaires at their classes

and helping me collect answers for my study.

I would like to extend my gratitude to all members of Sekiguchi lab and

Kobayashi lab, especially Saddam Khalid and Ting Liu for their insightful advice,

support and help in data analysis. I am also grateful to all of my friends who

supported me and shared my questionnaire with their friends.

I would like to especially thank Niematallah Elamin, Enkhzul Galsanjigmed,

Gulbostan Yasin, Ita Dukic and Avdija Ibrahimovic for their endless encouragement

and support.

Last, but not least, I wish to thank my grandfather for his love, never-ending

care and understanding.

4

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................1

Literature Review......................................................................................................3

Definition of Impression Management.......................................................................3

Impression Management Tactics in Job Interviews....................................................6

Antecedents of IM Tactics in Job Interviews..............................................................6

Job Interview Structure...............................................................................................7

Outcomes of IM Tactics in Job Interviews.................................................................8

Cultural Impression Management Tactics..................................................................8

Hypotheses Development......................................................................................10

Social Skills...............................................................................................................10

Personal Collectivism (Allocentrism) and Individualism (Idiocentrism).................12

Moderators................................................................................................................14

Social Skills...............................................................................................................14

Gender and Gender Role Orientation........................................................................15

Method.......................................................................................................................18

Sample......................................................................................................................18

Measures...................................................................................................................18

Results........................................................................................................................20

Discussion.................................................................................................................26

Implications for Theory............................................................................................27

Implications for Practice..........................................................................................28

5

Limitations and Future Research..............................................................................30

Conclusion.................................................................................................................31

References.................................................................................................................32

Appendix...................................................................................................................39

6

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Definitions of impression management tactics...............................................5

Table 2: Descriptive statistics and correlations of study variables .............................21

Table 3: Regression coefficient....................................................................................22

Table 4: Summary of hypotheses and findings............................................................26

Figure 1: Plots of interaction between social skills and gender with individual

excellence tactics..........................................................................................................24

Figure 2: Plots of interaction between gender and gender role orientation with

pointing out obstacles tactics .......................................................................................25

7

Introduction

“Job interview is a strong situation that carries expectancies about appropriate

behavior and research suggests that applicants use strategic self-presentational

behaviors to fulfill these situational requirements“(Jansen, Konig, Stadelmanna &

Kleimann, 2012; Sandal et al., 2014). According to impression management theory,

individuals present themselves to others in a way that they reveal certain aspects of

themselves, while concealing other aspects (Goffman, 1959).

The purpose of this study is to investigate which self-presentational behaviors

are used in job interviews in Japan. “In America, the squeaky wheel gets the grease,

while in Japan, the nail that stands out gets pounded down” (Markus & Kitayama,

1991). According to theory, Western culture values individualism while Eastern

culture values collectivism (Triandis et al., 1985, Sedikides et al., 2003).

Sandal et al.,(2014) have developed an impression management scale that

distributes IM tactics into four groups, taking into consideration differences across

cultures. “Cultural IM scale was developed with the aim of measuring tactics that can

be found in both Western and non Western cultures, and adds a non-Western voice to

the literature on impression management by applicants in context” (Sandal et al.,

2014) These tactics are: individual excellence, pointing out obstacles, assertiveness

and accommodation. In my study, I have used this scale to understand the impression

management behavior in Japanese society.

This study provides new insight in the cultural impression management tactics.

First, to test my hypotheses, I distributed questionnaire survey to Japanese

undergraduate and graduate students who had already completed the process of job

hunting, inquiring about impression management tactics they have used. Second,

8

based on findings, I offer theoretical implications for antecedents of impression

management such as social skills, cultural values, and gender role orientation. Third, I

offer practical implication, such as advice to both job applicants and recruiting

companies considering the use of IM tactics.

9

Literature Review

Definition of Impression Management

Self-presentation is defined as the “individuals’ conscious or unconscious

attempt to control the images they project in social interactions” (Schlenker, 1980).

Terms of “self-presentation” and “impression management” are often overlapping in

impression management literature, therefore both can be used to convey the same

meaning (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Bozeman and Kacmar (1997) offer a more

comprehensive explanation of attempts to control images, defining impression

management as “efforts by an actor to create, maintain, protect or otherwise alter an

image held by the target audience”. Actors are individuals who manifest impression

management behavior, while the target audience refers to individuals whom these

behaviors are supposed to influence.

Impression management behavior, or impression management tactics can be

used for lateral influence (both actor and target audience have the same level of power,

peer to peer relationship), upward influence (actor is subordinate, while the target

audience has a higher level of power and is in the role of a supervisor) and downward

influence (noticed in leadership, or the tactics used by actors, leaders, on their target

audience, for example, employees). Although research on upward influences from

various organizational contexts seems to be the focus of many studies, lateral and

downward influences have also been studied. Consequently, impression management

tactics have been studied in the context of: job interviews (Ellis et al., 2002; Higgins

& Judge, 2004; Kristof-Brown, Barrick & Franke, 2002; Levashina & Campion,

2007; McFarland et al., 2003; Paulhus et al., 2013; Stevens & Kristof, 1997; Van

Iddekinge, McFarland & Raymark, 2007), feedback seeking (Ashford & Northcraft,

10

1992; Lam, Huang & Snape, 2007), performance appraisal (Bolino & Turnley, 2003;

Ferris, Judge, Rowland & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams &

Thatcher, 2007; Wayne & Ferrris, 1990; Wayne & Kacmar, 1991), careers (Judge &

Bretz, 1994; Wayne, Liden, Graf & Ferris, 1997) and leadership (Gardner &

Avolio,1998; Greenberg, 1990; Wayne & Green, 1993).

There are many forms of impression management tactics, however most often

they can be categorized as: verbal (attempt to control impressions with verbal

statements) non-verbal gestures and expressions (e.g. making eye contact, smiling or

nodding, integrated behavior patterns (favor rendering) and modification of one’s

physical appearance (Schneider,1981). Furthermore, verbal tactics can be classified as

assertive (proactive image construction) and defensive tactics (reactive image

repair)(Stevens & Kristof, 1997). Assertive IM tactics are typically grouped into self-

focused and other-focused tactics (Kacmar, Delery & Ferris, 1992; McFarland et al.,

2003; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). Categorization of impression management tactics

as well as their further grouping is shown in Table 1.

However, some impression tactics are more frequently used than others. Use

also depends on the context. For example, Stevens and Kristof (1997) found that self-

promotion and ingratiation are the primary impression tactics used in job interviews.

11

Table 1: Definitions of Impression Management Tactics

Tactics Definition

Verbal tactics

Use spoken or written words to attempt to actively

manage impressions

1. Assertive tactics

a. Self-focused tactics

Blaring

Blurring

Boasting

Burying

Enhancement

Entitlement

Self-promotion

Overcoming obstacles

b. Other-focused tactics

Ingratiation

Opinion conformity

Other – enhancement

Self – enhancement

Proactively manage impressions

Publicly minimize their connections with

unfavorable others

Blur their connections with favorable others by

way of strategic omissions

Boast about their positive connections with

favorable others

Conceal their connections with unfavorable others

Claim that positive outcomes for which they are

responsible are more valuable than generally

believed

Claims of responsibility for positive events made

by the actor

Communicate abilities and accomplishments to

attempt to appear competent

Descriptions of how the actor circumvented

problems or barriers impeding progress toward a

goal

Use flattery and favor rendering to attempt to

appear likeable

Speak or behave in ways consistent with the target

Compliment or flatter targets

Make their best characteristics salient to targets

2. Defensive tactics

Apologies

Excuses

Justifications

Self-handicapping

Reactively manage impressions

Accept responsibility for a negative event

Deny responsibility for negative behavior or

outcomes

Accept responsibility for negative outcomes, but

not negative implications, that is, there is an

external cause for their action

Behave so as to provide an external explanation for

poor performance

Nonverbal tactics Alter facial expressions, posture and so on to

attempt to manage impressions

Adapted from McFarland et al., (2003) and Bolino et al., (2008)

12

Impression Management Tactics in Job Interviews

In my study, I focus on the use of impression management tactics during job

interviews. In selection process, particularly in the context of job interviews,

individuals are motivated to manage impressions to obtain valued and desirable

outcomes such as job offers (Bolino et al., 2008; Leary & Kowalski, 1990).

According to Paulhus et al. (2013), job interview is “among the situations highest in

self-presentational demand”. This is also evident in the literature on impression

management tactics, where quite a few studies examined IM in the context of job

interviews. In addition, antecedents, outcomes, as well as the influence of job

interview structure on the types of tactics used by job interview candidates have been

researched.

Antecedents of IM Tactics in Job Interviews

Several studies have researched personality traits (Higgins & Judge, 2004;

Kristof-Brown, Barrick & Franke, 2002; Lopes and Fletcher, 2004; Paulhus et al.,

2013; Van Iddekinge, McFarland & Raymark, 2007) and the role of culture and

cultural values (Paulhus et al., 2013; Sandal et al., 2014) on the use of impression

management tactics.

Personality traits which have been found to have the most influence on

candidates’ use of IM tactics are: self-monitoring (individuals’ ability to identify

social cues in the environment and control their behavior accordingly (Ferris et al.,

1994) Machiavellianism (manipulative tendencies (Christie & Geis, 1970)), as well as

the two components of the Five factor model (Barrick &Mount, 1991) agreeableness

(cooperation, consideration and trust) and extraversion (sociability, ambition and

surgency). For example Kristof-Brown et al. (2002) have found that candidates’

13

nonverbal impression tactics are positively associated with agreeableness, while

extraverted candidates make greater use of self-promotion tactics. Higgins and Judge

(2004) also found a positive connection between agreeableness and nonverbal

impression tactics, as well as that high-self monitors are more likely to talk positively

about themselves and use impression management tactics. Lopes and Fletcher (2004)

have found how those high in Machiavellianism view impression management as a

fair strategy in job interviews.

Paulhus et al. (2013) based their theory on the influence of cultural values on

Johnson and Hogan’s (2006) argument which states that all cultural groups engage in

self-presentation, however the western style of self-presentation differs from the East

Asian style (Heine, Lehman, Markus & Kitayama, 1999).

Sedikides et al. (2003) claim that the agency imperative or the individualistic

dimension is culturally valued in the West, and in contrast, communion imperative or

the collectivistic dimension is culturally valued in the East. Similarly, in their cross-

cultural study, Sandal et al., (2014) proposed a new classification of impression

management tactics, arguing how previous classifications (e.g. assertive and

defensive IM tactics) “stemmed primarily from an Anglo, monocultural perspective”.

I focus on the use of impression tactics in Japan, therefore I support and use Sandal et

al., (2014) new classification in my study.

Job Interview Structure

Use of impression management tactics can also be affected by the structure of

the interview (Ellis et al., 2002; McFarland et al., 2003; Stevens & Kristof, 1997; Van

Iddekinge, McFarland & Raymark, 2007). Stevens and Kristof (1997) found how the

use of impression management tactics occurred less frequently in behavior description

interviews, which consist of experience-based questions. Afterwards, Ellis et al.

14

(2002) examined the same relationship, and found how candidates’ answers to

experience-based questions were associated with the use of self-focused tactics, while

answers to situation-based questions (hypothetical, “what-if” situations) were

associated with the use of other-focused, ingratiation tactics. In their study,

McFarland et al. (2003) confirmed the relationship between situational interviews and

ingratiation tactics, while Van Iddekinge, McFarland & Raymark (2007) found how

use of self-focused and defensive tactics was more likely to occur in behavior

description interviews.

Outcomes of IM Tactics in Job Interviews

Majority of studies on the results of using impression management tactics in

job interviews, such as interviewers’ evaluations, perceived employability, hiring

decisions, job offers, or person-job fit, have found positive relations between certain

IM tactics and outcomes. Gilmore and Ferris (1989) found that impression

management tactics were positively associated with hiring decisions. Howard and

Ferris (1996) found how nonverbal tactics influenced interviewers’ perceived

competence of the candidates. Stevens and Kristof (1997) examined the relationship

between self-promotion, other-enhancement tactics and interviewers’ evaluations and

found that self-promotion positively influenced evaluations, while other-enhancement

tactics had no significant influence. Kristof-Brown et al. (2002) found that candidates’

self-promotion tactics affected interviewers’ perceptions of person-job fit. Tsai, Chen

and Chiu (2005) showed how the use of self-focused tactics positively influenced

interviewers’ evaluations.

Cultural Impression Management Tactics

As previously mentioned, I use Sandal et al. (2014) cross-cultural

classification of impression management tactics in my study. This classification

15

divides IM tactics into: assertiveness, emphasizing individual excellence,

accommodation and pointing out obstacles.

Assertiveness (expressing enthusiasm, confidence, self-discipline and

independence) and emphasizing individual excellence (focusing on personal strengths

and taking personal credit for previous accomplishments) can be described as

competency oriented and share similarities with assertiveness tactics in previous

literature. Assertiveness tactics in this new cultural classification also contains

nonverbal tactics described in previous literature (e.g. maintaining eye contact).

Accommodation tactics represents relationship-oriented behavior and individuals’

willingness to accommodate to the job requirements. Authors of this study emphasize

the importance of accommodation in cross-cultural self-presentation. Pointing out

obstacles tactics is a combination of overcoming obstacles tactics and relationship-

oriented behavior, known as saving face, which is an important aspect in Asian

societies (Sandal et al., 2014).

16

Hypotheses Development

Social Skills

Individuals who want to create certain impressions, should be aware of how

others perceive them and how they can influence this perspective. Baumeister (2012)

claims how self-presentation skill breaks into social acuity, which is a skill at reading

the expectations of others as well as acting ability, or the skill of public self-

expression. Social acuity is similar to concepts of social intelligence and social skills.

In one of the first notable definitions of social intelligence, Thorndike (1920) defined

it as the ability to perceive internal states of others, and act accordingly to these

understandings. Later on, Marlowe (1986) defined social intelligence as “the ability to

understand the feelings, thoughts and behaviors of persons, including oneself in

interpersonal situations and to act appropriately upon that understanding”.

Research in social intelligence provided as a base for research in social skills.

One of the definitions of social skills states that they are “the ability of an interactant

to choose among available communicative behaviors in order that he or she may

successfully accomplish his or her own interpersonal goals while maintaining the face

and line of his fellow interactants (Wiemann, 1977). Argyle (1969) suggested that

social skills are reflected in the effective exercise of persuasion, explanation and other

influence mechanisms, which reveal the ability to control others (Ferris et al., 2001).

In his framework of basic social skills, Riggio (1986) defined six dimensions of social

skills: emotional expressivity (skill in nonverbal sending), emotional sensitivity (skill

in receiving and decoding the nonverbal communication of others), social expressivity

(general verbal speaking skill and an ability to engage others in social interactions),

social sensitivity (ability to decode and understand verbal communication), emotional

17

control (ability to control and regulate emotional and nonverbal displays) and social

control (general skill in social self-presentation). This means that social skills allow

individuals to perceive themselves and how they are viewed by others, and then to act

in ways that adequately use this information to self-present and influence others.

Therefore, I believe that if an individual possesses social skills, they will be inclined

to self- present and use impression management tactics.

However, which impression management tactics individuals who have the

ability of social skills would use is also dependent on the context. In job interviews it

is important to highlight ones’ skills, abilities and talents and create an impression of

competence. In fact, on popular Japanese websites for job hunting such as rikunabi,

there are guides which stress the importance of self-analysis and self-promotion on

job interviews. Previous research shows that the applicants who actively used the

tactics of self-promotion and non-verbal tactics to highlight their competence

positively influenced interviewers’ evaluations (Dipboye & Wiley, 1977; Higgins &

Judge, 2004; Stevens & Kristof, 1997). As it is mentioned earlier, in order to be

successful in self-presentation one needs to understand what they are expected to do

and how to do it to be able to create a desired impression. For that reason, I believe

individuals who are adept in social skills will be aware of the importance of self-

promotion and portraying competence in job interviews. In the case of cultural

impression tactics, competence is represented by three tactics: individual excellence,

assertiveness, which also includes nonverbal tactics, and pointing out obstacles.

Therefore, I hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1A: Those high in social skills use individual excellence tactics more that

those low in social skills do.

18

Hypothesis 1B: Those high in social skills use pointing out obstacles tactics more that

those low in social skills do.

Hypothesis 1C: Those high in social skills use assertiveness tactics more that those

low in social skills do.

Personal Collectivism (Allocentrism) and Individualism (Idiocentrism)

In his work on cross-cultural universal values Hofstede (1980) found the

dimension of individualism/collectivism, explaining the relationship between an

individual and his fellow individuals. Japanese society is considered a collectivistic

society, indicating the importance of putting harmony of a group above the expression

of individual opinions, and people having a strong sense of shame for losing face.

(Hofstede, 1980, 2001).

However the concept of individualism and collectivism does not exist only on

the cultural level, but at a psychological, individual level as well. Individual

differences in individualist or collectivist tendencies within a culture have been

reported in both individualist and collectivist cultures (Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis

et al., 1985; Kim, 1994; Yamaguchi, 1994; Yamaguchi et al., 1995). This means that

even in a collectivist culture such as Japan, not everyone is oriented towards

collectivism, but can be individualist too.

To avoid confusion between the terms individualism and collectivism at the

cultural level and the within-culture individualism and collectivism, idiocentrism and

allocentrism are used to refer the personal level individualism and collectivism

(Triandis et al., 1985, Yamaguchi et al., 1995). Yamaguchi (1994, 1995) defined

personal collectivism, or allocentrism as “one’s tendency to give priority to the

collective self over the private self, especially when these two come into conflict”.

19

This means that individuals who are allocentric consider collective interests more

important than private interests, especially if they have to choose between them.

In the cultural impression management scale (Sandal et al., 2014)

accommodation is considered as an impression management tactic that can especially

represent the collectivistic tendencies very often found in the non-Western parts of the

world, such as stressing the importance of communal goals above individual interests,

harmony in interpersonal relationships and respectful attitude. Markus and Kitayama

(1991) note how in Japan, special emphasis is put on “attending to and fitting in with

others and the importance of harmonious interdependence with them.” Pointing out

obstacles tactics is simultaneously a combination of competence (overcoming

obstacles tactics, Stevens & Kristof, 1997) and characteristics found in collectivist

societies, such as “relationship-oriented behavior” and “saving face” (Kim & Nam,

1998).

Although collectivist tendencies on the individual level and collectivist

tendencies on the cultural level are different units of analysis, I believe that the

individual level collectivism (allocentrism) will influence the use of impression

management tactics which are considered collectivist on a cultural level. Therefore I

hypothesize,

Hypothesis 1D: Those high in allocentrism use accommodation tactics more than

those low in allocentrism do.

Hypothesis 1E: Those high in allocentrism use pointing out obstacles tactics more

than those low in allocentrism do.

20

Moderators

Social Skills

Social skills can be viewed not only as the direct effect on the use of

impression tactics but in a moderating role as well.

Rudman (1998) found that self-promotion represents a double-edged sword

for women. On one hand, it increases perceptions of competence, while on the other it

decreases social attraction ratings. According to White Paper on Gender Equality

(2016) from the Government of Japan, women represent one of the Japan’s greatest

sources of potential labor force. Importance of women in the workforce and the ideas

about how to increase number of women in all industries and jobs, including the ones

that traditionally have low participation of women, has been in the focus of

companies, government and media in the last few years in Japan.

Meichenbaum, Butler and Gruson (1981) noted that social skills reflect the

capacity and knowledge of both what to do and when to display certain behaviors, in

addition to possessing behavioral control and flexibility (Ferris et al., 2001). Given

the current situation and the encouragement of hiring and retaining women in

workforce in Japan, I expect that women who have social skills, and understand that

currently women can and should emphasize competence in the context of job

interview, will be inclined to use more competence-oriented impression management

tactics. Therefore I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2A: Social skills moderate the relationship between gender and individual

excellence tactics such that women use individual excellence tactics more that male

do only when social skills are high.

21

Hypothesis 2B: Social skills moderate the relationship between gender and

assertiveness tactics such that women use assertiveness tactics more that male do

only when social skills are high.

Hypothesis 2C: Social skills moderate the relationship between gender and pointing

out obstacles tactics such that women use pointing out obstacles tactics more that

male do only when social skills are high.

Gender and Gender Role Orientation

Impact of gender has been studied from many perspectives including social

behavior (Eagly & Wood, 1991; Eagly and Wood, 2010), social influence (Cooper

1979; Eagly & Carli 1981), career and career achievements (Evetts, 2000) leadership

roles and stereotypes (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly & Karau, 2002: Konig et al.,

2011). In these studies, differences between genders are viewed from a social roles’

point of view (Eagly, 1987, Eagly & Wood, 2010), which means, that men and

women are distributed into different social roles, also called gender roles. Carothers

and Allen (1999) define gender as a “fundamental category within which individuals

learn to place themselves and socialization pressures contribute to these

categorizations and the adaptation of traditional gender roles”.

According to gender role theory (Eagly, 1987; Eagly and Wood, 2010) these

roles specify what men and women usually do and what they should do. In the case

of men, it is believed their behavior should be agentic, or self-assertive, while women

should behave in a communal way, caring and interdependent (Eagly, 1987). Also,

according to stereotype content model (Fiske et al., 2002), gender role theory

perspective is supported as well as the view that social groups are positioned within a

two dimensional space composed of competence and warmth. Women are generally

22

seen as low in competence but high in warmth, and men seen as high in competence

but low in warmth. (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012). In my study, I expect the difference

between different genders according to gender roles.

Impact of gender has also been studied in various research on the use of

influence tactics (Carli, 1999; Carothers & Allen, 1999; DuBrin, 1991; Kipnis et al.,

1980; Smith et al., 2013) and impression tactics (DuBrin, 1994; Guadagno & Cialdini,

2007; Rudman, 1998). Although influence tactics and impression tactics are defined

as different constructs, they share similarities and overlapping characteristics.

Impression management, is the process by which individuals attempt to control the

impressions others form of them (Schlenker, 1980), while influence tactics are other-

directed behaviors that individuals use to gain compliance, assets or liking from

others in the workplace (Barrick, Shaffer & DeGrassi, 2009). That is, in the use of

both influence tactics and impression tactics, individuals are focused on how they

appear to others, and depending on their goals, will try to appear competent or

likeable. Therefore, besides impression tactics studies, influence tactics studies can

be also used to further understand gender differences.

Both in the influence tactics and impression management tactics studies,

authors have researched whether men and women will differ in the use of tactics

according to their gender roles. Most researchers (Carli, 1999; Carothers & Allen,

1999; DuBrin, 1991; Dubrin, 1994; Rudman, 1998; Smith et al., 2013) have

concluded that men and women use different influence tactics, but are mixed in

results depending on the circumstances s in which these tactics are used.

Guadagno and Cialdini (2007) found how the use of impression management

tactics is consistent with gender role expectations, meaning that women use more

communal tactics, while men use agentic tactics. “For instance, although self-

23

promotion is considered appropriate for a job interview, a woman who engages in

self-promotion maybe be perceived as violating feminine gender role norms because

self-promotion is not a feminine characteristic” (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007).

In the case of my study, I agree with this perspective. Furthermore, I also

support Jussim, Eccles, and Madon’s (1996) theory how women are particularly prone

to perpetuating gender stereotypes, and thus believe that the impact of gender roles on

the use of impression tactics will be endorsed by women. In the cultural impression

management scale, accommodation and pointing out obstacles can be viewed as

tactics with relationship-oriented, communal traits. Therefore, I hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2D: Gender role orientation moderates the relationship between gender

and pointing out obstacles tactics, such that the women use pointing out obstacles

more than men do only when gender role orientation is high.

Hypothesis 2E: Gender role orientation moderates the relationship between gender

and accommodation tactics, such that the women use accommodation more than men

do only when gender role orientation is high.

24

Method

Sample

In my research I collected data from 4th year undergraduate students and 2nd

year graduate Japanese students on Osaka University who have already had the

experience of job hunting and job interviews. Data was collected through the form of

questionnaires, both online and paper versions. With the help of several Professors in

the School of Economics, questionnaires were distributed in classes to undergraduate

students. I also recruited participants in the university’s main library as well as

research labs in the Graduate School of Economics. In addition I contacted all of my

acquaintances that were eligible to complete the online questionnaire and asked them

to share the questionnaire with their friends. All of questionnaire items were in

Japanese language.

Sample consisted of 81 participants, of whom 23 were female (28.3%) and 58

were male (71.6%). Their average age was 23 years (SD=1.51). 57 (70.3%) of the

participants were undergraduate students, while 24 (29.6%) were graduate students.

To describe which behavior participants used in their job interviews, as well as

other personality related questions, five point Likert-type scale was used. Answers

ranged from 5 “Strongly agree”, to 4 “Agree”, 3 “Neutral”, 2 “Disagree” and 1

“Strongly disagree”.

Measures

Cultural impression management tactics

Cultural IM tactics were measured using the CIM-A scale developed by

Sandal et al., (2014) consisting of 32 items divided in 4 parts: individual excellence

25

tactics (4 items, e.g., “Emphasize that you are the bet at whatever you do”), pointing

out obstacles tactics (8 items, e.g., “Cite examples of your mistakes in the past and

how you have learned from them”), assertiveness tactics (11 items, e.g., “Emphasize

self-discipline in meeting deadlines”) and accommodation tactics (9 items, e.g.,

“Look, talk, and behave in sincere and humble manner”)

Social skills

Social skills were measured using Ferris et al., (2001) scale which consists of

7 items (e.g., “I find it easy to put myself in the position of others”)

Allocentrism/ idiocentrism

Allocentrism and idiocentrism were measured using Yamaguchi et al., (1995)

scale which was developed to measure allocentric and idiocentric tendencies in both

collectivistic and individualistic cultures. It consisted of 10 items, 5 to measure

allocentrism (e.g. “I respect the decisions of my group”) and 5 to measure

idiocentrism (e.g., “I stick to my opinions even when others in my group don’t

support me”)

Gender role orientation

Gender role orientation was measured with scale consisting of 5 items (e.g.,

“It is desirable for men to work, while women protect their families”)

Risk taking

Risk taking was measured with International personality item pool (ipip) scale

consisting of 7 items (e.g. “I enjoy being reckless”)

26

Results

Descriptive statistics of all dependent, independent and control variables are

presented in Table 2, including their correlations and Chronbach’s alpha coefficients.

Except for two dependent variables (individual excellence α=0.54) and pointing out

obstacles α=0.62), alphas of the variables were above .7 which indicates internal

consistency.

This research used regression analysis to examine the influence of social skills,

allocentrism/idocentrism, gender role orientation and gender on the use of impression

management tactics. Table 3 summarizes results of the analysis that was done to test

the hypotheses. Models 1-13 tested the relationships between dependent variables

(models 1-3 individual excellence tactics; models 4-7 pointing out obstacles tactics;

models 8-10 assertiveness tactics; models 11-13 accommodation tactics) and all

independent variables (gender orientation, risk taking, allocentrism/idiocentrism and

social skills), moderators (social skills, gender orientation) and control variables (age

and gender). In models 1, 4, 8 and 11, the relationship between dependent and control

variables was tested. In models 2, 5, 9 and 12 all the independent variables were

added to further test the relationships. In models 3, 6 and 10 social skills as a

moderator variable was introduced, while relationships for models 7 and 13 were

tested adding the gender orientation as a moderator variable.

27

Table 2: Descriptive statistics and correlations of study variables

Mean SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Individual excellence 3.11 .79 .54 1.00

2. Pointing out obstacles 2.38 .55 .62 -.16 1.00

3. Assertiveness 4.12 .59 .79 .06 .17 1.00

4. Accommodation 3.87 .61 .74 .00 .14 .33** 1.00

5. Allocentrism/idiocentrism 2.69 .55 .71 -.04 .13 .06 .43*** 1.00

6. Risk taking 3.04 .67 .74 .09 -.04 .11 -.17 .29** 1.00

7. Social skills 3.32 .77 .79 .07 .23* .40*** .04 .06 .09 1.00

8. Gender orientation 2.30 .84 .80 .31** -.01 -.17 .15 -.09 -.04 .05 1.00

9.Gender .28 .45 .03 .02 .05 .20† -.17 -.12 -.13 -.11 1.00

10. Age 23.14 1.51 .06 .05 .23* .15 .19† .06 .06 -.13 .00 1.00

Notes. N = 81.

Gender: 0 = male; 1 = female.

†p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

28

Table 3: Regression coefficient

Notes. N = 81.

†p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Individual excellence Pointing out obstacles Assertiveness Accommodation

Variables

Model

1

Model

2

Model

3

Model

4

Model

5

Model

6

Model

7

Model

8

Model

9

Model

10

Model

11

Model

12

Model

13

Control

Age .03 .05 .02 .02 .00 -.01 -.00 .09* .07† .08† .06 .09* .09*

Gender .06 .14 .27 .03 .08 .14 .14 .07 .12 .08 .27† .19 .23

Independent

Gender orientation .31** .30** .00 .00 -.08 .11 -.11 .11 .06

Risk taking .14 .13 -.08 -.08 -.07 .06 .06 -.04 - .04

Allocentrism/

idiocentricsm

-.08 -.03 .15 .17 .19 -.02 -.03 -.47*** -.44***

Social skills .06 -.06 .17* .12 .16* .31*** .35*** .05 .05

Two-way interaction

Gender x

Social skills

.94** .39 -.32

Gender x

Gender orientation

.46* .26

R² .00 .13 .22 .00 .07 .11 .15 .05 .24 .26 .06 .28 .30 R²

-.02 .06 .15 -.02 .00 .03 .07 .03 .18 .19 .04 .22 .23

F

. 16 1.83 2.95** .12 1.96 1.32 1.80 2.20 3.96*** 3.71*** 2.53† 4.77*** 4.42***

29

According to the analysis results, social skills have a significant relationship

with pointing out obstacles tactics (β = 0.17, p < 0.05) and highly significant

relationship with assertiveness (β = 0.31, p < 0.001). Therefore Hypotheses 1B and

1C are supported. However, the results are inconsistent with Hypothesis 1A (β is very

low, 0.06), providing no support for the relationship with individual excellence tactics.

Allocentrism/idiocentrism have a negative, highly significant relationship with

accommodation tactics (β = -0.47, p < 0.001). Allocentrism and idiocentrism were

considered as one variable in the analaysis, since scores of allocentrism items very

reverse coded in R. This means that high scores mean high idiocentrism, while low

score indicate high allocentrism. Thus, hypothesis 1D is supported. Age also had

statistical significance with accommodation tactics (β = 0.09, p < 0.05).The results did

not show a statistically significant relationship between allocentrism/idiocentrism and

pointing out obstacles tactics, therefore support for hypothesis 1E was not provided.

The interaction between social skills and gender was significant for individual

excellence tactics (β = 0.94, p < 0.01), providing support for Hypothesis 2A. Plots of

significant relationship are shown in Figure 1. The results did not show any statistical

significance between the interaction of social skills and gender for assertiveness or

pointing out obstacles tactics, meaning that Hypothesis 2B and 2C were not supported.

In the case of interaction between gender role orientation and gender, there is

a significant relationship with pointing out obstacles tactics (β = 0.46, p < 0.05).

Hence, hypothesis 2D is supported. Figure 2. displays how women tend to use the

pointing out obstacles tactics more than men do when gender orientation is high.

However, no statistical support was found in the case of gender role orientation

moderating the relationship with accommodation tactics. Hence, hypothesis 2E is not

supported.

30

Figure 1: Plots of interaction between social skills and gender with individual

excellence tactics

31

Figure 2: Plots of interaction between gender and gender role orientation with

pointing out obstacles tactics

32

Discussion

In this study, influence of social skills as well as allocentric and idiocentric

tendencies on the use of impression management tactics in job interviews were

examined. In addition moderating effect of gender orientation and social skills on

gender and the use of IM tactics were examined. Findings are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Summary of hypotheses and findings

Hypothesis Results

1A: Those high in social skills use individual excellence tactics more that

those low in social skills do.

Not

supported

1B: Those high in social skills use pointing out obstacles tactics more that

those low in social skills do.

Supported

1C: Those high in social skills use assertiveness tactics more that those

low in social skills do.

Supported

1D: Those high in allocentrism use accommodation tactics more than

those low in allocentrism do.

Supported

1E: Those high in allocentrism use pointing out obstacles tactics more

than those low in allocentrism do.

Not

supported

2A: Social skills moderate the relationship between gender and individual

excellence tactics such that women use individual excellence tactics more

that male do only when social skills are high.

Supported

2B: Social skills moderate the relationship between gender and

assertiveness tactics such that women use assertiveness tactics more that

male do only when social skills are high.

Not

supported

2C: Social skills moderate the relationship between gender and pointing

out obstacles tactics such that women use pointing out obstacles tactics

more that male do only when social skills are high.

Not

supported

2D: Gender role orientation moderates the relationship between gender

and pointing out obstacles tactics, such that the women use pointing out

obstacles more than men do only when gender role orientation is high.

Supported

2E: Gender role orientation moderates the relationship between gender

and accommodation tactics, such that the women use accommodation

more than men do only when gender role orientation is high.

Not

supported

33

Implications for Theory

Higgins and Judge (2004) explored the relationship between self-monitoring

(individuals’ ability to identify social cues in their surrounding and act accordingly to

them) and the use of impression management tactics, and found how individuals high

in self-monitoring are more likely to use IM tactics and talk positively about

themselves. In my study, I discussed a similar concept, exploring the relationship

between social skills, which represent individuals’ ability to understand themselves as

well as others and act suitably on these understandings, and the use of impression

management tactics. My findings suggest how individuals with high social skills tend

to use two out of three IM tactics which refer to individuals’ tendency to talk

positively about themselves and their competence (pointing out obstacles and

assertiveness) as well as nonverbal tactics (included in assertiveness tactics). However,

results were inconsistent with the use of individual excellence tactics which also

represents the individuals’ tendency to talk positively about themselves. Nonetheless,

in further testing, relationship between the individual excellence tactics was

confirmed when social skills were viewed as a moderator between gender and the use

of this tactics.

Next, the influence of allocentrism/idiocentrism on the use of IM tactics was

explored. Previous studies demonstrate how individualism is valued in Western

cultures, while collectivism is valued in Eastern cultures. Individualism emphasizes

independence, self-assertion and self-reliance, while collectivism emphasizes

interdependence, maintaining harmonious relationships and pursuing common goals

with others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Triandis (1989) claims how people

appropriate ideas about the self from their cultural environment. Furthermore,

Hamaguchi (1985) says how in Japan the word for self, jibun, refers to “one’s share of

34

the shared life space (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Since this study explored the use

of IM tactics in Japan, I expected that the collectivistic values will play an important

role on the job applicants’ choice of the IM tactics. In the cultural IM scale (Sandal et

al., 2014), accommodation tactics were specifically added to explore the relationship-

oriented aspects of impression management. Consistent with expectations,

allocentrism (personal collectivistism) was related to the use of accommodation

tactics. Therefore, this study contributes to better understanding of the influence of

cultural values on the use of IM tactics.

Lastly, I discussed the moderation effect of gender role orientation on

applicants’ use of IM tactics. According to earlier research women use communal

tactics while men use competence oriented tactics (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2007).

Results of my study show that when gender role orientation is high, women tend to

use pointing out obstacles tactics more than men, which is an interesting choice of

tactics since it represents both competence and communal orientation.

Implications for Practice

In addition to theoretical implications, present study brings some practical

contributions for both job applicants and recruiting companies.

Previous research has demonstrated how applicants’ use of impression

management tactics leads to positive interviewers’ evaluations, which ultimately leads

to job offers (Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Higgins & Judge, 2004; Kacmar et al., 1992;

Kristof-Brown et al., 2002; Stevens & Kristof, 1997; Tsai et al., 2005). Considering

how Japanese websites for job hunting (e.g. rikunabi) advise job applicants to self-

analyze prior to interviews, and then self-promote their skills and abilities on

interviews, it can be expected that impression management tactics which highlight

35

competence will be effective in job interviews. My findings are consistent with this

expectation, showing how individuals with high social skills tend to use impression

management tactics that accentuate their competence. Furthermore, applicants who

exhibit allocentric tendencies (individual collectivism) tend to use the accommodation

IM tactics, highlighting their willingness to accommodate to the job. In societies

where communal goals are valued above individual goals, such as Japan (Markus &

Kitayama, 1991) willingness to accommodate, respectful and humble attitude, as well

as keeping harmony in interpersonal relations will also be considered as highly

important in the evaluation process (Sandal et al., 2014). Therefore, from the

perspective of job applicants, use of impression management tactics could help them

achieve more success in job interviews, and in turn receive more job offers.

For recruiting companies, the findings of this study suggest that applicants

who use impression management tactics have deep understanding of themselves,

others, cultural values, as well as the ability to act based on these valuable social

understandings. This means that applicants who use IM tactics already acquired

certain social skills that can benefit their future jobs. According to Stevens and

Kristof (1997), many jobs require some ability to work effectively with others or the

public, and this ability may entail skillful management of others’ impressions, such as

fostering liking and cohesion in work groups. Furthermore, Tsai et al., (2005) suggest

how applicants’ display of self-focused IM tactics, in the eyes of the interviewers is

considered to be a relevant job skill for jobs that require effective interaction with

customers (e.g., sales or customer-service jobs). Hence, for recruiting companies,

awareness of applicants’ use of impression management tactics can lead to better

evaluation of their fit with the company.

36

Limitations and Future Research

One of the main limitations in this study is the small sample. Since the number

of participants was only 81, individual excellence tactics’ Chronbach’s alpha

coefficient was 0.54, while pointing out obstacles tactics’ alpha was 0.62, lowering

the reliability of the variables.

Also, to further explore the relationship between gender and the use of

impression management tactics, a larger sample of female participants is needed.

In my study I have focused only the influence of antecedents on the use of IM

tactics. In future work, the influence of IM tactics on the outcomes would be of

potential interest.

37

Conclusion The purpose of this research was to examine the influence of individual and

cultural values on the use of impression management tactics in Japan in the context of

job interviews. Impression management tactics were examined based on Sandal et al.,

(2014) cultural IM scale that was developed to assess IM tactics including cultural

differences in values. The results of the present study suggest that social skills,

allocentrism and gender role orientation impact the choice of impression management

tactics used by Japanese students when they are applying for job interviews. From the

perspective of recruiting companies, these findings can imply extended knowledge

about interpersonal skills of job applicants.

38

References

Argyle, M. (1969). Social Interaction. London: Tavistock/Methuen

Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize:

The role of impression-management in feedback-seeking. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 310-334.

Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A., & DeGrassi, S. W. (2009). What you see may not be

what you get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of

interview and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1394-1411.

Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Public Self and Private Self. New York: Springer Science &

Business Media.

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.

Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Counternormative impression management,

likeability, and performance ratings: The use of intimidation in an

organizational setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 237-250.

Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K., Turnley, W., & Gilstrap, J. (2008). A Multi-Level Review

of Impression Management Motives and Behaviors. Journal of Management,

34(6), 1080- 1109.

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.

Cabinet Office, Government of Japan. (2016). Towards accepting diverse work styles

and lifestyles. White Paper on Gender Equality 2016. Available at:

http://www.gender.go.jp/english_contents/about_danjo/whitepaper/pdf/ewp20

16.pdf [Accessed 5 Jan. 2017].

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-

organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 82, 546-561.

Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of

Social Issues, 55, 81-99.

Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 725-

39

741.

Carothers, B. J., & Allen, J. B. (1999). Relationships of employment status, gender

role, insult, and gender with use of influence tactics. Sex Roles, 41, 375-387.

Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic

Press.

Cooper H. M. (1979). Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of

sex differences in conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 37, 131-146.

Dipboye, R. L., &Wiley, J. W. (1977). Reactions of college re- cruiters to interviewee

sex and self-presentation style. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 1-12.

DuBrin, A. J. (1991). Sex and gender differences in tactics of influence.

Psychological Reports, 68, 635-646.

DuBrin, A. J. (1994). Applying psychology: Individual and organizational

effectiveness. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation.

Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (1981). Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications

as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of

social influence studies. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 1-20.

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female

leaders. Psychological review, 109(3), 573.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1982). Inferred sex differences in status as a determinant

of gender stereotypes about social influence. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 43, 915-928.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A

metaanalytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17,

306-315.

Ellis, P. J., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & Deshon, R. P. (2002). The use of impression

management tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1200-1208.

Evetts, J. (2000). Analysing change in women's careers: Culture, structure and action

dimensions. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(1), 57-67.

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.

40

Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill and

general mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86(6), 1075-1082.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed)

stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from

perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82, 878-902.

Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A

dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.

Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The effects of applicant impression

management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15,

557-564.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of

organizational justice. In: B. Staw & L. L. Cummings ed., Research in

organizational behavior, Greenwich, CT: JAI. 111-157.

Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Gender differences in impression

management in organizations: A qualitative review. Sex Roles, 56, 483-494.

Hamaguchi, E. (1985). A contextual model of the Japanese: Toward a methodological

innovation in Japan studies. Journal of Japanese Studies, 17, 289-321.

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a

universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766- 794.

Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The effect of applicant influence tactics on

recruiter perceptions of fit and hiring recommendations: A field study. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 89, 622-632.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-

related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Press.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories.

Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,

Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-

cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248.

Jansen, A., König, C. J., Stadelmann, E. H., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Applicants’

self-presentational behavior: What do recruiters expect and what do they get?

41

Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11, 77- 85.

Johnson, J. A., & Hogan, R. (2006). A socioanalytic view of faking. In: R. Griffith ed.,

A closer examination of applicant faking behavior Greenwich. CT:

Information Age Publishing, 209-231.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-

presentation. In: J. Suls ed., Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale:

Lawrence Erlbaum, 231-262.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success.

Journal of Management, 20, 43-65.

Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes and

teacher expectations: accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling

prophecy. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 281-388.

Kacmar, K. M., Delery, J. E., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). Differential effectiveness of

applicant impression management tactics on employment interview decisions.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1250-1272.

Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S.C., Gelfand, M.J., & Yuki, M. (1995).

Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism

research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 69(5), 925-937.

Kim, J. Y., & Nam, S. H. (1998). The concept and dynamics of face: Implications for

organizational behavior in Asia. Organization Science, 9, 522-534.

Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and

elaboration. In: U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon

ed., Individualism and collectivism. Theory, method, and applications.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 19-40.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence

tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54,

440-452.

König, C. J., Hafsteinsson, L. G., Jansen, A., & Stadelmann, E. H. (2011). Applicants’

self-presentational behavior across cultures: Less self-presentation in

Switzerland and Iceland than in the United States. International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 19, 331-339.

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

management: Dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter

perceptions of fit and similarity. Journal of Management, 28, 27-46.

Kulik, C. T., & Olekalns, M. (2012). Negotiating the gender divide: Lessons from the

negotiation and organizational behavior literatures. Journal of Management,

38, 1387-1415.

Lalwani, A. K., Shrum, L. J., & Chiu, C. Y. (2009). Motivated response styles: the

42

role of cultural values, regulatory focus, and self-consciousness in socially

desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4),

870-882.

Lam, W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-

member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter? Academy of

Management Journal, 50, 348-363.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature

review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in the employment

interview: Development and validation of an interview faking behavior scale.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1638-1656.

Lopes, J., & Fletcher, C. (2004). Fairness of impression management in employment

interviews: A cross-country study of the role of equity and Machiavellianism.

Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 747-768.

Markus & Kitayama, 1991, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life.

Carden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for

cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224– 253.

Marlowe, H. A. (1986). Social intelligence: Evidence for multidimensionality and

construct independence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 52-58.

McFarland, L. A., Ryan, A. M., & Kriska, S. D. (2003). Impression management use

and effectiveness across assessment methods. Journal of Management, 29,

641-661.

Meichenbaum, D., Butler, L., & Gruson, L. (1981). Toward a conceptual model of

social competence. In: J. D. Wine & D. Smye ed., Social competence. New

York: Guilford Press, 36-60.

Paulhus, D. L., Westlake, B. G., Calvez, S. S., & Harms P. D. (2013). Self-

presentation style in job interviews: The role of personality and culture.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 43(10), 2042–2059.

Riggio R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 51(3), 649-660.

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and

benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629-645.

Sandal, G. M., van de Vijver, F., Bye, H. H., Sam, D. L., Amponsah, B., Cakar, N.,

43

Franke, G. H., Ismail, R., Kjellsen, K., Kosic, A., Leontieva, A., Mortazavi, S.,

& Tien-Lun Sun, C. (2014). Intended self-presentation tactics in job

interviews: A 10-country study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,

45(6), 939-958.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity,

and interpersonal relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

Schneider, D. J. (1981). Tactical self-presentations: Toward a broader conception. In:

J.T Tedeschi ed., Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological

Research. New York: Academic Press, 23-40.

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 60-79.

Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Burke, M. J., Christian, M. S., Smith, C. E., Hall, A., &

Simms, S. (2013). Gendered Influence: A Gender Role Perspective on the Use

and Effectiveness of Influence Tactics. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1156-

1183.

Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1997). Making the right impression: A field study of

applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 80, 587-606.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the

organization. In: S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler ed., Research in the

sociology of organizations, Greenwich, CT: JAI. 31-58.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227-235.

Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G. L., & Thatcher, J. B. (2007).

The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors’ impressions

of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 848-855.

Triandis, H. C, Leung, K., Villareal, M. V., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus

idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of

Research in Personality, 19, 395-415.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.

Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of

Personality, 69, 907–924.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M. & Lucca, N. (1988).

Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2). 323-338.

44

Tsai, W., Chen, C., & Chiu, S. (2005). Exploring boundaries of the effects of

applicant impression management tactics in job interviews. Journal of

Management, 31(1), 108-125.

Van Iddekinge, C. H., McFarland, L. A., & Raymark, P. H. (2007). Antecedents of

impression management use and effectiveness in a structured interview.

Journal of Management, 33, 752-773.

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in

supervisor-subordinate inter- actions: A laboratory experiment and field study.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.

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.

Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward

influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50, 979-

1006.

Wayne. S. J. & Green S. A. (1993). The Effects of Leader-Member Exchange on

Employee Citizenship and Impression Management Behavior. Human

Relations, 46(12), 1431-1440.

Wiemann, J.M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative

competence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195-213.

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In: S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G.

Lindzey ed., Handbook of social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 629-667.

Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self.

In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon ed.,

Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage, 175-188.

Yamaguchi, S., Kuhlman, D. M., & Sugimori, S. (1995). Personality correlates of

allocentric tendencies in individualist and collectivist cultures. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 658-672.

45

Appendix

Sample of the questionnaire items used in my study

Individual excellence

I1: 何においても自分が一番であることを強調した

I2: 自分の強みやポジティブな面のみを話した

I3: 以前に自分が成し遂げたことを挙げつつ、なぜ自分がその会社に最適な人

材なのかを主張した

I4: 本来の自分自身以上に、自分のプロ意識の高さや強い自信を示そうとした Pointing out obstacles

O1: これまでどのような活動によってストレスの高い状況を克服してきたか

を語った

O2: 過去に自分が犯した失敗の事例を挙げ、そこからどんな教訓を得たかを

語った

O3: 仕事でのキャリアの追求によって家庭での責務に支障をきたすべきでは

ないという考えを示した

O4: 過去に経験した最も大きな挫折を挙げ、その挫折からどう立ち直ったの

かを説明した

O5: あなた自身の資質と会社が求めている仕事内容とのミスマッチの可能性

について言及した

O6: 個人的な問題（健康問題、疲労、通勤上の問題）などで仕事の責務を全

うできない可能性について言及した

O7: 職務遂行に差支えが出る可能性のある家庭的な問題（例、出張ができな

い、病気の家族がいる）について言及した

O8: 以前やっていたアルバイトなどの仕事においてネガティブな面について

触れ、なぜその仕事が嫌だったのかかを話した

Assertiveness

A1: 積極性・主体性をアピールした

A2: 盛んにアイコンタクトしたり体を面接官に傾けたりして面接官の話に興

味を示そうとした

A3: 信頼できる人間であることを示そうとした

A4: 自信を持って質問に回答した

A5: 面接官から見て、自分の容姿が魅力的に映るように努力した

A6: 締切をきちんと守る、規律的な人間であることを強調した

A7: あなたがリーダーとしての素質と潜在能力を有していることを示した

A8: あなたが自分の頭で考えることができる人であることを示した

A9: 機会があればそれを逃さない意志があることを示した

A10: タイムスケジュールや締切を忠実に守ることを示した

46

A11: 学習への情熱を示した

Accommodation

AC1: 謙遜した態度を示した

AC2: 何かを鼻にかけていると思われるような発言は差し控えた

AC3: 自分に足りない能力を克服するために懸命に働く意志を示した

AC4: 他の人とうまくやっていけないという印象を与えるような発言は避けた

AC5: 真面目かつ謙虚な態度で相手を見て、話し、振る舞った

AC6: 週末でさえも長時間働く意志があることを示した

AC7: 訓練を受けていない、あるいは興味がない仕事であっても、その仕事を

引き受ける意志を示した

AC8: 上司の指示をよく聞き、従う意志があることを示した

AC9: 協調性があり、他人とうまくやっていく能力があることを示した

Social skill

S1: 私は他の人が自分をどう見ているのかがよくわかっている

S2:私は自分の所属する集団において影響力のある人々の前で自分を目立たせ

ることが上手である

S3: 私はどのような状況でも、自分自身の行動を調整し、上の人が命令しや

すい人になることができる

S4: 社交的な場ではつねに、どのような話をし、どのように振舞うべきか明

確にわかっている

S5: 私は他の人の言葉以外の身振りや手振りなどから本心を理解することが

得意である

S6: 私は、他の人の置かれている立場に立つことがたやすくできる

S7: 私は他の人の本音の部分や真の動機を察知するのが得意である

Allocentrism/ idiocentrism

IC1: 自分の属する集団のために自分の利益を犠牲にすることはない

IC2: 困難な状況にあっても自分の属する集団に留まる

IC3: 自分の属する集団の和を保っている

IC4: 多数の人の意見にあわせて、自分の意見を変えることはない

IC5: 自分の属する集団の決定を尊重する

IC6: 自分の属する集団に不満でも、必要とされればその集団に留まる

IC7: 自分の属する集団の仲間と意見の不一致を生じないようにする

IC8: 自分の属する集団のために自分の利益を犠牲にしなければならないのな

ら、その集団を離れたほうがいい

IC9: 自分の集団の仲間に支持されなくても、自分の意見を変えない

IC10: 自分の属する集団でも、間違っていると思ったら、それをとがめる

47

Gender role orientation

GR1: 男性が外で仕事をして、女性が家庭を守る方が望ましい

GR2: 子供のいる女性が外に働きに出るのは時間的な困難が伴う

GR3: 女性は外に働きに出るよりも家庭を守るほうが望ましい

GR4: 女性は家にいて子供の世話をする方が幸せである

GR5: 母親が働いている家庭では、子供になんらかの悪影響が生じている

Risk taking

R1: 無謀であることを好む

R2: リスクを取るほうである

R3: 危険を求めていくほうである

R4: 規則をうまくくぐり抜けるすべを心得ている

R5: なんでも一度はトライしてみたい

R6: 冒険を求めている

R7: ハンググライダーやバンジージャンプのような遊びは決してやらない

R8: リスキーな投資など決してしない

R9: 規則に従うことを重んじる

R10: 危険な状況は避ける