Verbal and Nonverbal Impression Management Tactics in Behavior Description and Situational Interviews

Abstract

This study investigated how structured interview formats, instructions to convey favorable impressions, and applicants' individual differences influenced the use and effectiveness of verbal and nonverbal impression management (IM). Results from 190 people who were screened for a training program demonstrated that interview format affected the kind of tactics used, which in turn positively influenced interviewer evaluations. Behavior description interviews triggered self-focused (and defensive) tactics, whereas situational interviews triggered other-focused tactics. Instructions to convey a desirable impression also enhanced the use of specific tactics (self-focused and other-focused verbal IM tactics) and moderated the effects of individual differences on IM use. IM instructions did not affect nonverbal IM tactics, indicating that nonverbal behavior might be less intentionally controllable in selection situations.

Selling Oneself: Construct and Criterion-Related Validity of Impression Management in Structured Interviews

“…Past research has shown that the use of specific IM behaviors in structured interviews is a meaningful function of the interview requirements (Ellis et al, 2002) and of stable personality differences (Peeters & Lievens, 2006;Van Iddekinge et al, 2007). Being a meaningful expression of a candidate's personality, we argue that IM behavior represents a relatively stable behavioral expression or manifestation of individuals' behavioral style.…”

“…In combination, results from these few studies (Ellis et al, 2002;McFarland et al, 2002;Peeters & Lievens, 2006;Stevens & Kristof, 1995;Van Iddekinge et al, 2007) suggest that (a) interviewees show more assertive than defensive IM behaviors, (b) interviewees rely more heavily on ingratiation when answering future-oriented questions and rely more heavily on self-promotion when answering past-oriented questions, and (c) the use of these assertive techniques leads to a better evaluation by the interviewers. Because, there is very limited published research in this area, as previously stated, we tried first to reproduce these results as a basis for subsequent novel assumptions.…”

“…Studies have illustrated the frequencies with which interviewees use different IM behaviors (McFarland, Ryan, & Kriska, 2002). They have also addressed factors that predict IM behaviors (Peeters & Lievens, 2006;Van Iddekinge, McFarland, & Raymark, 2007), as well as their consequences on hiring decisions (Ellis et al, 2002;Peeters & Lievens, 2006). However, to date, most of these findings rely on single data sets, and, what's more, whether and how IM affects the inter-view's criterion-related validity is still unexamined and thus unresolved (Ellis et al, 2002;Weiss & Feldman, 2006).…”

Exploring the Relationship between Impression Management, Emotional Intelligence and Locus of Control: Evidence from Egypt

“…In addition, further analysis showed that externals use internal-controllable justifications, beside external-uncontrollable ones, equally as a defensive strategy against interviewers who perceive external-uncontrollable attributions as conveyers of negative impressions. Peeters and Lievens (2006) reported no significant correlation between internal locus of control and self-focused IM tactics. However, the correlation between external locus of control and defensive IM tactics was significant.…”

Impression Management Tactics Employed by Primary school Heads to Influence Management and Leadership Decisions in Schools: A Survey of Two Districts in Zimbabwe

“…Research on impression management has been robust in areas such as assessment and job interviews (Peeters & Lievens, 1986), business ethics (Giacalone & Payne, 1987), and personal space invasions (Rosenfield, Giacalone & Kennedy, 1987). Of late, organisational literature on impression management has been trickling in.…”