Why does impression management positively influence interview ratings? The mediating role of competence and warmth

Abstract

Though interviews assess job applicants' skills and abilities, they can be influenced by extraneous factors, including impression management (IM) tactics. Interviewees’ self‐promotion and ingratiation IM tactics predict higher interview ratings; however, researchers have yet to determine why these tactics work. We assessed whether two fundamental dimensions of social perception, competence and warmth, mediate the relationship between IM tactics and interview ratings. We hypothesized that interviewee competence mediates the relationship between self‐promotion and interview ratings, and interviewee warmth mediates the relationship between ingratiation and interview ratings. Using real employment interviews, we found that competence mediates the relationship between self‐promotion and interview ratings, but warmth did not mediate the relationship between ingratiation and interview ratings in the way we expected.

A review of applicant faking in selection interviews

“…This is in line with results from Jansen et al () who found that applicants primarily used those faking and IM tactics that are expected by interviewers, such as honest self‐promotion. More generally, evidence suggests that applicants engage in more honest IM than in faking (Amaral, Powell, & Ho, ; Bourdage et al, ).…”

“…Even though some suggestions have been put forth to prefer alternative selection procedures to interviews because of the latter's potential for faking (Koenig et al, ), the extant research examining whether and how faking influences actual interview outcomes like interview performance ratings or interview success (e.g., receiving a job offer or an invitation for the next round of selection) reports mixed results (Table ). Studies that investigated relationships between self‐reported faking and outcomes in actual interviews found correlations that ranged from small and negative to null to moderate and positive (Amaral et al, ; Bourdage et al, , Study 5; Buehl & Melchers, , Study 1; Levashina & Campion, , Study 5; Roulin et al, ). Furthermore, four studies examined relationships between self‐reported faking and interview performance in mock interviews: two studies found small to moderate positive correlations (Buehl & Melchers, , Study 2; Ingold, Kleinmann, König, & Melchers, ) and two others found negative correlations (Bourdage et al, , Study 4; Swider et al, ).…”

Shake and Fake: the Role of Interview Anxiety in Deceptive Impression Management

“…The type of image that candidates try to create depends on what goals they are trying to achieve. Regardless of a candidate's specific goals, theory and empirical findings indicate that it is particularly important to be viewed as likeable/warm and competent (e.g., Amaral, Powell, & Ho, 2019;Ferris & Judge, 1991;Leary & Kowalski, 1990) and honest (Jansen et al, 2012;Jones & Pittman, 1982). Therefore, during the interview, self-presentation is often aimed at fostering these images.…”

“…The data from the 2017 sample have been published, answering different research questions (seeAmaral, Powell, & Ho, 2019). Additional information is provided in the data transparency appendix in the supplementary materials.…”

Nonlinearity in the relationship between impression management tactics and interview performance

“…Ratings of interview performance have often been used as criteria against which to judge the effect of IM tactics. Research has found that the relationship between honest IM tactics and interview ratings is generally positive; whereas the relationship between deceptive IM tactics tends to be lower (Amaral et al, 2019; Bourdage et al., 2018; Kristof‐Brown et al, 2002; Melchers et al, 2020). It is likely that deceptive IM tactics are less related to interview performance ratings because they are difficult for interviewers to identify (Roulin et al, 2015), or that applicants use them less effectively.…”