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

By Helga Peeters, Filip Lievens. 2006

114 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/daded0872eeb52263d0e282f2625a0371be6348d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. T. Macan
2. Jane O'Reilly
3. Tara S. Behrend
4. Silvia Bonaccio

In Social Psychology

1. T. Macan
2. Jane O'Reilly
3. Sharon L. O’Sullivan
4. François Chiocchio
5. Tara S. Behrend
6. Silvia Bonaccio

In Sociology and Political Science

1. T. Macan
2. Jane O'Reilly
3. Sharon L. O’Sullivan
4. François Chiocchio
5. Tara S. Behrend
6. Silvia Bonaccio

Citations in the corpus

• Nonverbal Behavior and Communication in the Workplace (2016, background): “Impression management captures efforts to manage others’ favorable impressions of oneself and can involve verbal and nonverbal tactics (Lievens & Peeters, 2008; Peeters & Lievens, 2006).”
• Technology in The employmenT inTerview: A meTA-AnAlysis And FuTure reseArch AgendA (2016, background): “Past research demonstrates that interview characteristics (Peeters & Lievens, 2006) and context (Morgeson & Ryan, 2009) influence interviewer ratings and applicant reactions (Anderson, 2003).”
• The employment interview: A review of current studies and directions for future research (2009, background): “Both lab and field studies have typically demonstrated a positive relationship between applicant impression management and interviewer evaluations (e.g., Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002; Higgins & Judge, 2004; McFarland et al., 2003; Peeters & Lievens, 2006; Tsai, Chen, & Chiu, 2005).”
• Examining Digital Interviews for Personnel Selection: Applicant Reactions and Interviewer Ratings (2017, unknown): “…achievements; Peeters & Lievens, 2006), digital interviews restrain applicants from applying specific interviewer directed behavior and other-focused impression management (e.g., ingratiating with the interviewer or using mimicry behavior, cf. Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Peeters & Lievens, 2006).”
• Highly automated job interviews: Acceptance under the influence of stakes (2019, unknown): “We argue that what is at stakes during a situation (i.e., the relevance of the situation for the future of the person; Peeters & Lievens, 2006) might be an explana‐ tion for why highly automated processes are accepted within one situation compared to another.”