Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2002, Vol. 87, No. 6, 1200 –1208 0021-9010/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.6.1200

The Use of Impression Management Tactics in Structured Interviews:

A Function of Question Type?
Aleksander P. J. Ellis, Bradley J. West, Ann Marie Ryan, and Richard P. DeShon
Michigan State University

This study investigated impression management tactic use during structured interviews containing both
experience-based and situational questions. Specifically, the authors examined whether applicants’ use of
impression management tactics depended on question type. Results from 119 structured interviews
indicated that almost all of the applicants used some form of impression management. Significantly more
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

assertive than defensive impression management tactics were used, and among assertive tactics, appli-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

cants tended to use self-promotion rather than ingratiation. However, different question types prompted
the use of different impression management tactics. Ingratiation tactics were used significantly more
when applicants answered situational questions, whereas self-promotion tactics were used significantly
more when applicants answered experience-based questions. Furthermore, the use of self-promotion and
ingratiation tactics was positively related to interviewer evaluations.

Although the reliability and validity of employment interviews
have historically been viewed as suspect (e.g., Arvey & Campion,
1982; Schmitt, 1976), several recent meta-analytic reviews have
been much more positive (McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Mau-
rer, 1994; Wiesner & Cronshaw, 1988; Wright, Lichtenfels, &
Pursell, 1989). This improvement has primarily been due to the
development of structured interview formats (e.g., Campion,
Pursell, & Brown, 1988; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995).
Researchers have suggested that structured interviews show
marked improvement over traditional interview formats because
they are able to reduce contamination from variables such as
impression management (IM). For one thing, the content of struc-
tured interviews (e.g., using the same set of questions) may offer
the applicant less of an opportunity to use certain IM techniques
(Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997; Dipboye & Gaugler, 1993).
Even if IM tactics are used, the evaluation process of structured
interviews (e.g., using behaviorally anchored rating scales) could
reduce the impact of such tactics on who is hired (Campion et al.,
1997). Although these propositions seem intuitively appealing,
they have received little empirical attention within the organiza-
tional literature.
To date, no one has comprehensively investigated the dynamics
of IM tactic use during structured interviews. Stevens and Kristof
(1995), in one of the few studies to examine IM in actual interview
settings, found some preliminary differences between unstructured
interviews and structured interviews by using an experience-based
question format. However, researchers have noted that structured
interviews frequently include both experience-based and situa-
tional question formats (e.g., Latham, Saari, Pursell, & Campion,
1980). One question type may facilitate or inhibit the use of IM
Aleksander P. J. Ellis, Bradley J. West, Ann Marie Ryan, and Richard
P. DeShon, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alek-
sander P. J. Ellis, Department of Psychology, 129 Psychology Research
Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1117.
E-mail: ellisal1@pilot.msu.edu
tactics more than the other. Furthermore, although experience-
based questions evidence high levels of validity, the validity of
situational questions has been much more suspect (Campion, Cam-
pion, & Hudson, 1994; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995). Perhaps appli-
cants’ differential use of IM tactics in response to situational
versus experience-based questions contributes to the difference in
validities. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to extend
previous research by investigating applicants’ use of IM tactics in
structured interviews containing both experience-based and situa-
tion questions.
Stevens and Kristof (1995) also found that the use of IM tactics
affected interviewer evaluations across both structured and un-
structured interviews. Without examining the two interview for-
mats separately, it is difficult for researchers to determine whether
structured interviews reduce the impact of IM behavior. As a
result, the second purpose of our study is to determine whether IM
tactics have an influence on interviewer evaluations in structured
interviews.
To address these issues, we first describe the types of IM tactics
that might be used in employment interviews. Second, we discuss
why specific types of IM tactics may be used in structured inter-
views. In-the third section, we focus on the difference between
experience-based and situational questions and explain why the
different types of questions may elicit different forms of IM.
Finally, in the fourth section, we review the theoretical and em-
pirical literature linking the use of IM tactics to interviewer
evaluations.
IM Tactics
IM is defined as a “conscious or unconscious attempt to control
the images that are projected in . . . social interactions” (Schlenker,
1980, p. 6). Often, IM results in certain behaviors, including the
use of verbal statements, nonverbal or expressive behaviors, inte-
grated behavior patterns (e.g., favor rendering), and modification
of one’s physical appearance (Schneider, 1981). In most inter-
views, applicants do not vary tremendously in their dress and have
limited ability to take advantage of integrated behavior patterns,

1200
 RESEARCH REPORTS
which leaves verbal and nonverbal behaviors as the most prevalent
means of managing impressions (Stevens & Kristof, 1995). This
study focuses specifically on verbal IM behavior, which can be
split into two broad categories of tactics: assertive and defensive
(e.g., Stevens & Kristoff, 1995; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984).
Assertive IM Tactics
Assertive IM tactics are used to acquire and promote favorable
impressions (Tedeschi & Norman, 1985) and consist of both
ingratiation and self-promotion tactics. Ingratiation tactics are de-
fined as behaviors that are designed to evoke interpersonal liking
and attraction (e.g., Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977). One form of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ingratiation is opinion conformity, whereby an individual ex-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
presses values, beliefs, or opinions that are known to be held (or
can reasonably be assumed to be held) by the target (e.g., Jones,
1964). A second form of ingratiation is other enhancement,
whereby an individual expresses a favorable evaluation of the
target (Wayne & Kacmar, 1991).
Self-promotion tactics are a bit different from ingratiation tac-
tics in that they are behaviors intended to evoke attributions of
competence rather than attractiveness (Gardner & Martinko, 1988;
Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986). The applicant can promote per-
ceptions of competence through the use of specific self-promoting
utterances, entitlements, enhancements, and overcoming obstacles,
all of which are subcategories of the overall self-promotion cate-
gory. Through specific self-promotion utterances, the applicant
attempts to convince the interviewer that he or she has positive
qualities or traits. Entitlements are tactics that involve taking credit
for positive outcomes or events, even if the credit is undeserved
(Schlenker, 1980). Enhancements, in contrast, are used when an
individual claims that the value of a positive event for which he or
she was responsible is much greater than most people might think
(Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Finally, overcoming obstacles is a tactic
that is used to describe how an individual circumvented problems
or barriers impeding progress toward a goal (Stevens & Kristof,
1995).
Defensive IM Tactics
Whereas the assertive IM tactics mentioned previously are de-
signed to bolster one’s image, defensive IM tactics are designed to
protect or repair one’s image (Higgins, Snyder, & Berglas, 1990;
Schlenker, 1980; C. R. Snyder, Higgins, & Stucky, 1983). Re-
searchers have identified a number of different defensive tactics,
including excuses, justifications, and apologies (e.g., Gardner &
Martinko, 1988). Excuses are claims that one is not responsible for
a negative outcome or negative behavior. Justifications, in con-
trast, involve accepting responsibility for a negative outcome but
suggest that it is not as bad as it seems (Stevens & Kristof, 1995).
Apologies take it one step further by accepting responsibility for a
negative outcome or behavior along with the acknowledgment that
certain actions were unacceptable and should be punished (Tede-
schi & Melburg, 1984).
Examples of each IM tactic are provided in Table 1. We wish to
emphasize that using IM tactics does not imply fabrication. True
events can serve as the basis for IM; the key is whether the
statement is meant to portray a positive image or to obtain a
1201
positive evaluation from the interviewer. In that sense, one would
expect IM in interviews to be fairly pervasive.
IM Tactic Use in Structured Interviews
Researchers have suggested that interviews offer individuals the
perfect opportunity to manage their impressions because both the
interviewer and the applicant are attempting to fit the needs of the
other (Godfrey et al., 1986). A number of empirical studies support
this assertion, showing that IM tactics do, in fact, emerge quite
frequently during employment interview situations (e.g., Baron,
1983; Fletcher, 1990; Stevens & Kristof, 1995). However, much of
the aforementioned research has been directed at the use of IM
tactics in unstructured interviews. Structured interviews contain a
number of components that have the potential to reduce the use of
IM tactics (Campion et al., 1997).
To date, only one study has examined the use of IM tactics in
structured interviews. Stevens and Kristof (1995) examined 24
audiotaped interviews of college students applying for a variety of
jobs through a campus placement service. Of those 24 tapes, only 7
were structured, using a behavior description interview (BDI) that
asks applicants to describe past experiences and behavior. The BDI
format bases questions on job analysis data, uses the same ques-
tions for each applicant, and limits prompting (see Janz, 1982), all
of which have been suggested as methods of reducing the preva-
lence of irrelevant information (see Campion et al., 1997). Stevens
and Kristof found that certain IM tactics were used less in the BDIs
than in the unstructured interviews. For example, none of the
individuals interviewed by the BDI format used opinion confor-
mity or justification tactics, whereas applicants interviewed with
other less structured formats used these tactics significantly more.
Across all types of interviews, Stevens and Kristof found a clear
absence of defensive IM utterances. Individuals likely prefer to
concentrate on constructing their image through the use of asser-
tive IM tactics rather than breaking down their image through the
use of defensive IM tactics. Stevens and Kristof also found that
applicants across interview types used significantly fewer ingrati-
ation tactics than self-promotion tactics.
IM Tactic Use and Question Type
It is difficult to make inferences regarding IM tactic use in
structured interviews on the basis of Stevens and Kristof’s (1995)
data because the BDI format that they examined included only
experience-based questions, and they examined only seven struc-
tured interviews. Most structured interviews contain both
experience-based and situational questions (e.g., Latham et al.,
1980), which differ on two major dimensions. First, experience-
based questions are past-oriented, whereas situational questions
are future-oriented. Experience-based questions ask the applicant
about previous job or life experiences that are related to the
knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) required of successful
employees (Janz, 1982; Motowidlo et al., 1992). Situational ques-
tions place applicants in an imaginary job-relevant situation and
ask how they would respond (e.g., Latham et al., 1980). Second,
situational questions are very structured in terms of the latitude one
has in selecting the context of a response, whereas experience-
based questions allow a lot of latitude in selecting the situational
 1202 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 1
Descriptions of Impression Management Tactics

Tactic Description

Assertive tactics
Self-promotion tactics
Specific self-promoting utterances
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
These tactics are used for the applicant to acquire and promote favorable impressions by portraying him-
or herself as a particular type of person with particular beliefs, opinions, knowledge, characteristics, or
experiences.
These tactics are intended to show that the applicant possesses desirable qualities for the job, such as
competence.
This tactic refers to statements that are intended to persuade a target that the applicant possesses positive
qualities or traits. Specific self-promoting utterances are used to elicit specific character attributions,
such as competence or respect. The applicant tries to make others think that he or she is competent in
either general ability dimensions (e.g., intelligence) or specific skills (e.g., ability to play a musical
instrument). For example, “The firehouse lost its oldest firefighter last year. Because he had so much
experience and knowledge, many of the younger firefighters looked to him for advice. Now that he is

gone, those same firefighters look to me because I have such strong leadership qualities.”
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Entitlements When using entitlements, individuals claim responsibility for positive events or outcomes, even if
personal credit for such outcomes is unmerited. 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 Enhancements refer to claims that the value for a positive event, for which the applicant was
responsible, was greater than most people might think. For instance, “I am in charge of the kitchen at
the firehouse, and I like to keep things clean, which has resulted in 35% fewer sick days this year.”
Overcoming obstacles This tactic deals with how the applicant circumvented problems or barriers impeding progress toward a
goal. To use this tactic, the individual must show that an obstacle was present and that it could have
hindered progress. For example, “The firehouse wanted to get a new fire truck last year, but the
government refused to give us enough money to buy one. So I organized and ran a charity event that
raised enough money to buy two fire trucks.”
Ingratiation tactics These tactics are intended to evoke interpersonal liking and attraction between the interviewer and the
applicant.
Opinion conformity This tactic is used when an individual expresses opinions, beliefs, or values that may reasonably be
assumed to be held by the interviewer or if the interviewee describes experiences that are likely to be
similar to those of the interviewers. For instance, “I believe that all firefighters should be in top
physical shape, and that is why I work out in the gym 6 days a week for 2 hours.”
Other enhancement This tactic involves a favorable evaluation of the interviewer by doing things such as praising or
flattering the interviewer in order to bolster the interviewer’s self-esteem. An example of this would
be “I noticed you look like you are in very good shape. Do you work out a lot?”
Defensive tactics These tactics are used for the applicant to protect or repair his or her image.
Excuses Using this tactic, the interviewee claims that he or she was not responsible for a negative outcome or
behavior. For instance, “Last week we lost 10 civilians in a five-alarm blaze, but I was sick at home
that day so it wasn’t my fault.”
Justifications This tactic involves accepting responsibility for a negative outcome or event but suggests that it is not as
bad as it seems. Sometimes this tactic is used to try to convince the interviewer that he or she would
have acted in the same manner. For example, “In the past 2 years, I have lost three of my partners in
fires, but that is only because there were a record number of five-alarm fires in the area.”
Apologies This tactic involves accepting responsibility for a negative outcome or event and also recognizing the
negative implications of such responsibility. It also often implies that the interviewer desires to make
restitution to any victims and entails a promise to behave appropriately in the future. An example
apology would be “It took me 15 more seconds than everyone else to put on my gear last week so I
rightfully got docked 1 day’s pay. I apologized and promised it would never happen again.”

context that best allows one to express specific job-relevant be-
havior examples.
Why might it be expected that question type would affect the
use of IM tactics in structured interviews? Researchers have noted
that, during job interviews, applicants deliberately search the en-
vironment for cues that can help them make the right impression
(Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Their motivation arises from a need to
maximize expected rewards and to minimize expected punish-
ments. This expectancy-value approach suggests that applicants
attempt to construct images that conform with the cues that they
are given to maximize any potential IM value (Schlenker, 1980).
In support of this proposition, a number of studies have shown that
individuals tailor their self-presentations according to the situation
(e.g., Leary, Robertson, Barnes, & Miller, 1986; Lippa & Donald-
son, 1990; M. Snyder & Monson, 1975).
When applicants are given certain types of questions, they are
provided with cues regarding the desired images to present and
thus the particular forms of IM that should be used. Experience-
based questions, such as “Tell me about a time when you resolved
a conflict between two individuals,” ask the applicant to describe
any situation in the past in which he or she demonstrated the
necessary KSAs. These types of questions are likely to cue pro-
moting perceptions of competence. As a result, applicants may be
more likely to use self-promotion rather than ingratiation tactics
when answering experience-based questions to maximize the value
of their IM efforts. Situational questions, in contrast, provide the
applicant with a different set of cues. When the applicant is asked
to respond to a question such as “If you arrive on the scene of an
accident and find two individuals arguing, what would you do to
calm them down?” there is less opportunity for the applicant to
 RESEARCH REPORTS
boast about his or her competence. There is, however, an oppor-
tunity to conform to the values of, and favorably evaluate, the
organization and its employees. If applicants are able to use these
cues, they will likely use ingratiation rather than self-promo-
tion tactics when answering situational questions. Given that
experience-based and situational questions may cue the use of
different IM tactics by applicants, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 1: Applicants will use more self-promotion tactics
when answering experience-based versus situational ques-
tions during structured interviews.
Hypothesis 2: Applicants will use more ingratiation tactics
when answering situational versus experience-based ques-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tions during structured interviews.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hypothesis 3: When answering situational questions during
structured interviews, applicants will use more ingratiation
rather than self-promotion tactics.
Hypothesis 4: When answering experience-based questions
during structured interviews, applicants will use more self-
promotion rather than ingratiation tactics.
IM Tactic Use and Interviewer Evaluations
On the basis of the work of Stevens and Kristof (1995) and the
preceding hypotheses, we expected applicants to use self-
promotion and ingratiation during structured interviews. However,
the practical impact of such findings would be minimal if the use
of assertive IM tactics cannot be linked to interviewer evaluations.
Researchers have suggested that structured interviews often con-
tain a number of components within the evaluation process that
could potentially reduce any biasing effects of IM tactics, includ-
ing the use of multiple behaviorally anchored rating scales, mul-
tiple interviewers, rater training, and statistical prediction (Cam-
pion et al., 1997). Although no one has directly examined
the relationship between IM tactic use and structured interview
evaluations (Gilmore, Stevens, Harrell-Cook, & Ferris, 1999),
the majority of theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that
interviewer evaluations are positively affected by applicants’ use
of self-promotion and ingratiation tactics during structured
interviews.
Theoretically, the relationship between the use of self-
promotion tactics and interview ratings is supported by attribution
theory. Attribution theory suggests that individuals, when exam-
ining someone’s behavior, have an inherent need to know why
they did what they did. According to attribution theory, interview-
ers constantly attempt to search for the cause of an applicant’s
behavior. Self-promoters curtail the search process by taking credit
for success, thereby attributing their behavior to internal causes
and providing the interviewer with a ready-made causal explana-
tion. Internal attributions have been shown to elicit higher evalu-
ations than external attributions when the individual’s behavior is
successful (e.g., Weiner, 1985). Consequently, attribution theory
suggests that interviewers positively view applicants’ behavior
when self-promotion tactics are used.
Empirically, a number of researchers have found that the use of
self-promotion tactics positively affects interviewer evaluations in
unstructured interviews (e.g., Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Kacmar &
1203
Carlson, 1999; Kacmar, Delery, & Ferris, 1992; Kristof-Brown,
Barrick, & Franke, 2002). In their field study, Stevens and Kristof
(1995) discovered that the use of self-promotion tactics related not
only to interviewer evaluations but also to whether the applicants
received invitations for future site visits. On the basis of these
results, we hypothesized the following will occur in structured
interviews:
Hypothesis 5: Applicants’ use of self-promotion tactics will
be positively related to interviewers’ evaluations.
The use of ingratiation tactics can also be theoretically linked to
interview ratings by two comparable social psychological theories:
the similar-to-me effect and social identity theory. The crux behind
the similar-to-me effect is interpersonal attraction, whereby indi-
viduals are attracted to those similar to their own selves (Byrne,
1971) and often rate similar individuals higher (e.g., Lin, Dobbins,
& Farth, 1992; Rand & Wexley, 1975). Social identity theory
posits that people inherently wish to sustain a positive self-regard,
which leads them to view others in the same group as positive
(Messick & Mackie, 1989, p. 59). Researchers have suggested that
these theories can be applied to the use of IM tactics (Wayne &
Kacmar, 1991). Opinion conformity and other-enhancement tac-
tics try to show the interviewer that the applicant shares the same
beliefs, values, goals, characteristics, likes, dislikes, and opinions.
According to the similar-to-me effect and social identity theory,
the use of such tactics should positively influence evaluations.
Empirically, researchers have shown that the use of ingratiation
strategies increases interviewer attraction to the applicant (Kacmar
& Carlson, 1999). However, the link between ingratiation tactic
use and interviewer evaluations has been much more suspect.
Several studies have found that the use of self-promotion tactics is
more effective than the use of ingratiation tactics (Gilmore &
Ferris, 1989; Kacmar & Carlson, 1999; Kacmar et al., 1992),
whereas others have found no relationship between the use of
ingratiation tactics and interviewer evaluations (Kristof-Brown et
al., 2002; Stevens & Kristof, 1995). However, the effect of ingra-
tiation tactic use on interviewer evaluations is probably much
stronger in structured interviews containing both experience-based
and situational questions. Situational questions place applicants in
an imaginary situation that they might encounter on the job. As a
result, applicants’ use of ingratiation tactics when responding to
situational questions may seem more appropriate and relevant. As
a result, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 6: Applicants’ use of self-promotion tactics will
be positively related to interviewers’ evaluations.
It is clear that the majority of empirical and theoretical evidence
focuses on the use of assertive IM tactics. Researchers have shown
that defensive tactics play only a minor role in the interview
process (e.g., Stevens & Kristof, 1995). As a result, there is little
basis for generating hypotheses regarding the use of defensive
tactics and their impact on interviewer evaluations in structured
interviews. However, because we examined structured interviews
containing both experience-based and situational questions, we felt
that it would be informative to include defensive tactics in our
analyses to provide comparative data to previous research.
 1204 RESEARCH REPORTS

Method
Sample
Applicants. We obtained 119 audiotapes containing structured inter-
views with applicants under consideration for an entry-level firefighter
position in a large midwestern city. These 119 applicants repre-
sented 87.5% of the 136 applicants who went through the selection process.
We were not able to obtain tapes for 17 applicants, because of recording
errors and malfunctioning tape recorders. Of the 119 applicants for whom
we had tapes, 115 (96.6%) were male, and 115 were White.
Interviewers. Twenty-one interviewers, including 10 women (47.6%)
and 5 African Americans (23.8%), participated in the interview process.
Sixteen of the interviewers (76.2%) came from the city’s human resource
department, which was assigned the task of setting up the selection system
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
interviewers’ only verbal interaction with the applicants was to read the
question.
Three interviewers, including one firefighter and two human resource
employees, evaluated each applicant. During the interview, the interview-
ers were allowed to take detailed notes regarding the applicant’s responses.
The interviewers independently rated the applicant on one 7-point, behav-
iorally anchored rating scale for each of the seven competencies. The
applicants’ scores on the seven competencies were combined on the basis
of importance ratings gathered through the job analysis.
Measures
IM tactic use. We developed our measure of IM tactic use by first
identifying the major assertive and defensive tactics noted in the literature
(e.g., Jones & Pittman, 1982; Stevens & Kristof, 1995; Tedeschi & Mel-

for the fire department. The remaining 5 interviewers (23.8%) were burg, 1984). We provided a clear construct definition of each of the IM
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

firefighters.
Procedure
Before any of the interviews began, all 21 interviewers participated in
a 3 hr training session in which they read through the rating scales to make
sure that they understood the descriptions of poor, average, and superior
answers. Then three practice tapes were played so that the interviewers
could practice rating applicants while receiving performance feedback and
having the opportunity to discuss their ratings.
The interview consisted of 14 questions designed to assess seven com-
petencies deemed essential to the job of firefighter through a comprehen-
sive job analysis: interpersonal skills, ability to accept criticism and admit
fault, problem solving and decision making, ability to accept authority,
ability to work in a team, conscientiousness, and oral communication. Two
questions (one experience-based and one situational) addressed each com-
petency. For example, the experience-based questions asked the applicant
to “Tell us about a time when you have received criticism for your
performance on a group task.” The situational questions put the applicant
in a certain situation, such as
Suppose you are on the scene of an automobile accident when a very
angry and emotional individual who was a passenger in one of the
autos confronts you. He/she is making it difficult for you to attend to
those in need. How would you address this situation?
All the applicants heard the same set of questions. Although questions
could be repeated, prompting was strictly prohibited. The applicants were
given up to 5 min to provide a response to each of the 14 questions.
However, all of the applicants finished their answers well within the time
limit, with the average response lasting only 67 s. During the interview, the
tactics by using the descriptions from Stevens and Kristof (1995). We
defined apologies as “statements in which the speaker not only accepts
responsibility for the effects of his or her behavior, but also recognizes the
negative implication of such responsibility” (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984).
The descriptions of all the IM tactics examined in this study are listed in
Table 1.
Once the list of definitions was compiled, Aleksander P. J. Ellis and
Bradley J. West went through a 2-hr training session in which they listened
to four practice tapes, coded the frequency of IM tactics for each of the
tapes, and received detailed performance feedback. One of the major goals
of the training session was to ensure that the coders understood how to
correctly identify IM tactics. The coders were told that to receive credit for
using a specific form of IM, the applicant’s response had to pass a number
of hurdles based on the IM category under which it fell. For example, to be
considered an entitlement, the response first needed to fall under the
definition of assertive IM tactics. If the response was seen as an attempt to
actively construct an image so as to acquire and promote favorable im-
pressions by portraying the individual as a particular type of person with
particular beliefs, opinions, knowledge, characteristics, or experiences,
then it would be considered assertive and it would pass the first hurdle. If
the response was seen as an attempt to demonstrate that the applicant
possessed desirable qualities for the job, such as competence, then it would
be considered self-promotion and it would pass the second hurdle. Finally,
if the response was seen as an attempt to take credit for an outcome when
it was unmerited, then it would pass the final hurdle and it would be coded
as an entitlement. By establishing hurdles, the coders were better able to
accurately identify the various IM tactics and separate IM from simply
responding to the demands of the question. Table 2 shows that these
distinctions were made.
Any coding discrepancies were discussed so that both coders fully
understood the definitions and could accurately discriminate among the IM

Table 2
Assertive Impression Management Tactic Use in Response to Each Question

Situational Experience-based

% who % who
answered % using % using % using answered % using % using % using
Question the question self-promotion ingratiation assertive tactics the question self-promotion ingratiation assertive tactics

1 98.3 2.5 31.0 32.0 98.3 26.5 12.0 33.3

2 100.0 42.0 15.1 48.8 99.2 34.8 19.5 39.8
3 100.0 10.1 26.1 31.1 100.0 21.8 3.4 22.2
4 100.0 11.8 21.8 28.6 100.0 26.1 22.7 39.5
5 100.0 5.9 21.8 25.2 100.0 21.0 11.8 30.3
6 100.0 19.4 24.4 37.0 100.0 63.9 5.9 64.7
7 99.2 1.7 11.8 13.4 100.0 22.7 9.3 27.7
 RESEARCH REPORTS 1205

categories. After the 2-hr practice session, 19 of the 119 firefighter inter-
view tapes were coded by using a presence or absence scheme. The results
suggested that the two coders evidenced good levels of interrater agree-
ment (␬ ⫽ .87). Interrater agreement also remained fairly consistent across
all IM tactic categories, ranging from a low of .74 for entitlements and a
high of .95 for apologies. Therefore, the remaining 100 tapes were divided
equally between the two coders.
The use of self-promotion by each of the applicants was calculated by
summing the number of entitlements, enhancements, overcoming obsta-
cles, and specific self-promoting utterances. Ingratiation tactic use was
calculated by summing the number of opinion conformities and other
enhancements. Adding the ingratiation and self-promotion tactics together
indicated the number of assertive tactics used by the applicants. The use of
defensive tactics was calculated by summing the number of excuses,
justifications, and apologies.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(use of self-promotion tactics: M ⫽ 4.58, use of ingratiation
tactics: M ⫽ 3.03), t(119) ⫽ 4.99, p ⬍ .01. Tactics used frequently
by applicants included self-promotion (M ⫽ 3.69), opinion con-
formity (M ⫽ 2.99), and apologies (M ⫽ 0.67). Tactics infre-
quently used by applicants included other enhancement
(M ⫽ 0.04), entitlements (M ⫽ 0.08), and excuses (M ⫽ 0.08).
Our first four hypotheses suggested that the use of ingratiation
and self-promotion tactics would differ both between and within
question types. Specifically, regarding Hypothesis 1, we expected
that self-promotion tactics would be used more in responding to
experience-based questions than situational questions. This hy-
pothesis was supported by using a paired t test (use of self-
promotion tactics in experience-based questions: M ⫽ 3.26, use of

Interview ratings. Interviewer interrater reliability ranged from .75 to self-promotion tactics in situational questions: M ⫽ 1.32),
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

.90 (interpersonal skills, M ⫽ 4.04, SD ⫽ 1.17; ability to accept criticism
and admit fault, M ⫽ 4.44, SD ⫽ 1.28; problem solving and decision
making, M ⫽ 4.07, SD ⫽ 1.24; ability to accept authority, M ⫽ 4.08,
SD ⫽ 1.31; ability to work in a team, M ⫽ 4.19, SD ⫽ 1.21; conscien-
tiousness, M ⫽ 4.67, SD ⫽ 1.26; and oral communication, M ⫽ 4.26,
SD ⫽ 1.17). Ratings were averaged across the three raters for each
dimension, and then all seven averages were summed to create a composite
interview rating score for each applicant (M ⫽ 29.75, SD ⫽ 7.71).
Results
Table 2 shows that the use of tactics varied across questions.
Table 3 provides the means and standard deviations of applicant
IM tactic use for each tactic coded in this study. Table 4 provides
the number and percentage of applicants using each IM tactic. The
results indicate that 97.5% of applicants used at least one IM tactic
during their interview. However, only 64.7% of applicants used at
least one defensive IM tactic, whereas 94.1% of applicants used at
least one assertive IM tactic. A paired t test indicated that appli-
cants used significantly more assertive IM tactics than defensive
IM tactics (use of assertive tactics: M ⫽ 7.61, use of defensive
tactics: M ⫽ 1.08), t(119) ⫽ 9.68, p ⬍ .01. Within the assertive
category, 89.9% of the applicants used self-promotion tactics,
whereas 76.5% of the applicants used ingratiation tactics. By using
another paired t test, this difference was found to be significant
t(119) ⫽ 8.21, p ⬍ .01. Hypothesis 2 proposed that ingratiation
tactics would be used more in response to situational questions
than experience-based questions, which was supported by another
paired t test (use of ingratiation tactics in situational questions: M
⫽ 1.96, use of ingratiation tactics in experience-based questions:
M ⫽ 1.08), t(119) ⫽ 4.91, p ⬍ .01. Furthermore, within situational
questions, ingratiation tactics were used significantly more than
self-promotion tactics (use of ingratiation tactics in situational
questions: M ⫽ 1.96, use of self-promotion tactics in situational
questions: M ⫽ 1.32), t(119) ⫽ 3.10, p ⬍ .01, supporting Hypoth-
esis 3. Within experience-based questions, self-promotion tactics
were used significantly more than ingratiation tactics (use of
self-promotion tactics in experience-based questions: M ⫽ 3.26,
use of ingratiation tactics in experience-based questions:
M ⫽ 1.08), t(119) ⫽ 9.26, p ⬍ .01, supporting Hypothesis 4.
Our fifth and sixth hypotheses proposed that the use of self-
promotion and ingratiation tactics would be positively related to
interviewer ratings. Table 5 presents the means, standard devia-
tions, and intercorrelations between the use of defensive tactics,
assertive tactics, self-promotion tactics, ingratiation tactics, and
interviewer ratings. The use of assertive IM tactics was signifi-
cantly correlated with interviewer evaluations (r ⫽ .25, p ⬍ .01),
as was the use of self-promotion tactics (r ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .05) and the

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of Applicants’ Impression Management (IM) Tactic Use

Total Situational Experience-based

IM tactic M SD M SD M SD

Total IM use 8.69 7.72 4.01 3.95 5.40 4.79

Assertive 7.61 7.45 3.27 3.83 4.34 4.20
Total self-promotion 4.58 4.64 1.32 2.05 3.26 3.14
Specific self-promoting utterances 3.69 4.06 1.26 1.97 2.42 2.64
Entitlements 0.08 0.31 0.01 0.09 0.08 0.30
Enhancements 0.53 1.00 0.03 0.18 0.50 0.96
Overcoming obstacles 0.28 0.50 0.02 0.13 0.26 0.50
Ingratiation 3.03 3.46 1.96 2.37 1.08 1.51
Opinion conformity 2.99 3.45 1.94 2.38 1.05 1.49
Other enhancement 0.04 0.20 0.02 0.13 0.03 0.16
Defensive 1.08 1.18 0.73 0.76 1.07 1.64
Excuses 0.08 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.37
Justifications 0.33 0.70 0.11 0.36 0.22 0.58
Apologies 0.67 0.74 0.59 0.66 0.08 0.36
 1206 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 4
Number and Percentage of Applicants Using Impression Management (IM) Tactics

Total Situational Experience-based

IM tactic n % n % n %

Total IM use 116 97.5 110 92.4 109 91.6

Assertive 112 94.1 101 84.9 105 88.2
Total self-promotion 107 89.9 72 60.5 102 85.7
Specific self-promoting utterances 100 84.0 70 58.8 92 77.3
Entitlements 9 7.6 1 0.8 8 6.7
Enhancements 39 32.8 4 3.4 37 31.1
Overcoming obstacles 30 25.2 2 1.7 28 23.5
Ingratiation 91 76.5 83 69.7 60 50.4
Opinion conformity 91 76.5 82 68.9 59 49.6
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Other enhancement 5 4.2 2 1.7 3 2.5

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Defensive 77 64.7 70 58.8 57 47.9

Excuses 6 5.0 0 0.0 6 5.0
Justifications 28 23.5 11 9.2 20 16.8
Apologies 64 53.8 60 50.4 7 5.9

use of ingratiation tactics (r ⫽ .26, p ⬍ .01). Therefore, Hypoth-
esis 5 and Hypothesis 6 were supported.
Discussion
We found that most applicants did use IM tactics during their
structured interviews. Of 119 applicants, only 3 failed to use a
single IM tactic during their interviews. As researchers have sug-
gested, interviews offer applicants the perfect opportunity to man-
age their impressions (Godfrey et al., 1986), and applicants seem
to take advantage of this opportunity even when the interview is
designed to provide candidates a level playing field. However, not
all IM tactics were used to the same degree during the structured
interviews in this study. Our results indicate that applicants pre-
ferred to improve their image through the use of assertive IM
tactics rather than repair or protect their image through the use of
defensive tactics, which supports the findings of other researchers
(Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Although
applicants improved their image through the use of both self-
promotion and ingratiation, they tended to favor self-promotion so
as to appear competent to the interviewer. Although this result
supports the findings of past research (Stevens & Kristof, 1995), it
does not support the assertion that structured interviews act to
eliminate IM behavior (Campion et al., 1997).
The use of self-promotion and ingratiation tactics differed be-
tween and within question formats. Applicants used significantly
more self-promotion tactics when answering experience-based
questions and significantly more ingratiation tactics when answer-
ing situational questions. These results lend little support to the
assertion that ingratiation tactics appear only in mock laboratory
simulations (Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Instead, applicants’ use of
ingratiation and self-promotion tactics appears to depend on the
cues inherent in each question type. Each IM tactic is used more in
the specific situations in which it can be of maximal value to the
applicant.
By choosing to use experience-based questions, organizations
may be more likely to hear applicants promote their positive
qualities or traits. Conversely, selecting situational questions may
enable applicants to focus their IM tactics on the interviewer and
the organization through ingratiation. However, in practice, choos-
ing the right set of questions depends on a number of factors. First,
it depends on the applicant pool. In this study, the interviewees had
little experience with the job for which they were applying. If the
applicants have more experience with the job, the organization
may benefit more from the use of experience-based questions,
thereby reducing the frequency of ingratiation utterances. Second,
interviewers may be able to be trained to recognize and ignore
typical IM strategies. However, self-promotion strategies deal with
events that happened in the applicants’ past, whereas ingratiation
strategies deal with the values, beliefs, opinions, or characteristics
of the interviewer or the organization. Both strategies, when true
reflections of the applicant, are valuable input to the interviewer’s
decision. Third, specific IM strategies may be criterion-related for

Table 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Use of assertive tactics 7.61 7.45 —

2. Use of self-promotion tactics 4.58 4.64 .94** —
3. Use of ingratiation tactics 3.03 3.46 .89** .69** —
4. Use of defensive tactics 1.08 1.18 .15 .18 .09 —
5. Interviewer evaluations 29.75 7.71 .25** .21* .26** .05 —

Note. N ⫽ 119.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
 RESEARCH REPORTS
certain jobs. For example, insurance salespeople may perform
better if they are able to use ingratiation tactics when interacting
with clients. In that situation, the organization may benefit from
using situational questions. It is clear that there are a number of
issues that need to be addressed by organizations before choosing
between experience-based and situational questions in an effort to
reduce the use of IM strategies during structured employment
interviews.
Choosing a set of questions would not be as much of an issue if
the use of IM tactics failed to influence interviewer evaluations.
Researchers have suggested that the structured interview evalua-
tion process reduces the effect of IM tactic use on who is hired
(Campion et al., 1997). Our results offer little support for this
proposition. In particular, we found that the use of self-promotion
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tactics was positively related to interviewer evaluations, which
confirms the findings of other researchers who generally agree that
applicants benefit from the use of self-promotion tactics (e.g.,
Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Kacmar et al., 1992; Stevens & Kristof,
1995). We also found that the use of ingratiation tactics was
positively related to interviewer evaluations and that this relation-
ship was stronger than the relationship between self-promotion and
interviewer evaluations, which does not support the findings of
other researchers (e.g., Stevens & Kristof, 1995). One explanation
for these discrepant findings lies in the fact that the structured
interviews examined in this study contained both experience-based
and situational questions. The effects of ingratiation tactics could
have been bolstered by the situational format, in which opinion
conformity and other enhancement seem more appropriate.
The results of our study regarding the use of assertive IM tactics
and interviewer evaluations may help researchers understand the
difference in criterion-related validity between experience-based
and situational questions. Although situational questions appear to
evidence significantly lower levels of validity than experience-
based questions, little is known about the underlying causes of this
relationship (Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995). It is possible that part of
the difference in validity is due to differences in the use of specific
IM tactics. Perhaps situational questions evidence lower levels of
validity because applicants use ingratiation tactics that are not
related to the job but that still affect interviewer evaluations. Once
the applicant is on the job, the higher evaluations may not translate
into higher levels of performance, thereby reducing the criterion-
related validity of situational structured interviews.
Although we found that the use of IM tactics was not limited to
unstructured interviews, future research needs to replicate our
results by using different applicant populations. We examined a
very specific type of organization, which could have had an effect
on applicants’ use of certain IM tactics. For example, because the
requirements of the job were probably fairly transparent, appli-
cants may have been able to use a greater number of ingratiation
tactics. Future research should also examine different forms of IM.
We concentrated on verbal IM tactics in our study, but nonverbal
tactics may also exert an influence on interviewer evaluations.
Finally, a number of psychological processes, including the
similar-to-me effect, social identity theory, and attribution theory,
have been suggested as possible explanations for the effects of IM
tactic use on interviewer evaluations. Although we did not specif-
ically test these theories, the literature would benefit from a greater
understanding of the cognitive processes underlying the relation-
ship between the use of IM tactics and interviewer evaluations.
1207
Despite various limitations, a number of aspects of our study
bolster the strength of our findings and our interpretation of the
results. We were able to gather observer ratings of IM in a field
setting, which produces a number of benefits over other methods,
such as asking applicants to describe their IM efforts (Stevens &
Kristof, 1995) or manipulating IM in a laboratory (Kacmar et al.,
1992). We also were able to use a previously established coding
scheme that has been supported by other researchers (e.g., Stevens
& Kristof, 1995).
In conclusion, although there is consensus regarding the value of
structuring interviews, there is still debate over the usefulness of
different types of questions. This study suggests that (a) the tactics
used by applicants to convey job-relevant skills and organizational
fit information likely vary depending on the nature of the question,
and (b) tactic use affects evaluations. Does that mean that organi-
zations need to be worried about applicants’ use of IM tactics?
After all, answers involving self-promotion and ingratiation may
be very job-relevant and convey applicant fit with the job and the
organization. However, the ability to use such tactics varies across
individuals above and beyond the job-relevant skills they are
attempting to convey, thereby introducing error into the assess-
ment process. A related concern, as this study illustrates, is that
this conveying of job-relevant information varies with question
format. Therefore, if organizations hope to maximize the benefits
of structured interview formats, they should be aware of, and
concerned about, applicants’ use of IM tactics.
References
Arvey, R. D., & Campion, J. E. (1982). The employment interview: A
summary and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 35,
281–322.
Baron, R. A. (1983). “Sweet smell of success”? The impact of pleasant
artificial scents on evaluations of job applicants. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 68, 709 –713.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Wiley.
Campion, M. A., Campion, J. E., & Hudson, J. P. (1994). Structured
interviewing: A note on incremental validity and alternative question
types. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 998 –1002.
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of
structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50, 655–702.
Campion, M. A., Pursell, E. D., & Brown, B. K. (1988). Structured
interviewing: Raising the psychometric properties of the employment
interview. Personnel Psychology, 41, 25– 42.
Dipboye, R. L., & Gaugler, B. B. (1993). Cognitive and behavioral pro-
cesses in the selection interview. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 135–170). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Fletcher, C. (1990). The relationship between candidate personality, self-
presentation strategies, and interviewer assessments in selection inter-
views: An empirical study. Human Relations, 43, 739 –749.
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in
organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 321–338.
Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The effects of applicant impression
management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Manage-
ment, 15, 557–564.
Gilmore, D. C., Stevens, C. K., Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, G. R. (1999).
Impression management tactics. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.),
The employment interview handbook (pp. 321–336). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Godfrey, D. K., Jones, E. E., & Lord, C. G. (1986). Self-promotion is not
 1208 RESEARCH REPORTS
ingratiating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106 –
115.
Higgins, R. L., Snyder, C. R., & Berglas, S. (1990). Self-handicapping: The
paradox that isn’t. New York: Plenum Press.
Janz, T. (1982). Initial comparisons of patterned behavior description
interviews versus unstructured interviews. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 67, 577–580.
Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
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, pp. 231–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1999). Effectiveness of impression
management tactics across human resource situations. Journal of Ap-
plied Social Psychology, 29, 1293–1315.
Kacmar, K. M., Delery, J. E., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). Differential effec-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tiveness of applicant IM tactics on employment interview decisions.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1250 –1272.
Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Franke, M. (2002). Applicant im-
pression management: Dispositional influences and consequences for
recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity. Journal of Management, 28,
27– 46.
Latham, G. P., Saari, L. M., Pursell, M. A., & Campion, M. A. (1980). The
situational interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 422– 427.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A
literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 34 – 47.
Leary, M. R., Robertson, R. B., Barnes, B. D., & Miller, R. S. (1986).
Self-presentations of small group leaders: Effects of role requirements
and leadership orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 51, 742–748.
Lin, T. R., Dobbins, G. H., & Farth, J. L. (1992). A field study of race and
age similarity effects on interview ratings in conventional and situational
interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 363–371.
Lippa, R., & Donaldson, S. J. (1990). Self-monitoring and idiographic
measures of behavioral variability across interpersonal relationships.
Journal of Personality, 58, 468 – 479.
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994).
The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599 – 616.
Messick, D., & Mackie, D. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 40, 45– 81.
Motowidlo, S. J., Carter, G. W., Dunnette, M. D., Tippins, N., Werner, S.,
Burnett, J. R., & Vaughn, M. I. (1992). Studies of the structured
behavior interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 571–587.
Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1995). Experience-based and situational
interview questions: Studies of validity. Personnel Psychology, 48,
289 –308.
Rand, T. M., & Wexley, K. N. (1975). Demonstration of the effect “similar
to me” in simulated employment interviews. Psychological Reports, 36,
535–544.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social
identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of interview deci-
sions: Implications for the employment interview. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 29, 79 –101.
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.
Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stucky, R. J. (1983). Excuses: Masquer-
ades in search of grace. New York: Wiley.
Snyder, M., & Monson, T. C. (1975). Persons, situations, and the control
of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,
632– 637.
Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). 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. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.),
Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 31–58). Green-
wich, 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.
Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, M. K. (1991). The effects of impression man-
agement on the performance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Process, 48, 70 – 88.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and
emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548 –573.
Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1988). The moderating impact of
interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employ-
ment interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 275–290.
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 behaviors (pp.
133–178). Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Wright, P. M., Lichtenfels, P. A., & Pursell, E. D. (1989). The structured
interview: Additional studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupa-
tional Psychology, 62, 191–199.
Received March 27, 2001
Revision received March 3, 2002
Accepted March 9, 2002 䡲