Content uploaded by Sandra DeGrassi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sandra DeGrassi on Apr 10, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
What You See May Not Be What You Get: Relationships Among
Self-Presentation Tactics and Ratings of Interview and Job Performance
Murray R. Barrick
Texas A&M University
Jonathan A. Shaffer
University of Iowa
Sandra W. DeGrassi
Texas A&M University
The image candidates portray in the interview, via appearance, impression management, and verbal and
nonverbal behavior, has been hypothesized to influence interviewer ratings. Through the lenses of social
influence and interdependence theories, this meta-analysis investigated (a) the magnitude of the rela-
tionship between these 3 self-presentation tactics and interviewer ratings, (b) whether these tactics also
are correlated with later job performance, and (c) whether important theoretical moderators (e.g., the level
of interview structure, the rating source, the use of field or experimental designs) affect these relation-
ships. Results reveal that what you see in the interview may not be what you get on the job and that the
unstructured interview is particularly impacted by these self-presentation tactics. Additionally and
surprisingly, moderator analyses of these relationships found that the type of research design (experi-
mental vs. field) does not moderate these findings.
Keywords: employment interview, self-presentation, meta-analysis, job performance, impression
management
In almost every area of our lives, we strive to present ourselves
in a favorable light, such that others around us will think highly of
us or like us. We see this in young adults who engage in dating
relationships but never disclose their bad habits; in the car sales-
person who conveniently omits the fact that the SUV has a dan-
gerous design flaw; and, finally, in job applicants who fail to
divulge that they were fired from their last job. All of these tactics
are efforts to sell a product, whether it be a mate, a car, or an
employee. The last example is the focus of the current study. Job
candidates engage in “self-presentation tactics or attempts to in-
fluence self-relevant images” (Gilmore, Stevens, Harrell-Cook, &
Ferris, 1999, p. 322) with the goal of selling themselves to the
interviewer and gaining employment. Research indicates that such
attempts meet with at least some success and that their impact may
be especially exaggerated in the employment interview (Levashina
& Campion, 2007; Posthuma, Morgeson, & Campion, 2002).
Thus, the image a candidate portrays in the job interview may not
accurately reflect the candidate’s true self, and, as some employers
ultimately discover, what they see in the interview may not be
what they get on the job.
Past research has focused on the attempts of individuals to
control images they project at work and the relationship those
self-presentation tactics may have with job satisfaction and career
success. A few researchers have meta-analyzed this literature to
summarize the findings in the field (Higgins, Judge, & Ferris,
2003; Hosoda, Stone-Romero, & Coats, 2003), but they either
have focused on a narrow set of self-presentation tactics (e.g., just
physical appearance or impression management) or have examined
a broad range of work outcomes (hiring decisions, performance
ratings, helping behaviors, compensation levels, even choice of
business partner) and have limited their analyses to experimental
studies (Hosoda et al., 2003). Such studies have certainly informed
our understanding of the effects of self-presentation tactics on
organizational outcomes, but that understanding is still incomplete,
particularly as these tactics apply to the interview. Similarly,
comprehensive reviews of the employment interview (Arvey &
Campion, 1982; Harris, 1989; Posthuma et al., 2002; Schmitt,
1976) have not presented a definitive conclusion about the influ-
ence of managing one’s portrayal in the interview process, perhaps
due to the fact that, as noted by Schmidt (1996), narrative reviews
are simply not sufficient to permit such conclusions to be drawn.
Although qualitative reviews are of much value to researchers, it is
imperative that we also have robust, empirical data. The paucity of
efforts to synthesize research on self-presentation tactics is espe-
cially apparent in the area of the employment interview. This is
somewhat ironic, given the effects that self-presentation tactics
potentially may have on what is essentially a high-stakes selection
test administered in the context of a social exchange, often among
strangers. It is in just such contexts that self-presentation is thought
to be particularly influential (Gilmore et al., 1999).
Because the interview relies so heavily on agenda-driven inter-
personal interactions, it is important that we determine the extent
to which job candidate behaviors, such as self-presentation tactics,
Murray R. Barrick, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University;
Jonathan A. Shaffer, Department of Management and Organizations, Uni-
versity of Iowa; Sandra W. DeGrassi, Mays Business School, Texas A&M
University.
Correspondence should be addressed to Murray R. Barrick, Mays Busi-
ness School, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4221.
E-mail: mbarrick@mays.tamu.edu
Journal of Applied Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 94, No. 6, 1394–1411 0021-9010/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016532
1394
are related to interview outcomes. Thus, our first goal in the
current study was to conduct a meta-analysis to estimate the
magnitude of the relationships among the self-presentation tactics
projected by the candidate on the interviewer’s decision processes.
The second goal was to assess the impact these self-presentation
tactics have not only on performance in the interview but also on
later job performance. Comparing the relative impact of the self-
presentation tactics on interview and on job performance allows us
to begin to understand in which context self-presentation tactics
have more impact. Furthermore, for the first time, we examined
potential moderators of the relationship between self-presentation
tactics and interviewer ratings. For example, the degree of struc-
ture in the interview has been posited to be an important moderator
of self-presentation tactics (e.g., Tsai, Chen, & Chiu, 2005; Van
Iddekinge, McFarland, & Raymark, 2007), such that unstructured
interviews are proposed to be particularly susceptible to the influ-
ence of these tactics (Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002). Yet no
prior meta-analysis has examined the moderating effects of inter-
view structure. In conducting the current study, we sought to
extend previous meta-analytic research by focusing exclusively on
the interview, by determining the magnitude of the relationships
among several self-presentation tactics and interviewer ratings, by
testing important theoretical moderators of those relationships, and
by examining the impact these tactics have on actual job perfor-
mance. In the following sections, we review two theories relevant
to our study, briefly review and define the self-presentation tactics
examined in this study, and present our hypotheses.
Theoretical Background
Two theories from the field of social psychology illustrate the
importance of self-presentation tactics in the interview: social
influence theory and interdependence theory. Social influence
theory proposes that practically every interpersonal relationship
involves social influence of some form or another; people aim to
influence and are also being influenced (Cialdini & Trost, 1998;
Levy, Collins, & Nail, 1998). This “infinite cycle” of communi-
cation and exchange of information often leads individuals in the
presence of others to express themselves in a manner that will
evoke a certain desired reaction from the target (Goffman, 2006).
Thus, social influence processes are those tactics utilized by indi-
viduals to maximize the desired rewards and minimize the poten-
tial negative repercussions associated with a given interpersonal
interaction (Ferris et al., 2002). Although the process of social
influence is rich and complex (as are most processes that involve
people relating to one another), it is fairly simple at its core in that
throughout a social interaction, the influencer uses relevant tactics
at his or her disposal in order to influence the influencee in the
desired direction.
In the context of generating an offer during the employment
interview, the influencee is the interviewer and the influencer is the
candidate. During the interview, a myriad of pieces of applicant
information are received, interpreted, and evaluated by the inter-
viewer in an attempt to “score” the applicant and ultimately make
an accept-or-reject decision (Hazer & Jacobson, 2003). A funda-
mental attribute of social influence theory is whether the social
influence leads to a positive or negative change (Levy et al., 1998)
in the influencee’s evaluation of the influencer. Another charac-
teristic of social influence theory is level of cognitive processing,
which refers to the influencee’s conscious or unconscious aware-
ness of influence mechanisms being utilized on the influencee.
Because the interviewer may not even be aware of the self-
presentation tactics utilized by the candidate, the effects of such
tactics on hiring decisions may be larger than we realize (Levy et
al., 1998). Two unconscious processes that are particularly rele-
vant to the interview have been shown to have a significant impact
on decision-maker evaluations (Goffman, 2006; Levy et al., 1998).
The first is norm activation, or the social triggering of an inter-
viewer’s cognitive structures, including associations, beliefs, and
values about the “right type” of candidate (Judge & Cable, 1997).
The second process, affective evaluation, reflects an emotion-
based reaction or response to a candidate. For example, social
norms influence every aspect of the interview; even something as
simple as the initial handshake has been shown to affect inter-
viewer ratings (Stewart, Dustin, Barrick, & Darnold, 2008). Job
applicants can engage in self-presentation tactics throughout the
process of the interview to elicit affective and normative evalua-
tions from the interviewer. Social influence theory would predict
that a candidate’s self-presentation skills can be effectively used to
gain a more favorable recommendation from the interviewer
(Baron, 1989; Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Higgins et al., 2003;
Nickson, Warhurst, & Dutton, 2005; Wayne & Kacmar, 1991).
Interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003) is the second
theory from social psychology that can be used to highlight the
importance of self-presentation tactics in the interview. This theory
emphasizes the role of the situation and contends that the social
context itself can exert strong effects on behavior. The theory
highlights a number of structural dimensions that define the situ-
ation, each of which underscores a job candidate’s likely usage of
self-presentation tactics. First, the candidate’s job prospects are
governed by the interviewer’s decision. This creates a situation in
which the job candidate is, to some extent, reliant or dependent on
the interviewer. Research shows that, in order to reduce the vul-
nerability associated with such contexts, people often attempt to
generate positive illusions with which to manage their image
(Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Second, the interests of the candi-
date, who wants a job offer, conflict with those of the interviewer,
who wants to get the most accurate information in order to hire the
best candidate. Interpersonal settings with conflicting interests
invariably activate the increased use of self-presentation tactics
(Arriaga & Rusbult, 1998; Fiske, 1993; Van Lange, 2000). More
important, research shows that when both of these structural ele-
ments are involved in the defining properties of the social setting,
this invariably leads the person in the position of extreme depen-
dence with conflicting interests (i.e., the job candidate) to adopt a
“rule” to maximize his or her own outcomes irrespective of the
other person’s (i.e., the interviewer’s) outcomes during the inter-
action (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Adoption of this rule explains
why candidates may engage in intentional misrepresentation in an
interview setting (Levashina & Campion, 2007).
The likelihood that job candidates will engage in the use of
self-presentation tactics during the interview is further increased
by two other defining properties of interdependence theory (Rus-
bult & Van Lange, 2003): that the interaction involves strangers
and that it is characterized by the presence of inadequate informa-
tion. Given this, what the interviewer “knows” about the candidate
depends on the type and amount of self-relevant information the
candidate decides to disclose during the brief interaction charac-
1395
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS IN THE INTERVIEW
teristic of a job interview. Such interpersonal settings encourage,
even demand, that the candidate manage the image he or she
conveys.
When viewed through the lenses of social influence theory and
interdependence theory, the employment interview is a situation
that may, in large part, be driven by the use of self-presentation
tactics. This perspective contrasts with the dominant paradigm in
interview research, which focuses on ways to improve the validity
and reliability of the interview (Anderson, 1992; Posthuma et al.,
2002). Thus, rather than emphasize an approach that strives to
mold the interview into nothing more than an oral administration
of an employment test, we wish to draw attention to the nature of
the social exchange that emerges during the course of the interview
(Anderson, 1992). The approach adopted in this study recognizes
that both factual information and socially constructed information
are exchanged during the interview, and that both types of infor-
mation impact the interviewer’s decision. Although we agree there
is value in standardizing the interview to increase the amount of
job-relevant information available to an interviewer, it is also
important to examine the influence that the “agenda-driven social
process” inherent in the interview has on the interviewer’s final
assessment ratings (Anderson, 1992; Keenan, 1978; Schein, 1980).
Once one considers the potential influence of the social ex-
change throughout the interview, it becomes obvious that it is in
the best interest of candidates to utilize positive self-presentation
tactics in order to place themselves in the most favorable light
(Hazer & Jacobson, 2003). To some extent, it is conceivable that
the information conveyed via self-presentation may impact the
interview performance of a candidate more than does the actual
content of his or her interview responses. This follows from the
assumption that the time an interviewer devotes to asking ques-
tions related to some of the most commonly assessed constructs—
general mental ability, conscientiousness, job knowledge and ex-
perience (Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, & Stone, 2001)—may be
limited, whereas a candidate’s use of self-presentation tactics can
permeate the entire interview. On the basis of this reasoning, we
posited not only that self-presentation tactics would have a mean-
ingful impact on interview performance ratings, but also that the
magnitude of the effect of such tactics would be larger than
currently recognized in the field (Posthuma et al., 2002).
Review of Self-Presentation Tactics and Hypotheses
Before we move on to a discussion of the specific self-
presentation tactics examined in this study, it is important for us to
clarify that we acknowledge the view of Ferris et al. (2002). That
is, the terms interpersonal influence, self-presentation, influence
tactics, and organizational politics are more alike than different, as
they all reflect the same ultimate goal: to describe the behaviors in
which individuals engage in order to influence the influencee in
such a way as to benefit themselves. After a review of the literature
and key terms, however, we decided that self-presentation was the
most appropriate term to use in the current research, as it reflects
the core of social influence theory and interdependence theory: to
purposefully and strategically present positive information about
the self (candidate) in order to obtain a favorable evaluation from
the interviewer.
Even though self-presentation tactics are utilized in many ways
and in many areas of our lives, three such tactics are particularly
relevant to the interview and thus are the focus of the current
research: appearance, impression management, and verbal and
nonverbal behavior. Although these three tactics are not inherently
interrelated, the relevance of each is highlighted by considering the
unique social context of the employment interview. As previously
noted, the candidate often is a stranger to the interviewer and,
though self-interested, is a provider (even the sole provider) of
information about the self to the interviewer (Eder & Ferris, 1989).
Thus, candidates attempt to influence the interviewer’s decision
beyond the content of their answers in different ways, particularly
in terms of their professional appearance, how actively they man-
age their impression through, for example, self-promotion and
ingratiation behaviors, and even how they articulate their interview
responses.
We realize that the social process throughout the interview is
actually more complex than this, as the interviewer’s behavior also
affects the candidate’s behavior (Anderson, 1992). This, in turn,
further influences the candidate’s behavior, which affects
the interviewer’s decisions, and so forth. However, we focus on the
candidate’s behavior because of the unique “demands” of the
interview context, which include the asymmetric dependence or
reliance of the candidate upon the interviewer so as to obtain a job
offer coupled with the opportunity to decide how much self-
relevant information to disclose to a relative stranger (i.e., the
interviewer). We also recognize that applicants probably rely on
more than just these three tactics to manage their image. Never-
theless, these are three separate tactics that are likely elicited by
the context of the interview and that have been identified in the
literature as being relevant to the interview process. Further, the
correct execution of all three tactics can be learned and, as with
any skill set, purposefully applied by candidates to their own
benefit. This makes these tactics even more salient to employment
interviews.
In light of the various definitions used to describe these three
terms in the literature, we now define our use of them before
continuing. The first variable of interest, and perhaps the most
straightforward, is appearance. Appearance can be categorized as
physical or professional. Physical appearance refers to the beauty
and physical appeal of an individual, and professional appearance
refers to the level of hygiene, personal grooming, and appropriate
dress of an individual. Although there may be limits to how much
a candidate can improve his or her physical attractiveness, profes-
sional attire, level of hygiene, and personal grooming are largely
under the candidate’s control and consequently warrant consider-
ation as self-presentation tactics to be employed during the inter-
view.
The distinction between impression management and verbal and
nonverbal behaviors is historically less clear, as some researchers
have theoretically included verbal and nonverbal behaviors as a
subset of impression management behaviors (i.e., Ellis et al., 2002;
Gilmore et al., 1999). In the current study, however, following
much of the empirical research in this area, we differentiate be-
tween impression management and verbal and nonverbal behav-
iors and consider them separate variables. Impression management
generally is grouped into two categories: self-promotion and other
enhancement (Kacmar, Delery, & Ferris, 1992; Tedeschi & Mel-
burg, 1984). In the context of the interview, the applicant uses
self-promotion to describe his or her past experience and accom-
plishments positively in order to elicit a perception of competence
1396 BARRICK, SHAFFER, AND DEGRASSI
from the interviewer (Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Self-promotional
tactics include exemplification (convincing the target that one’s
behavior is good enough to use as a model for others), entitlements
(taking major responsibility for positive events in one’s back-
ground), enhancements (attempting to increase the value of an
event), and self-promotion (describing qualities that one possesses;
Kacmar et al., 1992). The second category of impression manage-
ment tactics is other enhancement. These tactics are directed at the
target individual (e.g., the interviewer), with the goal of inspiring
liking for the actor on behalf of the target. Other-enhancement
tactics include ingratiation (directly or indirectly flattering the
target), opinion conformity (agreement with comments made by
the target), favor doing, and feigned helplessness.
In defining verbal and nonverbal behavior, one should note that
verbal behavior does not include the actual verbal content of the
applicant’s responses. Instead, it reflects both spontaneous and con-
sciously controlled expressions of thoughts and emotions (DePaulo,
1992). Thus, verbal behavior includes the candidate’s style of
delivery (e.g., speech rate and pitch) and verbal fluency (DeGroot
& Motowidlo, 1999). Nonverbal cues describe actions such as
smiling, making eye contact, nodding, leaning forward, and mak-
ing hand gestures (Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985; Rasmussen,
1984). In social interactions such as the interview, candidates
purposely try and can be trained to exert control over their verbal
and nonverbal behavior. Prior research in all three areas (appear-
ance, impression management, and verbal and nonverbal behavior)
has found these variables to be correlated with the interview rating
(Boor, Wartman, & Reuben, 1983; Goldberg & Cohen, 2004;
Higgins & Judge, 2004; Stevens & Kristof, 1995). In the following
section, we outline the previous research on self-presentation tac-
tics and interview outcomes and propose conducting a meta-
analysis so as to fully understand their impact.
Role of Appearance
Research outside the interview context, particularly experimen-
tal studies from the field of social psychology, clearly indicates
that when strangers meet, they form reactions based on very little
information about one another (Asch, 1946; Kenny & Albright,
1987; Zajonc, 1980, 1984). Research on appearance shows there is
a widely shared belief that “what-is-beautiful-is-good” (Eagly,
Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Feingold, 1992) and that
this belief influences stranger perceptions of the focal person’s
social and intellectual competence, personality, even general men-
tal health. Likewise, interviewers may be influenced by appear-
ance during decision making, and candidates may use appearance
as a tactic with which to positively influence the interviewer. As
suggested by social influence theory (Levy et al., 1998), appear-
ance is part of the affective evaluation and norm activation pro-
cesses.
Studies of candidate appearance rely on measures of either
physical or professional appearance to show the effects this infor-
mation has on the interviewer (Motowidlo & Burnett, 1995).
Physical appearance refers to the beauty and physical appeal of an
individual. The interviewee’s physical appearance can present an
unconscious appeal to the “emotion-based response” of a person
and can influence interviewers through the affective evaluation of
the applicant. Hosoda et al.’s (2003) meta-analysis of experimental
studies, which manipulated physical appearance in various work
contexts (performance appraisal, compensation levels, choice of
business partner, ranking of employees, and helping behavior),
suggests that physically attractive employees obtain more positive
outcomes on job-related criteria than do those who are less attrac-
tive.
Professional appearance, on the other hand, refers to the level of
hygiene, personal grooming, and appropriate dress of an individual
and has also been correlated with interview outcomes (Kinicki &
Lockwood, 1985; Mack & Rainey 1990). Professional appearance
also appeals to the norm activation of the interviewer. That is,
there are certain norms of professional dress and level of cleanli-
ness that are generally expected during an interview, among them,
appropriate business attire and properly combed hair. Anything too
far outside of these norms (e.g., wearing jeans or having an
unnatural hair color) would trigger norm activation in the inter-
viewer and might hurt the applicant’s ability to successfully influ-
ence the interviewer. Because job candidates are largely in control
of their own hygiene and dress, professional appearance may
reflect deliberate attempts to regulate appearance for self-
presentation purposes even better than does physical attractive-
ness. Therefore, professional appearance should be a particularly
salient norm activator. In addition, as interdependence theory
suggests, these “strangers” are picking up cues from each other,
and appropriate professional appearance is one of the first things
an interviewer will likely notice (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003).
Thus, appearance should enhance the favorability of interviewer
inferences about the candidate, which should be associated with a
more favorable interviewer rating.
Hypothesis 1: Candidate appearance (both physical and pro-
fessional) will be positively related to interviewer ratings.
Role of Impression Management
Impression management is a tactic individuals use in order to
manipulate the opinion or affective evaluation others have of them
(Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995). In theory, the applicant
who is talented in this area should be able to participate in an
interview and engage in these tactics without the interviewer even
recognizing that he or she is being influenced in any particular
way. Candidates may choose from a variety of impression man-
agement tactics in order to exert social influence over the inter-
viewer (Harris, Kacmar, Zivnuska, & Shaw, 2007). Several studies
have focused on the consequences of impression management
behaviors in the interview setting (McFarland, Ryan, & Kriska,
2003), and they have in general concluded that impression man-
agement, whether in the form of self-promotion or ingratiation,
does indeed influence hiring decisions (Gilmore & Ferris, 1989;
Kacmar & Carlson, 1999; Kacmar et al., 1992; Stevens & Kristof,
1995). This conclusion is supported in a recent meta-analysis of
self-promotion and of other enhancement, as the results suggest
that these tactics positively affect supervisor and interviewer eval-
uations of individuals in work contexts (Higgins et al., 2003).
Interdependence theory also supports the use of impression man-
agement during the interview. In response to the setting, applicants
can use several tactics that reveal only positive information about
themselves or can shift the focus from themselves to the inter-
viewer (which results in inadequate information).
1397
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS IN THE INTERVIEW
Hypothesis 2: Impression management behaviors (overall,
plus other and self-focused) will be positively related to
interviewer ratings.
Role of Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior
Verbal and nonverbal behaviors are some of the most common
forms of communication in which individuals engage and can
therefore be an important form of social influence (Ferris et al.,
2002). Candidates are expected to exert some control over their
verbal and nonverbal behavior (e.g., avoid talking too fast, in a
high-pitched “squeaky” voice, or exhibiting nervous gestures).
Interviewing advice routinely underscores the import of managing
one’s verbal and nonverbal presentation (Bolles, 2008).
Applicants who can effectively engage in verbal and nonverbal
behaviors, such as smiling and eye contact, can trigger an emo-
tionally driven, affective evaluation of themselves from the inter-
viewer. Verbal and nonverbal behaviors tend to have effects that
extend below the level of consciousness (Neu & Graham, 1994)
and have been shown to influence interviewer ratings (Burnett &
Motowidlo, 1998; Posthuma et al., 2002). The proper use of verbal
and nonverbal cues can fulfill the interviewer’s expectations of
interview norms and signal attributions associated with greater
perceived trust, liking, and credibility (DeGroot & Motowidlo,
1999; Nighswonger & Martin, 1981). Additionally, proper use of
this tactic may alleviate some of the “stranger” context associated
with interdependence theory by making the interviewer feel more
comfortable and friendly with the applicant. Thus, the favorability
of perceptions formed by interviewers listening to and watching
the candidate should influence the interviewer rating.
Hypothesis 3: Verbal and nonverbal behavior by the candi-
date will be positively correlated with interviewer ratings.
Moderators
We expected that several important moderators would influence
the magnitude of the relationship between self-presentation tactics
and interviewer ratings. For example, one critical question is, do
these tactics have less effect on interviewer decisions as the
structure of the interview increases? A structured interview is
designed to measure specific, job-related constructs. To the extent
that these constructs are unrelated to the self-presentation tactics,
and because the interviewer is focused on evaluating the answers
to structured questions pertaining to these constructs, the impact
these tactics have on the interviewer’s ratings should be concom-
itantly diminished. In theory, structured interviews simply give job
applicants fewer opportunities to distract the interviewer with
information that may be peripheral to the construct being assessed.
Other moderators of interest are whether candidate self-
presentation tactics have a greater impact when the interviewer
serves as the source for both sets of ratings and whether the study
is conducted in the field or in the lab, with actual interviewers or
with other participants (e.g., students).
Prior meta-analytic research of the employment interview has
shown that degree of interview structure is an important moderator
of the reliability and predictive validity of the employment inter-
view (Conway, Jako, & Goodman, 1995; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994;
Huffcutt & Woehr, 1999). Increasing the standardization or struc-
ture of the interview is designed to focus the interviewer’s evalu-
ation on a few specific, job-related constructs and thus to reduce
the opportunity to use and influence of the candidate’s self-
presentation tactics. Structuring the interview “convert[s] the in-
terview from a conversation into a scientific measurement” (Cam-
pion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997, p. 663). Thus, the degree of
structure in the interview should moderate the influence of these
tactics, with weaker relationships between self-presentation tactics
and interviewer ratings emerging when the interview is highly
structured. Prior research supports this contention. For example,
the degree of bias against overweight candidates (Kutcher &
Bragger, 2004) and pregnant candidates (Bragger, Kutcher, Mor-
gan, & Firth, 2002) has been shown to be lessened by structured
interviews. Similarly, the use of impression management behavior
(Stevens & Kristof, 1995) or nonverbal behaviors (McShane,
1993) has been found to be reduced with the use of structured
interviews.
Structured interviews are also likely to reduce the influence that
candidate self-presentation tactics have on the interviewer, because
a highly structured interview adheres to a standardized set of
questions and this may decrease a candidate’s opportunities to
engage in self-presentation tactics. Ellis et al. (2002) reported that
applicants used particular impression management tactics less fre-
quently when interviews were structured. Furthermore, employees
are less likely to engage in impression management tactics if they
feel performance is more objectively measured, as they recognize
that such behaviors will not exert as much influence over the rater
(Zivnuska, Kacmar, Witt, Carlson, & Bratton, 2004). Thus, the
more the interview is structured to focus the interviewer on re-
sponses to job-related questions, the less the self-presentation
tactics studied here should be related to interviewer ratings.
Hypothesis 4: Candidate appearance, impression manage-
ment, and verbal and nonverbal behavior will be more
strongly related to interviewer ratings when the interview is
less structured rather than more highly structured.
The source of the self-presentation tactics evaluation is also
likely to moderate the magnitude of the relationship. In particular,
if the interviewer provides ratings of both the self-presentation
tactic and the end-of-interview rating, the magnitude of the rela-
tionship should be stronger. For example, if candidate appearance
is evaluated by the interviewer prior to the interview, this predictor
should have a stronger relationship with the interviewer’s end-of-
interview rating of candidate responses than if appearance is
objectively rated by a third party or is manipulated in an experi-
mental study.
The usual interpretation of effect sizes derived from data in
which the interviewer has provided ratings of both the independent
and dependent variable is that the estimate has been artificially
inflated due to common method variance (Jelf, 1999; Posthuma et
al., 2002). Indeed, one of the advantages of experimentally ma-
nipulating an independent variable is that this allows one to more
confidently assess the real effects of changes in levels of that
variable. The issue of common method variance becomes partic-
ularly intriguing in the context of employment interviews, because,
although the effects of self-presentation tactics can be experimen-
tally manipulated and thus separated from other effects, the job
interview may present a context in which the standard conceptu-
1398 BARRICK, SHAFFER, AND DEGRASSI
alization of common method variance may be more difficult to
apply—at least in practice. Job interviews are usually conducted
by a single interviewer in a context in which experimental manip-
ulation is not possible. Thus, the magnitude of the correlation
between interviewer judgments of a given self-presentation tactic
(e.g., interviewer perceptions of candidate appearance) and the
final interview rating may be a meaningful indicator of the influ-
ence a given self-presentation tactic has on an interviewer’s deci-
sions. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If one wants
to determine how candidate attributes influence the interviewer,
one must ask the interviewer. On the basis of this reasoning, we
expected the following moderator effects:
Hypothesis 5: Candidate appearance, impression manage-
ment, and verbal and nonverbal behavior will be more
strongly related to interviewer ratings when both the predictor
and the criterion are rated by the interviewer than when the
predictor is rated by a third party or is objectively manipu-
lated or measured.
The final moderator is related to research design. It is crucial to
determine whether results of lab studies differ from those of field
studies and whether mock interviews differ meaningfully from
actual employment interviews. The research in this area has found
mixed results. In a large-scale meta-analysis, Anderson, Lindsay,
and Bushman (1999) found that the effect size reported in exper-
imental studies is actually quite similar to that reported in field
studies across a number of research domains in psychology, in-
cluding (but not limited to) leadership style, social loafing, self-
efficacy, and memory. However, Anderson et al. did not include
interview research in their analysis, and, in contrast, Jelf (1999)
and Posthuma et al. (2002) strongly advocated conducting inter-
view research in the field rather than in the lab. The question here
is one of generalizability. Is it at all possible for researchers to
draw reasonable conclusions about “high-stakes” job interviews
from studies conducted in mock interviews or laboratory settings?
The close correspondence between lab and field effect sizes re-
ported by Anderson et al. (1999) suggests we should be able to
generalize from the effects found in the mock interview or exper-
imental lab to employment interviews and implies that the mag-
nitude of the effects between self-presentation tactics and inter-
viewer ratings would not differ between field and experimental
settings.
The alternative perspective proposes that decisions made in
high-stakes settings do differ meaningfully from those made by
undergraduate students or in settings where the interviewer’s rat-
ing does not have any bearing on who is actually selected (Gor-
man, Clover, & Doherty, 1978). The Jelf (1999) and Posthuma et
al. (2002) reviews adopted this view by proposing that these results
have questionable external validity because of differences in con-
sequences of decisions and the richer social context existing in
actual employment interviews. It is interesting that neither of these
reviews (Jelf, 1999; Posthuma et al., 2002) spelled out whether
self-presentation tactics would have more or less effect in exper-
imental settings; instead, they simply stated that findings from
experimental settings were likely to be “uninformative.” However,
no meta-analytic evidence exists to support or refute such a claim.
Research on accountability (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999) suggests
that information peripheral to the specific question being asked
should have a larger effect in the lab and a smaller effect in the
field. In an experiment, the respondent is expected to assume that
all information provided is relevant to the decision. Hence, if
information about impression management varies across paper-
people candidates, the decision maker, wanting to avoid appearing
foolish, will use this information. In contrast, when the decision
maker is accountable for outcomes, research shows there is more
consideration of often overlooked situational attributions and
greater use of effortful, systematic judgment strategies (Ashton,
1992; Brtek & Motowidlo, 2002; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Mero &
Motowidlo, 1995).
Prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1990) also demon-
strates that how a decision is framed matters and that a negative
frame matters more. If the purpose of the interview is to make
actual hiring decisions, it may well be that interviewers enter an
interview with a negative frame (Stevens, 1998) and that this leads
them to be more critical and to evaluate applicants less positively.
In contrast, if there are no consequences from the interviewer’s
recommendation, professional appearance may be as “useful” as
information obtained from the structured component of the inter-
view. For this reason, when the interviewer is accountable and
actually hires someone, there should be a weaker relationship
between self-presentation tactics and interviewer ratings than in
those studies where the interviewer is not held accountable for his
or her evaluations.
Hypothesis 6: Candidate appearance, impression manage-
ment, and verbal and nonverbal behavior will be more
strongly related to interviewer ratings in experimental settings
than in field settings.
Self Presentation and Job Performance
We have argued above that interviewer decisions or preferences
for candidates will be affected by the candidate’s self-presentation
tactics. In an ideal world, that which advances a candidate’s career
would also make an organization effective. Thus, the influence that
candidate appearance, impression management, and verbal and
nonverbal behaviors have on the interviewer would also lead to
success on the job. In fact, some authors make this exact argument
and suggest that appearance and impression management matter in
jobs where image is vital (Groschl, 2007; Nickson et al., 2005),
such as those found in the service-related industries. However, the
world is not ideal, and others have argued that at least some of the
impact of self-presentation tactics (e.g., physical appearance) is not
job relevant (Wayne & Kacmar, 1991; Zivnuska et al., 2004).
Interviewers have been shown to give a “good-looking” candidate
a higher job knowledge rating, even when they know it is against
their better judgment (Boor et al., 1983). Levashina and Campion
(2007) recently found that over 90% of undergraduates fake or
misrepresent job–related information during employment inter-
views, although outright lying seemed less frequent. For these
reasons, researchers have warned against rewarding self-
presentation tactics such as impression management in their hu-
man relations practices (including selection) over more important,
job-related criteria (Harris et al., 2007).
That said, there are theoretical reasons to expect that the rela-
tionship between self-presentation tactics and job performance is
positive, even if not as strong as the relationship between self-
1399
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS IN THE INTERVIEW
presentation and interview performance. After all, people are ex-
pected to and do manage their images both in the interview and at
work. Consequently, if these tactics influence interviewers, they
are also expected to influence others at work, including supervi-
sors, coworkers, even customers, and this could lead to increases
in performance. One explanation for such a relationship could be
the influence of stable individual differences, such as personality
and general mental ability. These traits impact the self-presentation
tactics the candidate relies on both during the interview and on the
job. Researchers have found conscientiousness and emotional sta-
bility to be positively related to job performance (Barrick, Mount,
& Judge, 2001). Highly conscientious individuals are more de-
pendable, careful, and well organized than are those low in con-
scientiousness (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Thus, it is plausible that
those high in conscientiousness may be more likely, for example,
to dress in a professional manner both in an interview and on the
job. Next, individuals high in emotional stability are described as
calm, relaxed, and secure (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Therefore,
individuals high in emotional stability may be more likely to
exhibit positive verbal and nonverbal behaviors, such as making
eye contact, speaking more clearly, and refraining from nervous
shifting and fidgeting in the interview and the work setting. Sim-
ilarly, general mental ability is correlated with job performance
(Hunter & Hunter, 1984). In the interview, individuals high in
general mental ability may process information more quickly
(Jensen, 1998) and show higher levels of verbal fluency. Such
traits allow them to inject fewer “ums” and “ahs” into their
interview responses and lead to better interview performance. To
the extent that these self-presentation tactics are significantly in-
fluenced by the candidate’s personality and general mental ability,
they are also likely to be related to future job performance (Post-
huma et al., 2002).
Nevertheless, the influence of these tactics on job performance
is not expected to be as large as it is on interviewer ratings. As
noted previously, the predictive validity of this information is
reduced to the extent that candidates present misleading or inac-
curate information while managing their image during the inter-
view (Levashina & Campion, 2007). This misinformation may
even be trait based. For example, previous research demonstrates
that extraversion is moderately correlated with the use of impres-
sion management (Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Franke, 2002) and
lying in the interview (Weiss & Feldman, 2006). Although the
candidate may also try to mislead the supervisor later, on the job,
through these self-presentation tactics, the supervisor should be-
come more familiar with the employee over the course of time.
This would attenuate the relationship between self-presentation
tactics and job performance ratings (McFarland et al., 2003). In
contrast, because the candidate is a stranger during the interview,
the interviewer is more dependent on the candidate for informa-
tion. Because the interviewer will not have the opportunity to
observe the person in different situations, the interviewer will not
get to know the “real” candidate as the supervisor may. In addition,
it may be the case that self-presentation tactics are more difficult
to express consistently over longer periods of time or across
different contexts (McFarland et al., 2003). Individuals may find
that maintaining an unchanging self-presentation image is easier to
project in the short time span of the interview than in the months
(or even a full year) that can elapse between formal job perfor-
mance evaluations. On the basis of this reasoning, we hypothe-
sized as follows:
Hypothesis 7: Candidate appearance, impression manage-
ment, and verbal and nonverbal behavior will be more
strongly related to interviewer ratings than to later job per-
formance.
Method
Literature Search
We reviewed both published and unpublished literature from
1929 to 2008 for articles on candidate appearance, impression
management techniques, and verbal and nonverbal behavior in
order to locate as many articles and book chapters as possible for
this analysis. The search for articles included a search of Web of
Knowledge, EBSCO, PsycINFO, ABInform, and Google scholar.
The electronic literature search included, but was not limited to,
the following keywords: employment interview, appearance, phys-
ical attractiveness, impression management, influence tactics, ver-
bal behavior, and nonverbal behavior. In addition, we reviewed
the 2001–2008 programs from the Academy of Management and
Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists for confer-
ence papers and presentations related to the interview. We also
searched for dissertations and theses in Dissertation Abstracts
International. Finally, we reviewed the reference sections of sev-
eral major reviews and meta-analyses of the interview to locate
any studies that might have been overlooked in the above searches
(e.g., Anderson, 1992; Jelf, 1999; McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, &
Maurer, 1994; Posthuma et al., 2002).
Inclusion Criteria
After acquiring all promising studies, we read the abstracts and
scanned the results to determine the relevance of each study for our
purposes. We used several decision rules in order to determine if
the study should be included in the present analysis. First, the
study had to be empirical in nature. Second, the study had to
include some measure of the variables included in the hypotheses.
Third, the study had to report sample sizes and correlations or
enough information so the reported statistics (univariate Fvalues,
tvalues, chi-square values, differences scores, or means and stan-
dard deviations) could be converted into usable effect sizes.
Fourth, the study had to include an interviewer rating of applicant
suitability at the end of the interview.
Description of Variables
Interviewer rating. Interview performance was operational-
ized as ratings by the interviewer assessing applicant suitability,
interview score or rank, intent to hire, or recommendation for a
second interview. The majority of the studies in the current data set
included an overall interview score; all effect sizes were converted
to depict continuous scales.
Job performance. We included studies that made use of su-
pervisory ratings of job performance criteria. Experimental studies
were excluded, as were studies that reported sales volume, earn-
ings, income, or job status.
1400 BARRICK, SHAFFER, AND DEGRASSI
Appearance. Two types of appearance measures were coded:
physical attractiveness and professional appearance. Physical at-
tractiveness measures included basic ratings of overall beauty and
attractiveness. The professional appearance measures, on the other
hand, were characterized by ratings of appropriate professional
demeanor, personal grooming, and dress. To have been included in
the present analysis, a study must have provided a clear indication
of the nature of its appearance measure. Thus, studies that con-
tained undefined “appearance” or “attractiveness” measures were
excluded from our final data set.
Impression management behavior. Three types of impression
management behavior were coded: (just) impression management
and two specific types, self-promotion and other enhancement.
Measures of self-promotion included measures of exemplification,
entitlements, enhancements, and self-promotion. Other enhance-
ments included ingratiation, opinion conformity, favor doing, and
feigned helplessness.
Verbal and nonverbal behavior. Verbal and nonverbal behav-
iors were divided into three categories: (a) verbal behavior, (b)
nonverbal behavior, and (c) verbal and nonverbal behavior. Coded
verbal behaviors included applicant speech attributes (e.g., articu-
lation, pitch, fluency). Nonverbal behaviors included smiles and
eye contact, as well as leaning forward, using hand gestures, and
exhibiting poise. Primary studies that did not distinguish between
verbal and nonverbal behaviors were placed in the “verbal and
nonverbal behavior” category.
Interview structure. Three levels of interview structure—low,
medium, and high—were considered in this study. Interview struc-
ture was coded according to the information presented in each
primary study in the basis of the three factors identified by Chap-
man and Zwieg (2005) for categorizing structure: the interviewer
used standardized and numeric scoring procedures (evaluation
standardization), used job-related behavioral or situational ques-
tions (question sophistication), and asked the same questions, in
the same order, of all applicants (question consistency). We com-
bined scores across these categories in order to determine if
interview structure was low, medium, or high. Low-structure in-
terviews had no limits on questions used and relied on general
summary responses; medium-structure interviews had some for-
mal structure in the content of the questions asked and/or evaluated
responses with somewhat differentiated ratings scales. In high-
structure interviews, all candidates were asked the same job-
related questions and predetermined standards were used to score
each response.
Rating source. We separated studies according to whether
ratings of the self-presentation tactics and the interview rating
were provided by the same source (i.e., only the interviewer) or by
independent sources.
Research design. Design categories included field and lab
studies. We coded interviews as field studies when the interview
was conducted by hiring managers or recruiters and was used in
the context of an actual selection process. We coded interviews as
lab studies when there was no actual job at stake. Mock interviews,
experiments, and simulations were labeled as lab studies.
Description of Coding Procedures
Coding accuracy and interrater agreement. Three coders uti-
lized coding instructions and a coding sheet of interview charac-
teristics developed by Murray R. Barrick. The coding instructions
provided detailed explanations and a scoring procedure to use
during the coding process. All of the primary studies used in the
meta-analyses were coded by at least two coders and were peri-
odically cross-checked. We held meetings to discuss problems
with the coding instructions and coding sheet and implemented
changes as needed. Any disagreements were discussed and re-
solved. Interrater reliability was .97, and interrater agreement on
coding objective and continuous variables exceeded 96%. We
computed a series of interrater agreement index kappas for cate-
gorical variables (Landis & Koch, 1977); kappa values ranged
from .89 to .96, indicating very good interrater agreement levels.
Nonindependence of data. We recorded the uncorrected ob-
served correlations and sample sizes as listed in the studies and
converted univariate test statistics into correlations when possible.
In cases where multiple effect sizes were reported for the same
study, we employed three main decision rules to determine which
coefficient to retain. First, some studies reported correlations be-
tween multiple measures of the same independent variable and the
interview outcome. In these cases, we selected the correlation that
best represented the variable of interest. In some cases, that rep-
resented a single variable of interest to our analysis. In these cases,
we computed a composite correlation for the variable of interest. In
cases where a single study contained several measures of a single
variable but computing a composite correlation was not possible,
we averaged the correlations for the individual measures. Second,
some studies reported correlations between the self-presentation
tactic and multiple interview outcome measures. In these cases, we
selected the correlation that best represented an overall measure of
the interview score; otherwise, we averaged the correlations across
multiple criteria because single-item scales generally have low
reliability and, subsequently, low construct validity. Finally, a few
studies reported correlations between a single self-presentation
tactic and several hiring recommendations from different inter-
viewers or a group of interviewers. For example, an interview may
have been conducted by a panel, but each panel member made an
independent rating of the interviewee. In these cases, we averaged
the resulting correlations.
Meta-Analytic Procedure and Artifact Corrections
We analyzed our data using the Schmidt and Le (2004) soft-
ware. This program computes the sample-weighted mean of the
observed correlations and observed standard deviations from the
original studies and then corrects them for statistical artifacts. We
corrected only for criterion unreliability in this analysis in order to
produce comparable estimates of the validity of predicting inter-
view performance and job performance from the self-presentation
tactics in a selection setting. That is, we wanted to be able to
compare the operational validity of the self-presentation tactics for
predicting interview scores to that for predicting job performance.
Because artifact information was not available in the majority of
the studies included in this analysis, we used artifact distributions
to correct for artifacts. To correct for criterion unreliability in the
meta-analyses, we relied on Conway et al.’s (1995) meta-analysis
of interrater and internal consistency reliabilities of the structured
interview. Studies in the low-structure category had a weighted
mean interrater reliability of .34 with a variance of .038, moderate-
structure interviews had weighted mean reliability of .56 with a
1401
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS IN THE INTERVIEW
variance of .034, and high-structure interviews had a weighted
mean reliability of .67 with a variance of .002. If the study did not
specify the structure used in the interview, we used a weighted
mean reliability of .53 with a variance of .038 (Conway et al.,
1995). Using these reliability estimates, we corrected for criterion
unreliability individually in each study on the basis of the level of
structure used in the study. This procedure was used in all but two
cases, as explained below, and the average distribution created in
this manner had a mean criterion reliability of .47 (SD ⫽.031). For
the moderator analysis pertaining to interview structure, we used
the appropriate reliability from Conway et al. for the correspond-
ing level of structure in the analysis (.34 for low structure, .56 for
medium structure, .67 for high structure). Studies in which the
level of interview structure could not be determined were excluded
from this moderator analysis. Finally, in order to correct for
unreliability in job performance ratings, we used the reliability
estimate of .52 reported by Viswesvaran, Ones, and Schmidt
(1996) for supervisor ratings of job performance.
Results
Tables 1, 2, and 3 give the meta-analytic results for the three
candidate self-presentation tactics with interviewer ratings across
three levels of interview structure, rating source, and research
design. The first row of each table shows the overall mean ob-
served correlation and corrected correlation of the self-
presentation tactics with interviewer ratings. Appearance had the
strongest relationship with interviewer ratings (r
c
⫽.53), followed
by impression management (r
c
⫽.47) and verbal and nonverbal
cues (r
c
⫽.40). None of the credibility intervals or confidence
intervals for the main effects for the overall analyses contained
zero; this indicates that we can be reasonably assured that each of
the self-presentation tactics is meaningfully associated with inter-
viewer ratings.
1
These results support Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 and
show that candidates do manage their images in the interview and
that this affects the interviewer’s decision process.
Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6 focus on moderators of the relationship
between the self-presentation tactics and interview performance.
Therefore, all moderator analyses pertain only to interview ratings.
Hypothesis 4 posited that as interview structure increased, the
effects of the self-presentation tactics would decrease. This was
indeed the case for all three tactics. The correlation between each
tactic and interviewer ratings was lower in high-structure inter-
views than in low-structure interviews (increasing from .18 to .88
for appearance, from .21 to .46 for impression management, and
from .37 to .69 for verbal or nonverbal behavior) with no overlap
in confidence intervals between high- and low-structure inter-
views. Additionally, correlations for interviews with medium
structure were larger than those for high-structure interviews and
smaller than those for low-structure interviews. These results sug-
gest strong support for Hypothesis 4.
As seen in Tables 1 to 3, when candidate self-presentation
tactics were assessed with a different source rather than the same
source (the interviewer), the correlations between each tactic and
interviewer ratings were lower, as hypothesized (increasing from
.33 to .68 for appearance, from .31 to .80 for impression manage-
ment, and from .39 to only .41 for verbal and nonverbal behav-
iors), and the confidence intervals did not overlap for any but
verbal and nonverbal behavior. Thus, not surprisingly, when as-
sessments of self-presentation tactics came from a source external
to the interview process, as compared to when ratings of both the
independent and dependent variable were assessed by the inter-
viewer, the magnitude of the relationships was substantially
smaller for two of three self-presentation tactics. This partially
supports Hypothesis 5. When the interviewer both rated the self-
presentation tactics and provided an end-of-interview rating, the
influence of self-presentation tactics was larger. Although these
results were expected, the magnitude of the relationships when the
interviewer rated both variables was greater than anticipated.
Hypothesis 6 proposed that self-presentation tactics would have
a stronger relationship with interviewer ratings in experimental
settings than in field settings. Experimental settings include exper-
iments in which mock interviews are used, those in which the
self-presentation is defined or manipulated by the researcher, those
in which there is no accountability for an actual selection decision,
and those in which undergraduate students are the decision makers.
To rule out the effects of common method bias when testing
Hypothesis 6, we focused on the results in cases where self-
presentation tactics were assessed from a different source. We also
compared studies in which interviewers made real hiring recom-
mendations with those in which interviews were not for actual
selection purposes. Contrary to our expectations, the relationships
between self-presentation tactics and interviewer ratings were
comparable in two of three cases when the research design in-
cluded experimental data rather than actual selection data. For
appearance, the corrected correlation was .34 in actual selection
interviews and .32 in simulated or experimental interviews, though
we note that the number of field studies included in this compar-
ison is small (k⫽3). For impression management, the correlation
was .36 in actual interviews and .30 in simulated interviews.
Finally, for verbal and nonverbal behavior, the correlations dif-
fered somewhat, with those in actual interviews being somewhat
smaller (.32 vs. .41) than those in simulated interviews. Taken as
a whole, these results do not support Hypothesis 6, as the relation-
ships found for two of three types of self-presentation tactics are
comparable in field and experimental settings.
Hypothesis 7 predicted that the relationship between self-
presentation tactics and interview ratings would be stronger than
that between self-presentation and job performance. As can be
seen by comparing Tables 1 and 2 with Table 4, the correlation
between appearance and impression management with interviewer
ratings (.53 and .47, respectively) is larger than that with job
performance (overall mean observed r
c
⫽.14 and .15, respec-
tively). Furthermore, the 95% confidence interval of the correla-
tion with interviewer ratings does not include the mean observed
correlation with job performance; this indicates that these two
self-presentation tactics have a stronger relationship with inter-
viewer ratings than they do with measures of job performance.
1
The 80% credibility interval indicates that 80% of the parameter values
in the distribution of the validity estimate lie between the lower and upper
bounds of this interval. The 95% confidence interval indicates that there is
a 95% probability that the actual population mean is captured by the
confidence interval. As noted by Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002),
confidence intervals “estimate variability in the estimated mean correlation
whereas credibility intervals estimate variability of the individual correla-
tions in the population of studies” (p. 770).
1402 BARRICK, SHAFFER, AND DEGRASSI
Comparison of Table 3 with Table 4 shows the same general
pattern, although the difference in the correlations between verbal
and nonverbal behavior and interview ratings (.40) and job per-
formance (.23) is not as pronounced. Taken together, these results
support Hypothesis 7 and show that self-presentation tactics may
have a greater impact on interview ratings than they do on job
performance.
Discussion
Our purpose in the current meta-analysis was to determine the
extent to which a savvy applicant, who alters the image he or she
presents, favorably influences the interviewer and gets hired and to
examine under what conditions those self-presentation tactics in-
fluence the interviewer’s decision processes. The results reveal
Table 1
Effects of Appearance on Interview Ratings
Analysis kn
Mean correlations
% var
80% CV 95% CI
obs-r SDr r
c
SDr
c
Lower Upper Lower Upper
On interviewer ratings
Overall 26 3,333 .37 .14 .53 .19 29 0.28 0.77 0.45 0.61
Professional appearance 8 967 .36 .03 .48 .04 90 0.43 0.52 0.45 0.51
Physical attractiveness 17 2,054 .37 .18 .54 .25 23 0.22 0.86 0.41 0.67
Moderators of effects of appearance on interview scores
Interview structure
Low 6 872 .51 .16 .88 .26 14 0.01 1.00 0.64 1.00
Medium 7 711 .39 .00 .52 .00 100 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
High 6 579 .15 .00 .18 .00 100 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
Rating source
Independent source 15 1,522 .25 .08 .33 .11 59 0.19 0.46 0.27 0.39
Field data 3 165 .18 .00 .34 .00 100 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
Experimental data 11 1,214 .24 .09 .32 .11 54 0.18 0.47 0.25 0.39
Same source 12 1,954 .47 .08 .68 .09 64 0.56 0.80 0.61 0.75
Field data 10 1,543 .44 .08 .65 .09 60 0.53 0.76 0.57 0.73
Experimental data
Note.k⫽number of correlations; n⫽number of subjects; obs-r ⫽observed sample-weighted mean correlation; SDr ⫽observed sample-weighted mean
standard deviation; r
c
⫽sample-weighted mean correlation corrected for criterion unreliability; SDr
c
⫽sample-weighted mean standard deviation corrected
for criterion unreliability; % var ⫽percent variance explained by artifacts; CV ⫽credibility value; CI ⫽confidence interval.
Table 2
Effects of Impression Management on Interview Ratings
Analysis kn
Mean correlations
% var
80% CV 95% CI
obs-r SDr r
c
SDr
c
Lower Upper Lower Upper
On interviewer ratings
Overall 37 4,542 .34 .19 .47 .25 19 0.15 0.79 0.38 0.56
Impression management 22 3,035 .38 .20 .55 .28 16 0.19 0.90 0.43 0.67
Self-promotion 18 1,945 .24 .13 .32 .18 33 0.09 0.54 0.32 0.32
Other enhancement 15 1,497 .20 .17 .26 .21 26 ⫺0.01 0.54 0.14 0.38
Moderators of effects of impression management on interview scores
Interview structure
Low 7 856 .27 .00 .46 .00 100 0.46 0.46 0.46 1.00
Medium 8 971 .26 .08 .34 .10 55 0.21 0.47 0.26 0.42
High 7 753 .17 .07 .21 .09 63 0.09 0.32 0.14 0.28
Rating source
Different source 28 3,066 .22 .08 .31 .10 64 0.19 0.44 0.27 0.35
Field data 7 778 .26 .12 .36 .15 41 0.17 0.55 0.23 0.49
Experimental data 21 2,288 .21 .05 .30 .06 83 0.22 0.38 0.27 0.33
Same source 9 1,476 .58 .10 .80 .14 20 0.61 0.97 0.70 0.90
Field data 6 1,089 .57 .11 .78 .15 18 0.60 0.97 0.65 0.91
Experimental data 3 387 .60 .09 .82 .13 27 0.65 0.98 0.65 0.99
Note.k⫽number of correlations; n⫽number of subjects; obs-r ⫽observed sample-weighted mean correlation; SDr ⫽observed sample-weighted mean
standard deviation; r
c
⫽sample-weighted mean correlation corrected for criterion unreliability; SDr
c
⫽sample-weighted mean standard deviation corrected
for criterion unreliability; % var ⫽percent variance explained by artifacts; CV ⫽credibility value; CI ⫽confidence interval.
1403
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS IN THE INTERVIEW
that candidates’ use of self-presentation tactics has a meaningful
influence on interviewer ratings and that this influence is stronger
when the interview is unstructured than when it is structured.
Additionally, when the relationships are examined solely from the
perspective of the interviewer—that is, when both the self-
presentation tactics and the interview scores are rated by a single
individual—we find even stronger relationships. Although we
acknowledge that common method bias is at work in such esti-
mates, we point out that, in practice, interviews often are con-
ducted by a single interviewer. Thus, interviewer reactions to
self-presentation tactics may be the most useful indicator of their
impact on subsequent ratings of candidate performance during the
interview. In the case of job interviews, beauty may indeed be in
the eye of the beholder.
That said, the results obtained from those studies with no com-
mon method bias (those in which different people provide ratings
or the self-presentation tactics are experimentally manipulated)
offer a conservative estimate of the relationship between self-
presentation and interview ratings. Although fewer studies are
included in these analyses, the results supply an estimate of the
effects of self-presentation tactics without any undue influence that
may come from an interviewer’s more general impression of a
candidate. It is worth noting that in the absence of common method
bias, our results still demonstrate a moderately strong relationship
between the self-presentation tactics and interview ratings.
Our findings also reveal that self-presentation tactics have stron-
ger relationships with interview ratings than they do with job
performance ratings. This seems to be especially the case when the
interview is relatively unstructured. In such circumstances, self-
presentation tactics may have a superfluous influence on unstruc-
tured interview ratings. When studies with common method bias
are excluded from the analyses, self-presentation tactics still have
a significantly greater impact on both unstructured and structured
interview ratings than they do on job performance. It is interesting
to note that, in these analyses, the magnitude of the relationship
between self-presentation tactics and interview ratings is similar to
that between decidedly valid constructs (e.g., general mental abil-
ity, conscientiousness, job experience) and structured interview
Table 3
Effects of Verbal and Nonverbal Behaviors on Interview Ratings
Analysis kn
Mean correlations
% var
80% CV 95% CI
obs-r SDr r
c
SDr
c
Lower Upper Lower Upper
On interviewer ratings
Overall 26 3,458 .30 .15 .40 .19 25 0.15 0.64 0.32 0.48
Verbal 7 1,185 .26 .14 .34 .18 21 0.11 0.57 0.19 0.49
Nonverbal 20 2,499 .29 .11 .40 .14 40 0.21 0.58 0.33 0.47
Moderators of verbal and nonverbal behaviors on interview scores
Interview structure
Low 3 301 .40 .04 .69 .00 100 0.61 0.76 0.59 0.79
Medium 9 949 .35 .14 .47 .18 27 0.23 0.71 0.34 0.60
High 9 1,238 .30 .15 .37 .19 21 0.13 0.61 0.24 0.50
Rating source
Different source 23 2,698 .30 .17 .39 .22 23 0.12 0.67 0.30 0.48
Field data 6 655 .23 .05 .32 .06 82 0.24 0.40 0.26 0.38
Experimental data 17 2,043 .32 .19 .41 .24 18 0.11 0.72 0.29 0.53
Same source 3 760 .30 .00 .41 .00 100 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
Field data 3 760 .30 .00 .41 .00 100 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
Experimental data
Note.k⫽number of correlations; n⫽number of subjects; obs-r ⫽observed sample-weighted mean correlation; SDr ⫽observed sample-weighted mean
standard deviation; r
c
⫽sample-weighted mean correlation corrected for criterion unreliability; SDr
c
⫽sample-weighted mean standard deviation corrected
for criterion unreliability; % var ⫽percent variance explained by artifacts; CV ⫽credibility value; CI ⫽confidence interval.
Table 4
Effects of Self-Presentation Tactics on Job Performance
Analysis kn
Mean correlations
% var
80% CV 95% CI
obs-r SDr r
c
SDr
c
Lower Upper obs-r SDr
Physical appearance 5 741 .10 .17 .14 .23 19 ⫺0.08 0.28 ⫺0.09 0.37
Impression management 19 2,851 .11 .17 .15 .23 18 ⫺0.14 0.45 0.04 0.26
Verbal and nonverbal
behaviors 7 580 .17 .00 .23 .00 100 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
Note.k⫽number of correlations; n⫽number of subjects; obs-r ⫽observed sample-weighted mean correlation; SDr ⫽observed sample-weighted mean
standard deviation; r
c
⫽sample-weighted mean correlation corrected for criterion unreliability; SDr
c
⫽sample-weighted mean standard deviation corrected
for criterion unreliability; % var ⫽percent variance explained by artifacts; CV ⫽credibility value; CI ⫽confidence interval.
1404 BARRICK, SHAFFER, AND DEGRASSI
scores (see Salgado & Moscoso, 2002). This comparison suggests
that self-presentation tactics, which were only modestly correlated
to job performance, may impact interviewer ratings just as much as
or even more than do clearly valid predictors of later job perfor-
mance.
Our findings do not mean that self-presentation tactics are
insignificant on the job. In fact, we believe that self-presentation
tactics may improve employee performance. The employee–
employer relationship is another essential interpersonal relation-
ship suffused with communication and information exchange (i.e.,
social influence) demands. Thus, according to interdependence
theory, the employee is often heavily reliant on and vulnerable to
the manager for important factors (e.g., pay, promotion, reloca-
tion), and the applicant is heavily reliant on the interviewer in a
similar fashion. Additionally, the employee and employer may
have conflicting interests (just as in the interview). In performance
ratings, the employee probably wants to receive the highest rating,
and the employer is interested in gaining the most accurate infor-
mation with which to rank several employees. As in an interview,
the employee will want to increase rewards and decrease punish-
ments on the job, so self-presentation tactics may play a role in
subjectively rated performance ratings. In addition, there is an
element of asymmetric information in the interview and the per-
formance ratings. Savvy employees (like savvy interviewees) will
try to frame their performance in such a way as to influence the
employer, making sure they convey they are a valuable employee
(i.e., pointing out money they saved the company or how they
contributed to a team project). Finally, as noted earlier, candidate
traits may serve as antecedents to some of the self-presentation
tactics, and this suggests they are relatively stable across situations
(i.e., during the interview and on the job). For example, although
appropriate verbal and nonverbal behaviors can be trained, some
individuals who are high in emotional stability (a stable personal-
ity trait) may be less likely to shift in their seat, fidget, or act
nervous during the interview as well as while on the job. This
traitlike component of verbal and nonverbal behavior offers addi-
tional explanation for the consistency across the interview and job
performance; if the candidate used these tactics successfully in the
interview, he or she is more likely to continue to use them
effectively in the employment setting.
The interview and performance evaluation have many similar-
ities, but they also have several noteworthy differences that could
help explain why self-presentation tactics have more influence in
the interview than in the performance rating. Two major differ-
ences between the initial interview and job performance ratings are
time and access to information. In the interview, time is short and
the hiring decision must be made on the basis of a limited amount
of information. Unlike the interviewer, the supervisor is not de-
pendent on the employee for all performance information because
performance ratings are generally made over a longer period of
time, with more opportunities for observation. First impressions
can be wrong, and such errors are usually discovered over time and
through experiences with the employee. The quality of the infor-
mation depends, in part, on the amount of information exchange
characteristic of the employee– employer relationship. For exam-
ple, how many opportunities does the employer have to observe
the employee’s performance? Unfortunately, we do not have the
data to test many of these assertions, and thus, this topic presents
an area for future research.
Several findings from this study have important implications for
future research. First, one moderator that we examined was re-
search design. Two recent large-scale qualitative reviews of the
interview (Jelf, 1999; Posthuma et al., 2002) questioned whether
researchers can draw reasonable conclusions about “high-stakes”
job interviews from studies conducted in mock interviews or
laboratory studies. In the interviewing literature, there is a widely
held assumption that experimental settings are likely to be “unin-
formative,” as results will not generalize to actual employment
interviews (Gorman et al., 1978). However, no meta-analytic ev-
idence has previously existed to support or refute such a claim. In
all three of our analyses, when self-presentation tactics were as-
sessed from different sources, the relationships between candidate
self-presentation tactics and interviewer ratings were comparable
whether the interviewers made real selection decisions or the
interviewer had no accountability. These results suggest that high-
fidelity mock interviews may in fact be a useful method for
learning about the nature of the effect that self-presentation tactics
have on the interviewer. Again, this implication is the exact
opposite of findings by those who have criticized the use of mock
interviews or experimental studies (Jelf, 1999; Posthuma et al.,
2002). At the same time, we must caution readers that the results
obtained in this study apply only to self-presentation tactics. If our
findings can be replicated in other interview domains, then perhaps
mock interviews can be used to pave the way for studies of areas
of interviewing that have been historically difficult to explore,
such as the effects of interviewer personality on interview out-
comes.
Second, we found that physical appearance had a larger effect
on interviewer ratings than did impression management or verbal
and nonverbal behavior. This finding raises the intriguing possi-
bility that self-presentation tactics may affect interviewer decisions
through quick, intuitive, and unreflective processes (Kruglanski &
Orehek, 2007). Although we do not have direct evidence that
interview decisions were made quickly in the studies included in
our analyses, experimental work in social psychology raises the
possibility that individuals use facial appearance as a basis for
interpersonal judgments after as little as 100 ms of exposure
(Willis & Todorov, 2006). For decades, it has been suggested that
the primacy effect—the tendency to give undue consideration to
the earliest known information in a decision-making situation—
strongly influences individuals’ judgments of other people (Asch,
1946). Thus, it may be that physical appearance has an impact on
interview ratings because it is one of the first pieces of “informa-
tion” that the interviewer receives about a job candidate and that
information gained later in the interview is unable to help inter-
viewers overcome the biases generated by primacy effects. An
important goal of research is to determine the extent to which
primacy affects impact interview outcomes. If interviewers are
highly influenced by information that is received early in the
interview, then, from the perspective of the job candidate, a good
first impression may be the key to success in the interview.
This study also has several implications for practitioners. First
and foremost, interviewers should continue to use structured in-
terviews whenever possible. Although this advice is not new, both
job candidates and interviewers still may prefer unstructured in-
terviews for a variety of reasons (Kohn & Dipboye, 1998; Post-
huma et al., 2002; Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). As a result, unstruc-
tured interviews are still used in practice, and even though the vast
1405
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS IN THE INTERVIEW
majority of hiring managers are aware of the evidence that has
been amassed in favor of structured interviews (Rynes, Colbert, &
Brown, 2002), many managers still doubt their usefulness (Terp-
stra & Rozel, 1997). Second, when conducting interview training,
organizations should make interviewers aware of the influence of
self-presentation tactics on interview ratings. Interview training
should include explanations of self-presentation tactics so that
interviewers can more consciously manage the process of inter-
view evaluations. Third, hiring managers should reevaluate alter-
native interviewing methods, as these methods may reduce the
effects of self-presentation tactics on interview outcomes. For
example, structured interviews conducted by phone will reduce the
impact of physical attractiveness on interview scores and simulta-
neously reduce the monetary expenses associated with physically
interviewing job candidates (Schmidt & Rader, 1999).
Of course, our study is not without limitations. First, several of
the meta-analyses that we conducted were based on a small num-
ber of primary studies. This limitation is most relevant to the
relationship between the three self-presentation tactics and job
performance and the comparisons between field and experimental
studies. As such, conclusions drawn from these results should be
interpreted with caution until more primary studies are available
with which to determine whether our results will hold across a
greater number of studies.
Second, a reviewer suggested that we bring attention to the fact
that the credibility intervals were quite wide in the main analyses
(Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3), as this indicates that there is a somewhat
wide distribution of parameter values across studies. In addition,
the percent variance explained by study artifacts is small for these
analyses. Taken together, these facts may limit the generalizability
of our main findings. However, at the same time, they highlight the
importance of our moderator analyses (Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6) to
any interpretation of our findings. Nevertheless, it is possible that
there are other moderators of the relationship between self-
presentation tactics and interview ratings that we failed to identify.
Although there are several exploratory methods for detecting mod-
erators in meta-analysis (e.g., Qtest), as recommended by Hunter
and Schmidt (2004) we have examined only those moderators for
which a priori hypotheses based on theory could be advanced.
Indeed, Hunter and Schmidt (2004) stated that this approach “is
much more effective in identifying moderators than operating
without a priori moderator hypotheses and attempting to assess the
presence of moderators by testing for heterogeneity in observed d
or rvalues” (p. 402). Thus, though it might be argued that a
limitation of our analysis is that we conducted no tests designed to
detect moderators, we believe that a moderator search based on
theoretical considerations is most appropriate.
This brings us to the final limitation of our paper: There was an
insufficient number of studies available with which to examine
moderators that are likely to be important in the context of this
study, most notably the moderating role of the interpersonal de-
mands of the job. We expect that in jobs where interpersonal skill
is highly related to performance, the self-presentation tactics we
studied would be likely to convey information that indicates how
skilled the candidate is socially and interpersonally. Therefore, the
skill required to project an effective image in the interview could
be associated with success in other socially demanding settings
(e.g., dealing with a walk-in customer). We attempted to evaluate
the interpersonal demands of the job as a potential moderator of
the relationship between these tactics and interviewer ratings.
However, meaningful examination of the level of interpersonal
demands inherent in the job itself as a moderator was limited by
the fact that enough studies were available for just one of the three
tactics (impression management). We found that for jobs with low
social demands, the correlation between impression management
and interviewer ratings was .28 (k⫽7, n⫽997); for jobs with
high interpersonal demands the correlation was .65 (k⫽9, n⫽
1,095). These results give some indication that the interpersonal
demands of jobs may moderate the influence of self-presentation
tactics on interview ratings, but our results are preliminary and
should be interpreted with caution, at least until additional studies
regarding the other tactics and jobs low in social demands become
available. Consequently, future research should assess when the
predictive validity of these tactics is enhanced.
Also absent from this study is information regarding other
variables that have been found to be critical in prior interview
research (i.e., fit and perceived liking), as well as information
about which job-related constructs were assessed in the interview
(e.g., the candidate’s basic personality tendencies, mental ability,
or interpersonal skills; Huffcutt et al., 2001), as few studies re-
ported such data. Researchers should strive to identify additional
stimuli to which interviewers are attuned and why these stimuli
affect interviewers’ decisions. Future research must also examine
the degree of bias that self-presentation tactics introduce when
interviewers rate specific constructs. Do attractive, ingratiating
candidates with high nonverbal skills receive higher ratings on job
knowledge? On interpersonal skills? If the effects of self-
presentation tactics on interview ratings are strong, we should
examine their effects on specific interview dimensions, particu-
larly during the structured interview.
At its core, the interview is a social exchange between the
interviewer and candidate. Social influence theory and interdepen-
dence theory predict that as long as the interview remains an
avenue of social exchange, the candidate’s use of appearance,
impression management, and verbal and nonverbal behavior will
have a disproportionate impact on interview scores. Thus, to fully
understand the information that influences interviewer decisions,
we must consider the role these self-presentation tactics have
during the interview. Though the need to study the effect of
self-presentation tactics on interview decisions has been men-
tioned before (Dipboye, 1982; Herriot, 1984; Schein, 1970), cur-
rent research on the employment interview has focused instead on
questions concerning how to structure information (Campion et al.,
1997; Chapman & Zweig, 2005) or what constructs or stable
characteristics are being assessed (Huffcutt et al., 2001). Thus, we
have learned much about how and what we should measure but
little about the stimulus information to which interviewers actually
respond.
Our intent is not to suggest that research that has focused mainly
on the psychometric approach has not improved the predictive
validity of the interview. As our results suggest, unstructured
interview scores may be so saturated by the effects of self-
presentation tactics as to lower their predictive validity. Although
structured interview scores were still subject to attempts by can-
didates to manage their portrayal, the scores became significantly
less so as structure increased. Further, the magnitude of the influ-
ence these tactics have on the interview corresponds more closely
to that found for job performance. Thus, our results add to an
1406 BARRICK, SHAFFER, AND DEGRASSI
impressive body of empirical evidence that supports the need to
structure or standardize the interview in order to improve inter-
viewer decisions (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1994; Huffcutt, Roth, &
McDaniel, 1996; McDaniel et al., 1994; Posthuma et al., 2002).
However, we wish to emphasize the need to integrate the psycho-
metric and social influence research streams. Results from this
study clearly show that the psychometric approach, social influ-
ence theory, and interdependence theory all play important roles in
affecting interviewer decisions.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Ahearne, M., Gruen, T. W., & Jarvis, C. B. (1999). If looks could sell:
Moderation and mediation of the attractiveness effect on salesperson
performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16, 269 –
284.
*Amalfitano, J. G., & Kalt, N. C. (1977). Effects of eye contact on the
evaluation of job applicants. Journal of Employment Counseling, 14,
46 – 48.
Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the
psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality. Current Directions in Psy-
chological Science, 8, 3–9.
Anderson, N. R. (1992). Eight decades of employment interview research:
A retrospective meta-review and prospective commentary. European
Work and Organizational Psychologist, 2, 1–32.
*Anderson, N. R., & Shackleton, V. J. (1990). Decision making in the
graduate selection interview: A field study. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63, 63–76.
Arriaga, X. B., & Rusbult, C. E. (1998). Standing in my partner’s shoes:
Partner perspective taking and reactions to accommodative dilemmas.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 927–948.
Arvey, R. D., & Campion, J. E. (1982). The employment interview: A
summary review of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 35, 281–322.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology, 41, 258 –290.
Ashton, R. H. (1992). Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on
judgment performance. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 52, 292–306.
*Bande Vilela, B., & Varela Gonzalez, J. A. (2006). Impression manage-
ment tactics and affective context: Influence on sales performance
appraisal. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 624 – 639.
*Baron, R. A. (1986). Self-presentation in job interviews: When there can
be “too much of a good thing.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
16, 16 –28.
Baron, R. A. (1989). Impression management by applicants during em-
ployment interviews: The “too much of a good thing” effect. In R. W.
Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research
and practice (pp. 202–215). London: Sage.
*Baron, R. A., Markman, G. D., & Bollinger, M. (2006). Exporting social
psychology: Effects of attractiveness on perceptions of entrepreneurs,
their ideas for new products, and their financial success. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 36, 467– 492.
*Barrick, M. R., Dustin, S. D., Parks, L. P., Stewart, G. L., Zimmerman,
R. L., & Darnold, T. C. (2006, May). Impression management and
faking in the employment interview. Paper presented at the 21st Annual
Conference of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology,
Dallas, TX.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). The FFM personality
dimensions and job performance: Meta-analysis of meta-analyses. In-
ternational Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9 –30.
*Baskett, G. D. (1973). Interview decisions as determined by competency
and attitude similarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 343–345.
*Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1982). Applicant attractiveness as a
perceived job-relevant variable in selection of management trainees.
Academy of Management Journal, 25, 607– 617.
*Berry, V. M. (1987). The relationships of physical attractiveness and
perceived masculinity to performance evaluation and occupational suc-
cess. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International Uni-
versity.
Bolles, R. N. (2008). What color is your parachute? 2009: A practical
manual for job-hunters and career-changers. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed
Press.
*Boor, M., Wartman, S. A., & Reuben, D. B. (1983). Relationship of
physical appearance and professional demeanor to interview evaluations
and rankings of medical residency applicants. Journal of Psychology,
113, 61– 65.
Bragger, J. D., Kutcher, E., Morgan, J., & Firth, P. (2002). The effects of
the structured interview on reducing biases against pregnant job appli-
cants. Sex Roles, 46, 215–227.
*Bretz, R. D., Rynes, S. L., & Gerhart, B. (1993). Recruiter perceptions of
applicant fit: Implications for individual career preparation and job
search behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 310 –327.
Brtek, M. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2002). Effects of procedure and out-
comes accountability on interview validity. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 87, 185–191.
*Burnett, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1998). Relations between different
sources of information in the structured selection interview. Personnel
Psychology, 51, 963–983.
*Buttner, E. H., & McEnally, M. (1996). The interactive effect of influence
tactic, applicant gender, and type of job on hiring recommendations. Sex
Roles, 34, 581–591.
*Cable, D. M., & Gilovich, T. (1998). Looked over or overlooked?
Prescreening decision and postinterview evaluations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 501–508.
*Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person–
organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 82, 546 –561.
Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of
structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50, 655–701.
Chapman, D. S., & Zweig, D. I. (2005). Developing a nomological network
for interview structure: Antecedents and consequences of the structured
selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 58, 673–702.
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms,
conformity and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
*Collins, M. A., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1995). The contributions of appear-
ance to occupational outcomes in civilian and military settings. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 129 –163.
Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. E. (1995). A meta-analysis of
interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 565–579.
*Dalessio, A. T., & Silverhart, T. A. (1994). Combining biodata test and
interview information: Predicting decisions and performance criteria.
Personnel Psychology, 47, 303–315.
*DeBell, C. S. (1991). The effect of applicant characteristics on employ-
ment screening interviews: A field study. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 52(08), 4503. (UMI No. 9202805)
*DeGroot, T., & Kluemper, D. (2007). Evidence of predictive and incre-
mental validity of personality factors, vocal attractiveness and the situ-
ational interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15,
30 –39.
*DeGroot, T., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Why visual and vocal interview
cues can affect interviewers’ judgments and predict job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 986 –993.
*Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance
1407
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS IN THE INTERVIEW
and ingratiation in leader–member exchanges. Group and Organization
Management, 19, 67– 86.
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 111, 203–243.
Dipboye, R. L. (1982). Self-fulfilling prophecies in the selection–
recruitment interview. Academy of Management Review, 7, 579 –586.
*Dipboye, R. L., Fontenelle, G. A., & Garner, K. (1984). Effects of
previewing the application on interview process and outcomes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 69, 118 –128.
*Dipboye, R. L., Stramler, C. S., & Fontenelle, G. A. (1984). The effects
of the application on recall on information from the employment inter-
view. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 561–575.
*Dipboye, R. L., & Wiley, J. W. (1978). Reactions of male raters to
interviewee self-presentation style and sex: Extensions of previous re-
search. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 192–203.
*Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Callender, J. C. (1994). Confirming
first impressions in the employment interview: A field study of inter-
viewer behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 659 – 665.
*Dulebohn, J. H., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). The role of influence tactics in
perceptions of performance evaluations’ fairness. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 37, 1379 –1391.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991).
What is beautiful is good, but . . . : A meta-analytic review of research
on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110,
109 –128.
Eder, R. W., & Ferris, G. R. (Eds.). (1989). The employment interview:
Theory, research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Ellis, A. 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.
*Eng, K. F. (1994). Nonverbal communication in the elementary teacher
candidate employment interview. Dissertation Abstracts International,
55(10), 4596. (UMI No. 9507939)
*Fearing, F., & Fearing, F. M. (1942). Factors in the appraisal interview
considered with particular reference to the selection of public personnel.
Journal of Psychology, 14, 131–153.
Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 111, 304 –341.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky,
R. W., & Treadway, D. C. (2002). Social influence processes in orga-
nizations and human resource systems. Research in Personnel and
Human Resource Management, 21, 65–127.
*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.
Fiske, A. P. (1993). The four elementary forms of socializing: Framework
for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689 –
723.
*Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2000). Relations with emotional intelligence,
practical intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with
interview outcomes: It’s not all just g. Journal of Organizational Be-
havior, 21, 203–220.
*Gifford, R., Ng, C. F., & Wilkinson, M. (1985). Nonverbal cues in the
employment interview: Links between applicant qualities and inter-
viewer judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 729 –736.
*Gilmore, D. C., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. G. (1986). Effects of applicant
sex, applicant physical attractiveness, type of rater and type of job on
interview decisions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 103–109.
*Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The effects of applicant impres-
sion 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. A. Harris (Eds.),
The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp.
321–336). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Goffman, E. (2006). The presentation of self. In D Brissett & C. Edgley
(Eds.), Life as theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 129 –
139). New York: de Gruyter.
*Goldberg, C., & Cohen, D. J. (2004). Walking the walk and talking the
talk: Gender differences in the impact of interviewing skills on applicant
assessments. Group and Organization Management, 29, 369 –384.
Gorman, C. D., Clover, W. H., & Doherty, M. E. (1978). Can we learn
anything about interviewing real people from “interviews” of paper
people? Two studies of the external validity of a paradigm. Organiza-
tional Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 22, 165–192.
Groschl, S. (2007). An exploration of HR policies and practices affecting
the integration of persons with disabilities in the hotel industry in major
Canadian tourism destinations. Hospitality Management, 26, 666 – 686.
Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The
impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 92, 278 –285.
Harris, M. M. (1989). Reconsidering the employment interview: A review
of recent literature and suggestions for future research. Personnel Psy-
chology, 42, 691–726.
*Hausdorf, P. A. (1999). Understanding the impact of pre-interview infor-
mation on the reliability, validity, accuracy and differential validity of
employment interview decisions: Comparisons across interview ques-
tion type, rating scale and scoring protocols. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59(07), 2603. (UMI No. NQ30091)
*Hays, E. J. (1990). Relationship of a situational interview to the job
performance of convenience store clerks (Master’s thesis, University of
North Texas, 1990). Masters Abstracts International, 29(02), 328. (UMI
No. 1341611)
Hazer, J. T., & Jacobson, J. R. (2003). Effects of screener self-monitoring
on the relationships among applicant positive self-presentation, objec-
tive credentials, and employability ratings. Journal of Management, 29,
119 –138.
*Heneman, H. G., III, Schwab, D. P., Huett, D. L., & Ford, J. J. (1975).
Interviewer validity as a function of interview structure, biographical
data, and interviewee order. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 748 –
753.
Herriot, P. (1984). Down from the ivory tower: Graduates and their jobs.
Chichester, England: Wiley.
*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.
Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and
work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
24, 89 –106.
*Hollandsworth, J. G., Jr., Kazelskis, R., Stevens, J., & Dressel, M. E.
(1979). Relative contributions of verbal, articulative, and nonverbal
communication to employment decisions in the job interview setting.
Personnel Psychology, 32, 359 –367.
Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of
physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of
experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56, 431– 462.
*Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. (1996). The employment interview context:
Social and situational influences on interviewer decisions. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 26, 112–136.
Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited:
Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79, 184 –191.
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001).
Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs
measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
897–913.
Huffcutt, A. I., Roth, P. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996). A meta-analytic
1408 BARRICK, SHAFFER, AND DEGRASSI
investigation of cognitive ability in employment interview evaluations:
Moderating characteristics and implications for incremental validity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 459 – 473.
Huffcutt, A. I., & Woehr, D. J. (1999). Further analysis of employment
interview validity: A quantitative evaluation of interviewer-related struc-
turing methods. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 549 –560.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative
predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-
recting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Jelf, G. S. (1999). A narrative review of post-1989 employment interview
research. Journal of Business & Psychology, 14, 25–58.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. London:
Praeger.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality
and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 765–780.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational
culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359 –
394.
*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
effectiveness of applicant impression management tactics on employ-
ment interview decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22,
1250 –1272.
*Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, S. J., & Ratcliff, S. H. (1994). An examination of
automatic versus controlled information processing in the employment
interview: The case of minority applicants. Sex Roles, 30, 809 – 828.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1990). Prospect theory: An analysis of
decision under risk. In Moser, P. K. (Ed.), Rationality in action: Con-
temporary approaches (pp. 140 –170). New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Keenan, A. (1978). Selection interview performance and intolerance of
ambiguity. Psychological Reports, 42, 353–354.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations. New York:
Viking.
Kenny, D. A., & Albright, L. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception:
A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 390 – 402.
*Kinicki, A. J., & Lockwood, C. A. (1985). The interview process: An
examination of factors interviewers use in evaluating job applicants.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 117–125.
*Kinicki, A. J., Lockwood, C. A., Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1990).
Interviewer predictions of applicant qualifications and interviewer va-
lidity: Aggregate and individual analyses. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 75, 477– 486.
Kohn, L. S., & Dipboye, R. L. (1998). The effects of interview structure on
recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 821–
843.
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.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Orehek, E. (2007). Partitioning the domain of social
inference: Dual mode and systems models and their alternatives. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 291–316.
Kutcher, E. J., & Bragger, J. D. (2004). Selection interviews of overweight
job applicants: Can structure reduce the bias? Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34, 1993–2022.
*LaCrosse, M. B. (1975). Nonverbal behavior and perceived counselor
attractiveness and persuasiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
22, 563–566.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer
agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159 –174.
*Latham, G. P., & Sue-Chan, C. (1999). A meta-analysis of the situational
interview: An enumerative review of reasons for its validity. Canadian
Psychology, 40, 56 – 67.
*Lefebvre, L. M. (1975). Encoding and decoding of ingratiation in modes
of smiling and gaze. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
14, 33– 42.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of
accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275.
Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in the employ-
ment interview: Development and validation of an interview faking
behavior scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1638 –1656.
Levy, D. A., Collins, B. E., & Nail, P. R. (1998). A new model of
interpersonal influence characteristics. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 13, 715–733.
*Macan, T. H., & Dipboye, R. L. (1990). The relationship of interviewers’
preinterview impressions to selection and recruitment outcomes. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 43, 745–768.
*Mack, D., & Rainey, D. (1990). Female applicants’ grooming and per-
sonnel selection. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 399 –
407.
*Mazur, A., Amzur, J., & Keating, C. (1984). Military rank attainment of
a West Point class: Effects of cadets’ physical features. American
Journal of Sociology, 90, 125–150.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model
of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. (1994). The
validity employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599 – 616.
*McDonald, T., & Hakel, M. D. (1985). Effects of applicant race, sex,
suitability, and answers on interviewers’ questioning strategy and rat-
ings. Personnel Psychology, 38, 321–334.
*McFarland, L. A., Ryan, A. M., & Kriska, S. D. (2002). Field study
investigation of applicant use of influence tactics in a selection inter-
view. Journal of Psychology, 136, 383–398.
McFarland, L. A., Ryan, A. M., & Kriska, S. D. (2003). Impression
management use and effectiveness across assessment methods. Journal
of Management, 29, 641– 662.
*McGovern, T. V., Jones, B. W., Warwick, C. L., & Jackson, R. W.
(1981). A comparison of job interviewee behavior on four channels of
communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 369 –372.
McShane, T. D. (1993). Effects of nonverbal cues and verbal first impres-
sions in unstructured and situational interview settings. Applied HRM
Research, 4, 137–150.
Mero, N. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1995). Effects of rater accountability on
the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 517–524.
*Morath, R. A. (1999). Leader abilities and attributes: Their influence on
ratings of assessment center and job performance. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, George Mason University.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Burnett, J. R. (1995). Aural and visual sources of
validity in structured employment interviews. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 61, 239 –249.
Neu, J., & Graham, J. L. (1994). The new methodological approach to the
study of interpersonal influence tactics: A test drive of a behavioral
scheme. Journal of Business Research, 29, 131–144.
Nickson, D., Warhurst, C., & Dutton, E. (2005). The importance of attitude
and appearance in the service encounter in retail and hospitality. Man-
aging Service Quality, 15, 195–208.
Nighswonger, N. J., & Martin, C. R., Jr. (1981). On using voice analysis in
marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 350 –355.
*Pandey, J., & Kakkar, S. (1982). Supervisors’ affect: Attraction and
1409
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS IN THE INTERVIEW
positive evaluation as a function of enhancement of others. Psycholog-
ical Reports, 50, 479 – 486.
*Paunonen, S. V., Jackson, D. N., & Oberman, S. M. (1987). Personnel
selection decisions: Effects of applicant personality and the letter of
reference. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 40,
96 –114.
*Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2006). Verbal and nonverbal impression
management tactics in behavior description and situational interviews.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 206 –222.
*Pellegrini, R. J., Hicks, R. A., & Gordon, L. (1970). The effect of an
approval-seeking induction on eye-contact in dyads. British Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 373–374.
*Pingitore, R., Dugoni, B. L., Tindale, R. S., & Spring, B. (1994). Bias
against overweight job applicants in a simulated employment interview.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 909 –917.
Posthuma, R. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2002). Beyond
employment interview validity: A comprehensive narrative review of
recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychology, 55, 1– 81.
*Ralston, S. M. (1989). An exploratory test of the contingency approach to
recruitment interview decisions. Journal of Business Communications,
26, 347–362.
*Ramsay, S., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (1997). Social rules and attribu-
tions in the personnel selection interview. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 70, 189 –203.
*Rao, A., Schmidt, S. M., & Murray, L. H. (1995). Upward impression
management: Goals, influence strategies, and consequences. Human
Relations, 48, 147–167.
*Rasmussen, K. G., Jr. (1984). Nonverbal behavior, verbal behavior,
resume credentials, and selection interview outcomes. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 69, 551–556.
*Riggio, R. E., & Throckmorton, B. (1988). The relative effects of verbal
and nonverbal behavior, appearance, and social skills in evaluations
made in hiring interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18,
331–348.
*Rosen, S., Cochran, W., & Musser, L. M. (1990). Reactions to a match
versus mismatch between an applicant’s self-presentational style and
work reputation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 117–129.
*Rosenfeld, H. M. (1966). Approval-seeking and approval-inducing func-
tions of verbal and nonverbal responses in the dyad. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 4, 597– 605.
Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression
management in organizations: Theory, measurement, and practice. New
York: Routledge.
Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interac-
tion, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375.
Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection
procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future.
Journal of Management, 26, 565– 606.
*Ryan, A. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1989). Exploratory study of individual
assessment practices: Interrater reliability and judgments of assessor
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 568 –579.
Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’
beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence be-
tween research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41, 149 –
174.
Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2002). Comprehensive meta-analysis of the
construct validity of the employment interview. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 299 –324.
Schein, E. H. (1970). Organizational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative
knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psy-
chological Methods, 1, 115–129.
Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for the Hunter–Schmidt meta-
analysis methods [Computer software]. Iowa City: University of Iowa,
Department of Management & Organizations.
Schmidt, F. L., & Rader, M. (1999). Exploring the boundary conditions for
interview validity: Meta-analytic validity findings for a new interview
type. Personnel Psychology, 52, 445– 464.
Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of interview deci-
sions: Implications for the employment interview. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 29, 79 –101.
*Seijts, G. H., & Jackson, S. E. (2001). Reactions to employment equity
programs and situational interviews: A laboratory study. Human Per-
formance, 14, 247–265.
*Short, J. R. (1971). An analysis of the criteria used in hiring teachers in
relationship to a follow-up indicator of teacher success. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 32(09), 4905. (UMI No. 7208469)
*Silvester, J., Anderson-Gough, F. M., Anderson, N. R., & Mohamed,
A. R. (2002). Locus of control, attributions and impression management
in the selection interview. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 75, 59 –76.
*Slaughter, J. E., Bagger, J., & Li, A. (2006). Context effects on group-
based employee selection decisions. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 100, 47–59.
Stevens, C. K. (1998). Antecendents of interview interactions, interview-
ers’ ratings, and applicants reactions. Personnel Psychology, 51, 55– 85.
*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.
Stewart, G. L., Dustin, S. L., Barrick, M. R., & Darnold, T. C. (2008).
Exploring the handshake in employment interviews. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 1139 –1149.
Tedeschi, J., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence
in organizations. In S. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the
sociology of organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 31–58). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Terpstra, D. E., & Rozel, E. J. (1997). Why some potentially effective
staffing practices are seldom used. Public Personnel Management, 26,
483– 495.
*Thacker, R. A. (1999). Perceptions of trust, upward influence tactics, and
performance ratings. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 1059 –1070.
*Tsai, W., Chen, C., & Chiu, S. (2005). Exploring boundaries of the effects
of applicant impression management tactics in job interviews. Journal of
Management, 31, 108 –125.
*van der Zee, K. I., Bakker, A. B., & Bakker, P. (2002). Why are structured
interviews so rarely used in personnel selection? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 176 –184.
Van Iddekinge, C. H., McFarland, L. A., & Raymark, P. A. (2007).
Antecedents of impression management use and effectiveness in a
structured interview. Journal of Management, 33, 752–773.
Van Lange, P. A. M. (2000). Beyond self-interest: A set of propositions
relevant to interpersonal orientations. European Review of Social Psy-
chology, 11, 297–330.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis
of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 81, 557–574.
*Watt, J. D. (1993). The impact of the frequency of ingratiation on the
performance evaluation of bank personnel. Journal of Psychology, 127,
171–177.
*Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and
exchange quality in supervisor–subordinate relations: A laboratory study
and a field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487– 499.
Wayne, S. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (1991). The effects of impression man-
agement on the performance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 48, 70 – 89.
*Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management
on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 232–260.
1410 BARRICK, SHAFFER, AND DEGRASSI
*Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role
of upward influence tactics in human resources decisions. Personnel
Psychology, 501, 979 –1006.
Weiss, B., & Feldman, R. S. (2006). Looking good and lying to do it:
Deception as an impression management strategy in job interviews.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1070 –1086.
Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after
a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–598.
*Wright, G. E., & Multon, K. D. (1995). Employer’s perceptions of
nonverbal communication in job interviews for persons with physical
disabilities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 214 –227.
*Yates, V. L. (1991). An investigation of career performance/progression:
The impact of impression management. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Texas A&M University.
*Yonge, K. A. (1956). The value of the interview: An orientation and a
pilot study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40, 25–31.
*Young, D. M., & Beier, E. G. (1977). The role of applicant nonverbal
communication in the employment interview. Journal of Employment
Counseling, 14, 154 –165.
*Young, D. M., Beier, E. G., & Beier, S. (1979). Beyond words: Influence
of nonverbal behavior of female job applicants in the employment
interview. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 57, 346 –350.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.
Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39,
117–123.
Zivnuska, S., Kacmar, K. M., Witt, L. A., Carlson, D. S., & Bratton, V. K.
(2004). Interactive effects of impression management and organizational
politics on job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
627– 640.
Received October 3, 2008
Revision received May 8, 2009
Accepted May 13, 2009 䡲
Members of Underrepresented Groups:
Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and
Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the
publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C
Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate
more in this process.
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at Reviewers@apa.org.
Please note the following important points:
• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The
experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective
review.
• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most
central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently
published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission
within the context of existing research.
• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.
Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you
are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,
“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude
change” as well.
• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1–4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to
review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript
thoroughly.
1411
SELF-PRESENTATION TACTICS IN THE INTERVIEW
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Applied Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
