AN EXAMINATION OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT USE AND EFFECTIVENESS ACROSS ASSESSMENT CENTER EXERCISES: THE ROLE OF COMPETENCY DEMANDS

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY2005, 58, 949–980

AN EXAMINATION OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENTUSE AND EFFECTIVENESS ACROSS ASSESSMENTCENTER EXERCISES: THE ROLEOF COMPETENCY DEMANDS

LYNN A. MCFARLANDDepartment of Psychology

Clemson University

GUNNA (JANET) YUNDepartment of PsychologyGeorge Mason University

CRYSTAL M. HAROLDDepartment of Psychology

Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis

LUCIANO VIERA, JR.Department of PsychologyGeorge Mason University

LORIE G. MOOREHuman Resources Department

Arlington County, VA

We report 2 studies that examine how promotional candidates use verbaland nonverbal impression management (IM) tactics across several struc-tured assessment center exercises that differ in the competency demandsthey place on candidates. Based on the competency-demand hypothesis(Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1993a, 1993b), it was predicted that IM usewould occur most frequently and have the strongest effects on assessorevaluations in exercises that place greater demands on candidates’ in-terpersonal skills than in exercises that depend primarily on technicalskills. In both studies, IM tactics were generally used more frequentlyand there was more variability in IM use for those exercises requiringcandidates to display interpersonal competencies (i.e., the role-plays andmock presentation) relative to the exercise that did not (i.e., the tacticalexercise). The relationship between IM use and assessor evaluations wasalso influenced by the competencies assessed by the exercises, and IMuse related to both interpersonal and noninterpersonal ratings of perfor-mance.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Lynn A. McFarland,Brackett Hall, Department of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 29634;[email protected].

Tim Judge served as guest editor for this article.

COPYRIGHT C© 2005 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC.

949

950 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Considerable theory (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997; Ferris & Judge,1991) and research (Kacmar & Carlson, 1999; Rynes & Gerhart, 1990;Von Baeyer, Sherk, & Zanna, 1981) suggest that impression management(IM) use and effectiveness may vary across situations. Research on as-sessment methods has similarly found that IM use and effectiveness canbe influenced by the structure or format of the selection procedure. Forinstance, structured or background interviews may result in less IM usethan unstructured or situational interviews (Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon,2002; McFarland, Ryan, & Kriska, 2003; Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Al-though important, past research has not considered the knowledge, skills,abilities (KSAs), or competencies the assessment method was designed toassess.

This is an important oversight because assessment exercises can be de-signed to assess many different types of KSAs (Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998).For instance, two assessment exercises may be equally structured and havesimilar formats (e.g., be situational in nature), but one exercise may assessinterpersonal skills and the other may assess technical knowledge. Wouldone expect to see similar amounts of IM in these two exercises? Probablynot. Thus, failing to examine how the competency demands of assessmentexercises influence IM use and effectiveness can limit our understandingof candidates’ use of IM tactics and the consequences of their use.

This article describes two field studies conducted to understand howthe competency demands of assessment center exercises influence IM useand effectiveness. In Study 1, we examine candidate verbal IM use andeffectiveness in two assessment exercises. In Study 2, we examine candi-date verbal and nonverbal IM use and effectiveness across four assessmentexercises. Although all six exercises, across the two studies, are structuredand similar in format (i.e., all are situational or future-oriented), they varyin terms of the competency demands placed on candidates. As will be de-scribed in more detail below, we expect IM use and effectiveness to varydepending on the competency demands of each exercise.

These studies contribute to IM theory and practice in at least threeimportant ways. First, these are the first studies to examine how the com-petency demands inherent in assessment center exercises influence IMuse and effectiveness. By examining this issue, this study will help assesssome boundary conditions of other IM research. That is, if IM use does nothave the same effects or consequences across assessment exercises thatvary in their competency demands, we need to be very careful in how weinterpret past research that has failed to consider the nature of the com-petencies assessed. Second, Study 2 examines the use of both verbal andnonverbal IM tactics, whereas most research has focused on the formerand no study has simultaneously examined candidates’ use of both verbaland nonverbal tactics in structured assessment methods. In doing so, thestudy will increase our understanding of how candidates use different IM

LYNN A. MCFARLAND ET AL. 951

tactics and the consequence of their combined use. Finally, the presentstudies examine IM use across structured assessment center exercises, butthe majority of past research has focused on IM use in interviews. Thus,these studies answer the call for research on other individual assessmentmethods (Jeanneret & Silzer, 1998).

We will first describe an IM framework that suggests IM use andeffectiveness is influenced by situations, noting how an understanding ofthe competency demands of situations fits within this framework and mayhave implications for the broader IM literature. Next, we describe the typesof IM tactics that are the focus of the two studies. Finally, we will reviewliterature and theory suggesting specifically how and why IM use mayvary across different types of assessment center methods.

IM and the Role of Competency Demands

Impression management is an individual’s attempt (conscious or un-conscious) to control the images that are projected in social interactions(Fletcher, 1989, 1990; Gilmore, Stevens, Harrell-Cook, & Ferris, 1999;Jones & Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 1980). Ferris and Judge (1991) pro-posed a framework for understanding how social influence processes,which include IM behavior, affect human resource decisions. This frame-work has become influential in describing IM use and consequences(Gilmore et al., 1999; Thacker & Wayne, 1995; Wayne & Liden, 1995).The framework suggests that IM tactics are used for a variety of reasonsand can vary according to the situation. Further, this framework impliesthat even within selection situations, different assessment exercises mayelicit different amounts of IM depending on the characteristics of the ex-ercises. However, their framework does not specifically address how IMuse may vary across specific features of situations. Therefore, we soughtto incorporate the competency-demand hypothesis within the Ferris andJudge framework.

The competency-demand hypothesis is based on Mischel’s (Mischel& Shoda, 1995, 1998; Wright & Mischel, 1987) recent work that hasexamined how behavior changes as a function of both one’s personalcharacteristics and characteristics of the situation. In particular, Mischeland colleagues propose the cognitive-affective personality system (CAPS)theory, of which the competency-demand hypothesis is an integral part.The competency-demand hypothesis suggests that situations vary in termsof the demands they place on various competencies (Shoda, Mischel, &Wright, 1989; 1993a, 1993b). This, in turn, results in a greater display ofbehavior that manifests individual differences in those competencies de-manded by the situation. For instance, in studies conducted by Shoda et al.(1993a) and Wright and Mischel (1987), the authors examined children’sbehavior across a variety of camp situations. They had experts code the


camp situations for the extent to which they elicited certain competencydemands relevant for aggression. In both studies they found that situationswith strong competency demands relevant for aggression resulted in amean increase in the display of aggressive behavior as compared to situ-ations with weak competency demands for aggression. Further, there wasalso more variability in aggressive behavior in those situations with highcompetency demands for aggression. In situations that had no competencydemands relevant for aggression, few people behaved aggressively and,therefore, variability in aggressiveness was small.

Although previous work has focused on aggression, Mischel and hiscolleagues have consistently suggested that situations may also demandother competencies (Shoda et al., 1993a). For example, a situation maydemand social or cognitive competencies, and such situations will elicitindividual differences relevant to those competencies (Wright & Mischel,1987).

In the same way that situations vary with regards to the competencydemands they place on individuals, so too might assessment exercises.Although some assessment methods are designed to assess social or inter-personal competencies, others are designed to assess cognitive competen-cies. Thus, as the competencies required to perform well in that exercisevary, so should candidate IM use and variability. For instance, exercisesrequiring interpersonal behaviors will likely result in the display of moreIM use and more variability in tactic use. The implication of this theory isthat in addition to exercise structure and format, it is important to considerhow the competencies the assessment exercise was designed to assess mayinfluence IM use and effectiveness.

Types of Impression Management Tactics

There are a number of ways individuals may verbally and nonverballymanage their impressions during assessments (Schneider, 1981). We didan extensive search of the literature to identify IM tactics that might beused by candidates in the present studies. In doing so, we identified severalIM tactics that are presented and defined in Table 1.

Verbal IM tactics. There are two major categories of verbal IM tactics.First, assertive IM tactics are those that actively portray a favorable im-age and are typically categorized as other-focused or self-focused tactics(Howard & Ferris, 1996; Kacmar, Delery, & Ferris, 1992). Other-focusedtactics are those directed at an individual (e.g., an assessor). When used,they may make the target feel good about him or herself or show thatone holds beliefs, feelings, and values similar to the target. We examinedtwo types of other-focused tactics in the present study. Self-focused tacticsare directed at oneself to make it appear that one has relevant skills andpossesses other positive qualities (Kacmar et al., 1992). There are nine


TAB

LE

1IM

Tact

icD

efini

tion

s

IMta

ctic

sD

efini

tion

Ver

balt

actic

sA

sser

tive

tact

ics

Att

empt

sto

acti

vely

cons

truc

tan

imag

eO

ther

-foc

used

Oth

er-e

nhan

cem

ent

The

prai

sing

ofan

othe

rpe

rson

.Bei

ngco

mpl

imen

tary

toth

ero

le-p

laye

rsor

the

orga

niza

tion

Opi

nion

conf

orm

ityE

xpre

ssio

nsof

belie

fs,v

alue

s,or

attit

udes

that

are

know

nor

that

coul

dre

ason

ably

assu

med

tobe

held

byth

eta

rget

,giv

enth

eta

rget

’spo

sitio

n,oc

cupa

tion,

stat

us,o

ror

gani

zatio

nala

ffilia

tion

Self

-foc

used

Self

-pro

mot

ion

Ver

bally

dem

onst

rate

sth

epo

sses

sion

ofde

sira

ble

qual

ities

,suc

has

com

pete

nce,

relia

bilit

y,co

nsci

entio

usne

ss,

and

soon

.E

ntitl

emen

tsC

laim

sof

resp

onsi

bilit

yfo

rpo

sitiv

eev

ents

(e.g

.,cl

aim

ing

resp

onsi

bilit

yfo

ra

succ

essf

ulou

tcom

e)E

nhan

cem

ents

Cla

ims

that

the

valu

eof

apo

sitiv

eev

entf

orw

hich

the

cand

idat

ew

asre

spon

sibl

ear

egr

eate

rth

anm

ostp

eopl

em

ight

thin

kO

verc

omin

gob

stac

les

Des

crip

tions

ofho

wth

eca

ndid

ate

circ

umve

nted

prob

lem

sor

barr

iers

impe

ding

prog

ress

tow

ard

ago

alB

aski

ngin

refle

cted

glor

yE

nhan

cing

one’

sim

age

bycl

aim

ing

asso

ciat

ion

with

pres

tige

figur

esor

pres

tigio

usin

stitu

tions

(e.g

.,cl

aim

ing

tobe

frie

nds

with

the

Chi

ef)

Goa

lset

ting

Setti

nga

clea

rgo

alfo

ron

esel

for

for

som

eone

else

.Thi

soc

curs

whe

nth

eca

ndid

ate

expl

ains

toth

eta

rget

wha

thi

s/he

rsp

ecifi

cpl

ans

are

inth

efu

ture

Pers

onal

stor

ies

Des

crip

tions

ofsp

ecifi

cpa

stev

ents

orac

tions

,suc

has

reco

untin

gth

ede

tails

ofon

e’s

wor

kex

peri

ence

sin

apa

rtic

ular

inst

ance

Intim

idat

ion

Seek

ing

toap

pear

thre

aten

ing

inan

atte

mpt

toha

veot

hers

view

him

/her

asda

nger

ous

Supp

licat

ion

Adv

ertis

ing

one’

ssh

ortc

omin

gsin

anat

tem

ptto

bevi

ewed

asne

edy,

and

elic

itsy

mpa

thy

from

othe

rs(e

.g.,

adm

ittin

gto

wea

knes

sin

anat

tem

ptto

evok

esy

mpa

thy)

Def

ensi

veta

ctic

sA

ttem

pts

tore

spon

dto

ape

rcei

ved,

pote

ntia

l,or

actu

alth

reat

toth

eca

ndid

ate’

sim

age

Exc

uses

Stat

emen

tsin

whi

chth

eca

ndid

ate

deni

esre

spon

sibi

lity

for

the

nega

tive

cons

eque

nces

ofan

actio

n


TAB

LE

1(c

ontin

ued)

IMta

ctic

sD

efini

tion

Just

ifica

tions

Stat

emen

tsin

whi

chth

eca

ndid

ate

acce

pts

resp

onsi

bilit

yfo

rth

eef

fect

sof

his

orhe

rbe

havi

orbu

tden

ied

the

nega

tive

impl

icat

ion

ofsu

chre

spon

sibi

lity

Apo

logi

esA

ccep

ting

resp

onsi

bilit

yfo

ra

nega

tive

outc

ome

orbe

havi

oral

ong

with

the

ackn

owle

dgm

entt

hatc

erta

inac

tions

wer

eun

acce

ptab

lean

dsh

ould

bepu

nish

edD

iscl

aim

ers

Atte

mpt

sto

rem

ove

ones

elf

from

poss

ible

nega

tive

resu

ltsth

atm

ayoc

cur

inth

efu

ture

Non

verb

alta

ctic

sSm

iling

The

num

ber

oftim

esth

eca

ndid

ate

smile

dH

and

mov

emen

tT

henu

mbe

rof

times

the

cand

idat

em

oved

one

orbo

thha

nds,

with

outg

estu

ring

tow

ard

anyo

neE

ye-c

onta

ctT

henu

mbe

rof

times

the

cand

idat

em

ade

eye-

cont

actw

ithth

ero

le-p

laye

r(s)

Hea

dno

dsT

henu

mbe

rof

times

the

cand

idat

eno

dded

his/

her

head

inag

reem

entw

ithth

ero

le-p

laye

r(s)

Han

dge

stur

esto

war

dro

le-p

laye

rsT

henu

mbe

rof

hand

mov

emen

tsth

eca

ndid

ate

mad

eto

war

dth

ero

le-p

laye

r(s)

Han

dge

stur

esto

war

dob

ject

sT

henu

mbe

rof

hand

mov

emen

tsth

eca

ndid

ate

mad

eto

war

dob

ject

s(e

.g.,

gest

urin

gto

war

dth

eSO

Pm

anua

l)H

and

shak

esT

henu

mbe

rof

times

the

inte

rvie

wee

shoo

kha

nds

with

the

role

-pla

yer(

s)

Not

e.Ta

ctic

defin

ition

sw

ere

adap

ted

from

the

follo

win

gso

urce

s:B

urne

ttan

dM

otow

idlo

(199

8),D

ePau

loet

al.(

2003

),E

llis

etal

.(20

02),

Flet

cher

(198

9),

Gar

dner

(199

2),

Gar

dner

and

Mar

tinko

(198

8),

Hub

er,

Lat

ham

,an

dL

ocke

(198

9),

Rig

gio

and

Thr

ockm

orto

n(1

988)

,Sc

hlen

ker

and

Lea

ry(1

982)

,and

Stev

ens

and

Kri

stof

(199

5).


TABLE 2Performance Competencies Assessed by Assessment Center Exercises

Exercises

Study 1 Study 2

Tactical Role- Role- Mock TacticalCompetencies Role-play exercise play 1 play 2 presentation exercise

Interpersonal skills High Not assessed High High Moderate Not assessedOral communication High Low High High High LowReasoning/problem

solvingModerate Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate

Technical andprofessionalknowledge

Low High Low Low High High

Planning, coordinating,and directing

Moderate High Moderate Moderate Low High

Note. “High,” “Moderate,” and “Low” indicate the extent to which the exercise was designed to elicitbehaviors that would require the competency in question. “High” indicates the exercise largely requires thedisplay of the competency, and “Low” indicates the exercise only minimally requires the display of thecompetency. These values are based on job analysis and SME ratings of the extent to which the exercisesrequire each of the competencies.

types of self-focused tactics examined in the present studies. Second, weexamined four defensive IM tactics, which can be used in response to aperceived, potential, or an actual threat to one’s self-image (Gardner &Martinko, 1988). For instance, a candidate may attempt to make excusesfor why he or she has not worked in the past 6 months.

Nonverbal IM tactics. We also examined candidates’ use of sevennonverbal IM tactics. These tactics have been shown to be used by candi-dates and may affect assessor evaluations (e.g., DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone,Muhlenbruck, Charlton, & Cooper, 2003; Riggio & Throckmorton, 1988).

Study 1

Study 1 was conducted to examine verbal IM use and effectivenessacross two assessment center exercises, a role-play, and a tactical exer-cise. Table 2 provides information regarding the competencies each ofthe exercises were designed to assess. As the left half of the table shows,interpersonal skills are vital to effective performance in the role-play ex-ercise. Based on the competency-demand hypothesis one would expectthat behaviors relevant to interpersonal skills are likely to manifest them-selves in the role-play because this exercise requires interpersonal skills.Keep in mind that IM is a means of influencing others (e.g., to sway theopinions or perceptions of others) in political or social environments, andthus it is largely an interpersonal phenomenon (Ferris & Judge, 1991;Gilmore et al., 1999; Knouse, 1994; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Thacker &


Wayne, 1995). This being the case, the exercise placing greater emphasison interpersonal skills should elicit more IM behavior.

On the other hand, the tactical exercise was largely designed to assesstechnical skills. In this exercise, the candidates are required to respondto an emergency with crew members. The requirements for respondingto this type of situation are outlined in the standard operating procedures(i.e., the firefighter manual). Therefore, demands are largely placed onone’s technical skills or procedural knowledge, and so we should see lessbehavior-demonstrating interpersonal skills, and thus, less IM behaviorsin this exercise.

As a result of the differences in the competency demands of the twoassessment exercises, we predict that candidates will exhibit the most IMbehaviors in the role-play relative to the tactical exercise because the role-play places greater demands on interpersonal skills.

Hypothesis 1a: Verbal IM use will be greater in the role-play than thetactical exercise.

The competency-demand hypothesis also predicts that situations plac-ing high demands on certain competencies will exhibit more variabilityin behaviors that manifest those competencies. Research has found thatif a competency is not required by a situation, behaviors relevant for thatcompetency are less likely to manifest themselves because they are sim-ply not relevant for performing in the situation. For example, Wright andMischel (1987) found that there was less variability in aggressive behav-iors within situations that were not relevant for aggression. Nevertheless,variability in the display of aggression was stronger when the competencydemands of the situation were relevant for aggression. This is an impor-tant point; only when the situation highly demands a specific competencywill one see wide variability in behaviors that manifest individual dif-ferences in that competency. Therefore, an exercise (e.g., the role-play)that is largely designed to demonstrate candidates’ interpersonal skillsshould result in a wide range of the display of interpersonal skills becausesome people are interpersonally more skilled and others are less skilled.However, when an exercise does not require interpersonal skills (e.g., thetactical exercise), few interpersonal behaviors will manifest themselvesand therefore, the individual differences in interpersonal skills will not beshown; resulting in less variability in demonstrated interpersonal skills andthereby less variability in IM use. Therefore, based on the competency-demand hypothesis, we should also find greater variance in IM use withinthe role-play as compared to the tactical exercise.

Hypothesis 1b: Variance in verbal IM use will be greater in the role-playthan in the tactical exercise.


Effectiveness of Impression Management Tactics

We also examine if IM use relates to assessor evaluations in the sameway across assessment methods. There is some evidence that IM tacticsmay not be equally effective across contexts (Eder & Buckley, 1988; Ferris& Judge, 1991; Kacmar & Carlson, 1999). In the same way the frequencyand variability of IM use may vary across assessment methods, it followsthat the effectiveness of tactics may also vary. Given that we expect moreIM to be used in the role-plays compared to the tactical exercise, andconsequently, a wider range of IM tactics would likely be used (i.e., greatervariability of tactic use), we may find a stronger relationship between IMuse and assessor evaluations in the role-play.

Hypothesis 2: IM use will relate more strongly to assessor evaluations inthe role-play than in the tactical exercise.

Study 1 Method

Sample

Participants consisted of 30 firefighters applying for promotion to cap-tain in a city in the mid-Atlantic United States. They included 22 Whites, 4Blacks, 4 Hispanics, and 4 women. The candidates had an average tenureof 12.83 years (SD = 4.16) in the fire department.

Assessors

Assessors were fire officers from neighboring jurisdictions of equal orgreater rank than the candidates. Hence, assessors did not evaluate anyonewith whom they were familiar, and no information about the candidateswas provided to the assessors. An 8-hour training session was held foreach group of assessors for each exercise. Assessors were trained accord-ing to the Guidelines and Ethical considerations for Assessment CenterOperations (Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines, 1989; Joiner,2000). The training ensured that assessors understood the assessment di-mensions and rating procedures, and procedures for observing, recording,and classifying candidate behaviors.

Procedure

All 30 candidates who passed the first hurdle in the selection process(i.e., a multiple-choice knowledge test) took part in two assessment meth-ods to determine their promotability to fire officer (five candidates were


eliminated from the selection process based on performance on the knowl-edge test). The two assessment methods were similar in format such that,in each exercise, candidates were required to play the role of a fire officerand to stay in character throughout the exercise. For test security reasonsand to ensure fairness to all candidates, the tactical exercise was alwaysadministered first and both exercises were administered in a single dayto all 30 candidates. In addition, the two exercises were newly developed,and therefore, none of the candidates had previously participated in theseexercises.

The tactical exercise required candidates to respond to a simulatedemergency incident as a fire officer with two role-players serving as theofficer’s crew and involved listening to a dispatch call, responding to dis-patch instructions (e.g., driving to the scene of the incident), and fighting asimulated fire. For the role-play candidates had 2 hours and 15 minutes toreview relevant materials. The candidates had the task of gathering inputfrom two other captains to determine how to develop and implement atraining plan for firefighters.

Both exercises lasted 20 minutes and were highly structured. The role-players in each exercise were instructed to respond to all candidates inthe same way. Within the role-play, the role-players only said those state-ments they were required to say (and they said these statements to eachcandidate without exception). In the tactical exercise, the role-players wereinstructed to follow the candidate’s commands but not to do anything thatwas not ordered by the candidate. In addition, the orders had to be detailed,otherwise the role-players would not perform the operation requested (can-didates were made aware of this before the exercise began).

Consistent with the Guidelines and Ethical Considerations for Assess-ment Center Operations (Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines,1989; Joiner, 2000), a job analysis was used to determine the perfor-mance dimensions to be assessed through the assessment center. The role-play was largely designed to tap interpersonal dimensions of performance,whereas the tactical exercise was designed to assess technical aspects ofperformance. Subject matter experts (SMEs) were also used throughoutthe development process to ensure the exercises were designed to assessthose competencies most relevant for each exercise.

All exercises were video taped by the organization, as this has be-come a common procedure in most civil service settings. Candidates wereassigned a test ID number so that neither the assessors nor the IM codershad access to the names of the candidates.

Measures

Knowledge test. Candidates’ knowledge of the job was assessed witha 107-item multiple-choice test. The number of correct items was summed


to calculate total scores. The items on this test were developed with thehelp of SMEs to tap eight important knowledge areas required for thejob of firefighter. The test mean was 84.10 (SD = 7.93) and the internalconsistency reliability of the measure was .81.

Assessor ratings. Prior to each assessment, candidates were informedof the dimensions on which they would be evaluated. Role-play per-formance was rated on the five dimensions noted in Table 2 and tac-tical exercise performance was assessed on the same dimensions withthe exception of interpersonal skills. Four assessors evaluated candidateperformance in the tactical exercise and three assessors evaluated role-play performance. Interrater reliability for all rating dimensions acrossthe two exercises was greater than .85 (average interrater reliability was.89).

IM ratings. A total of six coders (graduate students enrolled in an I-OPsychology program) were extensively trained to recognize the IM tacticspresented in Table 1. Several mock interviews were coded for IM use toensure that all coders fully understood how to recognize and code for can-didate IM use. Coders, who were blind to the exercise ratings received bythe candidates, listened to each tape and categorized the statements madeby the candidates. Coders recorded the frequency with which candidatesused each tactic. To ensure that they were not influenced by candidates’nonverbal cues, coders did not view the video tape but only listened to thecandidate. To assess interrater reliability, 11 of the candidates from eachexercise were evaluated by a second coder. The coders did not listen to thetapes together; all coding occurred independently. For other-focused tac-tics, self-focused, and defensive tactics, the average intercoder reliabilityacross the two exercises was .91, .86, and .75, respectively.

Study 1 Results

To quantify the total number of other-focused tactics that each candi-date used, we summed the frequency with which the self-focused IM tac-tics were used (i.e., other-enhancement and opinion conformity). We deter-mined the frequency with which each candidate used self-focused tacticsby summing the number of times he or she used any of the nine self-focusedtactics, and the frequency of defensive-tactic use was determined by sum-ming each candidate’s use of excuses, justifications, apologies, and dis-claimers. In other words, for each exercise, we created three IM composites(i.e., other-focused, self-focused, and defensive).1 The coefficient alpha forother-focused, self-focused, and defensive tactics were .65, .65, and .80,respectively.

1Results involving individual tactic use can be obtained from the first author.


TABLE 3Study 1: Paired Samples t-Tests Comparing Mean IM Use Across the Role-Play

and Tactical Exercise

Role-play Tactical exercise

Measure M SD M SD t-values P d

Other-focused 8.40 5.42 .67 1.58 8.48 .001 5.88Self-focused 5.37 5.57 .90 1.60 4.09 .001 2.50Defensive .97 1.94 .47 1.07 1.14 .264 .27

Note. For all analyses n = 30. Effect sizes were calculated by subtracting the meanIM use in the tactical exercise from the mean IM use in the role-play and dividing bythe pooled standard deviation. The standard deviations associated with each tactic aresignificantly different ( p ≤ .05) across the two exercises.

Hypothesis Tests

Hypothesis 1a, which predicted the tactical exercise would result inless IM than the role-play, was generally supported. To test this hypoth-esis we conducted three paired-samples t-tests (one for each of the threeIM tactic categories). Keep in mind that exercise is a repeated measure(within subjects) variable because each candidate participated in both ex-ercises. As Table 3 shows, other-focused and self-focused tactics wereused significantly less frequently in the tactical exercise than the role-play. Although defensive tactics were used more in the role-play than inthe tactical exercise, the difference is not significant.

Hypothesis 1b predicted that there would be greater variability in IMuse in the role-play than in the tactical exercise. As Table 3 shows, thetactical exercise resulted in less variability in self-focused, other-focused,and defensive IM tactics, and all three of these differences are significant.Thus, Hypothesis 1b was fully supported.

Hypothesis 2 predicted the relationship between IM use and evalua-tions would be stronger for the role-play than for the tactical exercise (seeTable 4). We compared the differences in the strength of the correlationbetween IM use (i.e., the sum of all verbal IM tactic use) and assessorevaluations (the composite rating) for each exercise. The IM use–assessorevaluation correlations were not significantly different. Thus, Hypothesis 2was not supported. However, other-focused tactic use in the role-play wassignificantly and positively correlated with assessor ratings of technicaland professional knowledge (r = .38). In addition, although not signifi-cant, the use of defensive tactics was generally negatively related to ratingsof performance in both exercises.


TAB

LE

4St

udy

1:C

orre

lati

ons

Bet

wee

nTa

ctic

Use

and

Ass

esso

rR

atin

gs

Var

iabl

es1.

2.3.

4.5.

6.7.

8.9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

1.K

now

ledg

e-te

stsc

ores

–

Rol

e-pl

ay2.

Oth

er-f

ocus

edta

ctic

s.0

93.

Self

-foc

used

tact

ics

.25

.38

4.D

efen

sive

tact

ics

.25

−.06

.69

Tact

ical

exer

cise

5.O

ther

-foc

used

tact

ics

.42

.40

.05

.03

6.Se

lf-f

ocus

edta

ctic

s.2

4.4

1−.

11−.

28.5

87.

Def

ensi

veta

ctic

s.2

7.5

8−.

05−.

21.3

8.4

9

Ass

esso

rra

ting

s:ro

le-p

lay

8.Te

chni

cala

ndpr

ofes

sion

alkn

owle

dge

−.06

.38

.29

.08

−.10

.03

−.01

9.R

easo

ning

/pro

b.an

dre

solu

tion

skill

s.0

2.2

2.1

4−.

03.1

3.1

9−.

01.6

110

.Int

erpe

rson

alan

dhu

man

rela

tions

.07

.12

−.05

−.13

.20

.16

.15

.52

.39

11.P

lann

ing,

coor

dina

ting,

and

dire

ctin

g.2

9.1

4.1

2.0

2.1

8.0

9.0

8.5

2.5

8.7

712

.Ora

lcom

mun

icat

ion

skill

s.1

5.2

5.0

6−.

14.2

6.1

1.0

9.4

0.5

4.6

6.8

0

Ass

esso

rra

ting

s:ta

ctic

alex

erci

se13

.Tec

hnic

alan

dpr

ofes

sion

alkn

owle

dge

−.09

.22

.24

.03

.32

.14

−.09

.00

.16

−.04

−.16

.13

14.R

easo

ning

/pro

b.an

dre

solu

tion

skill

s.0

8.1

9.3

4.1

7.2

5−.

03−.

10.1

0.1

6−.

00−.

08.0

8.8

715

.Pla

nnin

g,co

ordi

natin

g,an

ddi

rect

ing

−.10

.13

.24

.09

.20

.01

−.10

−.03

.08

−.12

−.21

−.00

.93

.83

16.O

ralc

omm

unic

atio

nsk

ills

−.16

.22

.31

.19

.09

−.05

−.09

.10

.13

−.16

−.13

.03

.82

.79

.86

Not

e.C

orre

latio

nsab

ove

.37

are

sign

ifica

ntat

p<

.05.

Cor

rela

tions

equa

lto

orgr

eate

rth

an.3

0ar

esi

gnifi

cant

atp

<.1

0.


Study 1 Discussion

Theory and past research have noted the importance of situational in-fluences on IM use and effectiveness (Ferris & Judge, 1991). However, theexact features of situations that influence IM use and effectiveness havetypically been ignored. Consistent with the competency-demand hypoth-esis, Study 1 shows that the frequency of IM use and variance of IM usevaried by the competencies the exercises were designed to assess. Themore technical exercise (i.e., the tactical exercise) resulted in less IM useand variability of IM use than the exercise demanding a greater displayof interpersonal performance (i.e., the role-play). This occurred despitethe fact that the exercises were similar in format and structure. How-ever, we did not find support for the prediction that IM use would relatemore strongly to assessor evaluations in the role-play than in the tacticalexercise.

Although this study provides preliminary insight into how the com-petency demands of an assessment exercise may influence IM use andeffectiveness, a further examination of these issues is warranted given thelimitations of this study. First, we were only able to compare verbal tacticuse across the two exercises because the gear worn by the firefighters madeit impossible to assess nonverbal tactics in the tactical exercise. Second,because of our small sample-size and the limited number of exercisesexamined, it is important to replicate these findings.

Study 2

Study 2 replicates and extends our findings by using four differentassessment center exercises. Further, in Study 2 we examine both verbaland nonverbal IM. No study has simultaneously examined candidate useof both verbal and nonverbal IM tactics in structured assessment methods.This is important because it is currently unclear if the use of both types oftactics would result in more favorable evaluations or if there is little “valueadded” to using more than one type of tactic.

Although all four assessment methods in the present study are struc-tured and similar in format (i.e., all are situational), they vary in terms ofthe competency demands placed on candidates. Further, although someof the exercises examined have the same names and assess the samecompetencies as those examined in Study 1, the exercises themselves aredifferent and do not overlap in content with the exercises in Study 1 (i.e.,different scenarios were used).

As shown in Table 2, interpersonal skills were vital to effective per-formance in the two role-play exercises. Therefore, we should see manyinterpersonal behaviors (e.g., IM use) in the role-play exercises and similaramounts of IM use in these two exercises (given they were both designed to


largely tap interpersonal competencies). On the other hand, in the tacticalexercise, demands are largely placed on one’s technical skills or proceduralknowledge and so we should see less IM behavior. The mock presentationplaces demands on both interpersonal skills and technical abilities. In thisassessment method, candidates are required to give a presentation to con-vince others that a change in department policy is necessary. Therefore,one must be persuasive and have knowledge of the proposed changes, andof the organizational structure, to perform well in this exercise.

As a result of the differences in the competency demands of the assess-ment exercises, we predict candidates will exhibit the most IM behaviorsin the role-plays, relative to the mock presentation or the tactical exercise.However, given the mock presentation places and some demands on in-terpersonal skills (certainly more so than the tactical exercise), we predictthat IM will be used with greater frequency in this exercise as comparedto the tactical exercise.

Hypothesis 1a: Verbal and nonverbal IM use will be greatest in the role-plays, followed by the mock presentation and then the tactical exercise.

As described in Study 1, the competency-demand hypothesis also pre-dicts that situations placing high demands on certain competencies willexhibit more variability in the manifestation of those competencies. Thus,we not only expect the role-plays to result in more IM behaviors (becausethey require the use of interpersonal competencies) but also expect greatervariance in IM use within these exercises as compared to the mock pre-sentation and tactical exercise. Of course, we would expect the variance inIM use to be very similar within the two role-plays because both exerciseslargely require the display of interpersonal competencies.

Hypothesis 1b: Variance in verbal and nonverbal IM use will be greatestin the role-plays, followed by the mock presentation and then the tacticalexercise.

Effectiveness of Verbal and Nonverbal Tactics

Although the relationships between verbal and nonverbal IM tactic useand outcomes are well established (Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Gilmore et al.,1999; McFarland et al., 2003; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Kacmar,1991), to our knowledge no study has simultaneously examined how bothverbal and nonverbal IM use relates to outcomes in structured assessmentmethods. Research conducted by Motowidlo and colleagues suggests thatboth aural and visual cues may incrementally relate to assessor evaluations(Burnett & Motowidlo, 1998; DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999; Motowidlo& Burnett, 1995), but they did not examine how verbal and nonverbal IMtactics explain variance in assessor ratings.


Verbal and nonverbal tactics have been shown to affect assessor eval-uations through different mechanisms, and therefore, they could add in-crementally above one another in their prediction of assessor evaluations(Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Franke, 2002; Wayne & Kacmar, 1991; Wayne& Liden, 1995). The use of other-focused tactics are generally aimed atmaking the target believe the actor has qualities and values similar tothe target and organization, thus, increasing perceptions of fit (Ferris &Judge, 1991; Higgins & Judge, 2004; Pulakos & Wexley, 1993). Further-more, when candidates use self-focused tactics, assessors may becomemore aware of candidates’ skills and view the candidate as a better fit withthe organization (Kristof-Brown et al., 2002). Unfortunately, little workhas examined candidates’ use of defensive IM tactics, and the current lit-erature does not provide information about why these tactics may affectassessor evaluations.

Considerable research has also shown the use of nonverbal IM tactics,such as smiling, hand gestures, and eye-contact, can influence assessorevaluations (e.g., Burnett & Motowidlo, 1998; Cash & Kilcullen, 1985;Hollandsworth, Kazelskis, Stevens, & Dressel, 1979; Imada & Hakel,1977; Motowidlo & Burnett, 1995). These visual cues may affect evalu-ations by affecting personal reactions and perceived credibility (DeGroot& Motowidlo, 1999).

Because verbal and nonverbal IM behaviors have been shown to affectassessors in different ways, we predict that the two types of IM behav-iors will incrementally predict assessor evaluations. In other words, thosecandidates using both verbal and nonverbal tactics will receive more fa-vorable ratings. Therefore, this study will examine if “more is better” bydetermining if verbal and nonverbal tactic use explain unique variance inassessor evaluations.

Hypothesis 2: Verbal and nonverbal IM tactic use will each explain uniquevariance in assessor evaluations.

As discussed in Study 1, one would expect IM to relate more stronglyto assessor evaluations in those exercises requiring the display of interper-sonal competencies because we should find greater IM use and variancein IM use in such exercises.

Hypothesis 3: IM use will relate most strongly to assessor evaluations in therole-plays, followed by the mock presentation and then the tactical exercise.

Study 2 Method

Sample

Participants consisted of 30 firefighters applying for promotion tocaptain in a county in the mid-Atlantic United States. They included


20 Whites, 7 Blacks, 3 Hispanics, and 3 women. The candidates hadan average tenure of 11.76 years (SD = 3.71) in the fire department. Itshould be noted that 11 of the firefighters that participated in the exer-cises described in Study 1 also participated in the current study. However,2.5 years elapsed between the two testing procedures and the exerciseswere entirely different across the two testing cycles.

Assessors

Assessors were fire officers of equal or greater rank from neighboringjurisdictions. Assessors did not evaluate anyone with whom they werefamiliar, and no information about the candidates was provided to theassessors. Assessors were trained in the same manner as described inStudy 1.

Procedure

All 30 candidates who passed the first hurdle in the selection process(i.e., a multiple-choice knowledge test) took part in four assessment meth-ods to determine their promotability to fire officer (four candidates wereeliminated from the process based on knowledge-test scores). The fourassessment methods were similar in format such that, in each exercise,candidates were required to play the role of a fire officer and to stay incharacter throughout the exercise. Each exercise was administered in asingle day to all 30 candidates to eliminate concerns about breeches in testsecurity. The mock presentation was administered first, the tactical exer-cise was administered second, and Role-plays 1 and 2 were administeredthird and fourth.

It is important to note that the four exercises were newly developed,and none of the candidates had previously participated in these exercises.Therefore, all exercises (although they may have the same names) aredifferent from those examined in Study 1.

The mock presentation required candidates to review documents for2 hours and 45 minutes and then give a 20-minute presentation to fourindividuals posing as staff officers, peers, and supervisors (played by role-players). The goal of the presentation was to convey technical informa-tion to convince these individuals that a change in department policy wasappropriate.

The tactical exercise required candidates to respond to a simulatedemergency incident as a fire officer with three role-players serving as theofficer’s crew. The exercise lasted 22 minutes. During the first 10 minutesthe candidate could check all equipment (e.g., conduct radio checks, re-view map) before responding to an emergency incident. The remaining


12 minutes were devoted to commanding the emergency incident, whichinvolved treating a victim.

Candidates took part in two role-play exercises. Candidates had 10 min-utes to review material relevant for Role-play 1 (e.g., read company pro-file). In this role-play, the candidates had the task of meeting with anotherfirefighter (i.e., a role-player) regarding an incident that occurred while theofficer (i.e., the candidate) was away. Role-play 1 lasted for a maximumof 10 minutes.

Candidates had 30 minutes to prepare for Role-play 2 (e.g., they couldreview their notes from Role-play 1). Then, the candidates spoke withanother firefighter that was supposedly involved in the incident reportedby the firefighter in the first role-play. The candidate had 20 minutes toquestion the firefighter regarding the incident.

As in Study 1, the four exercises were highly structured. The role-players in each exercise were instructed to respond to all candidates inthe same way. In the tactical exercise, the role-players were instructed tofollow the candidate’s detailed commands but not to do anything that wasnot ordered by the candidate.

As in Study 1, the performance dimensions to be assessed in the exer-cises were determined through a job analysis and with SME input. Further,each exercise was designed to elicit more information regarding some di-mensions than others (see Table 2 for a summary). The exercises weredesigned and administered in the same way as described in Study 1.

Measures

Knowledge test. Candidates’ knowledge of the job was assessed witha 101-item multiple-choice test. This test contained different items thanthose used in Study 1 but was developed and scored in the same way. Thetest mean was 67.47 (SD = 8.57), and the internal consistency reliabilityof the measure was .78.

Assessor ratings. Prior to each assessment, candidates were informedof the dimensions on which they would be evaluated. Role-play andmock presentation performance were rated on the same five dimensionsexamined in Study 1. Note that candidates were rated based on perfor-mance in both role-plays. That is, separate ratings were not provided foreach role-play. Tactical exercise performance was assessed on the samefour dimensions described in Study 1. Four assessors evaluated candidateperformance in the tactical exercise and three assessors evaluated role-playand mock presentation performance. We calculated the average interraterreliability for each dimension within each exercise separately. Interraterreliability for all rating dimensions across the four exercises was greaterthan .92 (average interrater reliability was .96).


IM ratings. A total of 10 coders (graduate students enrolled in anI-O Psychology program) were extensively trained to recognize the IMtactics presented in Table 1. Two coders evaluated each candidate in eachexercise using the procedures described in Study 1. When coding fornonverbal tactics, coders only viewed the video tape and muted the audio.When coding for verbal IM attempts, coders did not view the video tapebut only listened to the candidate. This was done to ensure that one typeof tactic use did not influence coding of the other.

It should be noted that those who coded for candidate nonverbal IMuse also assessed how physically attractive each candidate was and theextent to which they were professionally dressed. That is, once the codingof a candidate was complete, the coder rated the candidate on a five-point scale to indicate his/her physical attractiveness and professionaldress (five indicating that the candidate was highly attractive and pro-fessionally dressed). Five items were used to assess each of the twocharacteristics (internal consistency was .96 for both scales). This wasdone because we anticipated a potential need to use these variables ascovariates when examining the effects of nonverbal IM tactics on assessorevaluations.

Only the two role-play exercises and the mock presentation were codedfor nonverbal IM use. The tactical exercise was not coded for candidates’use of nonverbal IM behavior because the gear worn by the candidatesduring the exercise made it impossible to recognize when these tacticswere being used.

Across the four exercises, inter coder reliability ranged from .80 to .89(average reliability was .85) for other-focused tactics, .48 to .72 (averagereliability was .61) for self-focused tactics, .40 to .43 (average reliabilitywas .42) for defensive tactics, and .61 to .99 (average reliability was .89)for nonverbal tactics. The inter coder reliability of the self-focused anddefensive IM tactics was fairly low because these tactics were rarely used.If there is little variance in tactic use, inter coder reliability will be low,even when the coders are in high agreement. Such was the case here asthe inter coder agreement was high (the percent of agreement was greaterthan .85 for all tactics and the average inter coder agreement was .87 forverbal tactics and .93 for nonverbal tactics). To be consistent with Study1 and because some of the tactics had modest reliability (presumablybecause of the low base rate of tactic use in some exercises), the ratingsof the senior coder, in terms of experience with this type of coding task,were used in all analyses. Data from the second coder were only usedfor purposes of establishing reliability and agreement. However, we alsoconducted all analyses using the average IM ratings (i.e., an average ofthe two coder’s ratings), and results were substantively the same as thosepresented.


Study 2 Results

As in Study 1, to create overall composites for each of the three verbaltactic categories we summed the frequency of use associated with eachIM tactic in that category. We also created a nonverbal IM compositeby summing the frequency with which each candidate used the sevennonverbal tactics. Thus, for each exercise, we created four IM composites.The coefficient α for other-focused, self-focused, defensive, and nonverbaltactics were .59, .70, .17, and .58, respectively. The low α for defensivetactics reflect the fact that very few applicants used defensive tactics,yielding little to no variability on these variables (the variability rangedfrom .09 to .30). Correlations among the IM tactics in each exercise andwith assessor evaluations are presented in Table 5.

Hypothesis Tests

For all hypothesis tests, we controlled for the amount of time allottedfor each exercise by dividing the number of tactics used in the exercise bythe exercise length. This was done to ensure that it is the exercise (i.e., thecompetencies required by the exercise) that accounts for our findings, notthe amount of time allotted for each exercise.

Hypothesis 1a, which predicted the tactical exercise would result inless IM than the role-plays and mock presentation, was partially supported.To test this hypothesis, we conducted repeated measures ANOVAs withcandidate IM use as the dependent variable and exercise as the repeatedmeasure independent variable. We conducted this analysis once for eachIM composite.

Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics for each condition and Table 7shows the ANOVAs and effect sizes for the effects of exercise. Meandifferences in IM use across exercises were statistically significant for allfour categories of IM tactics and some effects were strong. The effectsizes (d) range from .53 to 2.44 for other-focused tactics (average d =1.29), from .13 to 1.31 for self-focused tactics (average d = .62), from0 to .67 for defensive tactics (average d = .41), and .18 to 1.03 (averaged = .71) for nonverbal tactics.2 As predicted, other-focused, self-focused,and defensive tactics were used significantly less frequently in the tacticalexercise than the role-plays and mock presentation. Further, consistentwith our prediction, the mock presentation resulted in significantly lessself-focused and defensive tactic use as compared to the role-plays, but

2The values presented in Table 6 were used to calculate effect sizes. Effect sizes werecalculated by subtracting the mean tactic use within one exercise from the other exerciseand dividing by the pooled standard deviation.


TAB

LE

5

Stud

y2:

Cor

rela

tion

sB

etw

een

Tact

icU

sean

dA

sses

sor

Rat

ings

Var

iabl

es1.

2.3.

4.5.

6.7.

8.9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

1.K

now

ledg

e-te

stsc

ores

–

Rol

e-pl

aya

2.O

ther

-foc

used

tact

ics

−.19

–3.

Self

-foc

used

tact

ics

.29

.33

–4.

Def

ensi

veta

ctic

s.2

7.0

5−.

03–

5.N

onve

rbal

tact

ics

.12

.09

.05

.03

–

Moc

kpr

esen

tati

on6.

Oth

er-f

ocus

edta

ctic

s−.

03.5

5.1

1.0

5−.

01–

7.Se

lf-f

ocus

edta

ctic

s−.

06−.

04.3

0−.

18−.

18.0

4–

8.D

efen

sive

tact

ics

.25

.07

.12

−.16

.27

−.14

−.13

–9.

Non

verb

alta

ctic

s.0

4.1

1.1

8.0

3.2

5.5

2−.

12−.

19–

Tact

ical

exer

cise

10.O

ther

-foc

used

tact

ics

.16

.13

−.08

.07

−.09

.35

−.03

.04

−.04

–11

.Sel

f-fo

cuse

dta

ctic

s.2

6−.

14.0

9.1

3−.

09.1

2.0

0−.

08.2

2.1

2–

12.D

efen

sive

tact

ics

−.04

.01

−.04

−.04

−.32

−.22

.44

−.06

−.21

−.13

−.07

–

Ass

esso

rra

ting

s:R

ole-

play

13.T

echn

ical

and

prof

essi

onal

know

ledg

e

.38

−.15

.07

.05

.13

.09

.13

.25

−.03

.40

.15

−.01

–

14.R

easo

ning

/pro

b.an

dre

solu

tion

skill

s.1

7.0

2.1

8.1

2.3

2.2

8.1

2.0

9.3

5.0

4.0

7.0

2.2

1–

15.I

nter

pers

onal

and

hum

anre

latio

ns−.

06.3

4−.

04−.

30.2

5.3

2.2

2.1

8−.

02.2

1−.

05.2

2.3

1.3

2–

16.P

lann

ing,

coor

dina

ting,

and

dire

ctin

g

.06

.10

−.02

−.20

−.07

.11

.21

.06

−.09

.17

−.02

.25

.20

.39

.68

–

17.O

ralc

omm

unic

atio

nsk

ills

.07

.09

.10

.11

−.13

.29

.33

.10

.09

.16

.04

−.09

.27

.31

.46

.59


TAB

LE

5(c

ontin

ued)

Var

iabl

es1.

2.3.

4.5.

6.7.

8.9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Ass

esso

rra

ting

s:m

ock

pres

enta

tion

18.T

echn

ical

and

prof

essi

onal

know

ledg

e

.21

.25

.15

−.07

.23

.53

.13

−.14

.61

.26

.02

−.23

−.02

.42

.07

.02

−.04

–

19.R

easo

ning

/pro

b.an

dre

solu

tion

skill

s.2

4.1

4.0

6−.

16.2

7.5

6.0

1.2

6.5

2.2

9.0

7−.

18.2

6.3

6.0

7−.

07−.

11.7

3–

20.I

nter

pers

onal

and

hum

anre

latio

ns.1

4.4

3.1

6.0

5.2

1.5

0.0

3−.

09.5

6.1

7.0

2−.

22.0

4.2

4.1

6.1

2.1

6.8

2.5

4–

21.P

lann

ing,

coor

dina

ting,

and

dire

ctin

g

.20

.25

.07

−.06

.20

.42

.24

−.19

.32

.31

.21

−.09

.04

.29

.08

−.05

−.18

.83

.65

.72

–

22.O

ralc

omm

unic

atio

nsk

ills

.01

.49

−.14

−.02

.22

.50

.23

.06

.29

.25

.12

−.16

.01

.01

.32

.13

.16

.59

.47

.69

.65

–

Ass

esso

rra

ting

s:ta

ctic

alex

erci

se23

.Tec

hnic

alan

dpr

ofes

sion

alkn

owle

dge

.24

−.12

−.22

−.05

.12

.15

.02

.02

.27

−.08

.14

−.18

−.06

.21

.10

.19

.17

.36

.20

.28

.31

.37

–

24.R

easo

ning

/Pro

b.an

dre

solu

tion

skill

s.4

0−.

31−.

10.0

7.1

8.0

6−.

00.2

2.1

9−.

02−.

05−.

38−.

01.1

6−.

17−.

01.1

5.2

1.2

3.1

3.0

5.2

0.7

0–

25.P

lann

ing,

coor

dina

ting,

and

dire

ctin

g

.17

−.36

−.07

.03

−.07

−.06

.08

.16

.14

.02

.08

−.10

.15

.15

−.02

.18

.28

.18

.10

.12

.08

.16

.84

.68

–

26.O

ralc

omm

unic

atio

nsk

ills

.15

−.32

−.32

−.10

−.02

.03

.14

.09

.12

.01

.08

−.15

−.01

.20

.06

.15

.28

.19

.10

.03

.08

.16

.82

.66

.80

–

Not

e.C

orre

latio

nsab

ove

.37

are

sign

ifica

ntat

p<

.05.

Cor

rela

tions

equa

lto

orgr

eate

rth

an.3

0ar

esi

gnifi

cant

atp

<.1

0.T

heta

ctic

alex

erci

sew

asno

tco

ded

for

cand

idat

es’

use

ofno

nver

bal

IMbe

havi

orbe

caus

eth

ege

arw

orn

byth

eca

ndid

ates

duri

ngth

eex

erci

sem

ade

itim

poss

ible

tore

cogn

ize

whe

nth

ese

tact

ics

wer

ebe

ing

used

.The

refo

re,t

heph

ysic

alat

trac

tiven

ess

and

prof

essi

onal

dres

sva

riab

les

repr

esen

tthe

mea

nat

trac

tiven

ess

and

prof

essi

onal

dres

sra

tings

give

nto

the

cand

idat

eac

ross

the

role

-pla

ysan

dm

ock

pres

enta

tion.

a We

mer

ged

cand

idat

eIM

use

for

Rol

e-pl

ay1

and

Rol

e-pl

ay2

beca

use

the

asse

ssor

son

lypr

ovid

edon

era

ting

for

the

two

exer

cise

s.T

here

fore

,we

sum

med

the

num

ber

ofta

ctic

sca

ndid

ates

used

acro

ssth

ese

two

exer

cise

sto

pres

enth

owto

talI

Mta

ctic

use

rela

ted

toas

sess

orra

tings

.


TABLE 6Study 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Each Dependent Measure in Each

Assessment Method

Mock TacticalRole-play 1 Role-play 2 presentation exercise

IM tactic M SD M SD M SD M SD

Other-focused .15a .21a .34b .20a .46c .23a .07d .09b

Self-focused .13a .16a .26b .16a .11a .14a .09a .10b

Defensive .03a .05a .03a .05a .01b .01b .01b .02c

Nonverbal 10.17a 3.32a,b 10.76a 3.03a 14.35b 4.35b – –

Note. The table presents adjusted means for each exercise (i.e., we divided the number oftimes the tactic was used in the exercise by the length of the exercise). Within rows, meanswith different superscripts are significantly different. Within rows, standard deviationswith different superscripts are significantly different. See Table 7 for effect size estimates.Information regarding nonverbal tactic use is not provided for the tactical exercise becausethe gear worn by the candidates during this exercise made it impossible to determine whennonverbal tactics were being used.

TABLE 7Analyses of Variance for Assessment Center Exercise on IM Use

Other-focused Self-focused Defensive Nonverbaltactics tactics tacticsa tacticsa

Source df F η2 df F η2 df F η2 df F η2

Exercise 3 35.12∗ .548 3 10.66∗ .269 1.81 4.30∗ .129 1.62 10.31∗ .353Error 87 87 52.53 47.03

Note. All analyses included IM use corrected for the exercise length (i.e., the frequencyof IM use divided by exercise length). The tactical exercise was not included in the analysisinvolving nonverbal tactic use because we were not able to code for candidate nonverbalIM use in this exercise.

aMauchly’s test of sphericity was significant when defensive and nonverbal tacticswere used as the dependent variables. Therefore, in these two instances, we report theGreenhouse–Geisser corrected F-values.

∗p ≤ .01.

other-focused and nonverbal tactics were actually used significantly morein the mock presentation as compared to the role-plays. Thus, more IMuse occurred in the mock presentation than expected, however, the tacticalexercise consistently resulted in less IM use than the other exercises.

Hypothesis 1b predicted there would be the greatest variability in IMuse in the role-plays, followed by the mock presentation and then the tac-tical exercise (see Table 6). The two role-plays, which were designed toelicit similar behaviors from candidates (i.e., both largely required the dis-play of interpersonal competencies), resulted in very similar amounts of


variability in all four types of IM use. Further, the tactical exercise re-sulted in significantly less variability in self-focused, other-focused, anddefensive IM tactics. However, the mock presentation typically resulted insimilar variability in IM use as the role-plays and in one case (nonverbaltactics) there was more variability in IM use in the mock administrationthan the role-plays. Therefore, we find partial support for this hypothesisbecause results for the mock presentation did not conform to our expec-tations.

To test Hypothesis 2, which predicted verbal and nonverbal tactic usewould explain unique variance in assessor evaluations, we conducted re-gression analyses for each exercise. In these analyses we used the com-posite ratings (mean of the four or five dimensions on which candidateswere rated) as the dependent variable, and verbal and nonverbal tacticsas the independent variables. Note we included ratings of candidates’ at-tractiveness and professional dress as covariates in these analyses becauseresearch has found these two variables can have an effect on assessorevaluations (Dipboye, Arvey, & Terpstra, 1977; Forsythe, Drake, & Cox,1985; Raza & Carpenter, 1987). We also included candidates’ knowledgescores as a covariate to determine if IM use would predict ratings aboveand beyond the candidates’ knowledge of the job. However, it should benoted that the results were substantively the same whether we controlledfor these variables or not.

The results of these regression analyses are presented in Table 8. Theyshow limited support for Hypothesis 2. Neither verbal nor nonverbal IMtactics predicted assessor evaluations in the role-plays or tactical exer-cise. However, both verbal and nonverbal tactics predicted evaluations ofperformance in the mock presentation.

Hypothesis 3 predicted the relationship between IM use and evalua-tions would be stronger for the role-plays than for the mock presentationor the tactical exercise. IM use was generally unrelated to assessor evalu-ations in the role-play and tactical exercise. However, IM use in the mockpresentation related positively to performance ratings. Further, the cor-relations were not restricted to interpersonal dimensions of performancebecause IM use in the mock presentation also related to ratings of tech-nical and professional knowledge, reasoning and problem-solving ability,and planning, coordinating, and directing skills. Finally, the use of de-fensive tactics related negatively to ratings of performance in the tacticalexercise.

To formally test Hypothesis 3, we compared the differences in strengthof the correlation between verbal IM use (i.e., the sum of use of all verbalIM tactics) and assessor evaluations (the composite rating) for each exer-cise. The verbal IM use–assessor evaluation correlation was significantlystronger in the mock presentation (r = .55; p ≤ .05) as compared to the


TABLE 8Regression Analyses Examining the Relationship Between Verbal and Nonverbal

Tactic Use in Each Exercise and Assessor Evaluations

Model b β R2 F �R2 �R2F

Role-playsStep 1 .065 1.94Knowledge test .01 .26

Step 2 .096 .92 .031 .452Physical attractiveness −.18 −.24Professional dress .13 .15

Step 3 .185 .871 .089 .836Other-focused tactics .01 .17Self-focused tactics .02 .22Defensive −.07 −.15

Step 4 .185 .714 .000 .003Nonverbal tactics −.00 −.01

Mock presentationStep 1 .040 1.17Knowledge test .02 .20


Step 3 .430 2.89∗ .335 4.51∗

Other-focused tactics .09∗ .58Self-focused tactics .02 .10Defensive −.01 −.00

Step 4 .512 3.30∗ .082 3.75∗

Nonverbal tactics .00∗ .37Tactical exercise

Step 1 .073 2.21Knowledge test .03 .27


Step 3 .164 .752 .074 .676Other-focused tactics −.05 −.12Self-focused tactics −.00 −.02Defensive −.54 −.27

Note. The composite rating for each exercise was used as the dependent variable (i.e.,the mean performance dimension rating). The regression analyses were also conductedwith Steps 3 and 4 entered in reversed order (with nonverbal tactics entered first). Theseresults were not substantively different from those presented and can be obtained from thefirst author. Nonverbal tactic use was not assessed in the tactical exercise and therefore isnot in the model.

∗p ≤ .05.


role-plays (r = .25; ns; t = 1.50; p ≤ .05) and tactical exercise (r = .01; t =−2.72; p ≤ .01). However, the role-play and tactical exercise correlationswere not significantly different.

We also tested the difference between the correlation between totalnonverbal IM use in the role-plays and composite ratings of performance(r = .08; ns), and total nonverbal IM use in the mock presentation andcomposite ratings of performance (r = .54; p ≤ .01). The correlationsfor the role-play and mock presentation were significantly different (t =−2.29; p ≤ .05). Therefore, little support was found for Hypothesis 3.Although as expected, we found the relationship between IM use andratings is weakest in the tactical exercise, we unexpectedly found thestrongest relationship between IM use and assessor evaluations in themock presentation, and this finding was consistent across both verbal andnonverbal tactic use.

Study 2 Discussion

Results of this study were nearly identical to Study 1 as far as the role-plays and tactical exercise are concerned. We found that the role-playsresulted in greater IM use and more variance in IM use than the tac-tical exercise, supporting hypotheses based on the competency-demandhypothesis. However, the mock presentation generally resulted in moreIM than expected. Further, relationships between IM use and assessorevaluations existed, but IM use related to both interpersonal and non-interpersonal dimensions of performance. Finally, although verbal andnonverbal tactics did not incrementally predict performance in the role-plays or tactical exercise, nonverbal tactics predicted assessor evaluationsabove and beyond verbal tactics in the mock presentation. Overall, theseresults suggest the competency demands of assessment exercises may in-fluence IM use and variability. Given that the results were consistent acrossthe two studies, we discuss these issues in more detail in the followingsection.

General Discussion

Past research has examined how IM use differs across assessmentmethods as a function of the structure or format of the methods examined(Ellis et al., 2002; McFarland et al., 2003; Stevens & Kristof, 1995) buthas not considered the competency demands of the exercises. As predictedby the competency-demand hypothesis (Shoda et al., 1993a, 1993b), IMuse, variance in IM, and (to a lesser extent) effectiveness of IM tacticsvaried as a function of the competencies the assessment method requiredof the candidates. This suggests that it is not only the structure or format of


assessment exercises that exert an influence on IM use and effectivenessbut also the competency demands inherent in the exercise itself.

Implications of Key Findings

Impression management research has the potential to inform both re-search and practice, and as such, the present research has implications forboth areas. First, our results suggest the competency-demand hypothesisshould be integrated with current IM frameworks. As described previ-ously, Ferris and Judge (1991) suggest situations influence IM use andoutcomes, but their framework does not detail precisely what features orcharacteristics of situations will have the strongest effects on IM. Thus, thecompetency-demand hypothesis and other more micro theories may be in-tegrated with their general framework. Such an integration would not onlybe relevant for those seeking to understand how IM is used in selectioncontexts, but also for those trying to understand IM use and effectivenessin other organizational contexts and perhaps any social situation whereIM may be used. All situations, whether work-related or not, vary in theextent to which they require interpersonal competencies, and IM use andeffectiveness may be influenced by these competency demands.

Second, and related to the first implication, our results suggest thatpast research on IM should be interpreted cautiously. For example, it isnot clear if the results of research that has examined only one type ofcompetency (i.e., interpersonal skills) would generalize to assessment ex-ercises that assess different competencies. It would also be interesting toexamine what features of assessment methods have the greatest impact onIM use and effectiveness. This could be done by systematically varyingthe structure, format, and competency demands of assessment exercisesand assessing IM use and its effectiveness. This would not only lead toa deeper understanding of how candidates use IM tactics across differ-ent situations, but also identify the best ways practitioners may designassessment exercises to facilitate or deter IM use.

Third, these findings suggest that those designing and implementingassessment centers need to be very careful that the nature of the exerciseselicits the desired competencies. In Study 2 the mock presentation waslargely designed to assess technical competencies. However, this exerciseresulted in considerable IM, and IM use was most strongly related toassessor evaluations in this exercise. Perhaps speaking to an audience(which is what the mock presentation required) demands the use of moreinterpersonal skills than speaking with subordinates one-on-one (as therole-plays required). Further, although the exercise required candidates todemonstrate their knowledge, it also clearly required them to persuadeothers; something that was not explicitly considered when this assessment


method was designed. Therefore, in order for predictions based on thecompetency-demand hypothesis to be accurate and to ensure one elicitsthe types of behaviors intended, one needs to be sure the competencydemands of the situation are consistent with the desired behaviors.

Fourth, our results provide a better understanding of the combinedeffects of verbal and nonverbal tactics, thereby suggesting how applicantscould best use IM tactics. Applicants may be wise to use both verbaland nonverbal tactics, as their combined use did not have negative effectsand in some cases using both types of tactics resulted in more favorableratings.

Fifth, our studies shed some much-needed light on the use and effec-tiveness of defensive IM tactics. Although our results show that defensivetactics are used rather infrequently, we also find their use may have a nega-tive effect on assessor evaluations, suggesting it may be best for applicantsto avoid making excuses or apologies for inadequacies. However, assess-ment methods that require candidates to discuss past experiences may elicitmore defensive IM tactic use and demonstrate different relationships withassessor ratings because applicants may effectively use such tactics to de-fend blemishes on their resumes. Future research should examine the useand effectiveness of defensive IM tactics across a wider range of assess-ment methods to better understand how they are used and the potentialconsequences of their use.

Finally, these findings suggest that IM use may contaminate assessorevaluations. Both studies found that IM use sometimes related to technicalperformance dimensions. In fact, IM use predicted assessor evaluationsabove and beyond knowledge of the job (as assessed by the knowledgetest). These findings are consistent with research in social psychologyand the communications literature, which has found that nonverbal be-havior relates to perceptions of competence in noninterpersonal domains(DePaulo, 1993; DePaulo, DePaulo, Tang, & Swaim, 1989; Guerrero &Miller, 1998). Such relationships may be of some concern because thesetechnical dimensions of performance are presumably unrelated to inter-personal skills on the job. Thus, if practitioners believe IM use should notaffect assessor ratings of candidates (e.g., because what is being assessedis purely technical performance), they should consider taking measuresto reduce the potential effects of IM use on ratings (e.g., by ensuring theexercise limits IM use or training raters to recognize IM attempts).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Some study limitations should be addressed. First, both studies hadmodest sample sizes, making power low for some analyses (power rangedfrom .20 to .99 across the analyses). However, the effects were generally


moderate to large, thus many results were statistically significant. Further,although both samples were small, we replicated our results across twostudies with entirely different assessment exercises. The two studies re-sulted in the same conclusions with regards to IM in the role-plays andtactical exercises.

Second, the studies presented focus on IM quantity and do not ad-dress the quality of IM use. Two people may use the same IM tactic,but one may use the tactic more effectively than the other and this willlikely yield a different result (Bolino, 1999; Jones, 1990). The IM liter-ature would benefit a great deal by examining characteristics that mightrelate to IM quality, such as extroversion, self-monitoring, or social intelli-gence. These characteristics may operate as moderators of the relationshipbetween IM use and important organizational outcomes (e.g., assessorevaluations).3

Finally, these studies did not consider why candidates used IM. Can-didate use of IM tactics does not necessarily imply the applicant has beendishonest or fabricated information in any way. IM tactics may be usedto more effectively communicate true information about one’s strengthsand weaknesses or may be engaged in at an unconscious level (e.g., eye-contact). We agree with others that have called for a direct examinationof how candidates use IM tactics and if different reasons for IM use havedifferent consequences (Bolino, 1999).

Conclusion

Consistent with the competency-demand hypothesis, this research isthe first to propose and demonstrate that candidate IM use and effective-ness vary across assessment exercises that differ in competency demands.We find that both verbal and nonverbal IM tactics can affect assessorevaluations, but the effects are not limited to interpersonal dimensions ofperformance. Incorporating these findings with existing IM theory mayprovide some important theoretical extensions, but most importantly, abetter understanding of IM use and effectiveness across different selec-tion practices.

REFERENCES

Bolino MC. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 82–98.

Bozeman DP, Kacmar KM. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management pro-cesses in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,69, 9–30.

3We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.


Burnett JR, Motowidlo SJ. (1998). Relations between different sources of information inthe structured selection interview. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 51, 963–983.

Cash TF, Kilcullen RN. (1985). The eye of the beholder: Susceptibility to sexism andbeautyism in the evaluation of managerial applicants. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 15, 591–605.

DeGroot T, Motowidlo SJ. (1999). Why visual and vocal interview cues can affect inter-viewer judgments and predict job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,986–993.

DePaulo BM. (1993). Nonverbal communication of expectancy effects: Can we communi-cate high expectations if only we try? In Blanck PD (Ed.), Interpersonal expectations:Theory, research, and applications. Studies in emotion and social interaction (pp.261–275). New York: Cambridge University Press.

DePaulo BM, Lindsay JJ, Malone BE, Muhlenbruck L, Charlton K, Cooper H. (2003). Cuesto deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.

DePaulo PJ, DePaulo BM, Tang J, Swaim GW. (1989). Lying and detecting lies in or-ganizations. In Giacalone RA, Rosenfeld P (Eds.), Impression management in theorganization (pp. 377–393). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dipboye RL, Arvey RD, Terpstra DE. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters andapplicants as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology,62, 288–294.

Eder RW, Buckley MR. (1988). The employment interview: An interactionist perspective.In Ferris GR, Rowland KM (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resourcesmanagement (vol. 6, pp. 75–107). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Ellis APJ, West BJ, Ryan AM, DeShon RP. (2002). The use of impression managementtactics in structured interviews: A function of question type? Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87, 1200–1208.

Ferris GR, Judge TA. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influenceperspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447–488.

Fletcher C. (1989). Impression management in the selection interview. In Giacalone RA,Rosenfeld P (Eds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 269–281).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fletcher C. (1990). The relationship between candidate personality, self-presentation strate-gies, and interviewer assessments in selection interviews: An empirical study. HumanRelations, 43, 739–749.

Forsythe S, Drake MF, Cox CE. (1985). Influence of applicant’s dress on interviewer’sselection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 374–378.

Gardner WL. (1992). Lessons in organizational dramaturgy: The art of impression man-agement. Organizational Dynamics, 21, 33–46.

Gardner WL, Martinko MJ. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal ofManagement, 14, 321–338.

Gilmore DC, Ferris GR. (1989). The effects of candidate impression management tacticson interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15, 557–564.

Gilmore DC, Stevens CK, Harrell-Cook G, Ferris GR. (1999). Impression management tac-tics. In Eder RW, Harris MM (Eds.), The employment interview handbook. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Guerrero LK, Miller TA. (1998). Associations between nonverbal behaviors and initialimpressions of instructor competence and course content in videotaped distanceeducation courses. Communication Education, 47, 30–42.

Higgins CA, Judge TA. (2004). The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter percep-tions of fit and hiring recommendations: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 622–632.


Hollandsworth JG Jr, Kazelskis R, Stevens J, Dressel ME. (1979). Relative contributions ofverbal, articulative, and nonverbal communication to employment decisions in thejob interview setting. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 32, 359–367.

Howard JL, Ferris GR. (1996). The employment interview context: Social and situationalinfluences on interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 112–136.

Huber VL, Latham GP, Locke EA. (1989). The management of impressions through goalsetting. In Giacalone RA, Rosenfeld P (Eds.), Impression management in the orga-nization (pp. 203–217). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Imada AS, Hakel MD. (1977). Influence of nonverbal communication and rater proximityon impression and decisions in simulated employment interviews. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 62, 295–300.

Jeanneret R, Silzer R. (1998). An overview of individual psychological assessment. In Jean-neret R, Silzer R (Eds.), Individual psychological assessment: Predicting behaviorin organizational settings (pp. 3–26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Joiner DA. (2000). Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations:International task force on assessment center guidelines. Public Personnel Manage-ment, 29, 315–331.

Jones EE. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W.H. Freeman/Times Books/HenryHolt & Co.

Jones EE, Pittman TS. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. InSuls J (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Kacmar KM, Carlson DS. (1999). Effectiveness of impression management tactics acrosshuman resource situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1293–1315.

Kacmar KM, Delery JE, Ferris GR. (1992). Differential effectiveness of candidate IMtactics on employment interview decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,22, 1250–1272.

Knouse SB. (1994). Impressions of the resume: The effects of applicant education, experi-ence, and impression management. Journal of Business & Psychology, 9, 33–45.

Kristof-Brown A, Barrick MR, Franke M. (2002). Influences and outcomes of candidateimpression management use in job interviews. Journal of Management, 28, 27–46.

Leary MR, Kowalski RM. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and twocomponent model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34–47.

McFarland LA, Ryan AM, Kriska SD. (2003). Impression management use and effective-ness across assessment methods. Journal of Management, 29, 641–661.

Mischel W, Shoda Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconcep-tualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure.Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.

Mischel W, Shoda Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality disposi-tions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229–258.

Motowidlo SJ, Burnett JR. (1995). Aural and visual sources of validity in structured em-ployment interviews. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 61,239–249.

Pulakos ED, Wexley KN. (1993). The relationship among perceptual similarity, sex, and per-formance ratings in manager–subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal,26, 129–139.

Raza SM, Carpenter BN. (1987). A model of hiring decisions in real employment decisions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 596–603.


Riggio RE, Throckmorton B. (1988). The relative effects of verbal and nonverbal behavior,appearance, and social skills on evaluations made in hiring interviews. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 18, 331–348.

Rynes S, Gerhart B. (1990). Interviewer assessments of candidate “fit”: An exploratoryinvestigation. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 43, 13–35.

Schlenker BR. (1980). Impression management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Schlenker BR, Leary MR. (1982). Audiences’ reactions to self-enhancing, self-denigrating,

and accurate self-presentations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(1),89–104.

Schneider DJ. (1981). Tactical self-presentations: Toward a broader conception. In TedeschiJT (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 23–40). New York: Academic Press.

Shoda Y, Mischel W, Wright JC. (1989). Intuitive interactionism in person perception:Effects of situation–behavior relations on dispositional judgments. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 56, 41–53.

Shoda Y, Mischel W, Wright JC. (1993a). The role of situational demands and cogni-tive competencies in behavior organization and personality coherence. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 65, 1023–1035.

Shoda Y, Mischel W, Wright JC. (1993b). Links between personality judgments and con-textualized behavior patterns: Situation–behavior profiles of personality prototypes.Social Cognition, 11, 399–429.

Stevens CK, Kristof AL. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of candidateimpression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,587–606.

Task Force on Assessment Center Guidelines. (1989). Guidelines and ethical considerationsfor assessment center operations. Public Personnel Management, 18, 457–470.

Thacker RA, Wayne SJ. (1995). An examination of the relationship between upward influ-ence tactics and assessments of promotability. Journal of Management, 21, 739–756.

Von Baeyer CL, Sherk DL, Zanna MP. (1981). Impression management in the job interview:When the female candidate meets the male (chauvinist) interviewer. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 7, 45–51.

Wayne SJ, Ferris GR. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor–subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 75, 487–499.

Wayne SJ, Kacmar KM. (1991). The effects of impression management on the performanceappraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 70–88.

Wayne SJ, Liden RC. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings:A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232–260.

Wright JC, Mischel W. (1987). A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: Thelocal predictability of social behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,53, 1159–1177.

Documents

AN EXAMINATION OF IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT USE AND EFFECTIVENESS ACROSS ASSESSMENT CENTER EXERCISES: THE ROLE OF COMPETENCY DEMANDS