applicant impression management in job.pdf

8/9/2019 Applicant impression management in job.pdf

1/19

Copyright The British Psychological SocietyReproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society

Applicant impression management in jobinterview: The moderating role of intervieweraffectivity

Chien-Cheng Chen1*, Irene Wen-Fen Yang2 and Wei-Chih Lin1

1National Taipei University of Technology, Taiwan, ROC2National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC

In light of the organizational need to obtain talented personnel, an appropriate

evaluation of applicant behaviour in the selection interview is crucial. Extending past

research on applicant use of impression management (IM) tactics, this study examines

the effects of a broad set of IM tactics in a field setting, and also investigates the

moderating roles of two rarely tested interviewer characteristics: interviewer positive

affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA). Due to the nested nature of the data,

consisting of 142 job applicants and 33 interviewers, we adopt hierarchical linear

modelling (HLM) to examine the proposed hypotheses. The results indicate that three

IM tactics (self-focused IM, SFIM; other-focused IM, OFIM; and non-verbal IM, NVIM)

are significantly positively related to interviewer evaluations. Furthermore, interviewer

PA appears to strengthen the positive effects of SFIM tactics on interviewer evaluations,

while the effects of NVIM tactics may be weaker when interviewers are high in NA.

In addition, these findings suggest the importance of interviewer trait affectivity in

explaining interviewers decision-making variability, which may lead to low inter-rater

reliability and in turn restrict the level of achievable validity.

Acquiring high quality human resources is the first step for organizations looking tomaintain superior competitive advantages within the business environment (Ployhart,2006). To obtain talented persons, the use of a selection interview has been verypopular in practice; the results of previous research also offer positive perspectivesregarding the use of interviews (Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002). The recent

literature on the selection interview has focused on interview practices, as well asapplicant reactions (e.g., Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004), interviewer personalityand behaviours (e.g., Higgins & Judge, 2004), or interview formats (e.g., Chapman &

Zweig, 2005).An additional important issue pertaining to interview research, the use of impression

management (IM) tactics, has recently received greater attention in the literature

* Correspondence should be addressed to Professor Chien-Cheng Chen, 1, Section 3, Chung-Hsiao E. Road, Taipei 10608,Taiwan, ROC (e-mail: [email protected]).

The

British

Psychological

Society

739

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), 83, 739757

q 2010 The British Psychological Society

www.bpsjournals.co.uk

DOI:10.1348/096317909X473895


2/19


(Van Iddekinge, McFarland, & Raymark, 2007). IM is defined as the conscious orunconscious attempt to control the images that are projected in : : : social interactions

(Schlenker, 1980, p. 6) and frequently may be used by job applicants within an interviewsetting (Ellis et al., 2002). Although past studies have confirmed the positive relationshipbetween applicant IM tactics and interviewer evaluations (e.g., Kristof-Brown, Barrick,& Franke, 2002; Stevens & Kristof, 1995), the intricacies embedded within theboundaries of such effects have yet to be thoroughly examined. Given the intenseinterest in investigating the influences of interviewer characteristics within the

employment interview context (e.g., Hazer & Jacobson, 2003; Lievens & Peeters, 2008),the present study focuses on the exploration of the moderating effects of intervieweraffectivity on the relationship between job applicant IM tactics use and interviewratings.

Recent research has made considerable advances concerning the use of IM tactics inthe selection process (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley, & Gilstrap, 2008). However, findingspertaining to the effects of influential IM tactics on interview outcomes remain varied,and factors that may explain such inconsistencies are still less explored. To ourknowledge, only three studies have touched on this issue by testing the boundaryconditions of the effects of the use of IM tactics within the selection interview context(i.e., Hazer & Jacobson, 2003; Howard & Ferris, 1996; Tsai, Chen, & Chiu, 2005).Specifically, Howard and Ferris (1996) found that applicant self-promotion IM tacticswere less effective in influencing well-trained interviewers than untrained interviewers.

The results of Hazer and Jacobsons study (2003) also showed that interviewers self-monitoring traits would strengthen the relationship between applicant self-presentationIM tactics and interviewers perceived employability of the applicants. In addition, Tsai

et al. (2005) found that interview structure, customer-contact requirement, andinterview length, would moderate the effects of IM tactics. Given the need to clarify theaforementioned relationships, the present study examines the moderating roles ofinterviewer trait affectivity on the relationship between applicant use of IM tactics andinterview outcomes.

The present study extends previous research in the following three ways. First, incontrast to the work of Hazer and Jacobson (2003) and that of Howard and Ferriss(1996), where laboratory context was used for data collection, the present study wasconducted in actual interview settings (similar to Tsai et al., 2005). Thus, our research

design has the advantage of reflecting the physical, emotional, and cognitive fidelity ofinterviews where there are real outcomes for both interviewer and applicant(Posthuma, Morgeson, & Campion, 2002, p. 41).

Second, previous research has mostly examined self-focused IM (SFIM) tactics, non-verbal IM (NVIM) tactics, or a combination of both. The present study, however,simultaneously discusses the effects of three types of IM tactics SFIM tactics, other-focused IM (OFIM) tactics, and NVIM tactics and responds to the call for furtherinvestigation of the effects of different IM tactic types (Ellis et al., 2002; Gilmore,Stevens, Harrell-Cook, & Ferris, 1999). By examining various IM tactics in naturally

occurring interview situations, the present study not only offers empirical evidence thatincreases our knowledge of the range, frequency, and complexity of IM tactics, but alsohelps to generalize the findings to real employment settings.

Third, in contrast to previous studies based on the use of ordinary least square (OLS)

regression (e.g., Hazer & Jacobson, 2003; Tsai et al., 2005) and structural equationmodelling (e.g., Howard & Ferris, 1996), the current study adopts hierarchical linearmodelling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to accommodate the current data

740 Chien-Cheng Chen et al.


3/19


structure. While testing the effects of predictors on interviewer evaluations, Hox (1994)suggested that researchers should consider the possible estimation bias associated with

the traditional regression approach when analysing data for field interview studies.Considering the nested nature of the data used in the present study, a series of HLManalyses are performed to test the influences of applicant use of IM tactics oninterviewer evaluations. Moreover, the moderating effects of interviewer positiveaffectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) are also tested using HLM.

In this paper, we first describe different classifications of IM tactics and the

influences of IM tactics on interviewer evaluations. We briefly review the literature onhow affect may impact decision making and apply this knowledge to the interviewingdomain. Grounded on our theoretical discussion about the moderating effects ofinterviewer PA and NA, we then examine the aforementioned effects in actual interview

setting.

IM tactics and interviewer evaluations

Along with the growth in scholarly discussion pertaining to the influence of IM withinorganizations, researchers have also devised various classifications for types of IM tactics

(e.g., Schneider, 1981; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). In the present study, we adopt theclassifications proposed by Kacmar, Delery, and Ferris (1992): SFIM tactics (e.g., self-promotion, entitlements, and exemplification) and OFIM tactics (e.g., ingratiation,

other reinforcement, feigned helplessness, and fit with organization). More specifically,based on applicants conversation focus within the interview, SFIM tactics are said to beused when the interview conversation focus remains predominantly on the applicant.However, if the applicant tries to shift the focus to the interviewer, they are said toengage in OFIM tactics.

The use of this classification is justified for two reasons. First, although the split

between SFIM and OFIM tactics does not include one of the important verbal IMcategories (i.e., defensive IM), this categorization is relatively easy to understand andalso includes most verbal IM tactics actually employed by applicants. Second, according

to Tedeschi and Melburg (1984), most applicants tend to use assertive IM tactics, whichnormally target on short-term objectives and are used to foster a desired image. Indeed,the SFIM and OFIM tactics have been considered assertive IM in Tedeschi and Melburgs(1984) research. In addition to these two types of IM tactics, in the present study, we adda third category NVIM tactics (e.g., eye contact, smiling, and nodding) as suggestedby Kristof-Brown et al. (2002) and Tsai et al. (2005). In sum, three types of IM tactics(i.e., SF, OF, and NV) are adopted for the present study and linked to interviewerevaluations.

Past research has indicated that the context of the selection interview provides a

great opportunity for interviewers to observe applicant behaviours, and at the sametime evaluate their potential fit in terms of both the job and the organization. Moreover,the ability to identify and interpret the use of IM tactics within an interview may helpinterviewers infer the behavioural patterns of applicants and thereby predict futurework behaviours (Ferris & Judge, 1991). Some previous studies have also detailed theimportance of examining the effects of IM tactics in selection interviews (e.g., Gilmoreet al., 1999; Van Iddekinge et al., 2007).

For example, Rosenfeld (1997) argued that the use of SFIM tactics in interviews maydisclose information regarding the applicants potential to accomplish job require-ments, and therefore should be anticipated by interviewers due to its job relevant

Applicant impression management 741


4/19


nature. Howard and Ferris (1996) found that applicant use of self-promotion and NVIMtactics led to interviewer hiring recommendations due to influences associated with

perceived similarity and competence. The results of Stevens and Kristof (1995)indicated that the use of self-promotion and fit with organization IM tactics significantlyaffected interviewer ratings of applicant suitability. Furthermore, Kristof-Brown et al.(2002) found that self-promotion IM was strongly correlated to personjob fit, and thatNVIM was also positively related to interviewer similarity. Moreover, the results ofHiggins and Judge (2004) showed that applicant ingratiation tactics affected

interviewers overall fit perception of applicants, thus leading to stronger hiringrecommendations.

In sum, the effects of using a variety of IM tactics seem to be influential in terms ofinterviewer evaluations. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1a: Applicant SFIM tactics will be positively related to interviewer evaluations.

Hypothesis 1b: Applicant OFIM tactics will be positively related to interviewer evaluations.

Hypothesis 1c: Applicant NVIM tactics will be positively related to interviewer evaluations.

The moderating effects of interviewer trait affectivity

Affect has proven to be a popular research topic over the last decade (Brief & Weiss,

2002; Zajonc, 2000). It is both defined broadly and divided into two realms: state affector trait affectivity, in the literature. The former is considered to be short-term and easy-to-change, and also includes a discussion of emotions (intense and short-lived affectivestates) and moods (less intense and relatively enduring affective states as compared toemotions). Alternatively, trait affectivity refers to individual differences relevant toemotional disposition and self-concept, and is further composed of two facets PA and

NA (George, 1996). In the literature, PA and NA are considered to be two independenttraits (Meyer & Shack, 1989; Watson & Clark, 1992). Individuals with high PA activelyengage in their surroundings and normally experience and maintain positive moods and

emotions. In contrast, individuals with high NA tend to have negative orientation andunpleasant feelings towards themselves and their surroundings, and easily experiencenegative affective states (George & Brief, 1992).

The affect infusion model (AIM; Forgas, 1995), which accounts for and integrates thevarious informational and processing consequences of affect, can provide a theoreticalfoundation for discussing how affect may influence cognition and judgment. The AIMasserts that affect infusion into thinking and judgment is most likely to occur whenpeople adopt an elaborate, substantive processing strategy, and make judgments whilelacking the benefit of objective evidence (Forgas, 1998). Further, affect selectively

primes affect-related thoughts and memories used for constructing responses (Forgas &George, 2001). Indeed, the selection interview discussed in this study is a constructivetask that involves a full, open search for information. In such a situation, the AIMpredicts that interviewer affect will lead to a priming effect in terms of their attention,encoding, and retrieval processes, which in turn may influence their hiringrecommendations.

In the present study, we focus on the effects of trait affectivity and attempt to

demonstrate the moderating role of PA and NA in altering the relationships between IMtactics and interviewer evaluations. Trait affectivity may be associated with strongereffects than state affect because the former is more stable and enduring over time, and



5/19


allows for continual rather than fleeting effects on cognition and behaviour (Wright &Staw, 1999). In addition, the effects of affective states on cognition are short-lived

(Isen, Clark, & Schwartz, 1976), and may be replaced by other (perhaps contrary) statesbefore personal judgments can be made (Forgas & Ciarrochi, 2001). Moreover, sincethere is almost certainly some delay between the onset of certain affective states and theconsequences associated with them, any alteration or fading of an affective state mayreduce its likelihood of influence (Wright & Staw, 1999). Thus, in this paper we focus onthe effects of affective traits, rather than affective states1.

Although it may seem that affective states can influence the cognition and judgmentsimplied in our hypotheses, we believe that affective traits are also associated with theprocesses proposed here for two reasons: first, trait PA and NA can increase the

likelihood of the occurrence of state PA and NA, respectively (George & Brief, 1992;Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Therefore, the affective traits should increase theoverall likelihood of the cognitive processes associated with their correspondingaffective states (Fried, Levi, Ben-David, Tiegs, & Avital, 2000). Second, state affect andtrait affectivity are so closely related that they have been described as the former beingprovoked in a specific context, the latter (background) influencing this provocation(Lazarus, 1991, p. 47). Barsadeet al. (2000, p. 804) suggested that while state affect is ashorter-term reaction associated with greater fluctuation than trait affect : : :researchersview the underlying processes as being very similar.

We propose that interviewer trait PA can strengthen the effects of IM tactics. There

are three reasons for this assertion. First, interviewers with high PA are likely to loosenthe criteria used in the evaluation process (e.g., Robbins & DeNisi, 1998). For example,Forgas (2002) argued that high PA employees tend to be very confident when making

quick decisions; they may hold looser or lower standards of judgment and welcomepersonal expressions and opinions. Bowden (1993) also suggested that individuals withhigh PA tend to have an unrestrained conceptual thinking pattern. Specifically, high PAdecision makers often adopt more flexible thinking approaches (Isen & Means, 1983)and make decisions more creatively and intuitively (Abele, 1992). In general, thesearguments support the expectation that interviewers with high PA may take differentpossible information cues into consideration and even include an applicants use ofdifferent IM tactics as part of the evaluation criteria.

Second, the information processing preferences of high PA interviewers may also

influence the effects of using IM tactics on interviewer evaluations. Individuals withhigh PA may trust various information sources easily and fail to discriminate betweeninformation source quality. For example, Mackie and Worth (1991) argued thatindividuals who prefer to engage in more positive events or maintain happy feelingscontinually may think more positively. Moreover, Rusting (1999) also found that high PAindividuals are more motivated to recall positive memories and tend to make positivejudgments. Judge and Ilies (2004) also argued that individuals with high trait PA may be

1 Currently, most scholars treat affective traits and personality factors as related but separate concepts (Burger & Caldwell,2000). As noted by Barsade et al. (2000), trait affectivity is a more narrowly defined affective construct that leads tospecifically affective manifestations (Tellegen, 1985; Watson & Clark, 1992). Barsadeet al.(2000, p. 804) argued that this isby contrast, for example, to extroversion, which in addition to affective components such as cold and warm includes manyother, less purely affectively related components, such as the degree of sociability, talkativeness, and spontaneity, and being ajoiner versus being a loner. Rusting (1999) also noted that extraversion and PA may tap into somewhat different aspects ofpersonality: Positive affectivity represents a propensity to experience positive emotions, but extraversion places more emphasison the desire for social contact (p. 1074). Therefore, in this study, we chose to focus on affective traits, rather than otherpersonality variables (i.e., extraversion, neuroticism).



6/19


more sensitive to positive stimuli. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that theevaluations of high PA interviewers may be affected to a large degree by applicant use of

IM tactics, because high PA interviewers may simply rely on information provided byapplicants or are more likely to recall positive applicant behaviours, such as self-promotion, smiles, or ingratiating interviewer opinions.

Third, the format used by high PA interviewers while conducting interviews may alsoinfluence the effects of applicant IM tactics. For example, high PA individuals areinclined to view themselves pleasurably and effectively engage in interpersonal relations

and achievement (Tellegen, 1985). Therefore, in contrast with low PA interviewers, highPA interviewers may be more concerned about establishing informal contact withapplicants, tend to have more discretion over interview questions, and thus be lessinclined to high structure interviews (Lievens & De Paepe, 2004). In other words,

applicant IM tactics become more effective in terms of influencing interviewerevaluations due to the low level of interview structure (Tsaiet al., 2005). On the basis ofthe above arguments, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 2a: The positive association between applicant use of SFIM tactics and interviewer

evaluations will be stronger when interviewers score high in PA.

Hypothesis 2b: The positive association between applicant use of OFIM tactics and interviewer

evaluations will be stronger when interviewers score high in PA.

Hypothesis 2c: The positive association between applicant use of NVIM tactics and interviewerevaluations will be stronger when interviewers score high in PA.

In addition to considering the possible moderating effect of PA, we also believe thatinterviewer trait NA may weaken the relationship between applicant use of IM tacticsand interviewer evaluations. One possible explanation is that individuals high in NAnormally think systematically and are adept in structural cogitation. Such a systematic,structural analysis of evaluation criteria may decrease the influence of IM tactics. Indeed,Schwarz, Bless, and Bohner (1991a) found that high NA individuals make decisionsbased on more systematic rationales. In addition, Raymark, Skowronski, Bevard, andHamann (2001) found that high NA supervisors make fine discriminations among eventsthey record in a diary, suggesting that high NA may lead to increases in both cognitiveeffort and attention to detail. Moreover, Kimberly and Pamela (1999) noted that

individuals with high NA tend to adopt a systematic approach to decision making; theytend to begin with carefully organizing the analysis process, then following correctprocedures to carry out each analysis step, and finally making judgments based on theresults of the analysis. Similarly, we may expect that interviewers with high NA mayattempt to evaluate applicants in multiple ways and make final decisions based on theresults of their careful evaluations. Thus, the use of IM tactics may lead to weaker effectson interviewer evaluations.

Another argument may link to the condition of evaluation inflation. Fried, Levi,Ben-David, and Tiegs (1999) found that high NA individuals were less likely to inflate

performance ratings. As a result of their pattern of deliberate thinking, high NAindividuals may evaluate others more carefully in order to minimize expected pressuresfrom other people. In addition, Bless, Bohner, Schwarz, and Stracks (1990) findings alsoprovided evidence of careful decision-making patterns associated with high NA

individuals. Staw and Barsade (1993) extended the results of Bless et al. (1990), andfound that a propensity to prevent possible challenges led high NA individuals to makedecisions more deliberately, and to remain less affected by the behaviours or attitudes of



7/19


the people they evaluate. Accordingly, these arguments imply that interviewers withhigh NA, as compared to low NA interviewers, may be more likely to ignore the

influences of job-irrelevant factors (e.g., the use of IM tactics) when making evaluationdecisions. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 3a: The positive association between applicant use of SFIM tactics and interviewer

evaluations will be weaker when interviewers score high in NA.

Hypothesis 3b: The positive association between applicant use of OFIM tactics and interviewer


Hypothesis 3c: The positive association between applicant use of NVIM tactics and interviewer


Methods

Participants

Participants consisted of 142 job applicants and 33 interviewers from 20 firms innorthern Taiwan. Data were collected between autumn 2006 and spring 2007. The 20firms were from the following four industries, service industry (35%), financial industry(20%), manufacturing industry (15%), and others (30%). On average, one interviewer

would interview and evaluate 4.33 applicants. Of the types of jobs available, 48% weremarketing and sales relevant, 18% were engineering relevant, 14% were administrativeworks, 11% were financial relevant, and 9% were of other types of works. In general, theinterviewer conducted one-on-one interview with the applicant. Of the 142 jobapplicants, 71 (50%) were male, the mean age was 26.1 years, and the mean workingexperience was 7.6 years. Among the 33 interviewers, 23 (69.70%) were male, theaverage age was 33.4 years, and the average number of interviews participated was 20.5.On average, interviewers participating in this study have been trained about once inhow to conduct the employment interview.

Procedures

We first contacted the firms and received permissions from the managers or human

resource department. After the end of the one-on-one interview, the interviewer wasasked to complete a survey regarding his or her interview evaluations towards the

applicant. At the end of the final interview, the interviewer was invited to fill out asurvey regarding their affective disposition. The applicant was also invited to fill outa survey about using IM tactics and demographic information after leaving the interviewroom. We also explained to the applicants that this survey was irrelevant to interviewresults. To prevent the effects of social desirability, we followed the suggestions ofArnold and Feldman (1981); we did not reveal the real objectives of the present study;

the participants were promised that all results were completely confidential.

Measures

IM tacticsAfter carefully reviewing various measures of IM tactics, 17 items were used to measureapplicants use of IM tactics. According to Tsai et al. (2005), using applicants self-ratings



8/19


of IM tactics should be appropriate because adopting a different rating source frominterviewer reports can avoid the problem of common method variance. Previous

research also found that the scores of self-reported IM tactics measurement are similar tothe ones rated by the interviewers (Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Thus, we asked applicantsto self-report their uses of IM tactics and indicate their agreement using five-point Likertscale (1 strongly disagree; 5 strongly agree).

Six items measuringSFIM tacticswere adopted from Tsaiet al.(2005). Sample itemsincluded During the interview, I demonstrated my knowledge and expertise, I tried to

draw the interviewers attention to my records of accomplishment, and I tried toconvince the interviewer that my behaviour is good enough to use as a model for others.The Cronbachs alpha for this six-item measure was .85. Five items were used tomeasureOFIM tactics, including three items adopted from Kristof-Brown et al.(2002)

and two items from Stevens and Kristof (1995). Sample items include I discussed nonjob-related topics with the interviewer, I discussed interests I shared in common withthe interviewer, and I complimented the interviewer. The Cronbachs alpha for thisfive-item measure was .87. Six items were used to measureNVIM tactics, including threeitems from Kristof-Brownet al.(2002) and three items from Stevens and Kristof (1995).Sample items include I maintained eye contact with the interviewer and I usedfriendly NV cues, such as nodding and smile. The Cronbachs alpha for this six-itemmeasure was .84.

Interviewer evaluationFive items were adopted from Tsai et al.(2005) to measure interviewers post-interviewevaluations. Subjects were asked to indicate their agreement using a six-point Likert

scale. Sample items include I do consider this applicant suitable for hiring into thisorganization and I am likely to invite the applicant to a second interview. TheCronbachs alpha for this measure was .97.

Interviewer trait affectivity

We measured interviewer trait affectivity (PA and NA) using the positive and negativeaffect schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988). The PANAS is a 20-item instrumentcontaining 10 PA items and 10 NA items. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent

to which the 20 adjectives described how they feel generally in their life as a whole(1 not atall; 5 extremely). Sample items include adjectives like interested, strong,

and enthusiastic to measure PA and nervous, afraid, and ashamed to measure NA.The Cronbachs alphas were .88 for the PA measure and .98 for the NA measure.

Control variables

Four control variables were included in the present study applicant gender, applicantphysical attractiveness, application qualification, and interviewer experience. Applicantgender was self-reported and dummy coded for further analysis (1 male; 2 female).One item adopted from Cable and Judge (1997) was used to measure interviewerassessment of the applicants physical attractiveness (i.e., I think that this applicantsphysical appearance is fairly att ract ive) on a s ix-poin t Liker t scale

(1

very unattractive; 6

very attractive). Application qualification was measured byone item, I have good overall impression of the applicant based on written information,adopted from Chapman and Rowe (2001). Interviewers were asked to indicate their



9/19


agreement on a five-point rating scale (1 strongly disagree; 6 strongly agree). Forinterviewer experiences, the interviewers were asked to self-report the total number of

interviews in which they have participated prior to the beginning of the study.

Results

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of all variables

included in this study. It is found that SFIM tactics were positively correlated to OFIMtactics (r :41, p , :01) and NVIM tactics (r :54, p , :01). This result implies thatthe applicants may simultaneously employ SFIM tactics combined with the use of OFIMtactics or NVIM tactics. We also found that interviewer evaluations were significantlypositively correlated to SFIM tactics, OFIM tactics, and NVIM tactics (r :50, .56, .63,

respectively, p , :01). Moreover, there were positive correlations between interviewerevaluation and two control variables, applicant physical attractiveness (r :39,

p , :01), and applicant qualifications (r :31,p , :01).

Confirmatory factor analyses using maximum-likelihood estimation were conductedto test if each of the two designated models had a good fit to interviewer or applicantdata. The results showed that the four-factor structure (i.e., SFIM tactics, OFIM tactics,NVIM tactics, and interviewer evaluations) had a good fit to the applicant data(x2 424:17,df 203,p , :01, CFI :91, and RMSEA :09). On the other hand, thefit of the two-factor model (PA and NA) was at an acceptable level (x2 308:19,df 169,p , :01, CFI :70, and RMSEA :16), considering data were collected froma relatively small number of interviewers.

Moreover, we also assessed discriminant validity by constraining inter-construct

correlations to unity one at a time and measuring the difference in the chi-squarestatistic (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The results showed that the changes in chi-squarewere all significant at the .01 level (Dx2 ranged from 161.65 to 414.81 for the four-factor

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlationsa

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Level 1. Applicant-level1. Interviewer evaluation 4.24 1.24 (.97)

2. Applicant genderb 1.51 0.50 .07 ()

3. Application qualification 4.39 1.03 .31** 2 .01 ()

4. Physical attractiveness 4.03 1.39 .39** .13 .54** ()

5. SFIM 3.58 0.77 .50** 2 .03 2 .02 .26** ( .85)

6. OFIM 2.87 0.96 .56** .04 .38** .49** .41** (.87)

7. NVIM 3.87 0.68 .63** .11 .26** .47** .54** .54** (.84)

Level 2. Interviewer-level

1. Interviewer experience 19.70 21.10 ()

2. Interviewer PA 3.65 0.60 .12 (.88)

3. Interviewer NA 2.02 0.71 2 .10 2 .11 (.98)

a Applicant N 142, interviewerN 33. Values in parentheses are Cronbachs alphas.b Coded as male, 1; female, 2.

**p ,:

01:



10/19


model; Dx2 107:05, for one-factor PA NA model), hence discriminant validity isachieved.

In testing the effects of predictors on interviewer evaluation, Hox (1994) suggestedthat researchers should consider the possible estimation bias of using OLS regressionwhen analysing data for field interview studies. As multiple job applicants are normallyassigned to the same interviewer, data collected from such interviews may beconfounded by certain interviewer effects. Using OLS regression to test this kind of datamay violate the assumptions of regression analysis. Therefore, considering the nested

nature of the data, a series of HLM analyses were performed to test the influence of theuse of applicant IM tactics on interviewer evaluations. Moreover, the moderating effectsof interviewer PA and NA were also tested by HLM.

HLM 6.2 was used to model the linkages among the applicant and interviewer

variables. In the present study, three IM tactics, interviewer evaluation, and threeapplicant level controls (i.e., applicant gender, qualification, and physical attractiveness)were included in the first level of analysis. Interviewer PA and NA and interviewerexperience were entered in the second level of analysis. We then followed Hofmann,Griffin, and Gavins (2000) suggestion to investigate the between-interviewer variationbefore testing the hierarchical models. The results obtained from the null modelindicated that the intra-class correlation (ICC[1]) was .23. This value was comparable tothe recommended ICC(1) values found in the literature and thus provided evidence forthe aggregation of current data for further examination.

To examine the proposed hypotheses, three applicant relevant control variables andthree IM tactics were entered into level 1 model and then the intercept estimatesobtained from level 1 were used as outcome variables regressed on the interviewer-level

control variable (interviewer experience) and interviewer PA and NA. The slopeestimates obtained from the previous models were used to test the cross-levelinteraction effects among three IM tactics with interviewer PA and NA. Furthermore, toensure meaningful interpretations of the parameter estimation and refrain from specificinterviewer effects, we group-centred level 1 predictor variables and grand-centred level2 predictor variables before testing HLMs (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998).

As reported in Table 2, SFIM (g :41,p , :05), OFIM (g :38,p , :05), and NVIM(g :46, p , :05) all had significant relationships with interviewer evaluation.Therefore, Hypotheses 1ac were supported. In addition, interviewer PA was positively

related to interviewer evaluation (g :61, p , :05). Moreover, the cross-levelinteractions were examined and the results showed that the interactions of SF PA(g :29, p , :10), OF PA (g 2:37, p , :10), SF NA (g :39, p , :05), andNV NA (g 2:79,p , :01) were significant. However, the interactions of NV PAand OF NA were not significant. Hypotheses 2c and 3b were not supported.

In order to clarify the forms of moderating effects, we also used HLM to drawthe interaction effect plots.2 As shown in Figure 1, the positive relationship betweenthe use of SFIM and interviewer evaluation was stronger when the interviewerswere high in PA. Thus, Hypothesis 2a was supported. In addition, results showed that

the positive relationship between the use of OFIM and interviewer evaluation wasweaker when the interviewers were high in PA. The pattern of moderation did notconfirm the expected shape of the hypothesized interaction. Thus, Hypothesis 2b wasnot supported.

2 For the sake of parsimony, figures representing unexpected results are omitted.



11/19


Moreover, results also showed that the positive relationship between the use of SFIMand interviewer evaluation was stronger when the interviews were high in NA. Thepattern of moderation did not confirm the expected shape of the hypothesized

interaction. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a was not supported. Finally, the shape ofinteraction shown in Figure 2 supported the proposed moderation pattern that the useof NVIM tactics might have weaker effects on interviewer evaluation when the

interviewers were high in NA. Hypothesis 3c was supported.

Discussion

The present study sought to examine the influence of applicant use of IM tactics oninterviewer evaluations and also explore the moderating effects of interviewer PA andNA. We found that the use of SFIM, OFIM, and NVIM tactics significantly positivelyaffects interviewer evaluations, which supports previous findings in this area (e.g.,Kacmar & Carlson, 1999; Kristof-Brown et al., 2002). Past research has produced

inconsistent findings regarding the effects of OFIM tactics on interviewer evaluations.For example, Ellis et al. (2002) and Higgins and Judge (2004) found a positiverelationship between OFIM tactics and interviewer evaluations, while Peeters and

Table 2. HLM results for interviewer evaluationa

Variable Null model

Individual level

predictors and

controls

Interviewer level

predictors

Level 1

Intercept 4.26*** 2.75*** 2.47***

Applicant gender 2 .06 2 .04

Application qualification .21** .32**Physical attractiveness .04 .10

SFb .41* .35**

OFb .38* .37**

NVb .46* .26**

Level 2

Interviewer experience 2 .00

PA .61*

NA 2 .13

SF PA .29

OF PA 2 .37

NV PA 2 .31

SF NA .39*

OF NA 2 .17

NV NA 2 .79***Within interviewer variance 1.24 .48 .45

Between interviewer variance .36*** .16* 3.69

Model deviance 456.27 391.06 379.88

a Applicant N 142, interviewer N 33. Entries are estimations of the fixed effects with robust

standard errors.b Three IM variables are centered for analyses.p , :10;*p , :05;**p , :01;***p , :001.



12/19


Lievens (2006) and Van Iddekinge et al.(2007) failed to find such effects. One possibleexplanation for these contradictory results may lie in the sample characteristics and thedata collection procedures employed. Unlike the situation associated with simulated

interviews (e.g., Peeters & Lievens, 2006; Van Iddekinge et al., 2007) whereinterviewers are likely to rate an ideal applicant for a hypothesized job, interviewers inrealistic settings (e.g., the present study, Elliset al., 2002 or Higgins & Judge, 2004) may

Low High3.65

3.96

4.27

4.58

4.88

Self-focused IM

y

PA low

PA high

Figure 1.Effect of interaction between SFIM and interviewer PA on interviewer evaluation (y).

Low High3.59

3.94

4.28

4.62

4.97

Nonverbal IM

y

NA low

NA high

Figure 2.Effect of interaction between NVIM and interviewer NA on interviewer evaluation ( y).



13/19


be more likely to select applicants who seem easy to get along with or work with, as theapplicants are potential colleagues. Consequently, applicants OF behaviours, which

may provoke interpersonal affect such as liking or similarity perceptions, may actuallyreceive more attention from interviewers and as a result positively influence interviewerevaluations.

In parallel with studies that focused on the effects of NVIM tactics, we found thatNVIM was positively related to interviewer evaluations. This is consistent with previousresearch findings (e.g., Howard & Ferris, 1996; Peeters & Lievens, 2006), but contrary to

Kristof-Brown et al. (2002) and Tsai et al. (2005). We believe that the reason for thecontradictory findings concerns on the measurement of NVIM tactics. Kristof-Brownet al. (2002) and Tsai et al. (2005) used two items and one item, respectively, to measureNVIM tactics, whereas the present study measured NVIM tactics using a six-item scale.

Considering the broad definition of NVIM outlined above, we expect that the measureadopted in the present study may have captured a more complete conceptualization ofNVIM behaviours, thereby strengthening the relationship between NVIM tactics andinterviewer evaluations.

Beyond providing support for the significant effects associated with using IM tacticsduring selection interviews, the present study also examined the moderating roles ofinterviewer PA and NA. The results show that applicant use of IM tactics did not alwayslead to a desired result, since the effectiveness of using the tactics was at least to someextent determined by the interviewers. We found that interviewer PA strengthened the

effects of SF tactics; unexpectedly, the results also showed that interviewer PA did notstrengthen the effects of OFIM and NVIM. We believe that it is possible that high PAindividuals are more likely to see through information they receive from others and hold

risk-averse attitudes (Isen, 1999). Indeed, OF tactics and NV tactics were found toinfluence interview outcomes by increasing perceptions of similarity and liking of theapplicant (Chen, Lee, & Yeh, 2008; Howard & Ferris, 1996). Alternatively, SFIM tacticslead to perceptions of personjob fit (PJ fit; Kristof-Brown et al., 2002; Stevens &Kristof, 1995). In sum, we believe that high PA interviewers may be more attentive tothe behaviours demonstrating PJ fit (e.g., SFIM), rather than enhancing liking (e.g.,OFIM and NVIM), due to their interests of reducing the risk of bias towards interviewjudgment.

The results of the current study also show that NA reduced the effects of NV tactics,

and unexpectedly strengthened the effects of SF tactics. One possible reason for this isthat high NA individuals are more attentive while making decisions and tend to neglectirrelevant evaluation criteria (Staw & Barsade, 1993). Brief and Weiss (2002) note thatindividuals with high NA are more likely to react negatively and seriously to results thatdo not match their expectations. This implies that high NA interviewers tend to focus onparts of the interview that are more relevant to the job (e.g., self-focus IM tactics).Accordingly, the influence of extraneous information, such as the use of OFIM tactics orNV behaviour, on interviewer decisions is minimized. This result also confirms previousfindings that high NA individuals are more deliberate than low NA individuals and

normally employ stricter standards when making judgment (e.g., Fried et al., 1999).In addition, Lievens and Peeters (2008) also indicated that interviewers may attach

the most weight to SFIM tactics and be more sensitive to SFIM behaviours in abehavioural description interview setting. According to Van Iddekingeet al.(2007), the

conduct of a behaviour description interview may yield more SFIM behaviour. Due to itsjob relevant nature, the use of SFIM tactics may be anticipated by interviewers andthereby yield more positive impressions. In the same vein, high NA interviewers may



14/19


consider applicant SFIM behaviour to be a demonstration of sufficient ability to performthe job tasks required. Overall, since high NA interviewers tend to focus on job relevant

information, the effects of using SFIM may be strengthened, and thereby lead to morefavourable evaluations.

Theoretical implications

The present study contributes to research associated with linking applicant IM tointerview outcomes. Whereas previous research has examined the direct effects of IMtactics on interview outcomes (e.g., Peeters & Lievens, 2006; Stevens & Kristof, 1995),the present study suggests that the effects of applicant IM tactics on interview outcomesare moderated by interviewer trait PA and NA. In addition, this finding also responds toPosthuma et al.s (2002) call to investigate the relationship between interviewer affectand judgment in a field setting where there are real outcomes for both interviewer andapplicant.

In addition, the present study also provides evidence for cross-cultural generalizationof the effects of applicant IM behaviours. As argued by Hough and Oswald (2000), the

validity and effects of selection tools may not generalize globally because of possiblevariations in the selection process and measurement, behavioural indicators, or otherimportant determinants. Although some selection tools (e.g., personality inventory)

have shown comparatively stable psychometric properties across culture and language,the demonstration of cross-cultural generalizability in interview research still needsmore research efforts. Moreover, research based on data from western cultures ispredominant in both interview and IM research it is unlikely to assume that thosefindings will apply in other cultural settings (Adler, 1983). Still, reviewing past applicantIM behaviour literature, we found that the present results are consistent with some of

the western sample-based research (e.g., Elliset al., 2002; Howard & Ferris, 1996). Suchconsistency should facilitate the generalization of previous findings limited to USsamples to other cultures, and also benefit interview practices.

Drawing on extant research in affective influences on organizational judgments,surprisingly scant attention has been paid to the impact of affect on interviewerdecisions within the work domain. The present study contributes to the field of affect byaddressing several gaps in the literature. For example, past research (e.g., Baron, 1987;Fried et al., 2000) has noted the important role of rater affect on organizationaljudgment. However, the focus has predominantly fixated on the main effects of rateraffect in terms of the ratings. In the current study, we extend AIM theory (Forgas, 1995)by demonstrating the moderating effects of interviewer trait affectivity. This allows us tobetter understand whether rater affect interferes with applicant behaviour, which in

turn can influence rater decisions.Moreover, both PA and NA have been found to influence information processing and

decision making, and such effects seem not to be symmetrical or parallel (Isen, 1999). Asthe present study examines PA and NA simultaneously, this may provide a deeperunderstanding of the effects of rater affect by answering questions regarding the whataspects of the underlying theory building (Whetten, 1989). Finally, most studies thatexamine rater affect (either in the context of selection interviews or performance

appraisals) have been conducted in laboratory contexts (Forgas & George, 2001). As thepresent study is conducted in a field setting, the generalizability of the findings may beenhanced.



15/19


Finally, this research, to a certain extent, clarifies an important disjunction in the fieldof work affect: Sadder-but-wiser or happier-and-smarter. Whether PA or NA leads to

better decision making has been an area of active debate: Isen and colleagues haveconsistently found that PA leads to better and more efficient decisions (see Isen &Labroo, 2003 for reviews); however, other studies have indicated that NA can lead tomore correct decisions (see Schwarz, Bless, & Bohner, 1991b for reviews). The presentresults contribute to the field by providing evidence that, at least in the context ofemployment interview, both PA and NA can help interviewers focus on the behaviours

relevant to the applicant (i.e., SF tactics) and ignore irrelevant ones (i.e., OF and NVtactics). In sum, we believe that future research should further examine whetherinterviewer PA and NA can lead to more precise and effective interview decisions.

Practical implications

The current findings may have some practical implications for organizations usingselection interviews. Our results indicated that interviewer trait PA and NA interactdifferently with the three types of IM tactics to affect interviewer ratings and thus mayimply the possibility to influence the validity of the interview process. Similar to theargument noted by Hazer and Jacobson (2003), if interviewers are different in their levelof trait PA or NA, similar applicants may be rated quite differently depending on howthey display specific IM tactics in the interview. Therefore, we think that diverse degrees

of interviewer trait PA or NA may lead to low inter-rater reliability, restricting the level ofachievable validity. To reduce potential threats to interview validity, organizations maywant to pay close attention to the trait PA or NA of their recruiters in employmentinterviews. Conducting interviews with higher levels of interview structure (e.g.,Campion, Palmer, & Campion, 1997) would be a plausible way to mitigate the potentialinfluence of interviewer trait affectivity on the inter-rater reliability and validity ofemployment interview.

Limitations and directions for future research

Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, the types of job vacanciesincluded in this study were predominantly limited to middle and entry-level jobs. Eventhough efforts were made to collect data from individuals applying for managerialpositions, most organizations were less willing to disclose interview informationregarding these types of candidates due to confidentiality concerns. In addition, thefrequency that firms select managerial level applicants is also comparatively less thanthat associated with non-managerial types of jobs. Nevertheless, past research hasindicated that for managerial jobs, applicantsdisplays of IM tactics may be considered as

part of their job-related skills by interviewers (Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Thus, ourfindings can be considered as a conservative estimate of actual relationships between IMtactics and interviewer evaluations, and future research can build on the present resultsand clarify the external generalizations in terms of applicant IM tactics.

Second, the current data were collected from the real interview settings. However,issues associated with the stages of interview process were less mentioned in thepresent study. As noted by Chuang and Sackett (2005) and Tsai, Chi, Huang, and Hsu

(2007), the focus of interviewer evaluations may vary according to the stage of theinterview process. Normally, the first stage of the interview process focuses onevaluating PJ fit, while in the following stages, the evaluation criteria may turn to



16/19


evaluating the personorganization fit (PO fit). Therefore, it seems that the use of SFIMtactics may be more influential during the initial stage of the interview process, whereas

the effects of OFIM or NVIM tactics may be of more concern as the interview focus shiftsto evaluating whether the applicant fits the organization. For this reason, we suggestthat future research should identify which stage of interview process is involved andalso strive to obtain data from different stages of interview process in order to clarify theeffects of IM tactics.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the present study contributes to our knowledge of the field of selectioninterview and work affect by simultaneously examining the effects of a broad set of IM

tactics in a field setting, and also investigating the moderating role of interviewer traitaffectivity. These findings suggest the importance of interviewer trait affectivity inexplaining interviewers decision-making variability, which may lead to low inter-raterreliability and in turn restrict the level of achievable validity.

References

Abele, A. (1992). Positive and negative mood influences on creativity: Evidence for asymmetrical

effects.Polish Psychological Bulletin,23, 203221.Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and the trend.Academic of

Management Review,8, 226232.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and

recommended two-step approach.Psychological Bulletin,103, 411423.

Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1981). Social desirability response bias in self-report choice

situations.Academy of Management Journal,24, 377385.

Baron, R. A. (1987). Interviewers moods and reactions to job applicants: The influence of

affective states on applied social judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,16, 1628.

Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To your hearts content:

A model of affective diversity in top management teams.Administrative Science Quarterly,

45, 802836.

Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1990). Mood and persuasion: A cognitive response

analysis.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,16, 331345.

Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multil-level review ofimpression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 10801109.

Bowden, C. L. (1993). Bipolar disorder and creativity. In M. P. Shaw & M. A. Runco (Eds.),

Creativity and affect(pp. 4472). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual

Review of Psychology,53, 279307.

Burger, J. M., & Caldwell, D. F. (2000). Personality, social activities, job-search behavior and

interview success: Distinguishing between PANAS trait positive affect and NEO extraversion.

Motivation and Emotion,24, 5162.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers perceptions of personorganization fit and

organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 546561.

Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection

interview. Personnel Psychology,50, 655702.

Chapman, D. S., & Rowe, P. M. (2001). The impact of videoconference technology, interview

structure, and interviewer gender on interviewer evaluations in the employment interview:A field experiment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,74, 279298.

doi:10.1348/096317901167361



17/19


Chapman, D. S., & Zweig, D. I. (2005). Developing a nomological network for interview structure:

Antecedents and consequences of the structured selection interview.Personality Psychology,

58, 673702.

Chen, C. H. V., Lee, H. M., & Yeh, Y. J. Y. (2008). The antecedent and consequence of person

organization fit: Ingratiation, similarity, hiring recommendations and job offer. International

Journal of Selection and Assessment,16, 210219.

Chuang, A., & Sackett, P. R. (2005). The perceive important of personjob fit and person

organization fit between and within interview stages. Social Behavior and Personality, 33,

209225.

Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). The use of impression managementtactics in structure interviews: A function of question type? Journal of Applied Psychology,

87, 12001208.

Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resource management: A political influence

perspective.Journal of Management,17, 447488.

Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).Psychological Bulletin,

117, 3966.

Forgas, J. P. (1998). On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiator cognition

and bargaining strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 565577.

Forgas, J. P. (2002). Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior.

Psychological Inquiry,13, 128.

Forgas, J.P., & Ciarrochi,J. (2001). Onbeinghappyandpossessive:Therole of mood andpersonality

on the evaluation of personal possessions. Psychology and Marketing,18, 239260.

Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in

organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes,86, 334.

Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., Ben-David, H. A., & Tiegs, R. B. (1999). Inflation of subordinates performance

ratings: Main and interactive effects of rater negative affectivity, documentation of work

behavior, and appraisal visibility.Journal of Organizational Behavior,20, 431444.

Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., Ben-David, H. A., Tiegs, R. B., & Avital, N. (2000). Rater positive and negative

mood predispositions as predictors of performance ratings of ratees in simulated and real

organizational settings: Evidence from US and Israeli samples. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology,73, 373378. doi:10.1348/096317900167083

George, J. M. (1996). Trait and state affect. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and

behavior in organization (pp. 145171). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at

work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin,112, 310329.

Gilmore, D. C., Stevens, C. K., Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). Impression managementtactics. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.), The employment interview handbook

(pp. 321336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hausknecht, J., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. (2004). An updated model and meta-analysis of applicant

reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology,57, 639683.

Hazer, J. T., & Jacobson, J. R. (2003). Effects of screener self-monitoring on the relationships among

applicant positive self-presentation, objective credentials and employability ratings.Journal of

Management,29, 119138.

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, 622632.

Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models:

Theoretical and methodological implications for organizational science. Journal of Manage-

ment,24, 623641.

Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical linearmodeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,

research, and methods in organizations (pp. 467511). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.



18/19


Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future:

Remembering the past.Annual Review of Psychology,51, 631664.

Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. (1996). The employment interview context: Social and situational

influences on interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,26, 112136.

Hox, J. J. (1994). Hierarchical regression models for interviewer and respondent effects.

Sociological Methods and Research,22, 300318.

Isen, A. M. (1999). Positive affect. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and

emotion(pp. 521539). New York: Wiley.

Isen, A. M., Clark, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1976). Duration of the effect of good mood on helping:

Footprints on the sands of time.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,34, 385393.

Isen, A. M., & Labroo, A. A. (2003). Some ways in which positive affect facilitates decision making

and judgment. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment

and decision research.Cambridge series on judgment and decision making (pp. 365393).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Isen, A. M., & Means, B. (1983). The influence of positive affect on decision-making strategy. Social

Cognition,2, 1831.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationship at work and

at home.Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 661673.

Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1999). Effectiveness of impression management tactics across

human resource situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,29, 12931315.

Kacmar, K. M., Delery, J. E., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). Differential effectiveness of applicant

impression management tactics on employment interview decisions. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology,22, 12501272.Kimberly, D. E., & Pamela, S. B. (1999). The effects of mood on individuals use of structured

decision protocols.Organization Science,10, 181198.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Barrick, M. R., & Franke, M. (2002). Applicant impression management:

Dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity.

Journal of Management,28, 2746.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991).Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lievens, F., & De Paepe, A. (2004). An empirical investigation of interviewer-related factors that

discourage the use of high structure interviews. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,

2946.

Lievens, F., & Peeters, H. (2008). Interviewers sensitivity to impression management tactics in

structured interviews.European Journal of Psychological Assessment,24, 174180.

Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1991). Feeling good, but not thinking straight: The impact of

positive mood on persuasion. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Meyer, G. J., & Shack, J. R. (1989). Structural convergence of mood and personality: Evidence for

old and new directions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57, 691706.

Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2006). Verbal and nonverbal impression management tactics in behavior

description and situational interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,

14, 206222.

Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and strategic opportunities.

Journal of Management,32, 868897.

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, 181.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data

analysis methods(2nd ed.). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.

Raymark, P. H., Skowronski, J. J., Bevard, L. A., & Hamann, S. A. (2001). Influence of recorder affecton the content of behavioral diaries and the recall of behaviors.Applied Cognitive Psychology,

15, 373393.



19/19


Robbins, T. L., & DeNisi, A. S. (1998). Mood vs. interpersonal affect: Identifying process and rating

distortions in performance appraisal. Journal of Business and Psychology,12, 313325.

Rosenfeld, P. (1997). Impression management, fairness, and the employment interview.Journal of

Business Ethics,16, 801808.

Rusting, C. L. (1999). Interactive effects of personality and mood on emotion-congruent memory

and judgment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77, 10731086.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and

interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schneider, D. J. (1981). Tactical self-presentations: Toward a broader conception. In J. T. Tedeschi

(Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychology research (pp. 2340).New York: Academic Press.

Schwarz, N. H., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991a). Mood and persuasion: Affective states influence

the processing of persuasive communications. In M. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental

social psychology(pp. 161199). Academic Press: New York.

Schwarz, N. H., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991b). Response scales as frames of reference: The

impact of frequency range on diagnostic judgments. Applied Cognitive Psychology,5, 3749.

Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-but-

wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses.Administrative Science Quarterly,38, 304331.

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, 587606.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the organization. In

S. B. Bacharach & E. J. Lawler (Eds.),Research in the sociology of organization (pp. 515523).

Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety,with an emphasis on self-report. In A. H. Tuma & J. Mason (Eds.), Anxiety and the anxiety

disorders(pp. 681706). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2005). Exploring boundary of the effects of applicant

impression management tactics in job interviews. Journal of Management,31, 108125.

Tsai, W. C., Chi, N. W., Huang, T. C., & Hsu, A. J. (2007). The effects of applicant resume contents

on recruiters hiring recommendations: The mediating roles of recruiter fit perceptions .

Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Van Iddekinge, C. H., McFarland, L. A., & Raymark, P. H. (2007). Antecedents of impression

management use and effectiveness in a structured interview. Journal of Management, 33,

752773.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1992). On traits and temperament: General and specific factors of

emotional experience and their relation to the five-factor model. Journal of Personality,60,

441476.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

54, 10631070.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management

Review,14, 490495.

Wright, T. A., & Staw, B. M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: Two longitudinal tests of

the happy-productive worker thesis.Journal of Organizational Behavior,20, 123.

Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate on the primacy of affect.

In J. P. Forgas (Ed.),Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition(pp. 3158).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Received 20 July 2008; revised version received 7 July 2009


applicant impression management in job.pdf

Documents