the effect of applicant impression management tactics on hiring recommendations: cognitive and...

The Effect of Applicant Impression ManagementTactics on Hiring Recommendations:

Cognitive and Affective Processes

Chien-Cheng Chen*National Taipei University of Technology, Taiwan

Mei-Mei LinTung Nan University of Technology, Taiwan

The main purpose of this study is to investigate whether applicants’ impressionmanagement (IM) tactics indirectly influence hiring recommendations throughcognitive mechanisms (i.e. recruiters’ perceptions of person–organisation [P–O]fit, person–job [P–J] fit, and person–recruiter [P–R] fit) or affective mechanisms(i.e. recruiters’ positive mood) during authentic employment interviews foractual job openings. Participants consisted of 221 applicant–recruiter dyadsfrom 50 companies in Taiwan. The results demonstrated that applicants’ self-focused IM tactics are positively related to recruiter perceptions of P–J fit,which in turn influence hiring recommendations. In addition, applicant other-focused IM tactics affect hiring recommendations through recruiters’ percep-tions of P–O fit. Moreover, applicants’ non-verbal IM tactics were positivelyrelated to recruiters’ positive mood, which in turn affected recruiters’ percep-tions of P–J fit and P–O fit, thereby affecting hiring recommendations.

INTRODUCTION

Employment interviews continue to be one of the most frequently usedmethods to assess candidates for employment (Cole, Rubin, Feild, & Giles,2007). One reason for this is that, by interacting with the applicant during theinterview process, the recruiter can assess how suitable the applicant is for thegiven position and company (Cable & Judge, 1997). However, when pursuingemployment opportunities, applicants do their best to impress recruitersby using impression management (IM) tactics (Bye, Sandal, van de Vijver,Sam, Cakar, & Franke, 2011), which amounts to a “conscious or uncon-scious attempt to control the images that are projected in . . . social interac-tions” (Schlenker, 1980, p. 6).

* Address for correspondence: Chien-Cheng Chen, Department of Business Management,National Taipei University of Technology, 1, Chung-Hsiao E. Road, Section 3, Taipei City 106,Taiwan. Email: [email protected]

bs_bs_banner

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2014, 63 (4), 698–724doi: 10.1111/apps.12013

© 2013 International Association of Applied Psychology.

Job applicants generally use verbal and non-verbal IM tactics (Peeters &Lievens, 2006; Tsai, Chen, & Chiu, 2005). Non-verbal IM tactics consist of avariety of non-verbal behaviors involving such elements as smiles, nods, handgestures, posture, gaze, and body movements. Meanwhile, the taxonomymost often employed in studies on verbal IM tactics used during employmentinterviews (Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002; Stevens & Kristof, 1995) isTedeschi and Melburg’s (1984) classification of verbal IM tactics into asser-tive IM (i.e. attempts to actively construct a favorable image) or defensive IM(i.e. attempts to protect or repair one’s image). Assertive verbal IM tactics,which are particularly salient for applicants during employment interviews(Proost, Schreurs, De Witte, & Derous, 2010; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984),can be further classified into self-focused IM (e.g. self-promotion, entitle-ment, and exemplification) and other-focused IM (e.g. ingratiation, otherenhancement, and fit with organisation) (Kacmar, Delery, & Ferris, 1992).Applicants who employ self-focused IM tactics during an interview directthe focal point of the conversation toward either their area of expertise oranother topic that offers them advantages. Meanwhile, by engaging in other-focused IM tactics, applicants attempt to gain recruiters’ favor by agreeingwith or echoing the latter’s outlook, thereby flattering them (Kacmar et al.,1992). Thus, the current study uses three IM tactics—namely, self-focusedIM, other-focused IM, and non-verbal IM—as these have surfaced in manystudies on IM tactics in employment interviews (e.g. Chen, Yang, & Lin,2010; Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Franke, 2002).

Past research has generally demonstrated applicants’ ability to useIM tactics to enhance interviewer evaluations (e.g. Chen et al., 2010;Kristof-Brown et al., 2002; Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Some existing research(e.g. Hazer & Jacobson, 2003; Howard & Ferris, 1996; Tsai et al., 2005) hashighlighted the association between applicant IM tactics and interviewratings only under certain boundary conditions. For example, Howard andFerris (1996) found that interviewers with relatively low levels of interviewtraining more often wrote evaluations suggesting that applicants’ self-promotion IM tactics had a significant influence than interviewers with rela-tively high levels of interview training. According to Hazer and Jacobson(2003), the higher the level of interviewers’ self-monitoring traits, the strongerthe relationship between applicant self-presentation IM tactics and inter-viewers’ evaluation of the applicants. Tsai et al. (2005) found that, whenthe extent of customer contact required for a job was relatively high, thecorrelation between applicant self-focused IM tactics and interviewer evalu-ation was quite pronounced. It should be noted that findings from twometa-analyses (i.e. Barrick, Shaffer, & DeGrassi, 2009; Higgins, Judge, &Ferris, 2003) confirmed a modest positive correlation between IM tacticsand interview ratings. Specifically, Higgins et al. (2003) found that bothself-promotion and ingratiation were positively related with interviewer

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 699


assessments (r = .58 and .60 after being corrected for attenuation, bothp < .05) whereas Barrick et al. (2009) found that applicants’ display of self-promotion, other enhancement, and non-verbal behavior were all positivelyrelated with interview ratings (r = .32, .26, and .40 after being corrected forattenuation, all p < .05).

Although previous studies have generally confirmed that applicantscan use IM tactics to influence both recruiters’ evaluation of applicants’ jobsuitability and recruiters’ eventual hiring decisions (e.g. Gilmore & Ferris,1989; Higgins & Judge, 2004; Howard & Ferris, 1996; Stevens & Kristof,1995), we do not yet fully understand the intricacies embedded withinthe mechanisms. Gilmore, Stevens, Harrell-Cook, and Ferris (1999, p. 328)concluded that “the processes through which impression management influ-ences interviewers’ and applicants’ judgments and decisions are not wellunderstood”. Social influence theory (Ferris, Hochwarter, Douglas, Blass,Kolodinsky, & Treadway, 2002) can help explain the effect of applicants’IM tactics on hiring recommendations. This theory proposes that all humaninteraction includes a number of forms of social influence. Through socialinfluence, people maximise the rewards they hope to receive and minimise thenegative outcomes of interacting with people. For example, in a job inter-view, the applicant attempts to use IM tactics to influence the recruiter’sassessment.

Drawing on social influence theory, Barrick et al. (2009) argued that appli-cant IM tactics could operate through two types of unconscious processes toinfluence recruiters’ evaluation of applicants. The first process is norm acti-vation, which refers to “the social triggering of an interviewer’s cognitivestructures, including associations, beliefs, and values about the ‘right type’of candidate” (Barrick et al., 2009, p. 1395). The second process is affectiveevaluation, which reflects recruiters’ emotional reactions. Following Barricket al.’s (2009) recommendations, the current study employs the aforemen-tioned two mechanisms (i.e. norm activation and affective reaction) as a basisfor investigating whether applicants’ IM tactics influence recruiters’ hiringrecommendations. Specifically, we include recruiters’ perceptions of fit asthe norm-activation mechanism as these fit perceptions represent recruiters’judgment about the extent to which the given candidate is the “right type”of candidate for the organisation (i.e. person–organisation [P–O] fit), the job(i.e. person–job [P–J] fit), and the recruiter (i.e. person–recruiter [P–R] fit).In addition, we include recruiters’ positive mood as an affective-reactionmechanism because this type of mood represents the recruiters’ affective stateduring the interviews.

Past scholars have predominantly used the norm-activation mechanism toexplain the mechanisms of the relationship between applicants’ IM tacticsand recruiters’ hiring recommendations. For example, Howard and Ferris(1996) found that applicant self-focused IM tactics and non-verbal IM tactics

700 CHEN AND LIN


influence recruiter hiring recommendations by influencing recruiters’ evalu-ations of similarity (a concept similar to P–R fit) and competence (a conceptsimilar to P–J fit). Higgins and Judge (2004) found that recruiters’ percep-tions of overall fit (i.e. the combination of P–O fit and P–J fit) mediate theeffects of applicants’ ingratiation tactics on recruiters’ hiring recommenda-tions. Chen, Lee, and Yeh (2008) found that recruiters’ perceptions of simi-larity and P–O fit mediate the relationship between ingratiation tactics andhiring recommendations.

The present study seeks to extend these findings in three ways. First,previous research has examined mostly self-focused IM tactics, other-focused IM tactics, or a combination of the two. In this study, we respondto the call for further investigation into the effects of different IM tactictypes (Ellis et al., 2002; Gilmore et al., 1999) by simultaneously investigat-ing the effects of three types of IM tactics (i.e. self-focused IM tactics,other-focused IM tactics, and non-verbal IM tactics). This integration ofthe full spectrum of IM tactics within one research design is intended tofacilitate a broader and more complete analysis of IM tactics to improveour understanding of the range, frequency, and complexity of IM tactics(Chen et al., 2010).

Second, previous studies (i.e. Chen et al., 2008; Higgins & Judge, 2004;Howard & Ferris, 1996) have examined only one or two types of fit per-ceptions. A recent meta-analytic review by Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman,and Johnson (2005) suggested that overall person–environment fit (P–E fit)is a multidimensional concept consisting of multiple subtypes of fit. Wefound that most studies on recruiters’ judgment of fit in the context ofselection interviews (e.g. Higgins & Judge, 2004; Howard & Ferris, 1996;Kristof-Brown, 2000; Kristof-Brown et al., 2002; Tsai, Chi, Huang, & Hsu,2011) included three types of fit perceptions—namely, P–O fit, P–J fit,and P–R fit. Moreover, several scholars (e.g. Kristof-Brown et al., 2005;Posthuma, Morgeson, & Campion, 2002) have suggested that recruitersalways use these three types of fit perceptions as criteria when makinghiring decisions in employment interviews. Therefore, this study simultane-ously includes recruiters’ perceptions of the three types of fit in an attemptto bridge the gaps noted regarding the aforementioned studies. The pre-sent study also contributes to the literature by using multidimensionalapproaches that include multiple types of fit perceptions measured simul-taneously within the research design, thereby helping clarify the relativecontributions attributable to the mediating effects of the three fit percep-tions dimensions.

Furthermore, according to Barrick et al. (2009), past scholars have pre-dominantly used the norm-activation mechanism (i.e. fit perceptions), ratherthan the affective-reaction mechanism, to explain the underlying relationshipbetween applicants’ IM tactics and recruiters’ hiring recommendations.



Thus, the current study includes recruiters’ positive mood as an affective-reaction mechanism to assist with the integration of the mediating effects ofcognitive and affective mechanisms in the researchers’ examination of theeffects of applicant IM tactics on recruiter judgment.

THEORY

Relationship between Applicants’ IM Tactics andHiring Recommendations

In the job interview setting, the applicant often employs various typesof IM in an attempt to influence the recruiter (Gilmore & Ferris, 1989;Gilmore et al., 1999). Past studies have generally confirmed the positiverelationship between applicants’ IM tactics and hiring recommendations(Barrick et al., 2009; Higgins et al., 2003). Although all types of IM cangenerate favorable impressions, it appears that self-focused IM, other-focused IM, and non-verbal IM achieve this goal through different mecha-nisms. We believe that the mechanisms through which a specific type ofIM tactics work are determined by the nature of the type of IM tacticsemployed. By applying self-focused IM tactics during a job interview,applicants attempt to show that they possess desirable qualities for the joband stress that their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) represent agood fit with the job requirements (Kacmar et al., 1992). According tosocial influence theory (Barrick et al., 2009), a norm-activation mechanismunderlies self-focused tactics’ influence on recruiters’ evaluations of appli-cants’ P–J fit.

In contrast, other-focused tactics serve either to align interviewees’ state-ments with the beliefs of interviewers and the target organisation (Chenet al., 2008) or to flatter, praise, or compliment the recruiters (Peeters &Lievens, 2006). According to social influence theory, these tactics influencerecruiters’ decisions in two ways. First, the tactics can trigger the norm-activation mechanism, wherein the interviewee’s comments evoke a percep-tion in the recruiter that the two individuals are similar to each other (i.e.there is P–R fit) and that the interviewee is similar to the organisation(i.e. there is P–O fit). Second, the tactics can trigger the affective-reactionmechanism, wherein the interviewee’s compliments and other forms of flat-tery evoke various levels of positive mood in the recruiter. An interviewee’snon-verbal tactics, such as smiling and maintaining eye contact withthe recruiter, are designed to convey positive emotions to the recruiter(Rafaeli & Sutton, 1987). Based on social influence theory, we believe thatthese tactics influence recruiters’ evaluations of interviewees primarily dueto the affective-reaction mechanism, wherein interviewees create a positivemood in recruiters during interviews.

702 CHEN AND LIN


Mediating Role of Recruiters’ Perceptions of P–O Fit

In the current study, we propose that applicants’ other-focused IM tacticsenhance recruiters’ perceptions of P–O fit, which in turn affect recruiters’hiring recommendations. Recruiters’ perceptions of P–O fit can be enhancedby recruiters’ perceptions of similarities between applicants and the organi-sation in terms of beliefs, attitudes, and values (Stevens & Kristof, 1995).Applicants use other-focused IM tactics, such as expressions of agreementwith the beliefs and values of the target organisation, to enhance recruiters’perceptions of P–O fit (Higgins & Judge, 2004). Past studies have generallyconfirmed the positive effects of applicants’ other-focused IM tactics onrecruiters’ P–O fit perceptions (e.g. Chen et al., 2008; Higgins & Judge,2004).

We expect that recruiters will be more likely to favorably rate an applicantwhom they perceive as possessing high P–O fit than an applicant whom theyperceive as possessing low P–O fit. Past research has generally suggested thatan employee’s high P–O fit could generate both positive work attitudes andpositive job performance in that individual (e.g. Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).Therefore, during the interview process, recruiters’ perceptions of an appli-cant’s P–O fit could be an important consideration regarding their eventualhiring recommendations. In their field study, Cable and Judge (1997) foundthat—after controlling for the effects of objective applicants’ conditions(such as Grade Point Average [GPA], work experience, and demographicvariables)—recruiters’ perceptions of P–O fit uniquely predicted their hiringrecommendations. Kristof-Brown et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis also demon-strated a high correlation between recruiters’ P–O fit perceptions and theirhiring intentions (r = .61 after correcting for attenuation). Thus, we proposethe following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Recruiters’ perceptions of P–O fit mediate the relationship betweenapplicants’ other-focused IM tactics and recruiters’ hiring recommendations.

Mediating Role of Recruiters’ Perceptions of P–J Fit

P–J fit is defined as the match between an individual’s KSAs and a work-place’s job demands (Kristof-Brown, 2000). By displaying self-focused IMtactics, applicants can not only place personal competence and past achieve-ments in a positive light, but also stress that their KSAs represent a good fitwith the given job requirements, insofar as self-focused IM tactics can lendan attractive sheen to the applicants’ P–J fit. Research has shown that self-focused IM tactics are positively related to perceived P–J fit (e.g. Higgins &Judge, 2004; Kristof-Brown et al., 2002).

In addition, prior research has emphasised that recruiters who perceive agood match between an applicant’s KSAs and the targeted company’s job



requirements are more inclined to recommend the applicant to the company(e.g. Howard & Ferris, 1996). In a field study by Kristof-Brown (2000),recruiters’ perceptions of applicants’ P–J fit were found to be a strong pre-dictor of hiring recommendations. In another field study, Higgins and Judge(2004) found a positive relationship between recruiters’ perceptions of P–Jfit and recruiters’ hiring recommendations. Thus, we propose the followinghypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Recruiters’ perceptions of P–J fit mediate the relationship betweenapplicants’ self-focused IM and recruiters’ hiring recommendations.

Mediating Role of Recruiters’ Perceptions of P–R Fit

P–R fit has been defined as the extent to which applicants and recruitershold similar attitudes or values (e.g. Graves & Powell, 1988; Kristof-Brownet al., 2002). In most cases, the first person from an organisation to interactwith an applicant is a recruiter; thus, the applicant clearly understands thathis or her chance of joining the organisation rests largely, if not completely,on the decisions or recommendations of the recruiter. Therefore, during theinterview process, the typical applicant makes a great effort to bridge thegap between him- or herself and the recruiter by judiciously selecting andcarrying out specific actions. When applicants use other-focused IM tactics(such as ingratiation or compliments targeting recruiters), these tacticsmight lead the recruiters to sense a similarity between themselves and theapplicants (Kristof-Brown et al., 2002; Wayne & Kacmar, 1991), whichmight in turn instill in the recruiters a strong perception of P–R fit. Paststudies have shown that other-focused IM can positively influence thedegree to which recruiters perceive a fit between themselves and the appli-cant (e.g. Chen et al., 2008).

Moreover, applicants who provide recruiters with the impression thatthey have high P–R fit would be more likely to be hired by the organisationaccording to the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), which positsthat individuals who are similar to each other will likely find each otherattractive: When they are attracted to a referent other, they tend to makea relatively favorable overall assessment of this other. Indeed, both labo-ratory (e.g. Howard & Ferris, 1996) and field (e.g. Chen et al., 2008;Goldberg, 2005) studies examining the employment interview have generallyconfirmed the positive relationships between recruiters’ perceptions of P–Rfit and recruiters’ hiring recommendations. Thus, we propose the followinghypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Recruiters’ perceptions of P–R fit mediate the relationship betweenapplicants’ other-focused IM tactics and recruiters’ hiring recommendations.

704 CHEN AND LIN


Mediating Role of Recruiters’ Positive Mood

Research has suggested that, in addition to the context of employee selection,non-verbal behaviors function as a key factor in emotional communica-tion between service providers and customers (e.g. Friedman & Riggio, 1981).Recipients of emotions who are uncertain as to the initiator’s expressedmeaning often rely on the initiator’s non-verbal cues to confirm their under-lying intentions (Dallimore, Sparks, & Butcher, 2007). Several scholars havealso adopted the emotional contagion mechanism to explain the process ofinitiating recipients’ positive emotions (Dimberg & Thunberg, 1998; Hatfield,Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994; Hess, Blairy, & Philippot, 1998). Emotionalcontagion refers to an individual’s tendency to “mimic and synchronize facialexpressions, vocalizations, postures, and movements with those of anotherperson and, consequently, to converge emotionally” (Hatfield et al., 1994,p. 5). During each recruiter–applicant transaction, recruiters are likely toimitate applicants’ non-verbal behaviors, such as friendly eye contact andsmiles, thereby creating inner cues that contribute to their experience of appli-cants’ mood. When using non-verbal IM, the applicant might utilise the effectsof emotional contagion to generate a highly positive mood in the recruiter.

Recruiters who are in a more positive mood are also more likely to evaluateapplicants favorably. One plausible reason for this assertion is that recruiterswho are in a good mood will more easily recall the outstanding aspectsof applicants’ qualifications (i.e. mood-congruent memory effects; Bower,1981). In addition, recruiters tend to use these positive moods to reflect howthey feel about applicants’ qualifications (i.e. mood as information effects;Schwarz & Clore, 1988). Recruiters with a positive mood are also prone toattribute a perceived positive aspect of an applicant to the applicant’s inter-nal or personal factors and a perceived negative aspect to external or imper-sonal factors unrelated to both the recruiters and the applicant (Forgas,Bower, & Moylan, 1990). Such reasons might explain why recruiters who arein a positive mood are more likely than recruiters who are not in a positivemood to evaluate applicants favorably in terms of their perceived P–O fit, P–Jfit, and P–R fit. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4: Recruiters’ positive mood mediates the relationship betweennon-verbal IM and their perceptions of P–O fit.

Hypothesis 5: Recruiters’ positive mood mediates the relationship betweennon-verbal IM and their perceptions of P–J fit.

Hypothesis 6: Recruiters’ positive mood mediates the relationship betweennon-verbal IM and their perceptions of P–R fit.

In addition, past scholars have argued that other-focused IM is effectivebecause it can help put the target person in a good mood (Falbe & Yukl,1992). Tiggemann and Boundy’s (2008) experimental study showed that



recipients of a compliment were happier than people who received no com-pliment. Hence, in the context of employment interviews, applicants can useother-focused IM tactics (e.g. praise and flattery) to enhance interviewers’positive mood (e.g. Webster, Duvall, Gaines, & Smith, 2003); in turn, inter-viewers are more likely to recall positive aspects of these applicants (Rusting,1999) and perceive a positive applicant fit. Therefore, the following hypoth-eses are proposed:

Hypothesis 7: Recruiters’ positive mood mediates the relationship between other-focused IM and their perceptions of P–O fit.

Hypothesis 8: Recruiters’ positive mood mediates the relationship between other-focused IM and their perceptions of P–J fit.

Hypothesis 9: Recruiters’ positive mood mediates the relationship between other-focused IM and their perceptions of P–R fit.

Finally, recruiters’ positive mood might affect hiring recommendationsthrough mechanisms other than fit perceptions. For example, researchershave argued that people with a more positive mood tend to be more confidentwhen making quick decisions (Forgas, 2002); they also tend to hold moreloosely to standards of judgment and to have lower standards of judgment tobegin with (e.g. Robbins & DeNisi, 1998). In addition, in order to maintaintheir positive feelings, people with a more positive mood are more prone tohelp others (e.g. George, 1991; Tsai, Chen, & Liu, 2007). These argumentssupport the expectation that, in the context of employment interviews,recruiters in a profoundly positive mood are more likely to loosen theirinterview-evaluation criteria and increase the substantial assistance (e.g. afavorable rating) that they provide to applicants. These two outcomes asso-ciated with recruiters’ positive mood in turn strengthen the likelihood thatthe recruiters’ interview evaluations of the given applicant will be positive.Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 10: A direct positive relationship exists between recruiters’ positivemood and their hiring recommendations.

Figure 1 depicts the research model.

METHODS

Participants and Procedures

We collected data from applicants and recruiters in a real interview context toincrease the generalisability of the study results. The participants in this study

706 CHEN AND LIN


included 221 applicants seeking non-managerial positions and 107 recruitersworking in Taiwan-based firms (22 in manufacturing, 20 in the service indus-try, and eight in miscellaneous industries). We attracted between four and 10applicant participants per firm who had applied for entry-level jobs. Themean age of these applicants was 28.43, and 108 (48.90%) were male. More-over, 73 of them (33.03%) had received training for job interviews and, onaverage, had participated in 5.23 job interviews in their lifetime. For therecruiters, the mean age was 37.14, and 143 (64.70%) were male. On average,recruiters who participated in this study had undergone one training sessionon how to conduct employment interviews and had conducted 20.76 inter-views in their lifetime.

For each firm, we first obtained permission from management to solicitrecruiters from the human resources department for participation in thisstudy. Because we were concerned that any revelation of the true objectivesof this study would influence recruiters’ behaviors during the interviews, wesimply told the recruiters that the study concerned the selection interviewprocess. In this study, only one recruiter and one applicant were involved ineach interview. We collected data from multiple sources—namely, the appli-cant and the recruiter—to reduce concerns associated with common methodvariance (CMV). Immediately upon completion of the interview, the secondauthor approached the applicants and invited them to fill out a pen-and-paper survey concerning their demographic information and their interview-based use of IM tactics. To inhibit social desirability factors from surfacingin our study, we followed Arnold and Feldman’s (1981) two suggestions: We

H7-H9

(.06)

H1

(.12*)

H4–H6

(.53**)

H1

(.92**)

H2

(.28**)

H3

(-.07)

H10

(-.12)

H4

(.76**)

H5

(.74**)

H6

(.64**)

Self-focused

IM

Non-verbal

IM

Other-focused

IM

Positive

Mood

Perceived

P O fit

Perceived

P R fit

Perceived

P J fit Hiring

Recommendation

H2

(.13*)

H3

(.33**)

FIGURE 1. Hypotheses and path coefficients for the proposed model (Model1). Standardised path coefficients are in parentheses.*p < .05; **p < .01.



did not reveal the real objectives of the present study to the applicants, andwe assured them that all results would be kept completely confidential. Thesecond author also approached the recruiters after each interview and askedthem to fill out a pen-and-paper survey concerning their perceptions ofapplicants’ fit (i.e. P–O fit, P–J fit, and P–R fit), their positive mood duringthe interview, their ultimate hiring recommendations, and their own demo-graphic information.

Measures

Because the original survey instrument was developed in English, the Englishscale was translated into Chinese and then back-translated into Englishso that the scale-item contents would have cross-linguistic comparability(Brislin, 1980).

IM Tactics. We used nine items adopted from Kristof-Brown et al.(2002) to measure applicants’ use of IM tactics, including four items forself-focused IM (e.g. “In the interview, I did my best to display my knowledgeor skills”), three items for other-focused IM (e.g. “I praised the recruiter”),and two items for non-verbal IM (e.g. “I smiled a lot or used other friendlynon-verbal behavior”). We used applicants’ self-ratings of IM tactics as theseself-ratings were fairly similar to those rated by observers (Stevens & Kristof,1995). We asked applicants to self-report their uses of IM tactics and indicatetheir agreement on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = stronglyagree). The Cronbach’s α figures for the three IM subscales were all accept-able: .61 for self-focused IM tactics, .80 for other-focused IM tactics, and .73for non-verbal IM tactics.

Positive Mood. Our method (i.e. surveys of only 2 to 3 minutes in length)placed a constraint on the number of affect terms we could use while attempt-ing to cover the full range of positive moods; thus, to measure this construct,we ended up using five positive affect terms (i.e. inspiration, focus, deter-mination, alertness, and energy) from the International Positive and Nega-tive Affect Influence Schedule Short Form (I-PANAS-SF) developed byThompson (2007). The I-PANAS-SF scale improved upon the original Posi-tive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,1988) by reducing the overall length; as such, recruiters are generally morewilling to complete it. Thompson (2007) also confirmed the cross-culturalvalidity of this scale, ensuring that it is appropriate for use across variouscultures. We asked recruiters to self-report their interview-based mood ona 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). TheCronbach’s α for this measure was .92.

708 CHEN AND LIN


Perceptions of Fit. We used an 11-item instrument to measure recruit-ers’ fit-related perceptions of applicants. We used seven items fromKristof-Brown (2000): three items for recruiters’ perceptions of applicants’P–J fit perceptions (i.e. “I think this applicant fits the demands of the job”,“My colleagues will think this candidate is qualified to do this job”,“I think this applicant is qualified for this job”) and four items for theirP–O fit perceptions (i.e. “I think this applicant is very suitable for ourcompany”, “I think this applicant is highly similar to our other companyemployees”, “My colleagues will likely agree with me that this applicant isvery suitable for our company”, and “I am convinced that this applicantis suitable for our company”). To measure the recruiters’ perceptions ofapplicants’ P–R fit, we used Howard and Ferris’s (1996) four-item scale (i.e.“I feel that this applicant and I have many similar beliefs and values”, “Ifeel that this applicant and I share many similar interests”, “This applicantreminds me of myself”, and “I feel that this applicant’s viewpoints andattitudes are similar to mine”). In order to rate the three given types ofrecruiters’ applicant-fit perceptions, we asked the recruiters to indicate theiragreement with a number of related statements on a 5-point Likert scale(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s α statistics for thethree subscales were all acceptable: .90 for P–J fit, .90 for P–O fit, and .79for P–R fit.

Hiring Recommendations. We used Tsai et al.’s (2005) five-item scale tomeasure this construct. Sample items include “I consider this applicant suit-able for employment in this organisation” and “I am likely to invite theapplicant to a second interview.” Responses were again scored on a 5-pointLikert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α forthis measure was .94.

Control Variables. We included applicant gender, recruiter gender, andapplicant–recruiter gender similarity as control variables because these vari-ables have been found to influence interviewers’ evaluations (e.g. Garcia,Posthuma, & Colella, 2008). We followed Graves and Powell (1995) whencoding these variables. Gender was coded as −1 for males and 1 for females;opposite-gender dyads were coded as −1 and same-gender dyads as 1. Weadded the links between these control variables and the fit perceptions (i.e.P–O fit, P–J fit, and P–R fit), and the links between these control variablesand the hiring recommendations.1

1 For simplicity, we omitted the paths associated with control variables.



Analyses

We tested our hypotheses through structural equation modeling (SEM) usingLISREL 8.72 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) with maximum-likelihood estima-tions. We followed the two-step procedure suggested by Anderson andGerbing (1988) to test the hypothesised relationships. First, we analyzed thefactor structure of all the variables in the study, seeking a basis for thestructural relationships among the variables. After confirming the factorstructures, we constructed a structural model to test the hypothesisedrelationships.

RESULTS

Analysis of Validity

Table 1 presents the results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).Chi-square difference tests indicate that the hypothesised eight-factor model(i.e. self-focused IM, other-focused IM, non-verbal IM, P–O fit, P–J fit, P–Rfit, positive mood, and hiring recommendations) provided a better fit forthe data than did (1) the one-factor model in which all eight factors werecombined (Δχ2 = 1507.24, df = 28, p < .01), (2) the six-factor model in whichthe three fit dimensions were combined (Δχ2 = 108.86, df = 13, p < .01), (3)the six-factor model in which the three IM dimensions were combined(Δχ2 = 178.80, df = 13, p < .01), (4) the five-factor model in which the three fit

TABLE 1Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Study Variables

Model χ2 df △χ2 TLI GFI RMSEA

Hypothesised eight-factor model 1029.74 377 – .96 .76 .089Six-factor modela 1138.60 390 108.86 .95 .74 .093Six-factor modelb 1208.54 390 178.80 .95 .73 .098Five-factor modelc 1241.80 395 212.06 .95 .73 .099Four-factor modeld 1879.69 399 849.95 .93 .64 .13One-factor modele 2536.98 405 1507.24 .91 .57 .15

a The three fit perception dimensions (i.e. P–R fit, P–J fit, and P–O fit) are combined into one factor.b The three IM dimensions (i.e. self-focused IM, other-focused IM, and non-verbal IM) are combined into onefactor.c The three fit perception dimensions (i.e. P–R fit, P–J fit, and P–O fit) and hiring recommendation arecombined into one factor.d The three fit perception dimensions (i.e. P–R fit, P–J fit, and P–O fit), positive mood, and hiring recom-mendation are combined into one factor.e All eight factors are combined into one factor.

710 CHEN AND LIN


dimensions and hiring recommendations were combined (Δχ2 = 212.06, df =18, p < .01), and (5) the four-factor model in which the three fit dimensions,positive mood, and hiring recommendations were combined (Δχ2 = 849.95,df = 22, p < .01). These results suggest that the study constructs were distinct.

We also assessed discriminant validity by constraining inter-constructcorrelations to unity one at a time and by measuring the difference in thechi-square statistics (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The results indicated thatthe changes in chi-square were all significant at the .01 level (Δχ2 ranged from13.15 to 679.72); hence, discriminant validity was achieved. Table 2 showsthe means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of all variablesincluded in this study.

As we made no prediction as to whether the relationships in the modelinvolved partial or full mediation, we tested two competing models: the fullymediated model (shown in Figure 1) and a partially mediated model. Thepartially mediated model differs from the fully mediated model in terms ofthree direct paths that lead from the three types of IM tactics (i.e. self-focusedIM, other-focused IM, and non-verbal IM) to hiring recommendations. Theresults indicated that the fit of the partially mediated model was not signifi-cantly better than that of the fully mediated model (Δχ2 [3] = 1.41, p > .05).Moreover, none of the direct links leading from the three types of IMtactics to hiring recommendations were statistically significant. Therefore, weretained the more parsimonious model (the fully mediated model) as the finalmodel and used it to examine our hypotheses. The fully mediated modelfits the data well (χ2 [594] = 1,655.73; CFI = .94; IFI = .94, NFI = .91; TLI =.93; RMSEA = .090). Figure 1 shows all standardised path coefficients.

Hypothesis Testing

The fully mediated model shows that the relationships between (1) P–R fitperceptions and hiring recommendations, (2) other-focused IM tactics andpositive mood, and (3) positive mood and hiring recommendations were allnon-significant. These results do not support Hypotheses 3, 7, 8, 9, or 10.Using the Sobel test (Baron & Kenny, 1986), we tested the significance of theother hypothesised mediated relationships. The results demonstrated thatother-focused IM tactics had a marginally significant indirect association—via recruiters’ perceptions of P–O fit (z = 1.91, p < .10)—with recruiters’hiring recommendations, offering support for Hypothesis 1. The resultsalso indicated that self-focused IM had a marginally significant indirectassociation—via recruiters’ perceptions of P–J fit (z = 1.90, p < .10)—withrecruiters’ hiring recommendations, offering support for Hypothesis 2. Non-verbal IM tactics had a significant indirect association—via recruiters’ posi-tive mood—with recruiters’ perceptions of P–O fit (z = 5.41, p < .01), P–Jfit (z = 5.43, p < .01), and P–R fit (z = 4.93, p < .01), providing support for



TAB

LE2

Mea

ns,

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

on

s,an

dC

orr

elat

ion

sam

on

gVa

riab

lesa

Var

iabl

esM

ean

SD1

23

45

67

89

1011

1.A

pplic

ant

sex

––

–2.

Rec

ruit

erse

x–

–−.

00–

3.Se

xsi

mila

rity

––

−.29

**.0

2–

4.Se

lf-f

ocus

edIM

3.27

.63

−.16

*.1

8*.1

1(.

61)

5.O

ther

-foc

used

IM2.

76.8

4−.

16*

.01

.09

.54*

*(.

80)

6.N

on-v

erba

lIM

3.95

.49

.04

.12

.17

.40*

*.3

5**

(.73

)7.

Pos

itiv

em

ood

2.30

.79

.00

.11

.03

.37*

*.1

9**

.43*

*(.

92)

8.P

erce

ived

P–O

fit3.

311.

03.0

6.0

6−.

07.2

2**

.09

.37*

*.5

6**

(.90

)9.

Per

ceiv

edP

–Jfit

3.33

.79

.08

.12

−.11

.30*

*.1

2.4

0**

.65*

*.6

5**

(.79

)10

.P

erce

ived

P–R

fit3.

18.6

3.0

7.0

2.1

1.3

8**

.22*

*.3

5**

.54*

*.5

5**

.67*

*(.

90)

11.

Hir

ing

reco

mm

enda

tion

3.31

.81

.05

.09

−.04

.38*

*.1

6*.3

9**

.64*

*.6

3**

.84*

*.6

3**

(.94

)

Not

e:C

ronb

ach’

sal

phas

appe

aron

the

diag

onal

.*p

<.0

5;**

p<

.01.

712 CHEN AND LIN


Hypotheses 4 through 6. Moreover, the results showed that the neither thelinks between the three control variables (i.e. applicant gender, recruitergender, and applicant–recruiter gender similarity) and fit perceptions (i.e.P–O fit, P–J fit, and P–R fit), nor the links between these control variablesand hiring recommendations reached the traditional significance level.

We can now estimate the relative importance of these mechanisms byharnessing the sum of the products of the path coefficients in the SEM model(Alwin & Hauser, 1975). As other-focused IM is the only IM tactic thatinfluences hiring recommendations through the two mechanisms proposed inthe present study, we computed the two mechanisms’ relative contributionsonly to the effects of other-focused IM. According to the results, the totalmediated contribution of the norm-activation mechanism (i.e. P–O fit andP–R fit) was .09 and the total mediated contribution of the affective-reactionmechanism (i.e. positive mood) was .04, indicating that other-focused IMinfluenced hiring recommendations mainly through the norm-activationmechanism.

Non-Independence Issue of Nested Data

As the same interviewer evaluated multiple applicants, data collected fromthe interviewer might be confounded by certain interviewer effects (e.g. non-independence). Therefore, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM), which explic-itly takes into account the nested nature of the data, was also utilised. Wefollowed Hofmann, Griffin, and Gavin’s (2000) suggestion that researchersfit a null model to estimate the total systematic variance in the mediatingvariables and the dependent variables (i.e. P–O fit, P–J fit, P–R fit, positivemood, and hiring recommendations). The results demonstrated that theintraclass correlation (ICC[1]) of these variables ranged between .10 and .27,which was comparable to the recommended ICC(1) values found in theliterature (e.g. Bliese, 2000). Thus, we tested the mediation hypothesesusing HLM by following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step procedure.The results showed that the findings were quite similar in terms of hypothesistesting. However, SEM is considered to be a more powerful technique thanBaron and Kenny’s approach in terms of testing mediating effects becauseSEM accounts for the whole model at once by incorporating all the variablessimultaneously and controlling for all other effects of the variables, whilealso providing the best balance of type I error rates and statistical power(MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). To avoid redun-dancy, we report only the SEM findings in this paper.

DISCUSSION

The main purpose of this study was to extend social influence theory (Barricket al., 2009; Ferris et al., 2002) by examining whether applicants’ IM tactics



influence recruiters’ evaluations through the mechanisms of fit perceptionsand affective state. In a recent review paper, Huffcutt, Van Iddekinge, andRoth (2011) argued that, “despite decades of research, we know surprisinglylittle about the factors that influence how interviewees perform in employ-ment interviews, and in turn how that performance is translated into and/orassociated with ratings made by the interviewer” (p. 353). Posthuma et al.(2002) argued that the research on applicants’ IM tactics “does not conclu-sively establish whether impression management is influencing intervieweraffect or impressions about job-related traits of the applicant” (p. 12). Thepresent findings address such questions to a certain extent––namely, rigorousconsideration of the mechanisms of interviewer affect (i.e. positive mood)enabled us to determine that applicants’ IM tactics influence hiring recom-mendations through cognitive processes such as recruiters’ perceptions ofapplicants’ potential P–O fit and P–J fit.

This study contributes to the literature on P–E fit in two ways. First, mostresearch has narrowly conceptualised fit as one type of fit, and few research-ers have attempted to incorporate multiple types of fit within the same study(Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). Tak (2011) recently argued that, “althoughstudies have distinguished these different fit types as distinct concepts, thereis little empirical evidence indicating how these different fit types correlatewith important individual outcomes” and “most past research focused ononly one P–E fit type without controlling for the others” (p. 315). Scroggins(2007) also noted that, when recruiters consider the multiple facets of fitin order to match individuals to the work environment during staffing, “amore complete fit of the individual to the work environment is likely to resultthan if the organization focuses on only one dimension of fit to the neglectof others” (p. 1661). In reality, recruiters always use the three types of fitperceptions (i.e. P–O fit, P–J fit, and P–R fit) as criteria when making hiringdecisions in employment interviews; thus, simultaneously incorporating allthree types of fit contributes to the P–E fit literature by providing a morerealistic picture of their influence and a more complete conceptualisation ofthe categorisation of P–E fit. Second, our results demonstrated that recruit-ers’ positive mood was positively related to their perceptions of the threetypes of fit (i.e. P–O fit, P–J fit, and P–R fit). Yu (2009) argued that “affective-consistency theories have typically focused only on the influence of affect onseparate judgments of either the person or the environment . . . little is knownabout the ability of affect for predicting joint perceptions of the fittingrelationship between person and environment” (p. 1221). Our study contrib-utes to the P–E fit literature by explicitly addressing the affective contexts inwhich recruiters’ fit perceptions of applicants take shape.

The current study results also suggest that, by influencing recruiters’perceptions of P–J fit, applicants’ self-focused IM tactics influenced hiringrecommendations. These findings are consistent with those of Kristof-Brown

714 CHEN AND LIN


et al. (2002), but contradict those of Howard and Ferris (1996), who foundthat applicants’ self-focused IM tactics were not related to recruiters’ P–J fitperceptions. Research design differences across these three studies mightexplain the differing effect of self-focused IM tactics: Howard and Ferris(1996) conducted their study using laboratory experiments in which partici-pants were asked to act as the recruiters and view a videotaped interview;meanwhile, both Kristof-Brown et al. (2002) and our work (as reported here)drew on data from actual employment interviews. It is possible that thesimulated recruiters in Howard and Ferris’s (1996) study did not clearlyunderstand the requirements of the job opening, thereby lowering theirability—via observation of applicants’ behavior—to differentiate betweenthe applicants during P–J fit evaluations. As such, the effects of applicants’self-focused IM tactics on interviewers’ evaluations might have been reduced.

In addition, according to our results, recruiters’ perceptions of a givenapplicant’s P–R fit were not related to the recruiters’ subsequent hiringrecommendations pertaining to that applicant. However, as Table 2 shows,we found that the bivariate correlation between P–R fit and hiring recom-mendations was positive and statistically significant (r = .63, p < .01). Onepossible explanation for the contradiction is that the high correlationsbetween P–R fit and P–O fit (r = .55, p < .01), as well as between P–R fit andP–J fit (r = .67, p < .01), might have resulted in multicollinearity, which wouldhave caused the relationship between P–R fit and hiring recommendationsto stem from the other two types of fit perceptions (i.e. P–O fit and P–Jfit), ultimately resulting in a spurious path coefficient (Cohen, Ledford, &Spreitzer, 1996). Posthuma et al. (2002) called for future studies to investigatewhether interviewers predominantly select an applicant based on their per-ceived P–R fit and not necessarily or uniquely based on their perceived P–Ofit or P–J fit. To a certain extent, our results answer these researchers’ ques-tion by suggesting that, when the recruiter considers these three types of fitsimultaneously, both P–O fit and P–J fit will surpass P–R fit in influencingthe recruiter’s hiring recommendations. Such results might be beneficialto recruiters’ decision-making as past research has generally confirmed thepositive effects of individuals’ P–O fit and P–J fit on their work attitudesand performance (e.g. Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Nyambegera, Daniels, &Sparrow, 2001; Taris & Feij, 2001), although other studies have called intoquestion the beneficial effects of P–R fit on work outcomes.

As expected, the current study found that, by initiating a positive mood inrecruiters, applicants’ non-verbal IM tactics influenced recruiters’ fit percep-tions and subsequent hiring recommendations. The affect infusion model(AIM; Forgas, 1995) can provide a theoretical foundation for discussinghow recruiters’ moods might influence their judgment. According to AIM, aselection interview that involves a full, open search for information creates asituation in which recruiters’ mood influences their attention, encoding, and



retrieval processes, thereby influencing the recruiters’ interview judgment.Our study extends the AIM theory by confirming that recruiters’ positivemood “infuses” itself into their judgment of applicant fit. This confirmationenables us to better understand whether recruiters’ mood interferes with theircognitive processes and whether, in turn, this interference can influence theirhiring decisions.

Unexpectedly, this study found that after controlling for non-verbal IMtactics, other-focused IM tactics were unrelated to recruiters’ positive mood.However, as expected, the bivariate correlation between other-focused IMtactics and recruiters’ positive mood was positive and statistically significant(r = .19, p < .01). One possible explanation is that this correlation resultedfrom the high correlations between other-focused IM tactics and non-verbalIM tactics (r = .35, p < .01), which in turn led to multicollinearity and thuscaused the relationship between other-focused IM tactics and recruiters’positive mood to be explained with reference to non-verbal IM tactics, result-ing in a spurious path coefficient (Cohen et al., 1996). Another plausibleexplanation is that other-focused IM tactics were indeed unrelated torecruiters’ positive mood. Scholars have pointed out that the display ofother-focused tactics might convey an impression of weakness and indeci-siveness (Kacmar et al., 1992; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). For example,Kristof-Brown et al. (2002) argued that applicants with relatively low GPAsshould defensively increase their display of other-focused IM tactics in orderto shift attention away from perceptions that their qualifications are weak.Therefore, applicants’ use of other-focused IM tactics might reflect theirdesire to conceal potential personal weaknesses that could lead to disquali-fication, even though these do nothing to improve recruiters’ mood.

Our results show that the direct path between recruiters’ positive moodand their hiring recommendations was insignificant, which suggests thatrecruiters’ perceptions of P–O fit and P–J fit fully mediate the relationshipbetween their positive mood and hiring recommendations. Thus, whenevaluating applicants, interviewers with more positive mood are more likelythan those with less positive mood to stimulate their positive perceptions ofP–O fit and P–J fit relative to the applicants, strengthening the likelihoodthat the interviewers with a more positive mood will favorably assess theapplicants for the job. The mediating model in this study also expands theliterature on recruiters’ affective states during employment interviews. Todate, only two studies have examined the effects of recruiter mood onrecruiter evaluations: Baron (1987, 1993) suggested that recruiters’ moodwas positively related to their evaluations of applicants. The present studyextends Baron’s work in three ways. First, both of Baron’s studies usedlaboratory experiments to collect data; consequently, it is unclear whetherthe findings are generalisable to situations where mood is not experi-mentally manipulated. In contrast, we conducted this study based on real

716 CHEN AND LIN


employment interviews for real job openings, which has the advantage ofreflecting “the physical, emotional, and cognitive fidelity of interviews wherethere are real outcomes for both recruiter and applicant” (Posthuma et al.,2002, p. 41). Second, in contrast with Baron’s (1987, 1993) studies, whichdid not examine the antecedents of recruiters’ mood, the current studyfound that applicants’ non-verbal IM tactics can enhance recruiters’ positivemood. These results deepen our existing knowledge of whether applicants’use of IM tactics during interviews can influence recruiters’ mood. Third,neither of Baron’s (1987, 1993) studies examined the mediating mechanismsof the effects of recruiters’ mood on their ratings of applicants, whereas thecurrent study found that perceptions of P–O fit and P–J fit can mediate therelationship between recruiters’ positive mood and hiring recommendations.Thus, our study contributes to a deeper understanding of the effects ofrecruiters’ mood by clarifying both the how and why aspects of the under-lying theory building (Whetten, 1989).

Moreover, our results demonstrated that applicant–recruiter gender simi-larity was not related to hiring recommendations. However, our results aresomewhat inconsistent with Graves and Powell’s (1995) findings on theeffects of applicant–recruiter gender similarity. Their research strategy wassimilar to the present study in that real business recruiters acted as inter-viewers (as opposed to students playing the role of the interviewer), and thecoding method for applicant–recruiter gender similarity was identical to thatused in the current study. One plausible explanation for the difference inoutcomes is that the variations in the extent of hiring recommendations wereless than the corresponding variations found in Graves and Powell’s (1995)work, which might lead to an underestimation of gender similarity’s effects.Table 1 shows that the current study’s hiring-recommendations variation(Coefficient of Variation = .24) was smaller than that reported in Gravesand Powell’s (1995) study (Coefficient of Variation = .28), suggesting that therange of recruiters’ applicant-related hiring recommendations was consist-ently limited in the current study. Such a restriction of range (Schmidt,Hunter, & Urry, 1976) relative to hiring recommendations might make itdifficult for recruiters to differentiate applicants from one another on thebasis of gender similarity within applicant–recruiter dyads.

Practical Implications

From a practical standpoint, our results help explain why certain IM tacticsused by applicants lead to certain hiring recommendations. Previous studieshave confirmed the beneficial effects of employees’ P–O fit and P–J fit on theirwork attitudes and performance (e.g. Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). We foundthat applicants can use IM tactics to influence recruiters’ perceptions of P–Ofit and P–J fit; thus, our results highlight the need for companies to adopt



effective selection practices (e.g. a highly structured interview; Tsai et al.,2005) that help recruiters both observe applicants’ IM tactics and accuratelyinfer applicants’ level of P–O fit and P–J fit.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Given the theoretical and practical implications discussed herein, this study isnot without its limitations. First, the reliability coefficient of self-focused IMwas relatively low (Cronbach’s α = .61). It is plausible that, during the jobinterviews observed in this study, applicants used self-focused IM tacticsthat our self-promotion measure did not fully capture. However, previousresearchers have argued that “heterogeneity would be a legitimate part ofthe test if it were part of the domain of content implied by the construct”(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994, p. 312). Therefore, we believe that the self-focused IM tactics variable remains meaningful as each item of this measurereflected part of the construct of self-focused IM tactics. Future researchshould endeavor to develop an improved measure of this construct byaccounting for more self-focused IM tactics (e.g. statements of personalentitlement, boasts about past personal achievements).

Second, to prevent CMV-related issues from arising (Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), we followed Posthuma et al.’s (2002)suggestion that researchers collect data from both applicants and recruiters:Applicants rated their use of IM tactics and recruiters evaluated theirapplicant-targeted hiring recommendations. Despite these efforts, we did notmeasure all the mediating variables in our theoretical model (e.g. positivemood; perceptions of P–O fit, P–J fit, and P–R fit) in reference to sourcesother than the recruiters, indicating that some of the reported relationshipsin the proposed model might be inflated due to CMV. Furthermore, if CMVwas largely responsible for the relationship among the variables, the one-factor CFA model should have fit the data well (Podsakoff et al., 2003).However, the CFA results (presented in Table 1) indicate that the one-factormodel (1) did not fit the data well and (2) was significantly worse than ourhypothesised eight-factor model. Moreover, we followed Podsakoff et al.’s(2003) suggestion that researchers control for the effects of recruiter negativemood as a source of CMV in SEM. Their findings were identical to those inthe current study in terms of hypothesis testing. Therefore, we believe thatpotential CMV issues are not a serious threat to the validity of the findingsreported in this study.

Third, this study relied on cross-sectional data, which constrained ourability to make causal inferences about the hypothesised relationships. Itmight be possible to mitigate this concern based on the fact that our findingsrest on deductions from well-developed theories and are consistent with theresults of previous experimental studies (e.g. Baron, 1987, 1993; Howard &

718 CHEN AND LIN


Ferris, 1996). Moreover, it might not be reasonable to argue that recruiters’perceived fit and hiring recommendations influence the IM tactics displayedby applicants. Future studies can consider using a longitudinal researchdesign to allow for causal inferences about the relationships identified in thepresent study.

Fourth, similar to findings in past research (e.g. Kristof-Brown et al.,2002; Tsai et al., 2005), the standard deviation of the non-verbal IMmeasure as rated by applicants was relatively low (i.e. .49), implying thatthe applicants in this study consistently demonstrated limited levels ofnon-verbal IM tactics. However, our findings can be considered a conserva-tive estimate of the actual relationship between non-verbal IM tactics andinterviewers’ evaluations. We encourage future research that builds on thepresent results and clarifies the external generalisations in terms of non-verbal IM tactics.

Future studies should also explore other possible mediating mechanismsthat function between applicants’ IM tactics and recruiters’ hiring recom-mendations and that include, for example, person–group fit (P–G fit)(Anderson, Lievens, van Dam, & Ryan, 2004). Groups have become acommon feature in many organisations (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Pastresearch has confirmed that employees who exhibit relatively high P–G fitalso exhibit greater positivity in their work attitudes and higher job perfor-mance than employees who exhibit relatively low P–G fit (Kristof-Brownet al., 2005). During job interviews, an applicant can use other-focused IMtactics by emphasising that, if hired, he or she would get along with team-mates. Hence, we encourage future researchers to explore the effects thatapplicants’ IM tactics might have on recruiter P–G fit perceptions, which inturn affect recruiters’ hiring recommendations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, using multiple sources of measurement and the field settingsof real employment interviews for real job openings, the present researchstudy supports the assertion that applicants can use IM tactics to influencerecruiters’ fit perceptions and positive mood, thereby influencing their hiringrecommendations. This study contributes to the existing literature by pro-viding results within field settings regarding the influence that applicants’ IMtactics have on the judgment of real recruiters (McGrath, 1982). The use offield settings is particularly important for social factors (e.g. IM tactics)because of the “rich social context that surrounds actual employment inter-views” (Posthuma et al., 2002, p. 14). Such findings also contribute to theliterature on the relationship between applicant IM tactics and recruiterjudgment by offering explanations of how and why IM tactics might work(Gilmore et al., 1999).



REFERENCES

Alwin, D.F., & Hauser, R.M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis.American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.

Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: Areview and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Anderson, N., Lievens, F., van Dam, K., & Ryan, A.M. (2004). Future perspectiveson employee selection: Key directions for future research and practice. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 53, 925–951.

Arnold, H.J., & Feldman, D.C. (1981). Social desirability response bias in self-reportchoice situations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 377–385.

Baron, R.A. (1987). Interviewer’s moods and reactions to job applicants: The in-fluence of affective states on applied social judgments. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 17, 911–926.

Baron, R.A. (1993). Interviewer’s moods and evaluations of job applications: The roleof applicant qualifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 253–271.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Barrick, M.R., Shaffer, J.A., & DeGrassi, S.W. (2009). What you see may not be whatyou get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview andjob performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1394–1411.

Bliese, P.D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K.K. Klein & S.J. Kozlowski(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bower, G.H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36,129–148.Brislin, R.W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material.

In H.C. Triandis & J.W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology(Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bye, H.H., Sandal, G.M., van de Vijver, F.J.R., Sam, D., Cakar, N.D., & Franke,G.H. (2011). Personal values and intended self-presentation during job interviews:A cross-cultural comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60,160–182.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Cable, D.M., & Judge, T.A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person–organization

fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546–561.

Chen, C.C., Yang, W.F., & Lin, W.C. (2010). Applicant impression management injob interview: The moderating role of interviewer affectivity. Journal of Occupa-tional and Organizational Psychology, 83, 739–757.

Chen, C.H.V., Lee, H.M., & Yeh, Y.J.Y. (2008). The antecedent and consequence ofperson–organization fit: Ingratiation, similarity, hiring recommendations and joboffer. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 210–219.

Cohen, S.G., & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectivenessresearch from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23,239–290.

720 CHEN AND LIN


Cohen, S., Ledford, G., & Spreitzer, G. (1996). A predictive model of self-managingwork team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643–676.

Cole, M.S., Rubin, R.S., Feild, H.S., & Giles, W.F. (2007). Recruiters’ perceptionsand use of applicant résumé information: Screening the recent graduate. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 56, 319–343.

Dallimore, K.S., Sparks, B.A., & Butcher, K. (2007). The influence of angry customeroutbursts on service providers’ facial displays and affective states. Journal ofService Research, 10, 78–92.

Dimberg, U., & Thunberg, M. (1998). Rapid facial reactions to different emotionallyrelevant stimuli. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39, 39–45.

Ellis, A.P.J., West, B.J., Ryan, A.M., & DeShon, R.P. (2002). The use of impressionmanagement behaviors in structured interviews: A function of question type?Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1200–1208.

Falbe, C.M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influencetactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 638–652.

Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Douglas, C., Blass, F.R., Kolodinsky, R.W., &Treadway, D.C. (2002). Social influence processes in organizations and humanresource systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 21,65–127.

Forgas, J.P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The Affect Infusion Model (AIM). Psycho-logical Bulletin, 117, 39–66.

Forgas, J.P. (2002). Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior.Psychological Inquiry, 13, 1–28.

Forgas, J.P., Bower, G.H., & Moylan, S.J. (1990). Praise or blame? Mood effects onattributions for success or failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,809–819.

Friedman, H.S., & Riggio, R.E. (1981). Effect of individual differences in non-verbalexpressiveness on transmission of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6,96–104.

Garcia, M.F., Posthuma, R.A., & Colella, A. (2008). Fit perceptions in the employ-ment interview: The role of similarity, liking, and expectations. Journal of Occu-pational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 173–189.

George, J.M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviorsat work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299–307.

Gilmore, D.C., & Ferris, G.R. (1989). The effects of applicant impression manage-ment tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15, 557–564.

Gilmore, D.C., Stevens, C.K., Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, G.R. (1999). Impressionmanagement tactics. In R.W. Eder & M.M. Harris (Eds.), The employment inter-view handbook (pp. 321–336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goldberg, C.B. (2005). Relational demography and similarity-attraction in interviewassessments and subsequent offer decisions: Are we missing something? Group andOrganization Management, 30, 597–624.

Graves, L.M., & Powell, G.N. (1988). An investigation of sex discrimination inrecruiters’ evaluations of actual applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,20–29.



Graves, L.M. & Powell, G.N. (1995). The effect of sex similarity on recruiters’evaluations of actual applicants: A test of the similarity-attraction paradigm.Personnel Psychology, 48, 85–98.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Rapson, R.L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Hazer, J.T., & Jacobson, J.R. (2003). Effects of screener self-monitoring on therelationships among applicant positive self-presentation, objective credentials andemployability ratings. Journal of Management, 29, 119–138.

Hess, U., Blairy, S., & Philippot, P. (1998). Facial reactions to emotional facialexpressions: Affect or cognition? Cognition and Emotion, 12, 509–532.

Higgins, C.A., & Judge, T.A. (2004). The effect of applicant influence tactics onrecruiter perceptions of fit and hiring recommendations: A field study. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 89, 622–632.

Higgins, C.A., Judge, T.A., & Ferris, G.R. (2003). Influence tactics and workoutcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 89–106.

Hofmann, D.A., Griffin, M.A., & Gavin, M.B. (2000). The application of hierarchicallinear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 467–511). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Howard, J.L., & Ferris, G.R. (1996). The employment interview context: Social andsituational influences on interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-ogy, 26, 112–136.

Huffcutt, A.I., Van Iddekinge, C.H., & Roth, P.L. (2011). Understanding applicantbehavior in employment interviews: A theoretical model of interviewee perfor-mance. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 353–367.

Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL:Scientific Software International.

Kacmar, K.M., Delery, J.E., & Ferris, G.R. (1992). Differential effectiveness ofapplicant impression management tactics on employment interview decisions.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1250–1272.

Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2000). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between recruit-ers’ perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Personnel Psychology,53, 643–671.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Barrick, M.R., & Franke, M. (2002). Applicant impressionmanagement: Dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter perceptionsof fit and similarity. Journal of Management, 28, 27–46.

Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequencesof individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization,person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.

Lauver, K.J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees’perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 59, 454–470.

McGrath, J.E. (1982). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. InJ. McGrath, J. Martin, & R. Kulka (Eds.), Judgment calls in research (pp. 69–102).Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

722 CHEN AND LIN


MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G., & Sheets, V.(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variableseffects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.

Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd edn.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Nyambegera, St M., Daniels, K., & Sparrow, P. (2001). Why fit doesn’t alwaysmatter: The impact of HRM and cultural fit on job involvement of Kenyanemployees. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 109–140.

Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2006). Verbal and nonverbal impression managementtactics in behavior description and situational interviews. International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 14, 206–222.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003).Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the litera-ture and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Posthuma, R.A., Morgeson, F.P., & Campion, M.A. (2002). Beyond employmentinterview validity: A comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trendsover time. Personnel Psychology, 55, 1–81.

Proost, K., Schreurs, B., De Witte, K., & Derous, E. (2010). Ingratiation and self-promotion in the selection interview: The effects of using single tactics or acombination of tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psy-chology, 40, 2155–2169.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R.I. (1987). Expression of emotion as part of the work role.Academy of Management Review, 12, 23–37.

Robbins, T.L., & DeNisi, A.S. (1998). Mood vs. interpersonal affect: Identifyingprocess and rating distortions in performance appraisal. Journal of Business andPsychology, 12, 313–325.

Rusting, C.L. (1999). Interactive effects of personality and mood on emotion-congruent memory and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77, 1073–1086.

Schlenker, B.R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, andinterpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E., & Urry, V.W. (1976). Statistical power in criterion-related validity studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 473–485.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G.L. (1988). How do I feel about it? Informative functions ofaffective states. In K. Fiedler & J. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and socialbehavior (pp. 25–43). Toronto: Hogrefe International.

Scroggins, W.A. (2007). An examination of the additive versus convergent effectsof employee perceptions of fit. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1649–1665.

Stevens, C.K., & Kristof, A.L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field studyof applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 80, 587–606.

Tak, J. (2011). Relationships between various person–environment fit types andemployee withdrawal behavior: A longitudinal study. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 78, 315–320.



Taris, R., & Feij, J.A. (2001). Longitudinal examination of the relationship betweensupplies–values fit and work outcomes. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 50, 52–80.

Tedeschi, J.T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in theorganization. In S.B. Bacharach & E.J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology oforganizations (pp. 515–523). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Thompson, E.R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliableshort-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 227–242.

Tiggemann, M., & Boundy, M. (2008). Effect of environment and appearance com-pliment on college women’s self-objectification, mood, body shame, and cognitiveperformance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 399–405.

Tsai, W.C., Chen, C.C., & Chiu, S.F. (2005). Exploring boundaries of the effects ofapplicant impression management tactics in job interviews. Journal of Manage-ment, 31, 108–125.

Tsai, W.C., Chen, C.C., & Liu, H.L. (2007). Test of a model linking employee positivemoods and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1570–1583.

Tsai, W.C., Chi, N.W., Huang, T.C., & Hsu, A.J. (2011). The effects of applicantrésumé contents on recruiters’ hiring recommendations: The mediating rolesof recruiter fit perceptions. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 231–254.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of briefmeasures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Wayne, S.J., & Kacmar, K.M. (1991). The effects of impression management onthe performance appraisal process. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 48, 70–88.

Webster, J.M., Duvall, J., Gaines, L.M., & Smith, R.H. (2003). The role of praiseand social comparison information in the experience of pride. Journal of SocialPsychology, 143, 209–232.

Whetten, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy ofManagement Review, 14, 516–531.

Yu, K.Y.T. (2009). Affective influences in person–environment fit theory: Exploringthe role of affect as both cause and outcome of P–E fit. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 94, 1210–1226.

724 CHEN AND LIN


the effect of applicant impression management tactics on hiring recommendations: cognitive and...

Documents