Self-presentation style in job interviews: The role ofpersonality and culture

Chronic self-promoters may thrive in job interviews where such behavior is encouraged. In Study 1, 72 participants were videotaped as they simulated the job applicant role. Accountability was manipulated by the expectation of expert versus nonexpert interviewers. As accountability increased, self-promotion tended to decrease among non-narcissists but increase among narcissists. Ingratiation showed no interaction or main effects. In Study 2, 222 raters evaluated applicant videos varying in narcissism (high vs. low) and ethnicity (European heritage vs. East Asian heritage). Chronic self-promoters (i.e., European-heritage narcissists) were given the most positive evaluations. Detailed behavior analyses indicated that the narcissism advantage was derived primarily from frequent self-praise and the European-heritage advantage from use of active ingratiation tactics. In sum, self-presentation styles that pay off in the (Western) interview context are highly selective. 2042 1. In our framework, self-presentation subsumes impression management, self-deceptive enhancement, and need not involve dissimulation. S e l f p r e S e n t a t i o n S t y l e i n j o b i n t e r v i e w S 2043 view. Here, it seems self-evident that a positive self-presentation is advantageous, perhaps even mandatory for success. Empirical evidence confirms that greater use of self-presentation tactics fosters positive interviewer evaluations (Howard & Ferris, 1996). Indeed, those who fail to self-present are viewed in negative terms (Higgins & Judge, 2004). It is not surprising, then, that selfpresentation tactics have been a central focus in the study of job interviews (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Levashina & Campion, 2007; Marcus, 2009; Morgeson & Ryan, 2009; Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 2002). The tactic of self-promotion, for example, has been shown to improve the likelihood of success in a job interview. Applicants who actively highlight their skills and abilities tend to advance impressions of their competence (Dipboye & Wiley, 1977; Higgins & Judge, 2004) but not their likability (Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986). Another proven strategy is ingratiation, i.e., appearing likable (Higgins & Judge, 2004; Liden & Mitchell, 1988; Stires & Jones, 1969). This strategy creates an affective halo that brightens a wide range of other judgments (Godfrey et al., 1986; Goffin, Jelley, & Wagner, 2003). Nonetheless, there are limits to the use of self-presentation. For example, self-promotion does not engender liking (Godfrey et al., 1986; Pfeffer et al., 2006). Conversely, although it may increase liking, tactical modesty does not necessarily benefit perceptions of competence (Giacalone & Riordan, 1999). Moreover, research confirms that the benefits of self-promotion are delicately balanced with reactance (Ames, 2008; Baron, 1986). Obvious or excessive attempts to manipulate or influence create a defensive response and a negative evaluation (Anderson, Ames, & Gosling, 2008; Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Higgins & Judge, 2004; Murphy, 2007). Finally, the choice of self-presentation tactics must be tailored to the context. In the job interview context, for example, strategies such as supplication and intimidation are unlikely to be effective. In sum, orchestrating the intricacies of self-presentation can be challenging, if not overwhelming. Natural proclivities can make the task easier. Two obvious sources of self-presentation proclivities are personality factors and cultural factors. Each has a substantial literature documenting its effects. Individual differences Both personality traits and cultural differences may influence self-presentation styles. Only a handful of personality traits, namely, self-monitoring (e.g., Graziano & Waschull, 1995) and Machiavellianism (Jones & Paulhus, 2009), have received sustained attention as carriers of self-presentation. Instead, a different set of traits has been linked to each of the self-presentation tactics listed above (Delery & Kacmar, 1998). In this paper, we focus on personality and cultural factors that predispose selfpromotion and ingratiation. Chronic self-promoters As a personality variable, chronic self-promotion has been operationalized in several ways. The most popular operationalization involves trait measures of self-enhancement, e.g., the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; e.g., Collins & Stukas, 2008) or the Self-Deceptive Enhancement scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (e.g., Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003). At the subclinical level, narcissists exhibit both grandiose self-beliefs and active self-promotion (Emmons, 1984; Morf, Horvath, & Torchetti, 2010; Raskin, NovaFigure 1. Hierarchy of self-presentation: strategies and tactics. 2044 p a u l h u S e t a l . i n J o u r n a l o f a p p l i e d S o c i a l p S y c h o l o g y 43 (2013) cek, & Hogan, 1991).2 Their unique self-presentation style can be traced to a sense of superiority accompanied by a concern that others fail to acknowledge that superiority. In contrast to self-monitoring or Machiavellianism, the self-presentation style of narcissists is especially rigid (Rhodewalt & Morf, 1995) and operates primarily on agentic as opposed to communal attributes (Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002). The fact that narcissists seem to truly believe their claims of superiority (see Ames & Kammrath, 2004) suggests that their self-presentational style extends beyond impression management to a form of self-deception (Horvath & Morf, 2010; Paulhus, 1998). Although they may use a variety of self-promotional tactics, most prominent are their use of self-enhancement (exaggeration of their positive qualities) and self-praise (bragging). Much of the literature on chronic self-enhancers emphasizes its maladaptive side (e.g., Colvin & Griffo, 2008; Morf, Torchetti, & Schurch, 2011; Vazire & Funder, 2006). This literature points to the fact that that they behave badly under threat (e.g., Colvin, Block, & Funder, 1995, Study 3; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Any redeeming qualities are eventually undermined by their egotistical focus (Bonanno, Field, Kovacevic, & Kaltman, 2002; Paulhus, 1998; Vazire & Funder, 2006). That negative perspective must be reconsidered in light of more recent studies indicating trade-offs in the adaptive value of chronic self-promotion (Campbell, 2001; Campbell et al., 2002; Goorin & Bonanno, 2009; Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011; Kwan, Kuang, & Zhao, 2008; Paunonen, Lönnqvist, Verkasalo, Leikas, & Nissinen, 2006; Taylor et al., 2003). In particular, it seems that initial reactions to self-promoters are actually positive (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010; Friedman, Oltmanns, Gleason, & Turkheimer, 2006; Paulhus, 1998). We suspect that this initial (even if temporary) advantage may be sufficient enough to promote success in short-term contexts such as job interviews. A key element may be the persistence exhibited by chronic self-promoters. Recent studies have shown how relentless narcissists can be (Campbell, Reeder, Sedikides, & Elliot, 2000; Collins & Stukas, 2008; Wallace, Ready, & Weitenhagen, 2009). They won’t back down on their exaggerations even in light of concrete contradictory evidence (Robins & John, 1997). In some cases, they may actually redouble their efforts when given the opportunity to shine (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). By contrast, self-promoters such as narcissists are not inclined to use ingratiation tactics. Such tactics enhance one’s communal image, but creating an agentic image is far more important to the self-promoter (Collins & Stukas, 2008; Paulhus & Trapnell, 2008). Instead, ingratiation tendencies are associated with a different constellation of predispositions (Liden & Mitchell, 1988). Role of culture Self-promotion tendencies may also differ across cultures (Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999). It has long been known, for example, that modesty is viewed more favorably than is self-promotion in East Asian cultures (Hofstede, 1980).3 Further investigations have suggested more complexity: Cultural differences turn on the social context (Matsumoto, 2007), the domain (Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003), and may merely be a public self-presentation strategy (Yamaguchi et al., 2007). Moreover, cultural self-construals may shift with contextual cues (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2009). Whatever the source, such cultural influences in values and behavior should play out in the job interview (Bond, Leung, & Wan, 1982). The East Asian self-presentation style would encourage deference and modesty in line with greater power distance and relationship-oriented values (Barron & Sackett, 2008). By comparison, the Western presentation style tends to encourage selfpromotion, assertiveness, and independence, consistent with agentic and economic-oriented values (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, & Sheldon, 2001; Xin & Tsui, 1996). Together, these behavior patterns are consistent with the prediction that those of European heritage are more likely than those of East Asian heritage to self-promote during interviews. Contextual moderators In the Western job interview situation, self-promotion is not just commonplace: It is expected. Despite this expectation, employers often rely more on the interview than on paper credentials (Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Therefore, the selection outcome will be strongly influenced by individual differences in applicants’ ability to promote themselves and their credentials. Applicants face the difficult task of matching their behavior to the job profile, on criteria preferred by a specific interviewer, and at the appropriate level of self-promotion— all the while fearing they will not get a second chance. Person–situation fit Many authorities have argued that self-presentation success is determined less by the direct effect of personality variables than by the fit of the personality to the context (Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996; Ng, Ang, & Chan, 2008; Roberts & Hogan, 2001; Tett & Burnett, 2. In this paper, we focus on grandiose narcissism as operationalized by the NPI (see Brown & Tamborksi, 2011) rather than vulnerable narcissism (Pincus & Ross, 2011). 3. Mainland China (People’s Republic of China) may be an exception (Barron & Sackett, 2008). S e l f p r e S e n t a t i o n S t y l e i n j o b i n t e r v i e w S 2045 2003). Instead of a universally optimal personality style, the evidence suggests that specific presentation styles flourish in specific contexts (Schlenker, 2012). The job interview is a unique context. Because the express goal is to impress the interviewer, success may rest on personality predictors (e.g., narcissism) rather different from those associated with long-term performance (e.g., conscientiousness, intelligence). Successful self-promoters should be especially reactive to the situational demand to impress. Evaluation criteria The interviewer’s evaluation task often requires integrating multiple criteria (Sackett & Lievens, 2008). At the broadest level, people tend to be evaluated with respect to the two global axes of positivity, sometimes labeled agency and communion (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; Horowitz, 2004) and sometimes, competence and likability (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). The choice of evaluation criterion will also depend on qualities of the judges. Even then, the choice may depend on what type of performance dimension is considered relevant (Goffin et al., 2003). For example, raters from one culture may not appreciate the self-presentation styles of those from other cultures (Bond, 1991; Campbell & Roberts, 2007; Norasakkunit & Kalic, 2002). Interviewer expertise A third contextual factor influencing choice of selfpresentation tactics is accountability, i.e., the degree to which interviewees feel responsible for the accuracy of their claims (Paulhus et al., 2003; Schlenker, Weigold, & Doherty, 1991; Tetlock & Boettger, 1989). For example, interviewees should be more cautious about excessive self-promotion if they expect the interviewer to be an expert on the interview topic (Arkin, Appelman, & Burger, 1980; Collins & Stukas, 2008; Sedikides, Herbst, Hardin, & Dardis, 2002; Stires & Jones, 1969). Of course, this increased caution will be restricted to the specific expertise of the interviewer. Expectation of an expert interviewer is also likely to increase evaluation apprehension (Jackson & Latané, 1981). Overview of present studies To investigate these issues, we conducted two interview studies that incorporate all three factors highlighted above: They address the effects of applicants’ personality and culture on their behavior under high versus low accountability. Both studies drew on an archive of videotapes of simulated job interviews. In Study 1, we examined the effect of accountability on the amount of selfpresentation displayed by individuals varying in chronic self-presentation, namely, those scoring high (narcissists and those of European heritage) versus low (non-narcissists and those of East Asian heritage). In Study 2, we examined whether self-promotion benefited or hindered interview performance, as judged by objective raters. Of special interest were possible behavioral mediators of the personality and culture effects on performance. Study 1: Applicant personality and accountability effects on self-presentation Most applicants seek to make the best possible impression during a job interview. But what determines the strategies they use? For example, do job applicants increase or reduce their self-enhancement behavior when faced with an expert interviewer? As noted above, successful applicants must strike a balance between promoting their assets and being caught in exaggerations (Baron, 1986; Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Crant, 1996). The key moderator may be the expertise of the interviewer. If they perceive the interviewer to be expert on the job topic, then applicants should reduce their level of self-enhancement. After all, experts should be more able to evaluate whether applicants are being candid or embellishing their credentials. By contrast, if the interviewer is seen as lacking expertise, then applicants may feel free to exaggerate. This pattern may not hold for chronic self-promoters such as narcissists. As noted earlier, there is evidence to suggest that such individuals rise to the occasion when they see an opportunity to impress (Horvath & Morf, 2010; Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). That opportunity would increase to the extent that the interviewer is believed to be an expert in the field. Accordingly, narcissists may sustain or even increase their self-enhancing behaviors when they expect to be interviewed by an expert (Collins & Stukas, 2008). To evaluate these hypotheses, we studied applicants in simulated job interviews. We measured candidates’ narcissism and manipulated the apparent expertise of the interviewer to determine its impact on self-promotion (both self-enhancement and self-praise) and ingratiation. To measure these outcomes, we asked two sets of trained judges to code videotapes of the interviews. One set of judges rated the applicant’s exaggeration. A second set of judges counted the instances of self-praise and ingratiation behaviors. Hypotheses • Hypothesis 1.1. Overall, narcissists should self-promote more than non-narcissists. • Hypothesis 1.2. As accountability increases, nonnarcissists should decrease their self-promotion. • Hypothesis 1.3. As accountability increases, narcissists should increase their self-promotion. 2046 p a u l h u S e t a l . i n J o u r n a l o f a p p l i e d S o c i a l p S y c h o l o g y 43 (2013) • Hypothesis 1.4. Narcissism should be unrelated to ingratiation.