faculty: "FMG" and publication year: "2007"
| Authors||A. Menko, F. van Heek|
|Title||âThe use of impression management tactics in typical and maximum performance situations and the influence of self-efficacyâ.|
|Faculty||Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences|
|Institute/dept.||FMG: Onderwijsinstituut Psychologie|
|Abstract||Numerous researchers (e.g. Klehe & Anderson, 2005) have stressed the importance of distinguishing between maximum performance (what people âcan doâ when evaluated) and typical performance (what people âwill doâ on a daily basis). This research proposes that self-efficacy (SE) influences maximum and typical performance. We also focus on impression management (IM) tactics used by the participants. Traditionally IM tactics have been divided into assertive and defensive IM tactics. Here we propose a different classification, namely competence oriented versus sympathy oriented IM tactics. This classification is based on the competency-demand hypothesis (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1998; Wright & Mischel, 1987). In this research we examine the amount and the different kinds of IM tactics people use in the typical and in the maximum condition. |
Videos were observed of 93 participating first year psychology students. Their SE was manipulated through a fake feedback on a multiple choice knowledge test. Next, participants explained three topics to a confederate, presented to participants as being another student (typical condition) and to the experimenter (maximum condition). Each participant was rated on quality of explanation, behavior and use of IM tactics in both conditions.
Results showed that participants in the high SE condition generally performed better than participants in the low SE condition. Contrary to the hypotheses participants used more IM tactics in the typical condition than in the maximum condition. More specifically, they used the competence oriented IM tactics more in the typical condition than in the maximum condition. The sympathy oriented IM tactics were used more in the maximum condition than in the typical condition. Both high and low SE participants used more defensive IM tactics than assertive IM tactics in both conditions.
|Document type|| scriptie master|
Use this url to link to this page: http://dare.uva.nl/en/scriptie/219160
Contact us about this recordNotify a colleague
Add to bookbag