Sociology 319
Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology
Thursday March 12, 2009: Impression Management/Presentation of Self and
Interpersonal Attraction
B. Impression Management Techniques - There are a variety of strategies that people use when
engaging in impression management. Recall that the goals of impression management are
GENERALLY self-esteem enhancement and social approval.
1. Ingratiation - This refers to the deliberate use of deception to increase a target person’s
liking for us, in hopes of gaining tangible benefits that person controls. Generally, individuals try
to ingratiate only when they believe that the target person is more likely to grant benefits to
someone he or she likes, than to someone he or she does not like. There are three factors that
predict whether someone will engage in ingratiation: incentive value (the importance of getting a
particular person to like you); subjective probability of success (the likelihood that your plan will
work), and perceived legitimacy (your belief that you really can come across as convincing in
your “act” Jones describes several specific strategies people use to ingratiate themselves. [Note:
Many of these techniques demonstrate that people have a basic working knowledge of social
psychology, such as the halo effect or the P-O-X model.]
a. Opinion conformity - Agreeing with others’ opinions is a way to get them to
like you.
b. Other enhancement - Using careful flattery of the person whose affection
you’re trying to gain.
c. Selective self-presentation. This involves the explicit presentation or
description of one’s own attributes to increase the likelihood of being judged as attractive by the
target. This can be done in one of two ways. Self-enhancement is the more common route;
here a person actively presents his or her own strengths, virtues, and admirable qualities. If
successful, this tactic creates a positive public identity and gains liking by others. Selfdeprecation is another riskier strategy. Here, the person makes only humble or modest
claims. This is more effective when the actor perceives that honesty and humility are more likely
to gain others’ favor.
Self-deprecation or modesty works when one’s performance in the past has actually
been successful, and when others know the full extent of one’s success. These above strategies
generally work if there is only a modest imbalance of power between the person trying to gain
favor, and person whose favor is sought. Other – less frequently used - strategies are:
d. Exemplification. (This is similar to self-promotion/enhancement). Here, the
person tries to portray themselves as highly moral, and driven by ideology and commitment.
e. Intimidation. This strategy may backfire in that it may lead to disliking. Here
intimidators might get their way by projecting a capacity and the inclination to provide negative
outcomes as an attempt to get their way. This tactic is usually undertaken when a relationship is
non-voluntary, such as a work relationship.
f. Supplication. This is the strategy used by “low power persons who have little
else going for them,” according to Jones. Supplicants can showcase their weaknesses, hoping to
engage the norm of social responsibility or sympathy. Though social responsibility norms may
cover such nurturing help in the short run, the supplicant will obviously be more assured of
desired benefits if she or he has something to offer in return.
II. When Interactions Fall Apart.
A. Embarrassment [recap of last class]. Often, people’s intentions or impression
management efforts do not work. One common outcome is embarrassment. Embarrassment here
is defined as “the feeling we experience when the identity we claim in an encounter is
discredited.”
1. Sources of Embarrassment
a. Violation of privacy. One problem might occur when one’s “back
stage” becomes visible. (e.g. if patients were to hear doctors gossiping about them, or patrons at
a nice restaurant or hair salon would hear the employees deriding them etc.)
b. People feel embarrassed if it becomes publicly apparent that they lack the skills
to perform in a manner consistent with the identity they claim. (e.g., Ashlee Simpson on SNL).
c. Almost all forms of embarrassment occur when the identity one is trying to
establish is discredited or falls apart. Try to think of an example where this does NOT
occur...Even silly things, like tripping on the stairs, are embarrassing because most people try to
set forth the identity of “poised and pulled together person.” For a circus clown or slapstick
comedian, however, - one whose identity is based on lack of physical coordination’ - tripping
might NOT be a source of embarrassment.
2. Efforts to Avoid Embarrassment
a. Because embarrassment is uncomfortable for all, Goffman has argued
that “audiences” typically overlook flaws in a social “performance.”
Generally, audiences will only remark on a mistake if it will help the
actor.
i. “Tact” is an act employed by audiences. Generally, audiences
help the performer to recover from the embarrassment, and help him to again “save face.” This
illustrates the central theme of symbolic interactionism that consensus is important for a
social interaction to smoothly. If one person’s performance is in error, others will tactfully
assist in making repairs, so that the interaction may persist peacefully. For instance, often an
audience will “go along” with someone’s lies or lame excuses simply to help them avoid
embarrassment, and to ensure that the interaction continues smoothly.
B. Aligning Actions. When embarrassment occurs, the actor will try to put things back on
track. Often, this occurs because the actor has done something wrong, and then faces the burden
of re-establishing credibility. Aligning actions refers to attempts to define apparently
questionable conduct as actually in line with cultural norms.
a. Disclaimers. This is a strategy used to convey that despite our present behavior,
we normally abide by the rules. People might engage in language such as AI normally wouldn’t
hand in my homework late, but....”Additionally, people may want to ward off the negative
implications of an act they are about to perform. For instance, they might begin to make a
statement such as “I’m not a racist, but...” The goal here is to carry out one’s intended act, but to
avoid any damage to one’s identity in the eyes of others. This typically occurs BEFORE the
behavior happens.
b. Account making. Accounts are explanations we offer to make our
inappropriate behavior seem more reasonable. There are four general forms that accounts
take: excuses, justifications, concessions, and refusals.
i. Excuses are statements admitting the inappropriateness of behavior, but denying one’s
own responsibility. (e.g. alcoholism or history of abuse as an excuse for Foley’s page scandal)
ii. Justifications are statements we provide that admit responsibility for our behavior, but
deny its inappropriateness, reinterpreting it in a more socially acceptable manner. Justifications
often involve a denial of injury.
iii. Concession. We neither deny responsibility nor attempt to justify our conduct. Rather
we simply admit to the failure in question and make an apology.
iv. Refusals involve denying that the act in question was even committed. (e.g. Clinton to
U.S. public: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman...”)
EXAMPLE. Kalab (1987) studied the account-making behavior of students in her intro
sociology classes. Each time a student was absent, they would have to provide a written reason.
She then analyzed the reasons provided in these 250 notes submitted through the course of the
semester. Only 8% were justifications. All of the justifications given were “appeals to higher
loyalties.” Most had to do with sick relatives, or emotional problems of friends. The students
suggested that missing class really wasn’t a bad thing because they were doing another “good” or
social important behavior.
Nearly all notes were excuses. Students admitted that they missed class, but denied their
responsibility on one of five grounds:(1) biological factors; (2) control by another person; (3)
oversleeping; (4) other course work; and (5) accidents. Illness was the main biological factor
given as an excuse. Control of another person involved things such as “I couldn’t get out of a
soccer match” (coach’s fault); “my ride never showed up” (driver’s fault), etc. Oversleeping was
used as an excuse, though most recognized it as a shoddy excuse. Other class work involved
exams and papers due for other classes. Accidents, such as traffic accidents, were used rarely.
Most people understand that such excuses become unbelievable if overused, given that
accidents are rare. Only a handful were concessions, admitting that they were wrong to miss
class, and apologized. None were refusals.
3. Role distancing. Sometimes, our behavior might convey an impression to others, yet this
behavior may contradict our own self-attitudes. Thus, when our roles contradict our selfattitudes, we might try to show how we are detached from our role, and make efforts to show our
own lack of personal involvement with that role. Specifically, it is the role expectations that the
person tries to distance themselves from. (e.g., a dorm RA might view him or herself as a
friendly and free-spirited person. However, the demands of the job may force this person to
become a strict disciplinarian towards his friends. Thus, a role distancing process might occur.
“I’m still your friend, but my job description says I have to report under-age drinkers...”)
III. The role of self-monitoring or “Do ALL people impression manage”?
A. What is it?
1. Self-monitoring is a characteristic used to differentiate between those who do “
a lot” versus “a little” impression management. Not all people desire to use impression
management equally. Moreover, not all people are equally adept at impression management.
Snyder has argued that there are two types of self-monitors: [Slide shows survey items used to
assess self-monitoring]
a. High self-monitors. They are intensely concerned with the situational
appropriateness of their behavior. They are more concerned with playing a role than with
presenting a true picture of the self. They are particularly sensitive to how they express and
present themselves in various settings (e.g., parties, job interviews, etc.).
b. Low self-monitors. They have less concern for the situational
appropriateness of their presentations and expressive behavior. They pay less attention to the
behavioral cues offered by others, and they monitor and control their own behavior to a lesser
extent. They have a firmer, more single-minded idea of what their “self” should be. They
strive for congruence between “who they are” and “what they do.”
c. More recent updates to this concept have been offered. Snyder’s
formulation proposes two types of self-monitors: high and low. Lennox (1984; 1988) has
proposed there are TWO kinds of HIGH self-monitors. One is concerned with “getting along,”
the other is concerned with “getting ahead.” The first group of high self-monitors pay particular
attention to the behavioral cues of others. These people would agree with statements such as “I
try to pay attention to the reactions of others to my behavior in order to avoid being out of place.
“The second type of high self-monitors actively try to affect the application of social standards
by modifying their self-presentations. They agree to statements such as “I have the ability to
control the way I come across to people, depending on the impression I wish to give them.” The
latter hope to get ahead, the former hope to get along. Some researchers have suggested the
women are more likely to aspire to “getting along” while men tend to aspire to “getting ahead.”
I. Interpersonal Attraction
A. Who do we choose?
1. Availables. “Availables” constitute the pool of potential partners. Although we
believe that we have ”freedom of choice,” there are indeed social structural factors that guide
who we meet, and how we meet them.
a. Institutional structures. Not all members of society have equal access to
one another. Generally, people live in neighborhoods and attend schools that are bound by social
class, and - in earlier eras - race, religion, and ethnicity. Homogamous pairings (that is,
relationships shared by two individuals with similar characteristics, such as race, ethnicity or
religion) have changed substantially over time. Marrying members of one’s own ethnic group
and religion has become less common throughout the 20th century.