Who’s the best? Effectiveness of ingratiation techniques in
speeches for different target groups
C. de Haan, B. Andeweg, W. Blokzijl
Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, P.O. Box 5015,
2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands (C.deHaan@tudelft.nl, B.A.Andeweg@tudelft.nl, W.J.Blokzijl@
tudelft.nl)
Abstract
Engineers hardly ever flatter their listeners when giving a presentation, although presentation advice books
recommend this strategy to make the audience more benevolent. Moreover, social psychological research shows
that ingratiation techniques can be effective. Therefore, we wanted to know whether the use of flattering
techniques in presentations is effective. In this paper we describe an experiment for which we designed a reallife presentation of fifteen minutes in three variations for an audience of technical students: one with no flattery,
one with modest flattery and one with extensive flattery. The flattery is addressed to non-technical students as
well. After giving the presentation, we measured to what extent the students appreciated it. To determine what
effect flattery has on listeners who don’t belong to the target group, we showed the presentation also to nontechnical students (arts and humanities). The results show that the use of flattery did not help the presenter to
reach his goals. Overuse of flattery can damage the perceived sincerity of the speaker. Extensive flattery
therefore should be used cautiously.
Keywords: presentation techniques, flattery, ingratiation, rhetoric, experimental research
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Recommendations on flattery in classical and modern rhetorical literature
The unknown author of the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, the oldest classical manual on rhetoric we know (written
shortly before 336 BC) tells us that when an audience is nor hostile, nor sympathising, “we should flatter our
listeners complimenting them on their habit judging speeches honestly and wisely.” [1] Later, rhetoricians, like
Cicero and Quintilian, also advise to make listeners – in their case mostly judges – benevolent by flattering
them: “We can win a judge over to our side […] by making a compliment subservient to the benefit of our case”
[2], though both authors warn not to overdo the flattery.
Not only the classical rhetoricians but also modern advisers mention the technique of praising and flattering an
audience. Vogel says that flattery wakens the listeners to benevolence and gives an example of a compliment:
“it’s a great pleasure for me to speak for such a sympathetic audience about a subject that has your as well as my
interest.”[3] Other modern advisers agree that flattery is a means of making the audience benevolent. Pereboom
for example says: “Finally it is known that when a speaker flatters the audience modestly, he can create a good
state of mind.”[4] Other examples we find in Edens: “When the speech is meant to persuade, the orator must try
to put the audience in an good state of mind at the beginning of his speech. Most speakers flatter their listeners in
such a case.” [5] Wurth [6] shows that professional presenters very often flatter their audience, although they
think it is a questionable technique.
There are also advisers who tell us not to flatter at all. Research into 20th century presentation advice books
shows that only one third of the writers mention flattery. Fifteen per cent of them dissents of the use of flattery in
a speech. The advisers who recommend flattery, warn against insincerity.
1.2 Effectiveness of flattering techniques
To be effective, a compliment must be recognised by the listener, but how effective is a compliment when the
listener knows that the person who gave it did this for his own benefit? In the literature this is called the
‘ingratiators’ dilemma’ [7]: the more obvious it is you are flattering someone, the less effective the compliment
will be, but when a compliment on the other hand isn’t recognised, there is no effect at all. Research shows that
flattery works even when the target knows the ingratiator seeks his own advantage. For example: using flattery
when selling tickets can easily double the sales, even though buyers are aware of the flattery being a sales
technique [8].
1.3 Research question
Unlike professional presenters and politicians, engineers don’t frequently use ingratiation techniques in speeches
[9]. In view of the positive effects of flattery this might be incorrect. Presentations of engineers could be more
effective when they do flatter their audience. Our main research question is whether a presenter (instructor) acts
wisely when he praises and flatters his audience to enlarge its benevolence. To develop an answer for such a
broad question we describe experimental research into the effectiveness of flattering techniques in presentations.
We also take into account the effects of flattery that isn’t well tuned to the audience.
2. A DEFINITION OF FLATTERY
We have seen that both classical and modern advisers mention flattery, whether it is recommended or not. But
what exactly is flattery? Do the advisers agree on this? A definition of this notion in accordance with
presentation techniques is missing. Therefore, we need to define flattery in presentations. First we will take a
look at the notion flattery used in other situations than presentations (2.1). Bases on these definitions we will
give a definition of flattery when used in presentations (2.2).
2.1 Flattery in non-presentations
A definition of flattery can be found in social psychology, where flattery is being studied as a way of strategic
behaviour to increase the attractiveness of the actor to the target. The actor wants to affect the perception of the
target and influence his decisions. Normally, we take decisions by weighing one criterion against another, but
sometimes we don’t do this, due to a lack of time or some other reason, and than we take decisions based on
heuristics and rules of thumb [10]. In situations like this, flattery seems effective. Vonk says: “being flattered
simply puts targets in a good mood even before they start questioning the flatterer’s motives.” [11] Therefore a
target is less critical towards the actor [12] and more willing to accept his message [13]. In these cases affecting
one’s perception seems to be a successful strategy.
This type of strategic behaviour is also called ingratiation. Edward Jones, one of the pioneering investigators in
this area, defines ingratiation as follows: “The term ingratiation refers to a class of strategic behaviours illicitly
designed to influence a particular person concerning the attractiveness of one’s personal qualities.” [14]
Examples of strategic behaviour are rendering favours, opinion conformity and flattering. Jones doesn’t use the
term flattery but speaks about complimentary other enhancement, about which he says: “This class of tactics
probably comes closest to the meaning of flattery in its everyday usage. The ingratiator finds ways to express a
high, positive evaluation of the target person and emphasises the latter’s various strenghts and virtues.” [15].
This strategy is effective because “people find it hard not to like those who think highly of them.” [16]
There is a difference between flattering and making a person a compliment, but in practice they are hardly
distinguishable. Verbiest for instance, defines a compliment as a positive judgment of value of someone or of
something that concerns the other person [17]. She suggests that there is question of flattery when the actor has a
specific purpose and wants to achieve more than just being nice [18]. In her opinion knowledge of the true
purpose of the actor is necessary to distinguish both notions. In everyday situations it will be very hard to make
this distinction. Another way of distinguishing flattery and compliments is looking at the status of actor and
target. A compliment of an actor with a lower status than the target will be considered more likely as flattery
than vice versa [19].
A specific situation in which positive evaluations function, is an educational one: teachers positively evaluate the
work of students. We can presume strategic behaviour: a positive evaluation fortifies shown or desirable
behaviour. This type of evaluation will not be taken into account. In an educational context positive evaluations
can be expected, because teachers are supposed to give evaluations. When we speak about flattery, the actor isn’t
supposed to flatter. The flatterer acts on his own for his own secret benefit.
Finally, it makes a difference whether one is being flattered or one is observing others being flattered.
Ingratiators are judged more positively by a target receiving compliments, than by a bystander who observes the
target being flattered. The observer’s ego is not at stake and therefore he examines the actor’s behaviour more
critically [20].
2.2 Flattery used in presentations
Taking into consideration the above-mentioned we define flattery used in presentations as follows: flattery is an
unasked for positive evaluation of any aspect of the listener. The purpose of flattering the audience is to make
the listener more benevolent, by which he will judge the speaker more positively and will accept the message of
the presentation more easily.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The classics advise us to praise and flatter in the introduction of a speech; nowadays we are more reserved using
flattery. Is it because of our (Dutch) cultural background that we do not lavishly praise our listeners? Or does a
more slimy approach cause too many problems? To answer those questions we wrote a real life speech in three
versions in which we varied the amount of compliments and flattery to make the listeners more benevolent (3.1).
To measure the expected effects we developed a questionnaire to get hold of the attitude of the listeners (3.2).
We delivered the speech on video (3.3) to different target groups (3.4).
3.1 Speech
As we already mentioned: flattery is an unasked for positive evaluation of any aspect of the listener. What kind
of aspects are meant? Verbiest mentions: appearance, acts, qualities (cognitive, emotional, philosophical),
motives and plans [21]. To strengthen the evaluation and to make them more powerful, we see several
possibilities:
1. augment the evaluation with arguments and/or examples (also see [6];
2. let the evaluation originate with a well known person (preferably) an expert (quotation) [19];
3. present the evaluation as a well-known saying (Everybody knows that ...)
4. embellish the evaluation with adjectives and adverbial clauses (very, exceptional, convincing, beautiful,
etc.)
5. strengthen the sincerity of the evaluation (honestly, I find …; I do not flatter when I say …; may be you
think that I’m flattering you, but …)
To find out how listeners react to praise and flattery we first wrote a 15 minute speech without any praise or
flattering (NF). The intended audience was a public of technical students. The subject of the speech is The
Human Perspective: Making Inconceivable Numbers Conceivable, based on [22]. On the basis of this speech we
wrote two more variants: one with moderate praise (MF) and one with excessive praise and compliments (XF).
The flattery is addressed to technical students of Delft University of Technology. Table 1 presents examples of
the three versions of the speech.
Table 1 shows that in the presentation especially the cognitive qualities (science skills: mathematics, dynamics,
formal reasoning and design skills) of these young engineers are praised and flattered as well as their university.
The speeches were pretested. The various text fragments were assessed by nine reviewers (university teachers).
For every text fragment they answered to two statements:
1.
I can image that someone uses an utterance like this in a presentation addressed to Delft students
2.
I could say this in a speech addressed to Delft students.
Neutral speech (NF)
Moderate flattery (MF)
Excessive flattery (XV)
I stand before an audience of students,
but I could have been standing
anywhere;
Delft is renowned around the world for
its solid handling of complex problems.
That is why Delft engineers are much in
demand.
Delft is renowned around the world for
its solid handling of complex problems.
The design capacities of Delft engineers
are celebrated. Didn’t Shell CEO Jeroen
van der Veer say that Delft engineers
always go straight for the heart of the
matter? That is why Delft engineers are
much in demand.
This is a subject that that is fit for a
broad audience. After all, everyone has
to deal with numbers and with the
relation between the different groups of
numbers. In the end everybody has to
deal with numbers.
A broad audience can handle a subject
like this, but for an audience like you it
really fits. Engineers like you are easygoing with numbers and have a good
insight in the relation between numbers
The general audience sometime recoils
for this subject, but for a public like you I
am confident to speak. Arithmetic is to
your heart.
Skills that everybody can learn, whether
you work for a company or for the
government.
Skills that everyone possesses, but
especially a Delft engineer.
Skills that you as Delft engineers
obviously posses and with which you
distinguish yourselves.
TABLE 1. Examples of differences in flattery between the three speeches
On the basis of the results the formulation of the fragments was adjusted, because it turned out that some
flatteries that we meant to be extreme were judged moderate and vice versa. In the end we had three variations of
the same presentation that differed on twelve clauses/paragraphs. The flatteries were evenly distributed
throughout the speech. Because of the inserted compliments the speeches differed somewhat in length (NFversion: 2343 words, 14.57 minutes; MF-version: 2377 words, 15.09 minutes; XF-version 2534 words, 15.45
minutes).
3.2 Questionnaire
To establish the effects of the praise and flatteries a questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire consisted of
32 statements, accompanied by five point scales (1: completely disagree – 5: completely agree). The statements
represented six factors. Table 2 presents an overview of the factors, and the reliability of the coherence
(Cronbach’s α).
Factor
reliability
Identification of flattery: the listener is aware of the praise and flattering
Example: the speaker praises the listeners
6 statements;
α=0,64
Positive ethos: the listener judges the speaker as a friendly, sympathetic expert. Example: The speaker
knows a lot about the subject
6 statements;
α=0,74
Sincerity: the listener judges the speaker sincere and honest. Example: The speaker seems honest to me.
5 statements;
α=0,87
Negative effects (‘sliminess’): the listener is annoyed by the speaker and judges him a toady.
5 statements;
α=0,72
Relevance of the contents: the listener judges the presentation as interesting and useful for his daily
practice. Example: I will put the advice into practice
5 statements;
α=0,82
Fitting in course*: the listener judges the presentation appropriate in the context of the classes he is
attending
5 statements;
* This factor was only used to control the educational context of the speech and was kept out of the research
TABLE 2. Factors (dependent variables)
α=0,70
3.3 Presenter
The presentation of the speech was given by a seasoned speaker (a university teacher oral presentation). In a
preliminary investigation, we verified whether it would be necessary to deliverer the speech live or on video. For
this purpose the XF-version of the speech was presented live and on video to two groups of listeners (student
engineers, N=63). A multivariate analysis showed that the effects on the chosen factors were not significantly
different between the two groups ((F(6, 63)=.61 p=.70). We decided to use the more practical way of research by
using videotaped versions of our three presentations. The presentations were converted through Microsoft
Producer for PowerPoint to a video presentation where both the speaker and the slides were visible (see figure
1).
FIGURE 1. presenter [Microsoft Producer for PowerPoint]
3.4 Design of the experiment
How do listeners react on a praising and ‘slimy’ speaker who goes to great lengths to ensure that he will obtain
the benevolence of his listeners? How will they respond to flattery when they do not belong to the praised party,
but observe others being flattered? Two experimental situations were designed.
The intended audience (science students)
The three presentations (NF, MF and XF) were presented to three groups of comparable (pre-knowledge, interest
in subject and significance of the subject) student engineers of Delft University of Technology (N-total=282)
within the context of a course in oral presentation. They were told that they took part in an educational
experiment were a practical was augmented with lectures on video. The lecture was projected by a video beamer
on a large screen. The flattery in the presentation was applicable to their situation (science students of the wellknown Delft University in the Netherlands). After the speech the students were asked to fill in a questionnaire. In
the end a short debriefing was held with a discussion on the possible merit of praising and flattering in an oral
presentation [23].
The bystanders (humanities and language/ arts student)
The neutral presentation without praise and flattery (NF-version) and the presentation with extreme praise and
flattery (XF-version) were presented to two groups of students from humanities and language departments from
the Leiden University (N-total=90). The intended audience of the flattery was the Delft student, so the arts
students felt like bystanders observing others being flattered. They were told that the presentation they saw was
intended for students at Delft University of Technology, but that the subject was interesting for them as well.
They also filled in a questionnaire and were debriefed afterwards.
4. RESULTS
4.1 Target group: science students)
The listeners that belonged to the intended audience, the science students, perceive that they are praised and
flattered; a multivariate analysis with Bonferroni post hoc test shows that there is a difference between the three
speech versions (F(10, 550)=37.30 p<.001). There is an effect for identification of the flattery (F(2, 279)=38.35
p<.001), as for sincerity (F(2, 279)=23.82 p<.001) and sliminess (F2, 279)=100.34 p<.001). No effects are
measured for the factor positive ethos and the factor relevance of contents. Table 3 presents an overview of the
differences between the three groups.
Condition
Identification of flattery
Positive ethos
Sincerity
Negative effects (Sliminess)
Relevance of contents
Mean*
Std. deviation
N
No flattery (NF)
3.40a
0.454
91
Moderate flattery (MF)
3.89b
0.421
95
Extreme flattery (XF)
3.95b
0.524
96
Total
3.75
0.527
282
No flattery (NF)
3.71
0.410
91
Moderate flattery (MF)
3.68
0.460
95
Extreme flattery (XF)
3.70
0.507
96
Total
3.69
0.460
282
No flattery (NF)
3.76a
0.447
91
Moderate flattery (MF)
3.54a
0.583
95
Extreme flattery (XF)
3.14b
0.777
96
Total
3.48
0.669
282
No flattery (NF)
2.32a
0.409
91
Moderate flattery (MF)
3.05b
0.684
95
Extreme flattery (XF)
3.61c
0.723
96
Total
3.01
0.816
282
No flattery (NF)
4.09
0.487
91
Moderate flattery (MF)
3.97
0.435
95
Extreme flattery (XF)
3.98
0.499
96
Total
4.01
0.476
282
* different subscripts indicate significant differences between the figures (Bonferroni post hoc test, p<.05)
TABLE 3. Results flattery intended audience
The data in table 3 show that listeners are aware that the speaker praises and flatters them, the differences
however between the MF version (moderate flattery) and the XF version (extreme flattery) are not significant.
The (positive) ethos of the speaker doesn’t seem to be tarnished by the (extended) use of praise and
compliments: in all three conditions the listeners rate the speaker as friendly, sympathetic and as an expert. If we
take the factor sincerity of the speaker into account then there are differences. The listeners in the XF condition
assess the speaker least sincere (although still 3.14 on a 5-point scale). Apparently, the ‘slimy’ behaviour has less
positive consequences. The differences on the negative effects (sliminess) factor is as can be expected: the
listeners in the NF condition experience don’t feel buttered up, while the listeners in the other two conditions
experience those negative feelings in an increasing way.
4.2 Bystanders: the arts students
How do listeners react who are not part of the intended audience of the speaker? What do they think of the
speaker when they note that the praise and flattery is not meant for them but for a different audience? The
multivariate analysis makes clear that the arts students (students from the humanities and language) react more
or les the same way as the science students to praise and flattery in a presentation. Table 4 presents the
differences between the group that watched the XF version and the group that watched the NF version of the
presentation.
Condition
Identification of flattery
Positive ethos
Sincerity
Negative effects (Sliminess)
Relevance of contents
Mean*
Std. deviation
N
No flattery (NF)
2.99a
0.465
46
Extreme flattery (XF)
3.91b
0.458
44
Total
3.44
0.653
90
No flattery (NF)
3.56
0.419
46
Extreme flattery (XF)
3.47
0.487
44
Total
3.52
0.453
90
No flattery (NF)
3.70a
0.423
46
Extreme flattery (XF)
2.94b
0.858
44
Total
3.33
0.768
90
No flattery (NF)
2.45a
0.491
46
Extreme flattery (XF)
3.92b
0.604
44
Total
3.17
0.919
90
No flattery (NF)
3.73
0.564
46
Extreme flattery (XF)
3.91
0.551
44
Total
3.82
0.563
90
* different subscripts indicate significant differences between the figures (p<.05)
TABLE 4. results flattery with bystanders
The arts students recognize that the speaker praises and flatters. They also find the Extreme version of the speech
(XF) much slimier and they perceive – just like the science students – that the excess of flattery damages the
sincerity of the speaker. Compared with the science students the arts students evaluate in the XF versions the
negative (slime) effects significantly lower than the science students (F(1, 138)=6.149 p<.05) and they evaluate
the positive ethos of the speaker less high (F(1, 138)=6.325 p<.05).
5. CONCLUSIONS
Does a presenter act wisely when he or she praises and flatters to enlarge the benevolence of the listeners? The
objective of this study was to explore to what extent flattery techniques are effective in presentations. A
subsequent objective was to test whether it makes a difference when the flattery is badly tuned to the audience.
Before turning to the results found it is prudent to point out some of the limitations of the research. Firstly, it is
necessary to note that the type of university forms the context of the research. The samples used for a part of the
research consisted of only male (engineering) students; the bystanders group that was used included many
female students. It can be expected that all kinds of (sub)cultural influences played a role in the experimental
design. Furthermore this issue is easy to broaden to the Dutch context of the research. Praising and flattering are
possibly different in various countries: maybe northern versus southern European ingratiation techniques must
be postulated. Research scarcely exists on this point. Secondly, only one presentation was used in the research. A
presentation that was rather interesting (according the attendees) and, as we see it, not very disputable. Maybe
the techniques used work differently with presentations on issues that are more focussed on persuasion or lulling
the listeners into a sense of consent.
Praising and flattering – in the way used in this research – do not seem very stealth-like techniques. The listeners
are aware of the usage of the technique; even more moderate flattery is recognised immediately. What are the
consequences? The results of this study indicate that utilisation of flattery doesn’t affect the appreciation of the
lecture itself. The listeners find the contents of this 15-minute lecture relevant and interesting. Even in the more
extreme condition the listeners (both intended audience: science students as bystanders: arts students) are very
positive. The appreciation does not seem influenced by the way the speaker approaches the listeners.
The consequences of the flattering and praising for the perceived ethos of the speaker are less clear. There is a
difference between how the audience looks upon the professionalism (credibility and expertise) of the speaker on
the one side and his sincerity on the other. In all conditions, the audience evaluates the speaker as an involved
expert. The height of the appraisal differs between the arts students and the science students. The arts students
are somewhat less enthusiastic, but hat does not seem to be caused by the flattering techniques. Theoretically, the
perceived sincerity of the speaker forms a part of his ethos. So it is remarkable that the score on the sincerity
scale is influenced by the flattering. The audience thinks the speaker of the neutral version to be most sincere.
The more the speaker flatters, the less sincere he is perceived (the score by the arts students ducks even under the
middle of the five-point scale). It seems to set the traditional advice on flattering up side down. The advisers tell
the student presenter not to flatter if he is not honest. Dorothy Carnegie (1994) is very explicit: ‘away with those
lies! I you cannot express honest appreciation than keep silent”[24]. Our research suggests however that honesty
itself is not the point. It seems that the listener reacts to the excess of flattery with the opinion that the speaker
must be less sincere. They think it improbable that a lecturer can be as flattering as he was.
The dependent variable sliminess was employed to acquire an impression of possible negative reactions of
listeners to efforts to make them benevolent. The results clearly show that negative emotions grow with the
speakers’ efforts to find favour with his audience. The listeners – the arts students - to whom the flattery was not
tuned, were, as expected, much more annoyed than the science students, to whom the flattery was tuned.
Summarising: efforts of a speaker to use flattery to obtain a benevolent audience do not seem to have the
intended effect. The ethos of a speaker doesn’t seem to be positively affected and the contents of the presentation
are received no better than without flattery. The perceived sincerity of the speaker seems to be diminishing when
flattery is employed, resulting in a feeling of uneasiness when flattery is used in excess.
At best, flattery does not harm. At worst, it harms the image of the presenter as a sincere human being. Excessive
flattery should therefore not be used.
References
[1] Ad Alexandrum (1957). Aristotle Problems II – Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. ed. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical
Library, section 29,9.
[2] Quintilian 1920-1922. Institutio oratoria: Books I-XII. Translated by H.E. Butler. Loeb Classical library.
[section 4.1.16]
[3] Vogel, Albert (1931). Rhetorica. Basis der Welsprekendheid.[Rhetoric. A base for eloquence] Brussel:
W.L. & J. Brusse’s Uitgeversmaatschappij, p. 19.
[4] Pereboom, Rudolf 1989. Succesvolle modeltoespraken voor leiding-gevende mensen. [Successful model
speeches for executives] Amsterdam [etc.]: WEKA Uitgeverij. p. 6.
[5] Edens, B. (1979). Van stamelaar tot redenaar. [From stammerer to orator] Culemborg: Educaboek, p. 23
[6] Wurth, A., J.C. de Jong & BA Andeweg (2003). ‘Ik vlei veilig of ik vlei niet. Captatio benevolentiae in
adviezen en praktijk’ [I flatter or I do not flatter. Captatio benevolentiae in advice and practive] Tekst[blad]
2, 19-26.
[7] Gordon, R.A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgements and evaluations: a meta-analytic investigation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, p. 67; Stengel, R. (2000). You’re too kind. A brief history
of flattery. New York etc.: Simon & Schuster, p. 220.
[8] Vonk, R. & Derks, D. (2002). Ingratiation works: Selling success and mutual judgments of seller and buyer
during dyadic interaction. Paper gepresenteerd bij de 6e Small Group Meeting on Social Cognition,
Tenerife, september 2002.
[9] Andeweg, Bas / De Jong, Jaap 2004a. De eerste minuten. Attentum, benevolum en docilem parare in de
inleiding van toespraken. [The first minutes. Attentum, benevolum and docilem parare in the introductions
of speeches]. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. (Extensive summary in English available:
www.deEersteMinuten.nl).
[10] Petty, R.E. & J.T. Cacioppo (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to
attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag; Eagly, A.H. & S. Chaiken (1993). The psychology of
attitudes. Forth Worth etc.: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
[11] Vonk, R.(2002). Self-serving interpretations of flattery. Why Ingratiation works. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 2002, p. 516.
[12] Bless, H., Mackie, D. M., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Mood effects on attitude judgments: Independent effects
of snood before and after message elaboration, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 585-595;
Bodenhausen, G.V. (1993). Emotions, arousal ans stereotypic judgements: a heuristic model of affect and
stereotyping. D.M. Mackie & D.L. Hamilton (eds.), Affect, cognition and stereotyping: interactive
processess in group perception. San Diego CA: Academic Press, 13-37.
[13] Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person perception judgments. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 53-60.
[14] Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation.A Social Psychological Analysis New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc, p.
11.
[15] Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation.A Social Psychological Analysis New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., p.
24-25.
[16] Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation.A Social Psychological Analysis New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., p.
25.
[17] Verbiest, A. (2004) Als ik jou toch niet had. De taal van complimenten. [If I did not had you. The language
of compliments] Uitgeverij Contact, p. 40.
[18] Verbiest, A. (2004) Als ik jou toch niet had. De taal van complimenten. Uitgeverij Contact, p. 41.
[19] Stengel, R. (2000). You’re too kind. A brief history of flattery. New York etc.: Simon & Schuster.
[20] Gordon, R.A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgements and evaluations: a meta-analytic investigation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, p. 55.
[21] Verbiest, A. (2004) Als ik jou toch niet had. De taal van complimenten. Uitgeverij Contact.
[22] Burger, P. & J. de Jong (1993). De menselijke maat. Het onvoorstelbare voorstelbaar maken. [The human
measure. Making the inconceivable conceivable] Communicatief 6(4/5), 65-71.
[23] The results of this study are also described in Haan, C. de, B. Andeweg, W. Blokzijl (2005). You’re the
best: Ingratiation techniques in informative presetations. Sefi 2005 Proceedings, p. 207-213.
[24] Carnegie, Dorothy (1994). Doeltreffend spreken: de succesformule / Dale Carnegie ; Amsterdam: Omega
Boek [edition by Dorothy Carnegie of: The quick and easy way to effective speaking. New York :
Association Press, 1962.]
Curricula
Corrie de Haan, PhD, has been working since 2001 as a lecturer in communication skills at the Institute of
Technology and Communication at Delft University of Technology. She has a PhD in Dutch Language and
Literature from the University of Leiden. She is doing research on presentation techniques and into the
effectiveness of web lectures.
Bas Andeweg, PhD, is assistant professor. He lectures on oral and written communication. Recently he has
finished his Ph.D. project The introduction of speeches (together with Jaap de Jong of Leiden University), about
different aspects of speech introductions; for example about the effectiveness of different kinds of introductions
(www.deeersteminuten.nl). He publishes regularly on subjects in the fringe of human communication and
internet technology.
Wim Blokzijl, MA, received a master's degree in applied linguistics at the University of Groningen, 1996. Since
1997 he has worked at TU Delft, where he co-ordinates and teaches courses on oral and written communication.
He does research into the effectiveness of visual support at oral presentations, and into audience appreciation of
PowerPoint. He regularly publishes articles on a variety of communication subjects.