Flattery Will
Get You fomewDere
Styles and uses of ingratiation
EDWARD E. JONES
Dale Carnegie, author of How to Win Friends and In-
fluence People, was enraged at the implication that he
would advocate using compliments just to get something
out of people: "Great God Almighty ! ! ! If we are so con-
temptibly selfish that we can't radiate a little happiness and
pass on a bit of honest appreciation without trying to
screw something out of the other person in return--if our
souls are no bigger than sour crab apples, we shall meet
with the failure we so richly deserve." The chapter contain-
ing this observation (entitled "How to Make People Like
You Instantly") is composed of anecdotes describing
precisely how complimenters do gain advantages. The mes-
sage is clearly stated in other chapters as well: success in
one's chosen line of work may be dramatically furthered
by practicing the arts of ingratiation along the way.
Carnegie is not the only advocate of "applied human re-
lations" who has had trouble distinguishing between the
legitimate and illegitimate in social behavior. In certain
business and political circles, for example, "sincere" is used
as a synonym for agreeable. Self-serving flattery is usually
deplored--but when does "honest appreciation" become
flattery? Everyone likes a cooperative, agreeable attitude,
but where is the line between manipulative conformity and
self-effacing compromise ? Many see great evil in ingratia-
tion; Milton considered it hypocrisy, which he called "the
only evil that walks invisible, except to God alone." Nor-
man Vincent Peale, on the other hand, is much more
tolerant; he considers pleasantness a mark of Christian
virtue, from which peace of mind and prosperity flow
naturally--and rightly.
Between these two extremes we find the charmingly
honest Lord Chesterfield:
Vanity . . . is, perhaps, the most universal principle of
human actions . . . if a man has a mind to be thought
wiser, and a woman handsomer than they really are,
their error is a comfortable one for themselves, and an
innocent one with regard to other people; and I would
rather make them my friends, by indulging them, than
my enemies by endeavoring (in that to no purpose) to
undeceive them.
Adlai Stevenson was also willing to counsel moderation
with the remark, after being given a glowing introduction,
"I have sometimes said that flattery is all right if you don't
inhale."
20
What is custom and what is manipulation depends on
time, place, the society, and often the individual. In those
cultures where fulsome compliments are the norm, like the
more traditional groups in Japan, anything less may be
considered insulting. On the other hand, in many masculine
circles in our own society praise is considered an affectation
- - a man who pays compliments easily will be thought un-
trustworthy or effeminate.
Most theories of social structure make the strong as-
sumption that persons adjust their actions to what is gen-
erally accepted and expected. Ingratiation can be defined as
impression-management which stretches or exploits these
expectations or norms. Acts of ingratiation are designed to
increase an individual's attractiveness beyond the value of
what he really can offer to his target. Ingratiation is the
illegitimate---the seamy--side of interpersonal communi-
cation.
BREAKING THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
But how do we determine when behavior is "legitimate" ?
Relationships and associations involve, in normal circum-
stances, an unstated contract between the actors. Different
authorities describe this contract in different ways. Sociol-
ogist Erring Goffman, in his book The Presentation of Self
in Everyday Life, emphasizes what he calls "ritual ele-
ments" in social interaction. Goffman believes that not only
does communication take place in its usual sense but the
communicators also engage in a "performance"--each
transmits and receives clues about his definition of the
situation, his view of himself, and his evaluation of the
other. Mutual adjustment occurs. Perhaps most important,
the actors enter into a silent compact to help each other
save face. Each becomes involved in "face-work"--give-
and-take actions that smooth over potentially embarrassing
threats, lend mutual support, and make for coherent and
consistent performances. Each person has a "defensive
orientation toward saving his own face and a protective
orientation toward saving the other's face."
Within this frame of reference, the ingratiator may be
seen as exploiting this contract while seeming to support
it. He neither violates the contract openly, nor merely ful-
fills it. Rather, he keeps sending out reassuring signals that
he accepts the terms of the contract; but all the while he
is actually working toward other goals.
TRANS-ACTION
 To put it in slightly different terms: while relying on
his target to stick to the rule that each should get out of a
relationship what he brings to it, the ingratiator deliberately
violates the rule himself in hopes of gaining a one-sided
advantage. By definition, ingratiation occurs when a person
cannot or does not want to offer as much as he hopes to
get from the other, so he tries to make his "offer" appear
more valuable by fancy packaging, misrepresenting how
much he brings to the relationship, or advertising the effort
or cost involved in his contribution. For instance, the
worker may apply himself with greatest industry when he
expects the supervisor to appear momentarily, he may try
to convince others that his job is more difficult than it
really is, or attempt to convince his boss that it requires
considerable experience or specialized education.
While the dependent member of a relationship has more
to gain from successful ingratiation than the more power-
ful member, the latter may be also quite concerned about
his image. It has often been noted that men rising in
organizations tend to lose the spontaneity of old relation-
ships and certainty about the loyalty and reliability of old
colleagues. In spite of their increasing power, they are de-
pendent on subordinates for signs of their own effective-
ness and--perhaps as a way of hedging their bets--they
will use ingratiating tactics to increase morale and per-
formance.
Ingratiation raises important problems in human relations
and self-knowledge. Much of our understanding of the
world around us, and of ourselves, comes to us indirectly
through the impressions we get from others. In par-
MAY / JUNE
ticular, self-evaluation is to a large extent determined by
how others judge us--personal qualities like friendliness,
respectability, or moral worth can only be assessed by
social means or mirrored in the reactions of others. Since
ingratiation subverts this response, it is a threat to normal
interaction and to reliable information. Like the traditional
Hollywood producer and his yes-men, the executive sur-
rounded by ingratiators may find himself adrift in a sea
of uncertainties in which the only markers are the selfish
interests of his advisers.
Ingratiation takes three general tactical forms.
9 OTHER-ENHANCEMENT. The ingratiator may try to elicit
favorable reactions to himself by building up his target.
At the extreme this involves obvious flattery; but there are
also more subtle and indirect ways. The ingratiator may,
for instance, concentrate on playing up the real strong
points of the target, passing over or playing down the weak
ones.
The ultimate design is to convince the target that the in-
gratiator thinks highly of him. We tend to like those who
like us. Sometimes, however, the tactics are not simple or
direct. The higher the target's regard for himself, the less
he needs the ingratiator's praise, and the more he accepts
it as obvious and routine. Targets may prefer praise, as
Lord Chesterfield puts it, "upon those points where they
wish to excel, and yet are doubtful whether they do or not.
9 . . The late Sir Robert Walpole, who was certainly an
able man, was little open to flattery upon that head . . .
but his prevailing weakness was, to be thought to have a
polite and happy turn of gallantry; of which he had un-
21
 doubtedly less than any man living . . . (and) those who
had any penetration--applied to it with success."
9 CONFORMITY. People tend to like those whose values and
beliefs appear similar to their own. Again, however, the
relationship is not always direct. The ingratiator must
seem sincere. His agreement must seem to be arrived at in-
dependently, for no ulterior purpose. The tactical conformer
might be wise to disagree on non-essentials in order to un-
derline the 'qndependence" and value of his agreement on
essentials. Agreement may be more valued if it seems to
result from a change in opinion, made at some psychologi-
cal cost, seeming to reflect a sincere change of conviction.
9 SELF-PRESENTATIONis the explicit description or pres-
entation of oneself in such a way as to become attractive to
the target. This includes avoiding those characteristics the
target might consider unpleasant, and subtly emphasizing
those he might approve. The ingratiator walks a tightrope:
he must boast without seeming to, since open boasting is
frowned on in our society; he must "be" those things his
target considers ideal for his situation, and yet appear
sincere; he must seem admirable to the target and yet not
a threat. He may have to ride a paradox--to be both self-
enhancing and self-deprecating at the same time. This may
not be difficult for someone with strong and obvious cre-
dentials-someone widely acknowledged to be the best in
his field may gain by not mentioning it, and instead ac-
knowledging his all-too-human failings. But those with
dubious credentials must be more blatant in advertising
their strengths.
In sum, in each of these classes the main problem of the
ingratiator is to seem sincere and yet impressive and en-
gaging. It is also better if his tactics and stated opinions
support some pet but not universally admired or accepted
ideas of the target.
Little research has been done on ingratiation. To carry
the inspection of the subject beyond anecdote and intuition,
we conducted a number of experiments in which college
student subjects were given strong or weak incentives to
make themselves attractive to a particular target. Sometimes
targets knew that the ingratiators were dependent on them
for benefits and therefore had selfish reasons to be attract-
ive; sometimes they did not know. In other experiments,
subjects were exposed to ingratiating overtures by others
and their impressions of these others were assessed.
One experiment, designed to test ingratiation tactics in
an organizational hierarchy, used as subiects seventy-nine
male volunteers from the Naval ROTC unit at Duke Uni-
versity. Pairs of freshmen (low-status) and pairs of upper-
classmen (high-status) were brought together in units of
four. Each subject in the experimental condition (designed
to promote ingratiation) was told that the purpose of the
study was to find out if "compatible groups provide a better
setting in which to test leadership potential than do in-
compatible groups." The experimenter's instructions con-
tinued: "For this reason I hope that you will make a
22
special effort to gain (the other's) liking and respect, al-
ways remembering your position as commander (or sub-
ordinate)." With the remaining subjects, in the control
condition, emphasis was on the importance of obtaining
valid information: "We are not especially concerned with
whether you end up liking each other or not . . . . We are
interested only in how well you can do in reaching a clear
impression of the other person."
Another experiment used fifty male volunteers from the
introductory psychology course at the University of North
Carolina in what was supposed to be a game designed to
simulate a business situation. An experimental accomplice,
presented as a graduate student from the School of Busi-
ness Administration, was introduced as the "supervisor,"
conducting and scoring the games. Actually, the "business
games" were used to discover and measure ingratiation
tactics which might be used to gain advantage in compa-
rable professional or business contexts.
From the results of the experiments thus far completed
there is no doubt that the average undergraduate behaves
differently when he wants to be liked than when he wants
only to be accurate in presenting himself socially.
Specifically, let us break down the results in terms of
the three major types of ingratiation tactics.
SELF-PRESENTATION. Generally, when instructed to try to
make a good impression, our subjects played up their strong
points and played down their weaknesses. (These varied
according to the situation.) However, there were a few
significant exceptions:
9 In a status hierachy, tactics vary according to the in-
gratiator's position. In the ROTC experiment, the lower-
classmen usually inflated only those qualities they con-
sidered unimportant. Apparently they felt that to inflate the
important qualities might make them seem pushy, and per-
haps even threatening. Upper-classmen became more mod-
est about all qualities. They felt secure, and their high status
was obvious because of age and rank--therefore they did
not feel it necessary to assert superiority. Modesty, we infer,
helped them build up the impression of friendliness to-
ward the lower ranks, which they considered desirable.
9 Who and what the target is influences how the ingratia-
tor describes himself. In the business games, those trying to
impress the supervisor favorably emphasized their com-
petence and respectability rather than their geniality. "At-
tractiveness" can, therefore, be sought by emphasizing what
is more desired in a given situation--perhaps efficiency,
perhaps compatibility, perhaps trustworthiness or integrity.
If the ingratiator knows that the target is aware of his de-
pendence, his tactics are apt to be subtle or devious. He
may very well deprecate himself in those areas he does not
consider important in order to build up his credibility in
areas he does consider important. If, however, the in-
gratiator believes the target is innocent enough to accept
him at face value, he will be tempted to pull out all stops.
CONFORMITY. Perhaps the clearest research finding was
TRANS-ACTION
that, to be successful, ingratiation must result in greater
public agreement with the target's stated opinions. (Hamlet
asked Polonius, "Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in
the shape of a camel? .... By the mass, and 'tis like a camel,
indeed." "Methinks it is like a weasel." "It is backed like a
weasel." "Or like a whale? .... Very like a whale.")
Such conformity was true of both high-status and low-
status students--with some significant differences. The low
status freshmen conformed more on relevant than irrelevant
items. Upper-classmen conformed more on the irrelevant
than the relevant--presumably they were eager to appear
good fellows, but not at the price of compromising any
essential source of power or responsibility.
Further, as the business games showed, an ingratiator
will cut the cloth of his agreement to fit the back of what is
important to his target. If the target clearly values tact,
cooperation, and getting along with others, the ingratiator
will understand that the strategic use of agreement will
probably result in personal advantage. Subjects were quick
to reach this conclusion and to act on it, in contrast to
their show of independence when the target appeared to
be austerely concerned with the productivity of subordinates
rather than the congeniality of their views.
When the ingratiator happens to agree closely with the
target anyway, there is some evidence that too much agree-
ment is deliberately avoided. Actually, agreement is almost
never total. In most of the experimental cases of con-
formity, the ingratiator's final stated view were a com-
promise between his original opinion and that of his target.
He might be described as avoiding extreme disagreement
rather than seeking close agreement; nevertheless, the evi-
dence is clear that expressed opinions are influenced by a
desire to create a good impression.
OTHER-ENHANCEMENT. In this tactical area the results were
quite inconclusive. There was some evidence that low-status
subjects, after being instructed concerning the importance
of compatibility with their superiors, were more compli-
mentary than when operating under instructions to be ac-
curate. High-status subjects did not show this same tend-
ency to flatter more under conditions stressing compati-
bility. On the other hand, they were more inclined to view
the low status complimenter as insincere in a final private
judgment, when the instructions stressed compatibility. The
low status subjects showed no such suspicions of their
superiors.
THE BOUNDS OF VANITY
Our experiments have answered a few questions and
posed many more which may be profitably studied. Among
the more important questions raised:
9 Given the ethical barriers to deceit and social manipula-
tion, what are the modes of rationalization or self-justifi-
cation in ingratiation? How does the ingratiator keep his
self-respect? Though our data consistently revealed dif-
ferences between experimental (compatibility) and con-
MAY/JUNr
trol (accuracy) conditions, we were unable to detect any
intent to win favor, or the conscious adoption of attraction-
gaining strategies.
9 How are power differences affected by ingratiation
tactics ? Does ingratiation by the follower subvert or aug-
ment the power of the leader ?
9 How precisely do the distortions of ingratiation affect
our perceptions of ourselves and others?
9 What of the psychology of favor-giving as part of in-
gratiation? When does it help and when does it hurt the
ingratiator? Is it possible that sometimes targets will like
us more if we let them do favors for us? Why might this
be so?
There remains the problem of defining ingratiation.
Microscopic examination of ingratiating behavior keeps
revealing an evanescent "something" that in any given
case can be identified under more familiar headings such
as: social conformity, deference to status, establishing
credibility. It is my contention, however, that the concept
of ingratiation links together various kinds of communica-
tive acts that would otherwise be separately viewed and
studied. By recognizing that there is a strategic side to
social interaction, we open to examination the forms in
which one person presents his "face" to another, when
that other occupies an important position in his scheme of
things.
Perhaps by acknowledging that ingratiation is part of
the human condition, we may bring its facets into the light
of day. As psychologists, if not as moralists, we may in this
vein, admire Lord Chesterfield's candor:
Vanity is, perhaps, the most universal principle of
human actions . . . . If my insatiable thirst for popularity,
applause, and admiration made me do some silly things
on the one hand, it made me, on the other hand, do
almost all the right things that I did . . . . With the men
I was a Proteus, and assumed every shape to please them
all: among the gay, I was the gayest; among the grave,
the gravest; and I never omitted the least attention to
good breeding, to the least offices of friendship, that
could either please or attach them to me . . . .
Edward E. Jones is professor
of psychology at Duke
University. A former editor
of the Journal of Personality,
he is currently working on a
social psychology textbook,
continuing research on
ingratiation, and working on
the implications of causal
attribution in the way people
perceive each other. This
article was developed from
Professor Jones' book,
Ingratiation, published by
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
23