Impression Management,
Fairness, and the
Employment Interview*
ABSTRACT. This paper contends that impression
management is not inherently a threat to fairness in
employment interviews. Rather, regarding impression
management as unfair is based on an outdated, narrow
view of impression management as conscious, manip-
ulative, and deceptive. A broader, expansive model
of impression management is described which sees
these behaviors as falling on a continuum from
deceptive and manipulative on the one hand, to
accurate, positive and beneficial on the other. While
organizations may want to eliminate or discount the
negative aspect of the impression management con-
tinuum, the ability to positively “sell” oneself is often
a desirable attribute both in the employment inter-
view and in later on-the-job settings. This expansive
view of impression management contends that
organizations can make employment interviews more
fair by: viewing impression management as a skill and
not a deficit, training interviewers to be wary of
manipulative and deceptive impression management,
reducing the ambiguity and uncertainty of interview
settings and increasing the verifiability of candidate
responses by focusing the interview on a candidate’s
long-term identities and accomplishments rather than
their short-term, spur-of-the-moment attempts to
please the interviewer.
Paul Rosenfeld is a personnel research psychologist at the
Navy Personnel Research and Development Center in
San Diego, CA. Dr. Rosenfeld has previously co-
authored Introduction to Social Psychology (West,
1985) and coeditied Impression Management in the
Organization (Erlbaum, 1989) and Applied
Impression Management (Sage, 1991). Dr. Rosenfeld
is also coeditor of Hispanics in the Workplace (Sage,
1992) and Improving Organizational Surveys (Sage,
1993).
Journal of Business Ethics 16: 801–808, 1997.
© 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Paul Rosenfeld
Impression management, fairness, and
the employment interview
Researchers within the management and orga-
nizational sciences have been devoting increased
attention to a theoretical framework which
revolves around the concerns of individuals for
making impressions on others. Impression man-
agement refers to the many ways that people try
to control the impressions others have of them:
their behavior, motivations, morality, and
personal attributes like dependability, intelligence,
and future potential (cf. Giacalone and
Rosenfeld, 1989, 1991; Rosenfeld et al., 1994b).
The impression management perspective
assumes that a basic motive, both inside and
outside of organizations, is to be viewed by
others in a favorable manner and avoid being
seen negatively. This perspective views much of
organizational behavior as analogous to an
advertising campaign on behalf of a commercial
product. Individuals act as amateur publicity
agents conducting “spin control” campaigns on
their own behalf, highlighting strengths and
virtues while engaging in “damage control” to
minimize deficiencies (Rosenfeld and Giacalone,
1991; Tedeschi et al., 1985, chapter 3).
Impression management has increasingly
become a recognized part of organizational
behavior research. It has been applied to areas
such as employment interviews, performance
evaluation, assessment centers, business ethics,
computer surveys, organizational communica-
tion, feedback, leadership, and diversity issues (cf.
Giacalone and Rosenfeld, 1989, 1991; Rosenfeld
et al., 1994b).
While impression management phenomena
occur in many social and organizational situa-
802 Paul Rosenfeld
tions, the “high stakes” nature of the employ-
ment interview makes it a setting particularly
ripe for impression management behaviors. In a
typical job interview, both the candidate (who
wants to get hired) and interviewer (who wants
to attract the best candidates) engage in a recip-
rocal impression management process with both
attempting to manage positive impressions to
achieve desired outcomes.
Because impression management behaviors
have previously been viewed by some theorists
as nefarious, manipulative, and deceptive (cf.
Rosenfeld and Giacalone, 1991) their use by
applicants in employment interviews has been
seen as potentially undermining the “fairness” of
the selection process (Arvey and Renz, 1992).
The present paper considers the fairness issue
as it relates to impression management and
employment interviews. A review of previous
research is presented which indicates that impres-
sion management tactics can positively impact
interviewer perceptions of applicants but can
backfire if used excessively. An expansive model
of impression management is presented that
contends that some but not all forms of impres-
sion management impede fairness in employment
interviews. Within the context of this model,
suggestions for increasing fairness in employment
interviews are presented.
Impression management and the employment
interview
Although the employment interview has been
conceptualized as a form of cognitive informa-
tion processing, or as a selection technique
having legal and civil rights implications (cf. Eder
and Ferris, 1989), it can also be viewed as a type
of social interaction (Liden et al., 1993) where
both the applicant and interviewer try to influ-
ence each other through the use of impression
management. The near universality of the
employment interview and the importance
ascribed to it in both the popular and professional
literature have made it fertile territory for the
occurrence of impression management. This is
particularly true for the applicant for whom the
employment interview is often a very ambiguous
and uncertain social situation. Organizational
impression management research (cf., Giacalone
and Rosenfeld, 1989, 1991) has found that
individuals engage in more impression manage-
ment in ambiguous and uncertain situations.
Both conceptual analyses and empirical studies
have focused more on the impression manage-
ment behaviors of applicants rather than inter-
viewers. Because the applicant is relatively
powerless and the interviewer may be aware that
much of the applicant’s behavior represents style
over substance, the impression management task
of the applicant is not always easy. To be suc-
cessful, the applicant must walk a “fine line”
being “confident but not brash, polite but not
sycophantic, lively and interested but not voluble
or manic, sufficiently nervous to show an
appreciation of the importance of the occasion
but not visibly anxious throughout”. (Fletcher,
1989, p. 273) Research has similarly found that
while impression management can positively
influence interviewer perceptions of the appli-
cant, its overuse can backfire.
Research on impression management and
employment interviews
Research on impression management in the
employment interview has typically focused on
the behavior of the applicant. In an early study,
Von Baeyer et al. (1981) found that female job
applicants tailored their nonverbal and verbal
behaviors to match the views of women held by
their interviewer. When the male interviewer
was known to hold views congruent with the
traditional female stereotype, female applicants
gave more traditional responses to questions
about family and relationships, spent more time
on their physical appearance and were less
assertive in their verbal and nonverbal behaviors
than when the interviewer held less traditional
attitudes. While this study indicated that job
applicants modify their behaviors to match
interview beliefs, a study reported by Baron
(1989) found that impression management
behaviors in interview situations can be coun-
terproductive. Baron contends that because
interviewers expect applicants to use impression
 Impression Management and Employment Interviews
management, excessive use of such tactics may
backfire. In his study, male and female students
conducted employment interviews with a female
confederate applicant. The female applicant was
seeking an entry-level position and she responded
in a standard fashion to questions asked by the
interviewers. The applicant either used a number
of positive nonverbal behaviors such as smiling
and leaning forward or emitted few positive non-
verbal cues. She also either wore or did not wear
perfume. Baron’s results supported the notion
that too much impression management in an
employment interview can have a negative
impact. Male interviewers rated the female appli-
cant as being more intelligent and viewed her as
having greater potential for success if she emitted
positive nonverbals or wore perfume, but rated
her lower if she used both sets of impression
management behaviors. Interestingly, this effect
was not found when the interviewer subjects
were female.
While Baron’s study demonstrated that
multiple impression management tactics could
be too much of a good thing, Gilmore and Ferris
(1989a) showed that an impression management
tactic, if skillfully executed, could influence
interviewer perceptions more than information
about the applicant’s actual qualifications. They
conducted a field experiment using 62 actual
interviewers from a public utility. The inter-
viewers viewed a videotape in which a female
applicant engaged in impression management
(e.g., complemented interviewer, smiled) or did
not. She was also portrayed as being highly qual-
ified for a customer representative job or less
qualified. The results indicated that evaluations
of the applicant were influenced by impression
management but not applicant credentials. The
applicant was perceived as doing better in the
interview and was slightly more likely to be
recommended for hiring when she used impres-
sion management than when she did not.
However, her credentials had little impact on
interviewer ratings.
One implication of the Baron (1989) and
Gilmore and Ferris (1989a) studies is that not all
impression management tactics work or are
equally effective in employment interviews. This
was demonstrated more directly by Kacmar et
803
al. (1992). They distinguished applicant impres-
sion management tactics in the employment
interview as those that were “self-focused” (e.g.,
self-promotions) or “other-focused” (e.g., com-
plementing the interview). They found that job
applicants who used impression management
tactics that focused on themselves were rated
higher than applicants whose impression man-
agement tactics focused on the interviewer.
Using impression management in the employment
interview: is it fair?
At first glance, applicant impression management
tactics, such as those described in the studies
reviewed above, would appear to be unfair. In
their discussion of fairness in employee selection,
Arvey and Renz (1992) note that one criterion
of fairness is that the processes and procedures
used are objective and consistent across all
applicants. Subjective, manipulative behaviors are
considered less fair. “Information which is easily
faked and distorted is considered relatively unfair.
Selection procedures wherein applicants can fake
‘good’, distort their responses so as to meet the
criteria for selection more easily, and otherwise
manipulate their impressions are generally
regarded as less fair than those wherein faking
and the like is less likely achieved” (Arvey and
Renz, 1992, p. 335). Anderson (1991) similarly
sees impression management as a form of decep-
tion that “represents a potent source of error in
interviewer judgments. . . . Interviewers should
at least take into account the possibility that
candidates are intentionally biasing their inter-
personal behaviors in order to secure a favorable
outcome from the interaction” (p. 414).1
It is presently argued that while some forms
of impression management used in employment
interviews are unfair, forms that involve honestly,
and accurately presenting and highlighting one’s
attributes are both fair and desirable applicant
behaviors. Viewing impression management
behaviors as inherently unfair is, from this per-
spective, excessive. It likely stems from the
remnants of a narrower model, popular in social
psychology during the 1970s, that considered
impression management as being synonymous
804 Paul Rosenfeld
with conscious, manipulative, and deceptive
behaviors (Rosenfeld and Giacalone, 1991). A
more expansive view sees some impression
management in employment interviews as fair
and some as unfair. It is the task of the inter-
viewer to recognize and encourage the fair
impression management and detect and minimize
the unfair component. The narrow and expan-
sive views of impression management are detailed
and recommendations for minimizing “unfair”
impression management and maximizing “fair”
impression management are offered.
Impression management: restrictive and expansive
views
The view that impression management tactics in
employment interviews are inherently unfair
utilizes a model of organizational impression
management that may be excessively narrow –
one which sees it as synonymous with deceptive
manipulation. In fact, impression management
theory has undergone a major transformation
during the past two decades from focusing on
“extreme” behaviors (e.g., lying, exaggeration)
to its current status as a general model of orga-
nizational behavior (Giacalone and Rosenfled,
1989, 1991).
In a recent review of impression management
theory and research, Schlenker and Weigold
(1992) distinguish between restrictive and expan-
sive views of impression management. The
restrictive view sees impression management as
a generally negative often deceptive set of behav-
iors aimed at illicitly gaining social power and
approval. It stems from the old view of impres-
sion management as a contaminant of social
psychological research (i.e., evaluation appre-
hension). The expansive view on the other hand
sees impression management as a fundamental
aspect of social interactions. “According to the
expansivist view, there is nothing inherently
nefarious or superficial about impression man-
agement. It involves packaging information in
ways designed to lead audiences to a particular
conclusion. . . . From this perspective, to ask
when people engage in self-presentation during
social interaction is like asking when people will
engage in cognition during social interaction.
The process is always going on, but its character
may change depending ont he actor’s goals and
the circumstances” (Schlenker and Weigold,
1992, p. 137).2
The restrictive-expansive distinction has been
implicitly made in previous analyses of impres-
sion management in employment interviews.
Fletcher (1989, 1992) notes that while impres-
sion management occurs in employment
interviews, not all of it is inherently deceptive
or manipulative. “. . . In relation to interview
behavior, it may be more useful to think of it as
a continuum of strategic impression management
behaviors, the most extreme of which involve
conscious deception” (1992, p. 364). In Fletcher’s
view, while some impression management in
employment interviews may be manipulative
other forms of impression management may be
“authentic”, that is, the applicant presents an
identity that closely matches his or her self-
image. The task therefore for interviewers is not
to eliminate impression management, but to
create situations where manipulative impression
management is less likely to occur.
The expansive view of impression manage-
ment also fits with Gilmore and Ferris’ (1989b)
insight that impression management is expected
and implicitly encouraged in employment inter-
views. The candidate often must “sell” him or
herself in order to get a job offer. Someone who
does not present him or her self positively (or
appears to be not trying to) may be perceived as
not really desiring the position. Furthermore, the
skilled use of authentic impression management
displayed in an interview context might be a
useful indicator that the candidate will be able to
successfully utilize impression management when
needed in future job settings. As Lautenschlager
and Flaherty (1990, p. 313) note, “. . . the ability
to manage one’s impression may be quite valuable
as a variable in its own right, especially in
contexts where either social influence or con-
formity is important, such as in sales settings”.
 Impression Management and Employment Interviews
Increasing fairness in employment interviews:
an impression management perspective
According to the expansive view, it is not simply
the occurrence of impression management in
employment interviews that impacts fairness, it
is the type of impression management that
occurs. Candidate impression management which
is authentic and involves a legitimate packaging
of positive traits would seem to be fair particu-
larly since a reciprocal process is also occurring:
the interviewer is impression managing the
candidate. It is the deceptive, manipulative,
insincere impression management that needs to
be detected, minimized, and discounted. How
might this be done?
1. View impression management as a skill not as a
deficit. There is little doubt that impression
management is very common in employment
interviews. Instead of discounting this behavior,
Fletcher (1989) recommends using the employ-
ment interview to assess how good candidates are
at impression management. Thus, rather than
viewing impression management in the employ-
ment interview as an obstacle it might be better
seen as a potential source of valuable information
about an applicant’s ability to do the job.
Regarding impression management as a valuable
skill rather than as inherently dysfunctional
recognizes that much of organizational success
depends on the ability to master “organizational
politics” (Gilmore and Ferris, 1989b).
2. Train interviewers to recognize various kinds of
applicant impression management. Some of the
previous employment interview literature has
viewed applicant impression management as
“noise”, something to be detected and dis-
counted. The expansive view considers impres-
sion management to be more complex and not
inherently “bad”. Thus, some knowledge of the
nature of the positive and negative aspects of
impression management could be added to
interview training. As Fletcher (1990, p. 747)
writes, “. . . it might be possible to sensitize
interviewers to the different kinds of impression
management strategies that candidates use and
the effects they have, so that they can identify
805
them more readily and take account of them in
their decision-making process”.3
3. Reduce ambiguity and uncertainty of the employ-
ment interview situation. As Baker and Spier (1990,
p. 86) note, this is very likely the case with
unstructured employment interviews where
“. . . the lack of structure plays into the hands
of those interviewees bent on obfuscating or
diverting attention from their qualifications”.
They recommend using more structured inter-
view procedures. Similarly Fletcher (1989)
suggests using board or panel interviews and
assessment centers to reduce manipulative
impression management by applicants.4
4. Train interviewers to focus on strategic rather than
tactical impression management. A central theme of
this paper has been that not all impression man-
agement is inherently unfair in employment
interviews. Rather, that impression management
which is deceitful and manipulative should be
considered unfair. Thus, one way to increase
fairness is to make it more likely that candidates
will engage in more sincere forms of impression
management. A way to encourage more sincere
impression management is to increase the verifi-
ability of the information sought. Impression
management research (cf. Schlenker, 1980) has
found that individuals will act in self-enhancing
ways to please significant audiences in the
absence of a “reality check”. However, when
information exists which could repudiate an
overly positive claim, individuals will present
themselves in a more accurate fashion, one that
is closer to what they really believe. As Schlenker
(1980, p. 188) notes, “The more difficult it is
for the audience to check the veracity of a self-
presentation the more likely people are to self-
aggrandize”. Similarly, in discussing employment
interviews, Fletcher (1989, p. 275) notes, “. . .
individuals moderate their self-assessments when
they know they will be subject to subsequent
external checking”.
It would seem therefore that to increase
fairness in employment interviews the discussion
should be focused on verifiable information that
is less likely prone to distortion, deception and
manipulation. One way to do this is to train
806 Paul Rosenfeld
interviewers to distinguish between tactical and
strategic impression management behaviors
(Gilmore and Ferris, 1989b; Tedeschi et al.,
1985, chapter 3). Tactical impression manage-
ment refers to behaviors aimed at making
short-term, immediate favorable impressions
(e.g., making the interviewer like the applicant).
Examples would be things such as comple-
menting the interviewer, agreeing with the
interviewer’s statements and positive nonverbal
behaviors such as smiling and eye-contact. The
goal of tactical impression management by an
applicant is to make a quick, short-term positive
impression on the interviewer. Strategic impres-
sion management behaviors have more long-term
goals; they are tied to better established, long-
term identities involving a person’s credibility,
competence, and trustworthiness. While in many
informal social interactions, a person may have a
similar level of knowledge about someone’s
short-term or long-term identities, this is gen-
erally not true for employment interviews. As
Gilmore and Ferris (1989b) note, an interviewer
usually has a great deal of information relevant
to a applicant’s long-term (i.e. strategic) identity.
“In impression management terminology, this
prior information (i.e., application blank or
resume) available to the interviewer is typically
strategic impression management data (Gilmore
and Ferris, 1989b, p. 202)”. Furthermore, the
applicant knows that the interviewer has this
information and is aware that much of this
information is verifiable (i.e., can be checked for
accuracy). Since verifiability reduces scores on
individual differences scales that assess conscious,
strategic impression management (e.g., Marlowe-
Crowne) but not on scales that assess impression
management that a person truly believes
(Rosenfeld et al., 1994a), it would seem that
focusing the employment interview on aspects of
a candidate’s strategic identity – his/her compe-
tence, credibility, long-term achievements –
rather than short-term impression management
behaviors aimed at pleasing the interviewer,
would ultimately result in less distortion and
more fairness. Training interviewers to focus on
long-term accomplishments rather than short-
term “slickness” may be needed. As discussed
previously, Gilmore and Ferris (1989a) found that
tactical impression management behaviors
(smiles, complements) positively influenced inter-
viewer perceptions of an applicant but informa-
tion about credentials and qualifications did not.
Notes
* The opinions expressed herein are those of the
author, they are not official and do not necessarily
represent the views of the U.S. Navy Department.
1
Fletcher (1992, p. 362) also sees courses, seminars
and popular books that train job applicants to use
deceptive impression management tactics as raising
issues of fairness.
There does seem to be some danger that the pro-
vision of training that facilitates deceitful impres-
sion management might have a wider effect in
making interviewers doubtful of the veracity of
what they are being told, even when they are
dealing with honest candidates, and in so doing
undermine confidence int he selection process as
a whole.
2
Other forceful arguments have been made against
the restrictive view of impression management.
Tetlock and Manstead (1985, pp. 61–62) note,
“Although some writers have used the term impres-
sion management to refer to the self-conscious
deception of others . . . there is no compelling psy-
chological reason why impression management must
be either duplicitous or under conscious control.
Impression management may be the product of highly
overlearned habits or scripts, the original functions of
which people have long forgotten. Similarly,
Schlenker and Weigold, (1990, p. 827) write, “It is
myopic to argue that self-presentation primarily
involves pretense, deception, or illegitimacy. Self-
presentation involves packaging desired self-identifi-
cations so that audiences draw a preferred conclusion.
. . . There is nothing nefarious, superficial, or
Machiavellian about packaging. Just as a textbook
writer must edit information to present it in a
readable, concise fashion, so must people edit infor-
mation about themselves in everyday life to provide
the “best” description possible”.
3
Training managers to recognize various impression
management techniques and defend against being
manipulated by them has been previously recom-
mended (Giacalone, 1989) but apparently has not
been systematically carried out. Gilmore and Ferris
 Impression Management and Employment Interviews
(1989, p. 564) see the task being one of training inter-
viewers to distinguish style from substance.
“Interpersonal skill-building that focuses on infor-
mation solicitation and exchange and that helps to
educate interviewers in the distinction between
substantive content and merely opportunistic behavior
on the part of the applicant should be an important
addition to such programs.”
4
Another way of reducing ambiguity and uncer-
tainty recommended by Fletcher (1990, p. 747) is “by
giving all candidates for a post a briefing on how they
were expected to present themselves in the interview.
This would help to establish a common set of expec-
tations about what behavior is appropriate.”
References
Anderson, N. R.: 1991, ‘Decision Making in the
Graduate Selection Interview: An Experimental
Investigation’, Human Relations 44, 403–417.
Arvey, R. D. and G. L. Renz: 1992, ‘Fairness in the
Selection of Employees’, Journal of Business Ethics
11, 331–340.
Barker, H. G. and M. S. Spier: 1990, ‘The
Employment Interview: Guaranteed Improvement
in Reliability’, Public Personnel Management 19,
85–90.
Baron, R. A.: 1989, ‘Impression Management by
Applicants During Employment Interviews: The
“Too Much of a Good Thing” Effect’, in R. W.
Eder and G. R. Ferris (eds.), The Employment
Interview: Theory, Research, Practice (Sage, Newbury
Park, CA), pp. 204–215.
Elder, R. W. and G. R. Ferris (eds.): 1989, The
Employment Interview: Theory, Research, Practice
(Sage, Newbury Park, CA).
Fletcher, C.: 1989, ‘Impression Management in the
Selection Interview’, in R. A. Giacalone and P.
Rosenfeld (eds.), Impression Management in the
Organization (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ),
pp. 269–281.
Fletcher, C.: 1990, ‘The Relationship between
Candidate Personality, Self-Presentation strategies,
and Interviewer Assessments in Selection
Interviews: An Empirical Study’, Human Relations
43, 739–749.
Fletcher, C.: 1992, ‘Ethical Issues in the Selection
Interview’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 361–367.
Giacalone, R. A.: 1989 May, ‘Image Control: The
Strategies of Impression Management’, Personnel,
52–55.
Giacalone, R. A. and P. Rosenfeld (eds.): 1989,
807
Impression Management in the Organization (Lawrence
Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ).
Giacalone, R. A. and P. Rosenfeld (eds.): 1991,
Applied Impression Management: How Image Making
Affects Managerial Decisions (Sage, Newbury Park,
CA).
Gilmore, D. C. and G. R. Ferris: 1989a, ‘The Effects
of Applicant Impression Management Tactics on
Interviewer Judgments’, Journal of Management 15,
557–564.
Gilmore, D. C. and G. R. Ferris: 1989b, ‘The Politics
of the Employment Interview’, in R. W. Eder and
G. R. Ferris, eds., 1989, The Employment Interview:
Theory, Research, Practice (Sage, Newbury Park,
CA), pp. 195–203.
Kacmar, K. M., J. E. Delery and G. R. Ferris: 1992,
‘Differential Effectiveness of Applicant Impression
Management Tactics on Employment Interview
Decisions’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22,
1250–1272.
Lautenschlager, G. L. and V. L. Flaherty: 1990,
‘Computer Administration of Questions: More
Desirable or More Social Desirability?’, Journal of
Applied Psychology 75, 310–314.
Liden, R. C., C. L. Martin, and C. K. Parson: 1993,
‘Interviewer and Applicant Behaviors in Employ-
ment Interviews’, Academy of Management Journal
36, 372–386.
Rosenfeld, P. and R. A. Giacalone: 1991, ‘From
Extreme to the Mainstream: Applied Impression
Management in Organizations’, in R. A. Giacalone
and P. Rosenfeld (eds.), Applied Impression
Management: How Image Making Affects Managerial
Decision Making (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), pp.
3–11.
Rosenfeld, P., S. Booth-Kewley, J. E. Edwards and
D. L. Alderton: 1994a, ‘Linking Diversity and
Impression Management: A Study of Hispanic,
Black, and White Navy Recruits’, American
Behavioral Scientist 37, 672–681.
Rosenfeld, P., R. A. Giacalone, and C. A. Riordan:
1994b, ‘Impression Management Theory and
Diversity: Lessons for Organizational Behavior’,
American Behavioral Scientist 37, 601–604.
Schlenker, B. R.: 1980, Impression Management: The
Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal
Relations (Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA).
Schlenker, B. R. and M. F. Weigold: 1990, ‘Self-
Consciousness and Self-Presentation: Being
Autonomous Versus Appearing Autonomous’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59,
820–828.
Schlenker, B. R. and M. F. Weigold: 1992,
808 Paul Rosenfeld
‘Interpersonal Processes Involving Impression
Regulation and Management’, Annual Review of
Psychology 43, 133–168.
Tedeschi, J. T., S. Lindskold, and P. Rosenfeld: 1985,
Introduction to Social Psychology (West, St. Paul,
MN).
Tetlock, P. E. and A. S. R. Manstead: 1985,
‘Impression Management Versus Intrapsychic
Explanations in Social Psychology: A Useful
Dichotomy?’, Psychological Review 92, 59–77.
Von Baeyer, C. L., D. I. Sherk and M. P. Zanna: 1981,
‘Impression Management in the Job Interview’,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 7, 45–51.
(Code 12),
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center,
53335 Ryne Road,
San Diego, CA 92152-7250,
U.S.A.