Intended Self-Presentation Tactics in Job Interviews: A 10-Country Study

http://jcc.sagepub.com/Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/04/0022022114532353The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0022022114532353

published online 5 May 2014Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyMortazavi and Catherine Tien-Lun Sun

Gabriele H. Franke, Rosnah Ismail, Kristine Kjellsen, Ankica Kosic, Anne Leontieva, Shahrnaz Gro M. Sandal, Fons van de Vijver, Hege H. Bye, David L. Sam, Benjamin Amponsah, Nigar Cakar,

Intended Self-Presentation Tactics in Job Interviews: A 10-Country Study

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology

can be found at:Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyAdditional services and information for

http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/04/0022022114532353.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- May 5, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

by guest on May 21, 2014jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on May 21, 2014jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jcc.sagepub.com/

http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/04/0022022114532353

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.iaccp.org/

http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/04/0022022114532353.refs.html

http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/04/0022022114532353.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1 –20

© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022022114532353

jccp.sagepub.com

Article

Intended Self-Presentation Tactics in Job Interviews: A 10-Country Study

Gro M. Sandal1, Fons van de Vijver2,3,4, Hege H. Bye1, David L.Sam1, Benjamin Amponsah5, Nigar Cakar6, Gabriele H. Franke7, Rosnah Ismail8, Kristine Kjellsen1, Ankica Kosic9, Anne Leontieva10, Shahrnaz Mortazavi11, and Catherine Tien-Lun Sun12

AbstractIntended self-presentation in job interviews was examined among university students in 10 countries (N = 3,509). The aim was to assess cross-cultural differences in the endorsement of self-presentation tactics, and whether such differences could be explained by cultural values and socioeconomic variables. The Cultural Impression Management Scale–Applicant Scale (CIM-A) was used that measures assertiveness, individual excellence, accommodation, and pointing out obstacles. Cross-cultural differences were found in endorsement of all tactics, most notably in individual excellence and pointing out obstacles. Importance assigned to self-presentation tactics was larger among individuals from cultures emphasizing embeddedness, mastery, and hierarchy, and with larger income disparities. The exception to this pattern was the American sample. Implications for personnel selection in international contexts are discussed.

Keywordscultural values, affluence, self-presentation, impression management, selection, job interview

The employment interview is a commonly used technique for assessing job candidates, and research suggests that interviews can provide a high level of criterion-related validity when carefully designed (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). As the labor market in many countries rapidly

1University of Bergen, Norway2Tilburg University, The Netherlands3North-West University, South Africa4University of Queensland, Australia5University of Ghana, Ghana6Düzce University, Turkey7University of Applied Sciences, Psychology of Rehabilitation, Germany8Universiti Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia9Sapienza - University of Rome, Italy10National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia11University of Shahid Beheshti, Iran12Hong Kong Shue Yan University, Hong Kong

Corresponding Author:Gro M. Sandal, Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Christiesgt 12, Bergen 5015, Norway. Email: [email protected]

532353 JCCXXX10.1177/0022022114532353Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySandal et al.research-article2014

by guest on May 21, 2014jcc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

mailto:[email protected]


2 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

becomes more culturally heterogeneous due to migration, growth in international assignments, and an increasing number of multinational companies, it is getting more common that applicants from different cultures are interviewed for the same position. A considerable amount of evidence suggests that the images applicants portray in the interview influence interview ratings and their chances of being hired (Barrick, Shaffer, & DeGrassi, 2009; Horverak, Bye, Sandal, & Pallesen, 2013). However, few studies have addressed cross-cultural variations in how applicants approach the job interview and implications of such differences for job opportunities, and there is a cultural bias in these studies in that conceptualizations and measures have been mainly developed in a Western context. We set out to identify factors that are relevant for self-presentations in a cross-cultural context and to develop a questionnaire gauging these factors, which can be used in a multicultural context.

In the battle for an attractive position, candidates will be motivated to put their best foot for-ward, and they may choose from a variety of impression management tactics to influence the interviewer. The employment interview can be understood as a strong situation that carries expectancies about appropriate behavior, and research suggests that applicants use strategic self-presentational behaviors to fulfill these situational requirements (Jansen, König, Stadelmann, & Kleinmann, 2012). However, criteria used in personnel selection are not uniform across coun-tries, but tend to be culturally contingent (Aycan, 2005; Ryan & Tippins, 2009). Consequently, norms about what constitutes a “desired image” in a job interview may depend on the cultural context (Bond, 1991). Yet, the preponderance of self-presentation research is conducted in the United States applying U.S. instruments. In this article, we broaden the cultural basis. We pro-pose a framework for conceptualizing self-presentation tactics in a cross-cultural context taking cultural values as our starting point. An assumption supported by cross-cultural research is that the degree to which people are motivated to be engaged in impression management behavior and the specific image they try to convey are affected by the cultural value orientations of their societ-ies (Bond, 1991). In the following sections, we explicate how cultural values can impinge on self-presentation by job applicants. By examining data from 10 different countries, the aim of this article is to assess the ways in which preferred self-presentation in job interviews differs across countries, and further, to examine the extent to which preferred self-presentation tactics are linked with cultural values and country-level socioeconomic variables.

Self-Presentation in a Cross-Cultural Perspective

Schlenker (1980) defines self-presentation as “the conscious or unconscious attempt to control [self-relevant] images that are projected in real or imagined social interactions” (p. 6). He uses the term impression management to denote the managing of images more generally, as people can manage the impressions of other objects than themselves (e.g., organizations, jobs). Following Leary and Kowalski (1990) and adhering to common terminology in the interview literature, we use these two terms interchangeably. In common everyday situations, self-presentation tends to be automatic and effortless (Schlenker, 1980). However, in high-stakes situations such as job interviews, individuals will be motivated to actively attend to their self-presentation (Barrick et al., 2009; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Thus, the context of job interviews seems especially suitable for examining cross-cultural differences in tactical self-presentations. In this article, self-presen-tation refers to how candidates purposefully present information relevant to self to obtain a favor-able evaluation from the interviewer.

Self-presentation tactics may be sincere or deceptive, accurate or inaccurate. A large litera-ture has addressed cross-cultural differences in self-enhancement, a process involving positive bias in the evaluation of self (see Heine, 2003). Typically, this research suggests that self-enhancement is less prominent in South-East Asia than in North America and Western Europe; however, Kurman (2001) found that self-enhancement is particularly strong in individualistic



Sandal et al. 3

countries for agentic traits while self-enhancement of communal traits did not differ between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Other studies have dealt with cultural differences in social desirable responding to questionnaires. Lalwani, Shavitt, and Johnson (2006) compared the scores of European Americans, Singaporeans, and Asian Americans on the Paulhus Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Consistent with the literature on self-enhancement, they found that European Americans scored higher on self-deception, which refers to tendency to think of oneself in a favorable light even in the face of counterevidence. Although self-enhance-ment, social desirability, and self-presentation are closely related concepts, they are not inter-changeable. Our interest is primarily in self-presentation (focusing on the control of my self-image in interactions) whereas self-enhancement and self-deception refer more to positive bias in self-image. In our view, all three tendencies can be important in job interviews, but self-presentation is the more general and relevant tendency in such situations. In the present study, we try to determine how people want to portray themselves in the face-to-face encounter of an interview. We do not make any inferences about whether this involves deliberate faking, self-enhancement, or an accurate reflection of self.

In the domain of self-presentations, a distinction can be made between impression manage-ment efforts and the specific tactics viewed as most appropriate and efficient for making a favor-able impression. In this article, we focus on cultural differences in both areas. Previous conceptualizations of self-presentation tactics have described various tactics such as assertive and defensive tactics, self-focused/other-focused tactics, and self-promotion and ingratiation tactics (Ellies, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002; Stevens & Kristof, 1995; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). Stemming primarily from an Anglo, monocultural perspective, these classifications may not be efficient in capturing cultural differences in applicants’ self-presentation. Also, these categories may be reflective of the cultural context in which they were developed. Specifically, implicit in much of the literature on self-presentation tactics is the perspective that people are motivated to present an image of uniqueness, achievement, and independence. This self-presen-tation ideal is consistent with prominent values in the North American society, and may not generalize across societies.

The self-presentation tactics assessed in this study were selected based on their expected rela-tionships with cultural differences in values. The choice of these tactics is partly based on litera-ture, as reviewed below, and partly on exchanges within our research team. The specific tactics were assertiveness, emphasizing individual excellence, accommodation, and pointing out obsta-cles. A review of the literature indicates that cross-cultural investigation of self-presentation must include elements of both more competency-oriented and more relationship-oriented tactics (Khilji, Zeidman, Drory, Tirmizi, & Srinivas, 2010). Assertiveness involves expressing enthusi-asm, confidence, self-discipline, and independence. Emphasizing individual excellence involves actively portraying an image of individual superiority, exclusively focusing on personal strength and taking personal credit for previous accomplishments. These tactics, which can be described as competency oriented, share similarities with constructs in scales used by other researchers, including Higgins and Judge (2004) and Stevens and Kristof (1995). In addition, we consider more relationship-oriented aspects of self-presentation that are poorly represented in the self-presentation literature, despite their potential relevance in non-Western parts of the world. Specifically, and on the basis of a review of the cross-cultural literature, we argue that the extent to which candidates highlight willingness to accommodate to the job should be considered in cross-cultural comparisons of self-presentation. Aycan (2005) noted that in societies that stress group membership and communal goals above individual interests, criteria weighted heavily in evaluating employees typically include harmony in interpersonal relations, conformity, a respect-ful attitude, loyalty and deference toward superiors, effort and willingness to work, and organi-zational citizenship. This dimension has also been found in emically based personality research in China (Cheung, 2004) and South Africa (Nel et al., 2012). Thus, presenting such qualities,




subsumed under the label accommodation, must be assumed as essential to candidates’ self-pre-sentation in this context.

The last aspect of self-presentation considered in this article is pointing out obstacles. Other researchers (Schlenker, 1980; Stevens & Kristof, 1995) have described a strategy called over-coming obstacles, through which candidates describe how they overcame obstacles in the pursuit of a goal in the past. Pointing out obstacles, as conceptualized in our study, bears similarities with this tactic, but incorporates more broadly relationship-oriented behavior that is directed toward the preservation of face, which is a highly relevant conception in cross-cultural research. For example, Kim and Nam noted that the strong influence of face on social interactions in Asian cultures is frequently misunderstood by Westerners. Bennett (1990) identified two types of face-work strategies: retrospective strategies such as apologies, justification, and excuses, and pro-spective strategies, such as the provision of disclaimers. His findings suggested that the use of prospective strategies may reduce the risk of losing face after the actor has brought out negative consequences. Pointing out obstacles, as a tactic assessed in this study, thus includes describing not only how one has overcome problems in the past but also external factors that may hinder one’s performance in the future, with the aim of establishing or maintaining a good relationship despite the problems.

Cultural Values and Self-Presentation Tactics

Cultural values have been conceptualized and measured through various dimensions. In this study, we adopt the value theory developed by Schwartz that has been extensively validated for cross-cultural equivalence of meaning (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990; Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann, Burgess, & Harris, 2001). The theory describes values as desirable, transsituational goals of varying importance and serving as guidelines for action, and defines three dimensions along which cultural groups vary: embeddedness versus intellectual and affec-tive autonomy, hierarchy versus egalitarianism, and mastery versus harmony.

The first dimension separates cultures in which the person is viewed as an autonomous, bounded entity who finds meaning in his or her own uniqueness, seeks to express his or her own internal attributes (preferences, traits, feelings, motives) and is encouraged to do so, from cul-tures in which the person is viewed as an entity embedded in the collective and finds meaning in life largely through social relationships, through identifying with the group and participating in its shared way of life. The second dimension distinguishes cultures in which the unequal distribu-tion of roles, power, and resources is seen as legitimate and people are socialized to fulfill their obligations defined by prescribed roles, from cultures in which people are socialized to view each other as equals, to cooperate and feel concern for everybody’s welfare. The third dimension sepa-rates cultures in which there is emphasis on fitting in and being in harmony with the natural and social world, from cultures in which there is emphasis on assertiveness, changing and mastering the environment to achieve personal or group goals. The cultural value dimensions are interre-lated. For example, according to Schwartz (2006), both embeddedness and hierarchy values entail that a person’s role and obligations are more important than his or her individual goals and aspirations.

We propose that the cultural value model of Schwartz has two important implications with regard to self-presentation. First, if a specific self-presentation tactic is more common in societies where a value domain is emphasized, it is likely to be less common in societies with an emphasis on the opposite value orientation. Second, tactics that are viewed as compatible with a specific value orientation are likely to be (albeit to a lesser degree) compatible with adjacent value orien-tations in the Schwartz model. In the following sections, we explicate how value dimensions should be related to self-presentation tactics during job interviews.



Sandal et al. 5

Embeddedness Versus Autonomy Values

There is research to argue that job applicants in embedded cultures will place more emphasis on self-presentation tactics that portray them as interdependent, relationship-oriented, and conform-ing than applicants in cultures with an emphasis on autonomy. Given that social order, tradition, and obedience are central norms, individuals in embedded cultures tend to be concerned with accommodating and conforming rather than standing out (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Research supporting this view derives from studies on differences between collectivistic and individualistic cultures, a distinction that shares similarities with the embeddedness–autonomy dimension pro-posed by Schwartz. For example, Sedikides, Gaertner, and Toguchi (2003) showed that individu-als from an individualistic culture (the United States) tended to self-enhance in reporting traits that measured independence, achievement, and uniqueness, whereas individuals from a collectivistic culture (Japan) self-enhanced when reporting interpersonal traits (e.g., generosity and harmony).

Much of the literature in cross-cultural psychology suggests that social norms are powerful pre-dictors of behavior in embedded cultures, and that face management and deference are central to public self-presentation. The norm is to be modest about personal accomplishments so that the achievements of others are not diminished. However, also failing to meet others’ expectations associ-ated with one’s social status is perceived as losing face. Research evidence has shown that collectiv-ism is associated with deception (Triandis et al., 2001), lying (Triandis & Suh, 2002), face-saving behavior (Ho, 1976; Hu, 1944), and impression management (Lalwani et al., 2006). Similarly, researchers have noted that self-protection strategies may be more prevalent in East Asian than in Western cultures (Hepper, Sedikides, & Cai, 2013). Kim, Chiu, Peng, Cai, and Tov (2010) found that East Asian students were likely to report positive self-evaluations by denying possession of negative traits. Because the consequences of loss of face tend to be more serious in embedded (e.g., Asian) cultures than in autonomy-oriented (Western) cultures as noted by Kim and Nam (1998), job appli-cants in embedded cultures may show a stronger tendency to attribute their failures to external causes to meet role expectations. This tendency will be consistent with pointing out obstacles as a self-presentation strategy during job interviews. Against this backdrop, we hypothesize that

Hypothesis 1a: Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward embed-dedness score higher on self-presentation in general and on accommodation and pointing out obstacles in particular.Hypothesis 1b: Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward auton-omy score lower on self-presentation in general and on accommodation and pointing out obstacles in particular.

Harmony Versus Mastery Values

The extent to which an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for per-formance improvement and excellence varies with cultural emphasis on mastery versus harmony values. Mastery-oriented cultures endorse power or dominance over others and the physical envi-ronment. Thus, these societies socialize their citizens to have self-control and to be in control of how others view them (Glazer, 2006). Consistent with this perspective, studies suggest that cul-tural differences in emphasis on mastery are reflected in the extent to which self-presentation efforts are viewed as legitimate and acceptable (König, Hafsteinsson, Jansen, & Stadelmann, 2011; Lopes & Fletcher, 2004). Sandal and Endresen (2002) compared the self-presentations of North American and Norwegian students using the Good Impression Scale of the California Psychological Inventory. Students were first instructed to answer honestly, and then to answer as they would have done in a job selection setting. The North American students scored higher on the Good Impression Scale than the Norwegians under both instructions, and showed a larger




discrepancy between how they presented themselves under the two conditions. The results are congruent with a stronger emphasis on assertiveness and ambition in the United States as com-pared with Norway.

Hard work and excellence are inherent values of mastery-oriented cultures. Besides fostering general self-presentation efforts, a cultural orientation on mastery would be consistent with job applicants placing a strong emphasis on assertiveness, accommodation, and individual excel-lence in self-presentation. As pointed out by Schwartz (1999) and Bond (1991), how achieve-ment-oriented activities are presented to others will depend on one’s commitment to collective or self-serving interests. We hypothesize that

Hypothesis 2a: Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward mastery score higher on self-presentation in general and on assertiveness, accommodation, and indi-vidual excellence in particular.Hypothesis 2b: Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward har-mony score lower on self-presentation in general and on assertiveness, accommodation, and individual excellence in particular.

Egalitarianism Versus Hierarchy Values

According to self-presentation theory, dependence on others for valued outcomes fosters the motivation to engage in self-presentation (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). While the relationship between the interviewer and applicants is inherently asymmetrical, their power and status differ-ences are likely to be more salient in hierarchical cultures. Research has shown that individuals in hierarchical societies attribute greater legitimacy to impressing their superiors than individuals in more egalitarian societies (Bond, 1991). Beyond general motives, Khilji and her colleagues (2010) noted that hierarchical societies create norms calling on the individual to show obedience, loyalty, and attempts to please the superiors. In contrast, communication patterns in more egali-tarian societies are typically more informal and direct. For example, Thomsen, Sidanius, and Fiske (2007) showed that Danes self-enhanced considerably less than did Americans and that endorsement of leveling in social relationships mediated this difference. Moreover, Danes self-enhanced less in an anonymous condition than in a public condition, which the author claimed indicated authenticity and “genuine feelings about their own normality.” The authors concluded that this self-conception is likely to be adaptive in a leveling society that values equality.

Based on the reviewed literature, we propose that job applicants in egalitarian cultures are less likely to emphasize accommodation or individual excellence as this would violate the norm of leveling by placing oneself relationally below or above the interviewer. A cultural value orienta-tion toward hierarchy should be related to applicants’ exhibiting higher levels of accommodation and self-presentation efforts in general:

Hypothesis 3a: Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward hierar-chy score higher on self-presentation in general and on accommodation and individual excel-lence in particular.Hypothesis 3b: Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward egali-tarianism score lower on self-presentation in general and on accommodation and individual excellence in particular.

Affluence and Self-Presentation

Dependency on other people, claimed to impact self-presentation motives, is most pronounced in societies with limited economic and political opportunities. The pattern is empirically supported



Sandal et al. 7

by studies that find that people in less affluent countries are more likely than people in richer countries to engage in impression management by making socially desired responses on surveys and questionnaires (van Hemert, van de Vijver, Poortinga, & Georgas, 2002). Affluence has also been proposed as one explanation for differences in impression management observed between cultural groups living in the same country, such as Hispanic, African Americans, and European Americans in the United States (Ross & Mirowsky, 1984). Ross and Mirowsky (1984) proposed that less powerful, often poor groups, are forced to behave according to social norms because they are more dependent on the approval of others. Relatedly, a recent study by Loughnan and colleagues (2011) found that self-enhancement is more prevalent in countries where economic resources are more unequally distributed. Against this backdrop, we propose that individuals in less affluent and more unequal societies place more emphasis on self-presentation tactics:

Hypothesis 4a: Individuals from societies with a higher level of affluence score lower on self-presentation tactics in general.Hypothesis 4b: Individuals from societies with a lower level of economic inequality score lower on self-presentation tactics in general.

The Present Study

Based on the above discussion, we suggest that applicants from different countries differ in terms of the self-presentation tactics used as well as in overall self-presentation efforts in the employment interview. We addressed this question by examining the importance attributed to different self-presentation behaviors in a cross-cultural study. Ten countries were selected as contexts for our analysis. The choice of countries was based on a combination of convenience and purposeful sam-pling so as to obtain sufficient variation in country variables deemed relevant for self-presentation tactics such as gross domestic product (GDP) and Gini as well as cultural values (see Schwartz, 1999, 2006, for differences in value scores between countries chosen). All continents were repre-sented in our sample with the exception of South America and Oceania. As U.S. research findings tend to be generalized to other Western countries, a concern was to enhance our understanding of potential variations between these cultures. Consequently, our analysis involved samples from the United States, Norway, and Germany (North-West Europe); Russia (East Europe); and Italy and Turkey (South Europe). We also attempted to cover some of the heterogeneity between Asian national cultures by including Iran, Hong Kong, and Malaysia. Ghana was the only African country. The target group for this study was students as they represent the next generation entering the work-force. Specifically, with a rapid pace of globalization, and its sustained impact on national environ-ments and people around the world, a matter of interest is to investigate the extent to which young people show agreement in views on how to construct a viable professional image.

Method

Participants

A total number of 3,509 students from 10 different countries participated in this study (Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, Iran, Italy, Malaysia, Norway, Russia, Turkey, and the United States; we use the term countries loosely here in that Hong Kong is not an independent nation state). Table 1 shows the characteristics of the different samples. The national student samples were recruited from one university in most countries, and mostly comprised social sciences students. Data was collected from a large university located in the capital for six of the countries. For the four remaining countries, universities in larger cities representing major urban and cultural centers were targeted.




Instruments

Cultural Impression Management Scale–Applicant Form (CIM-A). The initial version of the CIM-A consisted of 32 items describing job applicants’ behavior during interviews. The instructions read as follows: “The following questions deal with behavior during job interviews. Imagine that you are applying for an attractive position and you have been invited for an interview. How important would it be for you to behave in the ways described below?” A 5-point response scale was used with anchor points ranging from of very little or no importance (1) to of utmost importance (5).

A primary concern in the development of CIM-A was to avoid an ethnocentric bias in the choice of impression management behaviors that job candidates see as desirable. First, research-ers from most of the participating countries were therefore involved in generating an initial pool of items describing behaviors that might be needed to capture impression management during job interviews in their societies. The second step was conducted by a panel of four researchers. They did a thorough review of literature on social desirability, self-presentation, and impression man-agement that led to further expansion of the item pool to ensure that all factors identified in the introduction as relevant for self-presentations in a cross-cultural context were represented in the item pool. Also, they evaluated whether relevant issues highlighted in the cross-cultural literature had been covered, including self-serving biases in the attribution of causality, relations with authorities, individual versus collective goals, protection of “face,” and willingness to make per-sonal sacrifices to serve the employing organization. If consensus was reached, new items were designed to capture how the issue could be reflected in the self-presentation of job applicants. Finally, items were modified or rewritten to ensure face validity and to establish consistency in tone and perspective across the items. Overlaps in meaning between items were identified, and redundant items were removed.

Individual background variables. These variables included age, sex, study subject, and experi-ences with job interviews. Socioeconomic background was assessed by one item: “What is the socioeconomic background of your family?” The item was answered on a 5-point scale from lower (1) to upper (5). This question was not asked in Norway due to its sensitive nature in this cultural context.

Country-level indicators. Data on country-level indicators of values were taken from Schwartz’s value survey (personal communication, April 23, 2008). Various measures of affluence and its broad

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Samples.

No. of job interviews

Country n Age Females (%) M (SD) Study subject

Germany 301 24.3 79.4 4.82 (6.46) Business, Psychology, Childhood Science

Ghana 441 24.7 60.5 1.61 (1.61) Social studies, ArtHong Kong 423 22.8 66.4 5.07 (4.87) VariousIran 200 23.9 55.5 0.94 (1.80) VariousItaly 383 24.6 50.1 2.02 (3.44) PsychologyMalaysia 500 22.8 50.0 1.82 (1.67) VariousNorway 323 23.7 68.4 2.60 (3.54) VariousRussia 249 23.1 70.3 2.83 (3.87) VariousTurkey 407 22.7 54.1 1.00 (1.40) Public RelationsUSA 282 23.4 59.2 3.35 (3.48) Various



Sandal et al. 9

ramifications have been proposed. Two variables, GDP per capita and the Gini coefficient, were used as socioeconomical denominators in our analysis. Data on a country’s GDP were taken from the United Nations Development Report 2007-2008 (Watkins, 2007-2008). The Gini coefficient was taken from Wikipedia (2009); countries with higher values show more dispersion in incomes, which means that a larger proportion of the total income of a country is earned by fewer citizens.

Procedure

The students filled in a questionnaire during lectures or seminars. The data collection was carried out by a native faculty member of the university (the author from that country). The students were informed that they were participating in an international research project on recruitment and that their responses would be anonymous. The time required for answering the questionnaire ranged from 15 to 30 min. No monetary rewards were offered, with the exception of the Ghanaian students who received a pen as compensation. Students from Hong Kong and Ghana received the materials in English, whereas the other samples received the materials in their native language. The CIM-A was translated from English to the different languages by native speakers, using the so-called appli-cation mode of translation (Van de Vijver & Tanzer, 2004). Using this method implicitly assumes that the underlying construct is appropriate for each cultural group and that a close, straightforward translation will suffice to obtain an instrument that adequately measures the construct in the target group. Given the extensive preparatory stages, we found it unlikely that further adaptations would be needed. The adequacy of the scale was confirmed in discussions with researchers from the vari-ous countries. A back-translation procedure was used to evaluate translation accuracy.

Statistical Analyses

Given the exploratory status of the CIM-A scale and the limited sample sizes per country, we refrained from employing confirmatory factor analysis (thereby avoiding the problems of these analyses in studies involving multiple countries; Van de Vijver, 2011). In large-scale studies, it is often difficult to tell apart model misspecifications (with psychological implications) and psychologically inconsequential, though statistically salient, differences in distributional prop-erties such as kurtosis and skewness (Byrne, 2003). Equivalence was addressed in two proce-dures that address (using the terminology of structural equation modeling) configural and scalar invariance. Structural equivalence (akin to configural invariance) addresses the question of similarity of underlying psychological constructs. This type of equivalence addresses the meaning of the construct: Are self-presentation tactics the same across cultures? In operational terms, the procedure tests whether items load with similar loadings on their target factor in all cultures. Scalar equivalence is tested in item bias analyses (also labeled differential item func-tioning or DIF; further details can be found in Van de Vijver and Leung’s [1997] work). The analyses test whether persons from different countries with the same position on the underly-ing trait (operationalized as having similar scale scores) have the same expected scores on the item. If (and only if) instruments show structural equivalence (first equivalence analysis) and do not show DIF (second equivalence analysis), scores can be compared across cultures. Cross-cultural differences in means can then be interpreted in terms of impression manage-ment tactics and do not involve bias. It should be noted that absence of DIF does not imply that there are no cross-cultural differences in means. An instrument without DIF can show large cross-cultural score differences.

The statistical analyses comprised six parts. First, an analysis of the factorial composition of the CIM-A for the combined samples was conducted. Second, factor analytic procedures were employed to examine structural equivalence. For each of the CIM-A scales, a separate analysis was conducted. A pooled solution was obtained (based on the cross-culturally averaged




covariance matrices weighted by sample size) in a first step; similarity of this factor to the factors found in factor analyses per country was then assessed. Third, scalar equivalence was established using DIF techniques. For each item, a regression analysis was conducted (see Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Independent variables were country (dummy coded), scale score, and their interac-tion (product of the dummy and the deviance of the scale score; the deviance score was taken so as to avoid multicollinearity), while the item score was the dependent variable. The scale score was entered in the first step, country was added in the second step (evaluating uniform bias), and the interaction was added in the third step (evaluating non-uniform bias). Our large sample size made statistical significance a poor indicator of bias. Therefore, the f2statistic was used to evalu-ate effect size; values above .15, associated with a medium effect size (Cohen, 1988), were taken as evidence of DIF. Fourth, we examined the relations of the scales with background variables (age, gender, socioeconomic status, and previous job interview experience).

The study hypotheses were tested in the fifth step. Our hypotheses predicted a link between values that prevail in a country and preferred self-presentation tactics among its inhabitants. Our sample size at country level (N = 10) prohibited the computation of a multilevel model. A multi-variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tested the impact of culture and gender on self-presen-tation tactics; the dependent variables were the mean scale scores. In follow-up analyses, we tested the hypotheses by means of contrasts in a general linear model (Schiefer & Boehnke, 2011). The procedure is illustrated for the first hypothesis according to which individuals from countries with a stronger orientation toward embeddedness would show higher scores on accom-modating to the job. We conducted an analysis of variance with country and gender as indepen-dent variables and job accommodation as the dependent variable. The hypothesis is tested by examining the significance of a contrast in which each participant of a country gets a weight that is based on the country’s standing on embeddedness. The score of each score is the deviance of that country from the grand mean of the 10 countries on embeddedness. Significance of the con-trast would support the hypothesis.

Results

Factorial Composition of the CIM-A

Data were standardized for each national sample to remove cross-cultural differences in level of the response scale prior to the principal component analysis. A scree test suggested the extraction of four factors corresponding to the four self-presentation tactics: assertiveness, individual excel-lence, accommodation, and pointing out obstacles. In a principal component analysis (with obli-min rotation) of the 32 items in the pooled data, four factors were extracted. In the remainder, we treat these factors as separate (though correlated) scales. The internal consistencies (across all countries) were .68 for the individual excellence, .76 for the pointing out obstacles, .77 for asser-tiveness, and .76 for accommodation; the internal consistencies for the various countries tended to be fairly similar to these global values, ranging from .53 to .71 (factor loadings of the pooled solution are reported in Table 2).

In addition, we conducted a factor analysis of the scale scores to identify general self-presen-tation efforts. The scree plot suggested the extraction of one factor, in line with expectations. The first factor explained 56% of the variance (with loadings ranging from .56 to .83). Scores on this factor were used as indicators of the general self-presentation efforts.

Bias and Equivalence

Structural equivalence. Tucker’s (1951) phi was calculated to estimate the degree of factorial simi-larity between national datasets and the pooled solution. The values of Tucker’s phi were very



Sandal et al. 11

high (above .90 and in many cases above .99), which provides strong evidence for the equiva-lence of each of the four scales across all 10 countries.

DIF. Medium and large effect sizes were observed for four items. All effects involved uniform bias. The item “Emphasize that you are the best at whatever you do” was relatively frequently

Table 2. Factor Loadings and Item Bias of the CIM-A.

Factor and item Loading

Individual excellence Emphasize that you are the best at whatever you do .58 Talk about strengths and positive aspects only .58 Discuss previous accomplishments and why you are the best person for the job .55 Try to demonstrate more professionalism and self-confidence than you actually possess .65Pointing out obstacles List the key activities that help to overcome stress at work .48 Cite examples of mistakes in previous jobs and how you have learned from them .57 Mention that work career must not impact on family obligations .54 Describe your most significant setbacks at previous workplaces and how you overcame

them.53

Point out gaps that may exist between the job requirements and your personal qualifications

.59

Try to make the interviewer understand that serious personal reasons can influence fulfillment of the job (e.g., poor health, exhaustion, transport problems)

.66

Mention family concerns that may impact your job performance (e.g., not being able to travel, illness in the family)

.53

Point out negative aspects of previous jobs and companies and why you decided to leave

.50

Assertiveness Show proactivity .60 Maintain eye contact and lean toward the interviewer to show interest .46 Be authentic .49 Answer questions with confidence .64 Try to appear physically attractive to the interviewer(s) .32 Emphasize self-discipline in meeting deadlines .46 Point out your qualities and potential as a leader .59 Show that you are an independent thinker .40 Show willingness to take chances .39 Emphasize your loyalty to time schedules and deadlines .35 Express desire to learn .30Accommodation Show an attitude of humility .55 Do not say anything that may be perceived as boasting .54 Express willingness to work hard to overcome lack of ability .42 Avoid statements that may convey an impression of not getting along well with others .39 Look, talk, and behave in a sincere and humble manner .61 Show willingness to work long hours, even on weekends .48 Show willingness to take on jobs even if you lack training or interest .42 Show willingness to listen and take orders from your boss .59 Discuss your ability to promote harmony and to get along with others .38

Note. CIM-A = Cultural Impression Management Scale–Applicant Form.




Table 3. Means (and Standard Deviations) Per Country and Gender on the CIM-A Scales.

Scale GER GH HK IR IT MA NO TU RU USA

Individual excellence Males 2.70 (.73) 3.51 (.66) 3.14 (.55) 3.06 (.88) 2.89 (.73) 3.73 (.69) 2.77 (.54) 2.98 (.70) 3.47 (.71) 3.49 (.71) Females 2.56 (.68) 3.56 (.68) 3.11 (.56) 3.33 (.75) 2.94 (.82) 3.69 (.67) 2.84 (.49) 3.07 (.74) 3.50 (.61) 3.76 (.63) Total 2.59 (.69) 3.54 (.67) 3.12 (.56) 3.21 (.82) 2.92 (.78) 3.71 (.68) 2.82 (.51) 3.03 (.72) 3.49 (.64) 3.65 (.68)Pointing out obstacles Males 2.17 (.61) 3.04 (.60) 2.88 (.59) 3.36 (.60) 2.61 (.63) 3.22 (.64) 2.40 (.53) 3.32 (.63) 2.62 (.54) 2.81 (.64) Females 2.08 (.59) 3.08 (.60) 2.74 (.54) 3.34 (.57) 2.60 (.58) 3.15 (.60) 2.34 (.52) 3.36 (.56) 2.61 (.54) 2.75 (.69) Total 2.10 (.59) 3.06 (.60) 2.79 (.56) 3.35 (.58) 2.61 (.60) 3.19 (.62) 2.36 (.52) 3.34 (.59) 2.61 (.54) 2.77 (.67)Assertiveness Males 3.71 (.62) 3.99 (.51) 3.72 (.58) 3.86 (.56) 3.47 (.57) 4.18 (.56) 3.60 (.43) 4.06 (.51) 3.73 (.44) 4.06 (.57) Females 3.82 (.53) 4.12 (.46) 3.77 (.46) 3.87 (.53) 3.72 (.65) 4.27 (.51) 3.79 (.42) 4.16 (.43) 3.96 (.44) 4.35 (.45) Total 3.80 (.55) 4.07 (.48) 3.75 (.50) 3.87 (.54) 3.60 (.62) 4.22 (.53) 3.73 (.43) 4.11 (.47) 3.89 (.45) 4.23 (.52)Accommodation Males 3.17 (.60) 3.88 (.47) 3.60 (.63) 3.47 (.53) 3.25 (.53) 3.88 (.58) 3.51 (.46) 3.64 (.54) 3.34 (.46) 3.81 (.58) Females 3.24 (.61) 3.98 (.49) 3.61 (.51) 3.32 (.45) 3.34 (.57) 3.92 (.53) 3.61 (.44) 3.64 (.56) 3.58 (.46) 3.94 (.56) Total 3.22 (.61) 3.94 (.49) 3.61 (.55) 3.39 (.49) 3.30 (.55) 3.90 (.56) 3.58 (.45) 3.64 (.55) 3.51 (.47) 3.89 (.57)

Note. CIM-A = Cultural Impression Management Scale–Applicant Form; GER = Germany; GH = Ghana; HK = Hong Kong; IR = Iran; IT = Italy; MA = Malaysia; NO = Norway; TU = Turkey; RU = Russian Federation; USA = United States of America.

endorsed in Ghana, Russia, and Turkey (in operational terms, “relatively frequently” means here that the item was endorsed more often in these countries by participants with some scale score than by participants in other countries with the same scale score). “Showing proactivity” was relatively more endorsed in Ghana and Turkey than in more affluent countries. The item “Try to appear physically attractive” showed a relatively low endorsement in Norway and a high endorse-ment in Ghana and Turkey. Finally, “Show an attitude of humility” showed relatively low scores in Malaysia and Germany. These effects confirmed the general pattern that students in low-affluent countries (with usually fewer job opportunities) intend to use more impression manage-ment strategies in job interviews. Not surprisingly, excluding these items did not have any major impact on the size of cross-cultural differences. Therefore, we used all items in subsequent analyses.

Relations with background variables. For each country, correlations were computed between par-ticipants’ age, socioeconomic status, and previous exposure to job interviews on one hand and the CIM-A scale scores on the other hand. Very few correlations differed from zero and the correla-tions were not clearly patterned. A pattern of essentially zero correlations was also found in the pooled sample. It can be concluded that age, socioeconomic status, and job interview experiences are essentially unrelated to intended management impression tactics in job interviews in the samples studied.

Country-Level Analysis: Hypothesis Tests

Table 3 shows means per country and gender on the CIM-A scales. In the MANOVA, testing country and gender differences on the scale scores, values of Wilks’s Λ were significant for all effects (p < .01); partial η2 values were .148, .019, and .005 for country, gender, and their interac-tion, respectively. Univariate tests of gender differences showed that females were more assertive (partial η2 = .016), whereas effect sizes of the other variables were smaller than .01. Furthermore, all univariate gender by country interactions were smaller than .01. These findings suggest that gender was not a salient factor in our study.



Sandal et al. 13

Univariate tests of country effects yielded very large and highly significant effect sizes (p < .001) of .198, .257, .151, and .160 for the individual excellence, pointing out obstacles, assertive-ness, and accommodation scales, respectively. So country differences were large for all scales, notably for individual excellence and pointing out obstacles.

We present results for multivariate analysis of variance of the self-presentation tactics and gender and country as dependent variables in Table 4. The results of the hypothesis tests can be found in Table 5. The hypothesis is specified in the first column of the table, and the second col-umn presents the proportion of variance accounted for by the contrast. The last column presents the proportion of variance in the main effect of country due to the contrast. So, the second column indicates how much the contrast explained of the total amount of variance in the dependent vari-able, whereas the third column indicates how successful the contrast was in explaining country-level variation. Values closer to 0 (or 1) indicate that the contrast captured less (or more) country-level variation. Contrasts explained on average 9.5% of the variance, which refers to a medium size effect. The contrasts explained 44% of the country-level variation, suggesting that the contrasts were quite successful although there is clear room for improvement, which implies that country-level variation is moderated by more aspects than the values we examined. All con-trasts were significant, thereby supporting all our hypotheses. If we look in more detail at the table, it can be seen that the proportions explained by our contrasts tended to be very high, only the link between mastery and assertiveness and between hierarchy and accommodation yielded proportions less than .15. These numbers indicate that the hypotheses were supported not only in terms of significance but also in terms of salience. Values matter a great deal in intended self-presentation tactics in job interviews.

Discussion

Self-presentation tactics in job interviews were examined among university students in 10 coun-tries using the CIM-A. The focus of this study was to test country differences in how future job applicants intended to present themselves in a job interview assuming that relative emphasis on different self-presentation tactics is related to the cultural values and levels of affluence of their countries. Our analysis confirmed that CIM-A covers four distinct factors corresponding to asser-tiveness, pointing out obstacles, accommodation, and individual excellence. These factors showed structural equivalence across national samples. The four scale scores loaded on one fac-tor that supports the conceptualization of self-presentation as a hierarchical concept that is uni-factorial at the highest level. This replicates previous research on applicant self-presentation

Table 4. Multivariate Analysis of Variance of All Self-Presentation Tactics and Gender and Country as Dependent Variables (Partial η2 Values and Their Significance).

Independent variable

Dependent variable Country Gender Country × Gender

Multivariate effect (Wilks’s Λ) .148*** .019*** .005**Univariate effects Self-presentation in general .249*** .006*** .004 Individual excellence .198*** .002* .006* Pointing out obstacles .257*** .001 .002 Assertiveness .151*** .016*** .005* Accommodation .160*** .003** .003**

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.




Table 5. Hypothesis Tests: Effect Sizes of Contrasts (Predicted Differences) and Proportion of Country Variance Explained by the Contrast.

Hypothesis η2 contrastProportion of variance explained by contrast

1a. Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward embeddedness score higher on

Self-presentation in general .16 .64 Accommodation .06 .38 Pointing out obstacles .19 .741b. Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward autonomy score lower on Self-presentation in general .13 .52 Accommodation .05 .33 Pointing out obstacles .17 .662a. Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward mastery score higher on Self-presentation in general .07 .28 Assertiveness .02 .13 Accommodation .06 .38 Individual excellence .05 .252b. Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward harmony score lower on Self-presentation in general .18 .72 Assertiveness .08 .53 Accommodation .09 .56 Individual excellence .15 .763a. Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward hierarchy score higher on Self-presentation in general .08 .32 Accommodation .01 .07 Individual excellence .04 .203b. Individuals from countries with a stronger cultural orientation toward egalitarianism score lower on Self-presentation in general .13 .52 Accommodation .04 .26 Individual excellence .12 .61 4. Individuals from societies with a higher level of

affluence show higher scores on self-presentation tactics in general

.06 .24

5. Individuals from societies with a higher level of economic inequality show higher scores on self-presentation tactics in general

.15 .60

Note. All effect sizes of contrasts are significant (p < .001).

tactics (Ellies et al., 2002; Higgins & Judge, 2004; Peeters & Lievens, 2006), and suggests that it is meaningful to discuss a general tendency to engage in self-presentation tactics that can be manifested in various ways. Paulhus (1984, 1991) proposed a two-dimensional conceptualization of social desirability, self-deception enhancement and impression management. These two dimensions were found to be strongly correlated (e.g., Helmes & Holden, 2003; Holden & Passey, 2010). So, it can be concluded that in the domain of self-presentation, hierarchical views are well supported, with a general self-presentation proclivity in the apex and specific tactics at a lower level.

Consistent with our hypotheses, a large proportion of the variance in self-presentation tactics, on average 44%, could be explained by cultural value orientations. All the hypothesized effects were significant. The pattern of results echoes research showing that people tend to self-enhance



Sandal et al. 15

in domains that are congruent with norms and values in their culture (Kurman, 2003; Sedikides et al., 2003). Socioeconomic variables, most notably economic inequality in the population, were also strongly and positively associated with self-presentation tactics, suggesting that such efforts are viewed as more legitimate in societies with unequal distribution of economic resources. It may be difficult to disentangle the effects of cultural values and socioeconomic variables (Georgas, Van de Vijver, & Berry, 2004). Correlations between some cultural values (notably autonomy, hierarchy, and embeddedness) and the socioeconomic variables (GDP and Gini coef-ficient) were strong in our data (in absolute values between .70 and .80 at country level). It is likely that such variables act in concert; our data were not aimed at unraveling the mechanisms behind the correlations of socioeconomic variables. So, it is possible that our socioeconomic variables are proxies for complex sets of interrelated variables that could relate to various domains on top of socioeconomic variables. Still, in general terms, our results support the notion that dependency on others fosters self-presentation concerns (Leary & Kowalski, 1990).

Self-Presentation Tactics and Cultural Values

Our data show large cross-cultural differences in both the general factor and in the four tactics. Across countries, assertiveness and accommodation were most strongly endorsed. The most notable country differences were found for individual excellence and pointing out obstacles. These tactics may cover two sides of the same coin. Whereas individual excellence involves an internal attribution of success, pointing out obstacles may reflect a tendency to highlight external factors as explanations for performance failures. Thus, the combination of these two scales yields a picture of a defensive self-presentation approach. This combination was particularly salient for the Asian (Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Iran) and Ghanaian samples. In comparison, the German, Italian, and Norwegian samples formed a West-European cluster with lower scores on all self-presentation tactics.

The American sample scored remarkably high on all scales, relative to their position in the cluster of affluent, Western countries, such as Norway and Germany. Now, it is well possible that our convenience sampling yielded a poorly representative cross-section of the American society. However, we prefer another interpretation and would argue that our findings are in line with cultural practices about “selling oneself” in employment contexts in the United States. This inter-pretation is in line with empirical evidence from other research (König et al., 2011; Sandal & Endresen, 2002). Authenticity in self-presentation is less appreciated and emphasizing personal and relational qualities is more accepted in the United States than in countries with comparable levels of affluence in our study. It is possible that these differences can be explained by the rela-tively higher scores of the United States on hierarchy compared with the West-European coun-tries (Schwartz, 1999, 2006). As noted by Triandis and Gelfand (1998), people with a vertical and individualistic value orientation are motivated to view the self as having high power and status relative to others.

The CIM-A was developed with the aim of measuring tactics that can be found in both Western and non-Western cultures, and adds a non-Western voice to the literature on impression manage-ment by applicants in selection contexts. Specifically, the tactics of pointing out obstacles and accommodation were expected to be prevalent in embedded cultures, in our sample represented by Malaysia, Iran, and Ghana followed by Hong Kong and Turkey (Schwartz, 1999, 2006). Furthermore, a greater tendency for people from embedded countries to attend to social expecta-tions was hypothesized to be reflected in more self-presentation efforts in general. The pattern of results was in line with these expectations. Most notably, embeddedness was strongly linked with the importance attributed to pointing out obstacles. Based on our conception of pointing out obstacles as reflecting attempts to avoid losing face, our finding is in line with the literature




showing that preservation of face is a salient feature of social interaction in many Asian cultures (Ho, 1976; Hu, 1944)

Cultural emphasis on autonomy, egalitarianism, and harmony, which characterizes the West-European cluster in our sample (Schwartz, 1999, 2006), seems to act in the opposite way. Autonomy is negatively related to self-presentation efforts in general, to accommodation, and most notably to pointing out obstacles. The pattern of results is consistent with the contention that individuals in such societies focus more on their uniqueness and independence and less on satisfying their in-groups; as a consequence, they are less prone to engage in impression manage-ment (e.g., Lalwani et al., 2006; Triandis & Suh, 2002). Among the three value dimensions, cultural emphasis on harmony (vs. mastery) explained most variance in self-presentation efforts. One interpretation is that in cultures in which harmony is a prominent value, individuals do not feel that self-presentation efforts are legitimate or needed during a job interview. According to Schwartz (1999, 2006), emphasis on harmony relates negatively to competitiveness, “selfish-ness,” as well as the centrality of work in people’s life (as opposed to for instance family and spare time activities). Harmony is also related to tolerant and liberal attitudes toward other peo-ple, thus an acceptance of weaknesses. From this perspective, it makes sense that job applicants in such cultures are less inclined to cover their personal flaws or to present a very ambitious image during job interviews.

Methodological Considerations

For the purpose of the present study, students were chosen because they represent the next gen-eration in the labor market. The use of student samples in cross-cultural research also offers an advantage because students are comparable in age, educational background, and to some extent socioeconomic background. One may argue that students have more limited experience with job interviews than the older population. Nonetheless, the vast majority of our participants reported that they had been personally interviewed for at least one and often several jobs. Thus, what they viewed as appropriate behavior in job interviews probably reflected actual experience. At the same time, the use of student samples may have resulted in fewer and smaller cultural differences than might be observed with less educated or older adult samples. Research showing that social desirability scores display a mild, positive correlation with age (Ones & Viswesvaran, 1998) sup-ports this assumption. The use of student samples may also lead to underestimates of sex differ-ences, because college life may expose male and female students to more similar expectations and behavior opportunities than later life roles do. Finally, that data were collected from mainly one university in each country should be noted as a possible limitation of the study. We also acknowledge that most of the countries have multiethnic populations, and that differences may exist in how people of different ethnicities approach the job interview (e.g., Paulhus, Westlake, Calvez, & Harms, 2013).

The CIM-A contributes to the existent literature by offering a conceptual framework for understanding cultural differences in self-presentation. Given that input from researchers from many different countries was considered in the development of CIM-A, we expected it to be more appropriate and socially acceptable for cross-cultural research than most existent measures that typically have been developed from a monocultural (often United States) perspective. The invariance in the factor structure across national samples and the high and meaningful correla-tions between the self-presentation tactics and culturally related values found in this study empir-ically support this assumption. It is an asset of the CIM-A that it allows for the investigation of poorly understood processes of self-presentation in culturally diverse organizational settings. For example, much research has focused on the attempts of individuals to control images they project at work and the relationship those self-presentation tactics may have with employment opportu-nities, job satisfaction, career success, and performance appraisal. The question remains of how



Sandal et al. 17

cultural differences in self-presentation may impact on these outcomes. As the CIM-A is sensi-tive to aspects of self-presentation in which cultural groups are likely to differ, the instrument offers a sound methodological device. Nonetheless, researchers may want to consider that the CIM-A scale is a measure of intended behavior in a hypothetical situation rather than an observa-tion of actual behavior. Future studies will need to determine the extent to which intended self-presentations, as measured in the present study, translate into actual behavior during job interviews.

Conclusion

Taken together, the results from this study shed light on how self-presentation of job candidates may reflect dominant values in their society of origin. Several implications for applied human resource management in international contexts could be delineated. First, if a company attracts a multinational pool of applicants, the interviewer may experience large variation in self-presenta-tion tactics. Depending on the cultural perspective of the interviewers, candidates from certain cultures may be viewed as “underselling” or “overselling” themselves. For interviewers with little or no training in assessing candidates from cultures other than their own, intuitive judg-ments of lack of fit may result in unfair employment decisions (Horverak et al., 2013). Second, multinational companies may consider building flexibility into their recruitment practices to take into account culture-specific norms for self-presentation. To cope with cultural-bound aspects, multinational companies should decide whether they want to delegate recruiting to local units who are familiar with cultural norms guiding applicant behavior.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aycan, Z. (2005). The interplay between cultural and institutional/structural contingencies in human resource management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 1083-1119. doi:10.1080/09585190500143956

Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A., & DeGrassi, S. W. (2009). What you see may not be what you get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1394-1411. doi:10.1037/a0016532

Bennett, M. (1990). Children’s understanding of the mitigating function of disclaimers. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 29-37.

Bond, M. H. (1991). Cultural influences on modes of impression management: Implications for the cultur-ally diverse organization. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Applied impression management: How image-making affects managerial decisions (pp. 195-214). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Byrne, B. M. (2003). Testing for equivalent self-concept measurement across culture: Issues, caveats, and application. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research (Vol. 1, pp. 291-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Cheung, F. M. (2004). Use of Western and indigenously developed personality tests in Asia. Applied Psychology, 53, 173-191. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00167.x

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Ellies, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ryan, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). The use of impression management

tactics in structured interviews: A function of question type? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1200-1208. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1200




Georgas, J., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2004). The ecocultural framework, ecosocial indices, and psychological variables in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 74-96. doi:10.1177/0022022103260459

Glazer, S. (2006). Social support across cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 605-622. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.01.013

Heine, S. J. (2003). Making sense of East-Asian self-enhancement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(5): 596-602.

Helmes, E., & Holden, R. R. (2003). The construct of social desirability: One or two dimensions? Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1015-1023. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00086-7

Hepper, E. G., Sedikides, C., & Cai, H. J. (2013). Self-enhancement and self-protection strategies in China: Cultural expressions of a fundamental human motive. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 5-23. doi:10.1177/0022022111428515

Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter perceptions of fit and hiring recommendations: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 622-632.

Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). Concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867-884. doi:10.1086/226145Holden, R. R., & Passey, J. (2010). Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Not nec-

essarily faking and not necessarily substance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 446-450. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.04.015

Horverak, J. G., Bye, H. H., Sandal, G. M., & Pallesen, S. (2013). Managers’ evaluations of immigrant job applicants: The influence of acculturation strategy on perceived person-organization fit (P-O fit) and hiring outcome. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 46-60. doi:10.1177/0022022111430256

Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of “face.” American Anthropologist, 46, 45-64. doi:10.1525/aa.1944.46.1.02a00040

Jansen, A., König, C. J., Stadelmann, E. H., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Applicants’ self-presentational behavior: What do recruiters expect and what do they get? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11, 77-85. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000046

Khilji, S. E., Zeidman, N., Drory, A., Tirmizi, A., & Srinivas, E. S. (2010). Crossvergence of values: An analysis of the use of impression management strategies in India, Israel and Pakistan. International Business Review, 19, 419-431.

Kim, J. Y., & Nam, S. H. (1998). The concept and dynamics of face: Implications for organizational behav-ior in Asia. Organization Science, 9, 522-534. doi:10.1287/Orsc.9.4.522

Kim, Y. H., Chiu, C. Y., Peng, S. Q., Cai, H. J., & Tov, W. (2010). Explaining East-West differences in the likelihood of making favorable self-evaluations: The role of evaluation apprehension and directness of expression. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41, 62-75. doi:10.1177/0022022109348921

König, C. J., Hafsteinsson, L. G., Jansen, A., & Stadelmann, E. H. (2011). Applicants’ self-presentational behavior across cultures: Less self-presentation in Switzerland and Iceland than in the United States. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 331-339. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00562.x

Kurman, J. (2001). Self-enhancement: Is it restricted to individualistic cultures? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1705-1716. doi:10.1177/01461672012712013

Kurman, J. (2003). Why is self-enhancement low in certain collectivist cultures? An investigation of two com-peting explanations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 496-510. doi:10.1177/0022022103256474

Lalwani, A. K., Shavitt, S., & Johnson, T. (2006). What is the relation between cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 165-178. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.165

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.107.1.34

Lopes, J., & Fletcher, C. (2004). Fairness of impression management in employment interviews: A cross-country study of the role of equity and Machiavellianism. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 747-768. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.8.747

Loughnan, S., Kuppens, P., Allik, J., Balazs, K., de Lemus, S., Dumont, K., . . .Haslam, N. (2011). Economic inequality is linked to biased self-perception. Psychological Science, 22, 1254-1258. doi:10.1177/0956797611417003

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and moti-vation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224



Sandal et al. 19

Nel, J. A., Valchev, V. H., Rothmann, S., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Meiring, D., & de Bruin, G. P. (2012). Exploring the personality structure in the 11 languages of South Africa. Journal of Personality, 80, 915-948. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00751.x

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1998). The effects of social desirability and faking on personality and integrity assessment for personnel selection. Human Performance, 11, 245-269. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_7

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Paulhus, D. L., Westlake, B. G., Calvez, S. S., & Harms, P. D. (2013). Self-presentation style in job inter-views: The role of personality and culture. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1559-1816. doi:10.1111/jasp.12157

Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2006). Verbal and non-verbal impression management tactics in behavior description and situational interviews. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 2006-2022.

Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1984). Socially-desirable response and acquiescence in a cross-cultural survey of mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 189-197. doi:10.2307/2136668

Ryan, A. M., & Tippins, N. (2009). Designing and implementing global selection systems. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.

Sandal, G. M., & Endresen, I. M. (2002). The sensitivity of the CPI Good Impression Scale for detecting “faking good” among Norwegian students and job applicants. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 304-311. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00220

Schiefer, D., & Boehnke, K. (2011, August-September). How many samples do we need? Examining mul-tilevel data sets with a limited number of group-level units. Paper presented at the 11th European Conference on Psychological Assessment, Riga, Latvia.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal rela-tions. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychol-ogy: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262

Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology/Psychologie Appliquee, 48, 23-47. doi:10.1080/026999499377655

Schwartz, S. H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explications and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5, 137-182. doi:10.1163/156913306778667357

Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 268-290. doi:10.1177/0022022101032003002

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.878

Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., & Harris, M. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519-542. doi:10.1177/0022022101032005001

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60-79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.60

Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587-606. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.5.587

Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the organization. In S. B. B. E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 31-58). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Thomsen, L., Sidanius, J., & Fiske, A. P. (2007). Interpersonal leveling, independence, and self-enhancement: A comparison between Denmark and the US, and a relational practice framework for cultural psychol-ogy. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 445-469. doi:10.1002/Ejsp.366




Triandis, H. C., Carnevale, P., Gelfand, M., Robert, C., Wasti, S. A., Probst, T., . . .Schmit, P. (2001). Culture and deception in business negotiations: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1, 73-90. doi:10.1177/147059580111008

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individual-ism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118

Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133-160. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135200

Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2011). Capturing bias in structural equation modeling. In P. S. E. Davidov & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (pp. 3-34). New York, NY: Routledge.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Tanzer, N. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology/Revue Europeenne De Psychologie Appliquee, 54, 119-135. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004

van Hemert, D. A., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Poortinga, Y. H., & Georgas, J. (2002). Structural and functional equivalence of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire within and between countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1229-1249. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00007-7

Watkins, K. (2007-2008). Human development report 2007/2008. Fighting climate change. Human soli-darity in a divided world. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/.

Wikipedia. (2009). List of countries by income equality. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality


http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality


Intended Self-Presentation Tactics in Job Interviews: A 10-Country Study

Documents