The article comprises three studies that investigated the efficiency of
an impression management tactic known as an entitlement. Partici
pants read a brief scenario describing the work of a fictitious
research team in all three studies. Study 1 manipulated whether the
entitlement was verified by a third party; Study 2 manipulated
whether consensus regarding the direction the research team had
taken would affect the entitlement's efficacy, and Study 3 manipu
lated whether a self-entitlement and an other-entitlement would be
differentially effective. Results showed that the entitlement could
increase and decrease ratings of the entitler; these findings were
discussed in terms of their effect on perceptions of scenario selection,
promotion, and organizational politics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ackerman, B., & Schlenker, B.R. (1975, September). Self-presentation: Attributes of the actor and audience. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.
2.
Allen, R.W., Madison, D.L., Porter, L.W., Renwick, P.A., & Mayes, B.T. (1979). Organizational politics: Tactics and personal characteristics of political actors. California Management Review, 22, 77-83.
3.
Arkin, R.M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.) Impression management theory and social psychological research. New York: Academic.
4.
Arkin, R.M., Cooper, H., & Kolditz, T. (1980). A statistical review of the literature concerning the self-serving attribution bias in interpersonal influence situations. Journal of Personality, 48, 435-448.
5.
Arnold, H.J., & Feldman, D.C. (1981). Social deservability response bias in self-report choice situations. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 377-385.
6.
Baumeister, R.F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomenon , Psychological Bulletin, 91, 1-26.
7.
Baumeister, R.F. & Jones, E.E. (1978). When self-presentation is constrained by the target's knowledge: Consistency and compensation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 608-618.
8.
Bok, S. ( 1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Pantheon.
9.
Bolster, R.I., & Springbett, B.M. (1961). The reaction of interviewers to favorable and unfavorable information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 97-103.
10.
Bowman, G.W. (1964). What helps or harms promotability? Harvard Business Review, 42,184-196.
11.
Eagly, A.H., & Acksen, B.A. (1971). The effect of expecting to be evaluated on change toward favorable and unfavorable information about oneself. Sociometry, 34, 411-422.
12.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
13.
Guion, R.M. (1965). Personnel testing, New York : McGraw-Hill.
14.
Hollman, T.D. (1972). Employment interviewer's errors in processing positive and negative information. Journal of Applied Psychology , 56, 130-134.
15.
Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts .
16.
Jones, E.E., & Wortman, C. (1973). Ingratiation: An attributional approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
17.
Kelley, H.H. (1971). Attributions in social interaction. New York: General Learning Press.
18.
Kipnis, D., & Vanderveer, R. (1971). Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 280-286.
19.
Peter, L.J., & Hull, R. (1969). The Peter Principle: Why things go wrong. New York: Morrow.
Schneider, D.J. (1969). Tactical self-presentation after success and failure . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 262-268.
22.
Springbett, B.M. (1959). Factors affecting the final decision in the employment interviewer. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 12, 13-22.
23.
vonBaeyer, C.L., Sherk, D.L., & Zanna, M.P. (1981). Impression management in the job interview: When the female applicant meets the male (chauvinist) interviewer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 45-51.
24.
Wood, R.E. & Mitchell, T.E. (1981). Manager behavior in a social context: The impact of impression management on attributions and disciplinary actions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 356-378.
