Home Uncategorized Week 3 Discussion Post

Uncategorized

Week 3 Discussion Post

Post a critique of the research study in which you:

· Evaluate the authors’ use of literature.

· Evaluate the research problem.

· Explain what it means for a research study to be justified and grounded in the literature; then, explain what it means for a problem to be original.

How and Why Do Interviewers Try to Make Impressions on Applicants?
A Qualitative Study

Annika Wilhelmy and Martin Kleinmann
Universität Zürich

Cornelius J. König
Universität des Saarlande

Klaus G. Melchers
Universität Ulm

Donald M. Truxillo
Portland State University

To remain viable in today’s highly competitive business environments, it is crucial for organizations to
attract and retain top candidates. Hence, interviewers have the goal not only of identifying promising
applicants but also of representing their organization. Although it has been proposed that interviewers’
deliberate signaling behaviors are a key factor for attracting applicants and thus for ensuring organiza-
tions’ success, no conceptual model about impression management (IM) exists from the viewpoint of the
interviewer as separate from the applicant. To develop such a conceptual model on how and why
interviewers use IM, our qualitative study elaborates signaling theory in the interview context by
identifying the broad range of impressions that interviewers intend to create on applicants, what kinds of
signals interviewers deliberately use to create their intended impressions, and what outcomes they pursue.
Following a grounded theory approach, multiple raters analyzed in-depth interviews with interview-
ers and applicants. We also observed actual employment interviews and analyzed memos and image
brochures to generate a conceptual model of interviewer IM. Results showed that the spectrum of
interviewers’ IM intentions goes well beyond what has been proposed in past research. Furthermore,
interviewers apply a broad range of IM behaviors, including verbal and nonverbal as well as
paraverbal, artifactual, and administrative behaviors. An extensive taxonomy of interviewer IM
intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes is developed, interrelationships between these ele-
ments are presented, and avenues for future research are derived.

Keywords: employment interview, impression management, signaling theory, recruitment, qualitative
study

The employment interview continues to be the most popular
selection tool used by both applicants and organizations to assess
and select one another (Macan, 2009). It is characterized by social
exchange processes between applicants (who want to get hired)
and representatives of the organization (who want to attract and
select the best candidates). To reach their goals, applicants and

interviewers try to detect what their interaction partner is interested
in and try to use this information to send appropriate signals
(Bangerter, Roulin, & König, 2012).

Signaling processes in the interview have mainly been studied in
terms of impression management (IM) efforts (Delery & Kacmar,
1998). Scholars have repeatedly pointed out that interviewers
frequently use IM and that these deliberate behaviors are a key
factor for attracting applicants and thus ensuring an organization’s
economic success (e.g., Dipboye & Johnson, 2013; Rosenfeld,
1997). However, it is striking that past interview research has
rarely addressed the phenomenon of interviewer IM, as most prior
studies have limited their focus on how applicants use IM (Ko-
slowsky & Pindek, 2011). Furthermore, research has assumed that
interviewers use the same IM behaviors as applicants (e.g., Ste-
vens, Mitchell, & Tripp, 1990) without taking a closer look at what
interviewers actually do when they interact with applicants.

We define interviewer IM as interviewers’ deliberate attempts to
create impressions on applicants (cf. Schlenker, 1980) and argue
that it is important to identify and explain interviewer IM. As
outlined below, we argue that interviewers’ aims and opportunities
may be different from those of applicants, and therefore their IM
efforts should be somewhat different as well. Furthermore, schol-
ars have noted that signaling theory, which is most often used to
explain recruitment phenomena (Bangerter et al., 2012; Spence,

This article was published Online First October 5, 2015.
Annika Wilhelmy and Martin Kleinmann, Department of Psychology,

Universität Zürich; Cornelius J. König, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versität des Saarlandes; Klaus G. Melchers, Institute of Psychology and
Education, Universität Ulm; Donald M. Truxillo, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Portland State Universit

We thank Talya N. Bauer and Adrian Bangerter for their helpful com-
ments on earlier versions of the paper. We are grateful to Stéphanie
Weissert, Lisa Juliane Schneider, Romana Nussbaumer, and Sabrina Engeli
for their help with data collection and analysis and to Michel Hunziker for
his help with data analysis. We would also like to thank Susanne Inglin,
Domenico Amendola, and Roger Keller for technical and methodological
consultations.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Annika
Wilhelmy, Department of Psychology, Universität Zürich, Binzmuehlestrasse 14/
12, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland. E-mail: a.wilhelmy@psychologie.uzh.ch

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

n
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

Journal of Applied Psychology © 2015 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 101, No. 3,

313

–332 0021-9010/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000046

313

mailto:a.wilhelmy@psychologie.uzh.ch

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000046

1973), is currently not well defined and understood in the context
of interviewers’ IM intentions and behaviors (Celani & Singh,
2011). Thus, to provide a more comprehensive theoretical under-
standing of how and why interviewers try to create impressions on
applicants, it is crucial to learn more about interviewers’ deliberate
signaling behaviors as well as their underlying intentions.

Therefore, the aim of the present study is to use a qualitative
approach to create a taxonomy and a conceptual model by identi-
fying and analyzing the broad range of possible interviewer IM
intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes. We use this concep-
tual model to point out propositions for future research on inter-
viewer IM. Drawing on interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van
Lange, 2003), this study sheds light on how interviewer and
applicant IM are similar and distinct. Furthermore, our study
elaborates signaling theory (Bangerter et al., 2012; Spence, 1973)
in the interview context by gaining insights into specific signals
that are deliberately used by interviewers and why these signals are
being sent.

Theoretical Background

Signaling Processes in the Interview

The employment interview is a dynamic exchange in which
interviewers and applicants engage in social interaction, gather
information, and create and form impressions (Levashina,
Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014). Consequently, in the last
two decades, researchers have increasingly considered both inter-
viewer and applicant perspectives and have given more attention to
how applicants and interviewers intentionally adapt their behaviors
to pursue their interests (Dipboye, Macan, & Shahani-Denning,
2012).

In employment interviews, applicants have information that is of
interest to interviewers but to which interviewers do not necessar-
ily have access (e.g., information about the applicants’ personal-
ity). Similarly, interviewers have information that is of interest to
applicants but to which applicants do not necessarily have access
(e.g., selection criteria). In situations like this, when two parties
have access to dissimilar information, signaling theory (Bangerter
et al., 2012; Spence, 1973) is helpful for describing and explaining
behavior. According to this theory, signaling processes consist of
several elements, such as two primary actors—the signaler, sender,
or insider (e.g., the interviewer) and the receiver or outsider (e.g.,
the applicant)—as well as the actual signals sent by the signaler to
the receiver (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). As Con-
nelly et al. (2011) pointed out, the signaler can also take an active
part in this signaling process. For instance, interviewers can de-
liberately choose whether and how to reduce information asym-
metry by intentionally communicating (or signaling) certain qual-
ities to applicants who lack this information (Connelly et al.,
2011).

In this vein, IM behaviors reflect an intentional way of sending
signals (cf. Schlenker, 1980). While interviewers’ signals could be
anything that is interpreted as a signal by the applicant, interviewer
IM refers to signals that are deliberately sent by the interviewer. In
other words, interviewer IM relates to a deliberate facet of signal-
ing theory (Bangerter et al., 2012). In addition, it is important to
note that any behavior that an interviewer applies could constitute
interviewer IM behavior if this behavior is shown with the inten-

tion to create impressions on applicants (e.g., asking challenging
interview questions not only because they are part of the interview
guide but also with the intention to signal the organization’s high
performance expectations). Conversely, if an interviewer’s behav-
ior is not linked with such an intention (e.g., asking challenging
interview questions only because they are part of the interview
guide), it does not constitute interviewer IM.

Although signaling theory is the framework most often used to
explain recruitment phenomena, it is currently not well defined and
understood when it comes to organizational representatives’ inten-
tions and deliberate signaling behaviors (Celani & Singh, 2011).
To further develop signaling theory, there have been calls to view
and study signals within their social context, such as the context of
employment interviews. As such, a typology of signals that are
sent in certain contexts—like the employment interview—would
be of high value to partition these signals into meaningful catego-
ries and thus further understand signaling phenomena. In addition,
research would benefit from investigating the incentives of signal-
ers, such as the outcomes they want to achieve by using signals
(Connelly et al., 2011). Thus, the main focus of this study is on
signaling intentions, the signals that interviewers deliberately send
through their behavior to create applicant impressions, and the
outcomes interviewers want to achieve.

Potential signaling on the side of the interviewer. When
organizations try to attract and retain promising applicants, delib-
erate signals such as interviewer IM behavior have been proposed
to be particularly important (Celani & Singh, 2011). Nevertheless,
despite extensive calls in the literature to examine how and why
interviewers intend to affect applicant impressions (cf. Delery &
Kacmar, 1998; Dipboye & Johnson, 2013; Gilmore, Stevens,
Harrell-Cook, & Ferris, 1999; Macan, 2009), there have been no
systematic attempts to examine the broad range of IM behaviors
used by interviewers. However, evidence suggests that interview-
ers pursue specific goals and that there are certain interviewer
characteristics that positively influence applicant attraction (Chap-
man, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005; Derous, 2007).

It is important to note that only vague categories of behavior
have been examined with regard to applicants’ perceptions of
interviewer behaviors (e.g., competent behavior, professional be-
havior, friendly behavior; cf. Chapman et al., 2005). Whereas it
has been found that certain interviewer behaviors and characteris-
tics influence recruiting outcomes, such as perceived interviewer
personableness, competence, informativeness, trustworthiness,
warmth, humor, and job knowledge (Carless & Imber, 2007;
Chapman et al., 2005), the signals that interviewers deliberately
send through their behavior to create these intended impressions
have not been identified. Knowing more about these specific,
deliberate signals is crucial because it would help interviewers to
influence applicant impressions and thus to enhance recruitment
success.

Furthermore, we do not know to what degree these interviewer
behaviors represent IM in terms of intentional, goal-directed be-
haviors. For instance, Tullar (1989) examined on-campus inter-
viewer utterances and found that about two thirds of the utterances
could be categorized as being structuring (e.g., expanding on a
previous statement) and nearly one third as demonstrating equiv-
alence such as mutual identification (e.g., “That is interesting”).
Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether, how, and why interview-
ers intentionally adjust their behaviors to create images in appli-

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er

an
d

is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

314 WILHELMY, KLEINMANN, KÖNIG, MELCHERS, AND TRUXILLO

cants’ minds—for example, images of being competent, profes-
sional, or friendly.

Potential differences between applicants’ and interviewers’
signaling. Applicants and interviewers find themselves in the
same social setting, but it might be misleading to apply existing
applicant IM taxonomies to interviewers. There may be consider-
able differences in applicants’ and interviewers’ roles, intentions,
and scopes of action. Interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van
Lange, 2003) focuses on the causal determinants of dyadic social
behavior and provides a conceptual framework for the structure of
interpersonal situations. The main idea of this theory is that char-
acteristics of the situation (e.g., individuals’ interests, information,
and level of dependence) exert strong effects on individuals’
behavior—for example, IM behavior. Thus, although interviewers
should apply some IM behaviors similar to those of applicants,
they should also apply different IM behaviors because they differ
from applicants regarding several situational characteristics.

First, interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003)
suggests that individuals are likely to use IM in different ways
when they pursue different goals. As pointed out by Bangerter et
al. (2012), applicants and interviewers have partly divergent inter-
ests. For instance, while applicants’ primary signaling interest is to
get a job offer, one of the interviewers’ interests is to identify,
attract, and finally hire the best performer. With this end in mind,
interviewers try to create an image not only of themselves but also
of the job and the organization as a whole (Connelly et al., 2011).
In other words, interviewers need to influence applicants’ image of
multiple targets. Thus, in addition to IM behaviors that we know
from applicant IM research such as self-promotion or self-focused
IM behaviors (i.e., describing one’s past accomplishments and
competencies in a positive way) and ingratiation or other-focused
IM behaviors (i.e., flattering one’s interaction partner), interview-
ers may use additional strategies to promote the job and the
organization.

Furthermore, many existing taxonomies distinguish between
assertive IM behaviors that aim to enhance one’s own image and
defensive IM behaviors that aim to defend against threats to a
positive image (e.g., Ellis, West, Ryan, & DeShon, 2002; Van
Iddekinge, McFarland, & Raymark, 2007). However, in addition to
the goal of promoting or defending oneself, the job, and the
organization, interviewers have also been given recommendations
to provide realistic information to facilitate self-selection
(Wanous, 1976) and to signal honesty (Earnest, Allen, & Landis,
2011). Thus, in order to create realistic applicant impressions,
interviewers may apply behaviors that go beyond applicant IM and
that should result in a broader range of IM behaviors than the ones
that applicants apply.

Second, according to interdependence theory (Rusbult & Van
Lange, 2003), individuals’ behavior is influenced by the informa-
tion that is available to them. This is particularly relevant in
employment interviews, which involve interaction between strang-
ers and are characterized by the presence of vague information
about the other (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). For example,
interviewers have access to information on applicants’ past fail-
ures, potential weaknesses, and gaps in the applicants’ curriculum
vitae (CV)—whereas applicants usually do not easily get informa-
tion before the interview regarding the job, the organization, and
the interviewer. This depth of interviewers’ information on appli-
cants should give them more possibilities to deliberately send

signals and should thus translate into a broader set of IM behaviors
as compared to applicants.

For example, while research on applicant IM has primarily
focused on verbal IM behaviors (i.e., the content of applicants’
responses and statements), scholars have pointed out that much
more could be considered as part of one’s attempt to create images
(Dipboye et al., 2012). For instance, nonverbal IM has been seen
as a fruitful area of research, including IM behaviors such as
smiling, eye contact, and body posture (Levine & Feldman, 2002),
as well as head nods, handshakes, and hand gestures (McFarland,
Yun, Harold, Viera, & Moore, 2005). In addition, verbal behaviors
through ways other than words may be used, also referred to as
paraverbal or paralinguistic behaviors (DeGroot & Motowidlo,
1999). Examples of paraverbal behaviors include style of delivery
(e.g., pitch and speech rate) and verbal fluency.

Third, interviewers and applicants are, to some extent, depen-
dent upon each other, but in distinct ways, which should result in
some differences in their IM (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). For
instance, applicants rely on interviewers because interviewers’
evaluations affect their chances of a job offer (cf. Barrick, Shaffer,
& DeGrassi, 2009). Therefore, applicants aim to create a positive
image. Similarly, interviewers depend on applicants in terms of
applicants’ job choice behavior and hence intend to create impres-
sions on applicants (Dipboye et al., 2012). However, interviewers
are usually in a more powerful position than applicants because
applicants only get to make a decision about whether or not to
work for the organization if they are offered a job (Anderson,
1992). Consequently, interviewers might have the intention of
signaling this power by using IM behaviors that go beyond appli-
cants’ IM.

Aims of the Present Study

In summary, interviewers’ goals and opportunities for IM are
likely to differ from applicants’ goals and opportunities. Therefore,
to enhance our theoretical understanding of this phenomenon, it is
crucial to develop a comprehensive taxonomy and a conceptual
model about the deliberate signaling processes on the side of the
interviewer in terms of interviewer IM. To address these empirical
and theoretical gaps, we want to explore three main questions with
our qualitative study. Based on these research questions, our aim is
to develop a conceptual model and a taxonomy about how and why
interviewers apply IM.

Research Question 1. What do interviewers intend to signal
to applicants—that is, what are interviewers’ IM intentions?

Research Question 2. What signals do interviewers deliber-
ately use to create their intended impressions—that is, what IM
behaviors do interviewers apply?

Research Question 3. What outcomes do interviewers want
to achieve by deliberately sending signals to applicants—that is,
what are interviewers’ intended IM outcomes?

Method

Grounded Theory Approach

Grounded theory is a qualitative methodology that is particu-
larly appropriate for our study because it has been developed to
understand phenomena about which little is known (Glaser &

315INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

Strauss, 1967)—such as interviewer IM. In addition, grounded
theory has been shown to help researchers understand complex
social processes (Willig, 2009). Thus, it has been suggested that
researchers apply qualitative research strategies, like grounded
theory, in employment interview and IM research (cf. Macan,
2009).

A core characteristic of grounded theory research is that data
collection and analysis are closely interrelated to engage with a
phenomenon as deeply as possible. As such, analyzing data influ-
ences the strategy of data collection and vice versa (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). Hence, in our study, data analysis influenced our
subsequent choice of participants, interview questions, observation
emphasis, and topics for further data analysis.

Furthermore, grounded theory involves collecting data from
multiple sources using multiple techniques and analyzing it from
multiple perspectives to create a multifaceted sense of the phe-
nomenon (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Thus, following recommenda-
tions by Bluhm, Harman, Lee, and Mitchell (2011), we sampled
diverse interviewers and applicants and collected comprehensive
information from in-depth interviews with interviewers and appli-
cants, observations of selection interviews, the review of memos
related to these in-depth interviews and observations, and the
review of informational material that was given or recommended
to applicants during the interview. These data were analyzed and
discussed by multiple researchers (following recommendations by
Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

Moreover, according to grounded theory, data collection and
analysis continue until no new information is gained—that is, until
no new categories and concepts emerge from the data. In the
present study, this point, which is called theoretical saturation
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967), was reached after analyzing 30 in-depth
interviews, 10 observations of real employment interviews, 43
memos, and 12 pieces of informational material.

Samples

To better understand interviewers’ IM behaviors, we studied
samples of populations who had firsthand experience with the
social interaction processes in employment interviews: people who
are regularly conducting employment interviews (i.e., interview-
ers) and people who had recently been interviewed in several
employment interviews (i.e., applicants). We included applicants
because signalers (i.e., interviewers) might not always report all of
the signals they apply. Specifically, we used information provided
by applicants to develop ideas about possible interviewer IM
intentions and behaviors. We then asked interviewers whether the
behaviors and intentions reported by applicants actually repre-
sented deliberate interviewer IM.

To achieve high heterogeneity of data sources, we began our
study with different variables in mind that might influence inter-
viewer IM, such as gender, age, interview experience, hierarchical
level, and educational level (Dipboye, 2005). Interviewers were 27
to 63 years old (M � 41.5, SD � 12.2), and 60.0% were male.
Their interview experience ranged from several months to 40
years, and the number of interviews conducted in the past 12
months ranged from 4 to 300. Furthermore, their hierarchical
levels were very diverse, ranging from assistant positions (e.g.,
human resources [HR] assistant) to senior manager positions (e.g.,
commanding officer in the army), and their vacancies ranged from

trainee and administrative positions to positions with managerial
functions. The industry sectors of these vacancies were also very
diverse, such as human health services, financial services, and the
army.

Applicants were 25 to 46 years old (M � 31.1, SD � 7.7), and
33.3% were male. Their interview experience was very diverse,
ranging from 5 to 30 interviews, and the number of interviews in
which they had participated in the past 12 months ranged from 3
to 11. Furthermore, our applicant sample consisted of people
applying for various positions such as paid internships, adminis-
trative jobs, PhD programs, executive officer, senior consultant,
and senior manager positions in various industry sectors ranging
from human health services, financial services, and travel services
to research and education.

Following an approach within grounded theory called theoreti-
cal sampling (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007), we did not determine
a priori what kind of and how much data we wanted to collect.
Instead, we used information gathered during the research process
to develop ideas about who could be interviewed and observed
next. These new data were used to see whether additional relevant
categories might emerge, whether categories were well estab-
lished, and whether relationships between categories were fully
developed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Thus, later in the process, we
also approached interviewers and applicants from industry sectors
that were not yet included in our sample (e.g., manufacturing and
gambling services) because industry sectors were mentioned as a
potentially important aspect by participants. In addition, we pur-
posely included organizations that were facing difficulties regard-
ing their reputation (e.g., a wholesale trade service organization
that had recently faced a scandal) because participants pointed out
that this might help to capture potential defensive strategies used
by interviewers. Furthermore, participants’ comments led us addi-
tionally to include third-party interviewers (e.g., recruiting consul-
tants) and interviewers within an employing organization, inter-
viewers with experience in college recruiting and in initial
screening interviews in addition to late-stage interviews, and in-
terviewers and applicants with experience in telephone interviews,
video interviews, and panel interviews (because of the common-
ness of such interviews). Sampling was done through job websites,
an alumni pool of a Swiss university, and references from our
participants.

Data Collection

For data collection, we applied several methods as suggested by
Bluhm et al. (2011): semistructured in-depth interviews of inter-
viewers and applicants, observations of real employment inter-
views, memos, and review of informational materials provided to
applicants. It is important to note that behaviors that were observed
and ones that were reported by applicants provided us with addi-
tional ideas of potential IM behaviors that we could verify in
subsequent in-depth interviews to ensure that these behaviors
constituted IM (i.e., that they were applied by interviewers with the
intention of creating impressions on applicants). The in-depth
interviews and observations are further described below. Memos
(one to two pages) were written subsequent to each in-depth
interview and observation and during the coding process. They
were used to document ideas for data interpretation and to engage
in self-reflection about potential personal biases (see Glaser &

316 WILHELMY, KLEINMANN, KÖNIG, MELCHERS, AND TRUXILLO

Strauss, 1967; Suddaby, 2006). Furthermore, as suggested by
Bansal and Corley (2011), informational material (such as bro-
chures) that was given or recommended to applicants was ana-
lyzed.

In-depth interviews. All of the 30 in-depth interviews (1 hr)
with interviewers and applicants were conducted by the first author
in Switzerland and Germany. Regarding in-depth interviews with
applicants, the main goal was to develop ideas about what IM
intentions interviewers might have had and what signals they
might have applied to create favorable impressions. Regarding the
in-depth interviews with interviewers, however, we placed special
emphasis on whether they really reported having had these
intentions and whether they deliberately engaged in them in
terms of IM.

Following an orienting theoretical perspective (Locke, 2001),
in-depth interviews were based on semistructured interview guides
derived from insights gained during the review of the existing
literature. As can be seen in Appendices A and B, these interview
guides covered four aspects: (a) whether the particular impressions
that applicants form during interviews might be important to
interviewers, (b) impressions that interviewers want applicants to
form, (c) behaviors that interviewers apply to create these favor-
able impressions, and (d) possible consequences of interviewer
IM. Part (a) of the interview guide ensured that our participants
were concerned about the impressions applicants form during the
interview. It also prepared the mind-set of our participants and
stimulated them to take a recruitment perspective on the interview
to ensure that we had a common basis for the data from all
interviews.

Furthermore, our interview questions were continuously adapted
during the data collection process depending on the insights we
gained (Glaser & Strauss, 1967): Questions asked earlier in the
research process were different from those asked later as we better
understood the interviewers’ and applicants’ experiences and con-
texts (see Appendices A and B). For instance, to verify ideas that
emerged from applicants’ statements or from observations, we
adapted the questions for our in-depth interviews with interviewers
to verify that these behaviors were intentionally applied IM be-
haviors rather than some other, naturally occurring behavior.
Hence, our in-depth interviews became increasingly focused over
the course of the study.

At the beginning of each in-depth interview, participants were
ensured of confidentiality and anonymity during further data pro-
cessing. They were instructed to answer our questions based on the
employment interviews they had conducted (or participated in as
an applicant) within the past 12 months. At the end of each
in-depth interview, participants were given a survey that covered
demographic and context information. Furthermore, we audio re-
corded all in-depth interviews.

Observations. As interviewer IM behaviors might not always
be recognized by either interviewers or applicants, we decided to
observe 10 actual employment interviews. Following recommen-
dations by Bluhm et al. (2011), these observations served as an
additional data source to develop ideas on possible interview IM
categories that could be verified in subsequent in-depth interviews
with interviewers.

The observed employment interviews were between 25 min and
2 hr long and took place in seven different organizations. Two of
these employment interviews were with the same interviewers.

Furthermore, one interviewer took part in both the in-depth inter-
views and the observations. In addition, three of the employment
interviews were not only observed but were also audio or video
recorded. To avoid observer-expectancy effects, observation par-
ticipants were not told that this study examined interviewer IM
behavior (Kazdin, 1977). Instead, they were briefly informed that
we were interested in the social processes taking place in employ-
ment interviews and were ensured confidentiality.

The first author and a trained industrial and organizational
psychology (I-O) master’s-level student conducted all of the ob-
servations using an observation guide (see Appendix C). The goal
of this observation guide was to help consider all important aspects
of the interview. The guide consisted of three main parts: obser-
vations prior to the employment interview (e.g., what interviewers
say and ask prior to the interview), different kinds of interviewers’
IM behavior during the employment interview (e.g., how inter-
viewers talk to the applicants during the interview), and observa-
tions after the employment interview (e.g., body language of
interviewers after the interview). In addition, the observation guide
contained sections for unstructured observations in order to in-
clude data that might lead to new interpretations or themes. Similar
to the in-depth interview questions, the content of the observation
guide was constantly adapted in the course of the research process.

During and after each observation, the observers wrote down
which IM behaviors interviewers showed on the basis of the
observation guide and noted verbatim what the interviewers said.
Observed behaviors were described with as much detail as possi-
ble. At the end of each observation, the observed interviewers
filled out a survey that covered demographic and context informa-
tion. As described above, the observed behaviors were then incor-
porated into the in-depth interviews with interviewers to ensure
that they actually constituted instances of IM rather than some
other kind of behavior.

Data Analysis

Content analysis. Following grounded theory principles
(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Suddaby, 2006), all data were analyzed in
four main steps. First, data were inspected sentence by sentence by
two independent raters of a pool of five raters (the first author, the
I–O master’s-level student who also served as an observer, and
three other I–O master’s-level students). Raters participated in a
half-day training session conducted by the first author to learn and
practice how to code (e.g., how to apply and modify categories)
using the coding software ATLAS.ti 6 (Friese, 2011). The use of
two coders ensured multiple perspectives on the data, as suggested
by Corbin and Strauss (2008) to increase creativity in the analysis
while also decreasing personal bias. Furthermore, to increase im-
mersion in the data content, one of these two coders had always
either conducted, observed, or transcribed the in-depth interview
under investigation and was therefore familiar with the interview
content. Regarding the coding of the in-depth interview data,
interviews were transcribed verbatim until we came closer to
saturation (i.e., when the number of new categories was decreasing
notably). This was the case when 20 of the interviews had been
transcribed, which totaled 613 double-spaced pages. For the re-
maining 10 interviews, tape recordings were directly coded. Ob-
servations were coded based on observation notes and, if available,
on audio and video recordings. Following Kreiner, Hollensbe, and

317INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

Sheep (2009), coding was done based on an evolving system of
categories, a so-called coding dictionary that was continually mod-
ified based on iterative comparisons between newly coded and
previously analyzed data. Each word, sentence, paragraph, and
passage was seen as a feasible coding unit and could be coded. The
ATLAS.ti 6 software was used to enter codes, perform text and
audio searches, and identify intersections of codes (following
recommendations by Grzywacz et al., 2007).

In a second step, the two coders met in joint coding meetings.
They compared individual codings and discussed discrepancies
until consensus was established about which code was appropriate.
Furthermore, the technique of triangulation was used, meaning that
agreement and discrepancies among different data sources and
different types of data were examined and discussed to see whether
they led to the same categories (Willig, 2009). For example, our
observations of actual employment interviews provided particu-
larly valuable insights into nonverbal and artifactual interviewer
IM behaviors that were not spontaneously reported by interview-
ers. These behaviors were either confirmed when we directly asked
interviewers about them (e.g., displaying application documents on
the interview table) or not confirmed and thus not integrated into
our system of categories (e.g., displaying one’s security pass).

In a third step, coders identified abstract categories or concepts
at the end of each joint meeting to enhance the conceptual structure
of the categories. The aim was to “lift” the data to a conceptual
level by comparing codes and ideas emerging from the data
(Martin & Turner, 1986). Coders remained attentive to how these
abstract concepts were related to existing research and how exist-
ing research could be used to identify and name new categories
(Locke, 2001). After these meetings, any new categories (includ-
ing descriptions and example quotes) and any category changes
were documented in the coding dictionary.

In a fourth step, to move further from a descriptive to a con-
ceptual level, our analysis focused mainly on how the categories
were linked (Schilling, 2006), especially on links between inter-
viewer IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes. For this
purpose, one rater went back to the transcripts and audio record-
ings of the in-depth interviews with interviewers to examine which
categories were reported together in terms of forming a common
theme over the course of each in-depth interview. All of the links
that were identified were documented to gain an overview about
which categories were associated, which associations were the
strongest, and which patterns of associations emerged.

Interrater agreement. Given the emergent nature of our cat-
egories, it was not possible to determine interrater agreement
during the primary coding process described above. Therefore, we
engaged in a secondary coding process to test the reliability of our
categories and to determine the fit of the emergent categories with
the data (Butterfield, Trevino, & Ball, 1996). Following Kreiner et
al. (2009), we gave two of the five coders mentioned above a final
version of the coding dictionary that had emerged as well as a
representative transcript subsample of 60 pages (10%, following
Bluhm et al., 2011) containing 185 interview passages. The coders
were instructed to assign each interview passage to the category
that they believed best represented the passage. The overall per-
centage of agreement between the two coders was .91, and Co-
hen’s � was .88, suggesting very good agreement (Fleiss & Cohen,
1973).

Member checks. Finally, we conducted member checks (also
known as participant checks, informant feedback, communicative
validation, or respondent validation) to give voice to our partici-
pants (Bluhm et al., 2011) and to ensure that the categories derived
in this study were indeed grounded in the data (Yanow &
Schwartz-Shea, 2006). Member checks imply that categories are
tested with members of those stakeholding groups from whom the
data were originally collected (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). We went
back to the 30 participants in the in-depth interviews and asked for
their feedback on our categories. Three of these member checks
were conducted by telephone, and 23 were conducted online (an
86.7% overall response rate).

First, participants were introduced to all of the categories de-
rived in this study. As we were interested in in-depth feedback,
participants were then allocated to one of four different groups.
Each group was given a different subsample of categories to focus
on. Regarding this subsample of categories, participants were
asked to what extent they believed that each single category was
useful for conceptualizing interviewer IM. Specifically, they were
asked to indicate whether the behaviors represented deliberate
interviewer IM in terms of behaviors that are applied to create
favorable applicant impressions. Second, we asked participants
whether any categories should be merged, deleted, divided, or
added and whether they would change the categories’ structure.
Third, we analyzed participants’ ideas and commentaries, went
back to our data for confirmation, and integrated the results into
our system of categories.

Results

Overview

The aim of this study was to investigate how interviewers try to
create impressions on applicants in terms of interviewer IM inten-
tions and behaviors and why they engage in these behaviors in
terms of intended IM outcomes. Regarding interviewer IM inten-
tions, the data analysis yielded five categories that we organized
into two major themes (see Table 1): primary interviewer IM
intentions that refer to interviewers’ overriding goal of represent-
ing the organization, the job, and themselves (i.e., signaling at-
tractiveness and signaling authenticity) and secondary interviewer
IM intentions that refer to interviewers’ actual personal interac-
tions with applicants (i.e., signaling closeness, signaling distance
in terms of professionalism, and signaling distance in terms of
superiority). In terms of interviewer IM behaviors, we found five
different types of behavior: verbal, paraverbal, nonverbal, artifac-
tual, and administrative interviewer IM behaviors (see Table 2).
With regard to intended interviewer IM outcomes, we found three
different types: outcomes related to the interview’s recruitment
function, outcomes related to the interview’s selection function,
and outcomes related to the interviewers themselves (see Table 3).
As can be seen in Tables 1–3, these types of IM intentions,
behaviors, and intended outcomes could each be further differen-
tiated into higher level (left column) and lower level categories
(right column) based on our data. In addition, many of the emer-
gent categories were unanticipated by past IM research (indicated
by the italicized category names in Tables 1–3). Our conceptual
model of interviewer IM is depicted in Figure 1 and displays how
interviewer IM intentions (square boxes), behaviors (round-edged

318 WILHELMY, KLEINMANN, KÖNIG, MELCHERS, AND TRUXILLO

cells), and intended outcomes (at the end of arrows outside of
boxes) are linked. Please note that the IM behaviors presented in
Figure 1 are not comprehensive but constitute representative ex-
amples to demonstrate the main patterns of relationships that we
found among IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes
gleaned from Tables 1–3.

How Interviewers Apply IM

What are interviewers’ IM intentions? To gain insights into
how interviewers apply IM, we analyzed interviewers’ underlying
intentions. We found a broad spectrum of impressions that inter-
viewers intend to create on applicants and found that different aims
or foci can be distinguished. We found that interviewers try to
influence applicant impressions not only regarding impressions of
the interviewers themselves but also regarding impressions of the
team, the job, and the organization as a whole. For example, one
interviewer said1:

The impression I create on the applicant concerning myself as a
person and concerning our company and our way of working, I think
that’s the basis for the whole [hiring] process that may start afterwards
. . . What counts is the perception that the candidate gets of me and
everything I’m representing. (Interviewer 62)

Hence, compared to applicant IM, interviewer IM may be con-
sidered a more complex phenomenon because applicants’ major
(and maybe only) aim is to enhance interviewer impressions of
themselves (cf. Barrick et al., 2009).

Furthermore, we noticed that early in the in-depth interviews,
participants mainly told us about the impressions applicants should
receive regarding the organization, the job, and the interviewer as
a person. As these IM intentions have to do with the main goal of
the interviewer (i.e., representing the company) and constitute very
basic intentions, we called them primary (see Table 1). Data
analysis suggested that interviewer IM serves two main purposes:
signaling attractiveness (IM Intention 1) and signaling authenticity
(IM Intention 2).

While the intention of appearing attractive is in line with the
dominant understanding of IM (e.g., Jones & Pittman, 1982), the
intention of appearing authentic adds an important new aspect. It
suggests that for interviewers, creating realistic images is impor-
tant not only in terms of realistic job previews and self-selection
(Wanous, 1976) but also in terms of being perceived as sincere and
taken seriously by applicants.

Furthermore, participants told us about additional IM intentions
that we called secondary because in contrast to the two primary IM
intentions, these intentions seemed to be more closely related to
interviewers’ personal interaction with the applicant and were
usually mentioned later in the in-depth interviews (see Table 1).
Regarding secondary interviewer IM intentions, three major cate-
gories emerged from what interviewers reported in the in-depth
interviews: signaling closeness (IM Intention 3), signaling distance
in terms of professionalism (IM Intention 4), and signaling dis-
tance in terms of superiority (IM Intention 5). As can be seen in
Table 1, these secondary intentions could each be further differ-
entiated into lower level categories based on the data.

Interestingly, the secondary interviewer IM intention of distance
in terms of superiority indicates that interviewers do not always try
to be friendly and build rapport with the applicant. In some cases,
interviewers might rather have the intention to signal their status
and power (IM Intention 5a) or to convey a feeling of uncertainty
to applicants about the likelihood of receiving a job offer (IM
Intention 5c).

How are interviewers’ IM intentions interrelated? Data
analyses revealed various interrelations between interviewer IM

1 For the sake of brevity, quotes supporting these categories are not
presented for all categories but are available from the first author upon
request.

2 Quotes are labeled with participant code numbers, which either start
with “Interviewer” to indicate that an interviewer was the source of
information or “Applicant” to indicate that an applicant was the source of
information. More detailed information about any quotes presented in this
article is available from the first author upon request.

Table 1
How Interviewers Apply Impression Management (IM): Structure of Interviewer IM Intentions

Higher level categories Lower level categories

Primary IM intentions: What do interviewers intend to signal to applicants with regard to representing the
organization, the job, and themselves?

1. Attractiveness
2. Authenticity

Secondary IM intentions: What do interviewers intend to signal to applicants with regard to their personal
interaction with the applicant?

3. Closeness 3a. Building rapport
3b. Individuality and appreciation
3c. Trustworthiness

4. Distance in terms of professionalism 4a. Fairness
4b. Selection complexity and effort
4c. Straightforwardness

5. Distance in terms of superiority 5a. Status and power of decision
5b. Performance expectations
5c. Suspense

Note. Categories of interviewer IM intentions that are printed in italics are new in comparison to Barrick et al.
(2009) and Jones and Pittman (1982).

319INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

Table 2
How Interviewers Apply Impression Management (IM): Structure of Interviewer IM Behaviors

Higher level categories Lower level categories

Verbal IM behaviors: What do interviewers deliberately say to influence applicant impressions?

1. Self-focused 1a. Self-enhancement
1b. Demonstrating job

knowledge

1c. Demonstrating humor
1d. Telling personal stories
1e. Expressing enthusiasm

2. Applicant-focused 2a. Referring to the applicant by name
2b. Demonstrating knowledge of the applicant
2c. Applicant-enhancement
2d. Goal setting for the applicant
2e. Demonstrating empathy
2f. Thanking
2g. Offering support
2h. Giving voice
2i. Challenging
2j. Applicant-depreciation

3. Fit-focused 3a. Fit enhancing
3b. Demonstrating similarity

4. Job-, team-, or organization-focused 4a. Enhancement of job, team, or organization
4b. Goal setting for the job, team, or organization
4c. Confessing
4d. Positive framing

5. Interview process-focused 5a. Enhancement of the interview process
5b. Apologizing

6. Through style of communication 6a. Paraphrasing and summarizing
6b. Verbal encouragement
6c. Modifying the applicant’s speech portion
6d. Modifying one’s detailedness of language
6e. Modifying one’s formality of language
6f. Adapting one’s vocabulary and dialect

Paraverbal IM behaviors: How do interviewers deliberately use their voice to influence applicant
impressions?

7. Speaking in an empathetic way 7a. Speaking with low pace
7b. Speaking with low volume
7c. Speaking with high pitch

8. Speaking in an authoritative way 8a. Speaking with high pace
8b. Speaking with high volume
8c. Speaking with low pitch

9. Speaking in an unobtrusive way 9a. Speaking with moderate pace
9b. Speaking with moderate volume
9c. Speaking with moderate pitch

Nonverbal IM behaviors: How do interviewers deliberately use body language to influence applicant
impressions?

10. Toward the applicant 10a. Laughing
10b. Smiling
10c. Nodding affirmatively
10d. Making eye contact
10e. Making hand gestures
10f. Leaning forward
10g. Mirroring
10h. Note taking
10i. Shaking hands
10j. Backslapping
10k. Doing something else

11. Toward other interviewers 11a. Smiling
11b. Nodding affirmatively
11c. Mirroring

(table continues)

320 WILHELMY, KLEINMANN, KÖNIG, MELCHERS, AND TRUXILLO

intentions. For instance, the two primary interviewer IM intentions
of signaling attractiveness and signaling authenticity were found to
constitute two separate dimensions that often co-occur with each
other (e.g., “It’s not only about a positive impression but also about
a realistic one”; Interviewer 15). In addition, these two intentions
were reported by most interviewers, which indicates that signaling
attractiveness and signaling authenticity are both fundamental for
most interviewers.

Furthermore, our findings show that the secondary IM intentions
differ regarding their importance for interviewers. Whereas sig-
naling closeness was reported in almost all of the in-depth inter-
views and thus seems to be a universal and fundamental IM

intention, signaling distance in terms of professionalism and su-
periority was reported less often and may thus play an important
role only for some interviewers. Interestingly, those interviewers
who reported the intention of signaling distance always reported
the intention of signaling closeness as well. This provides some
indication that interviewers can have both intentions simultane-
ously.

In addition, we found that all interviewers reported multiple
primary and secondary IM intentions and that some of these
intentions seemed synergetic while others seemed rather incom-
patible. This is also represented in the way the different kinds of
impressions are arranged in Figure 1 in terms of being located

Table 2 (continued)

Higher level categories Lower level categories

Artifactual IM behaviors: How do interviewers deliberately use appearance, visual information, and
promotional items to influence applicant impressions?

12. Through interviewer appearance 12a. Modifying one’s clothing
12b. Modifying one’s accessories

13. Through premises appearance 13a. Choosing the interview building
13b. Choosing the

interview room

13c. Decorating the interview room
13d. Checking the light intensity
13e. Choosing

the interview table

13f. Choosing the seating

furniture

13g. Placement of seating furniture

14. Through visual information 14a. Showing printed information material
14b. Displaying application documents
14c. Displaying notes taken prior to the interview
14d. Displaying test results

15. Through promotional items 15a. Handing out printed information material
15b. Handing out promotional gifts
15c. Handing out one’s business card

Administrative IM behaviors: How do interviewers deliberately use timing of communication and provide
services to influence applicant impressions?

16. Through timing of communication 16a. Ensuring timeliness of preinterview communication
16b. Modifying timeliness of interview start
16c. Modifying interview length
16d. Ensuring timeliness of feedback
16e. Offering time to think the offer over

17. By providing services to applicants
before the interview

17a. Confirming receipt of application
17b. Giving directions
17c. Inviting the applicant personally
17d. Inviting the applicant by telephone
17e. Accommodating with the interview date
17f. Accommodating with the interview location
17g. Preventing interruptions
17h. Modifying the room temperature
17i. Airing the interview room

18. By providing services to applicants
during the interview

18a. Approaching the applicant
18b. Taking the applicant’s jacket
18c. Offering drinks
18d. Offering a break
18e. Incorporating future

colleagues

18f. Offering a site visit
18g. Offering refund of travel expenses
18h. Escorting

19. By providing services to applicants
after the interview

19a. Giving feedback personally
19b. Giving feedback orally
19c. Giving detailed feedback

Note. Categories of interviewer IM behaviors that are printed in italics are new in comparison to Barrick et al.
(2009), Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley, and Gilstrap (2008), DeGroot and Motowidlo (1999), Ellis et al. (2002),
Levashina and Campion (2007), McFarland et al. (2005), Peeters and Lievens (2006), and Schneider (1981).

321INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

closer together versus farther apart. For example, interviewers with
the intention of creating an impression of authenticity often also
reported the intention of creating an impression of professionalism,
such as:

There may be companies . . . that only present the positive and try to
mislead people, but with us, that’s not the case . . . I don’t want to
persuade [the applicant] of something that’s not true. One should be
truthful, open, transparent. I don’t think this is about putting on a
show. (Interviewer 3)

In contrast, interviewers with the intention to signal distance in
terms of superiority rarely reported the intention of signaling
attractiveness, indicating that these intentions may be rather in-
compatible for interviewers.

What IM behaviors do interviewers apply? We found that
interviewers apply a broad range of different IM behaviors that do
not only include verbal and paraverbal behaviors but also include
nonverbal, artifactual, and administrative behaviors (see Table 2).

Verbal interviewer IM. Verbal interviewer IM means that
interviewers use the content of what they are saying to influence
applicant impressions. As can be seen in Table 2, results suggest
that verbal interviewer IM behaviors can be divided into self-
focused (i.e., interviewer-focused; IM Behavior 1); applicant-
focused (IM Behavior 2); fit-focused (IM Behavior 3); job-, team-,
or organization-focused (IM Behavior 4); and interview process-
focused IM behavior (IM Behavior 5). Additionally, another form
of verbal interviewer IM is modifying one’s style of communica-
tion (IM Behavior 6), such as modifying the applicants’ speech
portion, adapting one’s vocabulary and dialect to the applicant, and
using verbal encouragers (e.g., “mmmh,” “ya,” “yeah”).

Analysis of our in-depth interviews with interviewers indicated
that to place themselves, their organization, and the job in a
favorable light, interviewers are likely to present positive infor-
mation and express enthusiasm to the applicant (IM Behavior 1e).
We also found that to induce an impression of authenticity, some-
times interviewers intentionally state negative aspects of the com-
pany or the job such as, “To be authentic and honest, I indicate
weaknesses of the company . . ., indicate the positive but also
weaknesses” (Interviewer 10; IM Behavior 4c). Furthermore, we
found that to signal attractiveness despite negative aspects, inter-
viewers often frame negative information in a positive way (IM
Behavior 4d). For example, an interviewer reported, “I personally
try to do this in a frank way, in a straightforward way . . . There
are negative aspects regarding the work load but, of course, that
results in a higher quality of our [services]. So negative aspects are
justified in a positive way” (Interviewer 8).

Paraverbal interviewer IM. Paraverbal interviewer IM refers
to interviewers’ verbal behaviors other than words that are applied
to influence applicant impressions (cf. Barrick et al., 2009; De-
Groot & Motowidlo, 1999). As depicted in Table 2, we found three
different categories of how interviewers modulate their voice when
communicating with applicants: speaking in an empathetic way to
signal closeness (IM Behavior 7); speaking in an authoritative way
to signal distance in terms of superiority (IM Behavior 8); and
speaking in an unobstrusive, neutral way to signal distance in
terms of professionalism (IM Behavior 9). The finding that inter-
viewers may intentionally talk in an authoritative way provides
empirical support for propositions by Gilmore et al. (1999) and

Connerley and Rynes (1997), who suggested that interviewers
might sometimes have the goal of intimidating applicants.

Nonverbal interviewer IM. Nonverbal interviewer IM means
that interviewers use their body language to create impressions on
the applicant. As shown in Table 2, we found that interviewers
may use nonverbal IM to create an impression of closeness—for
example, by laughing (IM Behavior 10a) and making eye contact
(IM Behavior 10d). For example, an interviewer reported, “To
make sure it’s casual and comfortable, maybe chuckling with the
candidates” (Interviewer 7). In addition, data indicated that non-
verbal interviewer IM can also be applied in the form of body
contact. This includes not only handshakes (IM Behavior 10i), as
suggested by applicant IM research (e.g., McFarland et al., 2005),
but also friendly backslaps (IM Behavior 10j)—for example, at the
end of the interview. Furthermore, we found that interviewers
apply elements of empathetic listening (cf. Bodie, 2011) to influ-
ence applicant impressions, such as mirroring the applicant’s pos-
ture (IM Behavior 10g) and nodding affirmatively (IM Behavior
10c). Data also revealed that a lack of empathetic listening may
serve as IM (i.e., doing something unrelated to the conduct of the
interview; IM Behavior 10k). To irritate applicants and convey
superiority, some interviewers intentionally avoided eye contact—
for example, by paging through documents or looking out the
window while applicants were talking. For example, an inter-
viewer stated: “Putting on a poker face, well, I try to restrain
myself” (Interviewer 7).

Artifactual interviewer IM. Artifactual interviewer IM refers
to how interviewers use “an object made by a person” (Hornby &
Wehmeier, 2005, p. 72), such as manipulating professional, status,
and aesthetic cues to influence applicant impressions (Gardner &
Martinko, 1988; Schneider, 1981). As can be seen in Table 2, we
found that interviewers use four different kinds of artifacts to
create images: aspects of their appearance (IM Behavior 12),
premises appearance (IM Behavior 13), visual information dis-
played during the interview (IM Behavior 14), and giveaways or
promotional items for applicants (IM Behavior 15).

First, consistent with applicant IM taxonomies, interviewers
reported that they modify their clothing (IM Behavior 12a) and
accessories (IM Behavior 12b) to influence impressions. However,
in contrast to applicants, interviewers were found to also consider
the appearance of the interview building (IM Behavior 13a), in-
terview room (IM Behavior 13b), and the seating arrangement (IM
Behavior 13g) as a very important IM tool. For instance, an
interviewer said, “A conference room . . . portraying the depart-
ment, that certainly has a more positive impact than if one gets the
impression that it’s a chilly cubbyhole” (Interviewer 7; IM Behav-
ior 13b). Additionally, regarding the seating arrangement, sitting
kitty-corner may aim to create impressions of closeness (e.g., “then
he [the applicant] certainly doesn’t feel so exposed . . . not like
being before the court”; Interviewer 8), while sitting face-to-face
may aim to signal superiority (e.g., “it’s always been face-to-face
. . . a typical exam situation”; Applicant 1).

Second, we found that interviewers provide applicants with
visual information during the interview to convey images. For
instance, interviewers reported that they intentionally display ap-
plicants’ application documents on the table (IM Behavior 14b),
sometimes marked in bright colors, to create a professional image.

Finally, an aspect that has not been considered in past research is
that interviewers may hand out giveaways and promotional items to

322 WILHELMY, KLEINMANN, KÖNIG, MELCHERS, AND TRUXILLO

applicants to influence the impressions they gain, such as informa-
tional material (IM Behavior 15a), promotional gifts (IM Behavior
15b), and business cards (IM Behavior 15c). These items can convey
appreciation and help to stick in the applicant’s memory.

Administrative interviewer IM. While collecting and analyz-
ing data, we noticed that many interviewers were telling us about
how they time their communication and provide services to appli-
cants to influence applicant impressions (see Table 2). We called
this type of interviewer IM administrative because it refers to
behaviors connected with organizing the interview. Regarding
timing of communication (IM Behavior 16), our study goes be-
yond existing work on preinterview communication (cf. Carless &
Hetherington, 2011) by showing that interviewers may intention-
ally ensure timeliness in order to create applicant impressions of
closeness. For instance, one interviewer said, “I think in a way it’s
appreciation . . . So it’s fatal when somebody from the line
management is late for the interview” (Interviewer 8).

Concerning administrative interviewer IM by providing services
to applicants (IM Behaviors 17–19), our data suggest that many
aspects of conducting interviews that have only been understood as
standard elements in previous research can actually constitute
interviewer IM if these behaviors are applied with the intention of
creating impressions on applicants. For example, interviewers re-
ported sending confirmations of receipt of application documents
to applicants (IM Behavior 17a) not only because it was part of the
standard procedure but also because they wanted to convey appre-
ciation, which makes it IM behavior.

In addition, interviewers seem to provide services for IM pur-
poses not only during the interview but also beforehand and
subsequently. For instance, to create an impression of closeness
before the actual interview, interviewers may call and invite ap-
plicants personally instead of asking somebody else to extend an
invitation (IM Behavior 17c): “I prefer a personal telephone call.
That makes a completely different impression than an anonymous
e-mail . . . When I talk to the person by telephone, it seems much
more significant” (Interviewer 11).

During the interview, offering drinks (IM Behavior 18c), breaks
(IM Behavior 18d), site visits (IM Behavior 18f), and refund of
travel expenses (IM Behavior 18g) can be considered IM if these
service features are intended to serve as signals to the applicant
(i.e., signals of professionalism). For instance, one interviewer
reported, “I offer something to drink. Often they [the applicants]
don’t even have the courage to pour the water themselves. Then I
do that as well” (Interviewer 3). However, interviewers may also
intentionally choose not to offer certain drinks in order to signal
professionalism, such as “I don’t serve any coffee . . . I want to lay
emphasis on professionalism because to me, a selection interview
is not an afternoon coffee party” (Interviewer 10).

After the interview, interviewers were found to intentionally
influence applicant impressions by modifying their way of giving
feedback to applicants about interview results (e.g., by providing
feedback by telephone instead of by e-mail; IM Behavior 19b). For
example, an interviewer told us, “Usually I do that orally. Com-
municating that we decided to choose somebody else, I try to do
that orally, if possible” (Interviewer 3).

When do interviewers apply which IM behaviors? Our
analyses revealed that interviewers apply different IM behaviors
depending on their IM intentions. These links between interviewer
IM intentions and behaviors are depicted in Figure 1; behaviors

(white, round-edged cells) are placed within or touching intentions
(light or dark gray square boxes) to indicate association. First, we
found that most of the IM behaviors are used with a certain
purpose—that is, there is a clear link between each of these IM
behaviors and a single IM intention. In Figure 1, this is visualized
by cells of behavioral examples that are located within each larger
box representing an IM intention. For example, expressing enthu-
siasm (IM Behavior 1e) and decorating the interview room (IM
Behavior 13c) are often used with the intention to signal attrac-
tiveness (IM Intention 1), whereas demonstrating similarity (IM
Behavior 3b) is often used with the intention to signal closeness
(IM Intention 3). Second, some IM behaviors are related to mul-
tiple IM intentions at the same time. In Figure 1, this is visualized
by cells of behavioral examples that are bridging the boxes of two
different IM intentions. For instance, positive framing (IM Behav-
ior 4d) may be used to signal both attractiveness (IM Intention 1)
and authenticity (IM Intention 2), and the IM behavior of incor-
porating future colleagues (IM Behavior 18e) may be used to
signal both authenticity (IM Intention 2) and superiority (IM
Intention 5). It is noteworthy that we only found one IM behav-
ior— challenging—with the goal of creating a professional and
superior image. Third, the remaining IM behaviors can be de-
scribed as being multipurpose—that is, they can be related to
different IM intentions depending on how they are applied. In
Figure 1, these multipurpose IM behaviors are located in the center
of the figure. For example, interviewers can modify applicants’
speech portion (IM Behavior 6c) in a way that the portion is high
to signal appreciation (IM Intention 3b) or in a way that the portion
is low to signal status and power of decision (IM Intention 5a).

As described above, we found that most of the variance regard-
ing underlying IM intentions lies within the lower level categories
of IM behaviors. However, we also found some indications re-
garding how the five broad categories of IM behaviors (verbal,
paraverbal, nonverbal, artifactual, and administrative; see Table 2)
might be linked to IM intentions (see Figure 1). For example,
paraverbal and nonverbal IM behaviors may play a particularly
important role for signaling closeness versus signaling distance.
Paraverbal and nonverbal IM behaviors represent indirect ways of
communicating, which seems especially important regarding in-
terviewers’ personal interaction with applicants—that is, inter-
viewers’ secondary IM intentions.

In addition, our data suggest that some interviewer IM behaviors
are more prevalent than others. Some IM behaviors were reported by
almost all interviewers, which indicates that these behaviors are rather
universally applied and fundamental for interviewers (e.g., challeng-
ing, modifying interview length, offering drinks). In contrast, some
IM behaviors were reported only by a few interviewers, which indi-
cates that these behaviors are rather idiosyncratic (e.g., backslapping,
displaying test results, handing out promotional gifts).

Furthermore, our analyses revealed that those IM behaviors that
are linked to the same IM intention are most likely to be applied in
combination. For instance, if an interviewer aims to signal close-
ness (IM Intention 3), IM behaviors such as demonstrating simi-
larity (IM Behavior 3b), referring to the applicant by name (IM
Behavior 2a), and thanking (IM Behavior 2f) tend to be combined.
In contrast, IM behaviors that are related to rather incompatible IM
intentions are unlikely to be combined.

Additionally, we found that the use of IM behaviors might
depend on the interviewer’s industry sector. For instance, when we

323INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

compared interviewers from the army with interviewers from
human health services, we found that those from the army reported
more intentions to signal authenticity and performance expecta-
tions to create a realistic image and enhance applicants’ self-
selection. This is in line with the army’s tough image and clear
command structure. In contrast, interviewers from human health
services such as hospitals put more emphasis on signaling attrac-
tiveness by reinforcing the advantages of the job and their respec-
tive hospital (IM Behavior 4a) and put more emphasis on signaling
closeness—for example, by stepping up to the applicant before the
interview (IM Behavior 18a). As hospitals are service providers,
these interviewers were also much more concerned about appli-
cants’ future consumer behavior (Intended IM Outcome 4c) in
terms of choosing their hospital if they require treatment. Thus, an
interviewer’s industry sector is likely to influence the specific set
of IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes that is applied.

Furthermore, we found that there are some interviewer IM behav-
iors that can only be applied in certain interview settings such as panel
interviews. Specifically, regarding nonverbal IM, interviewers were
found to intentionally smile at other interviewers (IM Behavior 11a),
nod in response to other interviewers’ questions (IM Behavior 11b),
and mirror other interviewers’ body postures (IM Behavior 11c) to

induce an impression of harmony and signal a positive corporate
climate. These findings suggest that panel interviews may offer in-
terviewers additional possibilities for influencing applicant impres-
sions.

What is more, interviewers may change their IM intentions and
behaviors over the course of the interview. For instance, regarding
paraverbal IM, interviewers and applicants reported that interviewers
tend to speak in an empathetic way (IM Behavior 7) at the beginning
and end of interviews and when asking delicate questions. In contrast,
interviewers tend to speak in an authoritative way (IM Behavior 8)
when asking challenging questions. For example, interviewers re-
ported, “I ask questions rather snappily” (Interviewer 7) and “When I
want to hear an answer, then I express myself in a very bald way, then
I’m not welcoming anymore” (Interviewer 11). This suggests that the
way in which interviewers apply IM might depend on the timing in
the interview and on the content of the conversation.

Why Interviewers Apply IM

What are interviewers’ intended IM outcomes? To exam-
ine why interviewers apply IM, we asked interviewers and appli-
cants about their experiences and assumptions of intended IM

In
te

n
d

ed
IM

O
u

tc
o

m
es

IM behaviors to create
an a�rac�ve image,
e.g.
• Expressing

enthusiasm
• Decora�ng the

interview room

A�rac�veness

IM behaviors to create
an a�rac�ve and
authen�c image, e.g.
• Posi�ve framing
• Demonstra�ng job

knowledge

IM behaviors to create
a close rela�on image,
e.g.
• Demonstra�ng

similarity
• Laughing

Authen�city

Closeness Distance in terms of professionalism Distance in terms of superiority

IM behaviors to create
a professional image,
e.g.
• Displaying applica�on

documents
• Note taking

IM behaviors to create
a superior image, e.g.
• Applicant-

deprecia�on
• Speaking in an

authorita�ve way

IM behaviors to create
an authen�c and
superior image, e.g.
• Giving voice
• Incorpora�ng future

colleagues

IM behaviors to create
a professional and
authen�c image, e.g.
• Goal se�ng for the

applicant
• Offering a site visit

IM behaviors to create
an a�rac�ve and
professional image, e.g.
• Demonstra�ng

knowledge o�he
applicant

• Offering support

IM behaviors to create
an a�rac�ve and close
rela�on image, e.g.
• Demonstra�ng

humor
• Shaking hands

IM behaviors to create
a close rela�on and
professional image, e.g.
• Invi�ng the applicant

by telephone
• Making eye contact

IM behavior to create a
professional and
superior image
• Challenging

IM behaviors that can
be used in a
mul�purpose way, e.g.
• Modifying applicants’

speech por�on
• Placement of sea�ng

furniture

IM behaviors to create
an authen�c image, e.g.
• Confessing
• Mirroring

P
ri

m
ar

y
IM

In
te

n
�

o
n

s
Se

co
n

d
ar

y
IM

In
te
n
�
o
n
s

Amount of personal informa�on
disclosed, informa�ve value of personal
informa�on

disclosed

Applicants’ posi�ve affec�ve state,
applicants’ self-esteem

Preven�on of legal gnortSnoitca interviewer reputa�on

Fast recrui�ng
Job-organiza�on a�rac�on
Job choice inten�on and behavior, recommenda�on inten�on and

behavior, consumer inten�on and behavior, reapplica�on inten�on
and behavior

Sustainable recrui�ng
Iden�fica�on with the organiza�on, strong

organiza�onal image and reputa�on

Figure 1. Conceptual model of how interviewers apply impression management (IM) in terms of IM intentions
(light and dark gray square boxes) and IM behaviors (white, round-edged cells) and why interviewers apply IM
in terms of intended IM outcomes (at the end of arrows outside of boxes). Behaviors (cells) are within or
touching intentions (boxes) to indicate association. The IM behaviors presented in this figure are not compre-
hensive but constitute representative examples of the links that were found among IM intentions, behaviors, and
intended outcomes gleaned from Tables 1–3 to demonstrate the main patterns of these links.

324 WILHELMY, KLEINMANN, KÖNIG, MELCHERS, AND TRUXILLO

outcomes. As can be seen in Figure 1 and Table 3, our data
revealed that interviewers try to influence applicant impressions in
order to enhance many different outcomes related to recruitment
and selection and to the interviewers themselves.

First, interviewer IM may be applied to improve the interview’s
recruitment function, such as a strong organizational image and
reputation on the side of the applicant (Intended IM Outcome 3c).
For instance, an interviewer reported, “Ideally, in the end the
applicant says ‘They did not hire me, but this is a GOOD com-
pany.’ That’s the goal” (Interviewer 12). In addition, interviewers
reported that they applied IM to ensure that applicants leave the
interview room feeling good about themselves (Intended IM Out-
come 2) and react with positive attitudes (Intended IM Outcome
3), with positive intentions and behaviors toward the organization
(Intended IM Outcome 4). For instance, an interviewer reported:

To give the applicant a positive feeling, even in situations where it’s
clear that the candidate is not qualified . . . So that the applicant gets
an impression of the company, what we do, what we stand for,
particularly the positive we stand for, and has a positive attitude
towards us. (Interviewer 7)

Second, we found that interviewers not only apply IM for
recruitment purposes but also to enhance the interview’s selection
purpose. Specifically, we found that interviewers intend to in-
crease the amount of personal information applicants reveal during
the interview (Intended IM Outcome 5a) and the informative value
of this information (Intended IM Outcome 5b) in terms of appli-
cants being honest and explicit. For example, one interviewer

reported “When I find something in the CV where I have experi-
ence myself . . . when the applicant can tell, aha, this person knows
what I’ve experienced . . . then he’s more relaxed, tells me more,
and is more open towards me” (Interviewer 8).

Third, our interview data revealed that interviewers also apply
IM to influence outcomes related to themselves, such as a strong
interviewer reputation (Intended IM Outcome 6a) and their own
career advancement (Intended IM Outcome 6b). So far, interview
research has primarily focused on outcomes related to the inter-
view’s selection and recruitment purpose (Dipboye et al., 2012), so
these findings add a new aspect to interview research by stressing
interviewers’ aims. Intended interviewer IM outcomes such as
interviewer reputation and career advancement indicate that inter-
viewers have certain self-centered motives and career goals in
mind when they interact with applicants.

When are interviewers’ intended IM outcomes likely to be
reached? First, we found that not all interviewers intend to
achieve all of the outcomes presented in Table 3 and Figure 1.
Some intended outcomes were reported more than others in our
in-depth interviews and thus seem to be fundamental to interview-
ers, such as a strong organizational image and reputation (Intended
IM Outcome 3c), job choice, as well as recommendation and
reapplication intention and behavior (Intended IM Outcomes 4a,
4b, and 4d). In contrast, some intended outcomes were reported
only in a few in-depth interviews and thus seem more idiosyn-
cratic, such as influencing applicants’ self-esteem (Intended IM
Outcome 2b), preventing legal action (Intended IM Outcome 4e),
promoting strong interviewer reputation (Intended IM Outcome

Table 3
Why Interviewers Apply Impression Management (IM): Structure of Intended IM Outcomes

Higher level categories Lower level categories

Recruitment-related IM outcomes: What outcomes in terms of the interview’s recruitment function do
interviewers want to achieve by deliberately sending signals to applicants?

1. Organizations’ recruiting success 1a. Fast recruiting
1b. Sustainable recruiting

2. Applicants’ positive emotions 2a. Positive affective state
2b. Self-esteem

3. Applicants’ positive attitudes
toward the organization

3a. Job-organization attraction
3b. Identification with the organization
3c. Strong organizational image and

reputation
4. Applicants’ positive intentions and

behaviors toward the organization
4a. Job choice intention and behavior
4b. Recommendation intention and behavior
4c. Consumer intention and behavior
4d. Reapplication intention and behavior
4e. Prevention of legal action

Selection-related IM outcomes: What outcomes in terms of the interview’s selection function do interviewers
want to achieve by deliberately sending signals to applicants?

5. Information disclosed by applicants 5a. Amount of personal information disclosed
5b. Informative value of personal information

disclosed

Interviewer-related IM outcomes: What outcomes in terms of self-centered motives do interviewers want to
achieve by deliberately sending signals to applicants?

6. Interviewers’ career 6a. Strong interviewer reputation
6b. Interviewer career advancement

Note. Categories of intended interviewer IM outcomes that are printed in italics are new in comparison to
Chapman et al. (2005) and Hausknecht, Day, and Thomas (2004).

325INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

6a), and improving interviewer career advancement (Intended IM
Outcome 6b).

Second, as can be seen in Figure 1, our results indicate that there
is a pattern to which IM behaviors and outcomes are most closely
linked—that is, certain IM behaviors are more closely linked to
certain outcome components than to others. Interviewers’ IM
intentions and behaviors seem to differ for short-term versus
long-term perspectives regarding their intended recruiting-related
outcomes. For example, we found that IM behaviors used to signal
attractiveness are primarily linked to the intended outcome of fast
recruiting (filling the vacancy as quickly as possible), whereas IM
behaviors used to signal authenticity are primarily linked to sus-
tainable recruiting (trying to achieve high job tenure).

Third, the intended recruiting-related outcome of preventing
legal action was found to be primarily related to IM behaviors that
are applied to signal distance in terms of professionalism. In
addition, selection-related outcomes such as retrieving a high
amount of valid personal information from applicants were found
to be primarily associated with IM behaviors applied to signal
closeness. For example, as one interviewer put it: “An emotional
tie makes the applicant trust in me, so that he communicates with
me in a transparent way” (Interviewer 6).

Fourth, the interviewer-related outcome of strong interviewer
reputation was found to be mainly associated with IM behaviors
applied to signal distance in terms of superiority. For instance, an
interviewer told us, “Well, I’m well known because of my repu-
tation . . . I’m one of the most ruthless ones in our HR department”
(Interviewer 2).

Finally, we found indications that the different intended IM
outcomes intertwine in a complex pattern. For example, an orga-
nization’s strong image and reputation partly depend on how
applicants experience the interview process and spread the word,
such as “When he goes home with positive emotions then he’ll tell
others about it, he’ll tell his friends and other people he knows, and
hopefully these others will apply, too” (Interviewer 7). Further-
more, the intended outcome of interviewers’ career advancement is
not depicted in Figure 1 because we found that this component
intertwined with (and was implicit in) other intended interviewer
IM outcomes. For instance, if an interviewer achieves good ac-
ceptance rates and gets positive feedback from applicants, col-
leagues, and supervisors, this should have a favorable impact on
the interviewer’s career.

Discussion

Previous research on IM in interviews has been fruitful, but this
literature has lacked a conceptual model to aid in understanding
how and why interviewers try to make impressions on applicants.
Instead, previous work has been based on the assumption that
interviewers use the same IM behaviors as applicants without
acknowledging what intentions and opportunities interviewers ac-
tually have when they interact with applicants. Thus, as a response
to repeated calls for research on interviewer IM (e.g., Dipboye &
Johnson, 2013; Gilmore et al., 1999; Macan, 2009), our study
offers a new perspective on the selection interview by systemati-
cally examining interviewer IM. Following a grounded theory
approach, we identified how interviewers apply IM in terms of
what they intend to signal to applicants (i.e., interviewer IM
intentions) and which signals interviewers deliberately use to

create their intended impressions (i.e., interviewer IM behaviors).
Furthermore, we examined why interviewers apply IM in terms of
the outcomes they want to achieve by deliberately sending signals
to applicants (i.e., intended interviewer IM outcomes).

We developed a conceptual model of interviewer IM that com-
prises interviewer IM intentions, behaviors, and intended out-
comes, which also shows patterns of relationships among these
elements. In addition to the model, we generated an extensive
taxonomy of different interviewer IM intentions, behaviors, and
outcomes. Specifically, we found that interviewers’ primary inten-
tions are to signal attractiveness and authenticity, while their
secondary intentions are to signal closeness and distance (i.e.,
distance in terms of professionalism and in terms of superiority).
Another finding was that interviewer IM may have different
aims—aims in terms of creating a certain impression of the inter-
viewer as a person, an impression of the job, of the team, and of
the organization as a whole. In order to create these impressions on
applicants, interviewers may deliberately apply a broad spectrum
of signals such as verbal, nonverbal, paraverbal, artifactual, and
administrative IM behaviors. Additionally, we found that inter-
viewers use IM behaviors in order to improve a wide range of
different outcomes related to recruitment, selection, and the inter-
viewers themselves.

Implications for Theory

This study makes at least three important contributions to the
literature. First, this study elaborates signaling theory (Bangerter et
al., 2012; Spence, 1973) in the context of interviewer behavior by
presenting a conceptual model on the key elements of deliberate
signaling processes on the part of the interviewer. Notably, our
model not only focuses on IM behaviors but also includes inter-
viewer IM intentions and intended outcomes, which are particu-
larly important to understanding the phenomenon of interviewer
IM (Dipboye et al., 2012). In addition, as a response to calls to
study signals and incentives of signalers within their social context
(Connelly et al., 2011), we present an extensive taxonomy of the
impressions that interviewers aim to create, the signals they delib-
erately use to create these intended impressions, and the outcomes
they want to achieve. As such, we found that interviewers’ inten-
tions and signals are very broad and complex, and we uncovered
numerous aspects that clearly go beyond those assumed by previ-
ous IM research (see Tables 1–3). Regarding intended IM out-
comes, interviewers deliberately use signaling behaviors not only
to enhance organizations’ recruitment success and the quality of
selection decisions but also to enhance outcomes that are directly
related to themselves, such as their reputation as an interviewer.

Second, this study sheds light on how interviewers’ and appli-
cants’ IM are similar and distinct. Consistent with interdependence
theory (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003), the present findings show
that while applicant and interviewer IM share similarities, there is
a broad range of differences. Similarities can be found, for exam-
ple, in categories of verbal IM (e.g., fit-focused IM), nonverbal IM
(e.g., smiling), and artifactual IM behaviors (e.g., modifying one’s
appearance). However, in contrast to assumptions in previous
studies (e.g., Stevens et al., 1990), many interviewer IM intentions
and behaviors seem to be distinct from those of applicants. Unlike
applicants, interviewers may have multiple aims of IM (e.g.,
influencing applicant impressions of the job, the organization, and

326 WILHELMY, KLEINMANN, KÖNIG, MELCHERS, AND TRUXILLO

themselves) and may have diverse IM intentions that go well
beyond mere friendliness (e.g., signaling distance).

Another difference between interviewer and applicant IM is
that, because interviewers are in a more powerful position than
applicants, they may apply IM behaviors such as applicant-
depreciation and challenging applicants to signal their superiority.
Also, as another consequence of interviewers’ more powerful
position, they have greater freedom of action than applicants and
are therefore able to control and modify diverse artifactual (e.g.,
providing giveaways) and administrative aspects of the interview
(e.g., inviting the applicant personally) to favorably influence
applicant impressions. Therefore, because of these differences,
interviewer IM should be considered a phenomenon that may be
related to, but is nevertheless quite distinct from, applicant IM.

Finally, our results suggest a shift in the way that we think about
interviewers in the employment interview. For instance, our study
draws attention to the social nature of the interview and contributes to
a more person-centric picture of the interviewer (following sugges-
tions by Weiss & Rupp, 2011). We found that interviewers are well
aware that they may influence applicant impressions and explicitly
state their aims to do so. Interviewers know very well which specific
impressions they want applicants to form and intentionally use a
broad range of different signals to create these intended impressions.
Our findings support efforts by other researchers to enhance the
theoretical understanding and the quality of the interview as an as-
sessment tool by acknowledging social exchange processes in the
interview, such as interviewer IM (cf. Dipboye et al., 2012).

Potential Limitations

Although this study provides valuable insights into how and why
interviewers intentionally try to create impressions on applicants, it
has its limitations. This study included a range of different interview
formats, which allowed us to capture a broad range of IM behaviors.
However, by the same token, we did not focus on one individual type
of format (e.g., panel interviews), which would have allowed for more
extensive insights about IM behavior within a particular interview
format. However, we believe that the IM behaviors presented in this
study that refer to specific interview formats (e.g., IM behaviors
applied in panel interviews) constitute important initial findings.

Another limitation is that even though the application of a
qualitative approach can lead to new research questions and new
perspectives (Cassell & Symon, 2011), the generalizability of the
findings might be limited because of small sample sizes (Lee,
Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999). Moreover, the present study was
conducted in Germany and Switzerland. Interviewer IM intentions
and behaviors may vary between different national cultures, as has
been found for applicant IM (e.g., König, Hafsteinsson, Jansen, &
Stadelmann, 2011). Hence, more research on interviewer IM with
additional samples is clearly needed. However, the present study
sampled a broad range of interviewers and applicants, included
different interview formats (face-to-face, telephone, video, one-
on-one, and panel interviews), and used multiple qualitative meth-
ods (in-depth interviews, observations, memos, and analyses of
informational material) to generate a comprehensive taxonomy of
interviewer IM, thus providing insights into associations among
interviewer IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes. In
addition, data were collected until theoretical saturation was
reached (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Taken together, the diversity of

samples and methods and the achievement of theoretical saturation
suggest that these results should generalize to other interview
contexts.

Implications and Propositions for Future Research

The goal of our conceptual model is to provide a framework for
future research on interviewer IM, ultimately leading to practical
recommendations to organizations and interviewers. Thus, we believe
that the initial qualitative findings presented in this paper should be
bolstered by insightful future research before such practical recom-
mendations can be convincingly made. As can be seen in Table 4, the
conceptual model of interviewer IM presented in this study provides
a promising blueprint for future research in at least three different
ways: (a) testing the conceptual model as it is presented in this paper
in terms of the elements and relationships within the model; (b)
expanding the conceptual model on the basis of this study—that is,
integrating further factors and relationships that were indicated by our
data and mentioned in our results; and (c) expanding the conceptual
model beyond the scope of our study—that is, connecting the model
to ongoing discussions in the literature. In Table 4 and in the follow-
ing sections, we point out promising paths for future research and
provide specific ideas for research propositions for each of these three
research paths. It is important to note that the research topics and
propositions that we present are intended to be illustrative and stim-
ulating rather than all-inclusive.

On a first level, future research should focus on the elements and
associations in our conceptual model. Each relationship within the
model constitutes an actionable proposition for future research that
could be tested using quantitative methods. Specifically, the model
can be tested in terms of the way the boxes of IM intentions are
arranged (i.e., structure of IM intentions) and the way the cells of IM
behaviors are embedded within or are bridging boxes of IM intentions
(i.e., relationships between IM intentions and IM behaviors). Accord-
ingly, researchers could also examine whether the model as developed
from the qualitative methods in this study translates into a factor
structure as determined through quantitative research. In addition,
each arrow in Figure 1 that points from IM behaviors and their
underlying intentions to intended IM outcomes might be tested (i.e.,
relationships between IM behaviors and intended IM outcomes).

As a second research path, future research should add additional
aspects to the conceptual model of interviewer IM that has been
suggested by our data. One idea to expand the model would be to
integrate the higher level category structure of IM behaviors that we
found (see Table 2). It would be worthwhile to examine how the five
types of IM behaviors (i.e., verbal, paraverbal, nonverbal, artifactual,
and administrative) are linked to primary and secondary IM inten-
tions. For example, our data suggest that paraverbal and nonverbal IM
behaviors may play a particularly important role in expressing sec-
ondary IM intentions because they represent indirect ways of com-
municating, which might be especially important for interviewers’
personal interactions with applicants. Another example would be
research on whether intentions as expressed by the interviewer trans-
late into behaviors as observed by the interviewee. Additional prom-
ising themes and propositions for future research that are suggested by
our data refer to the question of how interviewer IM may depend on
the industry sector (e.g., the industry sector’s image and the types of
services provided), the timing in the interview (e.g., beginning or end

327INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

of the interview), and the content of the conversation (e.g., asking
delicate vs. challenging questions).

As a third path, future research should connect the conceptual
model of interviewer IM to ongoing discussions in the litera-
ture, such as how IM relates to truthfulness in terms of honest
versus deceptive IM and how the validity of interviews might
be affected by IM. Regarding the discussion on IM and truth-
fulness, we believe that it would be helpful to weave an addi-
tional conceptual layer into our model in terms of honest versus
deceptive interviewer IM. In line with recent suggestions by
Tsai and Huang (2014), we believe that interviewer IM can be
honest or deceptive depending on whether the signal being sent
to an applicant relates to an existing attribute of the interviewer,
the job, or the organization instead of being misleading in terms
of creating false impressions. We see high potential in honest
interviewer IM for increasing long-term outcomes that are
highly relevant for organizations and their employees. For
example, our data indicate that honest IM can stress positive
attributes of the job and the organization while at the same time
creating a realistic image in the applicants’ minds. In contrast,
we believe that there is a risk in deceptive interviewer IM by

leading to unrealistic expectations and psychological contract
breach, which should result in negative long-term consequences
for organizations and their employees such as low levels of job
satisfaction, performance, and tenure.

Regarding the ongoing discussion on potential effects of IM on
interview validity, one possibility is that interviewers’ attempts to
influence applicants’ impressions might prevent interviewers from
accurately assessing applicant performance (Dipboye et al., 2012).
As such, Marr and Cable (2014) found that interviewers’ selling
orientation reduced the accuracy and predictive validity of their
judgments. However, our data indicate an additional possibility—
namely, that interviewer IM may also facilitate the quality of
selection decisions. Specifically, we found initial evidence that
interviewer IM behavior such as demonstrating empathy may
facilitate effective selection by enhancing feelings of trust and
reciprocity, which may encourage applicants to open up and pro-
vide not only more but also more honest personal information.
This would provide interviewers with a better basis for perfor-
mance assessment and would thus enhance valid selection deci-
sions. We believe that these potential positive impacts on interview
validity are well worth further examination.

Table 4
Examples of Propositions for Future Research

Examples of research issues Examples of specific propositions

Level 1: Testing relationships within the conceptual model of interviewer IM (see Figure 1)

Structure of IM intentions P1–1: Five kinds of interviewer IM intentions can be distinguished that differ regarding
their interrelations: Intentions that are located closer together in the figure co-occur
more often than intentions that are located farther apart.

P1–2: There are two major themes of interviewer IM intentions: (a) primary IM intentions
that refer to interviewers’ goal of representing the organization, the job, and themselves
and (b) secondary IM intentions that refer to interviewers’ personal interaction with the
applicant.

Relationships between IM intentions and IM
behaviors

P1–3: There are three kinds of IM behaviors that differ in how they are related to IM
intentions: (a) behaviors that are most strongly related to one single IM intention; (b)
behaviors that are most strongly related to two IM intentions; and (c) behaviors that are
multipurpose—that is, they are related to different IM intentions depending on how they
are applied.

Relationships between IM behaviors and
intended IM outcomes

P1–4: IM behaviors used to signal attractiveness are related to intended short-term
outcomes such as fast recruiting, whereas IM behaviors used to signal authenticity are
related to intended long-term outcomes such as sustainable recruitment.

Level 2: Expanding the conceptual model of interviewer IM on the basis of this study

Relationships between the five types of IM
behaviors and IM intentions

P2–1: Paraverbal and nonverbal IM behaviors are more strongly related to secondary IM
intentions than to primary IM intentions, whereas verbal, artifactual, and administrative
IM behaviors are related to both primary and secondary IM intentions.

Influence of industry sector P2–2: The specific set of IM intentions, behaviors, and intended outcomes depends on the
industry sector, such as the industry sector’s image and the types of services provided.

Influence of timing P2–3: The IM intention of signaling closeness is more predominant in the beginning and
at the end of interviews.

Influence of interview content P2–4: The IM intention of signaling closeness is more predominant when interviewers ask
delicate questions, whereas signaling distance in terms of superiority is more
predominant when interviewers ask challenging questions.

Level 3: Expanding the conceptual model of interviewer IM beyond the scope of this study

Honest versus deceptive IM P3–1: Deceptive interviewer IM decreases long-term outcomes such as employees’ job
satisfaction, job performance, and job tenure through unrealistic job expectations and
psychological contract breach.

Interview validity P3–2: Interviewer IM of signaling closeness increases (a) the amount and (b) the
informative value of personal information provided by applicants, which in turn
positively influences interview validity.

328 WILHELMY, KLEINMANN, KÖNIG, MELCHERS, AND TRUXILLO

In sum, we hope that future research will provide further
confirmation and refinement of the qualitative insights gained
in this study. Specifically, we suggest that future research
should drill down farther in the direction of both the numerous
potential risks and opportunities that are involved in interviewer
IM, hopefully inspired by the research propositions presented.
If future research follows these paths, our theoretical under-
standing of interviewer IM can be substantially enhanced. Im-
portantly, this future research will facilitate practical recom-
mendations that will move interviewers closer to successfully
selecting and recruiting applicants.

References

Anderson, N. R. (1992). Eight decades of employment interview research:
A retrospective meta-review and prospective commentary. European
Work and Organizational Psychologist, 2, 1–32. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/09602009208408532

Bangerter, A., Roulin, N., & König, C. J. (2012). Personnel selection as a
signaling game. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 719 –738. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0026078

Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2011). The coming of age for qualitative
research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of
Management Journal, 54, 233–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ
.2011.60262792

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 Psy-
chology, 94, 1394 –1411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016532

Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Quali-
tative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 48, 1866 –1891. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486
.2010.00972.x

Bodie, G. D. (2011). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Con-
ceptualization and evidence of validity within the interpersonal domain.
Communication Quarterly, 59, 277–295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01463373.2011.583495

Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A
multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors.
Journal of Management, 34, 1080 –1109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0149206308324325

Butterfield, K. D., Trevino, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1996). Punishment from
the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive
model. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1479 –1512. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2307/257066

Carless, S. A., & Hetherington, K. (2011). Understanding the applicant
recruitment experience: Does timeliness matter? International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 19, 105–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1468-2389.2010.00538.x

Carless, S. A., & Imber, A. (2007). The influence of perceived interviewer
and job and organizational characteristics on applicant attraction and job
choice intentions: The role of applicant anxiety. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 15, 359 –371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1468-2389.2007.00395.x

Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2011). Assessing “good” qualitative research in
the work psychology field: A narrative analysis. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 84, 633– 650. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02009.x

Celani, A., & Singh, P. (2011). Signaling theory and applicant attraction
outcomes. Personnel Review, 40, 222–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
00483481111106093

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones,
D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A
meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 90, 928 –944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90
.5.928

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011).
Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37,
39 – 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419

Connerley, M. L., & Rynes, S. L. (1997). The influence of recruiter
characteristics and organizational recruitment support on perceived
recruiter effectiveness: Views from applicants and recruiters.
Human Relations, 50, 1563–1586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
001872679705001205

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeGroot, T., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Why visual and vocal interview
cues can affect interviewers’ judgments and predict job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 986 –993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.84.6.986

Delery, J. E., & Kacmar, K. M. (1998). The influence of applicant and
interviewer characteristics on the use of impression management. Jour-
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1649 –1669. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01339.x

Derous, E. (2007). Investigating personnel selection from a counseling
perspective: Do applicants’ and recruiters’ perceptions correspond?
Journal of Employment Counseling, 44, 60 –72. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/j.2161-1920.2007.tb00025.x

Dipboye, R. L. (2005). The selection/recruitment interview: Core processes
and contexts. In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), The
Blackwell handbook of personnel selection (pp. 121–142). Malden, CA:
Blackwell.

Dipboye, R. L., & Johnson, S. K. (2013). Understanding and improving
employee selection interviews. In K. F. Geisinger (Ed.), APA handbook
of testing and assessment in psychology (pp. 479 – 499). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Dipboye, R. L., Macan, T. H., & Shahani-Denning, C. (2012). The selec-
tion interview from the interviewer and applicant perspectives: Can’t
have one without the other. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford handbook
of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 323–352). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780199732579.013.0015

Earnest, D. R., Allen, D. G., & Landis, R. S. (2011). Mechanisms linking
realistic job previews with turnover: A meta-analytic path analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 865– 897. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2011.01230.x

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases:
Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
25–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888

Ellis, 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. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1200

Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and
the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 33, 613– 619. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/001316447303300309

Friese, S. (2011). User’s manual for ATLAS.ti 6. Berlin, Germany: Scien-
tific Software Development.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in
organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 321–338. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/014920638801400210

Gilmore, D. C., Stevens, C. K., Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, G. R. (1999).
Impression management tactics. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.),
The employment interview handbook (pp. 321–336). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452205519.n18

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.

329INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09602009208408532

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026078

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60262792

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016532

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2011.583495

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324325

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257066

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00538.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00395.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02009.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483481111106093

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679705001205

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.986

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01339.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2007.tb00025.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199732579.013.0015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01230.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1200

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316447303300309

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920638801400210

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452205519.n18

Grzywacz, J. G., Arcury, T. A., Márin, A., Carrillo, L., Burke, B., Coates,
M. L., & Quandt, S. A. (2007). Work-family conflict: Experiences and
health implications among immigrant Latinos. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 92, 1119 –1130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1119

Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions
to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 57, 639 – 683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004
.00003.x

Hornby, A. S., & Wehmeier, S. (2005). Oxford advanced learner’s dic-
tionary of current English (7th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic
self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self
(pp. 231–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The
ABCs of reliability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 141–150.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-141

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. Inter-
national Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 331–339. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00562.x

Koslowsky, M., & Pindek, S. (2011). Impression management: Influencing
perceptions of self. In D. Chadee (Ed.), Theories in social psychology
(pp. 280 –296). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2009). Balancing borders
and bridges: Negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work
tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 704 –730. http://dx.doi
.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669916

Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research
in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979 –1999. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 55, 161–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999
.1707

Levashina, J., & Campion, M. A. (2007). Measuring faking in the employ-
ment interview: Development and validation of an interview faking
behavior scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1638 –1656. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1638

Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014).
The structured employment interview: Narrative and quantitative review
of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67, 241–293. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052

Levine, S. P., & Feldman, R. S. (2002). Women and men’s nonverbal
behavior and self-monitoring in a job interview setting. Applied H.R.M.
Research, 7, 1–14.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (Eds.). (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.

Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London, UK:
Sage.

Macan, T. H. (2009). The employment interview: A review of current
studies and directions for future research. Human Resource Management
Review, 19, 203–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.006

Marr, J. C., & Cable, D. M. (2014). Do interviewers sell themselves short?
The effects of selling orientation on interviewers’ judgements. Academy
of Management Journal, 57, 624 – 651. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj
.2011.0504

Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational
research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 141–157. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/002188638602200207

McFarland, L. A., Yun, G., Harold, C. M., Viera, L., Jr., & Moore, L. G.
(2005). An examination of impression management use and effective-
ness across assessment center exercises: The role of competency de-
mands. Personnel Psychology, 58, 949 –980. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1744-6570.2005.00374.x

Peeters, H., & Lievens, F. (2006). Verbal and nonverbal impression man-
agement tactics in behavior description and situational interviews. In-
ternational Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 206 –222. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00348.x

Rosenfeld, P. (1997). Impression management, fairness, and the employ-
ment interview. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 801– 808. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1023/A:1017972627516

Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interac-
tion, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059

Schilling, J. (2006). On the pragmatics of qualitative assessment: Design-
ing the process for content analysis. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 22, 28 –37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.1.28

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

Schneider, D. J. (1981). Tactical self-presentations: Toward a broader
conception. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and
social psychological research (pp. 23– 40). New York, NY: Academic
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-685180-9.50007-5

Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Eco-
nomics, 87, 355–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1882010

Stevens, C. K., Mitchell, T. R., & Tripp, T. M. (1990). Order of presen-
tation and verbal recruitment strategy effectiveness. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 20, 1076 –1092. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
1816.1990.tb00391.x

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not.
Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633– 642. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083020

Tsai, W.-C., & Huang, T.-C. (2014). Impression management during the
recruitment process. In K. Y. T. Yu & D. M. Cable (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of recruitment (pp. 314 –334). New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.

Tullar, W. L. (1989). Relational control in the employment interview.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 971–977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.74.6.971

Van Iddekinge, C. H., McFarland, L. A., & Raymark, P. H. (2007).
Antecedents of impression management use and effectiveness in a
structured interview. Journal of Management, 33, 752–773. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0149206307305563

Wanous, J. P. (1976). Organizational entry: From naive expectations to
realistic beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 22–29. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.1.22

Weiss, H. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2011). Experiencing work: An essay on a
person-centric work psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology, 4, 83–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01302.x

Willig, C. (2009). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adven-
tures in theory and method (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University
Press.

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Interpretation and method:
Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. New York, NY:
M. E. Sharpe.

330 WILHELMY, KLEINMANN, KÖNIG, MELCHERS, AND TRUXILLO

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1119

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00003.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-141

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00562.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669916

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1707

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1638

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12052

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0504

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002188638602200207

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00374.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00348.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1017972627516

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059

http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.1.28

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-685180-9.50007-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1882010

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00391.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083020

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.971

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206307305563

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.61.1.22

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01302.x

Appendix A

Interview Guide for In-Depth Interviews With Interviewers

Examples of Questions Asked Throughout the Whole
Research Process

(a) In what ways are the kinds of impressions applicants form
during your employment interviews important to you?

(b) Could you please describe the specific types of impres-
sions you want applicants to form during your employment
interviews?

(c) Would you please tell me how you behave during your
employment interviews in order to create these impressions
on applicants?

(d) What outcomes can applicants’ impressions lead to?

Examples of Questions That Were Added Later in the
Research Process Based on Prior In-Depth Interviews
and Observations

• What kind of information about yourself do you present to
create your intended impressions on applicants?

• How do you welcome applicants to create your intended
impressions?

• Could you please tell me how you present negative aspects
of the job or the organization to create your intended
impressions on applicants?

• Would you please tell me how you interact with appli-
cants after the interview to create your intended
impressions?

Appendix B

Interview Guide for In-Depth Interviews With Applicants

Examples of Questions Asked Throughout the Whole
Research Process

(a) What kinds of impressions did you form during employ-
ment interviews you have recently participated in?

(b) What specific types of impressions do you think the
interviewers might have wanted you to form?

(d) What outcomes can applicants’ impressions lead to?
Examples of Questions That Were Added Later in the
Research Process Based on Prior In-Depth Interviews
and Observations

• What kind of personal information did the interviewers
reveal that might have been intended to influence the
impressions you formed?

• How did the interviewers welcome you?
• Could you tell me how the interviewers presented negative

aspects of the job or the organization?
• What interviewer behaviors did you observe after the

interview that might have been intended to influence the
impressions you formed?

(Appendices continue)

331INTERVIEWER IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

Appendix C

Observation Guide Used to Observe Actual Employment Interviews

Instruction: Please write down any actions you see and state-
ments and questions you hear that may be relevant in terms of how
and why interviewers apply IM. Please make sure to include
specific examples (e.g., direct quotes). The following headings are
meant to focus your attention on important aspects. However,
please add further observations wherever applicable.

Examples of Aspects Documented Throughout the
Whole Research Process

• Date
• Location
• Number of interviewers
• Type of job vacancy
• Duration of the interview

(a) Observations prior to the employment interview

• Verbal—e.g., what interviewers say and ask
• Paraverbal—e.g., how interviewers talk to applicants
• Nonverbal—e.g., body language of interviewers
• Any other aspect that may be worth further exploration in

future observations and in-depth interviews

(b) Observations during the employment interview

• Verbal—e.g., what interviewers say and ask
• Paraverbal—e.g., how interviewers talk to applicants
• Nonverbal—e.g., body language of interviewers
• Any other aspects that may be worth further exploration in

future observations and in-depth interviews

Examples of Additional Aspects That Observers Were
Asked to Consider and Document Later in the
Research Process (Based on Prior Observations and
In-Depth Interviews)

(a) Observations prior to the employment interview

• Administrative—e.g., timeliness of the interview start

(b) Observations during the employment interview

• Administrative—e.g., refreshments offered
• Artifactual—e.g., seating arrangement, objects visible on

the interview table
(c) Observations after the employment interview

• Administrative—e.g., feedback to applicants

Received December 3, 2013
Revision received July 2, 2015

Accepted July 2, 2015 �

332 WILHELMY, KLEINMANN, KÖNIG, MELCHERS, AND TRUXILLO

How and Why Do Interviewers Try to Make Impressions on Applicants? A Qualitative Study

Theoretical Background
Signaling Processes in the Interview
Potential signaling on the side of the interviewer
Potential differences between applicants’ and interviewers’ signaling
Aims of the Present Study
Research Question 1
Research Question 2
Research Question 3

Method
Grounded Theory Approach
Samples
Data Collection
In-depth interviews
Observations
Data Analysis
Content analysis
Interrater agreement
Member checks

Results
Overview
How Interviewers Apply IM
What are interviewers’ IM intentions?
How are interviewers’ IM intentions interrelated?
What IM behaviors do interviewers apply?
Verbal interviewer IM
Paraverbal interviewer IM
Nonverbal interviewer IM
Artifactual interviewer IM
Administrative interviewer IM
When do interviewers apply which IM behaviors?
Why Interviewers Apply IM
What are interviewers’ intended IM outcomes?
When are interviewers’ intended IM outcomes likely to be reached?

Discussion
Implications for Theory
Potential Limitations
Implications and Propositions for Future Research
References
Appendix AInterview Guide for In-Depth Interviews With Interviewers
Appendix BInterview Guide for In-Depth Interviews With Applicants
Appendix CObservation Guide Used to Observe Actual Employment Interviews

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Week 3 Discussion Post ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now