The Art of Impression Management

                  We cannot avoiding disclosing things about ourselves; indeed, even in trying to restrict what we disclose we tell quite a bit about ourselves. Although we may believe that we should not deceive people about what we really are, in fact, we all engage in some impression management. Impression management is the process by which people select and control their behavior, as well as the situation in which it is displayed, in order to project to others the images they wish. We engage in this because we want others to like us; because we want to influence them; to improve our bargaining position; to maintain status; and so forth. How then do we go about doing this?

Goffman’s Guide to Presentation of Self 

          Again we turn to Erving Goffman’s analogy of impression management and theatrical performance. Goffman (1959) assumes that in our social encounters we try to give a variety of impressions and like actors on the stage, attempt to present the best and most appropriate performance in each encounter. Let us look, for example, at a physician who is seeing a succession of patients in her office during the course of a day. What impression does she want to create in their eyes? Perhaps she wants to look as if she is a master of her art, konwledgeable in medicine, efficient, friendly, dependable, and self-confident. How can she go about trying to create this impression?

A Proper Front

          Just as the actor needs a proper stage and proper scenery, so does the physician. Front, as defined by Goffman, is “that part of the individual’s performance which regularly functions in a general fixed fashion to define the situation for those who observe the performance” (p. 22); it has three components: setting (such as furniture, decor, and diplomas on the wall), personal setting (such as clothing and insignia), and appearance and manner. Think of a typical visit to your family doctor. You enter the waiting room, sit down on one of the comfortable chairs or sofas, and perhaps leaf through a copy of National Geographic, Reader’s Digest, or Better Homes and Gardens that is lying on the table. Then the smiling doctor appears, wearing a white coat; she may have a stethoscope draped around her neck. Her appearance and manner suggest that she is a professional who is very much in control of the situation. Taken together, these aspects of the doctor’s front produce an effective performance—they tend to inspire your confidence in the doctor and her ability. By contrast, how would you feel if your doctor’s waiting room were lined with folding chairs and Screw and Playgirl magazines; and your doctor came out wearing torn jeans and dirty fingernails; and her manner were rather vague and unfriendly?

Involvement in One’s Role 

          It is absolutely essential that the actor be fully involved in her role. Undoubtedly it would be helpful if she actually believed in the role, that is, felt herself totally a doctor. In any event, a good actor, either in the theater or on the stage of the everyday life, can perform well only if she is personally involved enough to be able to present the role convincingly.

Dramatic Realization and Idealization    The doctor must know what type of role the audience expects and take this into account in her performance. Sometimes she must do things that are not actually necessary for the performance of her function but that are expected of her. The physician may be sufficiently experienced and insightful that she can diagnose a patient’s problem by merely glancing at the color of his skin or dilation of his pupils. If that were all she did, however, before prescibing an appropriate medicine, the patient might feel cheated. To avoid such problems, the doctor may go through an entire routine—stethoscope, thermometer, pulse check, tongue depressor—even though it is really not necessary for the diagnosis.

Mystification

          Finally, Goffman writes, for many roles a good performance requires the maintenance of a certain social distance between actor and audience. The physician must maintain an appropriate distance with her patients—she cannot become too familiar or friendly, lest the mystery and awe of her role be lost in the process.

                These, then, are the characteristics of good performance, according to Goffman, characteristics that let us both make the impression we wish and learn something about our own effectiveness.

Collaboration in Self-Presentation 

          It is particulary interesting to note that observers often collaborate with actors in the self-presentation process. Furthermore, at some level, both know that they are collaborating, although neither would admit it. For example, traditional sex roles have often required that women appear less intelligent and less mechanically adept than they really are. Even if a woman feels equally or more competent than a man, she may appear desperately needy and gratefully accept offers of assistance.

Other Examples of Impression Management

          Social psychologists have studied various techniques of impression management (see Schlenker, 1980). Among these techniques are ingratiation, or people’s attempt to get others to like them. Edward E. Jones (1964), who has studied this mechanism, notes that people ingratiate themselves by using flattery; by comforming or indicating agreement with others’ opinions and beliefs, by presenting themselves as likable; and by rendering favors. (Further discussion of ingratiation appears in Chapters 6 and 10.)

          People also project a variety of images in their physical appearance and dress. The physician’s uniform may convey an image of expertness and scientific precision. By “letting down our hair” and wearing informal clothing, we can give the impression of being relaxed and easygoing.  Advertisements abound for those who might consider changing their image by breast enlargement, hair transplants, removal of wrinkles, reshaping their nose, and the like (Schlenker, 1980).

Self-Monitoring 

          Self-monitoring is the process by which we review our own impression management. Mary Snyder’s (1979) Self-Monitoring Scale shows that people vary widely in their readiness and ability to monitor themselves. The scale consists of twenty-five true-false statements that measure several characteristics.

1.       People’s concern with the appropriateness of their self-presentation (“At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like”);

2.       Whether people look to others to see if they are behaving appropriately (“When I am uncertain how to act in social situations, I look to the behavior of others for cues”);

3.       People’s ability to modify their self-presentations (“I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie [if for the right end]”);

4.       Whether people use ingratiation (“I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them”); and

5.       Whether people modify their behavior to fit the situation (“In different situations and with different people, I often act like a very different person”).

 

          People who score high in the Self-Monitoring Scale are often at an advantage in social situations. Others rate them as more friendly and more relaxed (Lippa, 1978), as less shy and more ready to initiate situations (Pilkonis, 1977). But people who rate extremely high are likely to be distrusted and considered shallow (Gergen, 1977). Presumably there is a moderately high level of self-monitoring that is socially ideal. It lets people function effectively in presenting themselves but they do not become social chameleons, changing their color and spots to fit any situation (Snyder, 1979).

(Source: Raven, Bertram H., Rubin, Jeffrey Z. 1983. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2nd Edition. United States of America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)

× 『rui@96yR』【butterflyuu】 ×