第112章
The “Who Am I?” test is an old projective test that repeatedly asks
respondents to answer the question “Who are you?” Answering this question gets students to self-
disclose quickly. After you have gone completely around the room once, go around the room again,
having the students answer the same question. You will find that each time you go around the
room, students self-disclose more. This process is very sensitive to your initial remarks, and you can
easily direct the tone of students’ replies. Go around the room as many times as practical. This
simple activity will pay-off by creating a supportive, friendly, and humane environment that will
last for the entire term.
2. As each student speaks, all others will list up to five adjectives that they think are probably
characteristic of this person.
3. For three students chosen arbitrarily, list on the chalkboard the adjectives that class members chose
as descriptive of each person in question.
4. Ask the people who were selected whether the adjectives that the class members chose are the ones
that they intended to generate.
5 . Ask students to list the three traits they each think are most characteristic of the course instructor.
Pool their impressions to determine the frequency of each trait and where there is consensus or
disagreement. Ask students for behavioral or perceptual evidence they used to infer each of the
traits they listed. Ask them to use the Impression Formation Tally Forms to outline their
impressions.
6. Analyze five different styles of self-presentation.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
In social encounters, we are selective in what we tell other people about ourselves and in what we look for
in them. We engage in impression management by giving others information that will lead them to form
certain conclusions about us. We also engage in impression formation by seeking out information about
others in ways that may confirm our initial impressions about them. This demonstration examines how
people manage their impressions of others by selectively presenting information that is relevant to some
goal-in this case, getting a job. It also explores how people recruit information about others as they form
impressions about them. In doing this, the demonstration provides a relatively nonthreatening means for
380
students to become better acquainted.
SELF-PRESENTATION STYLES
Robert Arkin (Ohio State University) improved on this demonstration by adding the following unit on
individual styles of self-presentation. See the taxonomy chart (from a research article by Jones and Pittman,
1982) in which, for each of four types of self-presentation styles, there are four columns of information: a) the
emotion that the actor wants to arouse (the goal of the interaction); b) the attributions the actor seeks to elicit
from others about himself or herself; c) the prototypical actions used to achieve those objectives; and d) the
risks of negative attributions being made instead of the intended one. Read the chart carefully to get a sense
of these styles, strategies, and consequences.
1. Begin by asking the class, “Suppose you wanted to arouse respect in someone for one of your recent
accomplishments, what would be the impression you would want to create?” (Refer the students to
their charts.)
2. Then, for each of the four styles, mention the emotion to be elicited and have the students infer the
appropriate style.
3. Get the students to generate the attribution sought in order to arouse each emotion.
4. Next, have the students give specific actions that would produce the desired emotion (e.g.,
“Casually mention to your date that, when you were chatting at dinner the other evening at your
parents’ home in Monaco, she/he told you that”). This is, naturally, the fun part. The examples can
be wacky. At some point, work in the name of the style (in this case, self-promotion). In addition, the
fact that one risks making a poor impression (negative attributions risked) can also be fun. In the
example above, one could be accused of being a name-dropper or a place-dropper.
5. For a lively discussion, ask if there are any sex differences in the use of these styles. You should,
however, be aware of sexist stereotypes and use them to advantage as part of the psychology of
false impression formation.
PITFALLS TO AVOID
Because this is the first research section, you will have to strike a difficult balance between encouraging
students to self-disclose and keeping a lively pace so that there is time to complete the demonstration.
DISCUSSION, EXTENSIONS, AND EXPERIMENTAL VARIATIONS
To bring the impression formation idea to life, you can use the following exercise to good effect. First, ask
students to guess the basic rules of impression formation. With reference to a job interview, for instance, ask
what would be a common and basic rule to use in making a good impression on the interviewer (or anyone
else for that matter). Students will almost certainly cite the power of first impressions; i.e., “putting your best
foot forward.” />
The following experiment illustrates the power of first impressions. Three groups of subjects participated.
Each group learned about the performance of an individual taking a test of intellectual achievement (say, a
test of analogies or anagrams). All three groups learned of someone who got approximately 15 of 30 fairly
difficult items correct.
381
Taxonomy of Self-Presentation Styles
Style Emotion to Be Positive Attributions Prototypical Negative Attributions
Aroused Sought Actions Risked
Ingratiation Affection Likable Self-
Characterization
Opinion Conformity
Other
Enhancement
Favors
Sycophant
Conformist
Obsequious
Intimidation Fear Dangerous
Ruthless
Volatile
Threats
(incipient )
Anger
(incipient)
Breakdown
Blusterer
Wishy-Washy
Ineffectual
Self-
Promotion
Respect
Awe
Deference
Competent
Effective
“A Winner”
Performance
Claims
Performance
Accounts
Performances
Fraudulent
Conceited
Defensive
Supplication Nurturance
(Obligation)
Helpless
Handicapped
Unfortunate
Self-Deprecation
Entreaties For Help
Stigmatized
Lazy
Demanding
Note: Student Study guide omits terms within each cell so that students can figure them out.
From Jones & Pittman, 1982
But the three groups differed in one crucial way. One group learned of someone (whom they watched on
videotape) who did well on the first half of the items (say, about 10 of 15 correct), but then did poorly on the
second half (say, only 5 of 15 correct). The second group learned of someone who did about equally well
through the test (say, about 7 or 8 of the first 15 items correct and about 7 or 8 of the next 15 correct). Finally,
the third group learned about someone who did poorly on the first half of the items (say, about 5 of 15
correct), but then improved considerably on the second half (say, about 10 of 15 correct).
One group judged the performer much brighter than the other groups. Which one?