DOES PLAYING DUMB MAKE YOU LOOK GOOD? MODESTY AND SUPPLICATION AS IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT TACTICS Yi Wang A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May: 2015 Committee: Scott Highhouse, Advisor Russell Matthews John Tisak ii ABSTRACT Scott Highhouse, Advisor This study looked at how subordinates’ impression management behaviors would influence supervisor perceptions of subordinates’ warmth and competence, using gender as a potential moderator. To compare with impression management in western culture that typically intends to look better, we examined how Chinese supervisors viewed subordinates when subordinates intentionally impression managed to look worse than they actually were. Results showed that, whereas acting modestly were significantly and positively related with supervisor ratings of both warmth and competence, acting as a supplicant had a significantly negative effect on supervisor rating of warmth and competence. In addition, whereas modesty contributed more to predict competence evaluation, supplication contributed more to the prediction of warmth evaluation. However, gender did not show significant moderating effect on these relationships. This research provided a unique perspective to consider impression management behaviors along with the specific cultural norms and values. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would firstly like to thank my advisor, Scott Highhouse, who in the past three years has successfully dragged me so much deeper into the sea of psychology, and who has always inspired and challenged my creativity to think inside and outside the box. I would also like to thank my committee members Russell Matthews and John Tisak, for their thought-provoking feedback and for providing me with a supportive research environment. Also many thanks to my supportive colleagues of IO program and of psychology department. And finally, to my beloved parents (8000 miles away in South China) and to my dear Ting (2000 miles away in Berkeley, CA), whose company and understandings have filled my life with love, hope, and happiness. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 1 Impression Management in Organizations ............................................................. 3 Supplication and Modesty ....................................................................................... 5 Impressions of Competence and Warmth ............................................................... 7 Impacts of Gender ................................................................................................... 10 HYPOTHESES ......................................................................................................................... 12 Supervisor Impressions of Competence .................................................................. 12 Supervisor Impressions of Warmth ........................................................................ 14 Supplication.………………….……………………………………………... 14 Modesty…………………...………………………………………………….. 16 Plan of Research ..................................................................................................... 18 PILOT STUDY ......................................................................................................................... 20 Sample and Procedure ............................................................................................. 20 Measures ................................................................................................................. 21 Supplication.………………….……………………………………………... 21 Modesty……………………………………………………………………... 21 Results ..................................................................................................................... 21 MAIN STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 24 Sample and Procedure ............................................................................................. 24 Measures ................................................................................................................. 25 Supplication and modesty as impression management behaviors…….. 25 Competence and warmth..………………………………………………… 25 v Control variables………..………………………………………………… 27 Results ..................................................................................................................... 27 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................... 30 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 34 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 35 APPENDIX A HSRB APPROVAL: PILOT STUDY……………..……….………………… 62 APPENDIX B HSRB APPROVAL: MAIN STUDY.………………..…………….………… 63 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Explanations of Factors in Leary and Kowalsk’s (1991) Impression Management (IM) Behavior Component Model. ........................................................................................... 45 2 Different Definitions of Supplication and Modesty Based on Leary and Kowalski’s (1991). ............................................................................................................................................ 46 3 Demographic Details for All Participants in Pilot Study. ................................................ 47 4 Standardized Factor Loadings for Confirmatory Factor Analysis. .................................. 48 5 Standardized Factor Loadings for the Modified Confirmatory Factor Analysis with Three Factors. ............................................................................................................................. 51 6 Demographics for All Participants in Main study. ........................................................... 54 7 Standardized Factor Loadings for Warmth and Competence. ......................................... 55 8 Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlations for All Variables in Main Study. .............. 56 9 T-test for Variable Means across Genders. ...................................................................... 57 10a Effects of Subordinate’s Gender and Modesty on Supervisor Evaluation of Competence ................................................................................................................... 58 10b Effects of Supervisor’s Gender and Subordinate’s Modesty on Supervisor Evaluation of Competence .................................................................................................................... 59 11a Effects of Subordinate’s Gender and Supplication on Supervisor Evaluation of Warmth ........................................................................................................................... 60 11b Effects of Supervisor’s Gender and Subordinate’s Supplication on Supervisor Evaluation of Warmth .......................................................................................................................... 61 MODESTY AND SUPPLICATION 1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The constructs supplication and modesty have existed in the organizational literatures for some time. Both describe attempts to “play dumb” or downplay one’s own competence (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Supplication is a type of impression management behavior where people advertise their weakness or shortcomings to gain help or sympathy from others (Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Gibson & Sachau, 2000). Modesty has been examined as another type of impression management behavior, where people intentionally underestimate their superior prior performance by claiming to have done “just all right” (Blickle, Diekmann, Schneider, Kalthofer, & Summers, 2012; Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Whereas other types of impression management behaviors, such as self-enhancement or exemplification, emphasize efforts to present a positive image in front of others (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley, & Gilstrap, 2008), supplication and modesty emphasize the opposite: supplication describes how people intentionally show their weaknesses, and modesty describes how people try to hide their strengths (Dean, Braito, Powers, & Bruton, 1975). In practice, both supplication and modesty have been shown to exist in social behaviors in many situations (e.g., Becker & Martin, 1995; Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1980; Tetlock, 1980). However, despite their high frequency of use in social interactions, it is still not clearly known how supplication and modesty may influence audience’s evaluations toward the actors. Specifically, supplication has received mixed ratings in impressions formed by the audience. For example, Turnley and Bolino’s (2001) research found that supplicants in the workplace were less likely to receive help from others, but were more likely to be viewed as lazy. On the contrary, Goldschmied and Vandello (2009) found that politicians would receive more support when they supplicated. In addition, though most research has found that acting modestly may leave others with a generally positive impression (Blickle, Schneider, Perrewé, Blass, & Ferris, 2008), MODESTY AND SUPPLICATION 2 evidence also exists showing acting modestly may be viewed as boastful and decrease evaluation (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). There are three possible reasons for these mixed