Why does impression management positively influence interview ratings? The mediating role of competence and warmth
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Though interviews assess job applicants' skills and abilities, they can be influenced by extraneous factors, including impression management (IM) tactics. Interviewees’ self‐promotion and ingratiation IM tactics predict higher interview ratings; however, researchers have yet to determine why these tactics work. We assessed whether two fundamental dimensions of social perception, competence and warmth, mediate the relationship between IM tactics and interview ratings. We hypothesized that interviewee competence mediates the relationship between self‐promotion and interview ratings, and interviewee warmth mediates the relationship between ingratiation and interview ratings. Using real employment interviews, we found that competence mediates the relationship between self‐promotion and interview ratings, but warmth did not mediate the relationship between ingratiation and interview ratings in the way we expected.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it