Exploring the role of interviewee cognitive capacities on impression management in face‐to‐face and virtual interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interviewees' use of impression management (IM) in job interviews is clearly related to individual differences such as personality. However, research has paid less attention to how interviewee cognitive capacities (i.e., cognitive ability and executive functions) influence IM use, even though interviewees’ cognitive capacities and IM are theoretically linked. The current research aimed to address this research gap through two studies. In Study 1, 166 undergraduate business students participated in mock face‐to‐face interviews with real recruiters. In Study 2, 294 job‐seeking participants recruited through Prolific completed a mock asynchronous video interview. Overall, cognitive ability was negatively related to deceptive IM while perceived incongruency (i.e., a gap between desired and perceived current impressions conveyed to others) was positively related to deceptive IM in both studies. Furthermore, cognitive ability and working memory updating, but not inhibition and shifting nor incongruency, were negatively related to honest IM in Study 2. Additionally, in both studies the relations between personality traits and interview IM were generally in line with findings from prior research. Overall, our findings provide a more comprehensive understanding of how interview IM relates to interviewee individual differences and interview performance in different forms of job interviews.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".