Talk:Impression management/Archives/2016

Much work needed
The sentence " Individuals often limited ability to perceive how our efforts impact our acceptance and likeability by others[6]" should be correted. I believe it would be gramatically correct to state: " Individuals often have limited ability to perceive how our efforts impact our acceptance and likeability by others.[6]

Also the definition of ingratiating appears to be completely incorrect. Ingratiating usually refers to influencing people's positive perception of oneself through compliments and flattery, which is the opposite of how this article is currently defining the term.

146.6.106.23 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for pointing that out. That specific error has been corrected, as well as the use of WP:FIRSTPERSON. As for the definition of "ingratiation", could you look into the source provided for that statement (Felson 1984, p. 187.)? If it is patently incorrect, feel free to change it! (P.S. I've changed the heading value to level 2, as level 1 is generated for page titles, and moved this discussion to the bottom, per talk page customs.) Me, Myself &#38; I (☮) (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2016 CCT
I think the structure of the current page is a little bit confusing. From a reader’s perspective, it is hard to follow the inner relationships between each section. I suggest the page can be divided into three main sections, foundational information, theory, impression management on media, and with related knowledge on current page contained in subsections of each section. In addition, I also suggest editors to remove the “Professional Communication” section on current page because the information is vague and irrelevant. The content in “social psychology” can also be summarized and incorporated in the “basic factors” section. Xingjiaxi (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jiaxi's opinion. Each part of the page is seemingly irrelevant. And I think the part that talking about the media it is too simple. More evidences and examples can be added into this part. For example, how people using the filter in Instagram to modify their picture and reach the goal of impression management. The relationship between media and impression management can be better illustrated. Also, the theory of Goffman about the frontstage and backstage can also be used to explain the impression management and the relationship between media and impression management. Finally, I think the Internet section can be included into the media section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeyiWen (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Generally, this article is a little hard to follow, the diction is trying to hard to be elevated. I would bring the tone down a little. Section about self-presentation: I think it is kind of glossed over here that we create our own impression management by testing our identity against the reactions of others. Our identity changes until we achieve the impression we want. Good call, Leyi, on saying they need specific examples. I think this article should start macro and go micro. Because when is impression management applicable? Like, what kinds of people will be looking at this article? My guess is that it won’t be people who are trying to better present themselves. It will be people who are learning about PR and corporate branding, and so I think those topics should begin the article, and then you can funnel down to a personal application of impression management. Something like Intro > Theory > Professional Communications (include sections “Significance in empirical research and economy,” “The internet,” “The media”) > Social Psychology (includes “Basic Factors,” “Goffman,” “Self-presentation”). If you have the article in just these two main sections – PR and psychology – any reader will be able to easily find what they are looking for. JWardle1231 (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This page seems to be edited by several bunch of people from different professions so that the coherency of the article is not reached. Maybe the whole article can be cut into different sections containing either as a pure psychological term or its application in the field of communication. Also, the part with the heading "Erving Goffman" seems to be hard to follow because it contains too many quotes that are not really explanatory. and I think it would be better not to talk about this person and say more about the theory he contributed and use the main idea of the theory as heading of this part. As for the social psychology section following it, it mainly just talks about Edward Johns and how important he is. I cannot see it relevant to its title. In addition, I think the psychology part has more information than the professional communication and public relations part. The latter is more about conscious impression management and should include examples on how people deliberately manage image. In a nutshell,this page really needs to be revised to be better organized and include more materials. Katherinebai (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I like the way you organized this page, and how you used the secondary link lead readers to another wiki page for more detailed information in related filed. The format is a little bit confulsing, maybe try to use some bulblet points to separate the examples you listed under "Application". I also noticed some content under subheads were missing, hope you will complete them soon. I think there's still plenty of space to add more content and related information, and more references could be used to make this page more academical and professional. Best St798 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Has this (or part of it) been lifted from elsewhere?
I don't know whether an external article, or just someone dumping part of their suddenly-relevant undergraduate dissertation into the edit box, but parts of this article, particularly the latter half, seem a bit ... off. Not only is the tone far too "discussy" rather than encyclopaedic, but there's tell-tale traces of automatic hyphenation such as might be added by a certain document creation application that starts with W and ends with d...

(And that annoys the heck out of me, so I always make sure to turn it off... thus when it appears in someone else's work, and particularly when it's been copied verbatim and pasted into a medium which no longer preserves the same line length meaning the hyphens now appear halfway across the page rather than at the extreme right and/or left, it sticks out like a sore thumb) 193.63.174.254 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)