User:JSchw004/sandbox

Ingratiation is a psychological technique in which an individual attempts to influence another person by becoming more likeable to their target. This term was coined by social psychologist Edward E. Jones, who further defined ingratiation as "a class of strategic behaviors illicitly designed to influence a particular other person concerning the attractiveness of one's personal qualities."[1] Ingratiation research has identified some specific tactics of employing ingratiation:
 * Complimentary Other-Enhancement: the act of using compliments or flattery to improve the esteem of another individual.[1]

Research has also identified three distinct types of ingratiation, each defined by their ultimate goal. Regardless of the goal of ingratiation, the tactics of employment remain the same: Ingratiation has been confused with another social psychological term, Impression management. Impression management is defined as the "the process by which people control the impressions others form of them."[6]While these terms may seem similar, it is important to note that impression management represents a larger construct of which ingratiation is a component. In other words, ingratiation is a method of impression management.[7]
 * Conformity in Opinion, Judgment, and Behavior: altering the expression of one's personal opinions to match the opinion(s) of another individual.[1]
 * Self-Presentation or Self-Promotion: explicit presentation of an individual's own characteristics, typically done in a favorable manner.[1]
 * Rendering Favors: Performing helpful requests for another individual.[1]
 * Modesty: Moderating the estimation of one's own abilities, sometimes seen as self-deprecation.[2]
 * Expression of Humour: any event shared by an individual with the target individual that is intended to be amusing.[3]
 * Instrumental Dependency: the act of convincing the target individual that the ingratiator is completely dependent upon him/her.[4]
 * Name-dropping: the act of referencing one or more other individuals in a conversation with the intent of using the reference(s) to increase perceived attractiveness or credibility.[4]
 * Acquisitive ingratiation: ingratiation with the goal of obtaining some form of resource or reward from a target individual[1][5].
 * Protective Ingratiation: ingratiation used to prevent possible sanctions or other negative consequences elicited from a target individual[1][5].
 * Significance ingratiation: ingratiation designed to cultivate respect and/or approval from a target individual, rather than an explicit reward[1].

Edward E. Jones: the Father of Ingratiation
Ingratiation, as a topic in social psychology, was first defined and analyzed by social psychologist Edward E. Jones. In addition to his pioneering studies on ingratiation, Jones also helped develop some of the fundamental theories of social psychology such as the fundamental attribution error and the actor-observer bias.[8]

Jones' first extensive studies of ingratiation were published in his 1964 book Ingratiation: A Social Psychological Analysis. In citing his reasons for studying ingratiation, Jones reasoned that ingratiation was an important phenomenon to study because it elucidated some of the central mysteries of social interaction and was also the stepping stone towards understanding other common social phenomena such as group cohesiveness.[1]

Tactics of Ingratiation
Complimentary Other enhancement is said to "involve communication of directly enhancing, evaluative statements"[1] and is most correlated to the practice of flattery. Most often, other enhancement is achieved when the ingratiator exaggerates the positive qualities of the target while leaving out the negative qualities. According to Jones, this form of ingratiation is effective based on the Gestaltian axiom that it is hard for a person to dislike someone that thinks highly of them. In addition to this, other enhancement seems to be most effective when compliments are directed at the target’s sources of self-doubt. To shield the obviousness of the flattery, the ingratiator may first talk negatively about qualities the target knows are weaknesses and then compliment him/her on a weak quality the target is unsure of.

Conformity in Opinion, Judgment, and Behavior is based on the tenet that people like those whose values and beliefs are similar to their own. According to Jones, ingratiation in the form of conformity can "range from simple agreement with expressed opinions to the most complex forms of behavior imitation and identification."[1] Similar to other enhancement, conformity is thought to be most effective when there is a change of opinion. When the ingratiator switches from a divergent opinion to an agreeing one, the target assumes the ingratiator values his/her opinion enough to change, in turn strengthening the positive feelings the target has for the ingratiator. With this, the target person is likely to be most appreciative of agreement when he wants to believe that something is true but is not sure that it is. Jones argues, therefore, that it is best to start by disagreeing in trivial issue and agreeing on issues that the target person needs affirmation.[1]

Self-Presentation or Self-Promotion is the "explicit presentation or description of one’s own attributes to increase the likelihood of being judged attractively".[1] The ingratiator is one who models himself along the lines of the target person’s suggested ideals. Self-presentation is said to be most effective by exaggerating strengths and minimizing weaknesses. This tactic, however, seems to be dependent of the normal self-image of the ingratiator. For example, those who are of high esteem are considered with more favor if they are modest and those who are not are seen as more favorable when they exaggerate their strengths. One can also present weakness in order to impress the target. By revealing weaknesses, one implies a sense of respect and trust of the target.[1] Interview responses such as "I am the kind of person who...", "You can count on me to..." are examples of self-presentation techniques.

Rendering Favors is the act of performing helpful requests for another individual. This is a positive ingratiation tactic, as "persons are likely to be attracted to those who do nice things for them."[1] By providing favors or gifts, the ingratiator promotes attraction in the target by making him/herself appear more favorable. In some instances, people may use favors or gifts with the goal of "...influencing others to give us the things we want more than they do, but giving them the things they want more than we do."[1]

Modesty is the act of moderating the estimation of one's own abilities.[2] Modesty is seen as an effective ingratiation strategy because it provides a relatively less transparent format for the ingratiator to promote likeability. Modesty can sometimes take the form of self-deprecation, or Deprecation directed toward one's self, which is the opposite of self-promotion. Instead of the ingratiator making him/herself seem more attractive in the eyes of the target individual, the goal of self-deprecation is to decrease the perceived attractiveness of the ingratiator. In doing so, the ingratiator hopes to receive pity from the target individual, and is thus able to enact persuasion via such pity.[4]

Expression of humor is the intentional use of humor to create a positive affect with the target individual.[3] The expression of humor is best implicated when the ingratiator is of higher status than the target individual, such as from supervisor to employee. "As long as the target perceives the individual's joke as appropriate, funny, and has no alternative implications, than the joke will be taken in a positive as opposed to a negative manner."[3] When humor is used by an individual of lower status within the setting, it may prove to be risky, inappropriate, and distracting, and may damage likeability as opposed to promoting likeability.[3]

Instrumental Dependency is the act of instilling the impression upon the target individual that the ingratiator is completely dependent upon that individual. Similar to modesty, instrumental dependency works by creating a sense of pity for the ingratiator. While instrumental dependency as a process is similar to modesty or self-deprecation, it is defined separately due to the notion that instrumental dependency is typically task-dependent, meaning the ingratiator would insinuate that he/she is dependent upon the target individual for the completion of a specific task or goal.[4]

Name-dropping is the act of using the name of an influential person(s) as reference(s) while communicating with the target individual. Typically, name-dropping is done strategically in a manner that the reference(s) in question will be known and respected by the target individual. As a result, the target individual is likely to see the ingratiator as more attractive.[4]

Article evaluation

I reviewed the Wikipedia article, "Self-concept".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-concept

After reviewing this article I answered the following questions.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Yes Is there anything that distracted you? No Is the article neutral? Yes Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not that I noticed Check a few citations. Do the links work? '''Yes they do! They link to other Wikipedia articles''' Does the source support the claims in the article? Yes Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Yes, there are 40 different references in total Where does the information come from? They come from peer-reviewed journal articles and books Are these neutral sources? Yes; I didn't check every single one, but they appear to all be from neutral sources If biased, is that bias noted? Is any information out of date? Some of the sources are a bit older, but they appear to be important sources that most likely laid the groundwork for the theories Is anything missing that could be added? I am sure there is, but I do not know exactly what should be added Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is a debate whether self-concept and self-image are the same or distinct from one another Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes it is How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

Potential Wikipedia Pages to Edit

1. Self Concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-concept This article could use a lot of work. There is a debate that self-concept and self-image are the same; possibly a section, explaining this controversy can be added. There are also sections that are more point of view and should be replaced. I would also suggest adding additional sections related to the application of this concept. Although this is well-referenced (for the most part), it can use some updated sources.

2. Ingratiation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingratiation There are not any items on the talk page for this article, yet there are many improvements that can be made. This article could use updated sources as well. It also takes the idea from a business aspect and not a psychological one. There are also additional applications of the concepts that are not covered in this article.

Alternative Idea: An alternative idea is to find a hallmark study related to self-presentation and start a new page to demonstrate the findings of the study. We could also include more recent support/ articles demonstrating research on the topic since the original study.

Igratiation article ideas

Additions: Move the "This outcome can be achieved by using several methods:" section and add to each method. Add more to Edward Jones section. Add to the major empirical findings, applications, and controversy sections. Utilize updated sources throughout. Include more links in the "See Also" section.

Changes: Fix the grammatical errors found throughout the article. I would also suggest rearranging the article to have more summarized information at the top. Reformat the sections, so there is less repetition.

Key Sources: The OG: Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. Rejection and ingratiation: Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Reddy, K. S., Rodriguez, S., Cavanaugh, T. J., & Pelayo, R. (2010). Paying to belong: When does rejection trigger ingratiation?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 99(5), 802. Work Place ostracism: Wu, L. Z., Yim, F. H. K., Kwan, H. K., & Zhang, X. (2012). Coping with workplace ostracism: The roles of ingratiation and political skill in employee psychological distress. Journal of Management Studies, 49(1), 178-199. Job Hiring: Proost, K., Schreurs, B., De Witte, K., & Derous, E. (2010). Ingratiation and self‐promotion in the selection interview: the effects of using single tactics or a combination of tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(9), 2155-2169. & Vivian Chen, C. H., Lee, H. M., & Yvonne Yeh, Y. J. (2008). The Antecedent and Consequence of Person–Organization Fit: Ingratiation, similarity, hiring recommendations and job offer. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(3), 210-219. Gender Differences: Rai, H. (2009). Gender differences: Ingratiation and leader member exchange quality. Singapore Management Review, 31(1), 63.

Copied from Ingratiation

In business
Seiter conducted a study that looked into the effect of ingratiation tactics on tipping behavior in the restaurant business. The study examined two restaurants in Utah; the study observed 188 participants made up of 94 dining parties containing 2 people each. Two female students acted as waitresses in the experiment and complimented each participant in the experimental condition by stating they made a good choice after ordering. Results determined that customers who received compliments left larger tips (M = 18.94) than those who were not the recipients of ingratiation tactics (M = 16.41). This highlights the potential benefits of even the subtlest of ingratiation tactics.

Treadway and colleagues (2007) were interested in exploring the role of subordinate ingratiation and political skill on supervisors’ impressions and ratings of interpersonal facilitation. Specifically, the researchers wanted to see if political skill and ingratiation interact in the business setting. In this context, political skill is related to the use of to influential tactics (e.g., persuasion, manipulation, and negotiation) They hypothesized that employees who used high rates of ingratiation, and had low levels of political skill would have motivations more easily detectable by their supervisors. Treadway et al. found that ingratiation was only effective if the motivation was not discovered by the supervisor. In addition, the researchers found that when supervisors rating of an employee’s use of ingratiation increased, their rating of an employee’s use of interpersonal facilitation decreased.

In conversation and interviews
Godfrey and colleagues (1986) conducted a study that observed the difference between self-promoters and ingratiators. The study subjects consisted of 50 pairs of unacquainted, same sex students from Princeton University (25 male pairs, 25 female pairs). The pairs of students participated in two sessions of videotaped, 20-minute conversations that were spaced one week apart. The first session was an unstructured conversation where the two subjects just talked about arbitrary topics. After the first conversation, one subject was randomly assigned to be the presenter. The presenter was asked to fill out a two-question survey that rated the likability and the competency of the other subject on a scale from 1 to 10. The second subject was assigned the role of the target and was instructed to fill out a much longer survey about the other subject; this survey included the likability and competency scale, 41 trait attributes, and 7 emotions. In the second session, the presenters were asked to participate as an ingratiator or a self-promoter. They were both given specific directions; while the ingratiators were told to try to make the target like them, the self-promoters were instructed to project competence to their targets. Results determined that partners of ingratiators rated them as somewhat more likable after the second conversation than after the first conversation (Ms = 7.35 vs. 6.55) but no more competent (Ms = 5.80 vs. 5.85), whereas partners of self-promoters rated them as no more competent after the second conversation than after the first conversation (Ms = 5.25 vs. 5.05) but somewhat less likable (Ms = 5.15 vs. 5.85). Ingratiators gained in likability without sacrificing perceived competence, whereas self-promoters sacrificed likability with no gain in competency.

When ingratiation works
Ingratiation tactics can be used in multiple situations and settings. Gordon (1996) conducted a metanalysis to examine what situations and tactics are most likely to be successful when engaging in ingratiation behavior. By reviewing prior data, he determined multiple moderators that influence the strength and success of ingratiation tactics. It was found that different ingratiation tactics worked better than others; for example Jones and Wortman (1973) found less transparent factors (e.g., self-presentation or opinion conformity tactics) were more effective in producing more positive evaluations from others when compared to more transparent tactics (e.g., performing favors in an attempt to create a sense of obligation) (as cited in Gordon, 1996). The success of the tactic also depends on the observer of the interaction; those who are directly involved with the ingratiator (e.g., the individual receiving a compliment) is more likely to positively view the technique than an observer. Gordon also compared the differences between studies that took place in various settings. Ingratiation was found to be more effective in laboratory studies when compared to those that took place in natural settings; a proposed explanation for this phenomena is that laboratory settings are more controlled and time-limited. Lastly, it was also determined the status of the ingratiator and target moderated the strength of the technique. Ingratiators are more successful if they are perceived as having a higher status than their targets.

Self-esteem and stress
Evidence supports the use of ingratiation as a method to cope with job-related stress. Ingratiation and other coping mechanisms are commonly used by individuals who experience decreased self-esteem coupled with stress. When someone perceives a threat to their self-image they may react with self-affirmation or image maintenance. Ingratiation is often used to protect or repair self-image when self-esteem is lowered when an individual is coping with stress. There are two models that are presented to describe self-esteem in relation to ingratiatory behaviors; one views self-esteem as a moderator in the stress, ingratiation relationship while the other views it as a mediator. The self-esteem moderator model states that lower levels of self-esteem strengthen the impact stress has on ingratiation behaviors. The mediation model suggests stress leads to decreased self-esteem, which increases ingratiatory behaviors to uplift one's self-image (a linear model). Empirical evidence provides support for both of these models.

Social rejection
Ingratiation is applicable in the context of dating as well. In a study of social rejection in the online dating community, researchers tested whether ingratiation or hostility would be the first reaction of the rejected individual and whether men or women would be most likely to ingratiate in different situations. The study showed that cases in which the woman had felt “close” to a potential dating partner from the mutual sharing of information and was rejected, she was more likely than men to engage in ingratiation. Furthermore, men were shown to be more likely to be willing to pay for a date (as prompted by the researchers, not for the date itself) with a woman who had previously harshly rejected him over a woman who had mildly rejected him. Both cases show that while men and women have different social and emotional investments, they are equally likely to ingratiate in a situation which is self-defining to them.

Job Interviews
Proost and colleagues (2010) observed the effectiveness of ingratiation, self-promotion, and a combination of these tactics compared to the absence of such techniques in an interview setting. Undergraduate Psychology participants were randomly assigned to four separate groups and were asked to review a video of an interviewee for an IT manager position; depending on the condition, the interviewee either watched a 5 minute interview tap with a candidate using ingratiation techniques, self-promotion tactics, a combination of the two, or neither of these techniques. The most positive reviews and recommendations came from interviewers whose interviewees had used a combination of self-promotion and ingratiation tactics; they were the most likely to be given a job offer. However, when compared by themselves, self-promotion was more effective in producing such an outcome than ingratiation; it is proposed this may be due to how the nature of an interview requires the individual being considered for the job to talk about their positive qualities and what they would add to the company.