Ingratiation

Ingratiation is a psychological technique in which an individual attempts to become more attractive or likeable to their target. This term was coined by social psychologist Edward E. Jones. [1] This outcome can be achieved by using several methods:

Major theoretical approaches

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.

Jones’ first extensive studies of ingratiation were published in his 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.

Historical definition and classes

Based on the social theory of groups proposed by John Thibaut and Harold Kelley in 1959, Jones 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]

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 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.

Self-presentation 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. Interview responses such as “I am the kind of person who…”, “You can count on me to...” are examples of self-presentation techniques.

Expression of humor is the intentional use of humor to create a positive affect with the target individual.[2] The expression of humor is best implicated when the ingratiator is of higher status than the target individual, like 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."[2] When humor is used by an individual of lower status within the workplace, it may prove to be risky, inappropriate, and distracting.

Modern types

Since Jones’ work of the 1960s, researchers have added four more types of ingratiation. The first of these four types has been labeled as self-deprecation, which serves the opposite purpose of self-presentation.[3] Instead of the ingratiator making themselves seem more attractive in the eyes of the target individual, the goal of self-deprecation is to decrease the perceived attractiveness of the ingratiator. By doing so, the ingratiator hopes to receive pity from their target. Instrumental dependency similarly aims to make oneself appear inferior to the target individual, and it achieves this by making the target individual think that the ingratiator is entirely dependent on them. Name dropping is an ingratiation tactic that is commonly used, and it occurs when the ingratiator uses the name of, or makes reference to, a well-known and well-respected third party. Lastly, situation-specific behaviors involve the ingratiator finding out personal information about the target individual, and then using this information to gain their approval.

Goals

In regards to the goals of the ingratiator, Jones [1] also defines three separate types of ingratiation:

Major empirical findings

In business

Seiter[4] conducted a study that looked into the effect of ingratiation tactics on tipping behavior in the restaurant business. The study was done at two restaurants in Northern Utah, and the participant pool was 94 dining parties of 2 people each, equaling 188 participants in total. In order to ensure that the person paying the bill was complimented, the experimenters were told to compliment both members of the party without making their compliments seem insincere. The data was collected by two female communication students, both the age of 22, who worked part-time as waitresses.

The results of the experiment supported the initial hypothesis that customers receiving compliments on their choice of dish would tip larger amounts than customers who received no compliment after ordering. A one-way ANOVA test was performed, and this test found significant differences in tipping behavior between the two conditions. Customers who received compliments left larger tips (M = 18.94) than those who were not the recipients of ingratiation tactics (M = 16.41).

Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, and Thatcher[5] wanted to explore how 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. "Political skill refer to the ability to exercise influence through the use of persuasion, manipulation, and negotiation"[5] 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.[5] Treadway et al. found that ingratiation was only effective if the motivation was not discovered by the supervisor.[5] In addition, the researchers found that when supervisors rating of an employees use of ingratiation increased, their rating of an employees use of interpersonal facilitation decreased.[5]

In conversation and interviews

Godfrey conducted a study that looked into the difference between self-promoters and ingratiators.[6] 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, 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, which 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: ingratiators were told to try and make the target like them, while the self-promoters were instructed to make the targets view them as extremely competent.

The results show that the presenters only partly achieved their goal. 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.

Applications

When ingratiation works

Ingratiation can be a hard tactic to implicate, without having the target individual realize what you are trying to do. The tactics of ingratiation works well in different situations and settings. For example, “Tactics that match role expectations of low-status subordinates, such as opinion conformity, would appear to be better suited to exchanges between low-status ingratiators and high-status targets."[7] Or, “The tactic of other enhancement would appear to be more appropriate for exchanges between high-status ingratiators and low-status targets because judgment and evaluation are congruent with a high-status supervisory role."[7] Within a work setting, it is best to evaluate the situation to figure out which method of ingratiation is best to use. The ingratiator should also have some transparency to their method, so that the target individual is not suspicious of their motives.[7] For example, ingratiating a target individual when it is uncharacteristic of your behavior or making it obvious that you are trying to ingratiate. “Given the strength of reciprocity as a social norm, it is possible that in situations in which the ingratiation attempt is interpreted by the target as 'ingratiation,' the most appropriate response might be to reciprocate the 'feigned' liking while forming more negative judgments and evaluations of the ingratiator.".[7]

Self-esteem and stress

Ingratiation is a method that can be used to cope with job-related stress.[8] Decreased self-esteem coupled with stress may cause an individual to use coping mechanisms, such as ingratiation.[8] Self-affirmation and image maintenance are likely reactions when there is a threat to self-image.[8] "Since self-esteem is a resource for coping with stress, it becomes depleted in this coping process and the individual becomes more likely to use ingratiation to protect, repair, or even boost self-image." [8] There are two models that are presented to describe self-esteem in relation to ingratiatory behaviors. The self-esteem moderator model is when stress leads to ingratiatory behavior and self-esteem impacts this relationship. Then there is the mediation model that suggests that stress leads to decreased self-esteem, which increases ingratiatory behaviors to uplift one's self-image (a linear model).[8] Research supports the mediation model, while literature supports the moderator model.

Self-monitoring

Within Turnely and Boino's study,"They had students complete a self-monitoring scale at the beginning of the project. At the conclusion of the project, participants indicated the extent to which they had engaged in each of the five impression-management tactics. Four days (two class periods) later, participants provided their perceptions of each of the other three members of their group. Each member of the four-person team, then, was evaluated by three teammates. Thus, given that there were 171 participants in the study, there were a total of 513 (171 X 3) student-student dyads. All of this information was collected before students received their grade on the project." [9] Results revealed that high self-monitors were better able to use ingratiation, self-promotion, and exemplification to achieve favorable images amont their colleagues successfully than their low self-monitor peers.[9] “Specifically, when high self-monitors used these tactics, they were more likely to be seen as likeable, competent, and dedicated by the other members of their work groups. In contrast, low self-monitors appear to be less effective at using these tactics to obtain favorable images. In fact, the more low self-monitors used such tactics, the more likely they were to be seen as a sycophant, to be perceived as conceited, or to be perceived as egotistical by their work group colleagues.”[9] High self-monitors are better able to use impression management tactics, such as ingratiation, than low self-monitors.

Social rejection

Ingratiation can be applied to many real world situations. As mentioned previously, research has delved into the areas of tipping in the restaurant business and conversations. More research shows how ingratiation is applicable in the online dating community and job interviews.

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.[10] 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.

In the workplace

In another study in the context of an interview, research showed that a combination of ingratiation and self-promotion tactics was more effective than using either one by itself or neither when trying to get hired by a potential employer.[11] The most positive reviews and recommendations came from interviewers whose interviewees had used such a combination, and they were also 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; 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.

Controversy

There is some disagreement in the literature as to whether self-presentation is a type of ingratiation or another tactic in itself. But there is no concrete evidence or reasoning supporting the idea that the self-presentation is not a form of ingratiatons. Therefore, the major consensus is that the two are mutually exclusive.

Conclusion

Studies have shown that ingratiation, defined as the attempt of an individual to become more likeable to their target, is a highly effective form of impression management, and one that occurs frequently in social interactions.[12] As a result, it has become a useful tactic in many real-world situations when one is looking to improve their appearance towards another. Examples of situations in which ingratiation is often used include businesses, court-rooms, dating, and other areas in which a person looks to improve their image towards a target individual.

In a world in which social standing is an important aspect of personal identity, ingratiation as a form of impression management has become a tactic that is used increasingly often. While it still remains a relatively under-researched topic in social psychology, its importance in day-to-day life is becoming further recognized by researchers, as demonstrated by the recent addition of four new subcategories.[3] These four subcategories, along with the three primary types of ingratiation coined by forefather of the subject Edward E. Jones, have established a solid base for a topic that is likely to see further expansion in the future.[1]

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Jones, E.E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York, New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Cooper, C.D. (2005). "Just Joking Around? Employee Humor Expression As an Ingratiatory Behavior.". The Academy of Management Review 30 (4): 765–776. doi:10.2307/20159167.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Bohra, K.A.; Pandey J. "Ingratiation toward strangers, friends, and bosses.". He Journal of Social Psychology 122: 217–222.
  4. ↑ Seiter, J.S. (2007). "Ingratiation and Gratuity: The Effect of Complimenting Customers on Tipping Behavior in Restaurants". Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (3): 478–485. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00169.x.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Treadway, Ferris, Duke, Adams, and Thatcher, D. C., G. R.,A. B., G. J., J. B. (2007). "The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors’ impressions of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation.". Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (3): 848–855. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.848.
  6. ↑ Godfrey, Debra K.; Jones, Edward E.; Lord, Charles G. (January 1986). "Self-Promotion Is Not Ingratiating". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (1): 106–115. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.106. PMID 3701568.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Gordon, R. A. (1996). "Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation.". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1 (71): 54–70. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.54.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Wu, K.; Li, C. & Johnson, D.E. (2011). "Role of self-esteem in the relationship between stress and ingratiation.". Psychological Reports 108 (1): 239–251. doi:10.2466/07.09.20.PR0.108.1.239-251.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Turnley, W. H.; Bolino, M.C. (2001). "Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management.". Journal Of Applied Psychology 82 (2): 351–360. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.3518.
  10. ↑ 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): 802–823. doi:10.1037/a0020013. PMC 2992828. PMID 20649367.
  11. ↑ 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 Judgements". Journal of Applied Social Psychology 40 (9): 2155–2169. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00654.x.
  12. ↑ Schlenker, Barry R (1980). Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole.