Self-Monitoring, Impression Management, and Interpersonal Evaluations

When Physical Disabilities Are Not Liabilities: The Role of Applicant and Interviewer Characteristics on Employment Interview Outcomes

“…In the current study, participants clearly were affected by the job candidate's disability status. Consistent with some of the existing literature, the resulting ratings advantaged the job candidate with a physical disability (e.g., Cesare et al, 1990;Christman & Slaten, 1991;Gerstein et al, 1984). The job candidate with a disability received more favorable trait, hiring, and salary ratings than did the job candidate without a disability, even though both job candidates' qualifications were equivalent.…”

“…Unfortunately, this gap in the disability literature has yet to be filled. To date, all studies investigating interview rating differences between persons with and without disabilities have kept the quality of interviewees' responses constant (Cesare, Tannenbaum, & Dalessio, 1990;Christman & Slaten, 199 1;Gerstein, Ginter, & Graziano, 1984;Krefting & Brief, 1976;Scheuerle, Guilford, & Garcia, 1982). In applied settings, however, it is unrealistic to assume interviewees will not differ in terms ofthe quality of their responses to interviewers' questions.…”

Helping: The Influence of Anticipated Social Sanctions and Self‐Monitoring

“…The present study was not designed to resolve issues conceming the psychometric stmcture of the Self-Monitonng Scale However, the data closely follow the pattem predicted by Snyder in several statements regarding this scale and concept (1974,1979,1983) Persons sconng high on the scale appeared to be more concemed with maximizing the benefits of a particular course of action than did persons who scored low Despite the fact that it is compnsed of some clearly disparate elements, it then may be that Snyder's scale captures a molar construct which transcends Its component parts And it would certainly appear that a major part of this constmct is the tendency to maximize social outcomes through attention to social information Pfcrhaps this is most clearly shown by the compansons of high and low self-monitonng persons to the lectures High self-monitonng persons were more likely to volunteer to help in the presence of information indicating that there were social rewards for doing so In the absence of such rewards, far fewer of them offered help Low self-monitonng persons, on the other hand, did not offer help more frequently under conditions of maximum reward They either appeared to have been indifferent to information about social rewards or behaved contrary to this information Several additional issues are left unanswered by our results First, it is unclear whether helpers attend more to costs or rewards pnor to making their decision to help Both of these elements were included in the lecture Additional research is needed to determine whether high self-monitonng persons were attending to the costs of helping, the costs of not helping, the rewards for helping, or the rewards for not helping Next, it IS not clear whether costs and rewards are more cognitively salient to high versus low self-monitonng persons or whether low self-monitormg persons simply choose to ignore these consequences Third, rates of helpmg for both high and low self-monitonng persons may vary as a function ofthe person needing assistance Handicapped persons, such as those portrayed in the present study, may activate atypical motivational processes resulting in alterations to the perceiver's usual cost-reward analyses (Gerstein et al , 1985) Finally, the nature of our task may have minimized the expected costs for both helping and not helping All of the potential helpers could successfully complete the task (l e , read to the vision impaired) and hence would not be embarrassed by failure Nor were there other significant personal nsks for helping The costs for not helping were also minimized because helpers were to be part of a pool of volunteers Thus, our results may be restricted to situations having these charactenstics Kerber (1984) has raised the interesting possibility that persons who vary in their tendency to behave altmistically may also vary in their tendency to perceive rewards and costs m the same helping situation He reports that persons who score high on measured altmism are those most likely to perceive helping as most rewarding and least costly Kerber's data are not directly comparable to ours However, they too show that helping IS the result of an interaction between personality and situational vanables This interaction, in tum, determines the motivation to act Taking these issues into consideration and presuming that further research supports our observations, it would seem that under the nght conditions of social pressure high self-monitonng persons may prove to be just as socially responsible as their "principled" low self-monitonng counterparts There is an irony m this The egoism of high self-monitormg persons-their interest in maximizing social outcomes-causes them to attend to other persons Perhaps because of thi...…”

Teachers’ Beliefs About Administrators and Parents of Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Students

“…Therefore, it would appear that the unfavorable labels that have been used to classify handicapped students and have been found to stigmatize them (Gerstein, Ginter, & Graziano, 1985;Kleck, Buck, Goller, London, Pfeiffer, & Vukcevic, 1968) also stigmatize their parents.…”