





































Microsoft Word - GRHE-V1N1-p69


Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

69 
 

Original Paper 

Student Impression Management in the Classroom 

Julita Haber1* & Robert Tesoriero1 
1 Gabelli School of Business, Fordham University, New York, USA 
* Julita Haber, 441 E Fordham Rd, Bronx, NY, 10458, USA 

 

Received: April 4, 2018        Accepted: April 10, 2018       Online Published: May 16, 2018 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v1n1p69          URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v1n1p69 

 

Abstract 

With the growing shift from lecture-style teaching methods to interactive and experiential group 

exercises, instructors need to know more about their students, such as their desired impressions, to 

adequately engage and support students’ social interactions. This study addresses this need by providing 

an overall understanding of the types of images that are important for students to project when 

interacting with others in a classroom. After a concise review of impression management literature and 

grounding our reasoning in cybernetic theory (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997) this study offers an insight of 

the positive impressions students desire to project in front of their peers and professors and the negative 

impressions students aim to avoid. With a two-part survey based on 269 responses, we measured 

students’ ranking of specific images and the effort level they exerted towards achieving or avoiding them. 

We offer suggestions of how these findings can be integrated into teaching for improved student learning 

and experiences.  

Keywords 

impression management, management education, impression motivation 

 

1. Introduction 

Impression management, which was anchored in self-presentation by Goffman (1973), involves a 

process of creating, maintaining or avoiding a desired image (Rosenfeld et al., 1995; Bozeman & Kacmar, 

1997). The trend for impression management studies, continues to be heavily tied into the interview 

process (for example, Adkins, Russell, & Werbel, 1994; Wilhelmy, Kleinmann, König, Melchers, & 

Truxillo, 2016; Roulin, Bangerter, & Levashina, 2014) and more recently into online interactions 

(Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011). Searches in pedagogical publications provided a scant number of studies 

that examined students’ impression management in the classroom (e.g., Becker-Lindenthal, 2015; Rui & 

Stefanone, 2013) most of which predominantly focused on online education.   

With a growing shift in teaching methods from lecture-style to interactive and experiential group 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

70 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

exercises instructors incorporate case analysis, group projects, interactive in-class exercises, advanced 

technology, and flipped classroom methods in college education (Farashahi & Tajeddin, 2018; Mazur, 

1993; Strayer, 2012). To adequately engage and support students in classroom interactions instructors 

should seek to develop a deeper understanding of students’ preferences and characteristics as a way of 

relating to student (Chory & Offstein, 2016).   

Arguably, colleges provide professors with limited information about students’ individual differences 

such as personality, attitudes, experiences, strengths, values, expectations, learning styles, and goals. 

Having this information might enable professors to structure more individualized and optimized teaching 

methods to enhance students’ learning. Today, not only do most instructors build their course outline 

ahead of students’ registration, they primarily rely on their intuition and selective prior experience to 

craft courses with little regard for the characteristics and individual differences of their particular 

students. While some instructors seek input from students about their individual expectations in the 

course (Spiegel, 2012) or use learning styles to customize content (Boyatzis & Kolb, 1997; Kolb, A. & 

Kolb, D., 2017), it is rare for faculty to explicitly inquire about personal self-images that students strive 

to make in class. 

Questions about the role of students’ self-images in a classroom are largely unanswered in the current 

literature of impression management (Bolino, Long, & Turnley, 2016). With the goal to identify ways of 

leveraging impression management in teaching for improved student learning experience. This paper 

aims to explore the role of students’ self-presentation motives in learning and the potential effects of 

impression management effort in face-to-face class interactions. 

The following research questions were formulated to guide the development of the study: 

1) What do we know about self- impressions that students strive to attain in class? 

2) How do students want to be perceived by their peers and, their professors? 

 

2. Purpose and Theoretical Framework 

2.1 Study Purpose  

Although it may not yet be feasible to gather and provide faculty with all the particular information about 

enrolled students, this study provides insight into impressions and self-presentations (Goffman, 1973) 

that are important to students when interacting in a classroom. Following a review of impression 

management literature and grounding the conceptual process in a theory, this study offers an insight of 

the positive impressions students’ desire to project in front of their peers and professors and the negative 

impressions students aim to avoid. Specifically, we measured students’ ranking of specific images and 

the effort level they exerted in making these impressions in front of peers and professors.  

2.2 Cybernetic Theory of Impression Management  

The theoretical reasoning for applying impression management into a classroom based on cybernetic 

theory (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997). Impression management had its dramaturgical onset, initially set by 

Goffman (1973), who compared the process of making impressions in human interactions by comparing 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

71 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

it to actors and targets—the audience. Cybernetic systems have three primary parts: a reference standard 

or a desired image goal that an actor strives to achieve (e.g., a person wants to be seen as friendly); 

feedback from the target whether the actor is perceived in light of the desired image (e.g., the target does 

not perceive the actor as friendly); and a comparator, which is the process by which a comparison is made 

between the feedback and the reference standard (e.g., actor evaluates target’s response and cues about 

being perceived as friendly).  

A comparator process is used to detect discrepancies between the reference standard and the target’s 

feedback to inform the actor of actions to take. There are three potential outcomes to this process: zero 

discrepancies, in which the individual does not have to perform corrective measures (e.g., target 

perceives the actor as friendly). Negative discrepancies, where the individual is not reaching their 

reference standard (e.g., the actor is seen as not friendly enough) and corrective measures are needed in 

order to minimize these discrepancies (e.g., the actor may engage in more friendly behavior), or the 

reference standard must be changed to reflect the feedback (e.g., the actor may agree to hold an image of 

being less friendly). Positive discrepancies, where the individual is exceeding the reference standard 

(e.g., the actor is perceived as too friendly), the discrepancies might be corrected, tolerated, or 

incorporated into the reference standard depending on the situation (e.g., the actor may decide to be less 

friendly or may accept the image of being overly friendly). 

Motivation for managing impressions can be understood as a function of perceived discrepancies 

between feedback received from the target and the reference goal (Argyle, 1988; Green & Welsh, 1988). 

If individuals perceive that their image, is being properly conveyed to those around them, then there is no 

need for them to take any corrective actions. When their image is being improperly conveyed, they will 

make corrective adjustments through the use of impression management tactics in order to alleviate the 

discrepancies. For example, when students sense that they are not being viewed as competent by other 

students, they may start an in-class discussion on a topic with which they are familiar with the intent of 

displaying their competence. To them, selecting a familiar topic is preferable to starting a discussion that 

they are unfamiliar with, even though they could have benefited more by learning about a new topic. 

Another way, they may decide to overly criticize a disliked topic. Such action is considered 

hypercriticism, a type of verbal behavior, used in impression management (Gibson & Oberlander, 2008). 

Depending on the context, individuals may select different targets and reference standards. In a 

classroom, desired impressions of students are typically influenced by peers and professors (Edwards, 

1992). A different impression maybe sought and emphasized towards students than professors. 

Impression management is a prevalent and vital component of every day social life including the 

classroom (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Students may actively pursue their desired images when driven by 

the perceived discrepancy in the eyes of peers and professors (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1996; Edwards, 

1992). Understanding students’ motivation to attain desired identities in a class should be an advantage 

for instructors looking to provide a more effective learning experience. Next, we describe the research 

methodology and data analysis. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

72 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Methodology 

The study was designed to include two cross-sectional self-report surveys. The first survey was 

conducted as a test pilot followed by a final survey, which details are described below.  

3.1 Test Pilot Design 

To identify what impressions are important for students, we first used an open-ended questionnaire pilot 

administered to 30 undergraduate sophomore students in the Northeast of the United States (U.S.) for 

extra credit (see Table 1). In an open ended questionnaire, they were asked to list the top five positive 

impressions they wanted for their peers and professors to have of them. We also inquired about the 

negative impressions they wanted to avoid projecting to their peers and professors. Together, responses 

from the four types of questions were grouped on the basis of synonyms provided by the Oxford 

dictionary shown in Table 2. Words that appeared most were used to anchor its category. Two coders 

were involved in identifying the five initial categories. The top five categories for each question were 

selected for inquiry in the final survey. 

 

Table 1. Test Pilot Survey Questions  

Please answer the following questions for a pilot research survey on impression management in the 

classroom.  

1.  Please list and rank the top 5 attributes that best reflect how important it is that your peers see you 

as. 

2.  Please list and rank the top 5 attributes that best reflect how important it is that your professors see 

you as. 

3.  Please list and rank the top 5 attributes that you are afraid of being perceived as by your peers. 

4.  Please list and rank the top 5 attributes that you are afraid of being perceived as by your professors. 

 

Table 2. Test Pilot: Categorized Impression Attributes by Word Count, N=30 

Positive Peer Impressions 

(sought) 

Positive Professor 

Impressions (sought) 

Negative Peer 

Impressions (avoided) 

Negative Professor 

Impression (avoided) 

INTELLIGENT: 

Intelligent (7),  

Smart (5), Wise  

INTELLIGENT: 

Intelligent (8),  

Smart (5), Analytical, 

Knowledgeable, Logical, 

Wise 

DUMB:  

Dumb (12) 

 

DUMB:  

Dumb (8), Careless (4), 

Ignorant (2), Illogical 

(2), Unprofessional (2), 

Foolish 

HARD-WORKING: 

Hard-Working (2), 

Ambitious, Conscientious, 

Diligent, Engaged, 

HARD-WORKING: 

Hard-Working (10), Diligent 

(4), Attentive (3), 

Conscientious (3), 

LAZY: 

Lazy (10) 

LAZY: 

Lazy (13), Tardy (2), 

Slacker, 

Not-Working-Hard 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

73 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Focused, Motivated Dedicated (2), 

Eager-to-Learn (2), Focused 

(2) 

FRIENDLY: 

Friendly (7), Agreeable 

(3), Outgoing (3), Helpful 

(2), Kind (2), 

Approachable, Caring, 

Empathetic, Easy-going, 

Good-Friend, Nice, 

Understanding 

FRIENDLY: 

Friendly (3), Kind (3), 

Agreeable (2), 

Communicative (2), Nice 

(2), Open (2), Outgoing (2), 

Caring, Compassionate, 

Extroverted, Personable 

MEAN: 

Mean (6), Rude (5), 

Aggressive (2), Angry (2), 

Abrasive, Conceited, 

Intimidating, Nasty, 

Unfriendly 

DISRESPECTFUL: 

Disrespectful (4), Rude 

(3), Mean (3), Selfish (2), 

Aggressive (2), 

Disruptive (2), Grumpy, 

Moody, Angry, 

Abrasive, Disagreeable, 

Jaded 

RELIABLE: 

Reliable (8), Loyal (5), 

Responsible (1), 

Trustworthy 

ENGAGED: 

Engaged (2), Aware, 

Contributor, Interested, 

Involved 

UNRELIABLE: 

Unreliable (5), Dishonest 

(4), Disloyal (2), 

Irresponsible (2), Careless, 

Flaky, Irrational, Liar, 

Secretive, Untrustworthy 

UNRELIABLE: 

Unreliable (4), 

Dishonest, Disloyal, 

Liar, Unhelpful 

FUNNY: 

Funny (10) 

ORGANIZED: 

Organized (6) 

ANNONYING: 

Annoying (2), 

Unprofessional (2), Silly (2), 

Lackadaisical, Nuisance, 

Weird 

UNMOTIVATED: 

Unmotivated (4), 

Uninterested (4), 

Unengaged (3), Bored 

(2), Irresponsible (2), 

Aloof, Disorganized, 

Unorganized, Tired 

OTHER OTHER  OTHER OTHER 

 

3.2 Final Survey Design 

Based on the pilot, the final survey first listed the five top impressions and asked participants to rank the 

impressions in the order of importance, that is, how important it is that their peers or professors view 

them as the listed item. This process was repeated for the impressions that students most wanted to avoid. 

The second section of the survey asked participants to indicate how much energy and effort they were 

willing to exert in order to be perceived by peers and professors, as each of the listed items. Again, we 

asked about impressions that participants desired to avoid. The level of effort exerted to attain or avoid 

these images was measured on a five point Likert scale, with one being the least amount of effort and 

energy, and five being the most.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

74 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.3 Population 

For the final survey, we asked 239 students enrolled in marketing courses and participating in the 

Marketing lab for extra credit. The racial background of respondents included 68% White, 14% Asian, 

12% Hispanic and 6% other. 63% of the prospective participants were women. The average grade point 

average (GPA) was 3.42 out of 4.0 with standard deviation of 0.32. The following GPA distribution 

contained 13% students with less than 3.0; 19% between 3.1 and 3.3; 27% between 3.4 and 3.5; 29% 

between 3.6 and 3.7; and 12% above 3.8.  

 

4. Data Analysis 

We first calculated the average rankings for all impressions displayed in Table 3. We focused on 

analyzing the top two images per target group. For peers, students showed that they want to be perceived 

as reliable with an average rank of 2.53 and friendly with 2.68. For professors, students most valued 

being seen as hard-working which had an average rank of 1.93 and intelligent with a rank of 2.60. On the 

other hand, while they wanted to avoid being seen by peers as annoying with an average rank 2.35 and 

unreliable with 2.86, students revealed that they most wanted to avoid being perceived by professors as 

disrespectful with 2.13 and unmotivated with 2.86.  

We also used ANOVA in SPSS to examine the association of GPA and gender with effort levels.  

Specifically, 15 out of 20 items (five categories x four scenarios) measuring effort levels turned out to 

be statistically different (p<.10) among students GPA groups. In addition,14 out of 20 effort level 

response items were statistically different (p<.05) between men and women. 

 

Table 3. Students’ Desired Positive and Negative Impressions (By Peers and Professors, N=237) 

Rank Average (Std. Dev) 

1 (lowest)-5 (highest) 

Effort Average (Std. Dev) 

1 (lowest)-5 (highest) 

Positive Peer Impressions 

Reliable: 2.53 (1.30) Reliable: 4.05 (1.12) 

Friendly: 2.68 (1.41) Friendly: 3.81 (1.18) 

Intelligent: 3.06 (1.35) Intelligent: 3.65 (1.13) 

Hard-working: 3.22 (1.42) Hard-working: 3.61 (1.23) 

Funny: 3.51 (1.37) Funny: 3.39 (1.27) 

Positive Professor Impressions 

Hard-working: 1.93 (1.15) Hard-working: 4.26 (1.00) 

Intelligent: 2.60 (1.27) Intelligent: 4.10 (1.08) 

Engaged: 2.79 (1.20) Engaged: 3.97 (1.14) 

Organized: 3.74 (1.15) Organized: 3.56 (1.24) 

Friendly: 3.94 (1.26) Friendly: 3.40 (1.20) 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

75 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Negative Peer Impressions 

Annoying: 2.35 (1.34) Unreliable: 3.97 (1.14) 

Unreliable: 2.86 (1.22) Annoying: 3.88 (1.23) 

Dumb: 2.97 (1.39) Dumb: 3.69 (1.23) 

Mean: 3.03 (1.49) Mean: 3.68 (1.31) 

Lazy: 3.79 (1.23) Lazy: 3.24 (1.32) 

Negative Professor Impressions 

Disrespectful: 2.13 (1.35) Disrespectful: 4.35 (1.04) 

Unmotivated: 2.86 (1.33) Unmotivated: 4.11 (1.10) 

Dumb: 3.07 (1.48) Dumb: 4.01 (1.10) 

Lazy: 3.28 (1.27) Unreliable: 3.99 (1.06) 

Unreliable: 3.66 (1.16) Lazy: 3.86 (1.12) 

 

5. Findings 

A number of interesting findings can be drawn. Intelligence or avoiding being seen as dumb not the top 

image that students are concerned with in the academic environment. Hardworking turned out to be the 

top positive image for professors and reliability for peers. While the perception of being unreliable serves 

as the second most avoided negative image by average rank for peer targets, it is the least avoided 

negative image when targeting professors. Avoiding being seen as unreliable by other peer students was 

more important than by professors. 

Our instrument allowed us to examine the relationship between desired images and effort. We compared 

average ranking and effort level for the five impressions in each section shown in Table 3. The results 

revealed on overall congruence in the average effort levels given to positive impressions and their 

average rank of desirability. Both positive peer and professor impressions aligned: the impression with 

the highest rank was also given the highest average effort level. With the lowest average rank of 1.99 the 

hard-working image was also top ranked of all positive impressions toward professors and was given 

most effort with the average of 4.26.  

A slight misalignment occurred for negative impressions with the unreliable image targeting both peers 

and professors alike. With an average rank of 2.86, unreliability was the second most avoided image in 

the eyes of peers and jumped to number one as the top average effort of 3.98. Interestingly, students 

showed top preference for not being seen as annoying according to the rank average but yet admitted to 

exerting most effort towards not being seen as unreliable. Unreliability also moved up to the fourth spot 

over lazy in the top negative images projected towards professors with an average effort level of 3.99. 

The findings indicate that avoiding this particular image takes relatively more energy than other negative 

impressions. The overall trend toward an alignment between image desirability and effort suggests the 

more individuals want to attain an image the harder they will try to get it.   



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

76 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

On average students were willing to expend a greater amount of effort on managing the positive 

impressions presented to their professors than their peers based on an overall average effort of 3.70 

toward peers and 3.86 toward professors. The same holds for managing negative impressions with 3.69 

toward peers and 4.07 toward professors. In summary, students claimed to spend more energy on 

managing self-impressions when targeting professors than peers and exerted even more effort on 

avoiding making negative impressions in front of professors. 

Lastly, GPA was positively related to the effort levels students devoted towards impression management 

suggesting that students with a higher GPA use more impression management than students with a lower 

GPA. Gender was associated with effort such that women indicated a higher willingness to manage 

desired impressions in the school environment.  

 

6. Discussion & Implication for Practice 

The above findings leave us with a number of important implications for teaching and pedagogical 

research. Evidence found in the alignment between average ranking of most items and effort (see Table 3) 

suggests all selected images are actionable and embrace some form of effort. We compared values to 

students’ desired impressions by integrating value research (Rokeach, 1968; Braithwaite & Law, 1985) 

which determined two types of values that people hold: instrumental (actively pursued) versus terminal 

values (static end-state). Images that students yearn to project are primarily instrumental in nature. With 

the exception of intelligence, where one can argue that it carries a certain static or terminal quality, all 

other attributes are considered instrumental and imply an ongoing activity and effort as part of the image 

formation. Finding for mostly instrumental value-type images among students enriches the motives 

aspects in the impression management research model (Leary & Kowalski, 1990) in the context of 

education. It also offers a practical application for management professors who can inquire about 

students’ instrumental values, which in turn can shed light into students’ self-presentation motives in 

class.   

6.1 Implications for Practice 

Overall, we entice faculty to consider impression management motives, goals, and effort levels in 

observing and supporting students’ interactions in a classroom. Suggestions include creating a suitable 

environment for students to easily attain their desired image goals in order to lessen reliance on 

impression management tactics and thus enhance their overall experience in class. Professors should 

design class activities that emphasize reliability among students especially in the first part of the semester 

when first impressions are formed. Introductory group projects with small and easy interdependent 

activities that require students to be dependent on each other could foster a sense of mutual reliability. 

With regard to the peer impression of being friendly, team activities provide ample opportunities for 

students to display friendliness. However, caution should be exercised here. Working on being seen as 

friendly may result in students exhibiting excessive agreeableness which has been positively associated 

with ingratiation tactics (Bourdage, Wiltshire, & Lee, 2015). Being too agreeable may hinder teammates 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

77 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

from discussing important controversial task-related issues and undermine ultimate group decisions. 

Professors should design and grade group activities that allow students to display friendliness without 

jeopardizing group outcomes. On the other hand, professors should also teach students how to portray 

friendliness while being assertive in contributing on debatable issues. For example, negotiation exercises 

could be graded on both the end result and attained perception of friendliness. 

A study of supervisors and subordinates found that witnessing ingratiation can increase one’s positive 

perception of people involved (Foulk & Long, 2016; Wayne, Kacmar, & Ferris, 1995). As such, faculty 

should be aware not to fall prey to this bias when observing students interacting with each other in class.  

We found that students mostly want to be perceived as hard-working by professors, even more so than as 

intelligent. Therefore, in order to increase student experience and satisfaction, they should be given 

opportunities to demonstrate working ethics to professors. We suggest assigning relatively small and 

easy tasks in a way that faculty can notice and evaluate students not only on knowledge or correctness but 

also on their effort.   

In addition, one of the reasons students participate in extra credit assignments is to be recognized for their 

effort by professors (Pynes, 2014). We recommend that extra credit participation should be studied as a 

viable impression management tactic aimed at cultivating students’ hard working image in the eyes of 

their professors. Chiaburu, Stoverink, Li, and Zhang (2013) found that extraverts engage more in 

citizenship behaviors when motived by impression management. Students also may participate more in 

extra credit assignments when motivated to appear as hard-working.  

Surprisingly, being annoying was the most rated attribute that students avoid in their interactions with 

peers. In other words, being sensitive to others and following acceptable social norms prevents one from 

being seen as annoying. In team projects, it is important to establish early on social norms of 

communication, goals, and expectations. Team charters can be used to explicitly outline norm 

expectations for teammate interactions. Professors should also emphasize cultural differences among 

students that can affect social norms, behaviors, and the perceptions of being annoying. 

Lastly, the most avoided negative impression involves the lack of respect toward professors. Students 

may not express their opinions or contradict professors when fearing to be regarded as disrespectful. For 

students who avoid disrespect above all other impressions, is imperative to explicitly encourage 

challenging knowledge-based arguments for the sake of learning. It is also important to have discussions 

in class about disrespect towards each other and how both groups attribute respect.  

 

7. Conclusion 

This study was designed with the intent of learning about impressions that are most valued by students, 

and the perceptions about themselves they fear most. We hope that the study would lead to a more 

effective teaching styles that align educational goals and criteria with desired student impressions. 

Although the study has a number of limitations (i.e., self-reported data) it embarks on a new path of 

leveraging impression management for enhanced student social interactions and learning. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

78 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Adkins, C. L., Russell, C. J., & Werbel, J. D. (1994). Judgments of fit in the selection process: The role of 

work value congruence. Personnel Psychology, 47(3), 605-623. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01740.x 

Argyle, M. (1988). Bodily communication. London: Methuen & Co. 

Becker-Lindenthal, H. (2015). Students’ impression management in MOOCs: An opportunity for 

existential learning? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2). 

Bolino, M. C., Long, D. M., & Turnley, W. H. (2016). Impression management in organizations: Critical 

questions, answers, and areas for future research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and 

Organizational Behavior, 3, 377-406. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062337 

Bourdage, J. S., Wiltshire, J., & Lee, K. (2015). Personality and workplace impression management: 

Correlates and implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 537. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037942 

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1997). Assessing individuality in learning: The Learning skills profile. 

Educational Psychology, 11(3-4), 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341910110305 

Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in 

organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 9-30. 

https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2669 

Braithwaite, V. A., & Law, H. G. (1985). Testing the adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 250-263. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.250 

Chiaburu, D. S., Stoverink, A. C., Li, N., & Zhang, X. (2013). Extraverts engage in more interpersonal 

citizenship when motivated to impression manage. Journal of Management, 41(7). 

Chory, R. M., & Offstein, E. H. (2016). Your professor will know you as a person: Evaluating and 

rethinking the relational boundaries between faculty and students. Journal of Management 

Education, 41(1), 9-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562916647986 

Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations. Academy of 

Management Review, 17, 238-274. 

Farashahi, M., & Tajeddin. M. (2018). Effectiveness of teaching methods in business education: A 

comparison study on the learning outcomes of lectures, case studies and simulations. The 

International Journal of Management Education (in press), 16(1), 131-142. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.01.003 

Foulk, T. A., & Long, D. M. (2016). Impressed by impression management: Newcomer reactions to 

ingratiated supervisors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1487-1497. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000146 

Gibson, B., & Oberlander, E. (2008). Wanting to appear smart: Hypercriticism as an indirect impression 

management strategy. Self and Identity, 7, 380-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860701668986 

Goffman, E. (1973). The presentation of self in everyday life. Woodstock, New York: The Overlook 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

79 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Press. 

Green, S. G., & Welsh, M. A. (1988). Cybernetics and dependence: Reframing the control concept. 

Academy of Management Review, 13, 287-301. 

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning 

in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2). 

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and 

two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34 

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual Series in Educational Innovation. Prentice Hall, 

Upper Saddle River, NJ. 

Pynes, C. (2014). Seven arguments against extra credit. Teaching Philosophy, 32(3), 150-153. 

https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil20144414 

Rokeach, M. (1968). A theory of organization and change within value-attitude systems. Journal of 

Social Issues, 24(1), 13-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1968.tb01466.x 

Rosenberg, J., & Egbert, N. (2011). Online impression management: Personality traits and concerns for 

secondary goals as predictors of self-presentation tactics on Facebook. Journal of 

Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01560.x 

Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in organizations: 

Theory, measurement, and practice. New York: Routledge. 

Roulin, N., Bangerter, A., & Levashina, J. (2014). Interviewers’ perceptions of impression management 

in employment interviews. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(2), 141-163. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2012-0295 

Rui, J., & Stefanone, M. A. (2013). Strategic self-presentation online: A cross-cultural study. 

Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.022 

Spiegel, A. (2012). Teachers’ expectations can influence how students perform. In Morning Edition, 

NPR. Retrieved from 

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/09/18/161159263/teachers-expectations-can-influe

nce-how-students-perform 

Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and 

task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-193. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4 

Wayne, S. J., Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1995). Coworker responses to others’ ingratiation attempts. 

Journal of Managerial Issues, 7(3), 277-289. 

Wilhelmy, A., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., Melchers, K. G., & Truxillo, D. M. (2016). How and why do 

interviewers try to make impressions on applicants? Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 313-332. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000046 

 


