Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Impression management sits at the heart of social psychology's exploration of how we navigate our social worlds. You're being tested on understanding that humans aren't passive participants in social interactions—we actively construct and manage the identities we present to others. This connects to broader concepts like self-concept, attribution theory, social influence, and cognitive dissonance. The AP exam frequently asks you to identify which technique someone is using in a scenario or explain why a particular strategy might backfire.
Don't just memorize a list of techniques. Know what motivational goal each strategy serves—are we seeking to be liked, respected, feared, or helped? Understanding the underlying psychology of why people choose certain impression management tactics will help you tackle FRQ scenarios where you must analyze behavior and predict outcomes. These techniques also connect to research methods questions about demand characteristics—participants managing impressions even in studies.
These techniques prioritize social acceptance and relationship-building. The underlying mechanism is our fundamental need for belonging and the social rewards that come from others' approval.
Compare: Ingratiation vs. Conformity—both aim to increase likability, but ingratiation targets specific individuals through direct tactics while conformity involves broader behavioral alignment with groups. FRQs often present scenarios where you must identify which is operating.
These techniques aim to establish competence, status, or moral standing. The mechanism involves demonstrating value through achievements or character rather than seeking affection.
Compare: Self-Promotion vs. Exemplification—self-promotion says "look how skilled I am" while exemplification says "look how dedicated/moral I am." Both seek respect, but through different dimensions of evaluation (competence vs. character).
These techniques involve more extreme presentations—either projecting strength to control others or projecting weakness to elicit support. Both manipulate others' perceptions of the power dynamic.
Compare: Intimidation vs. Supplication—these are opposite ends of the power spectrum. Intimidation projects strength to control; supplication projects weakness to elicit care. Both are high-risk strategies that can damage long-term reputation if overused. If an FRQ asks about costs of impression management, these are your best examples.
These techniques focus less on others' perceptions and more on protecting one's own self-concept from threat. The mechanism involves managing attributions—controlling what success or failure "means" about us.
Compare: Self-Handicapping vs. Downward Social Comparison—both protect self-esteem, but through different mechanisms. Self-handicapping manipulates attributions for our own outcomes; downward comparison manipulates our reference point for evaluation.
These concepts describe the overarching processes that govern all impression management. They represent the cognitive systems that coordinate strategic self-presentation.
Compare: Self-Presentation vs. Impression Monitoring—self-presentation is the output (the performance), while impression monitoring is the feedback system (checking if it's working). High self-monitors excel at both; low self-monitors may present authentically but miss social cues about reception.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Seeking likability | Ingratiation, Conformity |
| Seeking respect/competence | Self-Promotion, Exemplification |
| Power manipulation | Intimidation, Supplication |
| Self-esteem protection | Self-Handicapping, Downward Social Comparison |
| Cognitive processes | Self-Presentation, Impression Monitoring |
| High-risk strategies | Intimidation, Supplication, Self-Handicapping |
| Workplace-relevant | Ingratiation, Self-Promotion, Exemplification |
| Connected to attribution theory | Self-Handicapping, Self-Promotion |
Which two impression management techniques both aim to increase likability but operate at different levels (individual vs. group)?
A student loudly announces they didn't study before an exam. Which technique are they using, and what attributional goal does it serve?
Compare and contrast self-promotion and exemplification—what type of respect does each seek, and what are the risks of each?
An employee always agrees with their supervisor's opinions and frequently compliments their ideas. Identify the technique and explain why it might backfire if perceived as insincere.
FRQ-style: A manager wants to be seen as both competent and likable by their team. Which combination of impression management techniques would you recommend, and what potential conflicts might arise between these goals?