Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model

In “Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model”, authors Leary and Kowalski seek to bring some cohesiveness to the divergence of literature surrounding impression management. They do so by constructing a model that comprises message motivation and message construction. These two constructs, they insist, unify the variety of research perspectives concerning self-promotion.

To apply, ex post facto, a unifying model to works not intended to be cohesive immediately runs the risk of finding relationships among various pieces of research that the researchers themselves did not find, and may not agree are legitimate. The process presupposes commonality of definitions, and broadens applicability of specific research findings by relating them to previously unrelated populations. The value of the unifying model, however, lies in extraction of overarching principles that gives readers tools for evaluating and understanding communication behavior.

Leary and Kowalski immediately restrict their consideration of literature to that which defines impression management in a way that matches their own: “the process by which individuals attempt to control the impressions others form of them.” (Leary & Kowalksi, p 34). Having done this, they define two component processes: impression motivation and impression construction.

Surprisingly, although they acknowledge a third component, impression monitoring, they do not adequately incorporate it into their model, which is disappointing. This may result from the lack of research in that area (p 37) and the authors’ predisposition toward simplicity (p35)

The authors’ segregation of impression motivation from impression construction is very useful, and consistent with psychological models that segregate motivation from behavior. As the authors themselves point out, their distinction does not universally clarify and classify the research that they reviewed. The links between motivation and behavior are reflexive and reciprocal, and therefore distinguishing is difficult, particularly since the research they review was not performed with those distinctions in mind.

Leary and Kowalski’s review of the literature gave me a good overview of the research on impression management, and their model had made it an easier field for a neophyte to approach. Their systematic style, their accessible vocabulary, and their candor in admitting the limitations of their model made this review easy to approach and easy to apply. What remains to be seen is whether their model will provide a successful basis for additional research.

Impression management is something that I have often thought about not only in terms of evaluating the communication behaviors of socially prominent people (such as politicians, employers, etc.), but also in terms of my own conscious and unconscious impression management. This article has prompted a self-evaluation in terms of my motivations and construction behaviors. Although I have a reputation among my friends as a “laid-back” person who has demonstrated little concern for the opinions of others, that reputation in itself is nurtured by my own impression management behaviors.

I have also considered the information in the article as it applies to my teen-age children, who attempt impression management in an effort to shape their public self, even though they may not fully know their private self.

Finally, the article has prompted some questions in my mind about impression management in computer-mediated communication, and I intend to explore relevant research on that topic.

Works Cited

Leary, M., & Kowalski, R. (1990). Impression Management: A Literature Review. Psychological Bulletin, 197, pp. 34-47.