Flattery Get You

Will fomewDere

Styles and uses of ingratiation

E D W A R D E. J O N E S

Dale Carnegie, author of How to Win Friends and In- fluence People, was enraged at the implication that he would advocate using compliments just to get something out of people: "Great God Almighty ! ! ! If we are so con- temptibly selfish that we can't radiate a little happiness and pass on a bit of honest appreciation without trying to screw something out of the other person in return--if our souls are no bigger than sour crab apples, we shall meet with the failure we so richly deserve." The chapter contain- ing this observation (entitled "How to Make People Like You Instantly") is composed of anecdotes describing precisely how complimenters do gain advantages. The mes- sage is clearly stated in other chapters as well: success in one's chosen line of work may be dramatically furthered by practicing the arts of ingratiation along the way.

Carnegie is not the only advocate of "applied human re- lations" who has had trouble distinguishing between the legitimate and illegitimate in social behavior. In certain business and political circles, for example, "sincere" is used as a synonym for agreeable. Self-serving flattery is usually deplored--but when does "honest appreciation" become flattery? Everyone likes a cooperative, agreeable attitude, but where is the line between manipulative conformity and self-effacing compromise ? Many see great evil in ingratia- tion; Milton considered it hypocrisy, which he called "the only evil that walks invisible, except to God alone." Nor- man Vincent Peale, on the other hand, is much more tolerant; he considers pleasantness a mark of Christian virtue, from which peace of mind and prosperity flow naturally--and rightly.

Between these two extremes we find the charmingly honest Lord Chesterfield:

Vanity . . . is, perhaps, the most universal principle of human actions . . . if a man has a mind to be thought wiser, and a woman handsomer than they really are, their error is a comfortable one for themselves, and an innocent one with regard to other people; and I would rather make them my friends, by indulging them, than my enemies by endeavoring (in that to no purpose) to undeceive them. Adlai Stevenson was also willing to counsel moderation

with the remark, after being given a glowing introduction, "I have sometimes said that flattery is all right if you don't inhale."

What is custom and what is manipulation depends on time, place, the society, and often the individual. In those cultures where fulsome compliments are the norm, like the more traditional groups in Japan, anything less may be considered insulting. On the other hand, in many masculine circles in our own society praise is considered an affectation - - a man who pays compliments easily will be thought un- trustworthy or effeminate.

Most theories of social structure make the strong as- sumption that persons adjust their actions to what is gen- erally accepted and expected. Ingratiation can be defined as impression-management which stretches or exploits these expectations or norms. Acts of ingratiation are designed to increase an individual's attractiveness beyond the value of what he really can offer to his target. Ingratiation is the illegitimate---the seamy--side of interpersonal communi- cation.

BREAKING THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

But how do we determine when behavior is "legitimate" ? Relationships and associations involve, in normal circum- stances, an unstated contract between the actors. Different authorities describe this contract in different ways. Sociol- ogist Erring Goffman, in his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, emphasizes what he calls "ritual ele- ments" in social interaction. Goffman believes that not only does communication take place in its usual sense but the communicators also engage in a "performance"--each transmits and receives clues about his definition of the situation, his view of himself, and his evaluation of the other. Mutual adjustment occurs. Perhaps most important, the actors enter into a silent compact to help each other save face. Each becomes involved in "face-work"--give- and-take actions that smooth over potentially embarrassing threats, lend mutual support, and make for coherent and consistent performances. Each person has a "defensive orientation toward saving his own face and a protective orientation toward saving the other's face."

Within this frame of reference, the ingratiator may be seen as exploiting this contract while seeming to support it. He neither violates the contract openly, nor merely ful- fills it. Rather, he keeps sending out reassuring signals that he accepts the terms of the contract; but all the while he is actually working toward other goals.

20 TRANS-ACTION

To put it in slightly different terms: while relying on his target to stick to the rule that each should get out of a relationship what he brings to it, the ingratiator deliberately violates the rule himself in hopes of gaining a one-sided advantage. By definition, ingratiation occurs when a person cannot or does not want to offer as much as he hopes to get from the other, so he tries to make his "offer" appear more valuable by fancy packaging, misrepresenting how much he brings to the relationship, or advertising the effort or cost involved in his contribution. For instance, the worker may apply himself with greatest industry when he expects the supervisor to appear momentarily, he may try to convince others that his job is more difficult than it really is, or attempt to convince his boss that it requires considerable experience or specialized education.

While the dependent member of a relationship has more to gain from successful ingratiation than the more power- ful member, the latter may be also quite concerned about his image. It has often been noted that men rising in organizations tend to lose the spontaneity of old relation- ships and certainty about the loyalty and reliability of old colleagues. In spite of their increasing power, they are de- pendent on subordinates for signs of their own effective- ness and--perhaps as a way of hedging their bets--they will use ingratiating tactics to increase morale and per- formance.

Ingratiation raises important problems in human relations and self-knowledge. Much of our understanding of the world around us, and of ourselves, comes to us indirectly through the impressions we get from others. In par-

ticular, self-evaluation is to a large extent determined by how others judge us--personal qualities like friendliness, respectability, or moral worth can only be assessed by social means or mirrored in the reactions of others. Since ingratiation subverts this response, it is a threat to normal interaction and to reliable information. Like the traditional Hollywood producer and his yes-men, the executive sur- rounded by ingratiators may find himself adrift in a sea of uncertainties in which the only markers are the selfish interests of his advisers.

Ingratiation takes three general tactical forms. �9 OTHER-ENHANCEMENT. The ingratiator may try to elicit favorable reactions to himself by building up his target. At the extreme this involves obvious flattery; but there are also more subtle and indirect ways. The ingratiator may, for instance, concentrate on playing up the real strong points of the target, passing over or playing down the weak o n e s .

The ultimate design is to convince the target that the in- gratiator thinks highly of him. We tend to like those who like us. Sometimes, however, the tactics are not simple or direct. The higher the target's regard for himself, the less he needs the ingratiator's praise, and the more he accepts it as obvious and routine. Targets may prefer praise, as Lord Chesterfield puts it, "upon those points where they wish to excel, and yet are doubtful whether they do or not. �9 . . The late Sir Robert Walpole, who was certainly an able man, was little open to flattery upon that head . . . but his prevailing weakness was, to be thought to have a polite and happy turn of gallantry; of which he had un-

MAY / JUNE 21

doubtedly less than any man living . . . (and) those who had any penetration--applied to it with success." �9 CONFORMITY. People tend to like those whose values and beliefs appear similar to their own. Again, however, the relationship is not always direct. The ingratiator must seem sincere. His agreement must seem to be arrived at in- dependently, for no ulterior purpose. The tactical conformer might be wise to disagree on non-essentials in order to un- derline the 'qndependence" and value of his agreement on essentials. Agreement may be more valued if it seems to result from a change in opinion, made at some psychologi- cal cost, seeming to reflect a sincere change of conviction. �9 SELF-PRESENTATION is the explicit description or pres- entation of oneself in such a way as to become attractive to the target. This includes avoiding those characteristics the target might consider unpleasant, and subtly emphasizing those he might approve. The ingratiator walks a tightrope: he must boast without seeming to, since open boasting is frowned on in our society; he must "be" those things his target considers ideal for his situation, and yet appear sincere; he must seem admirable to the target and yet not a threat. He may have to ride a paradox--to be both self- enhancing and self-deprecating at the same time. This may not be difficult for someone with strong and obvious cre- dentials-someone widely acknowledged to be the best in his field may gain by not mentioning it, and instead ac- knowledging his all-too-human failings. But those with dubious credentials must be more blatant in advertising their strengths.

In sum, in each of these classes the main problem of the ingratiator is to seem sincere and yet impressive and en- gaging. It is also better if his tactics and stated opinions support some pet but not universally admired or accepted ideas of the target.

Little research has been done on ingratiation. To carry the inspection of the subject beyond anecdote and intuition, we conducted a number of experiments in which college student subjects were given strong or weak incentives to make themselves attractive to a particular target. Sometimes targets knew that the ingratiators were dependent on them for benefits and therefore had selfish reasons to be attract- ive; sometimes they did not know. In other experiments, subjects were exposed to ingratiating overtures by others and their impressions of these others were assessed.

One experiment, designed to test ingratiation tactics in an organizational hierarchy, used as subiects seventy-nine male volunteers from the Naval ROTC unit at Duke Uni- versity. Pairs of freshmen (low-status) and pairs of upper- classmen (high-status) were brought together in units of four. Each subject in the experimental condition (designed to promote ingratiation) was told that the purpose of the study was to find out if "compatible groups provide a better setting in which to test leadership potential than do in- compatible groups." The experimenter's instructions con- tinued: "For this reason I hope that you will make a

special effort to gain (the other's) liking and respect, al- ways remembering your position as commander (or sub- ordinate)." With the remaining subjects, in the control condition, emphasis was on the importance of obtaining valid information: "We are not especially concerned with whether you end up liking each other or not . . . . We are interested only in how well you can do in reaching a clear impression of the other person."

Another experiment used fifty male volunteers from the introductory psychology course at the University of North Carolina in what was supposed to be a game designed to simulate a business situation. An experimental accomplice, presented as a graduate student from the School of Busi- ness Administration, was introduced as the "supervisor," conducting and scoring the games. Actually, the "business games" were used to discover and measure ingratiation tactics which might be used to gain advantage in compa- rable professional or business contexts.

From the results of the experiments thus far completed there is no doubt that the average undergraduate behaves differently when he wants to be liked than when he wants only to be accurate in presenting himself socially.

Specifically, let us break down the results in terms of the three major types of ingratiation tactics. SELF-PRESENTATION. Generally, when instructed to try to make a good impression, our subjects played up their strong points and played down their weaknesses. (These varied according to the situation.) However, there were a few significant exceptions: �9 In a status hierachy, tactics vary according to the in- gratiator's position. In the ROTC experiment, the lower- classmen usually inflated only those qualities they con- sidered unimportant. Apparently they felt that to inflate the important qualities might make them seem pushy, and per- haps even threatening. Upper-classmen became more mod- est about all qualities. They felt secure, and their high status was obvious because of age and rank--therefore they did not feel it necessary to assert superiority. Modesty, we infer, helped them build up the impression of friendliness to- ward the lower ranks, which they considered desirable. �9 Who and what the target is influences how the ingratia- tor describes himself. In the business games, those trying to impress the supervisor favorably emphasized their com- petence and respectability rather than their geniality. "At- tractiveness" can, therefore, be sought by emphasizing what is more desired in a given situation--perhaps efficiency, perhaps compatibility, perhaps trustworthiness or integrity. If the ingratiator knows that the target is aware of his de- pendence, his tactics are apt to be subtle or devious. He may very well deprecate himself in those areas he does not consider important in order to build up his credibility in areas he does consider important. If, however, the in- gratiator believes the target is innocent enough to accept him at face value, he will be tempted to pull out all stops. CONFORMITY. Perhaps the clearest research finding was

2 2 TRANS-ACTION

that, to be successful, ingratiation must result in greater public agreement with the target's stated opinions. (Hamlet asked Polonius, "Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in the shape of a camel? . . . . By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed." "Methinks it is like a weasel." "It is backed like a weasel." "Or like a whale? . . . . Very like a whale.")

Such conformity was true of both high-status and low- status students--with some significant differences. The low status freshmen conformed more on relevant than irrelevant items. Upper-classmen conformed more on the irrelevant than the relevant--presumably they were eager to appear good fellows, but not at the price of compromising any essential source of power or responsibility.

Further, as the business games showed, an ingratiator will cut the cloth of his agreement to fit the back of what is important to his target. If the target clearly values tact, cooperation, and getting along with others, the ingratiator will understand that the strategic use of agreement will probably result in personal advantage. Subjects were quick to reach this conclusion and to act on it, in contrast to their show of independence when the target appeared to be austerely concerned with the productivity of subordinates rather than the congeniality of their views.

When the ingratiator happens to agree closely with the target anyway, there is some evidence that too much agree- ment is deliberately avoided. Actually, agreement is almost never total. In most of the experimental cases of con- formity, the ingratiator's final stated view were a com- promise between his original opinion and that of his target. He might be described as avoiding extreme disagreement rather than seeking close agreement; nevertheless, the evi- dence is clear that expressed opinions are influenced by a desire to create a good impression. OTHER-ENHANCEMENT. In this tactical area the results were quite inconclusive. There was some evidence that low-status subjects, after being instructed concerning the importance of compatibility with their superiors, were more compli- mentary than when operating under instructions to be ac- curate. High-status subjects did not show this same tend- ency to flatter more under conditions stressing compati- bility. On the other hand, they were more inclined to view the low status complimenter as insincere in a final private judgment, when the instructions stressed compatibility. The low status subjects showed no such suspicions of their superiors.

THE BOUNDS OF VANITY

Our experiments have answered a few questions and posed many more which may be profitably studied. Among the more important questions raised: �9 Given the ethical barriers to deceit and social manipula- tion, what are the modes of rationalization or self-justifi- cation in ingratiation? How does the ingratiator keep his self-respect? Though our data consistently revealed dif- ferences between experimental (compatibility) and con-

trol (accuracy) conditions, we were unable to detect any intent to win favor, or the conscious adoption of attraction- gaining strategies. �9 How are power differences affected by ingratiation tactics ? Does ingratiation by the follower subvert or aug- ment the power of the leader ? �9 How precisely do the distortions of ingratiation affect our perceptions of ourselves and others? �9 What of the psychology of favor-giving as part of in- gratiation? When does it help and when does it hurt the ingratiator? Is it possible that sometimes targets will like us more if we let them do favors for us? Why might this be so?

There remains the problem of defining ingratiation. Microscopic examination of ingratiating behavior keeps revealing an evanescent "something" that in any given case can be identified under more familiar headings such as: social conformity, deference to status, establishing credibility. It is my contention, however, that the concept of ingratiation links together various kinds of communica- tive acts that would otherwise be separately viewed and studied. By recognizing that there is a strategic side to social interaction, we open to examination the forms in which one person presents his "face" to another, when that other occupies an important position in his scheme of things.

Perhaps by acknowledging that ingratiation is part of the human condition, we may bring its facets into the light of day. As psychologists, if not as moralists, we may in this vein, admire Lord Chesterfield's candor:

Vanity is, perhaps, the most universal principle of human actions . . . . If my insatiable thirst for popularity, applause, and admiration made me do some silly things on the one hand, it made me, on the other hand, do almost all the right things that I did . . . . With the men I was a Proteus, and assumed every shape to please them all: among the gay, I was the gayest; among the grave, the gravest; and I never omitted the least attention to good breeding, to the least offices of friendship, that could either please or attach them to me . . . .

Edward E. Jones is professor of psychology at Duke University. A former editor of the Journal of Personality, he is currently working on a social psychology textbook, continuing research on ingratiation, and working on the implications of causal attribution in the way people perceive each other. This article was developed from Professor Jones' book, Ingratiation, published by Appleton-Century-Crofts.

MAY/JUNr 23