Admissions interviews provide something that grades and aptitude tests cannot fully offer: personal interaction. They allow institutions to explore applicants’ motivation, communication skills, programme fit, and interpersonal competencies. But interviews also create an obvious challenge: candidates know that they are being evaluated — and therefore try to present themselves in the best possible light. Research refers to these behaviours as impression management, or IM.
A key question is therefore: Does the interview reward relevant competencies — or simply the ability to create a convincing impression?
This is particularly important in international admissions, where interviews should be valid, fair, culturally sensitive, and acceptable to applicants. Research suggests that:
- impression management is common in selection interviews, but more impression management is not automatically better;
- honest self-promotion can provide relevant information and improve interview ratings, while deceptive impression management is not a reliable route to success;
- structured interviews can reduce the influence of IM tactics on ratings; and
- cultural differences in self-presentation should not be confused with differences in competence.
Most of the research discussed below comes from employment interviews. The findings cannot simply be transferred one-to-one to higher education admissions, but they provide useful insights into the social and diagnostic processes involved in interviews.
What is impression management?
Impression management includes behaviours through which people try to influence how others perceive them. Researchers distinguish between honest and deceptive forms.
Honest impression management
Applicants present themselves positively while remaining truthful. For example, they may:
- highlight relevant achievements and skills;
- explain how their experience matches the programme;
- emphasise genuine similarities with the institution;
- provide context for a mistake or weakness; or
- explain what they learned from a difficult experience.
Deceptive impression management
Applicants distort the available information. They may:
- exaggerate their achievements;
- invent experiences;
- conceal relevant problems;
- deny responsibility for mistakes; or
- express insincere agreement or appreciation.
Both forms aim to create a positive impression. But they provide interviewers with very different kinds of information. Honest impression management can make relevant experience more visible, whereas deceptive impression management can undermine the accuracy of the assessment (Bourdage et al., 2018).
What does the research tell us?
1. Honest self-promotion can be useful
An interview is not a neutral conversation. Candidates are expected to explain why they are suitable. A person who can present their actual achievements and experiences clearly demonstrates that they understand the requirements, can identify relevant examples, reflect on their own experience, and communicate their qualifications effectively.
Research generally shows a positive relationship between self-focused impression management — particularly honest self-promotion — and interview ratings. This does not necessarily mean that interviewers are being manipulated. Honest self-promotion can help them obtain relevant information that might otherwise remain hidden (Peck & Levashina, 2017).
2. More self-promotion is not always better
Candidates should not conclude that they simply need to promote themselves as strongly as possible. A study conducted by Robie et al. (2020), based on 693 high-fidelity interviews, found a nonlinear relationship: honest impression management was associated with better interview performance only up to a certain point. Beyond that point, additional self-presentation became counterproductive. Too much self-promotion may sound repetitive, exaggerated, or insufficiently sensitive to the interview situation.
3. Deception is not a reliable route to interview success
A meta-analysis by Ho et al. (2021) found that deceptive IM was, on average, effectively unrelated to interview ratings. No significant differences were found according to the type of deceptive IM tactic or gender.
Deception may occasionally remain undetected or even help in a particular situation. But across studies, it is not a consistently successful interview strategy. In a later cross-cultural study of asynchronous video interviews, extensive image creation was negatively associated with interview performance (Arseneault & Roulin, 2024).
Does interview structure reduce impression management?
Structure does not prevent candidates from managing impressions. However, structure can reduce the extent to which candidates receive better ratings through strategic presentation alone. In an experimental study, participants completed both traditional, low-structure questions and more highly structured interview questions. They were assessed once under instructions to answer as honestly as possible and once under instructions to behave as they would as applicants. Participants improved their ratings in the applicant condition, but the improvement was larger for traditional questions than for highly structured questions (Bill et al., 2024).
Particularly relevant elements of structure include:
- questions derived from a requirements analysis;
- comparable core questions for all candidates;
- questions that elicit specific behavioural examples;
- clearly defined competencies;
- behaviourally anchored rating scales; and
- trained interviewers.
Interviewer behaviour also matters
Interviewers are not passive recipients of self-presentation. Their own behaviour influences the interview situation and the way candidates respond. A qualitative study by Bill and colleagues (2024) suggests that approachability, responsiveness, interest, and respectful interaction can create positive affect and encourage predominantly honest self-presentation. By contrast, perceived distance, inappropriate questions, an unnecessarily strong demonstration of power, or the feeling of being treated unfairly were associated with negative affect and, in some cases, deceptive impression management.
A respectful interview is not only better for the candidate experience. It may also help institutions obtain more relevant and honest information.
What about cultural differences?
For international admissions, cultural differences in self-presentation are particularly relevant — but also prone to stereotyping. A study involving 582 participants from ten countries — India, Canada, South Africa, Poland, Spain, Iran, Germany, Chile, the Philippines, and China — examined impression management in asynchronous video interviews conducted in English. There were differences between countries in the use of IM tactics, but they were relatively small. Country-level cultural dimensions — the GLOBE dimensions of uncertainty avoidance, power distance, humane orientation, performance orientation, in-group collectivism, assertiveness, gender egalitarianism, and future orientation — explained only between 1% and 7% of the variance in IM tactics, while variation within countries was substantial.
Across all ten countries, honest tactics were more common than deceptive tactics. Honest self-focused impression management was positively associated with interview performance, whereas extensive deceptive image creation was negatively associated with performance (Arseneault & Roulin, 2024).
The study has important limitations: participants completed a simulated asynchronous interview for a management position, and everyone had to respond in English. Its results should therefore not be interpreted as universal evidence. Nevertheless, the findings do not support the use of nationality as a proxy for honesty, modesty, or effective self-presentation.
International interview panels should instead consider that:
- direct self-promotion may feel more natural to some candidates than to others;
- modesty should not automatically be interpreted as low competence;
- verbal confidence should not automatically be interpreted as high suitability;
- an interview conducted in a foreign language may limit a candidate’s ability to present relevant experiences; and
- culturally familiar communication styles may be easier for interviewers to recognise and reward.
The fair response is not to adjust ratings according to cultural stereotypes. It is to use clear criteria, comparable questions, and calibrated interview panels.
What does this mean for higher education admissions?
Institutions cannot — and should not — try to eliminate all impression management. Applicants should be allowed to explain their motivation, describe their achievements, and demonstrate their strengths. The goal is therefore not to prevent self-presentation, but to ensure that interview ratings are based on relevant evidence rather than confidence, charm, or familiarity alone. Several measures can help.
1. Start with a requirements analysis
Before developing interview questions, institutions should clarify:
- Which competencies are relevant for success in the programme?
- Which of these competencies can be assessed meaningfully in an interview?
- Which are better assessed through grades, aptitude tests, or practical tasks?
- Which observable behaviours indicate stronger or weaker performance?
This prevents interviews from becoming broad conversations about vaguely defined “fit”.
2. Ask comparable core questions
All applicants should answer the same or equivalent core questions. Follow-up questions may still be necessary, but they should be based on predefined rules and serve the same diagnostic purpose for all candidates. This supports comparability without making the interview impersonal.
3. Ask for concrete evidence
Questions should encourage candidates to describe specific experiences, decisions, and behaviours. For example:
Tell us about a situation in which you had to work with people who held very different perspectives. What did you do, and what was the result?
Concrete examples make it easier to evaluate what the candidate actually did, rather than how convincingly they describe themselves in general terms.
4. Assess evidence — not presentation quality alone
Interviewers should distinguish between:
- the relevance and quality of the example;
- the behaviour demonstrated;
- the candidate’s reflection on the experience; and
- the fluency or confidence of the presentation.
Communication skills may, of course, be a legitimate admissions criterion. But if they are assessed, they should be defined explicitly rather than influencing every rating implicitly. This is particularly important when candidates are interviewed in a second language.
5. Train and calibrate interviewers
Interviewers should be trained to:
- apply the assessment criteria consistently;
- use behaviourally anchored rating scales;
- avoid overvaluing confidence or charisma;
- distinguish relevant evidence from polished presentation; and
- recognise possible cultural and linguistic influences.
Calibration is especially important when several faculty members or admissions professionals participate in the process.
6. Use multiple perspectives
Multiple assessors can reduce the influence of one interviewer’s personal impressions.
Multiple Mini-Interviews take this logic one step further: candidates complete several focused stations with different tasks and assessors. This provides multiple opportunities to demonstrate relevant competencies and reduces reliance on one decisive conversation. MMIs do not eliminate impression management. But their structured and multi-perspective design can make it more difficult for one polished performance or one negative first impression to dominate the final decision.
7. Do not turn interviewers into lie detectors
Interviewers should be aware of impression management, but they should not try to identify deception based on nervousness, eye contact, body language, or supposed inconsistencies alone. Research shows that even professional interviewers often struggle to distinguish honest from deceptive impression management accurately. Experience alone does not necessarily solve the problem (Roulin et al., 2015). The better response is to improve the assessment process:
- ask structured questions and use standardised follow-up questions;
- request concrete examples and evaluate candidates using predefined criteria; and
- compare information across different assessment components and involve several assessors where possible.
Takeaway: Not less impression management, but better assessment
Impression management is not a marginal phenomenon, and it is not automatically evidence of dishonesty. The research suggests four central conclusions:
1. Honest self-presentation can provide useful information
Candidates should be able to explain their actual achievements, motivation, and experience.
2. More self-promotion is not automatically better
Excessive or deceptive self-presentation is not a consistently successful strategy and can become counterproductive.
3. Structure reduces the influence of presentation skills alone
Standardised questions, clear criteria, and trained assessors make it harder to succeed through impression management without providing relevant evidence.
4. International panels should avoid cultural shortcuts
Modesty, confidence, and verbal fluency should not be used as simple proxies for suitability.
Fair selection does not require the unrealistic expectation that candidates will stop managing impressions.
It requires interviews that allow candidates to present relevant evidence — while helping interviewers distinguish that evidence from confidence, charm, and presentation style.
Further reading
Arseneault, R., & Roulin, N. (2024). Investigating impression management use in asynchronous video interviews across 10 countries. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 32(3), 461–477.
Bill, B., Melchers, K. G., Steuer, J., & Eisele, E. (2024). Are traditional interviews more prone to effects of impression management than structured interviews? Applied Psychology, 73(3), 1309–1330.
Bill, B., Schmitz-Wilhelmy, A., Heinzelmann, R., & Melchers, K. G. (2024). How do situational cues influence honest and deceptive impression management in selection interviews? A grounded theory study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 39, 1427–1447.
Bourdage, J. S., Roulin, N., & Tarraf, R. (2018). “I (might be) just that good”: Honest and deceptive impression management in employment interviews. Personnel Psychology, 71(4), 597–632.
Ho, J. L., Powell, D. M., & Stanley, D. J. (2021). The relation between deceptive impression management and employment interview ratings: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 53(2), 164–174.
Peck, J. A., & Levashina, J. (2017). Impression management and interview and job performance ratings: A meta-analysis of research design with tactics in mind. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 201.
Robie, C., Christiansen, N. D., Bourdage, J. S., Powell, D. M., & Roulin, N. (2020). Nonlinearity in the relationship between impression management tactics and interview performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(4), 522–530.
Roulin, N., Bangerter, A., & Levashina, J. (2015). Honest and deceptive impression management in the employment interview: Can it be detected and how does it impact evaluations? Personnel Psychology, 68(2), 395–444.
