Ingratiation
Ingratiation
Ingratiation refers to behaviors that one enacts in order to be liked by another person. There are many tactics to accomplish this. First, we can show interest in another person by asking questions, paying attention, and singling out the person to make him or her feel special. Second, we can do favors or help or assist a person. Third, we may show support and loyality. Fourth, we can smile and be friendly, cheerful, and positive. Fifth, we can directly express admiration by flattering people and telling them what we like or admire about them. Sixth, we can create sympathy by talking about things we have in common with someone.
Any behavior that potentially has the effect of enhancing one’s likeability and that is enacted for this reason can be seen as an instance of ingratiation. So, the same behavior (e.g., helping a friend to study for an exam) can be an instance of ingratiation (if you want to borrow the friend’s car later on) or not (if you are just being helpful), depending on the motive.
Different research paradigms have been used to study how people ingratiate themselves and what the effects are. For instance, when looking at the ingratiator’s part, the researcher may instruct participants interacting with someone to make the other person like them, and then examine how they behave. Looking at the target’s end, the researcher may expose participants to an ingratiating actor and examine if they like this person or are easily influenced by him or her, compared with control conditions (e.g., a noningratiating actor, or participants observing the same behavioral episode directed at someone else).
In his seminal book on ingratiation, Edward Jones (1964) noted that the goal of ingratiation is typically instrumental: We ingratiate ourselves to people because we want to influence their behavior in some way (e.g., get a date, borrow money, get a raise, get a good grade). Thus, ingratiation is a strategy for social influence, and it is typically used quite a lot by salespeople. Because people generally want something from people who have more power or status, the typical example of ingratiation is a lower-status person flattering a higher-status person. This type of ingratiation is recognized very easily by observers because the dependence of the ingratiator alerts them to the possibility of ulterior motives.
During the era of slavery this instrumental motive for ingratiation occurred among black slaves who acted in a subservient manner, expressing agreement with white authority figures (called tomming, after the character Uncle Tom from the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin ) in order to receive more lenient treatment (e.g., less physically demanding duties) in the hope that eventually they might be watched less closely and be able to escape. Similarly, in a work environment an ambitious employee may act very servile and conforming with respect to superiors in order to be liked and perceived as unthreatening by them, so that eventually he or she can usurp a superior’s position. In instances like these, as in cases of toadying, the ingratiator is quite aware of his or her goals and the best possible ways to achieve them, and he or she may even have a long-term plan that is carried out with great sophistication.
Often, though, when people ingratiate themselves they are not aware of it. Many instances of ingratiation are unconscious, so people probably ingratiate a lot more than they think. Also, the target of the ingratiation is very often not aware of what is going on; whereas observers tend to quickly notice when ingratiation occurs, targets of ingratiation are less suspicious. So, the effects of ingratiation are generally as intended: The target likes the ingratiator, and is more inclined to do favors for the ingratiator. The ingratiator may not be aware of his own insincerity either, and may get away with the feeling that he and the target get along very well. E. E. Jones called this the “autistic conspiracy”: Both ingratiator and target are not fully aware of the hidden agenda in their interaction (the ingratiator who wants something; the target who is happy to be flattered, satisfying his or her self-enhancement motive), and they simply feel good because they both get what they want. Neither of them is very motivated to look more critically at the interaction.
In addition to instrumental motives (i.e., influencing others’ behavior), there are other motives for ingratiation as well. It smoothens social interaction, as when we don’t tell people everything we think (e.g., a colleague has a terrible new hairdo). Also, if we get along well with people, they will like us and respond favorably to us, which in turn is good for our self-esteem.
SEE ALSO Hierarchy; Jones, Edward Ellsworth; Patronage; Social Relations; Stratification; Uncle Tom
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gordon, R. A. 1996. Impact of Ingratiation on Judgments and Evaluations: A Meta-Analytic Investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 54–70.
Jones, E. E. 1964. Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Vonk, Roos. 2002. Self-Serving Interpretations of Flattery: Why Ingratiation Works. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 515–525.
Roos Vonk