Impression Management: Verbal vs Nonverbal Information; Cloak of Incompetence; Everyday Applications

Daily life is framed as impression management: we’re constantly shaping how others perceive us during interactions.
The dramaturgical perspective: interactions involve information we provide to others and information we receive from others, plus our interpretation of that information.
Interpretation can change meaning: e.g., having a gun could imply being attacked or simply wearing a Halloween costume. This interpretation, combined with received information, creates an impression.
There are two kinds of information to pay attention to: information from others and information we provide (and how we interpret both).

Type I: Verbal aspects of conversation
- The obvious, intentional, controllable parts of communication.
- We can usually say what we mean and adjust our words to convey meaning (ability to say what we mean most of the time).
Type II: Nonverbal aspects of communication
- Nonverbal behavior is the focus here.
- Nonverbal cues are usually considered unintentional and not fully controllable.
- Nonverbal is often treated as a check on the verbal: does what someone does align with what they say?
The point is to attend to both types of information for a fuller understanding of the impression being formed.

Nonverbal cues are observed about someone, and we use them to assess credibility and consistency.
This check on type I (verbal) behavior helps us evaluate whether what someone says aligns with how they act.
Conceptions of lying often involve expectations about facial expressions or gaze, but the speaker notes that these cues are varied and not universal indicators.

Inconsistency between verbal messages and nonverbal cues is a key signal people use to judge credibility.
There are broad ideas about how liars behave (often discussed in popular culture), but the actual cues can be nuanced and not always reliable.

The “cloak of incompetence” is the idea that people sometimes deliberately present themselves as less competent to shape impressions.
Core assumption: people typically want to leave a good impression, but there are strategic reasons to appear not very capable in some contexts.
The concept covers multiple strategies:
- Avoidance techniques: deliberately staying out of situations where you might be asked to perform or reveal capabilities.
- Performance techniques: actively demonstrating incompetence to discourage questions or requests (making it clear you’re not a reliable resource in that area).
- Downplaying abilities: verbally underselling oneself to prevent being singled out for tasks (e.g., IT help).
- Denial of abilities: pre-emptively claim that a skill isn’t within your domain or interest.
The idea recognizes that impression management can involve both presenting competence and, at times, self-deprecation or misrepresentation to control social interactions.

The speaker provides a personal example to illustrate downplaying competence:
- Although they can fix many computer problems, they avoid being known as the go-to person for IT.
- They explicitly say, in a way that signals incompetence, that IT isn’t really their thing and that they don’t want to be seen as the person to call for computer fixes.
This illustrates how someone might curate others’ expectations to avoid additional responsibility or scrutiny.

Job interviews and professional settings: impression management often aims to present a favorable image; sometimes people use the cloak of incompetence to steer inquiries away from them in certain domains.
Everyday interactions: nonverbal cues can reveal or conceal credibility; people continuously read others’ behavior for consistency and reliability.
The balance between verbal and nonverbal signals shapes how others judge someone’s character, honesty, and capability.

Avoidance techniques: staying out of situations where you might be asked to perform; reduces exposure to risk of being evaluated as incompetent.
Performance techniques: demonstrating incompetence strategically to deter requests for tasks you don’t want to do; could involve explicit or implicit signaling.
Verbal downplaying: repeatedly framing a task as not your strength to manage expectations.
Ethical and practical implications:
- Deception risk: intentionally presenting as less capable can mislead others about your true abilities.
- Reputation management: successful manipulation of impressions can have long-term consequences for trust and reliability.
- Real-world relevance: understanding these dynamics helps in designing job interview strategies, team workflows, and interpersonal negotiations.

The speaker hints at a future lecture focusing on the broader nonverbal aspects of conversation, indicating that the current discussion is a precursor to a deeper dive into how nonverbal cues operate in talk and interaction.
The distinction between verbal and nonverbal information sets up a framework for analyzing everyday communication and future coursework on conversation.

Impression management is a daily, ongoing process in all interactions.
Information consists of what is given by others and what we interpret; interpretation shapes the impression.
Verbal (Type I) vs nonverbal (Type II) information: both are essential; nonverbal cues often function as credibility checks on verbal messages.
Inconsistency between what is said and how one behaves can signal unreliability or deception, though cues to lying are not universal.
The cloak of incompetence describes strategies to appear less capable to influence social and professional interactions, including avoidance, deliberate demonstration of incompetence, or downplaying abilities.
Personal example of downplaying IT skills illustrates how individuals manage impressions to avoid unwanted tasks while navigating social expectations.
The discussion foreshadows a broader exploration of conversation, including nonverbal aspects, in upcoming lectures.

Note: The transcript ends mid-sentence, indicating the speaker did not finish the last thought about their example or slide content.