The Impression Management Consequences of Hiding Effort Among Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Authenticity

Abstract

Hiding effort has become prevalent among adolescents; however, whether this behavior benefits or harms their social impression remains unclear. The study explored whether hiding effort is an effective impression management strategy to obtain high popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention from peers. Using hypothetical scenarios, Study 1 (N = 243) found that hiding effort led to lower popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention among adolescents. Study 2 (N = 176) replicated the findings of Study 1 and found that the hiding-effort adolescents did not realize these negative consequences. Furthermore, Study 2 revealed that authenticity mediated the effect of hiding effort on popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention. The findings provided theoretical and practical implications for educators and adolescents. Educators should foster environments where effort and authenticity are rewarded. Adolescents should understand the cost of hiding efforts from peers.

Keywords

Impression management hiding effort authenticity adolescents popularity

Introduction

Effort is an appreciated and admirable attribute to achieve success. Students are educated to exert continuous effort to achieve academic and interpersonal success. However, studies showed that when students entered secondary school, they downplayed their academic effort to their peers (Heyder & Kessels, 2017; Zhao & Heyman, 2018; Zook & Russotti, 2012). Hiding effort becomes prevalent among adolescents. Previous literature focused on the motivation and psychological benefits of showing low effort, to look cool/smart or avoid being taken as nerds/teachers’ pets (Heyder & Kessels, 2017; Lsane et al., 1999; Saidah et al., 2019). Little research investigated hiding effort from the perspective of impression management in adolescence. Adolescence is a critical period of identity formation (Erikson, 1994). The impression management strategy to gain peers’ social approval could facilitate identity formation and may continue in adulthood (Branje, 2022). It is necessary to clarify the impression management consequences of hiding effort in adolescents.

Impression Management in Adolescence

Impression management refers to the process by which individuals attempt to control the impressions others form of them (Goffman, 1959; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). According to Dramaturgical Theory, social interactions are conceptualized as theatrical performances in which individuals manage their impressions to control how they are perceived by others (Goffman, 1959). One major social interaction in adolescence is peer interaction which peaks in early adolescence alongside susceptibility to peer influence (Laursen & Veenstra, 2021; Meehan et al., 2024; Veenstra & Laninga-Wijnen, 2023). During interactions with peers, adolescents often engage in impression management to present an admirable and acceptable public self, aiming to gain peer acceptance (Juvonen & Murdock, 1993; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). They could try out their different identities based on the feedback from their peers (Ragelienė, 2016). Impression management facilitates adolescents’ formation of identity.

To make a positive impression to gain peer acceptance, adolescents engaged in different ways of impression management, such as mimicking popular adolescents’ behaviors, or adjusting behaviors to align with those of the peer group to gain acceptance (McHale et al., 2022). Self-enhancement strategy was often used to gain peer acceptance by promoting one’s achievement and competency (Rudolph, 2021). In the middle school context, effort is crucial for success, but the way effort is presented may affect the impression made. Adolescents believed that success with low effort suggested greater competence and made a more positive impression than success with obvious effort (Meijs et al., 2010; Zook & Russotti, 2012). Hiding effort becomes prevalent in adolescence.

Hiding Effort as an Impression Management Strategy

Hiding effort was defined as the intentional concealment of time and energy invested in school tasks (Jackson & Nyström, 2014; Juvonen & Murdock, 1995; Zhao & Heyman, 2018). Adolescents intentionally hide efforts from their peers mainly for two reasons. First, adolescents believed that effort and ability were compensatory (Covington & Omelich, 1979; Kun, 1977). Second, hiding effort could protect their self-worth (Ryan et al., 2013). When they succeed, hiding effort makes them seem more capable like effortless achievers. When they fail, they can attribute the failure to low efforts rather than low abilities (Heyder & Kessels, 2017; Juvonen, 2000). Previous research focused on the motivation and benefits of hiding efforts from the perspective of actors who hid efforts (Heyder & Kessels, 2017; Jackson & Nyström, 2014; Juvonen & Murdock, 1995); however, whether the observers who witness the hiding behavior share the same perception with the actors remains unclear. Therefore, the current study investigated the consequences of hiding effort from the perspective of observers and made comparisons with the actors’ perceptions.

The Effect of Hiding Effort on Adolescents’ Popularity, Likeability, Interpersonal Trust, and Cooperation Intention

Popularity and likeability are two related but distinct dimensions of peer acceptance in adolescence (van den Berg et al., 2020). Popularity refers to a dimension of power, prestige, or visibility, which measures an individual acceptance within group consensus, while likeability is more a personal preference and acceptance than popularity (Cillessen & Marks, 2011). Adolescents believed that hiding their efforts would enhance their perceived competence, making them socially central, followed, and trusted by peers (Zhang et al., 2018; Zook & Russotti, 2012). However, only a limited number of adolescents could get ahead of their peers to obtain popularity (Bravo et al., 2022; Cillessen & Marks, 2011). Many other adolescents hid efforts to convey equality and comradeship to obtain peers’ interpersonal trust and likeability (de Vries et al., 2020; Juvonen, 2000). Adolescents believed that peers were more likely to cooperate with them if they looked competent and smart (Tackett et al., 2022). Therefore, from the perspective of actors, the current study predicted that they believed hiding efforts would be positive to their impression management.

However, from the perspective of observers, they may not share the same perception as actors. First, hiding effort violated the honesty principle in communication. People appreciate honesty and authenticity in disclosure (Vijayakumar et al., 2020). Comparing those who hid information from others, people would even prefer those who authentically disclose negative information (Gino et al., 2020; John et al., 2016). Evidence indicated that honest disclosure, even showing one’s imperfections, was more attractive to gaining social support than hiding information (Luo & Hancock, 2020). Second, adolescents may mistakenly perspective-take their peers’ judgment on effort. Receivers favored self-presenters who attributed their success to hard work rather than to natural talent (Steinmetz et al., 2017). The current study hypothesized that from the perspective of observers, hiding effort might decrease the hiding-effort adolescents’ popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention, while from the perspective of actors, they might not notice the negative consequences.

The Mediating Role of Authenticity

Authenticity refers to one’s outer behavior congruent with one’s feelings and sense of self (Alchin et al., 2023). Adolescents become increasingly concerned about showing their true selves (Bailey et al., 2020). They want to act as the real themselves inside and display their true feelings (Thomaes et al., 2017). The fact that adolescents actively wrestle to achieve a sense of authenticity suggests that it is a developmental task and a value toward which they aspire to form identities (Harter, 2002).

Authenticity signals trust, honesty, and openness in social interactions which are crucial to developing close relationships (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Kim et al., 2023). Disclosing one’s authentic self in peer interactions can help penetrate interpersonal boundaries and deepen relationships (Emmerich et al., 2019; Vijayakumar et al., 2020). Hiding information hindered reciprocal authentic self-disclosure (Yuan et al., 2024), which may cause misunderstandings or conflicts, resulting in less social support and cooperation intention (Alam et al., 2021). Compared to those who hide effort and show a fake self in front of peers, adolescents may personally like and admire those who authentically display efforts. Therefore, the current study predicted that authenticity might mediate the relationship between hiding effort and popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention among adolescents.

Overview of Research

The current research investigated the impression management consequences of hiding efforts among adolescents, focusing on popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention. A pilot study was conducted to find that over half of the participants had ever hidden their efforts from their peers. Details are provided in Appendix A. Study 1 investigated how adolescents evaluated the hiding-effort adolescents’ popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation from the perspective of observers. Based on Study 1, Study 2 added the perspective of actors to investigate whether the hiding-effort adolescents were aware of the negative consequences of hiding effort, using a 2 (Role: actor vs. observer) × 2 (Effort: hiding vs. not hiding) between-subjects design. Furthermore, to understand the underlined psychological mechanism, Study 2 explored the mediating effect of authenticity between hiding effort and popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention. The studies were preregistered at Open Science Framework and all the data and materials are available at: https://osf.io/m4sjt/.

Study 1: Observer Impression Perception of Hiding Effort

Study 1 examined the impression management consequences of hiding effort. The study hypothesized that hiding efforts would decrease adolescents’ popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention among their peers.

Method

Participants

A priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power software version 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009) to determine the sample size for a MANOVA F-test. The analysis aimed to detect a medium effect size (f = .25) with an alpha level of .05 and 80% power, considering two groups and four response variables. The result indicated that a total of 196 participants would be required.

Using a convenience sampling method, Study 1 recruited 320 participants from two middle schools in South China. Seventy-seven participants were excluded from the analysis, among whom sevety-six failed the comprehension checks and one failed the confirmation statement “I confirmed that I had provided the answers seriously” (1 = yes, 2 = no). An effective sample of 243 participants was included in the analysis, aged 12 to 16 (M_age = 14.14; SD = 0.86). Among them, 50.21% were male, 48.97% were female, and 0.82% did not provide gender information; 19.75% were in seventh grade, 43.21% in eighth grade, 36.22% in ninth grade, and 0.82% did not provide grade information.

Procedures and Materials

Study 1 was a between-subjects design, using Effort (hiding vs. not hiding) as the independent variable, popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust and cooperation intention as dependent variables. Participants were required to imagine that a hardworking classmate (called That Classmate) was joining a daily talk about tests and studies with other classmates. In the hiding condition, participants read, “That Classmate hid academic effort.” In the not-hiding condition, participants read, “That Classmate honestly told the academic effort invested in study to other classmates.” Before the experiment, all participants provided their parental informed consent and the whole research procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. The procedure was as follows.

First, the experiment assistant informed the participants that they participated in the experiment voluntarily and could withdraw at any time. Their responses would be kept confidential. Second, participants were randomly assigned to read one of the two experimental conditions: hiding versus not hiding. Third, after reading the scenario, participants answered two comprehension-check questions: “Is That Classmate a hardworking student?” and “Did That Classmate hide academic effort from other classmates?” (1 = yes, 2 = no). Fourth, participants answered dependent variable questions and then filled in the demographic information, including age, gender, and grade. Fifth, after the participants finished the experiment, they were given stationery as a gift for their participation. All the materials were included in Appendix B.

Dependent Variables

All measures in the current study used a Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely) unless otherwise noted.

Popularity

According to previous research (Heyder & Kessels, 2017), the current study used the same item to assess the adolescent’s popularity, “To what extent is That Classmate popular among your classmates (Being popular means to have influence and prestige over classmates)?” The higher score indicated higher popularity.

Likeability

According to previous research (Heyder & Kessels, 2017), two items were adapted to assess the adolescent’s likeability, “To what extent do you like That Classmate?” and “To what extent are you willing to make friends with That Classmate?”. The two items were averaged to form a composite measure of likeability, the correlation coefficient of the two items, rs (241) = .75, p < .01. The higher score indicated higher likeability.

Interpersonal Trust

One question assessed the adolescent’s interpersonal trust, “To what extent do you trust That Classmate?” The higher score indicated higher interpersonal trust.

Cooperation Intention

Following previous research (Roberts et al., 2021), one adapted question assessed the adolescent’s cooperation intention, “To what extent are you willing to team with That Classmate to study?” The higher score indicated higher cooperation intention.

Results

An independent sample t test was conducted on all the dependent variables in SPSS 26.0 (Keselman et al., 1998). All descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1, and the correlations of variables are in Appendix B.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (Study 1, N = 243, n_hiding = 114, n_not-hiding = 129)

Variable	Hiding		Not-hiding		t	p	Cohen’s d
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
Popularity	3.86	1.66	5.02	1.60	−5.56	<.001	0.71
Likeability	3.76	1.52	5.10	1.53	−6.82	<.001	0.88
Interpersonal trust	3.34	1.86	5.18	1.71	−8.03	<.001	1.03
Cooperation intention	4.61	1.85	5.74	1.56	−5.11	<.001	0.66

Popularity and Likeability

Participants in the not-hiding condition (M = 5.02, SD = 1.60) rated popularity significantly higher than in the hiding condition (M = 3.86, SD = 1.66), t (241) = −5.56, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.71. Participants in the not-hiding condition (M = 5.10, SD = 1.53) rated likability of adolescents significantly higher than in the hiding condition (M = 3.76, SD = 1.52), t (241) = −6.82, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.88. As predicted, not-hiding-effort adolescents were more popular and liked than hiding-effort adolescents among their peer classmates.

Interpersonal Trust

Participants in the not-hiding condition (M = 5.18, SD = 1.71) rated interpersonal trust of adolescents significantly higher than in the hiding condition (M = 3.34, SD = 1.86), t (241) = −8.03, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.03. As predicted, adolescents were more likely to trust not-hiding-effort peers than hiding-effort peers.

Cooperation Intention

Participants in the not-hiding condition (M = 5.74, SD = 1.56) rated cooperation intention towards adolescents significantly higher than in the hiding condition (M = 4.61, SD = 1.85), t (241) = −5.11, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.66. As predicted, adolescents were more likely to cooperate with not-hiding-effort peers than hiding-effort peers.

Study 2: Observer versus Actor Impression Perception of Hiding Effort

Adding the perspective of actors, Study 2 investigated whether adolescents who hid efforts were aware of the negative consequences by a 2 (Role: actor vs. observer) × 2 (Effort: hiding vs. not hiding) between-subjects design. Role and Effort were the dependent variables. Popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention were the dependent variables. The study hypothesized that hiding-effort adolescents might not realize the negative consequences of hiding effort. It was further hypothesized that authenticity might mediate the effect between hiding effort and popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention.

Method

Participants

A priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power software version 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009) to determine the sample size for a 2 × 2 between subjects MANOVA F-test. The analysis aimed to detect a medium effect size (f = .25) with an alpha level of .05 and 80% power, considering four groups and five response variables. The result indicated that a total of 135 participants would be required.

Using a convenience sampling method, Study 2 recruited 232 participants from two middle schools. Fifty-six participants were excluded from the analysis, among whom two participants withdrew from the experiment, fifty failed the comprehension check, two did not finish all the dependent variable questions, and two failed the confirmation statement “I confirmed that I had provided the answers seriously” (1 = yes, 2 = no). An effective sample of 176 participants was included in the analysis, aged from 12 to 16 (M_age = 14.16; SD = 0.90). Among them, 44.32% were female, 51.70% were male, and 3.98% did not provide gender information; 18.18% were in seventh grade, 16.48% in eighth grade, 59.66% in ninth grade, and 5.68% did not provide grade information.

Procedures and Materials

Compared to Study 1, Study 2 added two more scenarios: actor hiding versus actor not hiding. The procedures and the scenarios: observer hiding versus observer not hiding were the same as with Study 1.

In the actor scenario, participants were asked to imagine themselves as hardworking and diligent students. They were then asked to imagine themselves joining a daily discussion about tests and studies with their classmates. In the hiding condition, participants read, “I hid my academic effort from other classmates.” In the not-hiding condition, participants read, “I honestly told the academic effort invested in study to other classmates.” The observer scenario materials were the same as in Study 1.

After reading the actor scenario, participants answered one comprehension-check question, “Are you a hardworking student in the scenario?” (1 = yes, 2 = no). Participants who read the observer scenario answered: “Is That Classmate a hardworking student in the scenario?” (1 = yes, 2 = no).

Finally, participants answered manipulation check and dependent variable questions and filled in the demographic information as in Study 1. All the materials are included in Appendix C.

Dependent variables

Manipulation Check

As a manipulation check, Study 2 asked participants, “To what extent do you think you (That classmate) hid effort from others?” from 1 (not hid at all) to 7 (completely hid). The higher score indicated the greater extent of hiding.

Popularity

In the actor scenario, participants answered, “To what extent do you think you are popular among your classmates?” (Heyder & Kessels, 2017). In the observer scenario, the item was the same as in Study 1. The higher score indicated higher popularity.

Likeability

In the actor scenario, participants answered, “To what extent do you think your classmates like you?” and “To what extent do you think your classmates are willing to make friends with you?” (Heyder & Kessels, 2017). In the observer scenario, the items were the same as in Study 1. The correlation coefficient of the two items was rs (176) = .75, p < .01. The higher score indicated higher likeability.

Interpersonal Trust

In the actor scenario, participants answered, “To what extent do you think your classmates trust you?” In the observer scenario, the item was the same as in Study 1. The higher score indicated higher interpersonal trust.

Cooperation Intention

In the actor scenario, participants answered “To what extent do you think your classmates are willing to team with you to study?” (Roberts et al., 2021). In the observer scenario, the item was the same as in Study 1. The higher score indicated higher cooperation intention.

Authenticity

Southampton Authenticity Scale (SAS) was used to assess the adolescents’ authenticity (Kelley et al., 2022; Lenton et al., 2013), with minor changes made to the four items to fit the scenarios, such as “You (That Classmate) feel/s authentic” and “You (That Classmate) feel/s true to yourself (himself/herself).” The items were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly disagree), Cronbach α = .82. The higher score indicated higher authenticity.

Analytical method

Study 2 conducted an independent t test on all the dependent variables in each experiment condition and MANOVAs on all the dependent variables in SPSS 26.0 (Keselman et al., 1998). A mediation analysis was conducted using the PROCESS macro (Model 4) in SPSS 26.0 (Hayes, 2017). The analysis tested whether authenticity mediated the relationship between hiding effort and popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention. Bootstrap resampling with 5000 samples was employed to estimate the indirect effect, providing bias-corrected confidence intervals. An effect was considered statistically significant if the confidence intervals did not include zero.

Results

All descriptive statistics are in Table 2 and the correlations of variables are in Appendix C.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics (Study 2, N = 176, n_{actor hiding} = 43, n_{actor not-}_Hiding = 40, n_{observer hiding} = 47, n_observern_ot-hiding = 46)

Variable	Hiding		Not-hiding		t	p	Cohen’s d
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d
Popularity
Actor	4.56	1.40	4.78	1.37	−0.71	.48	0.16
Observer	3.94	1.66	5.61	1.31	−5.40	<.001	1.12
Likeability
Actor	4.94	1.35	5.01	1.23	−0.25	.81	0.05
Observer	4.07	1.49	5.62	1.35	−5.22	<.001	1.09
Interpersonal trust
Actor	4.63	1.73	5.15	1.48	−1.47	.15	0.32
Observer	2.98	1.98	5.39	1.39	−6.80	<.001	1.41
Authenticity
Actor	4.80	1.80	5.33	1.31	−1.54	.13	0.34
observer	3.98	1.43	5.33	1.39	−4.61	<.001	0.96
Cooperation intention
Actor	5.26	1.58	5.20	1.52	0.16	.87	0.04
observer	4.74	1.94	6.04	1.19	−3.90	<.001	0.81

Manipulation Check

Participants rated the extent of hiding effort in the hiding condition (M = 5.30, SD = 1.89) significantly higher than in the not-hiding condition (M = 3.24, SD = 2.00), t (172) = 7.01, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.06. The result indicated that the manipulation of the hiding effort was effective.

Popularity and Likeability

As shown in Table 3, there was a significant main effect of Effort on adolescent popularity, F (1, 172) = 18.72, p < .001,

η_{p}^{2}

= .10, and likeability F (1, 172) = 15.31, p < .001,

η_{p}^{2}

= .08. There was a significant Role × Effort interaction effect on popularity, F (1, 172) = 11.11, p = .001,

η_{p}^{2}

= .06 (see Figure 1.1), and likeability F (1, 172) = 12.75, p < .001,

η_{p}^{2}

= .07 (see Figure 1.2). Simple effect analysis showed that observers in the not-hiding condition (M = 5.61, SD = 1.31) rated popularity significantly higher than in the hiding condition (M = 3.94, SD = 1.66), p < .001; likeability in the not-hiding condition (M = 5.62, SD = 1.35) significantly higher than in the hiding-condition (M = 4.07, SD = 1.49), p < .001. Actors in the not-hiding condition (M = 4.78, SD = 1.37) rated popularity as not significantly different from it in the hiding condition (M = 4.56, SD = 1.40), p > .05; likeability in the not-hiding condition (M = 5.01, SD = 1.23) as not significantly different from it in the hiding condition (M = 4.94, SD = 1.35), p > .05. In line with Study 1, not-hiding-effort adolescents were more popular and liked among their peers. However, the hiding-effort adolescents didn’t realize the negative consequence of hiding efforts on their popularity and likeability.

Table 3.

The Main and Interaction Effects of Role × Effort on All the Dependent Variables (Study 2, N = 176)

Variables	Popularity		Likeability		Interpersonal trust		Authenticity		Cooperation intention
Variables	F	$η_{p}^{2}$	F	$η_{p}^{2}$	F	$η_{p}^{2}$	F	$η_{p}^{2}$	F	$η_{p}^{2}$
Role	0.24	.001	0.40	.002	7.80^**	.04	3.37	.02	0.48	.003
Effort	18.72^***	.10	15.31^***	.08	33.88^***	.17	17.30^***	.09	6.75^*	.04
Role × effort	11.11^**	.06	12.75^***	.07	14.06^***	.08	3.29	.02	8.02^**	.05

Note. ^***p < .001, ^**p < .01, ^*p < .05.

Figure 1.

The Interaction Effect of Role × Effort on Impression Management Consequences. Note: Error bars represent one standard error.

Interpersonal Trust

As shown in Table 3, there was a significant main effect of Effort on adolescent interpersonal trust, F (1, 172) = 33.88, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .17, a significant main effect of Role on interpersonal trust, F (1, 172) = 7.80, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04, and a significant Role × Effort interaction effect on interpersonal trust, F (1, 172) = 14.06, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .08 (see Figure 1.3). Simple effect analysis showed that observers in the not-hiding condition (M = 5.39, SD = 1.39) rated interpersonal trust significantly higher than in the hiding condition (M = 2.98, SD = 1.98), p < .001. Actors under the not-hiding condition (M = 5.15, SD = 1.48) rated interpersonal trust not significantly from it in the hiding condition (M = 4.63, SD = 1.73), p > .05. In line with Study 1, the results indicated that adolescents more likely trusted not-hiding-effort peers. The hiding-effort adolescents were unaware of the negative impact of hiding effort on their interpersonal trust as perceived by their peers.

Authenticity

As shown in Table 3, there was a significant main effect of Effort on authenticity, F (1, 172) = 17.30, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .09. There was no significant Role × Effort interaction effect on authenticity, F (1, 172) = 3.29, p = .07, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02. Simple effect analysis showed that observers in the not-hiding condition (M = 5.33, SD = 1.39) rated authenticity significantly higher than that in the hiding condition (M = 3.98, SD = 1.43), p < .001. Actors in the not-hiding-condition (M = 5.33, SD = 1.31) rated authenticity as not significantly different from it in the hiding condition (M = 4.80, SD = 1.80), p > .05. The results indicated that adolescents believed not-hiding-effort peers were more authentic than hiding-effort adolescents. However, the hiding-effort adolescents were not aware of the negative impact of hiding effort on their authenticity as perceived by their peers.

Cooperation Intention

As shown in Table 3, there was a significant main effect of Effort on adolescent’s cooperation intention, F (1, 172) = 6.75, p = .007, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .04, and a significant Role × Effort interaction effect on cooperation intention, F (1, 172) = 8.02, p = .005, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .05 (see Figure 1.4). Simple effect analysis showed that observers in the not-hiding condition (M = 6.04, SD = 1.19) rated the cooperation intention towards adolescents significantly higher than in the hiding condition (M = 4.74, SD = 1.94), p < .001. Actors in the not-hiding condition (M = 5.20, SD = 1.52) rated their peers’ cooperation intention towards them slightly lower than it in the hiding condition (M = 5.26, SD = 1.58), p > .05. The results indicated that adolescents more likely cooperated with not-hiding-effort peers. However, the hiding-effort adolescents were unaware of the negative impact of hiding effort on their peers’ willingness to cooperate.

Mediation Effect of Authenticity

Study 2 ran a mediation model with Effort as an independent variable (hiding effort coded 0, not hiding effort coded 1), and authenticity as the mediator variable. Presented in Figure 2, the results showed that authenticity mediated the effect of hiding effort on popularity (indirect effect = .22, SE = .08, 95% CI [.10, .37]), likeability (indirect effect = .26, SE = .07, 95% CI [.12, .44]), interpersonal trust (indirect effect = .28, SE = .08, 95% CI [.14, .45]), and cooperation intention (indirect effect = .21, SE = .07, 95% CI [.09, .37]). The results indicated that not-hiding efforts increased adolescents’ authenticity to enhance their popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention.

Figure 2.

Authenticity Mediates the Effect of Hiding Effort on Popularity, Likeability, Interpersonal Trust, and Cooperation Intention. Note:^***p < .001, ^**p < .01, ^*p < .05.

General Discussion

The present research used hypothetical scenarios to investigate the impression management consequences of hiding effort among adolescents. From the perspective of observers who witnessed hiding effort, Study 1 demonstrated that hiding effort decreased adolescents’ popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention among their peers. Study 2 verified the findings in Study 1 and found that the effort hiders were not aware of the negative consequences. Furthermore, Study 2 revealed that authenticity mediated the effect of hiding effort on popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention. The findings indicated that hiding efforts caused negative impression management consequences among adolescents.

The Mixed Impression Perception of Hiding Effort

The current study found a mixed impression perception of hiding effort from the perspective of actors and observers. Inconsistent with adolescents’ belief that showing efforts in front of peers meant low competency, which led to lower popularity than hiding efforts (Juvonen & Murdock, 1995; Kun, 1977; Zook & Russotti, 2012), Study 1 and Study 2 demonstrated that authentic effort presentation led to higher popularity and likeability. Towards other peers, adolescents preferred those who authentically displayed effort among peers, while towards themselves, they believed that it made no difference to their impression whether they hid effort or not. One reason for this contradictory phenomenon may be their misbelief that effort exertion indicated low competence (Zook & Russotti, 2012). Another reason may be that adolescents were inept in perspective-taking of others’ minds (Sezer, 2022; Steinmetz et al., 2017).

The findings suggest another possibility of how competence and peer status are perceived. Rather than associating effort with incompetence (Zook & Russotti, 2012), adolescents may now see it as an indicator of dedication and honesty and are likely to be rewarded with higher popularity and likeability. This aligns with broader societal trends that emphasize the importance of hard work and perseverance over innate talent (Steinmetz et al., 2017). On one hand, adolescents may fear that showing effort could make them appear less competent. On the other hand, they appreciate and value effort exertion. This paradox highlights the complexity of impression management strategies during adolescence, a period marked by increasing sensitivity to peer evaluation (Meehan et al., 2024). The results imply that encouraging adolescents to show their efforts could foster more positive peer relationships.

The Mediation Effect of Authenticity

Adolescence is a period of social reorientation when adolescents increasingly depend on peers for social and emotional support (Cheng et al., 2024; Seok & Doom, 2022). Through interaction with peers, adolescents can express and behave their authentic selves, and validate the appropriateness of their opinions and behaviors based on feedback from their peers (Vijayakumar & Pfeifer, 2020). Authentic self-presentation helps adolescents understand themselves and see how other peers perceive them, which is essential for their self-identity formation and interpersonal relationship development (Meeus, 2011). When adolescents present authentic selves in peer interactions, they are more likely to establish and deepen mutual interpersonal trust and enhance their peers’ cooperation intention (Kim et al., 2023; Sohmer, 2020). As adolescents tend to value and appreciate honest disclosure in peer interactions, not hiding effort increases authenticity to increase peer relationships. However, when adolescents hide efforts from their peers, they no longer present themselves authentically, which may create a sense of mistrust and suspicion (Gino et al., 2020). Hiding effort decreased authenticity, leading to lower popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The current study extends our understanding of impression management strategies by demonstrating that attempts to conceal or downplay one’s efforts can backfire in managing impressions. While Dramaturgical Theory emphasizes the actors’ motivation and strategies to control the observers' impressions (Leary & Kowalski, 1990), the current findings indicate that actors should consider the observers’ perceptions, starting in adolescence. Furthermore, the study underscores the critical role of authenticity as a mediator, highlighting that perceived genuineness is essential for fostering positive impressions. These findings imply that impression management strategies should incorporate authenticity as a key component to predict their success or failure.

In practical terms, educators and parents should foster environments where effort and authenticity are encouraged and rewarded. For example, schools can emphasize the value of effort in their curricula and create social skills training programs. The programs could teach adolescents the importance of authenticity and the potential negative consequences of concealing their efforts. These programs could help adolescents understand the long-term benefits of being genuine and putting effort into their social and academic activities, instead of hiding their efforts to conform to perceived social norms.

Presenting authentic effort to peers can gain positive peer relationships and efficient cooperation, which, in turn, can boost self-esteem (Ferguson & Ryan, 2019; Laursen & Veenstra, 2021; Seok & Doom, 2022). However, when adolescents hide their efforts, they may lose these benefits. Adolescents should keep in mind that showing efforts to peers is still a positive attribute and is appreciated by their peers.

Limitations and Future Research

There were several limitations in the present research. First, the current study used hypothetical scenarios, which may not always accurately reflect real-world situations or behaviors. Convenience samples do not represent the broader population (Stratton, 2021). The dropping rate of the participants was relatively high in both studies due to incorrect understanding of the scenario descriptions. Thus, future research could orally explain the definition of effort and hiding effort to the participants before the scenario experiment. Future research would further investigate hiding efforts in real-life contexts. Second, the current research did not examine the relationship distance between the actor and the observer. Close relationships prescribe stronger norms of sharing; therefore, hiding in a closer relationship may cause higher relational costs (Roberts et al., 2021). Thus, future research would investigate the consequences of hiding efforts between different relationship closeness levels among adolescents. Third, there might be cultural differences in hiding effort consequences as all the participants of the current study were Chinese adolescents in Eastern culture. Western culture is individuality-centered, and adolescents are encouraged to stand out from their peers, while Eastern cultures prioritize interdependence, and adolescents are encouraged to stay modest with peers to maintain harmony (Zhang et al., 2018). Future research could investigate cultural differences in hiding efforts on impression management consequences.

Conclusion

The present research investigated the impression management consequences of hiding effort from both actors and observers. The results found that hiding efforts led to lower popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust, and cooperation intention among adolescents via the mediation effect of authenticity. Adolescents should authentically display effort in peer interactions.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Impression Management Consequences of Hiding Effort Among Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Authenticity

Supplemental Material for The Impression Management Consequences of Hiding Effort Among Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Authenticity by Zhongyan Su, Yuan Fang, Yiping Feng, and Zhiyan Chen in Psychological Reports

Footnotes

Author Contributions

Z.S. contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis and investigation, and writing-original draft preparation; YP.F. contributed to the conceptualization, interpretation of the results, funding acquisition, and writing-review and editing; Y.F. contributed to the coordination of the study, methodology, and interpretation of the results; Z.C. contributed to the conceptualization, interpretation of the results, supervision, and writing-review and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the fellowship of the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2021M703467) and the Special Research Assistant Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. E2CX0114).

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Yuan Fang

Data Availability Statement

All the data and experimental materials are available on OSF.*

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online

Author Biographies

Zhongyan Su, BA, is a graduate student at the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Her research interests include peer relationships and mental health in adolescence, focusing on popularity, likeability, interpersonal trust in peer communication, and anxiety and depressive symptoms among adolescents.

Yuan Fang, PhD, is an assistant researcher at the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Her research centers on adolescent mental health and its influencing factors, employing multiple methods to explore these issues.

Feng Yiping, BA, is the English head teacher at Beihai No. 11 Middle School. Her research interests encompass efforts and interpersonal relationships in adolescence, including academic efforts, peer relations, and teacher-student relationships.

Zhiyan Chen, PhD, is a professor at the Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Her research focuses on national mental health assessment and promotion, as well as mental health literacy, including measurement and intervention strategies.

References

Alam

Ullah

AlDhaen

F. S.

AlDhaen

Ahmad

Scholz

(2021). Towards explaining knowledge hiding through relationship conflict, frustration, and irritability: The case of public sector teaching hospitals. Sustainability, 13(22), Article 12598. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212598

Alchin

C. E.

Machin

T. M.

Martin

Burton

L. J.

(2023). Authenticity and inauthenticity in adolescents: A scoping review. Adolescent Research Review, 9(2), 279–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-023-00218-8

Altman

Taylor

D. A.

(1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bailey

E. R.

Matz

S. C.

Youyou

Iyengar

S. S.

(2020). Authentic self-expression on social media is associated with greater subjective well-being. Nature Communications, 11(1), 4889–4899. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18539-w

Branje

(2022). Adolescent identity development in context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, Article 101286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.11.006

Bravo

Ortega-Ruiz

Veenstra

Engels

M. C.

Romera

E. M.

(2022). Friendship selection and influence processes for popularity in early and mid-adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 94(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12004

Cheng

T. W.

Mills

K. L.

Pfeifer

J. H.

(2024). Revisiting adolescence as a sensitive period for sociocultural processing. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 164, Article 105820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105820

Cillessen

A. H. N.

Marks

P. E. L.

(2011). Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. In Cillessen

A. H. N.

Schwartz

Mayeux

(Eds.), Popularity in the peer system (pp. 25–56). Guilford Press.

Covington

M. V.

Omelich

C. L.

(1979). Effort: The double-edged sword in school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.169

10.

de Vries

R. E.

Pronk

Olthof

Goossens

F. A.

(2020). Getting along and/or getting ahead: Differential Hexaco personality correlates of likeability and popularity among adolescents. European Journal of Personality, 34(2), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2243

11.

Emmerich

A. I.

Knoll

Rigotti

(2019). The authenticity of the others: How teammates’ authenticity relates to our well-being. Small Group Research, 51(2), 175–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419874877

12.

Erikson

E. H.

(1994). Identity: Youth and crisis. WW Norton & Company.

13.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

14.

Ferguson

S. M.

Ryan

A. M.

(2019). It’s lonely at the top: Adolescent students' peer-perceived popularity and self-perceived social contentment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(2), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0970-y

15.

Gino

Sezer

Huang

(2020). To be or not to be your authentic self? Catering to others’ preferences hinders performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 158, 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.003

16.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

17.

Harter

(2002). Authenticity. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

J. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 382–394). Oxford University Press.

18.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

19.

Heyder

Kessels

(2017). Boys don’t work? On the psychological benefits of showing low effort in high school. Sex Roles, 77(1-2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0683-1

20.

Jackson

Nyström

A.-S.

(2014). ‘Smart students get perfect scores in tests without studying much’: Why is an effortless achiever identity attractive, and for whom is it possible? Research Papers in Education, 30(4), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2014.970226

21.

John

L. K.

Barasz

Norton

M. I.

(2016). Hiding personal information reveals the worst. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(4), 954–959. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516868113

22.

Juvonen

(2000). The social functions of attributional face-saving tactics among early adolescents. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009080816191

23.

Juvonen

Murdock

T. B.

(1993). How to promote social approval: Effects of audience and achievement outcome on publicly communicated attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.365

24.

Juvonen

Murdock

T. B.

(1995). Grade-level differences in the social value of effort: Implication for self-presentation tactics of early adolescents. Child Development, 66(6), 1694–1705. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131904

25.

Kelley

N. J.

Davis

W. E.

Dang

Liu

Wildschut

Sedikides

(2022). Nostalgia confers psychological wellbeing by increasing authenticity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 102, Article 104379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104379

26.

Keselman

H. J.

Huberty

C. J.

Lix

L. M.

Olejnik

Cribbie

R. A.

Donahue

Levin

J. R.

(1998). Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 350–386. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430680033

27.

Kim

T.-Y.

David

E. M.

Chen

Liang

(2023). Authenticity or self-enhancement? Effects of self-presentation and authentic leadership on trust and performance. Journal of Management, 49(3), 944–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211063807

28.

Kun

(1977). Development of the magnitude-covariation and compensation schemata in ability and effort attributions of performance. Child Development, 48(3), 862–873. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128335

29.

Laursen

Veenstra

(2021). Toward understanding the functions of peer influence: A summary and synthesis of recent empirical research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(4), 889–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12606

30.

Leary

M. R.

Kowalski

R. M.

(1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34

31.

Lenton

A. P.

Slabu

Sedikides

Power

(2013). I feel good, therefore I am real: Testing the causal influence of mood on state authenticity. Cognition and Emotion, 27(7), 1202–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.778818

32.

Lsane

Sweigard

Czopp

Howard

Burns

M. J.

(1999). The effects of student academic presentation on perception of gender and sociability. North American Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 173–188. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cps_facarticles/1077

33.

Luo

Hancock

J. T.

(2020). Self-disclosure and social media: Motivations, mechanisms and psychological well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31(SI), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.019

34.

McHale

Taylor

Bengoechea

Norton

O'Shea

Woods

(2022). A systematic literature review of peer-led strategies for promoting physical activity levels of adolescents. Health Education and Behavior, 49(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981211044988

35.

Meehan

Z. M.

Hubbard

J. A.

Moore

C. C.

Mlawer

(2024). Susceptibility to peer influence in adolescents: Associations between psychophysiology and behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 36(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579422000967

36.

Meeus

(2011). The study of adolescent identity formation 2000-2010: A review of longitudinal research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00716.x

37.

Meijs

Cillessen

A. H.

Scholte

R. H.

Segers

Spijkerman

(2010). Social intelligence and academic achievement as predictors of adolescent popularity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9373-9

38.

Ragelienė

(2016). Links of adolescents’ identity development and relationship with peers: A systematic literature review. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 25(2), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-016-0044-8

39.

Roberts

A. R.

Levine

E. E.

Sezer

(2021). Hiding success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(5), 1261–1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000322

40.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2021). Understanding peer relationships during childhood and adolescence through the lens of social motivation. Understanding peer relationships during childhood and adolescence through the lens of social motivation (8, pp. 105–151). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2020.08.001

41.

Ryan

A. M.

Shim

S. S.

Makara

K. A.

(2013). Changes in academic adjustment and relational self-worth across the transition to middle school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(9), 1372–1384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9984-7

42.

Saidah

Louvet

Pansu

(2019). Are students who make an effort perceived as successful or just liked by their teachers? Social Psychology of Education, 22, 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09481-x

43.

Seok

Doom

J. R.

(2022). Adolescents' social support networks and long-term psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(12), 3775–3798. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221109021

44.

Sezer

(2022). Impression (mis)management: When what you say is not what they hear. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.025

45.

Sohmer

O. R.

(2020). The experience of the authentic self: A cooperative inquiry. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167820952339

46.

Steinmetz

Sezer

Sedikides

(2017). Impression mismanagement: People as inept self-presenters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(6), Article e12321. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12321

47.

Stratton

S. J.

(2021). Population research: Convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 36(4), 373–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X21000649

48.

Tackett

J. L.

Reardon

K. W.

Fast

N. J.

Johnson

Kang

S. K.

Lang

J. W. B.

Oswald

F. L.

(2022). Understanding the leaders of tomorrow: The need to study leadership in adolescence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(4), 829–842. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221118536

49.

Thomaes

Sedikides

van den Bos

Hutteman

Reijntjes

(2017). Happy to be “me?” Authenticity, psychological need satisfaction, and subjective well-being in adolescence. Child Development, 88(4), 1045–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12867

50.

van den Berg

Y. H. M.

Lansu

T. A. M.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

(2020). Preference and popularity as distinct forms of status: A meta-analytic review of 20 years of research. Journal of Adolescence, 84, 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.07.010

51.

Veenstra

Laninga-Wijnen

(2023). The prominence of peer interactions, relationships, and networks in adolescence and early adulthood. In APA handbook of adolescent and young adult development (pp. 225–241). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000298-014

52.

Vijayakumar

Flournoy

J. C.

Mills

K. L.

Cheng

T. W.

Mobasser

Flannery

J. E.

Allen

N. B.

Pfeifer

J. H.

(2020). Getting to know me better: An fMRI study of intimate and superficial self-disclosure to friends during adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(5), 885–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000182

53.

Vijayakumar

Pfeifer

J. H.

(2020). Self-disclosure during adolescence: Exploring the means, targets, and types of personal exchanges. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31(SI), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.005

54.

Yuan

Liu

Cui

(2024). Small talk and knowledge sharing: A moderated dual-facilitating pathway model based on interpersonal trust and perceived similarity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(6), 1538–1565. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2023-0130

55.

Zhang

Pomerantz

E. M.

Qin

Logis

Ryan

A. M.

Wang

(2018). Characteristics of likability, perceived popularity, and admiration in the early adolescent peer system in the United States and China. Developmental Psychology, 54(8), 1568–1581. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000544

56.

Zhao

Heyman

G. D.

(2018). Hiding effort to gain a competitive advantage: Evidence from China. International Journal of Psychology, 53(3), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12285

57.

Zook

J. M.

Russotti

J. M.

(2012). Academic self-presentation strategies and popularity in middle school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(6), 765–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612467229

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB