ABSTRACT. This paper contends that impressionmanagement is not inherently a threat to fairness inemployment interviews. Rather, regarding impressionmanagement as unfair is based on an outdated, narrowview of impression management as conscious, manip-ulative, and deceptive. A broader, expansive modelof impression management is described which seesthese behaviors as falling on a continuum fromdeceptive and manipulative on the one hand, toaccurate, positive and beneficial on the other. Whileorganizations may want to eliminate or discount thenegative aspect of the impression management con-tinuum, the ability to positively “sell” oneself is oftena desirable attribute both in the employment inter-view and in later on-the-job settings. This expansiveview of impression management contends thatorganizations can make employment interviews morefair by: viewing impression management as a skill andnot a deficit, training interviewers to be wary ofmanipulative and deceptive impression management,reducing the ambiguity and uncertainty of interviewsettings and increasing the verifiability of candidateresponses by focusing the interview on a candidate’slong-term identities and accomplishments rather thantheir short-term, spur-of-the-moment attempts toplease the interviewer.

Impression management, fairness, andthe employment interview

Researchers within the management and orga-nizational sciences have been devoting increasedattention to a theoretical framework whichrevolves around the concerns of individuals formaking impressions on others.

Impression man-agement refers to the many ways that people tryto control the impressions others have of them:their behavior, motivations, morality, andpersonal attributes like dependability, intelligence,and future potential (cf. Giacalone andRosenfeld, 1989, 1991; Rosenfeld et al., 1994b).

The impression management perspectiveassumes that a basic motive, both inside andoutside of organizations, is to be viewed byothers in a favorable manner and avoid beingseen negatively. This perspective views much oforganizational behavior as analogous to anadvertising campaign on behalf of a commercialproduct. Individuals act as amateur publicityagents conducting “spin control” campaigns ontheir own behalf, highlighting strengths andvirtues while engaging in “damage control” tominimize deficiencies (Rosenfeld and Giacalone,1991; Tedeschi et al., 1985, chapter 3).

Impression management has increasinglybecome a recognized part of organizationalbehavior research. It has been applied to areassuch as employment interviews, performanceevaluation, assessment centers, business ethics,computer surveys, organizational communica-tion, feedback, leadership, and diversity issues (cf.Giacalone and Rosenfeld, 1989, 1991; Rosenfeldet al., 1994b).

While impression management phenomenaoccur in many social and organizational situa-

Impression Management,Fairness, and theEmployment Interview

* Paul Rosenfeld

Journal of Business Ethics 16: 801–808, 1997.© 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Paul Rosenfeld is a personnel research psychologist at theNavy Personnel Research and Development Center inSan Diego, CA. Dr. Rosenfeld has previously co-authored Introduction to Social Psychology (West,1985) and coeditied Impression Management in theOrganization (Erlbaum, 1989) and AppliedImpression Management (Sage, 1991). Dr. Rosenfeldis also coeditor of Hispanics in the Workplace (Sage,1992) and Improving Organizational Surveys (Sage,1993).

tions, the “high stakes” nature of the employ-ment interview makes it a setting particularlyripe for impression management behaviors. In atypical job interview, both the candidate (whowants to get hired) and interviewer (who wantsto attract the best candidates) engage in a recip-rocal impression management process with bothattempting to manage positive impressions toachieve desired outcomes.

Because impression management behaviorshave previously been viewed by some theoristsas nefarious, manipulative, and deceptive (cf.Rosenfeld and Giacalone, 1991) their use byapplicants in employment interviews has beenseen as potentially undermining the “fairness” ofthe selection process (Arvey and Renz, 1992).

The present paper considers the fairness issueas it relates to impression management andemployment interviews. A review of previousresearch is presented which indicates that impres-sion management tactics can positively impactinterviewer perceptions of applicants but canbackfire if used excessively. An expansive modelof impression management is presented thatcontends that some but not all forms of impres-sion management impede fairness in employmentinterviews. Within the context of this model,suggestions for increasing fairness in employmentinterviews are presented.

Impression management and the employment interview

Although the employment interview has beenconceptualized as a form of cognitive informa-tion processing, or as a selection techniquehaving legal and civil rights implications (cf. Ederand Ferris, 1989), it can also be viewed as a typeof social interaction (Liden et al., 1993) whereboth the applicant and interviewer try to influ-ence each other through the use of impressionmanagement. The near universality of theemployment interview and the importanceascribed to it in both the popular and professionalliterature have made it fertile territory for theoccurrence of impression management. This isparticularly true for the applicant for whom theemployment interview is often a very ambiguous

and uncertain social situation. Organizationalimpression management research (cf., Giacaloneand Rosenfeld, 1989, 1991) has found thatindividuals engage in more impression manage-ment in ambiguous and uncertain situations.

Both conceptual analyses and empirical studieshave focused more on the impression manage-ment behaviors of applicants rather than inter-viewers. Because the applicant is relativelypowerless and the interviewer may be aware thatmuch of the applicant’s behavior represents styleover substance, the impression management taskof the applicant is not always easy. To be suc-cessful, the applicant must walk a “fine line”being “confident but not brash, polite but notsycophantic, lively and interested but not volubleor manic, sufficiently nervous to show anappreciation of the importance of the occasionbut not visibly anxious throughout”. (Fletcher,1989, p. 273) Research has similarly found thatwhile impression management can positivelyinfluence interviewer perceptions of the appli-cant, its overuse can backfire.

Research on impression management and employment interviews

Research on impression management in theemployment interview has typically focused onthe behavior of the applicant. In an early study,Von Baeyer et al. (1981) found that female jobapplicants tailored their nonverbal and verbalbehaviors to match the views of women held bytheir interviewer. When the male interviewerwas known to hold views congruent with thetraditional female stereotype, female applicantsgave more traditional responses to questionsabout family and relationships, spent more timeon their physical appearance and were lessassertive in their verbal and nonverbal behaviorsthan when the interviewer held less traditionalattitudes. While this study indicated that jobapplicants modify their behaviors to matchinterview beliefs, a study reported by Baron(1989) found that impression managementbehaviors in interview situations can be coun-terproductive. Baron contends that becauseinterviewers expect applicants to use impression

802 Paul Rosenfeld

management, excessive use of such tactics maybackfire. In his study, male and female studentsconducted employment interviews with a femaleconfederate applicant. The female applicant wasseeking an entry-level position and she respondedin a standard fashion to questions asked by theinterviewers. The applicant either used a numberof positive nonverbal behaviors such as smilingand leaning forward or emitted few positive non-verbal cues. She also either wore or did not wearperfume. Baron’s results supported the notionthat too much impression management in anemployment interview can have a negativeimpact. Male interviewers rated the female appli-cant as being more intelligent and viewed her ashaving greater potential for success if she emittedpositive nonverbals or wore perfume, but ratedher lower if she used both sets of impressionmanagement behaviors. Interestingly, this effectwas not found when the interviewer subjectswere female.

While Baron’s study demonstrated thatmultiple impression management tactics couldbe too much of a good thing, Gilmore and Ferris(1989a) showed that an impression managementtactic, if skillfully executed, could influenceinterviewer perceptions more than informationabout the applicant’s actual qualifications. Theyconducted a field experiment using 62 actualinterviewers from a public utility. The inter-viewers viewed a videotape in which a femaleapplicant engaged in impression management(e.g., complemented interviewer, smiled) or didnot. She was also portrayed as being highly qual-ified for a customer representative job or lessqualified. The results indicated that evaluationsof the applicant were influenced by impressionmanagement but not applicant credentials. Theapplicant was perceived as doing better in theinterview and was slightly more likely to berecommended for hiring when she used impres-sion management than when she did not.However, her credentials had little impact oninterviewer ratings.

One implication of the Baron (1989) andGilmore and Ferris (1989a) studies is that not allimpression management tactics work or areequally effective in employment interviews. Thiswas demonstrated more directly by Kacmar et

al. (1992). They distinguished applicant impres-sion management tactics in the employmentinterview as those that were “self-focused” (e.g.,self-promotions) or “other-focused” (e.g., com-plementing the interview). They found that jobapplicants who used impression managementtactics that focused on themselves were ratedhigher than applicants whose impression man-agement tactics focused on the interviewer.

Using impression management in the employmentinterview: is it fair?

At first glance, applicant impression managementtactics, such as those described in the studiesreviewed above, would appear to be unfair. Intheir discussion of fairness in employee selection,Arvey and Renz (1992) note that one criterionof fairness is that the processes and proceduresused are objective and consistent across allapplicants. Subjective, manipulative behaviors areconsidered less fair. “Information which is easilyfaked and distorted is considered relatively unfair.Selection procedures wherein applicants can fake‘good’, distort their responses so as to meet thecriteria for selection more easily, and otherwisemanipulate their impressions are generallyregarded as less fair than those wherein fakingand the like is less likely achieved” (Arvey andRenz, 1992, p. 335). Anderson (1991) similarlysees impression management as a form of decep-tion that “represents a potent source of error ininterviewer judgments. . . . Interviewers shouldat least take into account the possibility thatcandidates are intentionally biasing their inter-personal behaviors in order to secure a favorableoutcome from the interaction” (p. 414).1

It is presently argued that while some formsof impression management used in employmentinterviews are unfair, forms that involve honestly,and accurately presenting and highlighting one’sattributes are both fair and desirable applicantbehaviors. Viewing impression managementbehaviors as inherently unfair is, from this per-spective, excessive. It likely stems from theremnants of a narrower model, popular in socialpsychology during the 1970s, that consideredimpression management as being synonymous

Impression Management and Employment Interviews 803

with conscious, manipulative, and deceptivebehaviors (Rosenfeld and Giacalone, 1991). Amore expansive view sees some impressionmanagement in employment interviews as fairand some as unfair. It is the task of the inter-viewer to recognize and encourage the fairimpression management and detect and minimizethe unfair component. The narrow and expan-sive views of impression management are detailedand recommendations for minimizing “unfair”impression management and maximizing “fair”impression management are offered.

Impression management: restrictive and expansiveviews

The view that impression management tactics inemployment interviews are inherently unfairutilizes a model of organizational impressionmanagement that may be excessively narrow –one which sees it as synonymous with deceptivemanipulation. In fact, impression managementtheory has undergone a major transformationduring the past two decades from focusing on“extreme” behaviors (e.g., lying, exaggeration)to its current status as a general model of orga-nizational behavior (Giacalone and Rosenfled,1989, 1991).

In a recent review of impression managementtheory and research, Schlenker and Weigold(1992) distinguish between restrictive and expan-sive views of impression management. Therestrictive view sees impression management asa generally negative often deceptive set of behav-iors aimed at illicitly gaining social power andapproval. It stems from the old view of impres-sion management as a contaminant of socialpsychological research (i.e., evaluation appre-hension). The expansive view on the other handsees impression management as a fundamentalaspect of social interactions. “According to theexpansivist view, there is nothing inherentlynefarious or superficial about impression man-agement. It involves packaging information inways designed to lead audiences to a particularconclusion. . . . From this perspective, to askwhen people engage in self-presentation duringsocial interaction is like asking when people will

engage in cognition during social interaction.The process is always going on, but its charactermay change depending ont he actor’s goals andthe circumstances” (Schlenker and Weigold,1992, p. 137).2

The restrictive-expansive distinction has beenimplicitly made in previous analyses of impres-sion management in employment interviews.Fletcher (1989, 1992) notes that while impres-sion management occurs in employmentinterviews, not all of it is inherently deceptiveor manipulative. “. . . In relation to interviewbehavior, it may be more useful to think of it asa continuum of strategic impression managementbehaviors, the most extreme of which involveconscious deception” (1992, p. 364). In Fletcher’sview, while some impression management inemployment interviews may be manipulativeother forms of impression management may be“authentic”, that is, the applicant presents anidentity that closely matches his or her self-image. The task therefore for interviewers is notto eliminate impression management, but tocreate situations where manipulative impressionmanagement is less likely to occur.

The expansive view of impression manage-ment also fits with Gilmore and Ferris’ (1989b)insight that impression management is expectedand implicitly encouraged in employment inter-views. The candidate often must “sell” him orherself in order to get a job offer. Someone whodoes not present him or her self positively (orappears to be not trying to) may be perceived asnot really desiring the position. Furthermore, theskilled use of authentic impression managementdisplayed in an interview context might be auseful indicator that the candidate will be able tosuccessfully utilize impression management whenneeded in future job settings. As Lautenschlagerand Flaherty (1990, p. 313) note, “. . . the abilityto manage one’s impression may be quite valuableas a variable in its own right, especially incontexts where either social influence or con-formity is important, such as in sales settings”.

804 Paul Rosenfeld

Increasing fairness in employment interviews: an impression management perspective

According to the expansive view, it is not simplythe occurrence of impression management inemployment interviews that impacts fairness, itis the type of impression management thatoccurs. Candidate impression management whichis authentic and involves a legitimate packagingof positive traits would seem to be fair particu-larly since a reciprocal process is also occurring:the interviewer is impression managing thecandidate. It is the deceptive, manipulative,insincere impression management that needs tobe detected, minimized, and discounted. Howmight this be done?

1. View impression management as a skill not as adeficit. There is little doubt that impressionmanagement is very common in employmentinterviews. Instead of discounting this behavior,Fletcher (1989) recommends using the employ-ment interview to assess how good candidates areat impression management. Thus, rather thanviewing impression management in the employ-ment interview as an obstacle it might be betterseen as a potential source of valuable informationabout an applicant’s ability to do the job.Regarding impression management as a valuableskill rather than as inherently dysfunctionalrecognizes that much of organizational successdepends on the ability to master “organizationalpolitics” (Gilmore and Ferris, 1989b).

2. Train interviewers to recognize various kinds ofapplicant impression management. Some of theprevious employment interview literature hasviewed applicant impression management as“noise”, something to be detected and dis-counted. The expansive view considers impres-sion management to be more complex and notinherently “bad”. Thus, some knowledge of thenature of the positive and negative aspects ofimpression management could be added tointerview training. As Fletcher (1990, p. 747)writes, “. . . it might be possible to sensitizeinterviewers to the different kinds of impressionmanagement strategies that candidates use andthe effects they have, so that they can identify

them more readily and take account of them intheir decision-making process”.3

3. Reduce ambiguity and uncertainty of the employ-ment interview situation. As Baker and Spier (1990,p. 86) note, this is very likely the case withunstructured employment interviews where“. . . the lack of structure plays into the handsof those interviewees bent on obfuscating ordiverting attention from their qualifications”.They recommend using more structured inter-view procedures. Similarly Fletcher (1989)suggests using board or panel interviews andassessment centers to reduce manipulativeimpression management by applicants.4

4. Train interviewers to focus on strategic rather thantactical impression management. A central theme ofthis paper has been that not all impression man-agement is inherently unfair in employmentinterviews. Rather, that impression managementwhich is deceitful and manipulative should beconsidered unfair. Thus, one way to increasefairness is to make it more likely that candidateswill engage in more sincere forms of impressionmanagement. A way to encourage more sincereimpression management is to increase the verifi-ability of the information sought. Impressionmanagement research (cf. Schlenker, 1980) hasfound that individuals will act in self-enhancingways to please significant audiences in theabsence of a “reality check”. However, wheninformation exists which could repudiate anoverly positive claim, individuals will presentthemselves in a more accurate fashion, one thatis closer to what they really believe. As Schlenker(1980, p. 188) notes, “The more difficult it isfor the audience to check the veracity of a self-presentation the more likely people are to self-aggrandize”. Similarly, in discussing employmentinterviews, Fletcher (1989, p. 275) notes, “. . .individuals moderate their self-assessments whenthey know they will be subject to subsequentexternal checking”.

It would seem therefore that to increasefairness in employment interviews the discussionshould be focused on verifiable information thatis less likely prone to distortion, deception andmanipulation. One way to do this is to train

Impression Management and Employment Interviews 805

interviewers to distinguish between tactical andstrategic impression management behaviors(Gilmore and Ferris, 1989b; Tedeschi et al.,1985, chapter 3). Tactical impression manage-ment refers to behaviors aimed at makingshort-term, immediate favorable impressions(e.g., making the interviewer like the applicant).Examples would be things such as comple-menting the interviewer, agreeing with theinterviewer’s statements and positive nonverbalbehaviors such as smiling and eye-contact. Thegoal of tactical impression management by anapplicant is to make a quick, short-term positiveimpression on the interviewer. Strategic impres-sion management behaviors have more long-termgoals; they are tied to better established, long-term identities involving a person’s credibility,competence, and trustworthiness. While in manyinformal social interactions, a person may have asimilar level of knowledge about someone’sshort-term or long-term identities, this is gen-erally not true for employment interviews. AsGilmore and Ferris (1989b) note, an interviewerusually has a great deal of information relevantto a applicant’s long-term (i.e. strategic) identity.“In impression management terminology, thisprior information (i.e., application blank orresume) available to the interviewer is typicallystrategic impression management data (Gilmoreand Ferris, 1989b, p. 202)”. Furthermore, theapplicant knows that the interviewer has thisinformation and is aware that much of thisinformation is verifiable (i.e., can be checked foraccuracy). Since verifiability reduces scores onindividual differences scales that assess conscious,strategic impression management (e.g., Marlowe-Crowne) but not on scales that assess impressionmanagement that a person truly believes(Rosenfeld et al., 1994a), it would seem thatfocusing the employment interview on aspects ofa candidate’s strategic identity – his/her compe-tence, credibility, long-term achievements –rather than short-term impression managementbehaviors aimed at pleasing the interviewer,would ultimately result in less distortion andmore fairness. Training interviewers to focus onlong-term accomplishments rather than short-term “slickness” may be needed. As discussedpreviously, Gilmore and Ferris (1989a) found that

tactical impression management behaviors(smiles, complements) positively influenced inter-viewer perceptions of an applicant but informa-tion about credentials and qualifications did not.

Notes

* The opinions expressed herein are those of theauthor, they are not official and do not necessarilyrepresent the views of the U.S. Navy Department.1 Fletcher (1992, p. 362) also sees courses, seminarsand popular books that train job applicants to usedeceptive impression management tactics as raisingissues of fairness.

There does seem to be some danger that the pro-vision of training that facilitates deceitful impres-sion management might have a wider effect inmaking interviewers doubtful of the veracity ofwhat they are being told, even when they aredealing with honest candidates, and in so doingundermine confidence int he selection process asa whole.

2 Other forceful arguments have been made againstthe restrictive view of impression management.Tetlock and Manstead (1985, pp. 61–62) note,“Although some writers have used the term impres-sion management to refer to the self-consciousdeception of others . . . there is no compelling psy-chological reason why impression management mustbe either duplicitous or under conscious control.Impression management may be the product of highlyoverlearned habits or scripts, the original functions ofwhich people have long forgotten. Similarly,Schlenker and Weigold, (1990, p. 827) write, “It ismyopic to argue that self-presentation primarilyinvolves pretense, deception, or illegitimacy. Self-presentation involves packaging desired self-identifi-cations so that audiences draw a preferred conclusion.. . . There is nothing nefarious, superficial, orMachiavellian about packaging. Just as a textbookwriter must edit information to present it in areadable, concise fashion, so must people edit infor-mation about themselves in everyday life to providethe “best” description possible”.3 Training managers to recognize various impressionmanagement techniques and defend against beingmanipulated by them has been previously recom-mended (Giacalone, 1989) but apparently has notbeen systematically carried out. Gilmore and Ferris

806 Paul Rosenfeld

(1989, p. 564) see the task being one of training inter-viewers to distinguish style from substance.“Interpersonal skill-building that focuses on infor-mation solicitation and exchange and that helps toeducate interviewers in the distinction betweensubstantive content and merely opportunistic behavioron the part of the applicant should be an importantaddition to such programs.”4 Another way of reducing ambiguity and uncer-tainty recommended by Fletcher (1990, p. 747) is “bygiving all candidates for a post a briefing on how theywere expected to present themselves in the interview.This would help to establish a common set of expec-tations about what behavior is appropriate.”

References

Anderson, N. R.: 1991, ‘Decision Making in theGraduate Selection Interview: An ExperimentalInvestigation’, Human Relations 44, 403–417.

Arvey, R. D. and G. L. Renz: 1992, ‘Fairness in theSelection of Employees’, Journal of Business Ethics11, 331–340.

Barker, H. G. and M. S. Spier: 1990, ‘TheEmployment Interview: Guaranteed Improvementin Reliability’, Public Personnel Management 19,85–90.

Baron, R. A.: 1989, ‘Impression Management byApplicants During Employment Interviews: The“Too Much of a Good Thing” Effect’, in R. W.Eder and G. R. Ferris (eds.), The EmploymentInterview: Theory, Research, Practice (Sage, NewburyPark, CA), pp. 204–215.

Elder, R. W. and G. R. Ferris (eds.): 1989, TheEmployment Interview: Theory, Research, Practice(Sage, Newbury Park, CA).

Fletcher, C.: 1989, ‘Impression Management in theSelection Interview’, in R. A. Giacalone and P.Rosenfeld (eds.), Impression Management in theOrganization (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ),pp. 269–281.

Fletcher, C.: 1990, ‘The Relationship betweenCandidate Personality, Self-Presentation strategies,and Interviewer Assessments in SelectionInterviews: An Empirical Study’, Human Relations43, 739–749.

Fletcher, C.: 1992, ‘Ethical Issues in the SelectionInterview’, Journal of Business Ethics 11, 361–367.

Giacalone, R. A.: 1989 May, ‘Image Control: TheStrategies of Impression Management’, Personnel,52–55.

Giacalone, R. A. and P. Rosenfeld (eds.): 1989,

Impression Management in the Organization (LawrenceErlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ).

Giacalone, R. A. and P. Rosenfeld (eds.): 1991,Applied Impression Management: How Image MakingAffects Managerial Decisions (Sage, Newbury Park,CA).

Gilmore, D. C. and G. R. Ferris: 1989a, ‘The Effectsof Applicant Impression Management Tactics onInterviewer Judgments’, Journal of Management 15,557–564.

Gilmore, D. C. and G. R. Ferris: 1989b, ‘The Politicsof the Employment Interview’, in R. W. Eder andG. R. Ferris, eds., 1989, The Employment Interview:Theory, Research, Practice (Sage, Newbury Park,CA), pp. 195–203.

Kacmar, K. M., J. E. Delery and G. R. Ferris: 1992,‘Differential Effectiveness of Applicant ImpressionManagement Tactics on Employment InterviewDecisions’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22,1250–1272.

Lautenschlager, G. L. and V. L. Flaherty: 1990,‘Computer Administration of Questions: MoreDesirable or More Social Desirability?’, Journal ofApplied Psychology 75, 310–314.

Liden, R. C., C. L. Martin, and C. K. Parson: 1993,‘Interviewer and Applicant Behaviors in Employ-ment Interviews’, Academy of Management Journal36, 372–386.

Rosenfeld, P. and R. A. Giacalone: 1991, ‘FromExtreme to the Mainstream: Applied ImpressionManagement in Organizations’, in R. A. Giacaloneand P. Rosenfeld (eds.), Applied ImpressionManagement: How Image Making Affects ManagerialDecision Making (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), pp.3–11.

Rosenfeld, P., S. Booth-Kewley, J. E. Edwards andD. L. Alderton: 1994a, ‘Linking Diversity andImpression Management: A Study of Hispanic,Black, and White Navy Recruits’, AmericanBehavioral Scientist 37, 672–681.

Rosenfeld, P., R. A. Giacalone, and C. A. Riordan:1994b, ‘Impression Management Theory andDiversity: Lessons for Organizational Behavior’,American Behavioral Scientist 37, 601–604.

Schlenker, B. R.: 1980, Impression Management: TheSelf-Concept, Social Identity, and InterpersonalRelations (Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA).

Schlenker, B. R. and M. F. Weigold: 1990, ‘Self-Consciousness and Self-Presentation: BeingAutonomous Versus Appearing Autonomous’,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59,820–828.

Schlenker, B. R. and M. F. Weigold: 1992,

Impression Management and Employment Interviews 807

‘Interpersonal Processes Involving ImpressionRegulation and Management’, Annual Review ofPsychology 43, 133–168.

Tedeschi, J. T., S. Lindskold, and P. Rosenfeld: 1985,Introduction to Social Psychology (West, St. Paul,MN).

Tetlock, P. E. and A. S. R. Manstead: 1985,‘Impression Management Versus IntrapsychicExplanations in Social Psychology: A UsefulDichotomy?’, Psychological Review 92, 59–77.

Von Baeyer, C. L., D. I. Sherk and M. P. Zanna: 1981,‘Impression Management in the Job Interview’,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 7, 45–51.

(Code 12),Navy Personnel Research & Development Center,

53335 Ryne Road,San Diego, CA 92152-7250,

U.S.A.

808 Paul Rosenfeld