Impression Management Styles Scale (IMS)

Abstract

The Impression Management Styles Scale (IMS) is a psychometric instrument developed by Bolino and Turnley (1999) designed to measure the frequency and intensity with which individuals utilize five distinct strategies of Impression Management (IM) within organizational contexts. Based on the widely recognized taxonomy proposed by Jones and Pittman (1982), the scale operationalizes five specific IM tactics: Self-Promotion, Ingratiation, Exemplification, Intimidation, and Supplication. The IMS is crucial for research in Organizational Behavior and social psychology, providing researchers with a reliable tool to assess how employees strategically manage perceptions to achieve desired outcomes, such as career success or avoiding undesirable tasks.

Keywords

Impression Management, Self-Promotion, Ingratiation, Exemplification, Intimidation, Supplication, Organizational Behavior, Jones and Pittman Taxonomy, Psychological Scale.

Authors

Mark C. Bolino, William H. Turnley

Purpose

The primary purpose of the IMS is to provide a standardized, empirically validated measure for assessing the five specific Impression Management tactics outlined in the seminal work by Jones and Pittman (1982). Prior to the IMS, researchers often relied on broad or single-dimension measures of IM. Bolino and Turnley sought to create a comprehensive, multidimensional scale that differentiates between these tactics, recognizing that individuals employ distinct sets of behaviors depending on the desired image they wish to project.

This scale is particularly valuable in settings where reputation and social influence are critical, such as performance appraisals, hiring decisions, and team dynamics within organizations. By quantifying the use of these five strategies, the IMS helps researchers understand the antecedents and consequences of strategic behavior in the workplace.

Construct

The IMS measures the psychological construct of Impression Management (IM), defined as conscious or unconscious attempts by individuals to control and manipulate the image others form of them. The scale is structured around five distinct, yet related, dimensions, each representing a specific strategy aimed at projecting a particular identity:

• Self-Promotion: Attempts to be viewed as competent and dedicated by highlighting one’s accomplishments and skills.
• Ingratiation: Attempts to be viewed as likable and friendly by using flattery or favors.
• Exemplification: Attempts to be viewed as morally worthy and dedicated by going above and beyond the call of duty.
• Intimidation: Attempts to be viewed as dangerous or powerful by threatening or aggressively asserting oneself.
• Supplication: Attempts to be viewed as needy or dependent to elicit help or avoid burdensome tasks.

Validity

The original development of the IMS (Bolino & Turnley, 1999) established strong construct validity through rigorous scale development procedures, including item generation, refinement, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA results consistently supported the five-factor structure, demonstrating that the items load distinctly onto their intended dimensions, thereby confirming the conceptual separation of the five IM styles.

Subsequent validation studies, such as those by Kacmar, Harris, & Nagy (2007), have further confirmed the scale’s utility and dimensionality across different samples. These studies typically report appropriate convergent and discriminant validity, showing that the subscales correlate meaningfully with related constructs (e.g., personality traits or organizational commitment) while remaining distinct from one another, reinforcing the scale’s theoretical foundation in the Jones and Pittman taxonomy.

Reliability

The Impression Management Styles Scale demonstrates strong internal consistency across all five subscales, indicating high reliability. The original studies reported the following ranges for Cronbach’s Alpha (α):

• Self-Promotion: α ranges from 0.88 to 0.92.
• Ingratiation: α ranges from 0.80 to 0.91.
• Exemplification: α ranges from 0.76 to 0.81.
• Intimidation: α ranges from 0.84 to 0.89.
• Supplication: α is reported at 0.93.

These high coefficients confirm that the items within each subscale reliably measure the intended underlying construct, making the IMS a statistically sound instrument for measuring IM behaviors in research.

Factor Analysis

The development of the IMS utilized exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis techniques to ensure the empirical structure aligned with the theoretical framework. The analysis consistently yielded a five-factor structure, corresponding precisely to the five IM strategies proposed by Jones and Pittman. Each style—Self-Promotion, Ingratiation, Exemplification, Intimidation, and Supplication—emerged as a statistically distinct factor. This multidimensional structure is critical, as it allows researchers to examine the interplay and independent effects of different IM tactics, rather than treating Impression Management as a single, monolithic behavior.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Questionnaire

Format: Multi-item, Five-point Likert Scale

Language Available: Primarily English (Validated translations may exist in subsequent research)

Population Group: Employees and participants within organizational settings

Age Group: Adult (Working professionals)

Population Details: Originally validated on samples of working adults and students with work experience, focusing on behaviors directed toward colleagues and superiors in the workplace.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate the frequency with which they engage in the described behaviors using the following five-point scale: 1=never behave this way, 2=very rarely behave this way, 3=occasionally behave this way, 4=sometimes behave this way, 5=often behave this way.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Scale Development, Organizational Psychology, Social Influence, Workplace Behavior, Five-Factor Model, Psychological Assessment.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1999 (Publication of initial scale development)

Permissions & Fee: Researchers typically utilize this scale for academic purposes without a direct fee, provided they cite the original publication (Bolino & Turnley, 1999). Commercial use may require explicit permission from the authors or copyright holders.

The original PDF of an instrument related to this content can be downloaded here: http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Baboons-Chapter.pdf

Reference’s

The following academic works are cited in relation to the Impression Management Styles Scale (IMS):

• Bolino‚ M. C.‚ & Turnley‚ W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale of development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods‚ 2: 187-206.
• Bolino‚ M. C.‚ & Turnley‚ W. H. (2003). More than one way to make an impression: Exploring profiles of impression management. Journal of Management‚ 29‚ 141-160.
• Kacmar‚ K.M.‚ Harris‚ K.J.‚ & Nagy‚ B.G. (2007). Further validation of the Bolino and Turnley impression management scale. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management‚ 9: 16-32.
• Golparvar‚ Mohsen.‚ Ghorayshi‚ Reyhanehalsadat. (2015). Prediction of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Deviant Behaviors Through Impression Management Components. Quarterly journal of social work‚ 4 (1); 03-15.
• Leary‚ Mark R.‚ Jongman-Sereno‚ Katrina P.‚ and Diebels‚ Kate J. (2015). Measures of Concerns with Public Image and Social Evaluation. in Gregory Boyle‚ Donald H. Saklofske and Gerald Matthews.‚ Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs. Elsevier‚ Pages 448–473.

Items of the Impression Management Styles Scale(IMS)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Self-Promotion

1. Talk proudly about your experience or education.
2. Make people aware of your talents or qualifications.
3. Let others know that you are valuable to the organization.
4. Make people aware of your accomplishments.

Ingratiation

1. Compliment your colleagues so they will see you as likable.
2. Take an interest in your colleagues’ personal lives to show them that you are friendly.
3. Praise your colleagues for their accomplishments so they will consider you a nice person.
4. Do personal favors for your colleagues to show them that you are friendly.

Exemplification

1. Stay at work late so people will know you are hard working.
2. Try to appear busy‚ even at times when things are slower.
3. Arrive at work early to look dedicated.
4. Come to the office at night or on weekends to show that you are dedicated.

Intimidation

1. Be intimidating with coworkers when it will help you get your job done.
2. Let others know you can make things difficult for them if they push you too far.
3. Deal forcefully with colleagues when they hamper your ability to get your job done.
4. Deal strongly or aggressively with coworkers who interfere in your business.
5. Use intimidation to get colleagues to behave appropriately.

Supplication

1. Act like you know less than you do so people will help you out.
2. Try to gain assistance or sympathy from people by appearing needy in some areas.
3. Pretend not to understand something to gain someone’s help.
4. Act like you need assistance so people will help you out.
5. Pretend to know less than you do so you can avoid an unpleasant assignment.