intimidation ( α50.84 to 0.89); and supplication ( α50.93). Inter-factor correlations among the five self-
presentational strategies range from 0.13 to 0.60 with the majority falling between 0.27 to 0.37 suggesting that
people have a general tendency to use (or not use) all five strategies.
Test-Retest
Test-retest reliability has not been explored to-date.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Self-monitoring correlates positively with the self-promotion ( r50.32), ingratiation ( r50.28), and exemplification
(r50.20) subscales. Measures of careerism (i.e., pursuing advancement in one’s career in ways other than job perfor-
mance) correlated positively with the self-promotion ( r50.30), intimidation ( r50.80), and supplication ( r50.24) sub-
scales. In addition, convergent validity of the IMS Scale was further demonstrated by correlating it with subscales of
the Impression Management by Association Scale (IMAS) which measures the frequency with which people try to
associate with other people and things in order to make desired impressions ( Andrews & Kacmar, 2001 ). Specifically,
as expected, the self-promotion subscale of the IMS Scale was significantly positively correlated with the most con-
ceptually relevant IMAS subscales of blurring (i.e., exaggerating relationships with important others) ( r50.16) and
boasting (i.e., advertising relationships with important others) ( r50.44) and the exemplification subscale of the IMS
Scale was positively correlated with the most conceptually relevant IMAS subscales of blaring (i.e., publicly distanc-
ing oneself from poor performers) ( r50.29) and blurring ( r50.24) ( Kacmar, Harris, & Nagy, 2007 ).
In organizational settings in which politics are perceived to govern decisions about employees, performance is
no longer the leading criterion for professional gain and so employees are more likely to engage in impression
management tactics. Indeed, four subscales (ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication) of
the IMS Scale explain a significant proportion of the variance in perceived organizational politics ( Kacmar
et al., 2007 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
Subscales of the IMS Scale were not correlated with conscientiousness, perceived organizational support, or
various measures of organizational citizenship behavior ( Bolino & Turnley, 1999; Kacmar et al., 2007 ). In addition,
little overlap was found between the conceptually unrelated subscales of the IMS Scale and the Impression
Management by Association Scale ( Kacmar et al., 2007 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Bolino and Turnley (1999) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on the scale ( n5147 professionals and man-
agers). Two pairs of items from each subscale were averaged to create parcels indicating each of the five impression
management strategies. Three indices of fit were used: t he Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) indicated a fit of .97, the
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) indicated a fit of 1.00, and the Co mparative Fit Index (CFI) indicated a fit of 1.00. A second
confirmatory factor analysis was conducted restricting each item to load only on its corresponding scale. The GFI
indicated a fit of .81, the TLI indicated a fit of .87, and the CF I indicated a fit of .89. In addition, a five factor confirma-
tory factor analytic solution fit the data better than a four, three, or one factor solution. Finally, when each of the five
subscales was used as an indicator for a latent variable of impression management (the GFI indicated a fit of .91, the
TLI indicated a fit of .92, and the CFI indicated a fit of .94), the paths between each of the five subscales and the latent
variable ranged from .46 to .78 indicating that together the subscales measure global impression management.
Criterion/Predictive
No evidence on criterion or predictive validity is currently available.
Location
Kacmar, K.M., Harris, K.J., & Nagy, B.G. (2007). Further validation of the Bolino and Turnley impression man-
agement scale. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9 ,1 6/C032.
Results and Comments
The authors based the design of this scale on a broad taxonomy of self-presentational strategies. Previous
attempts to construct impression management scales focused largely on only ingratiation and self-promotion, but469 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES