19. In telling others about things that I own, I also tell
them of their value.
41. I do correct people who underestimate the value
of gifts that I give to them.
Blasting
56. I make negative statements about people
belonging to rival groups.
27. I have put others down in order to make myself
look better.
34. I say negative things about unpopular groups.
20. I point out the incorrect positions of the opposing
political party.
47. I exaggerate the negative qualities of people who
compete with me.Exemplification
24. I try to set an example for others to follow.
15. I try to serve as a model for how a person should
behave.
26. I try to get others to act in the same positive way
I do.
37. I act in ways I think others should act.
21. I try to induce imitation by others by serving as a
positive example.
Notes :
Item numbers refer to the order in which items are
listed when the full SPT Scale is used.
Reproduced with permission.
Impression Management Styles (IMS) Scale
(Bolino & Turnley, 1999 ).
Variable
The IMS Scale was constructed to measure impression management behavior based on the five self-
presentational styles identified by Jones and Pittman (1982) : self-promotion (trying to be viewed as competent),
ingratiation (trying to be viewed as friendly and nice), exemplification (trying to be viewed as morally exemplary),
intimidation (trying to be viewed as threatening), and supplication (trying to be viewed as helpless and weak).
Sample
The IMS Scale was constructed and validated using various samples of undergraduate management students,
employees working for the Department of the Navy, and employees and managers of a Fortune 500 technology
company in the southern United States ( Bolino & Turnley, 1999 ).
Description
The IMS Scale contains 22 statements, 4 to 6 of which measure each of Jones and Pittman’s (1982) five self-
presentational strategies. The response format is a 5-point Likert-type scale that reflects the frequency with which
respondents behave in the stated fashion (1 5never behave this way ,25very rarely behave this way ,35occasionally
behave this way ,45sometimes behave this way ,55often behave this way ).
An initial pool of 44 items was administered to 33 students in an undergraduate management class who were
currently employed or had previous work experience. Eighteen items were discarded, and exploratory factor
analyses were conducted on a sample of 306 civilian employees working for the Department of the Navy.
The scale was revised and administered to a sample of 120 managers (26 females, M540 years) who worked for
the Department of the Army. The final 22-item measure was administered to 147 employees of a Fortune 500
technology firm (62 women). The mean scores on each subscale were as follows: self-promotion ( M52.95), ingra-
tiation ( M52.95), exemplification ( M52.29), intimidation ( M51.91), and supplication ( M51.62). A sample of
94 students (41 women) enrolled in management classes and currently employed also completed the scale.
Subscale mean scores were as follows: self-promotion ( M53.40), ingratiation ( M53.46), exemplification
(M52.82), intimidation ( M52.22) and supplication ( M51.68).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
All self-presentational subscales appear to be homogeneous in light of the obtained Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cients: self-promotion ( α50.88 to 0.92); ingratiation ( α50.85 to 0.91); exemplification ( α50.76 to 0.81);468 16. MEASURES OF CONCERNS WITH PUBLIC IMAGE AND SOCIAL EVALUATION
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES