Further Validation of the Bolino and Turnley Impression Management Scale

Abstract

As the field of impression management studies matures, the tools used to study and assess its components continue to be refined. The present study supplies additional testing and confirmation for one of the tools currently being used in the field: the Bolino and Turnley (1999) impression management scale. Using three samples of 144, 236, and 204 full-time employees, we confirm the factor structure and the utility of the majority of the scale's twenty-two items, as well as demonstrate the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale. The results of the study also suggest avenues for future research.

Validation of the Bolino and Turnley Impression Management Scale

“…Contextualised, this result showed that the items of the IM Scale sufficiently loaded on their respective factors of Ingratiation, Supplication, Intimidation, Self-promotion and Exemplification. This finding in the South African context is aligned to that of the original factor design found by Bolino and Turnley (1999), as well as a replication study which confirmed the five-factor structure (Kacmar et al, 2007).…”

“…Alternatively, because there is very little that may be used to distinguish effectively between students at a level of tertiary education, it is also possible that the research participants did not engage in Intimidation behaviours. Aside from the first stage of the IM Scale's development, the vast majority of research using the scale has taken place within organisations with distinct hierarchies (see Bolino & Turnley, 2003b;Kacmar et al, 2007), resulting in statistical clarity with regards to Intimidation. This explanation therefore serves as the more plausible of the two.…”

“…The two constructs have often been studied together in past literature (cf. Bolino & Turnley, 2003a;Gardner & Martinko, 1988;Kacmar, Harris, & Nagy, 2007), and thus, the SM scale presented a strong case for the measure of convergent validity.…”

A Multi-Level Review of Impression Management Motives and Behaviors

“…Following the scale development procedures recommended by Hinkin (1998), they provided evidence for the reliability of their IM scale and its five factors. Recently, Kacmar, Harris, and Nagy (2007) assessed the factor structure of the scale, the reliability of the subscales, as well as their convergent and discriminant validity. Using three samples of 144, 236, and 204 fulltime employees, their findings provided additional support for the psychometric properties of the scale, which they believe should be referred to in future work as the IM-5.…”

İzlenim Yönetimi Taktikleri Kullanımına İlişkin Öğretmen Görüşlerinin İncelenmesi

“…Afterwards, the importance of impression management in behaviors displayed during interpersonal interactions was started to be realized during the 1980's (Leary & Kowalski, 1990) after which it became a key concept in organizational environments as well (Akgün, 2009;Demiral, 2013;Rosenfeld & Giacalone, 1991;Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan, 1995;Ünaldı, 2005). Because individuals resort to various tactics of impression management for reasons such as obtaining financial and social benefits as well as having a positive identity accepted by others (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2001).Impression management tactics are expressed in various forms as; impression management strategies (Caillouet & Allen, 1996;Crane & Crane, 2002), impression management behaviors (Drory & Zaidman, 2007;Wayne & Green, 1993), impression management tactics (Demir, 2002;Demiral, 2013;Gilmore, Stevens, Harrell-Cook & Ferris, 1999;Gwal, 2015;Kacmar & Carlson, 1999;Kacmar, Harris & Nagy, 2007;Kasar, 2011;Lievens & Peeters, 2008;Mohamed, Gardner & Paolillo, 1999;Shoko & Dzimiri, 2018;Tsai, Chen & Chiu, 2005;Türköz, 2010). The researchers have preferred the use of the "tactic" concept in this study which has been accepted by majority of the researchers.…”