ORGANIZATIONAL

Bolino, Turnley / MEASURING

RESEARCH
IMPRESSION
METHODS MANAGEMENT

Measuring Impression Management in

Organizations: A Scale Development
Based on the Jones and Pittman Taxonomy

MARK C. BOLINO
University of South Carolina

WILLIAM H. TURNLEY
Kansas State University

Five studies were conducted to develop a measure of employee impression man-

agement behaviors based on the taxonomy proposed by Jones and Pittman. In
Study 1, 44 items were given to student judges to verify the content validity of the
items. In Study 2, the scale was administered to a sample of professionals and ex-
ploratory factor analysis was conducted. Based on the results, revisions to the
scale were made. In Study 3, the revised scale was administered to a group of man-
agers and exploratory factor analysis was again performed. In Study 4, the final
version of the scale was administered to another sample of professionals and con-
firmatory factor analysis was performed. Finally, in Study 5, the convergent and
discriminant validity of the scale was assessed using a sample of management stu-
dents. The results support the taxonomy presented by Jones and Pittman. Sugges-
tions for future research using the new measure are discussed.

Impression management is the process whereby people seek to influence the image
others have of them (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995). Although this topic was
originally examined by sociologists and social psychologists, organizational scholars
have also become increasingly interested in impression management in recent years.
Indeed, several books presenting theoretical discussions of the impression manage-
ment process have been published (e.g., Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1989, 1991; Rosen-
feld et al., 1995; Schlenker, 1980; Tedeschi, 1981). In addition, several articles provid-
ing theoretical frameworks for exploring impression management in organizations
have also appeared (e.g., Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Morrison & Bies, 1991; Tedeschi &
Melburg, 1984). Thus, impression management is now recognized as a common
occurrence in organizational settings. Furthermore, researchers have recently begun to
empirically examine impression management behaviors in a variety of organizational
contexts, including feedback seeking (Ashford & Northcraft, 1992), performance
appraisal (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), inter-

Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 2 No. 2, April 1999 187-206

© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
187
188 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS

viewing (Kacmar, Delery, & Ferris, 1992; Stevens & Kristoff, 1995), leadership
(Wayne & Green, 1993), and careers (Judge & Bretz, 1994).
In spite of the growing interest in impression management in organizations, Rao,
Schmidt, and Murray (1995) point out three shortcomings of the research conducted to
date on this topic. First, the existing empirical research focuses primarily on just a few
impression management strategies (particularly ingratiation). Second, there is an
overuse of lab experiments using student samples. Third, there is a lack of empirical
assessments of previously developed impression management frameworks. A likely
contributor to the limitations noted by these authors is that no widely accepted measure
of impression management behaviors, based on existing theory, is currently available.
The purpose of this article is to redress this problem by developing a measure of
impression management that is grounded in existing impression management theory.
Specifically, this article details a series of studies conducted in order to develop an
impression management scale based on the taxonomy proposed by Jones and Pittman
(1982).

Impression Management Measures

Existing empirical research has typically measured impression management using
one of two approaches. The first approach involves observing and recording partici-
pants’ impression management behaviors in an experimental context or under natu-
rally occurring conditions. For example, Fandt and Ferris (1990) examined the extent
to which accountability, ambiguity, and self-monitoring influenced individuals’ ten-
dencies to manipulate the information they gave to their supervisors. Stevens and
Kristoff (1995) observed the extent of self-promotion and opinion conformity used by
job applicants during actual interviews and examined the impact such tactics had on
interview outcomes. The strength of this approach is its focus and objectivity. That is,
in this type of research, specific impression management tactics can be observed and
their unique effects explored; also, because impression management behaviors are not
self-reported in such studies, social desirability bias is not problematic. However,
because most studies using this approach are conducted in laboratory environments,
their generalizability to organizational settings is often questionable. Moreover, nego-
tiating entry into organizations in order to observe employees’ actual impression man-
agement behaviors is likely to prove a formidable task.
The second approach taken by researchers attempting to measure impression man-
agement has generally involved the use of one of the impression management scales
developed by Wayne and Ferris (1990) or Kumar and Beyerlein (1991). Although
each of these scales has its advantages, there are also some limitations associated
with their use.
The 24-item impression management measure developed by Wayne and Ferris
(1990) taps the frequency with which individuals engage in supervisor-focused, self-
focused, and job-focused impression management behaviors. One benefit of this
approach is that it measures respondents’ self-reported impression management
behaviors (rather than relying on observers’ perceptions of such behaviors). Further-
more, the instrument is easy to administer, making it amenable for use in organiza-
tional settings. However, there are some notable concerns with this scale.
First, there appear to be psychometric problems with one of the impression man-
agement subscales. Specifically, Ferris et al. (1994) found that the self-focused tactics
 Bolino, Turnley / MEASURING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 189

subscale demonstrated poor reliability and that many of the items did not show accept-
able discriminant validity.
Second, the primary focus of the Wayne and Ferris (1990) study was not the devel-
opment of an impression management measure. Instead, the authors derived the
dimensions of their scale based on the results of an exploratory factor analysis and,
consequently, the exact meaning of the dimensions is somewhat unclear. For example,
the item “Disagree with your supervisor on major issues” is classified as a job-focused
impression management strategy, whereas the item “Agree with your supervisor’s
major ideas” is classified as a supervisor-focused strategy. Similarly, “Create the
impression that you are a ‘good’ person to your supervisor” is labeled a job-focused
strategy, but “Present yourself to your supervisor as being a friendly person” is labeled
a self-focused strategy. It is not apparent why such similar pairs of items should mea-
sure different impression management strategies. Such ambiguity makes deriving
theoretically-based predictions about the causes or consequences of these different
strategies somewhat difficult.
A third concern with this scale is that items representing other forms of impression
management, such as intimidation and supplication, are notably absent. In other
words, the scale does not include items tapping the full range of impression manage-
ment strategies identified in previous work. Thus, although Wayne and Ferris’s scale
has proved useful to date in the development of impression management research, the
scale has some notable limitations.
The other measure that has commonly been used in previous work on impression
management is Kumar and Beyerlein’s (1991) Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviors in
Organizational Settings (MIBOS). The MIBOS consists of 24 items tapping the extent
to which individuals use various forms of ingratiation (e.g., favor rendering, opinion
conformity) in the workplace. Although great care was taken in developing the MIBOS,
its most obvious shortcoming is its focus on one specific form of impression manage-
ment (i.e., ingratiation). Moreover, Kacmar and Valle (1997) recently raised serious con-
cerns about the validity of the MIBOS and called for additional research to resolve the
problems identified in their study. Still, for researchers with a specific interest in ingra-
tiation, the MIBOS or a modified version thereof may offer a worthwhile option.
A more general concern regarding existing measures of impression management,
including both the Wayne and Ferris scale as well as the Kumar and Beyerlein scale, is
their overlap with items measuring a conceptually distinct construct—organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB) (Organ, 1988). Bolino (1999) points out that several of the
items from Wayne and Ferris’s (1990) impression management scale are quite similar
to items that measure OCBs. For example, an item from Smith, Organ, and Near’s
(1983) citizenship measure reads, “Assists supervisor with his or her work.” An item
from Wayne and Ferris’s (1990) impression-management scale is, “Volunteer to help
your immediate supervisor on a task.” Given that these scales purportedly measure
seemingly antithetical constructs, the similarity of these items is striking.
The conceptual difficulties of distinguishing impression management behaviors
from OCBs have been noted in previous work (cf. Fandt & Ferris, 1990; Ferris et al.,
1994). This work suggests that the chief difference between these constructs is the
motivational intent underlying them. That is, OCBs are thought to stem from individu-
als’ desires to help out their organizations or colleagues rather than to enhance their
own images. Therefore, a final limitation of existing measures of impression manage-
ment is that they fail to address the issue of motivational intent and, consequently, they
190 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS

are often unable to distinguish the use of impression management strategies from the
performance of organizational citizenship behaviors.
In summary, although the approaches that have been used in previous studies exam-
ining impression management do have considerable strengths, there are limitations
associated with each of them. Mindful of existing limitations, a new measure of
impression management should have the following four characteristics: (a) it should
be amenable for use in organizational settings, (b) it should be based on existing
impression management theory, (c) it should be constructed such that it captures the
full domain of impression management behaviors, and (d) it should be worded such
that impression management behaviors are distinct from organizational citizenship
behaviors. To achieve these objectives, the impression management instrument devel-
oped in this research is based on Jones and Pittman’s (1982) impression management
taxonomy.

Jones and Pittman’s Impression Management Taxonomy

In an effort to “facilitate the organization” of impression management research,
Jones and Pittman (1982) developed a broad taxonomy aimed at capturing the wide
variety of impression management behaviors identified by earlier researchers. To do
so, they identified five theoretical groupings of impression management strategies that
individuals commonly use. Their taxonomy includes: self-promotion, whereby indi-
viduals point out their abilities or accomplishments in order to be seen as competent by
observers; ingratiation, whereby individuals do favors or use flattery to elicit an attri-
bution of likability from observers; exemplification, whereby people self-sacrifice or
go above and beyond the call of duty in order to gain the attribution of dedication from
observers; intimidation, where people signal their power or potential to punish in order
to be seen as dangerous by observers; and supplication, where individuals advertise
their weaknesses or shortcomings in order to elicit an attribution of being needy from
observers.
Jones and Pittman’s (1982) taxonomy is particularly well suited for scale develop-
ment because of its breadth. Moreover, it provides a more suitable basis for developing
an impression management scale than other impression management taxonomies
(such as Tedeschi and Melburg’s [1984] taxonomy) because it focuses on specific
behaviors. With few exceptions, research has only systematically examined two of the
impression management strategies identified by Jones and Pittman: ingratiation and
self-promotion. Researchers generally have not explored the strategies of exemplifica-
tion, intimidation, and supplication. Thus, by using the descriptions of the impression
management tactics proposed by Jones and Pittman, this study seeks not only to
develop a scale appropriate for measuring impression management in organizational
settings, but also to serve as an empirical validation of the taxonomy outlined by these
authors (an undertaking recommended by Judge and Bretz, 1994).

Overview of Studies 1 Through 5

Hinkin (1998) suggests a 6-step procedure for developing measures: (a) item gen-
eration, (b) questionnaire administration, (c) initial item reduction, (d) confirmatory
factor analysis, (e) convergent/discriminant validity, and (f) replication. Using this
framework, five studies were conducted to develop the impression management scale.
 Bolino, Turnley / MEASURING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 191

Study 1 reports the process by which items with high content validity were developed
for inclusion in the measure. Study 2 assesses the validity of the initial pool of items
generated by the first study and describes the initial item reduction. In Study 3, a
revised scale (based on the results from Study 2) is administered to another group of
workers and analyzed using exploratory factor analysis. In Study 4, the final version of
the scale is administered to a group of professionals and a confirmatory factor analysis
is conducted along with tests of the scale’s validity and reliability. Finally, in Study 5,
the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale are assessed.

Study 1

METHOD

Data were collected from 33 students in an undergraduate management class at a

university located in the southeastern United States. All participants were currently
working or had previous work experience. Of the participants, 61% were female.
Administration of the instrument followed a detailed discussion of Jones and Pitt-
man’s (1982) impression management taxonomy.
The questionnaire consisted of 44 items written to represent the five impression
management strategies specified by the taxonomy. As recommended by Hinkin
(1998), a deductive approach was taken in developing the initial set of items. First, a
thorough review of the existing impression management literature was conducted in
order to compile a list of specific behaviors considered to be impression management
tactics (e.g., Becker & Martin, 1995; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Tedeschi & Melburg,
1984). Next, existing measures of impression management (e.g., Kumar & Beyerlein,
1991; Wayne & Ferris, 1990) were examined and, where possible, items from these
scales were included in the initial item pool. Finally, many of the existing items were
modified or rewritten to ensure face validity and to establish consistency in tone and
perspective across all of the items in the initial pool.
Using the approach taken by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990), the 44 items were
presented to respondents in random order, with the request that each individual clas-
sify the item into one or more of the five impression management strategies. The
instrument included a sixth category labeled “other type of strategy” to eliminate the
forced assignment of an item to a strategy type. Respondents were instructed to place
an “X” in the appropriate column if an item described only a single type of impression
management strategy. Participants were told that if they believed the item described
more than a single type of strategy, they should place a “1” in the column that most
closely described it, a “2” in the column that next best described it, and so forth.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Following the procedure outlined by Schriesheim and Hinkin (1990), items that
were appropriately categorized by 70% or more of the participants were accepted as
being representative of the underlying construct. Of the 44 items, 18 failed to meet this
criterion and, therefore, were discarded. Thus, 26 items were retained for the second
study. The initial pool of items appears in Table 1 (the 26 items that were retained from
the initial pool are marked with an asterisk).
192 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS

Study 2

METHOD

Based on the results from Study 1, a survey was developed and distributed to 600
randomly selected civilian employees working for a large unit of the Department of the
Navy located in the mid-Atlantic United States. The employees surveyed ranged from
support staff to mid-level managers and worked in a variety of functional areas. Writ-
ten instructions, along with a summary of the project’s general purpose, were provided
to participants. Items were presented in random order. Participants were told that their
participation was voluntary and that their responses would be anonymous. Three hun-
dred and four usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 51%.
Because the scale was designed to measure impression management behavior,
respondents were asked to describe how frequently in the last 6 months they had used
each of the strategies described while at work. This approach is consistent with previ-
ous work on impression management (e.g., Kumar & Beyerlein, 1991; Schriesheim &
Hinkin, 1990; Wayne & Ferris, 1990). Following Hinkin’s (1998) recommendation,
five-point scale anchors were used: (1) never behave this way, (2) very rarely behave
this way, (3) occasionally behave this way, (4) sometimes behave this way, and (5)
often behave this way.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The responses were examined using maximum-likelihood exploratory factor

analysis (EFA) with squared multiple correlations as initial communality estimates.
Because the various impression management strategies are likely to be correlated, an
oblique (promax) rotation was used. As commonly recommended, items exhibiting
high cross-loadings (greater than .35) and those that did not have factor loadings of at
least .40 on the appropriate factor (strategy) were deleted from the scale (cf. Hinkin,
1995). Five items were eliminated through this process. The remaining 21 items were
again factor analyzed using the same procedure described above in order to ensure that
the factor structure had not changed due to the elimination of items. The results of the
revised factor analysis are presented in Table 2. As can be seen from Table 2, although
the factor structure was generally clean, one of the self-promotion and two of the
exemplification items loaded at less than the desired .40 level.

Study 3

METHOD

Based on the results from Study 2, a new survey instrument was developed. First,
poor items (those with a factor loading less than .40) were modified and these revised
items were added to the items retained on the basis of the factor analysis discussed
above. Hinkin (1998) suggests that in their final form, measures for most constructs
should consist of four to six items. Because some of the subscales had an inadequate
number of items remaining, new items were written by drawing on previous theoreti-
cal discussions of the particular impression management strategy. It should be noted
that these items were not rated for content validity as was done in Study 1. Neverthe-
 Bolino, Turnley / MEASURING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 193

Table 1
Initial Item Pool (used in Studies 1 and 2)
Self-promotion
SPROM1: Make people aware of your accomplishments.*
SPROM2: Try to make a positive event that you are responsible for appear better than it
actually is.
SPROM3: Try to take responsibility for positive events, even when you are not solely
responsible.*
SPROM4: Try to make a negative event that you are responsible for appear less severe
than it actually is.
SPROM5: Display your diplomas and/or awards that you have received.*
SPROM6: Let others know that you have a reputation for being competent in a particular
area.*
SPROM7: Make public your talents or qualifications.*
SPROM8: Declare that you have other opportunities outside your current job.
SPROM9: Talk about important people that you know.*
SPROM10: Try to distance yourself from negative events that you were a part of.
Ingratiation
INGRT1: Praise people for their accomplishments.*
INGRT2: Do personal favors for people.*
INGRT3: Offer to do something for someone that you are not required to do.
INGRT4: Compliment people on their dress or appearance.*
INGRT5: Agree with a person’s major ideas or beliefs.
INGRT6: Take an interest in a coworker’s or supervisor’s personal life.*
INGRT7: Imitate others’ behavior or manner.
INGRT8: Spend time listening to people’s personal problems even if you have little interest
in them.*
Exemplification
EXEMP1: Arrive at work early in order to look dedicated.*
EXEMP2: Work late at the office so that others see you.*
EXEMP3: Try to act like a model employee.
EXEMP4: Volunteer to help whenever there is the opportunity.
EXEMP5: Pretend to be busy even if you might not be.*
EXEMP6: Make sure you are never seen “goofing off” or wasting time.
EXEMP7: Arrange things on your desk so that it looks like work is being done.*
EXEMP8: Let others know how much overtime you work.*
Intimidation
INTIM1: Yell at people.*
INTIM2: Have “showdowns” with coworkers or supervisors.*
INTIM3: Threaten a coworker.*
INTIM4: Make people aware that you can control things that matter to them.
INTIM5: Punish people when they do not behave as you would like.*
INTIM6: Insult or put down your coworkers.*
INTIM7: Try to embarrass people in front of their peers or supervisors.
INTIM8: Try to appear unapproachable or distant.
Supplication
SUPP1: Intentionally do poorer quality work than you are capable of.
SUPP2: Advertise your incompetence in a particular area or about a particular issue.*
SUPP3: Pretend to not understand something that you do understand.*
SUPP4: Play “dumb.”*
SUPP5: Ask for help or assistance that you really do not need.*
SUPP6: Try to appear helpless or needy.*
SUPP7: Ask a lot of questions.
SUPP8: Downplay your accomplishments.
SUPP9: Let others win arguments.
SUPP10: Try to agree with people even when you might disagree.
*Indicates that the item was retained from the initial pool of items.
194 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS

Table 2
Rotated Factors and Item Loadings From Study 2
Factor
Item 1 2 3 4 5

SPROM1 .71 .13 –.09 .00 .03

SPROM7 .67 –.07 –.08 –.04 .03
SPROM6 .60 .20 .02 –.07 –.09
SPROM3 .40 –.09 .16 .19 .04
SPROM9 .34 –.11 .17 .00 .20
SUPP6 .10 .65 –.02 .00 –.10
SUPP3 –.16 .55 .08 –.05 .03
SUPP2 .10 .53 –.05 –.06 .08
SUPP5 .04 .49 .12 .06 .09
INTIM3 .05 –.10 .60 –.05 .01
INTIM1 –.01 .05 .58 –.06 –.08
INTIM5 –.04 .27 .45 .10 .00
INTIM6 .03 .20 .41 .06 .08
INGRT2 .04 .09 –.01 .50 .03
INGRT4 .03 –.06 –.25 .50 .06
INGRT1 .13 –.08 .04 .45 –.25
INGRT6 –.10 –.01 .06 .43 .02
EXEMP5 –.12 .22 –.04 .09 .46
EXEMP7 .08 .10 –.12 .01 .46
EXEMP2 .12 –.08 .11 –.13 .37
EXEMP1 .26 –.08 .09 .02 .36

Eigenvalues 2.43 1.95 1.00 .65 .59

Inter-Factor Correlations
1 2 3 4 5

(1) Self-promotion 1.00

(2) Supplication –.06 1.00
(3) Intimidation .07 .31 1.00
(4) Ingratiation .27 –.10 –.20 1.00
(5) Exemplification .06 .31 .27 .07 1.00
Note. Items correspond to those listed in Table 1. Factor loadings greater than or equal to .40 ap-
pear in italics.

less, because the new items were patterned after existing items that had demonstrated
high content validity, it is likely that the previously obtained content ratings apply to
the new items as well.
In addition, respondents’ qualitative comments regarding the scale administered in
Study 2 suggested that it was an individual’s motivation for performing a particular
behavior that determined whether that individual was actually engaging in impression
management. For example, numerous respondents indicated that they frequently
stayed late at work because they needed to complete a project; in these instances, they
were not really engaging in impression management per se. At other times, they stayed
late in order to create a favorable impression with their boss or another supervisor; in
these cases, they were truly engaged in impression management. (Thus, respondents
were implicitly recognizing the distinction between impression management and
 Bolino, Turnley / MEASURING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 195

organizational citizenship behavior.) Therefore, revisions of the items included incor-

porating the motivation for engaging in the behavior so as to tap only true instances of
impression management. The list of revised items is presented in Table 3.
The revised scale was then distributed to 200 mid-level managers working for a
large organizational unit of the Department of the Army located in the southwestern
United States. These civilian employees worked in a variety of functional areas.
Again, written instructions, along with a summary of the project’s general purpose,
were provided. Respondents were told that their participation was voluntary and that
their responses would be anonymous. One hundred and twenty usable surveys were
returned for a response rate of 60%. Twenty-two percent of the respondents were
female. The average age of respondents was 49. Items were presented in random order;
respondents were asked to describe how frequently they had used each of the strategies
described in the last 6 months while at work. Response choices ranged from (1) Never
behave this way to (5) Often behave this way.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As in Study 2, the responses were examined using maximum-likelihood EFA with

squared multiple correlations as initial communality estimates and a promax rotation.
Items exhibiting high cross-loadings (greater than or equal to .35) and those that did
not have factor loadings of at least .40 on the appropriate factor (strategy) were deleted
from the scale. Three items were eliminated through this process. The remaining 22
items were again factor analyzed using the same procedure described above. The
results of the revised factor analysis are shown in Table 4. The results of the EFA pro-
vide preliminary empirical support for the theoretical structure proposed by Jones and
Pittman.

Study 4

METHOD

In order to assess the reliability and validity of the revised measure developed in
Study 3, additional data were collected so that a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
could be performed. The final 22-item version of the impression management scale
was distributed to 250 professionals and managers working for a Fortune 500 technol-
ogy firm located in the southern United States. One hundred and forty-seven individu-
als returned surveys for a response rate of 59%. The median age of respondents was 39.
Approximately 42% of the sample were female.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Floyd and Widaman (1995) recommend the use of CFA for assessing the construct
validity of a measure. These authors suggest that the construct validity of an instru-
ment is supported when confirmatory techniques indicate that the factor structure of
the scale is consistent with the constructs that the instrument purports to measure.
Thus, a series of CFAs were performed on the 22 final items comprising the impression
management scale.
196 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS

Table 3
Revised Item Pool (used in Studies 3, 4, and 5)
Self-promotion
SPROM1: Talk proudly about your experience or education.
SPROM2: Make people aware of your talents or qualifications.
SPROM3: Let others know that you are valuable to the organization.
SPROM4: Let others know that you have a reputation for being competent in a particular
area.
SPROM5: Make people aware of your accomplishments.

Ingratiation
INGRT1: Compliment your colleagues so they will see you as likeable.
INGRT2: Take an interest in your colleagues’ personal lives to show them that you are
friendly.
INGRT3: Praise your colleagues for their accomplishments so they will consider you a nice
person.
INGRT4: Use flattery and favors to make your colleagues like you more.
INGRT5: Do personal favors for your colleagues to show them that you are friendly.

Exemplification
EXEMP1: Try to appear like a hard-working, dedicated employee.
EXEMP2: Stay at work late so people will know you are hard working.
EXEMP3: Try to appear busy, even at times when things are slower.
EXEMP4: Arrive at work early in order to look dedicated.
EXEMP5: Come to the office at night or on weekends to show that you are dedicated.

Intimidation
INTIM1: Be intimidating with coworkers when it will help you get your job done.
INTIM2: Let others know that you can make things difficult for them if they push you
too far.
INTIM3: Deal forcefully with colleagues when they hamper your ability to get your job
done.
INTIM4: Deal strongly or aggressively with coworkers who interfere in your business.
INTIM5: Use intimidation to get colleagues to behave appropriately.

Supplication
SUPP1: Act like you know less than you do so people will help you out.
SUPP2: Try to gain assistance or sympathy from people by appearing needy in some
area.
SUPP3: Pretend not to understand something to gain someone’s help.
SUPP4: Act like you need assistance so people will help you out.
SUPP5: Pretend to know less than you do so you can avoid an unpleasant assignment.

Researchers have found that factor structures are difficult to confirm when they are
of moderate length and when the constructs being measured are correlated (Bentler &
Chou, 1987; Floyd & Widaman, 1995). To mitigate against these problems, the use of
item parcels is recommended to assess model fit more reliably (Floyd & Widaman,
1995; Kishton & Widaman, 1994; Rindskopf & Rose, 1988). Parceling involves
grouping related items together, thereby reducing the overall number of parameters
estimated in the model.
Consistent with this recommendation, two indicators or parcels were randomly cre-
ated for each scale; it was then specified that the parcels load on their appropriate latent
factor. For example, two of the four self-promotion items were averaged to form the
 Bolino, Turnley / MEASURING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 197

Table 4
Rotated Factors and Item Loadings From Study 3
Factor
Item 1 2 3 4 5

SUPP1 .90 –.12 .05 –.01 .01

SUPP4 .86 .00 .12 –.02 –.03
SUPP3 .81 .16 –.05 –.06 –.10
SUPP2 .73 .00 .07 .05 .17
SUPP5 .57 .15 –.21 .11 .05
INTIM4 –.18 .72 .21 –.16 .07
INTIM5 .14 .69 .15 –.24 .02
INTIM2 .12 .63 –.04 .17 –.07
INTIM3 .23 .60 –.04 –.02 .11
INTIM1 .15 .59 –.07 .31 .05
SPROM2 –.23 .02 .74 .18 –.02
SPROM1 .11 .00 .72 –.17 .18
SPROM5 .02 .27 .65 .16 –.15
SPROM3 .15 .13 .57 .31 –.04
INGRT2 .03 .19 –.07 .68 –.03
INGRT3 .00 –.14 .27 .62 –.03
INGRT1 .17 –.25 .25 .53 .12
INGRT5 –.07 –.09 –.06 .42 .29
EXEMP4 .03 .07 .08 .09 .67
EXEMP3 .13 .06 –.05 –.05 .59
EXEMP2 .12 .06 .01 .38 .51
EXEMP5 –.36 .02 .08 .37 .46

Eigenvalues 6.98 3.24 1.33 1.01 .61

Inter-Factor Correlations
1 2 3 4 5

(1) Supplication 1.00

(2) Intimidation .51 1.00
(3) Self-promotion .13 .27 1.00
(4) Ingratiation .22 .25 .43 1.00
(5) Exemplification .20 .26 .36 .46 1.00
Note. Items correspond to those listed in Table 3. Factor loadings greater than or equal to .40 ap-
pear in italics.

first indicator, and the two remaining items were averaged to form the second indica-
tor. Thus, in the model, there were ten parcels indicating the five impression manage-
ment constructs. The covariance matrix was used for the CFA, and the parameters were
estimated using maximum likelihood estimation as recommended by Chou and
Bentler (1995).
Because there is no single agreed upon indicator of fit, multiple indices were used.
Specifically, fit was examined by looking at the following fit indices: the Goodness of
Fit Index (GFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) recommended by Marsh, Balla, and
McDonald (1988), and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) recommended by Floyd and
Widaman (1995). Values of greater than or equal to .90 for the GFI, TLI, and CFI indi-
cate good fit. For the model specified here, these values were .97, 1.00, and 1.00,
198 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS

respectively. Clearly, then, these indices suggest that the proposed model fits the data
well.
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) indicate that the convergent validity of a measure can
be assessed by determining whether each individual item loads significantly on its pos-
ited factor. Because parceling does not provide statistical tests for individual items, a
second model was tested for this purpose. In this measurement model, each of the 22
items was allowed to load only on its corresponding latent factor. That is, each item
was specified to load onto the impression management strategy it purportedly mea-
sures. As expected, the fit indices for this model were weaker than those obtained
using item parcels (GFI = .81, TLI = .87, CFI = .89). Then, paths were examined to
determine whether each item significantly loaded on its appropriate factor or latent
variable. The items, their loadings, and the interfactor correlations appear in Table 5.
The analysis revealed that the path loadings for all items were significant at the p < .01
level, thus supporting the construct validity of the scales.
The correlations among the five impression management scales are presented in
Table 6. The means, standard deviations, and alphas for each scale are presented in this
table as well. An examination of this table reveals a pattern of positive correlation
among the various impression management strategies, suggesting that individuals
have a general tendency either to engage in or avoid using the impression management
tactics. The strongest correlation occurred between intimidation and supplication.
This result probably arose because intimidation and supplication are commonly per-
ceived as the most negative of the impression management tactics. Related to this
point, supplication and intimidation were the two most infrequently used tactics; the
means for these scales were significantly lower than the means reported for the other
three tactics (cf. Table 6). The next strongest correlation occurred between ingratiation
and exemplification. Theoretically, these two impression management tactics should
be the most closely related. Both ingratiation and exemplification are used in an
attempt to create a favorable image of oneself, without specifically highlighting one’s
accomplishments.
To assess the discriminant validity of the instrument, the fit of the five-factor model
was compared with the fit of other plausible solutions. If the alternative models fit the
data better than the five-factor model, the discriminant validity of the five-factor model
would be called into question. To test for this possibility, confirmatory factor analyses
were conducted using alternative factor structures. In particular, alternative factor
structures were examined for those cases in which the impression management tactics
were highly correlated (r > .50). Thus, two four-factor solutions were tested. The first
four-factor model was one in which ingratiation and exemplification (two dimensions
that were highly correlated) loaded on to a single factor. The second four-factor model
was one in which intimidation and supplication (again, two dimensions that were
highly correlated) loaded on to one factor. In addition, a three-factor model was tested
(with ingratiation and exemplification comprising one factor, intimidation and suppli-
cation comprising a second factor, and self-promotion making up the third factor).
Finally, the fit of a one-factor solution was tested to determine if impression manage-
ment is, indeed, a multidimensional construct. Table 7 details the results of these con-
firmatory factor analyses. In every instance, chi-square tests indicated that the five-
factor solution fit the data significantly better than any alternative solution.
As a final test of validity, a second-order confirmatory factor analysis was con-
ducted to see if the proposed subscales captured a global impression management fac-
 Bolino, Turnley / MEASURING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 199

Table 5
Item Loadings From Study 4
Factor
Dimension Loading a

Self-promotion (Mean = 2.95, SD = .72, Alpha = .78)

SPROM1: Talk proudly about your experience or education. .65
SPROM2: Make people aware of your talents or qualifications. .70
SPROM3: Let others know that you are valuable to the organization. .70
SPROM5: Make people aware of your accomplishments. .72
Ingratiation (Mean = 2.95, SD = .95, Alpha = .83)
INGRT1: Compliment your colleagues so they will see you as likeable. .66
INGRT2: Take an interest in your colleagues’ personal lives to show them that
you are friendly. .78
INGRT3: Praise your colleagues for their accomplishments so they will consider
you a nice person. .83
INGRT5: Do personal favors for your colleagues to show them that you are
friendly. .69
Exemplification (Mean = 2.29, SD = .86, Alpha = .75)
EXEMP2: Stay at work late so people will know you are hard working. .79
EXEMP3: Try to appear busy, even at times when things are slower. .34
EXEMP4: Arrive at work early to look dedicated. .80
EXEMP5: Come to the office at night or on weekends to show that you are
dedicated. .80
Intimidation (Mean = 1.91, SD = .75, Alpha = .86)
INTIM1: Be intimidating with coworkers when it will help you get your job done. .74
INTIM2: Let others know that you can make things difficult for them if they
push you too far. .72
INTIM3: Deal forcefully with colleagues when they hamper your ability to get
your job done. .70
INTIM4: Deal strongly or aggressively with coworkers who interfere in your
business. .79
INTIM5: Use intimidation to get colleagues to behave appropriately. .82
Supplication (Mean = 1.62, SD = .68, Alpha = .88)
SUPP1: Act like you know less than you do so people will help you out. .83
SUPP2: Try to gain assistance or sympathy from people by appearing needy
in some area. .79
SUPP3: Pretend not to understand something to gain someone’s help. .80
SUPP4: Act like you need assistance so people will help you out. .78
SUPP5: Pretend to know less than you do so you can avoid an unpleasant
assignment. .68

Inter-Factor Correlations
1 2 3 4 5

(1) Self-promotion 1.00

(2) Ingratiation .35 1.00
(3) Exemplification .37 .60 1.00
(4) Intimidation .27 .13 .17 1.00
(5) Supplication .30 .28 .33 .59 1.00
a. All factor loadings are significant at the p < .01 level.

tor. In this model, then, the five tactics at the latent variable level were modeled as indi-
cators of a higher-order impression management latent variable. The fit indices for the
higher-order model were good (GFI = .91, TLI = .92, CFI = .94). Moreover, the factor
loadings from the individual impression management tactics to the second-order
200 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS

Table 6
Correlation Matrix of Impression Management Tactics
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Self-promotion 2.95 .72 (.78)

2. Ingratiation 2.95 .95 .26** (.83)
3. Exemplification 2.29 .86 .28** .50** (.75)
4. Intimidation 1.91 .75 .22* .15 .17 (.86)
5. Supplication 1.62 .68 .25** .25** .35** .56** (.88)
Note. Cronbach’s alpha appears in parenthesis along the diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 7
Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Various Models
Number of Factors Chi-Square df GFI TLI CFI

5 21.95 25 .97 1.00 1.00

4a 65.24 29 .90 .90 .93
4b 100.67 29 .86 .77 .85
3 136.48 32 .83 .73 .81
1 322.70 35 .66 .32 .47
a. Ingratiation and exemplification are loaded on a single factor.
b. Intimidation and supplication are loaded on a single factor.

global impression management factor were all significant (p < .01). Specifically, the
paths from self-promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplica-
tion to the global impression management factor were .48, .62, .78, .46, and .65,
respectively. Thus, the second-order factor analysis validates the idea that the five
subscales represent a global factor of impression management.
According to Hinkin (1995), the most commonly accepted indicator of a measure’s
reliability is its internal consistency. Thus, the reliability of the five impression man-
agement scales was assessed using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Nunnally (1978)
suggests that reliable measures should have a coefficient alpha of .70 or greater. The
coefficient alphas for the impression management scales were as follows: self-
promotion (alpha = .78), ingratiation (alpha = .83), exemplification (alpha = .75),
intimidation (alpha = .86), and supplication (alpha = .88). The alphas for all of the
scales, then, exceed Nunnally’s .70 criterion, suggesting that the scales are reliable.

Study 5

METHOD

To obtain further evidence of the validity of the new measure, additional data were
collected to explore the extent to which the new measure relates to constructs it should
(convergent validity) and is unrelated to constructs it should not be related to (discrimi-
nant validity). The participants in the study were 94 students enrolled in undergraduate
management classes at a university in the midwestern United States. All of the students
who participated were currently employed, with the average respondent working 28
 Bolino, Turnley / MEASURING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 201

hours per week. The majority of the respondents were between 20 and 24 years of age.
Approximately 44% of the sample were female. The final version of the impression
management scale was distributed to students along with measures of organizational
citizenship behavior, conscientiousness, perceived organizational support, self-
monitoring, and careerism.
Three types of OCB were assessed using Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch’s
(1994) scale. Loyalty was measured with seven items tapping one’s allegiance to the
organization and promotion of its interests. Obedience was assessed with ten items
measuring one’s respect for an organization’s rules and policies and one’s willingness
to exert effort on the organization’s behalf. Functional participation was measured
with five items tapping individuals’ willingness to perform additional work activities,
engage in self-development, and volunteer for special assignments.
Two constructs that previous research has found to be related to OCBs were also
measured. Conscientiousness was measured with Goldberg’s (1992) 20-item scale
tapping the extent to which individuals are responsible, dependable, planful, orga-
nized, and persistent. Perceived organizational support was measured with the short-
ened form of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger, Hunting-
ton, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986). The SPOS consists of nine items tapping the degree
to which individuals feel their organizations are committed to them.
Two constructs having a demonstrated relationship with impression management
behaviors were measured as well. Self-monitoring was measured using Lennox and
Wolfe’s (1984) 13-item scale. This scale measures the degree to which individuals are
sensitive to the appropriateness of the image they convey and attempt to change their
behaviors to suit different social situations. Careerism was measured using eight items
taken from Feldman and Weitz (1991). This measure taps an individual’s tendency to
pursue career advancement through non-performance-based means.
It was expected that self-monitoring and careerism would be related to individuals’
use of impression management tactics but not to their performance of organizational
citizenship behaviors. Additionally, it was expected that conscientiousness and per-
ceived organizational support would be related to individuals’ performance of orga-
nizational citizenship behaviors but not to their use of impression management tactics.
Finally, it was expected that impression management behaviors and organizational
citizenship behaviors would generally be unrelated to one another.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 8 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables in
Study 5. The alphas for all of the scales exceeded .70; the alphas for each scale are pro-
vided along the diagonal.
As expected, both self-monitoring and careerism were significantly related to
dimensions of impression management, although generally unrelated to dimensions of
OCB. Specifically, self-monitoring was positively and significantly correlated with
self-promotion, ingratiation, and exemplification. Self-monitoring was not signifi-
cantly related to any of the dimensions of OCB. In addition, careerism was positively
and significantly correlated with self-promotion, intimidation, and supplication. Also,
careerism was negatively related to the loyalty dimension of OCB. These results pro-
vide preliminary evidence of the convergent validity of the new measure of impression
management.
202

Table 8
Correlation Matrix of Variables
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Conscientiousness 4.25 .45 (.86)

2. Perceived organizational
support 3.58 .89 .21* (.94)
3. Self-monitoring 3.63 .46 .10 .00 (.79)
4. Careerism 2.94 .62 –.13 –.28** .03 (.76)
5. Organizational citizenship
behavior: loyalty 3.56 .82 .14 .78** .01 –.22* (.86)
6. Organizational citizenship
behavior: obedience 4.08 .65 .48** .44** –.05 –.19 .40** (.86)
7. Organizational citizenship
behavior: participation 4.18 .72 .32** .32** .07 –.16 .28** .47** (.80)
8. Self-promotion 3.40 .75 .03 .00 .32** .30** .04 –.04 .17 (.71)
9. Ingratiation 3.46 .78 .09 .15 .28** .10 .13 .05 .22* .46** (.76)
10. Exemplification 2.82 .84 .06 .12 .20* .13 .09 .11 .22* .57** .57** (.71)
11. Intimidation 2.22 .85 –.18 –.11 .08 .80** .02 –.12 .03 .45** .28** .38** (.82)
12. Supplication 1.68 .76 –.16 .02 –.02 .24** –.04 –.27** –.07 .27** .32** .31** .25* (.89)
Note. Cronbach’s alpha appears in parenthesis along the diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
 Bolino, Turnley / MEASURING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 203

On the other hand, conscientiousness and perceived organizational support (tradi-

tional predictors of OCB) were not significantly related to any of the specific impres-
sion management tactics. Although, again as expected, both were generally related to
the specific dimensions of OCB. Thus, these results provide preliminary evidence of
the discriminant validity of the new measure of impression management.
Finally, the subscales of the impression management measure were generally not
significantly related to the subscales of the OCB measure. Of the fifteen correlations
between the various dimensions of impression management and organizational citi-
zenship behavior, only three were significant. Specifically, obedience was negatively
related to supplication, and functional participation was positively related to ingratia-
tion and exemplification. These results provide further evidence of the discriminant
validity of the new impression management measure. Moreover, these results suggest
that this new measure of impression management behavior is both conceptually and
empirically distinct from measures of organizational citizenship behavior.

General Discussion
The results of Studies 1 through 5 provide empirical evidence supporting the valid-
ity of Jones and Pittman’s (1982) impression management taxonomy. Moreover, this
research suggests that the instrument developed in these studies demonstrates accept-
able levels of both reliability and validity. Again, the advantages of the 22-item mea-
sure developed here over existing approaches is that it offers researchers an instrument
for measuring impression management that (a) is suitable for use in organizations, (b)
is based on existing impression management theory, and (c) is representative of the full
domain of impression management tactics that employees are likely to use in organiza-
tional settings. An additional strength of the instrument is that it was developed using
diverse samples from multiple organizations (overall N = 698). That is, the scale was
developed using samples where individuals differed in terms of gender, age, hierarchi-
cal status, function, and the type of organization for which they worked. Consequently,
the scale should have broad applicability.
Although this research provides evidence supporting the validity of the new instru-
ment, there are some limitations that warrant mention. First, more research is needed
to ensure that Hinkin’s (1998) scale development guidelines have been met. In particu-
lar, further testing of the instrument is required in order to replicate the results obtained
here and to establish norms for the newly developed measure. Also, additional assess-
ments, such as test-retest reliability, should be performed in subsequent research to
determine the stability of individuals’use of impression management tactics over time.
Finally, because the scale items include motivational intent, future research should
determine whether social desirability bias influences individuals’ reports of their
impression management behaviors. If social desirability is found to be an issue, it may
be advisable for researchers to control for this when using the impression management
scale.
Beyond additional tests of the measure itself, there are several avenues for future
research that might be pursued using the instrument developed here. First, researchers
might examine the antecedents of these five impression management strategies and the
patterns with which these tactics are employed. For example, it would be valuable to
understand when and why employees use certain tactics to the exclusion of others and
which tactics are most likely to be used in combination. Second, Jones and Pittman
204 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS

(1982) suggest that each impression management strategy is employed in an attempt to

elicit a certain attribution from observers. Future research, then, should examine the
circumstances under which these impression management strategies are likely to
achieve their goals. Likewise, Jones and Pittman propose that impression management
strategies sometimes fail to elicit the desired response and that individuals who use
such tactics risk having negative attributions made about them by observers. For exam-
ple, supplication strategies may lead to attributions of laziness or incompetence and
self-promotion strategies may lead to one being perceived as conceited. Thus, future
work addressing how and when impression management tactics are likely to backfire
would also enhance our understanding of the impression management process.
Another important objective of this research was to develop an instrument that
would distinguish between impression management and organizational citizenship
behavior. The content validity of the items developed here suggest that this is the case.
For example, the exemplification items used here clearly suggest that individuals are
engaging in behaviors such as staying late at work or arriving at work early in order to
be seen as dedicated. Likewise, the ingratiation items suggest that individuals using
this strategy are engaging in favor-doing or using flattery to be viewed as friendly or
likeable. Moreover, the results of Study 5 suggest that there is little empirical overlap
between the measures of impression management and organizational citizenship
behavior. However, future research should examine the relationship between impres-
sion management and citizenship behaviors more closely. As an example, it would
also be interesting to see how individuals and supervisors differentiate good organiza-
tional citizenship from impression management. Likewise, examining the conse-
quences of citizenship and impression management on such outcomes as employees’
performance appraisal ratings or advancement would increase our understanding of
both types of behaviors.
Although interest in the area of impression management continues to grow, the lack
of a measure that is both grounded in theory and well-suited for organizational use has
slowed progress in this area. The goal of this research has been to develop an impres-
sion management scale addressing this need. The ultimate value of such an instrument
is that it affords organizational researchers another means by which to explore impres-
sion management behaviors in organizational settings.

References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of
impression-management in feedback-seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 53, 310-334.
Becker, T. E., & Martin, S. L. (1995). Trying to look bad at work: Methods and motives for man-
aging poor impressions in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 174-199.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural equation modeling. Sociologi-
cal Methods in Research, 16, 78-117.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship behavior and impression management: Good soldiers or good
actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82-98.
Chou, C., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modelling. In R. H.
Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 37-55).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Bolino, Turnley / MEASURING IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT 205

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
Fandt, P. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). The management of information and impressions: When
employees behave opportunistically. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 45, 140-158.
Feldman, D. C., & Weitz, B. A. (1991). From the invisible hand to the gladhand: Understanding
the careerist orientation to work. Human Resource Management, 30, 237-257.
Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence
and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Decision Processes, 58, 101-135.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of
clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286-299.
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of
Management, 14, 321-338.
Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1989). Impression management in the organization. Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giacalone, R. A., & Rosenfeld, P. (1991). Applied impression management: How image-making
affects managerial decisions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.
Journal of Management, 21, 967-988.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey question-
naires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J.
Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. Journal of
Management, 20, 43-65.
Kacmar, K., Delery, J. E., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). Differential effectiveness of applicant impres-
sion management tactics on employment decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
22, 1250-1272.
Kacmar, K. M., & Valle, M. (1997). Dimensionality of the measure of ingratiatory behaviors in
organizational settings (MIBOS) scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57,
314-238.
Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parcel-
ing of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 54, 757-765.
Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring
ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 619-
627.
Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349-1364.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indices in confirmatory
factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking process:
A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 16, 522-541.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexing-
ton, MA: Lexington Books.
Rao, A., Schmidt, S. M., & Murray, L. P. (1995). Upward impression management: Goals, influ-
ence strategies, and consequences. Human Relations, 48, 147-167.
206 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS

Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order
factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 51-67.
Rosenfeld, P. R., Giacalone, R. A. & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in organi-
zations: Theory, measurement, and practice. New York: Routledge.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and inter-
personal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical
and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246-257.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Stevens, C. K., & Kristoff, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant
impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587-
606.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1981). Impression management theory and social psychological research. New
York: Academic Press.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the organiza-
tion. In S. B. Bacharach and E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations
(Vol. 3., pp. 31-58). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 4,
765-802.
Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in
supervisor-subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993).The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citi-
zenship and impression management behavior. Human Relations, 46, 1431-1440.

Mark C. Bolino is a doctoral candidate in organizational behavior at the University of South Carolina. His
research interests include impression management, organizational citizenship behavior, underemployment,
and expatriation/repatriation management.

William H. Turnley is an assistant professor of management at Kansas State University. He received his Ph.D.
in organizational behavior from the University of South Carolina. His research interests include psychological
contracts, impression management, organizational citizenship behavior, and contingent employment.