Study 1

The purpose of this study was to translate and validate Bolino and Turnley’s IM Scale, based on Jones and Pittman’s taxonomy, on a Mexican sample.

Method

Results

Reliability analysis were conducted for each of the five strategies, obtaining Cronbach’s Alpha scores as follows: Ingratiation (Ingr) = .79, supplication (Sup) = .84; self-promotion (Self) = .77; Exemplification (Exem) = .70; and Intimidation (Int)= .77.

Congruent to Jones and Pittman’s proposal, we decided to force the item pool’s factor analysis to a five factor solution (see Table 1). It can be observed that the factor loading of Sup12 item (Try to gain assistance or sympathy from people by appearing needy in some area) does not correspond with the rest of its dimension’s items, despite having an adequate communality (.53). The Sup18 item (Act like you know less than you do so people will help you out) loads with nearly .40 in two factors. As for the Int11 item (Deal strongly or aggressively with coworkers who interfere in your business), it resulted with a communality of .27 and a marginal factor loading of .39. Finally, the Exem8 item (Try to appear busy, even at times when things are slower) fails to load distinctively in correspondence with its dimension’s items, and has no factor loadings equal or greater than .40. All five factors of this second EFA’s solution had at least three items in them with relevant factor loadings. This suggests that, even though some items can have ambiguous loadings, the scale can be considered multidimensional with five factors, partially supporting our first hypothesis.

In order to verify if the five-factor solution was psychometrically adequate, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed, proposing a recursive model based on a maximum likelihood estimation (see Figure 1). Since the sample’s size was large, the chi-squared statistic became very sensitive and suggested a poor fit χ²(196, N = 741) = 680.800, p <.001. However, by using the descriptive goodness-of-fit indexes of the original scale and a discrepancy index, the model turned out satisfactory (GFI=.92, TLI=.91, CFI=.92, RMSEA=.05) and fits the observed data. The correlations between the five strategies range from .24 to .81 and are all significant to the p<.001 level, being the highest correlation the one between Supplication and Exemplification (r=.86). It can be observed in this model that, unlike Table 1’s results, no item is ambiguous because they all have factor loadings superior to .40 and are significant to the p. <.001 level. This provides additional evidence to our first hypothesis.

Figure 1 Standarized coefficients of the final model fit for the Bolino and Turnely IM Scale. Ingr = ingratiation; Sup = supplication; Self = self-promotion; Ejem = exemplification; and Int= intimidation. Latent constructs are shown in ellipses and observable variables in rectangles. 

Study 2

The goal of this study was to establish a nomological network of IM, providing construct validity.

Method

Results

Table 2 shows that the average scores for the Supplication and Exemplification strategies are the lowest, whereas the highest scores correspond to conscientiousness, agreeableness, and negative social desirability. It must be noted that all of the scores averaged under the theoretical mean (3).

The correlations between IM strategies and other variables can be seen on Table 3. Note that neuroticism correlated positively and significantly with all of the IM strategies; the highest being its correlation with supplication. Extraversion correlated negatively with supplication and positively with self-promotion, Openness had a negative and moderate correlation with supplication, Agreeableness correlated negatively with all of the strategies, particularly with intimidation, and Conscientiousness did not correlate significantly with Self-promotion, although it correlated negatively with the rest of the strategies. As for social desirability, the positive dimension correlated negatively with intimidation, while the negative dimension did so with all of the strategies, especially with supplication and intimidation. Finally, the sense of control trait correlated positively with all the strategies, except for Self-promotion. Our second hypothesis is only partially supported.

In order to establish the correlation between the set of predictors with the set of five IM strategies, we ran a canonical correlation analysis, results that are presented on Table 4. Since there are five dependent variables, the same number of roots were obtained, out of which three have the most practical utility because their canonical correlation is greater than .30. The first root has the greatest significance and is therefore generally the only one to be interpreted. However, the other roots reflect interesting results. The first root suggests that intimidation and supplication are greater when there is less agreeableness and acceptance of errors. The second root indicates that, with more extraversion and less agreeableness, there is more intimidation and self-promotion. It can be seen in the third root that there is more self-promotion and ingratiation when there is more extraversion and positive social desirability. Then, the fourth root shows that with less conscientiousness there is less exemplification. Lastly, in the fifth root one can observe that with less narcissism and sense of control there is less ingratiation. The five roots, in total, explain 24% of the variance for IM.

Discussion

Our effort to parallel the validation of Bolino and Turnley’s IM scale has been fruitful, translated into Spanish, supporting evidence of its validity in a Mexican sample. The factor analysis confirms the presence of a five-factor solution, as reported previously by the instrument’s authors (^{Bolino & Turnley, 1999}, ^2003a, ^2003b). Not only this confirms the original configuration of the five dimensions but also stretches its temporal stability across time. The psychometric evidence shows that our translation replicates ^{Jones and Pittman’s (1982)} taxonomy, maintaining its stability in a different cultural context (^{Karam et al., 2016}). These psychometric properties enhance the scale’s usefulness and its attractiveness to students and scholars worldwide.

Although the scale was originally developed for its use in organizations (^{Bolino & Turnley, 2003a}, ^2003b; ^{Harris et al., 2007}), it has proven useful in evaluating IM in other contexts, such as ours. Not only this confirms that the construct’s structure is stable across contexts but it also supports Jones and Pittman’s (1982) theory and ^{Kacmar et al.’s (2007)} findings. Our results suggest how big can the scope be with IM, and how it can be used in everyday contexts. Also, almost any given psychological construct can manifest distinctively in different cultural contexts. ^{Triandis, Bontempo, Leung & Hui (1990)} state that three different cultural levels (regional-geographical, socio-demographic, and individual) may shape the way different variables interact with each other. However, our findings suggest that some core characteristics exist within the original five-dimensional configuration that go beyond these cultural limitations and manifest in a relatively permanent fashion.

Just as ^{Karam et al. (2016)}, ^{Bolino and Turnley (1999)}, Clark (2011), and ^{Kacmar et al. (2007)} proposed, we included social desirability as one of the theoretically relevant variables linked to IM. Key constructs such as personality and social desirability moderate several processes such as need for power, self-monitoring, self-esteem, social performance and self-promotion, which shows the overall potential of the IM scale. Considering that IM has been considered as one of the many ways in which social desirability can arise, ^{Uziel (2010)} has proposed that when used not as a “validity tool”, IM scales provide much substance. ^{Uziel (2010)} has proposed through an extensive review that, when used as an approach to measure traits, IM may be associated and used as indicator for approval, defensiveness, self-esteem, agreeableness, emotional stability, among other constructs.

Social behavior moderated by IM scores may have underlying desires to belong according to ^{Baumeister & Leary (1995)}, ^{Acosta and Domínguez (2012)}, ^{Domínguez and Van de Vijver, (2014)}, and ^{Lalwani et al. (2009)}, and considering that IM and its outcomes in other domains has been widely reviewed (^{Uziel, 2010}), we may suggest, shedding some light in turn of our recent findings, that the implications of IM extend beyond social behavior and reflect a self-regulatory capacity.

Although the overall consistency of the scale was put to test and it rendered positive outcomes, a second look at the items could improve the coefficients in our results. Being able to identify poorly performing items could produce an even better scale and stronger statistical results. Other theoretically relevant variables could be included in further research, as the treatment of IM may have versatile applications in clinical, social, and even organizational approaches in psychology.

Finally, the examination of IM’s nomological network suggests evidence of validity. Although the correlations could be higher, we demonstrated convergent validity between several subscales. Results from these tests demonstrate the overlap between different variables and shed some useful information for future research. These findings are even more impressive given that most of the research is conducted in Anglo-American and European contexts, which tend to differ significantly from Collectivist-Hispanic-Latin-American contexts such as the Mexican one. Our results, as well as ^{Nichols’ (2011)} are not conclusive, there’s still a whole field left to explore. Theoretical frameworks between our variables are quite similar, which could lead to thinking that we may be measuring interaction of these variables when trying to create favorable impressions, considering both internal thoughts and overt, expressed behaviors.

IM works in such a way that in gives people strategies to cope and blend into society and their social network (^{Dominguez & Van de Vijver, 2014}; ^{Lalwani et al., 2009}; ^{Tetlock & Manstead, 1985}). IM allows every person to be conscious about how he or she projects into the world, satisfying personal and social needs. According to Acosta and Dominguez (2014), a solid understanding of IM, and how it relates to other variables can shed some light into understanding how and why people adjust their images in several social contexts, which could then in turn promote their wellbeing.