Impression Management Strategy helpful for study between Military and Management Students in India

1. Impression Management Strategies employed
across Military & Management Colleges in
India
Prajakta Patil

3. IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
Impression management is an active self presentation of a
person aiming to enhance one’s image in the eyes of others.
(Norris 2007; Slocum & Hellriegel, 2007).
Researchers have referred to IM as “ conscious
(motivational distortion) or unconscious(self
perception) practises of responding in such a way so
as to present a particular image of oneself.( Bolino &
Turnley,2003 Paulus)

4. CONCEPTS OF THE STUDY

5. RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
Impressing others appears to be a natural human tendency.
(Greenberg & Baron, 2005; Mc,Shane & Von
Glinow,2008; Peeters & Lievens,2006)
As such, both officer cadets and college students make
concerted attempts to impress their instructors.
With this background, hypotheses of differences between
officer cadets and college students not initiated as yet into
military service on variable of impression management
have been framed.
Rationale that prior military training may impact
impression mangement strategies and interventions,
differences between subjects with prior military training
v/s those with no prior military training as well as military
parental background v/s no such background have been
selected.

6. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
•Problem for the present investigation is to study
impression management strategies amongst officer
cadets.
• Other college students not yet initiated into Armed
forces have been taken as a comparative group.

7. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
 To find out whether officer cadets or college students
not yet initiated into Armed forces differ with
respect to measured variable of impression
management.
 To find out whether military training in formative years
during schooling has an impact on measured variable of
impression management.
 To find out whether military family background has an
impact on measured variable of impression
management.

8. METHOD
 RESEARCH DESIGN
 HYPOTHESIS
 SAMPLE
 TOOLS
 PROCEDURE

9. RESEARCH DESIGN
The present research is designed to study certain important
psychological aspect of officer cadets and college students.
College students not yet initiated into military service have
been selected as a comparative group.
The present research is a 2 x 2 x 2 (types of individuals with
respect to classification of students x military training x
family background) between – subject design.
The subgroups of types of students under study are
compared on variable of impression management.

10. HYPOTHESIS
There is no difference in impression management
strategies employed by officer cadets and college
students.

11. SAMPLE
Total sample constitutes of 240 young adults in educational/training
institutionals.
Sample includes:
120 officer cadets
120 college students
Each group has a further split:
60 with prior military training
60 with no prior military trainng
Each subgroup has a further split:
30 belonging to military parents
30 belonging to non military parents

12. Officer Cadets and
College Students
N=240
College Students
N=120
Officer Cadets
N=120
No Prior Military
Training
Prior Military
Training
Prior Military
Training
No Prior Military
Training
Non
Military
Parents
N=30
Military
Parents
N=30
Non
Military
Parents
N=30
Military
Parents
N=30
Non
Military
Parents
N=30
Military
Parents
N=30
Military
Parents
N=30
Non
Military
Parents
N=30

13. TOOLS
Personal Data Sheet (Developed By Researcher)
Impression Management Questionnaire(IMQ).
Adapted from Greenberg & Baron,2005; Stevens & Kristof, 1995.

14. Objective test of personality comprising of 25 items to be
answered as -
Never ,Sometimes, Often, Always.
Provides information about an individual, comprising of 5
factors with 5 items each - Self promotion, Behavioural
matching, Other Promotion, Justification & Consistent
Performance.
Test provides scoring template. Higher score indicates
greater impression management strategies.
Reliability coefficient calculated on pilot testing on local
sample is 0.85.
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
INVENTORY

15. Self Promotion: Students try to match their
behaviours to that of the instructors.
Behavioural Matching: Students try to present themselves
in as positive a light as possible.
Other Promotion: Students try to flatter their instructors.
Justification: Students give excuses for their incompetency in
non completion of work.
Consistent Performance: Students try hard to maintain their
test performance.
The types of dimensions of IMPRESSION
MANAGEMENT

16. PROCEDURE
Data collected from 120 officer cadets and 120 college
students located in cities of Mumbai and Pune only, group
size 20-30.
Voluntary participation, importance of sincere responses
stressed.
Initially participants filled personal data sheet. Later, were
given clear instructions on how to answer.
Clarified doubts to ensure everyone understood procedure.
No time limit imposed.
Administration done carefully.

17. STATISTICALANALYSIS
Quantitative Analysis
The present study involves testing differences and
relationships. This necessitated use of certain statistical
techniques that have been applied accordingly for analyses
of data.
2X2X2 multivariate analyses of variances
(MANOVA) and subsequent multiple analyses have been
implemented to study differences between officer cadets
and college students, military background and no military
background, and military parents and non military parents
with respect to measured variable of impression
management.

18. Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis implemented to
calculate reliability co-efficient for tool on local
sample.

19. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

20. TOS TRAINING
PRIOR MILITARY
TRAINING
NO PRIOR MILITARY
TRAINING
Family
Background
Military
Parents
Non Military
Parents
Military
Parents
Non Military
Parents
Officer Cadet
Mean 16.93 17.53 13.63 14.53
SD 1.39 1.20 1.90 1.38
College
Students
Mean 15.03 15.37 13.40 15.43
SD 1.40 1.50 1.65 2.01
Table 1: Showing the Descriptive Statistics on
dimension Self Promotion

21. It can be seen from the results that officer cadets having
prior military training and belonging to non military
training have scored higher compared to all the other
factors.(mean=17.53)
College students having no prior military training
belonging to military parents have scored lowest
compared to all the other factors.(mean=13.40)

22. TOS TRAINING
PRIOR MILITARY
TRAINING
NO PRIOR MILITARY
TRAINING
Family
Background
Military
parents
Non military
parents
Military
parents
Non military
parents
Officer
Cadets
Mean 17.63 18.10 14.13 14.77
SD .93 .93 1.50 1.43
College
Students
Mean 10.97 13.60 10.07 11.90
SD 2.40 2.04 1.85 3.02
Table 2 : Showing the Descriptive
Statistics on dimension Behavioural
Matching

23. It can be seen that the officer cadets having prior
military training and belonging to non military
parents have scored higher compared to other
factors.(mean=18.10)
College students having no prior military training
and belonging to military parents have scored the
lowest compared to other factors.
(mean=10.07)

24. Table 3: Showing the Descriptive Statistics on
dimension of other promotion
TOS TRAINING
PRIOR MILITARY
TRAINING
NO PRIOR MILITARY
TRAINING
Family
Background
Military
parents
Non military
parents
Military
parents
Non military
parents
Officer
Cadets
Mean 17.87 17.87 13.77 14.90
SD 1.38 1.45 1.50 1.18
College
Students
Mean 14.67 11.80 11.40 12.23
SD 1.03 1.77 1.79 2.46

25. It can be seen that officer cadets having prior military
training have scored higher in the dimension of other
promotion compared to the other
factors.(mean=17.87)
College students having no prior military training
and belonging to non military parents have scored
the lowest compared to other factors.(mean=11.40)

26. TOS TRAINING
PRIOR MILITARY
TRAINING
NO PRIOR MILITARY
TRAINING
Family
Background
Military
parents
Non military
parents
Military
parents
Non military
parents
Officer
Cadets
Mean 15.93 13.67 15.5333 14.83
SD 1.41 1.99 1.57 1.89
College
Students
Mean 16.43 16.43 15.60 15.57
SD 1.55 1.59 1.90 1.96
Table 4: Showing the Descriptive Statistics
on dimension Justification

27. It can be seen that College Students having prior
military training have scored higher in terms of
justification compared to all the other
factors.(mean=16.43)
Officer Cadets having prior military training and
belonging to non military parents have scored the
lowest compared to other factors.(mean=13.67)

28. TOS TRAINING
PRIOR MILITARY
TRAINING
NO PRIOR MILITARY
TRAINING
Family
Background
Military
parents
Non military
parents
Military
parents
Non military
parents
Officer
Cadets
Mean 15.10 14.33 11.77 10.87
SD 1.35 1.58 1.67 1.89
College
Students
Mean 10.23 10.20 8.17 9.57
SD 1.48 2.22 1.62 2.19
Table 5: Showing the Descriptive Statistics
on dimension Consistent Performance

29. It can be seen Officer cadets having prior military
training and belonging to military parents have scored
well compared to all the other factors taken into
consideration.(mean=15.10)
College students having no prior military training and
belonging to non military parents have scored less
compared to all the other factors.(mean=8.17)

30. EFFECT Wilkils λ F
Hypothesis
df
Error df p
Eta
Squared
Type of students (TOS) .233 149.73 5 228 < .01 .77
TRAINING .389 71.59 5 228 < .01 .61
FAMILY
BACKGROUND
.768 13.76 5 228 < .01 .23
TOS X TRAINING .728 17.05 5 228 < .01 .27
TOS X Family
Background
.810 10.73 5 228 < .01 .19
Training X Family
Background
.821 9.93 5 228 < .01 .18
TOS X Training X Family
Background
.922 3.85
ᶯ
5 228 < .01 .08
TABLE 6: Showing MANOVA among TOS, Training,Family Background
As IVs of Impression Management

31. As shown in Table 6,the findings in the present study
focused on the various impression management strategies
employed across military and management colleges in
India. It can be seen that there is significant difference (F (5,
228) = 149.73, p<.01) between officer cadets and college
students in relation to impression management.
In the same table, it can be found that there is significant
difference (F (5, 228) = 71.59, p<.01) between prior military
training and no prior military training in relation to impression
management.
And it was also found that there is significant difference
(F (5, 228) = 13.76, p<.01) between cultural constraints of the
students considering their military family background and
non military family background in relation to impression
management.

32. Findings
 Higher scores on impression management amongst
officer cadets were found across all dimensions
except “justification” in which college students had a
higher mean score.
 This is in consonance with the only other military
research found in study of related literature.
Higher scores of officer cadets may be prevalent due
to higher stakes involved.

33. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
DANKE!
QUESTIONS? / COMMENTS WELCOME