Impression management for corporate

brands over mobile media

Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
College of Business Administration, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island, USA

Abstract
Purpose – As organizations increasingly engage with consumers over mobile devices, there is a growing need to understand how
consumers react to impression management over platforms with limited textual content. The purpose of this paper is to empirically assess how
different impression management tactics can be used in mobile media to enhance consumer perception-attitude-intentions toward a corporate
brand.
Design/methodology/approach – We surveyed 670 consumers and estimate structural equation models and repeated-measures ANOVAs to
determine how short passages employing alternate impression management tactics influence consumers’ perceptions, attitudes and purchase
intentions.
Findings – Results reveal that each impressions management tactic (i.e. ingratiation, intimidation, organizational promotion, supplication and
exemplification) influences consumer perceptions, attitudes and intentions. The authors compare differences in how the impressions management
tactics influence each stage of the perception-attitude-intentions model and find evidence that initial differences in perceptions favoring ingratiation
and exemplification appeals become magnified for purchase intentions.
Research limitations/implications – Recent calls for research focus on an understanding of how consumers process information on reduced-
content platforms of small-screened mobile devices. These results provide empirical evidence of the use of impression management and the
difference between five impression management tactics on enhancing consumer perception-attitude-intentions model.
Practical implications – The results of this study will provide marketers with insights to optimize communications and corporate brands with
consumers over mobile media.
Originality/value – This paper adds to the nascent yet vital literature on mobile marketing by focusing on how impression management tactics
influence perceptions, attitudes and intentions through the short message characteristic of mobile platforms. The authors develop a framework for
how corporate brand management can strategically use impressions management tactics in this novel domain.
Keywords Impression management, Consumer attitude, Mobile media
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction (Tafesse, 2016). Impression management tactics have been

The advent of social media and mobile marketing has made a
large impression on today’s communications (Grewal et al.,
2011; Hazlett, 2014). Brand management has evolved beyond
the traditional one-way mass communications of newspaper
and television media (Hazlett, 2014). Now, consumers are in
constant contact with firms and brands through social media
and mobile devices (Ghodeswar, 2008). Digital media usage
has increased by 35 per cent, a chance driven by the rise of
mobile (ComScore, 2017). Easier access through mobile
technology has allowed this trend of increasing social media use
to proliferate (Lawer and Knox, 2006).
Previous research has already addressed the impact of social
media use for organizations (Schniederjans et al., 2013; Liu,
2002). However, more research is needed with regard to
understanding how consumers process information on the
reduced-content platform of small screened mobile devices
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
27/4 (2018) 385–403
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-09-2016-1309]
used by various organizations to enhance their corporate
reputation; however, research is needed which considers how
differing impression management tactics impact perception,
attitudes and intentions (and the relationships among each)
when restrictions in message length exist. To address this call
for research, this paper examines mobile media, defined as
short/concise mobile marketing messages transmitted through
social media platforms on mobile technology. Specifically, this
paper provides insight into the ways in which short marketing
messages in the context of impression management are
perceived by consumers.
From a theoretical perspective, this study combines
impression management theory with the perception-attitude-
intention literature to assess the ways in which impression
management impacts the perception-attitude-intention model.
Statistical analyses are conducted to analyze the differences in
consumer perceptions, attitudes and intentions when it comes
to specific impression management tactics used through mobile
marketing messages. A preliminary framework is argued based
on the tenants of both impression management theory and
perception-attitude-intention literature to examine the
relationships between consumer perceptions of organizational
impressions management efforts over mobile media, consumer
attitudes toward the organization and ultimately consumer
intention to purchase a product. A structural equation model is

385
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
assessed and provides new theoretical insights connecting both
theories. Specifically, this study finds that impression
management has the capability to impact latter stages of the
perception-attitude-intentions model not attributable to earlier
stages. This study also finds that certain impression
management tactics (i.e. exemplification, organizational
promotion and ingratiation) have a stronger influence than
others (i.e. supplication and intimidation.
These theoretical insights provide subsequent marketing
implications beneficial in the use of mobile media marketing.
First, this study provides evidence that marketers can impact
consumer intention to purchase a product through specific
impression management tactics directly through mobile media
without needing to influence consumer attitude. Providing this
insight through mobile media marketing tactics is useful, as
mobile media is available to the consumer when they are at
the point of purchase, in comparison to traditional
computer, television and magazine advertisements. This
framework also provides insight into how impressions
management techniques can be applied in mobile media
contexts specifically through short mobile messaging. Taken
together, this research provides marketers with insight into
the comparative effectiveness of five established impression
management tactics.
2. Literature review
According to research from Microsoft Corporation, the average
attention span of consumers has decreased from 12 s in the year
2000 to 8.25 s in 2015 (McSpadden, 2015). The shortening
attention span is a challenge as firms not only need to obtain
consumer attention but also sustain it long enough to persuade
a consumer to purchase or promote a brand, its products or its
services. Fortunately, the use of social media has become a
growing platform for organizations to reach the consumer in a
fast and effective manner. According to recent research, people
in the USA check their Facebook, Twitter and other social
media accounts 17 times a day, meaning once every waking
hour (Chang, 2015). Organizations need a way to use these
mobile media platforms in a way that captures attention with
the constraint of the average consumer attention span. Short
text limit messaging (popularized by Twitter, which set its 140-
character limit so content could be easily read over mobile
phones) is one method for impression management to gain the
attention from the consumer. As consumers digest more
content on mobile platforms, communicating effectively using
short messages is likely to become increasingly important for
marketers and organizations.
2.1 Mobile media
Mobile media include mobile applications that enable
individuals the ability to locate other users, generate content
and share information real time via the Web (Hollebeek et al.,
2014). There are a variety of ways in which mobile media can
be used as an effective medium for organizations to build
impression management. Consumers are drawn to mobile
media platforms, allowing organizations easy access to an
audience who show interest in a brand. For example, Twitter
(characterized with a 140-character limit-optimal for mobile
marketing) has the ability to reach consumers who follow a
386
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
brand on their own discretion. To this effect, Twitter helps
communication with a particular consumer base and also filters
out communication with consumers not interested in the
products an organization sells. In addition, it allows easy access
to a consumer even at the point of purchase, as consumers often
carry their phones with them to stores. Other methods
including television and telephone do not have this benefit.
Mobile media have also been shown to have a dramatic effect
on a brand’s reputation as consumers are more likely to
purchase from an organization they can frequently keep in
communication, thereby allowing for identification with the
brand (He et al., 2012). Overall, mobile media can be used as a
means of communication to consumers. This can ultimately
alter the consumer’s mindset in brand involvement and
attitudes that can lead to a potential purchase (Keller and
Lehmann, 2003; Jin, 2009). However, examples of mobile
media use going awry in consumer communications still exist.
Current literature about mobile media’s impact on consumer
attitude is evolving (Gensler et al., 2013).
2.2 Impression management
Goffman (1959) introduced impression management theory,
which describes how individuals (or organizations) create,
maintain and defend their social stance through a variety of
tactics (Schlenker, 1980; Dillard et al., 2000). Tactics may
involve verbal accounts, categorizations and/or symbolic
behavior to build or defend a social identity (Elsbach, 2003).
Typically, impression management is used to describe the
actions of the individual. Hence, a plethora of research has
focused on specifically consumer impression management. For
example, Ataman and Ulengin (2003) describe how the
congruency between consumers’ self-perception and
perception of brand image influence behavior. Other research
has explored consumer use of impression management on
currency usage (Hu and Parsa, 2011), green consumption
(Aagerup and Nilsson, 2016), luxury perception (Godey et al.,
2013) and consumption constellations (Englis and Solomon,
1996; Flight et al., 2016).
However, organizations can use impression management for
branding to consumers as evidenced by studies including Spear
and Roper (2013), who discuss using impression management
in corporate stories for the purpose of brand management.
Impression management theory assumes that consumers make
service quality decisions based on an organization’s front-stage
impressions made through technology infrastructure (Johnson,
2007). Impression management through mobile media is
considered a value creating activity (Seraj, 2012). However, a
key challenge for organizations is deciding what information to
post to promote rather than hinder brand positioning
(Labrecque, 2014). Thus, organizations must choose their
impression management tactics wisely.
Proactive direct impression management tactics include
ingratiation, organizational promotion, intimidation,
exemplification and supplication (Rosenfeld et al., 1995).
Ingratiation involves organizational behaviors or messages that
make an organization more attractive to consumers (Mohamed
et al., 1999). For example, with ingratiation organizations can
use Twitter as a means of communicating products that meet
particular needs or wants which might make the organization
seem more attractive to the consumer, thereby impacting their
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
attitude toward a product. Ingratiation has also been defined as
“sharing benefits” with individuals, which is likely to have an
impact on consumer perception of the brand making it more
attractive and likeable (Connolly-Ahern and Broadway, 2007;
Spear and Roper, 2013). Spear and Roper (2013) suggests this
promotes brand favorability and the likeability of an
organizations. Intimidation involves organizational behaviors or
messages that present the organization as a powerful entity to
an audience. The intimidation tactic is not clearly associated
with consumer attitude, as branding strategies typically are not
perceived by literature to be used for threatening purposes
particularly for consumers (Spear and Roper, 2013).
Advertisers typically use intimidation tactics by promoting fear
through the use of common societal fears in individuals (i.e.
fear of death, fear of sickness, etc.). Of course, some consumers
perceive this tactic with negative perceptions, perceiving an
organization as trying to manipulate consumers through
playing on consumers deepest rooted fears (LaTour and Zahra,
1988). Hence, some organizations focus their efforts on
inducing fear through the publication of pride, suggesting that
consumers have limited options when their organization
provides a superior product or service (Gabriel, 2000).
Organizational promotion involves behaviors or messages in
which an organization shows themselves as being highly
competent and successful (Mohamed et al., 1999). With
organizational promotion, organizations can successfully
promote a new product. This impacts consumer attitude by
promoting a brand as highly successful and highly regarded
among individuals similar to themselves, thus impacting
attitude via subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991). When an
organization’s brand is highly ranked among peers, this
positively influences the attitude among peer consumers (Wang
et al., 2012), thus establishing the basis for future business.
Exemplification involves behavior or messages in which an
organization projects images of integrity, social responsibility
and moral worthiness (Mohamed et al., 1999). There are a
variety of studies which assess the impact of firm corporate
responsibility on various dimensions of social capital (Maignan
et al., 2005). This includes a greater responsiveness from
consumers based on an improved perception or attitude
regarding the brand (Parsa et al., 2015). However, this is
dependent on how the firm projects the image. Supplication
involves behavior or messages in which an organization
portrays an image of dependency or vulnerability (Mohamed
et al., 1999). Just as intimidation may benefit consumer attitude
by projecting an organization as a powerful entity, supplication
may positively impact attitude by projecting the consumer as a
powerful entity. This can work in two different ways.
Supplication can give off the perception that their organization
is dependent and vulnerable, thereby stimulating a sense of
compassion in consumers. However, a more used approach is
merely asking consumers to work hand in hand with the
organization. This stimulates a sense of partnership between
consumers and brands, thereby enhancing consumer attitude
by arousing either a sense of obligation or enhancing self-worth.
2.3 New calls for research
More research is needed to discuss actual tactics to use in
mobile media for the purposes of enhancing consumer attitude
defined in this study as an individual’s positive or negative
387
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
position in performing a particular behavior (Fishbein and
Ajzen, 1975; Purnawirawan et al., 2012). Research of this kind
is needed to broaden the marketing implications of mobile
media use in how consumers react to mobile media. Further
establishing this association using impression management
theory will provide theoretical support for strategic implications
of mobile media. This paper attempts to fill this gap by
providing insight about how impressions management
techniques impact consumer perceptions, attitudes and
intentions in domains with short text limits.
Each of these tactics can be used in mobile media.
Examining how these tactics are used in mobile media and ways
in which it impacts the perception-attitude-intentions model is
needed in today’s environment wrought with short consumer
attention spans and an increasing reliance on mobile media. In
this study, we focus on proactive tactics which occur when an
organization tries to establish a particular identity (Drory and
Zaidman, 2007). Specifically, we focus on direct proactive
tactics which present information about an organization’s
accomplishments to establish a desirable identity (Mohamed
et al., 1999; Bolino et al., 2008). We use direct proactive tactics
for the sole reason that organizations focus on these when
portraying an image to end consumers particularly through the
use of social media (Schniederjans et al., 2013).
Table I summarizes each tactic, as well as provides an
example in the form of a “mobile media message” (i.e. short
message posted that can be accessed by any individual currently
subscribed to a particular organization or individual feed)
adapted from Mohamed et al. (1999) and provided by
Schniederjans et al. (2013).
While, Schniederjans et al. (2013) provides evidence of the
financial impact of impression management social media use,
this study seeks to provide evidence regarding the strength of
each mobile media impression management tactic on
consumer attitude and consumer intention to purchase. The
impact of some impression management tactics on the
perception-attitude-intentions model is questionable in
literature. For example, with intimidation, the perception of
power may enhance viewer attitude through a sense of
capability or competency of the individual (or organization)
relaying intimidation over weaker counterparts. While some
studies have validated this link, there is still debate as to the
effectiveness of intimidation tactics and thus may be dependent
on the social environment in which the scenario is presented.
Hence, this paper examines a specific context (mobile media)
within the bounds of impression management tactics to
determine not only the direction of the relationship but also the
strength in comparison to all other impression management
tactics. This will provide a guide for mobile media marketers to
use impression management for the purposes of enhancing the
perception-attitude-intention link.
In addition, provided the benefits of having mobile
marketing media nearby a consumer at the point of purchase,
we want to understand ways in which impression management
mobile marketing campaigns can best be used to encourage
consumer intention to purchase. We do this not only through
examining the strengths of differing impression management
tactics but also by identifying the impact of impression
management directly on the different components of the
perception-attitude-intention link. Specifically, we question
 Impression management for corporate brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403

Table I Direct-assertive organizational impression management and examples

Behavior Definition
Ingratiation Behaviors that make an
organization look more attractive
Intimidation Behaviors presenting the
organizations as powerful entities
which can cause harm to
individuals that work against them
Organizational Behaviors presenting the
promotion organization as highly successful
and competent
Exemplification Behaviors used by an organization
to project integrity and social
responsibility
Supplication Behavior to show off an image of
dependency and vulnerability.
Used to solicit help from others
Notes: The direct assertive impression management tactics were adopted from Mohamed et al. (1999). The examples were adapted and borrowed from
Schniederjans et al. (2013)
Example
“Company A, has always been one step ahead, constantly evolving with the changing world.
It is our proactive, forward thinking approach that has allowed us to offer ‘The New T-shirt’
on sale now”
“Company B encourages our customers to end and abandon all efforts in seeking our other
methods of buying ‘The New T-shirt.’ You will not find a better avenue than Company B for
your purchase.”
“Company C is ahead of the game in the arena of selling T-shirts. We recently ranked #1
most innovative t-shirt sales company. ‘The New T-shirt’ we’re selling is now on sale and
changing the way people dress.”
Company D loves our community! 300 of our employees helped fundraise and makeover a
local school. Please buy ‘The New T-shirt’ on sale now.”
“Company E needs your help to grow our sales. Please purchase ‘The New T-shirt’ on sale in
our store now”

whether impression management can impact consumer later
stages of the perception-attitude-intention model directly.
3. Hypotheses development
3.1 Research model
In this section, we discuss the predictions of the perception-
attitude-intentions model and how we test how mobile media
impression management tactics relate with components of this
model, which we advance as the focal hypotheses of this
project. This model is summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1 defines each of the hypotheses we test which were
preliminarily developed using theory of planned behavior
(TPB) and impression management theory. The perception-
attitude-intention connection is theoretically driven by social
psychology in the TPB and its predecessor, the theory of
reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Purnawirawan
et al., 2012). While two other antecedents to intention are
discussed in TPB (Scarpi, 2012), attitude tends to carry the
most weight in intention to purchase (Agarwal and Malhotra,
2005; Sheppard et al., 1988) [i.e. a consumer’s propensity to
purchase a particular product (Babin et al., 2003) in the future
and resist substitute or competing products (Kumar et al.,
2009)]. Hence, our focus in this study is the perception-
attitude-intentions model. This study defines one mechanism
in particular (mobile media impression management tactics)
and how it might be used to not only enhance all three
constructs of perception, attitude and intention but also how
it indirectly impacts the relationships within the theoretically
established model. While not well documented in previous

Figure 1 A conceptual framework relating impressions management tactics with perceptions, attitudes and purchase intentions

388
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
literature, it is foreseeable that mobile media impression
management tactics can influence intention to purchase
without enhancing consumer perception or attitude. For
example, scare tactics are often used by organizations to
create an immediacy of purchase intentions without the
consumer manifesting a perception or attitude about the
organization.
Further, previous research has assessed the direct
relationship between impression management and brand
image; however, impression management tactics can also
indirectly affect the relationship between consumer
perception, attitude and intention to purchase a product.
For example, consumers often have perceptions and
attitudes of organizations before any direct connection to
mobile media or even direct connection to the impression
management tactics used by a company. These perceptions
and attitudes can be formed by friends, colleagues or family.
Ultimately, while these perceptions and attitudes may
enhance or perhaps reduce consumers’ intention to
purchase, impression management tactics used through
mobile media can be used to either strengthen this
relationship or reduce this relationship depending on how
an organization uses these tactics.
3.2 Hypotheses
Impression management provides a rationale for organizational
communication, allowing organizations the ability to use
strategic communication techniques to achieve a favorable
perception amongst consumers (George, 2000; Spear and
Roper, 2013), thus enhancing tangible economic benefits
through increased attitude (Smith et al., 2012). Finding an
effective medium for impression management purposes is
fundamental for organizations to reach consumers to
enhance brand image and consumer perceptions.
Previous research has assessed the use of each of the five
impression management tactics. For example, if ingratiation is
used in mobile media, it will enhance attraction, which will in
turn improve the likelihood of future business (Conlon and
Murray, 1996; Schniederjans et al., 2013). In terms of
intimidation, previous research suggests that intimidation can
provoke fear in individuals (Elsbach et al., 1998). A fear appeal
in advertising is not an uncommon strategy and can be used as a
powerful motivator (Laroche et al., 2001). As for organizational
promotion, previous research supports that organizations
portraying a level of competence is related to corporate
credibility (Connolly-Ahern and Broadway, 2007), thereby
leading to a favorable perception among consumers by
differentiation from competitors (Sargeant et al., 2008). This in
turn builds corporate reputation perception amongst
consumers (Srivoravilai et al., 2011). Exemplification leads to
organizations projecting accomplishments in the areas of
corporate social responsibility, specifically focusing on an
organization’s provided benefits to enhance public good
(Ogden and Clarke, 2005; Perks et al., 2013). Projecting stories
of an organization’s social responsibility can enhance consumer
attitude by making the organization appear virtuous and
morally worthy (Spear and Roper, 2013); however, some
studies suggest it might also enhance consumer skepticism
about an organization’s ulterior motives (Pérez and del Bosque,
2012). Finally, supplication allows organizations to not only
389
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
promote the problems they have faced but also how they have
been overcome (McKee and Fryer, 2003; Dowling, 2006).
This strategy enhances consumer attitude by helping an
organization repair its legitimacy and avoid negative qualities
being attributed to the problem they faced (Ogden and Clarke,
2005; Spear and Roper, 2013). Based on the previous studies,
we consider the effect of impressions management techniques
on perceptions and attitudes toward corporate brands and
predict:
H1. Consumer perceptions are positively associated with
attitudes toward an organization using each type of
impressions management technique delivered over text-
limited platforms.
Understanding how to impact consumer attitude is vital for
organizations that wish to sell a particular product. However,
many organizations’ ultimate goal is to assess what leads to the
purchase of a product (i.e. a particular behavior). The impact of
attitude on intention is not novel in literature and has been
theoretically supported through TPB, theory of reasoned
action, etc. (Ajzen, 1991). Further, previous literature
establishes the connection between attitude and purchase
behavior using empirical methods (Ajzen, 1988, 1991;
Noort et al., 2008; Jin, 2009). Surprisingly, some studies
still find no significance in the attitude intention link (Davis,
1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 1996). These surprising
findings are often attributed to the environment or context
in which the attitude intention link exists (Claudy et al.,
2013). The main contribution of this paper to current
research is to assess how specific mobile media impression
management techniques can impact consumer attitude;
however, while studying this aspect might provide for
theoretical insights, we also want to make our contribution
relevant to organizations which wish to ultimately assess
purchase behavior. Thus, we also wish to assess the
following hypothesis on the relationship that consumer
attitude (promoted via impression management tactics on
mobile media) has with intention to purchase:
H2. Consumer attitudes are positively associated with
purchase intentions for organizations using each type of
impressions management technique delivered over text-
limited platforms.
Mobile media is a specific context which differs from traditional
media in that it is often real time, providing frequent
information updates to consumers on a regular basis (provided
the consumer is following an organization on a mobile media
platform). Organizations can use impression management to
enhance the likelihood of future purchases, ultimately
enhancing intention to purchase.
Further, while TPB provides support of the association
between attitude and intention to purchase, the relationship
between perception, attitude and intention to purchase is not
always linear. Perceptions from mobile media can directly
impact intention to purchase without a consumer spending the
time to create an attitude toward a product, service or
organization. This is particularly true when a consumer is in
immediate need for a product or service.
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
H3. Consumer perceptions are positively associated with
purchase intentions for organizations using each type of
impressions management technique delivered over text-
limited platforms.
H1-H3 will be tested in the context of each impression
management tactic: ingratiation, intimidation, organizational
promotion, exemplification and supplication.
We have thus far examined the hypotheses pertaining to the
direction of the association between mobile media impression
management tactics on consumer perception and consumer
attitude. However, impression management tactics differ in
effectiveness, for example, supplication can either help or hurt
corporate image (Van de Ven, 2008). Intimidation is also a
questionable tactic used in enhancing consumer perceptions,
attitudes and purchase decisions toward an organization.
Goffman (1959) suggests that impression management is used
to present an “idealized” version of an entity consistent with
norms, mores and laws of society. Intimidation can be viewed
both favorably and unfavorably.
Many of the main criticisms of organizations’ use of
impressions management relate with their inability to
effectively communicate to enhance their reputation (Pérez and
del Bosque, 2012). For building stronger brand reputation,
some communication strategies are more impactful than others
in reducing consumers’ skepticism and attributions of egoistic
motivations (Pérez and del Bosque, 2012). The strengths of
these associations are ultimately important for firms who wish
to use a particular strategy for the purposes of enhancing the
image of an organizations among consumers.
Considering impressions management tactics in the context
of the TPB, a primary concern in this project is to characterize
how impressions management tactics differentially influence
perceptions, attitudes and intentions and their progression. A
first step is to consider whether impressions management
tactics have differential effects. As previous research indicates
that impressions management tactics are not equivalently
effective, we predict:
H4. Consumer perceptions (H4a), attitudes (H4b) and
intentions (H4c) will differ by mobile media impression
management tactic.
Turning next to the progression of perceptions into attitudes
and attitudes into intentions, one interpretation of the TPB is
that it would be equivalent across each impressions
management tactic. Yet there is reason to expect that mobile
media impression management tactics may also influence how
perceptions become attitudes and ultimately intentions.
Impression management theory suggests that people or
organizations attempt to influence the image through
projections of specific sentiments (Bolino, 1999; Rosenfeld
et al., 1995). From a sociological standpoint, previous
impression management research not only discusses the direct
impact of impression management on perceptions and attitude
but also the interaction of impression management with
individual perceptions to influence individual attitudes.
Specifically, Ferris et al. (1990) used the example of subordinate
ingratiation behaviors interacting with pre-established perception
to increase supervisor attitude. Supervisors have pre-established
perceptions of a subordinate, but when that subordinate uses
390
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
impression management (or ingratiation), it interacts with that
perception to further enhance the supervisor’s favorable
sentiment of the subordinate. From a mobile media perspective,
a consumer who has actively chosen to follow an organization
through a mobile media platform such as Twitter already may
have a previously established perception of a particular brand.
While the pre-established perception maybe based on a variety of
experiences with an organization and/or based on word-of-mouth
by connections with other outside entities, organizations can use
impression management tactics to further enhance the
relationship between an already established perception and the
consumer attitude toward an organization via mobile media
(Spear and Roper, 2013).
Impression management theory also discusses the interaction
of impression management with current attitude to increase the
likelihood of future transactions. From an impression
management perspective, what matters is not how the actor
views his or her or themselves but rather how others view him or
her or them (Tedeschi and Riess, 1981). Thus, the actor is
concerned with the favorability or un-favorability of their
actions from the viewpoint of outsiders. Organizations will take
actions (in this case impression management tactics) to either
avoid or lessen negative attitudes or to enhance favorability for
the purpose of positively impacting future purchase intentions.
For example, excuses and justifications (through supplication)
tend to be used when dealing with identity threatening
situations to help relieve any impact of negative consumer
attitude on future purchases (Tedeschi and Riess, 1981).
However, impression management can also be used to reap
awards through identity enhancing situations, specifically
through organizational promotion. In this sense, impression
management serves as a facilitating variable which interacts
with current perception and attitude for the purpose of
increasing consumer intention to purchase.
Corporate branding literature supports this by suggesting
that brand communications enable consumers and other
stakeholders to alter perceptions of the organization, thereby
enhancing attitude or purchase (Abratt and Keyn, 2012). More
specifically, a consumer may have a positive impression of
Organization A. However, Organization A can use impression
management to interact with pre-existing impressions to
further increase attitude, more so than what a perception of
Organization A will do alone. The same can be said of the
relationship with attitude and intention. That is, the consumer
may have a positive attitude, but the use of impression
management can interact with consumer attitude to increase
intention to a greater extent. While we expect there to be
differences by impressions management tactic in how
perceptions become attitudes and attitudes become intentions,
extant theory provides less clear guidance about which
impressions management tactics would have stronger
perception–attitude and attitude–intentions relationships.
Based on this preliminary research, we predict:
H5. Impressions management tactics influence the
relationships (H5a) between perceptions and attitudes,
(H5b) between attitudes and purchase intentions and
(H5c) between perceptions and purchase intentions.
Finally, we expect that not all effects of impressions
management tactics on intentions are fully explained by earlier
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
stages of the perception-attitude-intention model (i.e.
perceptions and attitudes when referring to intentions).
“Earlier stages of the perception-attitude-intentions model”
refers to the stage(s) prior to focal variable. For example, when
looking at the impact of impression management tactics on
intentions, we control for attitudes and perceptions.
Additionally, when looking at the impact of impression
management tactics on attitudes, we control for perceptions. In
doing so, an assessment of the direct association between
impression management on the focal variable is conducted
while controlling for earlier stages in the perception-attitude-
intention model.
Different impressions management tactics fundamentally
differ in the structure of their appeals. For example, a strong or
vulnerable firm may influence purchase intentions through a
process captured in different degrees by attitudes toward the
brand. So any structural departures from the TPB could
produce direct relationships between impressions management
tactic and intentions after accounting for controlling for
perceptions and attitudes. This can be seen in various examples
of how marketing professionals use tactics to portray their
brand. Aside from the five impression management tactics used
in this study, there are other ways in which marketing
professionals can directly impact consumer intention without
the consumer having a specific perception or attitude toward
the organization. Atmospherics is a good example of this where
a company can use layout, music, lighting, temperature and
smells to initiate consumer purchase behavior without the
consumer having a specific perception or attitude in terms of
favorability of the company (University of Minnesota, 2010).
The same can be done for attitude while controlling for
perception. For example, upscale retailers during the stock
market crash in 2008 worked to change consumer attitude by
offering and marketing the same high-priced brands at mid-
price range. This enhanced the favorability toward the
organizations from individuals who could now afford the
upscale brands at reasonable price and maintained
the perception of the organization as a high quality retailer
(University of Minnesota, 2010).
H6. Impressions management tactics influence attitudes and
purchase intentions not attributable to earlier stages of
the perception-attitude-intentions model.
We tested these hypotheses with a sample of 670 participants.
H1-H3 focused on validating the TPB using messages
suitability for mobile media, and H4-H6 explored departures
from the TPB model.
4. Method
4.1 Design, participants and procedure
The survey instrument began by asking participants to read a
scenario that detailed their search for a particular t-shirt. In the
scenario, the t-shirt was offered by five different companies with
no difference in price, quality and time-frame to receive the
product or brand preference.
In addition to providing our sample of US consumers with
differing socio-economic backgrounds, we wanted to ensure
familiarity with a particular product. Previous research uses a
t-shirt product in consumer marketing research given its
391
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
familiarity among consumers from all different cultures and
socioeconomic backgrounds (Ahmed and d’Astous, 2004).
Further, in the context of our survey (i.e. at least five different
companies needed to manufacture this product), the product
industry needed to coincide with a competitive market. The
apparel industry represents an industry with a large amount of
competition as several retail stores exist and can compete for
consumer attention (Gereffi, 1999). The apparel industry also
frequently uses social media to interact with consumers. The
apparel industry is considered one of the most “connected”
industries in comparison to beauty, big box, electronics and
home goods, with 86 per cent using four different social media
platforms and more than 60 per cent using up to five social
network platforms (Morrison, 2015).
In our survey, each company was assigned a mobile media
message that represented a direct proactive impression
management tactic. These messages were borrowed from
Schniederjans et al.’s (2013) method, which discusses in more
detail the validity of the mobile media messages as representing
each type of IM tactic. This process involved randomly
selecting publicly traded companies’ social media from blogs,
forums, social media and corporate websites. After noise
cleaning unnecessary data, sentence filtering for impression
management relevant sentences and impression management
identification using multi-dimensional text classification
algorithms, impression management social media output was
collected, which was validated through input from outside
experts to ensure that the messages were understandable and
representative of short persuasive messages commonly found
on mobile media platforms. These experts included individuals
from the areas of marketing and supply chain management who
had conducted research in social media.
After identifying a representative sample of each impression
management tactic, a second group of outside graduate
students was asked to identify which statement belonged to
which impression management tactic. Each student
independently coded the statements. Only statements with
complete agreement (100 per cent agreement) were chosen to
be on the survey. Five of these were reviewed and revised to
exclude any modification for spelling for the purposes of
making it more understandable to subject and less open for
interpretation. For example, “frwrd” was replaced with the
word “forward” or a “heart symbol” was replaced with “loves”.
The 670 participants were recruited from an online panel
(Amazon Mechanical Turk) and were paid for their
participation in the study. This sampling frame has been widely
used by many behavioral science researchers and has been
validated to provide relatively accurate results and attentive
respondents (Paolacci et al., 2010; Buhrmester et al., 2011). In
the present application, this sample carries the additional
advantage of comprising a group likely to be relatively more
experienced using new media platforms.
Participation was limited to adults (over 21 years of age)
living in the USA. As this study wants to analyze consumer
attitude toward an organization and consumer perception of
organizational mobile media use in impression management,
we used consumers as our sample. Respondents were restricted
to consumers who had previous experience on the mobile
media site, Twitter. Table II provides an overview of the
demographic information obtained from our participants.
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
Table II Demographic information
Demographic
Gender
Male
Female
Age (years)
21-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75 or more
Annual income
$0-24,999
$25,000-49,999
$50,000-74,999
$75,000-99,999
$100,000-124,999
$125,000-149,999
$150,000-174,999
$175,000-199,999
$200,000 and up
4.2 Survey development
As soon as demographic data were collected, each participant was
asked to read the mobile media messages similar to “tweets,”
which now offer longer mobile media message formations. After
reading the messages (specified in Table I), participants were
asked several survey questions identifying consumer perception of
organizational mobile media use in impression management,
followed by consumer attitude toward an organization that uses
the tactic; finally, they were asked about intentions. These
questions were adapted from previous literature. Consumer
perception of organizational media use in impression management
was measured using two items adapted from Elliott and Cameron
(1994). Consumer attitude (and intention to purchase from an
organization) was measured using three items (and two questions)
adapted from Pavlou and Fygenson (2006). All questions from the
survey were reviewed by six professors in marketing and supply
chain management. As seen in Table III, participants read the
messages and then immediately answered questions based on the
impression management tactics. For example, respondents were
asked consumer perception questions for each impression
management tactic (i.e. CPA1 and CPA2 for ingratiation; CPB1
and CPB2 for intimidation; etc.). This was followed by consumer
attitude questions (i.e. ATTA1, ATTA2 and ATTA3 for
ingratiation; ATTB1, ATTB2 and ATTB3 for intimidation; etc.).
Finally, Intention to purchase questions (INTA1 and INTA2 for
ingratiation; INTB1 and INTB2 for intimidation; etc.). Each of
these questions are depicted in Table III.
4.3 Construct reliability and validity
Structural equation modeling (SEM), with SPSS AMOS
version 22, was used to examine our hypotheses. SEM requires
a normal distribution, and hence skewness and kurtosis were
examined for each item. Based on our results, all skewness and
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
kurtosis levels were well within the acceptable ranges,
indicating the normality assumption was supported. Based on
(%)
the research of Iacobucci et al. (2007) the inclusion of several
independent variables in a mediation analysis warrants separate
49.9 structural models being analyzed for each of the five
50.1 independent variables (i.e. Model 1: CPA; Model 2: CPB;
Model 3: CPC; Model 4: CPD; Model 5: CPE). In addition,
15.8 each of the five structural models exhibited acceptable fit (Hu
40.2 and Bentler, 1999), as seen below:
18.3
 Model 1: x 2/d.f. = 2.85, SRMR: 0.08, CFI: 0.972, TLI:
13.2 0.967, RMSEA: 0.05
10.8
 Model 2: x 2/d.f. = 3.15, SRMR: 0.08, CFI: 0.968, TLI:
1.6 0.962, RMSEA: 0.05
0.0
 Model 3: x 2/d.f. = 3.02, SRMR: 0.08, CFI: 0.970, TLI:
0.964, RMSEA: 0.05
 Model 4: x 2/d.f. = 3.08, SRMR: 0.08, CFI: 0.969, TLI:
27.8 0.963, RMSEA: 0.05
25.7  Model 5: x 2/d.f. = 2.96, SRMR: 0.08, CFI: 0.971, TLI:
24.8 0.966, RMSEA: 0.05)
13.0
6.1 We analyzed the validity and reliability of the scales based on
1.3 Hulland (1999) assessing:
0.3  item reliability;
0.6  convergent validity; and
0.3  discriminant validity.
Item reliability was acceptable with items loading greater than
0.7 (Carmines and Zeller, 1979; Hulland, 1999). Cronbach’s
alpha values were all 0.7 and above, indicating acceptable
reliability. Composite reliability scores were all 0.7 and above.
To examine convergent validity, examination of average
variance extracted (AVE) and average shared squared variance
(ASV) was conducted. All AVE scores surpassed 0.5 (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981; Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Satisfactory
discriminant validity was indicated by the AVE exceeding the
ASV (Hair et al., 2010). Based on these results, it appears that
each of the constructs has good reliability, convergent validity
and discriminant validity (Table IV).
4.4 Common method variance
Common method variance can be an issue when survey data
are collected from single informants (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
To assess the impact of common method bias, we performed
two different analyses:
1 Harman’s (1967) single factor test; and
2 modified marker variable test (Ronkko and Ylitalo, 2010).
Using Harman’s single factor approach, we found that no single
factor emerged from a factor analysis of all survey items.
Additionally, no one factor accounted for the majority of
variance in the model, with one factor explaining only 24 per
cent (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986).
We also performed Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker
variable test. Specifically, we assessed the correlations between
a theoretically unrelated construct (marker variable) and the
principle constructs. Any high correlations would be indicative
of common method bias. The results of the model indicate that
the marker variable does not have a significant influence on the
endogenous latent variables. Based on these results, we can
conclude that common method bias does not seem to be a
problem in this model.
392
 Impression management for corporate brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403

Table III Survey questions

Consumer perception
CPA1; CPB1; CPC1; CPD1; CPE1 Please rate your perception on the acceptability of the Tweet from each company
Rank 5 = Most acceptable
Rank 1 = Unacceptable
CPA2; CPB2; CPC2; CPD2; CPE2 Please Rank each Tweet from companies (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) according to your preference
Rank 5 = Most acceptable tweet
Rank 1 = Least acceptable tweet
Consumer attitude
ATTA1; ATTB1; ATTC1; ATTD1; ATTE1 For me, purchasing the “The New T-shirt” from Company A, B, C, D or E considering only the information I know
about them would be a. . .
ATTA2; ATTB2; ATTC2; ATTD2; ATTE2 For me, purchasing the “The New T-shirt” from Company A, B, C, D or E (considering only the information I know
about them) would be. . .
ATTA3; ATTB3; ATTC3; ATTD3; ATTE3 For me, purchasing the “The New T-shirt” from Company A, B, C, D or E (considering only the information I know
about them) would be. . .
Intention to purchase
INTA1; INTB1; INTC1; INTD1; INTE1 Based on the information given in this scenario and if I had to buy one-t-shirt, I would intend to buy “The New T-
shirt” from Company A, B, C, D or E
INTA2; INTB2; INTC2; INTD2; INTE2 Based on the information given in this scenario, and if I had to purchase one t-shirt, I would purchase “The New
T-shirt” from Company A, B, C, D or E
Notes: Key: CPA: ingratiation consumer perception; CPB: intimidation consumer perception; CPC: organizational promotion consumer perception; CPD:
exemplification consumer perception; CPE: supplication consumer perception; ATTA: ingratiation attitude; ATTB: intimidation attitude; ATTC: organizational
promotion attitude; ATTD: exemplification attitude; ATTE: supplication attitude; INTA: ingratiation intention; INTB: intimidation intention; INTC:
organizational promotion intention; INTD: exemplification intention; and INTE: supplication intention

Table IV Reliability analysis

Construct Ingratiation Intimidation Organizational Promotion Exemplification Supplication
CPA1 CPA2 CPB1 CPB2 CPC1 CPC2 CPD1 CPD2 CPE1 CPE2
Consumer Loading 0.741 0.912 0.803 0.945 0.877 0.938 0.838 0.931 0.795 0.970
Perception AVE 0.690 0.769 0.824 0.785 0.786
ASV 0.109 0.066 0.078 0.097 0.101
CR 0.815 0.869 0.904 0.879 0.886
a 0.806 0.862 0.903 0.873 0.870
ATA1 ATA2 ATA3 ATB1 ATB2 ATB3 ATC1 ATC2 ATC3 ATD1 ATD2 ATD3 ATE1 ATE2 ATE3
Attitude Loading 0.879 0.872 0.795 0.943 0.928 0.880 0.926 0.931 0.904 0.918 0.929 0.901 0.939 0.967 0.921
AVE 0.722 0.842 0.847 0.839 0.888
ASV 0.132 0.099 0.120 0.118 0.127
CR 0.886 0.941 0.943 0.940 0.960
a 0.887 0.940 0.943 0.940 0.959
INTA1 INTA2 INTB1 INTB2 INTC1 INTC2 INTD1 INTD2 INTE1 INTE2
Intention Loading 0.954 0.925 0.945 0.917 0.946 0.950 0.950 0.944 0.977 0.948
AVE 0.883 0.867 0.899 0.897 0.927
ASV 0.136 0.110 0.121 0.123 0.112
CR 0.938 0.929 0.947 0.946 0.962
a 0.937 0.929 0.947 0.946 0.962
Notes: CPA: ingratiation consumer perception; CPB: intimidation consumer perception; CPC: organizational promotion consumer perception; CPD:
exemplification consumer perception; CPE: supplication consumer perception; ATA: ingratiation attitude; ATB: intimidation attitude; ATC: organizational
promotion attitude; ATD: exemplification attitude; ATE: supplication attitude; INTA: ingratiation intention; INTB: intimidation intention; INTC: organizational
promotion intention; INTD: exemplification intention; and INTE: supplication intention

4.5 Non-response bias 4.6 Correlations and multi-collinearity

To assess non-response bias, we conducted an analysis of the
variance for differences between early and late responders and
found that the differences were non-significant (Armstrong and
Overton, 1977). This finding indicated that non-response bias
is not a problem with this study.
An initial assessment was conducted on the correlations table.
Provided some significant correlations, we conducted a multi-
collinearity assessment by examining tolerance and variance
inflation factors (VIFs). All tolerance levels were above the 0.1
threshold and all VIF values were below 2.5, indicating no

393
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
cause for concern regarding multi-collinearity (O’Brien, 2007).
In further assessing the correlations table, we found a
significant positive correlation between consumer perception of
organizational mobile media use in ingratiation and consumer
perception of organizational mobile media use in organizational
promotion. This finding indicates that while the majority of
consumer perceptions regarding specific impression
management tactics are either not significantly correlated or
negatively correlated, the organizational mobile media use in
ingratiation and organizational promotion might be able to be
used interchangeably without significant impacts on consumer
attitude and intention to purchase. However, to further
examine this insight, SEM was conducted to examine the
results of H1-H3, specifically examining the relationships
between consumer perception and attitude for each of the five
impression management tactics (H1), consumer attitude on
consumer intention (H2) and the mediation role of consumer
attitude (H3). Five models were assessed regressing the
consumer perceptions of organizational mobile media use for
each impression management tactic on every consumer
attitude toward each organizational tactic (H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d
and H1e). Following this, we examined five sub-hypotheses,
which propose that consumer attitude toward an organization
that uses each of the five organizational impression
management tactics is positively associated with consumer
intention to purchase from an organization that uses the relative
tactic (H2a, H2b, H2c, H2d and H2e). Finally, mediation
analysis was used to examine five different models assessing
both direct and indirect effects (H3a, H3b, H3c, H3d and H3e)
(see Section 5.1 for further details).
4.7 Differences by impressions management tactic
To explore differences in perceptions, attitudes and purchase
intentions by impressions management tactics (testing H4-H6),
we estimate a series of ANOVA and ANCOVA analyses. We
first test for differences in perceptions by mobile media
impression management tactic, with a repeated-measures
ANOVA analysis relating perception with impressions
management tactic controlling for participant fixed effects,
testing H4a. As there are five messages, we first test for overall
statistical significance in perception across impressions
management techniques (a four degrees of freedom [d.f.] test).
We then compare marginal means in perception by impressions
management technique. These pairwise comparisons require
ten comparisons, so we adjust statistical significance for
familywise error using Tukey honest significant difference
(HSD) to divide into Tukey groups of impressions
management techniques which are significantly different at the
5 per cent level. We repeat this procedure for differences in
attitudes (to test H4b) and intentions (for H4c), each by
impressions management technique. These results together
help characterize how mobile media impression management
tactics influence consumer evaluations at each stage of the
perception-attitude-intentions model.
We then test how mobile media impression management
tactics influence the transitions between each stage of the
perception-attitude-intentions model (H5) and how mobile
media impression management tactics influence attitudes and
intentions independently from other stages (H6). We estimate a
repeated-measures ANCOVA model controlling for
394
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
participant fixed effects, first relating attitude with perceptions,
impressions management tactics and their interaction. We
check overall significance of impression management tactics (to
test H6) and the interaction (for H5a), each involving a 4 d.f.
test. We then compare marginal means through ten pairwise
comparisons of impression management tactics and ten
comparisons of interactions, dividing each into Tukey groups
based on a familywise error term. The interaction terms allow
us to understand whether and how the impressions
management tactics have different relationships between
perceptions and attitudes (H5a), as well as whether and how
they differ in attitudes unexplained by perceptions (H6).
Finally, we estimate a repeated-measures ANCOVA model
of intentions as a function of impression management tactics,
perception, attitude and interactions between mobile media
impression management tactics with perceptions and with
attitude, controlling for participant fixed effects. Significant
interactions between the impressions management tactics and
attitudes tests allow us to test whether impressions
management tactics influence the relationship between
attitudes and intentions (supporting H5b), and interactions
between impressions management tactics and perceptions test
H5c. Similarly, differences in main effect of impressions
management techniques reveal whether some aspects of
intentions differ by impression management tactics and are not
explained by earlier stages of the perception-attitude-intention
model (as predicted by H6). As before, we follow up with
pairwise comparisons and split into Tukey groups help to
identify which impressions management tactics differ on these
dimensions. We report the results from each of these analyses in
the next section after first testing the perceptions-attitude-
impressions model.
5. Results
We divide the results by two sections: first, we test the
implications of the perception-attitude-intention model for
impression management (IM) tactics using short messages
(H1-H3). We then turn to testing how impressions
management tactics differentially influence perceptions,
attitudes and intentions (H4-H6).
5.1 Perceptions, attitudes and intentions in impressions
management using short messages
H1 predicts that consumer perception of organizational mobile
media use in impression management is positively associated
with consumer attitude toward an organization. Several sub-
hypotheses were created suggesting that consumer perception
of organizational mobile media use in the five direct proactive
organizational impression management tactics (i.e.
ingratiation, intimidation, organizational promotion,
exemplification and supplication) is positively associated with
consumer attitude toward the organization that uses each
corresponding tactic. The results provide support for H1a (a =
0.717, p < 0.001), H1b (a = 0.567, p < 0.001), H1c (a = 0.531,
p < 0.001), H1d (a = 0.609, p < 0.001) and H1e (a = 0.618, p <
0.001). Five models were assessed regressing the consumer
perceptions of organizational mobile media use for each
impression management tactic on every consumer attitude
toward each organizational tactic. With the exception of one
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
case, each consumer perception had a significant positive
association with only the corresponding attitude toward an
organization that uses that tactic. Consumer perception of an
organization using ingratiation was significantly positively
associated with attitude toward an organization using
organizational promotion and vice versa. This indicates that
consumer perception of mobile media use in a particular tactic
is not significantly positively associated with consumer attitude
toward an organization that uses another tactic with the
exception of ingratiation and organizational promotion.
H2 predicts that consumer attitude toward an organization is
positively associated with consumer intention to purchase a
product. More specifically, we examined five sub-hypotheses,
which propose that consumer attitude toward an organization
that uses each of the five organizational impression
management tactics is positively associated with consumer
intention to purchase from an organization that uses the relative
tactic. The results provide support for H2a (b = 0.630,
p < 0.001), H2b (b = 0.795, p < 0.001), H2c (b = 0.788, p <
0.001), H2d (b = 0.810, p < 0.001) and H2e (b = 0.772, p <
0.001). To examine this hypothesis further, the consumer
attitude toward organizations that use each type of impression
management tactic was regressed on the intention to purchase a
product from an organization that uses every type of tactic.
With the exception of one case, each consumer attitude toward
an organization that uses a particular tactic only had a
significant positive association with the corresponding
intention to purchase a product from an organization that uses
that same tactic. Consumer attitude toward an organization
using ingratiation was significantly positively associated with
intention to buy from an organization using organizational
promotion and vice versa. This indicates that consumer
attitude toward an organization that uses a particular tactic is
not significantly positively associated with intention to
purchase a product from an organization that uses another
tactic, with the exception of the impression management use of
ingratiation and organizational promotion.
Finally, H3 predicts that consumer attitude toward an
organization mediates the relationship between consumer
perception of organizational mobile media use in impression
management and consumer intention to purchase from an
organization that uses the relative tactic. Mediation analysis
was used to examine five different models assessing both direct
and indirect effects (Baron and Kenny, 1986). For H3a, H3b,
H3c and H3d, we found that the direct effect of consumer
perception of organizational mobile media use in ingratiation,
intimidation, organizational promotion and exemplification
was positively associated with consumer intention to purchase a
product from an organization that uses ingratiation,
intimidation, organizational promotion and exemplification
tactics (H3a: c = 0.633, p < 0.001; H3b: c =, 0.540 p < 0.001;
H3c: c = 0.525, p < 0.001; H3d: c = 0.605, p < 0.001). The
direct effect with the mediator added was significantly reduced;
however, it was still significant (H3a: c’ = 0.169, p < 0.001;
H3b: c’ = 0.091, p < 0.05; H3c: c’ = 0.074, p < 0.05; H3d: c’ =
0.058, p < 0.05). This indicates there is partial mediation
between consumer perception of organizational mobile media
use in ingratiation, intimidation, organizational promotion and
exemplification and consumer intention to purchase a product
from an organization that uses ingratiation, intimidation,
395
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
organizational promotion and exemplification tactics. We
examined this pathway further using the bootstrapping method
with bias-corrected confidence estimates (Preacher and Hayes,
2004). We used a 95 per cent confidence interval of the indirect
effects using 5,000 bootstrap resamples (Preacher and Hayes,
2008). All indirect effects were statistically significant, thus
further confirming the partial mediation of consumer attitude
toward an organization that uses ingratiation, intimidation,
organizational promotion and exemplification tactics on the
relationship between consumer perception and consumer
intention to purchase (H3a: ab = 0.452, p = 0.004; H3b: ab =
0.451, p = 0.012; H3c: ab = 0.418, p = 0.005; H3d: ab = 0.493,
p = 0.008).
For H3e, we found that the direct effect of consumer
perception of organizational mobile media use in supplication
was positively associated with consumer intention to purchase a
product from an organization that uses supplication tactics
(H3e: c = 0.635, p < 0.001). The direct effect with the mediator
added was insignificant (H3e: c’ = 0.038, p = 0.172). This
indicates that there is full mediation between consumer
perception of organizational mobile media use in supplication
and consumer intention to purchase a product from an
organization that uses supplication. Using the bootstrapping
method, the indirect effects were also statistically significant,
thus further confirming the full mediation of consumer attitude
toward an organization that uses supplication tactics on the
relationship between consumer perception and consumer
intention to purchasing (H3e: ab = 0.477, p = 0.007). The
results are depicted in Figure 2.
5.2 Differences by mobile media impression
management tactic
Next, we test how impressions management tactics
differentially influence perceptions, attitudes and intentions
and their relationships (H4-H6). As detailed in the Method
section, our general approach is to estimate a series of ANOVA
and ANCOVA models reflecting the repeated measures. After
verifying that the differences between mobile media impression
management tactics are jointly significant, we identify which
impression management tactics differ accounting for
familywise error using Tukey HSD.
Figure 2 visually summarizes perceptions, attitudes and
purchase intentions by impressions management tactic. H4
examines whether three constructs of consumer perceptions
(H4a), attitudes (H4b) and intentions (H4c) differ by each
mobile media impression management tactic. First, we find
differences in perceptions by impressions management tactic,
in support of H4a [F (4, 2676) = 71.96, p < 0.0001].
Comparisons adjusting for familywise error using the Tukey
method reveal that participants rated perceptions in the
following order (starting with the highest): exemplification
(Group A: Mexemp. = 3.47, SD = 1.00), followed by
organizational promotion and ingratiation (Group B:
Morg. promo. = 3.27, SD = 0.87; Mingrat. = 3.24, SD = 0.86) and
supplication and intimidation (Group C: (Msupp. = 2.77, SD =
1.07; Mintim. = 2.71, SD = 0.94). Each Tukey HSD group is
statistically different, adjusting for familywise error with ten
pairwise comparisons (between-group p’s < 0.01).
Turning next to attitudes and intentions, we find differences
in each mobile media impression management tactic, in
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
Figure 2 Average perceptions, attitudes and intentions by IM Tactic
5
4
Avg.
3
Rang
2
1
Percepon
Notes: Average ratings by 670 participants. Bars show mean values
+/1 1 SE
support of H4b and H4c [attitudes: F (4, 2676) = 254.78,
p < 0.0001; intentions: F (4, 2676) = 213.36, p < 0.0001].
Pairwise comparisons reveal that for attitudes, the impression
management tactics fall into Tukey groups matching those of
perceptions (p < 0.01). Attitudes were rated highest following
exemplification (Group A: Mexemp. = 4.01, SD = 0.97),
followed by organizational promotion and ingratiation (Group
B: Morg. promo. = 3.39, SD = 0.98; Mingrat. = 3.39, SD = 0.81)
and supplication and intimidation (Group C: Msupp. = 2.64,
SD= 1.15; Mintim. = 2.55, SD = 0.98).
For intentions, the differences by impression management
tactic are more stark: after accommodating familywise error,
average purchase intentions differ under each IM tactic Mexemp. =
3.95, SD = 1.07; Morg. promo.= 3.19, SD = 1.10; Mingrat. = 2.96,
SD = 1.15; Msupp. = 2.55, SD = 1.22; Mintim. = 2.31, SD = 1.06
(each familywise-adjusted pairwise comparison p < 0.01).
Next, we reconcile results with the perception-attitude-
intentions model. Figure 3 reveals that the differences between
mobile media impression management tactics and purchase
intentions are not fully explained by the effect of impression
management tactic on perceptions and attitude. We break these
departures into two possibilities: first, the mobile media
impression management tactics influence the relationships
between perceptions and attitudes and between attitudes and
purchase intentions (H5), which would appear in the graph as a
change in slope. Second, the mobile media impression
management tactics influence attitudes and purchase
intentions directly and independently of the earlier stages of the
perception-attitude-intentions model (H6), which would
appear in Figure 3 as a mean shift. We explore each of these
hypotheses, first for attitudes and second for purchase
intentions.
Table V presents the results of H5, showing the moderation
impact of impression management on the perceptions-
attitudes-intentions model. The first set of columns that
characterizes the relationship between perceptions and
attitudes differs by impressions management tactic, with
supplication strengthening the relationship between
perceptions and attitudes, while exemplification weakens that
relationship. The second set of columns characterizes the
relationship between attitudes and intentions in a model
excluding perceptions. The results are similar: there is a
stronger link between attitude and intentions under
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
Exemplificaon
Organizaonal
Promoon
Ingraaon
Supplicaon
Inmidaon
Atude Purchase
Intenon
exemplification than under intimidation, organizational
promotion or supplication and a weaker link under
intimidation than under ingratiation.
We estimated a repeated-measures ANCOVA model which
considers the direct impact of mobile media impression
management tactic on intentions, the interactions between
impression management tactic with perceptions and attitudes
and controls for perceptions, attitudes and participant-level
fixed effects. H5 suggests that impression management tactics
influence the relationship between perceptions and attitudes
(H5a), between attitudes and purchase intentions (H5b) and
between perceptions and purchase intentions (H5c). An
ANCOVA model relating attitudes with impressions
management, perceptions and their interaction controlling for
participant fixed effects reveals that after controlling for
perceptions and in support of H5, impression management
tactics interact with perceptions to impact attitudes
[F(4, 2671) = 3.92; p = 0 < 0.01]. Turning to the Tukey
groups (familywise error rate, p < 0.05), the impression
management interactions with perceptions are stronger for
supplication than for exemplification (Msupp. x percep. = 0.48,
SE = 0.04; Mexemp.x percep. = 0.28, SE = 0.04, Tukey’s t = 3.65,
p < 0.002), while the other groups are not differentiable given
the familywise error rate (Mingrat. x percep.= 0.39, SE = 0.05;
Mintim. x percep. = 0.36, SE = 0.04; Morg. promo. x percep. = 0.44, SE =
0.04, n.s.). A similar analysis reveals support for H5b, that
attitude interacts with impression management tactics to
influence purchase intentions. Specifically, we find that mobile
media impression management tactics have direct effects on
purchase intentions [F(4, 2666) = 9.94; p < 0.0001] and
interact with attitudes [F(4, 2666) = 7.30; p < 0.0001]. Finally,
in support of H5c, we find that mobile media impression
management tactics marginally interact with perceptions [(F(4,
2666) = 2.16; p = 0.07]. Considering the pairwise comparisons
of the impressions management effects and those with attitude
and with perceptions, at the familywise error rate, only the
impression management–attitude interactions were significant:
exemplification differs from ingratiation and intimidation
(Mexemp. = 1.11, SE = 0.10; Mingrat. = 0.71, SE = 0.10; Mintim. =
0.75, SE = 0.08; p < 0.05, compared with exemplification).
Finally, H6 suggests that impression management tactics
influence attitudes and purchase intentions not attributable to
earlier stages of the perception-attitude-intention model. We
396
 Impression management for corporate brands Journal of Product & Brand Management
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403

Figure 3 Impressions management tactics and relationships between intentions and attitudes and perceptions

Table V Relationship between perception and attitude and between attitude and intention by each impression management tactic
Impression management Perception-attitude Attitude-intention
(IM) tactics Marginal effect Standard error Tukey group Marginal effect Standard error Tukey group
A. Ingratiation 0.3876 0.0453 AB 1.0487 0.0319 B
B. Intimidation 0.3616 0.0414 AB 0.8757 0.0260 A
C. Organizational promotion 0.4365 0.0448 AB 0.9473 0.0262 AB
D. Exemplification 0.2803 0.0391 A 0.9644 0.0254 AB
E. Supplication 0.4769 0.0365 B 0.9524 0.0229 A
Notes: Marginal linear effects of IM tactics on the respective relationships between perceptions and attitudes and between attitudes and intentions. We
estimate ANOVA models with fixed subject effects and repeated impressions management tactics. The Tukey Groups differ in marginal effect after adjusting
multiple comparisons using Tukey’s method with a = 0.05

find support for the direction impact of impression
management tactics on attitude independent of perceptions [F
(4, 2671) = 25.12, p < 0.0001]. These direct effects of attitude
independent of perceptions are strongest for exemplification
(Mexemp. = 3.04, SE = 0.14), followed by ingratiation (Mingrat. =
2.13, SE = 0.15). Organizational promotion and intimidation
are next and statistically indistinguishable from each other
(Morg.promo. = 1.96, SE = 0.15; Mintim. = 1.58, SE = 0.12), and
supplication is lowest (Msupplic. = 1.32, SE = 0.11). A similar
analysis reveals that H6 is also supported for purchase
intentions attributable to the impressions management tactic
but not attributable to the perception-attitude-intentions
model. Together, while we cannot identify group-level
differences, the omnibus tests of IM tactics and its interactions
with attitude and perceptions reveal departures from the
perception-attitude-intentions model, broadly consistent with
H5 and H6.
In summary, our results provide support for hypotheses. We
find that consumer perception of mobile media use in a
particular tactic is positively associated with consumer attitude
toward an organization that uses that tactic, with the exception
of ingratiation and organizational promotion. We find similar
results regarding the relationship between consumer attitude
and intention to purchase. We also found partial mediation of
consumer attitude toward an organization that uses
ingratiation, intimidation, organizational promotion and
exemplification and full mediation of consumer attitude toward
an organization that uses supplication. Adding to current
literature, this study provides empirical evidence that not all
impression management tactics impact perception, attitude
and intention equally. Further, we provide evidence that
impression management tactics can interact with perceptions
and attitudes, enhancing the relationship with latter stages in
the model. Finally, we find that impression management tactics
are directly associated with consumer attitudes and intentions
independent of the perception-attitude-intentions model. This
finding further reiterates the power of mobile media impression
management on consumers.
6. Discussion and conclusions
Currently, brands are facing more hurdles than ever before.
The digital age has brought forth increasingly shorter consumer
attention spans, while at the same time, consumers are able to
download ad-blockers to insulate from intrusive brand
messages (Stein, 2016). Mobile media, especially through short

397
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
messaging, has become a new method of capturing consumer
interest. The results of this study suggest that mobile media
impression management tactics differ in how they are perceived
and how they impact attitudes and intentions. Various
examples exist with organizations using a specific tactic only to
cause issues with brand management. For example, Bing ran a
campaign to raise funds for Japan earthquake victims and used
exemplification via twitter. Their tweet read “How you can
#SupportJapan – http://binged.it/fEh7iT. For every retweet,
@bing will give $1 to japan quake victims, up to $100K.” Many
consumers perceived this as an exploitative marketing
campaign only for the selfish pursuits of a company. Following
this, a Twitter user promoted a hashtag for people to use to
insult the brand (Bhasin, 2012).
As depicted by this example, mobile media impression
management can have various impacts on consumer
perceptions, attitudes and purchase intentions. The results of
this study provide support that impression management tactics
deployed through mobile media are generally consistent with
the perception-attitude-intention model. That is, consumer
perception of mobile media use in a particular impression
management tactic only has a significant association with
attitude toward an organization using that respective tactic and
intention to purchase a product from an organization that uses
that tactic. There is, however, one exception. We found that
the perception-attitude-intention link became interchangeable
with ingratiation and organizational promotion. For example,
an organization that uses ingratiation may have a positive
impact on the attitude of a consumer who perceives
organizational promotion to be more acceptable. Thus,
suggesting the use of one tactic may have a positive impact on
the perception of both types of consumers (one perceiving
ingratiation as more acceptable and one viewing organizational
promotion as more acceptable).
Our results also provide evidence of the effectiveness of
mobile media outside of the perception-attitude-intention
model. That is, our results support H5, which suggests that
initial differences in perceptions can get magnified as attitudes
and again as purchase intentions depending on the type of
impression management tactic used. The TPB tests direct
associations between attitude and intention. Our results
suggest an indirect relationship that impression management
has on the associations between perception-attitude-intention.
This paper provides exploratory evidence suggesting that
specific impression management tactics have stronger
perception–attitude and attitude–intention relationships.
Impression management can therefore moderate the
relationships presented in the perception-attitude-intention
model. Specifically, supplication is stronger than
exemplification when interacting with perceptions to increase
attitude and ingratiation is stronger than both intimidation and
supplication when interacting with attitudes to impact
intentions. These results provide empirical evidence of the
moderating impact of impression management on the
perception-attitude-intention model and further enhance
empirical knowledge that impression management theory can
be combined with the perception-attitude-intention model to
enhance these relationships.
In addition, our results from H6 propose a deviation from the
perception-attitude-intentions model. Based on our results, it
398
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
appears that perception and attitude alone cannot explain the
difference in intention across each impression management
tactic. Impression management tactics have the capability to
directly influence attitude and intention and also influence
these stages not attributable to earlier stages of the model.
Specifically, attitude can be directly impacted by impression
management tactics while controlling for perception. Further,
intention can be directly impacted by impression management
tactics while controlling for perception and attitude. Previous
research supports that while attitude represents one of the
largest predictors of behavior (Bagozzi et al., 1992), our results
suggest that impression management tactics can be used to
directly impact purchase intention and indirectly impact
purchase intention through behavior. This deviates from TPB,
which suggest that attitudes along with subjective norms and
perceived behavioral control shape an individuals’ purchase
intention and behavior. This theory purports that the control
rests on an individual’s perception and attitude. Our results,
however, suggest that companies can use impression
management to directly impact a consumer’s intention to
purchase even after controlling for attitude and perception.
This indicates the power of the firm in controlling purchase
intention versus trying to influence consumer perception and
attitude to perpetuate sales.
These results provide a step forward in not only assessing the
application of mobile media impression management to the
perception-attitude-intention model but also providing evidence
regarding the impact of each mobile media impression
management tactic on this model. Understandably, there are
limitations to this study. First, the results of this study are limited
to specific examples of impression management tactics and hence
do not fully explain how each impression management tactic
leads to behavior changes. Second, noise in respondent ratings
may have impacted our results in H6. We hope that future
research may test whether similar results emerge when using
additional impression management mobile media messages with
varied samples. Third, while our study wanted to focus on being
context specific through the use of a particular product (t-shirt),
we understand that the generalizability of the results may differ
depending on the specificity of these factors. Future research may
choose a different product as a point of comparison. Additionally,
future studies may also compare impression management tactics
on mobile platforms versus other mediums including television
and radio. The comparison will help provide evidence on the
effectiveness of different media platforms to consumer purchase
intentions. Finally, there is a notable amount of literature that
focuses not on organizational impression management but on
consumer impression management (Englis and Solomon, 1996;
Ataman and Ulengin, 2003; Hu and Parsa, 2011; Godey et al.,
2013; Aagerup and Nilsson, 2016; Flight et al., 2016). Provided
the two-way communication that social media allows in
comparison to traditional advertising mechanisms, future
research may identify how consumer impression management
interacts with organizational impression management.
This study provides a few notable managerial implications.
In particular, one implication is referenced through Figure 1.
Figure 1 provides a pragmatic framework organizations can use
to optimize their mobile media campaigns. Our results,
providing evidence that mobile media can be used as a tool to
directly impact consumer attitude and intention and facilitate
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
the relationships, provide one step forward in understanding
the use of mobile media. Provided examples above referencing
the problems with specific mobile media impression
management tactics, future research should test this framework
in practice to understand how impression management impacts
intention directly and how mobile media impression
management might moderate the relationships presented in the
perception-attitude-intention pipeline.
Another important implication of these results is that certain
tactics differ from others, with some rating higher on
perceptions, attitudes and intentions. More specifically,
exemplification is found to have the highest rating among all
other impression management tactics on perception, attitude
and intentions. This finding is consistent with the rise in focus
and expanding role of social and environmental responsibility for
organization. The concept of exemplification, which we find
shows higher average ratings than any other mobile media
impression management tactic, has strong ties with the concept
of organizational social and environmental responsibility. Brand
loyalty is changing particularly among millennials who have been
found to remove themselves from their favorite brands due to a
lack of corporate social responsibility (Daymon Worldwide,
2016). As firms face increasing pressure from stakeholders,
consumers and the public sector to enhance social and
environmental sustainability initiatives, it is vital for professionals
to understand appropriate ways in which to publicize these
efforts. While not all attempts at exemplification are successful
(as evidenced by the Bing exemplification example above), it
appears from our results that exemplification tactics can be used
to enhance consumer ratings even more so than other mobile
media impression management tactics. In addition, our results
provide some evidence of the similarities among specific
impression management tactics. For example, organizational
promotion and ingratiation were found to have similar impacts
on consumer perception and attitude, as was supplication and
intimidation. However, each tactic was significantly different
when it came to its impact on purchase intention.
Our results also imply both moderating and direct effects of
impression management tactics on the perception-attitude-
intention model. Specifically, intention can be impacted by
impression management directly regardless of attitude and
perception. This provides evidence of the importance of using
specific tactics (i.e. exemplification) when attempting to impact
consumer purchase intention. Marketing professionals can use
these results for mobile media campaign marketing strategies.
That is, social media marketers are more likely to see positive
results with the use of supplication when a consumer has an
already established perception and/or ingratiation when the
consumer has an established attitude. The results of H6 provide
evidence, however, that not only can marketers influence
intention indirectly but also directly. Exemplification appears
to be the favored impression management tactic, which
coincides with current research suggesting a renewed
importance of corporate responsibility. However, contrary
examples provide a call for future research to assess how mobile
media impression management tactics such as exemplification
can best be used to elicit positive consumer response and under
what specific scenarios might exemplification be inappropriate.
In general, these findings provide reasonable evidence
regarding the prioritization of using specific impression
399
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
management tactics for the purpose of strengthening the
perception-attitude-intention link and potentially impacting
consumer attitude or purchase intention directly.
The results of this study provide preliminary findings
regarding the impact of mobile media impression management
tactics on the perception-attitude-intention model. Other areas
of future research might incorporate how long-form and short-
form impression management tactics differ in influencing
perceptions, attitude and intention and further what moderates
these effects. Stability effects across product categories or
qualities of impression management tactics including
overloading information, personality or individual difference
factors might also be interesting to assess. Provided the
importance of mobile media in overcoming the newly emerging
difficulties in brand management, researchers should continue
to evolve established persuasion models to accommodate
mobile media tactics and platforms.
References
Aagerup, U. and Nilsson, J. (2016), “Green consumer
behavior: being good or seeming good?”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 113-123.
Abratt, R. and Keyn, N. (2012), “Corporate identity, corporate
branding and corporate reputation: reconciliation and
integration”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8,
pp. 1048-1063.
Agarwal, J. and Malhotra, N.K. (2005), “An integrated model
of attitude and affect: theoretical foundation and an
empirical investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58
No. 4, pp. 483-493.
Ahmed, S. and d’Astous, A. (2004), “Perceptions of countries
as producers of consumer goods: a t-shirt study in China”,
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 187-200.
Ajzen, I. (1988), Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, Dorsey
Press, Chicago, IL.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.
50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating
nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Ataman, B. and Ulengin, B. (2003), “A note on the effect of
Brand image on sales”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 237-250.
Babin, B.J., Hardesty, D.M. and Suter, T.A. (2003), “Color
and shopping intentions: the intervening effect of price
fairness and perceived affect”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 541-551.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of
structural equation models”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H. and Yi, Y. (1992), “State
versus action orientation theory of reasoned action: an
application to coupon usage”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 505-518.
Baron, R. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6,
pp. 1173-1182.
Bhasin, K. (2012), “13 epic twitter fails by big brands”,
Business Insider, available at: www.businessinsider.com/13-
epic-twitter-fails-by-big-brands-2012-2?op=1 (accessed 22
July 2016).
Bolino, M.C. (1999), “Citizenship and impression
management: good soldiers or good actors?”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 82-98.
Bolino, M.C., Kacmar, K.M., Turnley, W.H. and Gilstrap, J.
B. (2008), “A multi-level review of impression management
motives and behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34
No. 6, pp. 1080-1109.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. and Gosling, S.D. (2011),
“Amazon’s mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet
high-quality, data?”, Perspectives on Psychological Science : a
Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 3-5.
Carmines, E.G. and Zeller, R. (1979), Reliability and Validity
Assessment, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Chang, L. (2015), “Americans spend an alarming amount of
time checking social media on their phones”, Digital Trends,
available at: www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/informate-report-
social-media-smartphone-use/ (accessed 6 July 2016).
Claudy, M.C., Peterson, M. and O’Driscoll, A. (2013),
“Understanding the attitude-behavior gap for renewable
energy systems using behavioral reasoning theory”, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 56-66.
Comscore Report (2017), “2017 Cross-Platform future in
focus”, available at: www.slideshare.net/comScoremarcom/
comscore-2017-crossplatform-future-in-focus-73480767
Conlon, D.E. and Murray, N.M. (1996), “Customer
perceptions of corporate responses to product complaints:
the role of explanations”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 1040-1056.
Connolly-Ahern, C. and Broadway, S.C. (2007), “The
importance of appearing competent: an analysis of corporate
impression management strategies on the world-wide-web”,
Public Relations Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 343-345.
Davis, F. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 318-411.
Daymon Worldwide (2016), “The next world: how millennials
will shape retail”, Daymon Worldwide, available at: www.
thenextworldinretail.com/the-next-world-newsroom/ (accessed
10 January 2017).
Dillard, C., Browning, L.D., Sitkin, S.B. and Sutcliffe, K.B.
(2000), “Impression management and the use of procedures
at the Ritz-Carlton: moral standards and dramaturgical
discipline”, Communication Studies, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 404-
414.
Dowling, G. (2006), “Communicating corporate reputation
through stories”, California Management Review, Vol. 49
No. 1, pp. 82-100.
Drory, A. and Zaidman, N. (2007), “Impression management
behavior: effects of the organizational system”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 290-308.
Elliott, G.R. and Cameron, R.C. (1994), “Consumer
perception of product quality and the country-of-origin
400
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
effect”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 49-62.
Elsbach, K.D. (2003), “Organizational perception
management”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 297-332.
Elsbach, K.D., Sutton, R. and Principe, K.E. (1998),
“Averting expected challenges through anticipatory
impression management: a study of hospital billing”,
Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 68-86.
Englis, B.G. and Solomon, M.R. (1996), “Using consumption
constellations to develop integrated communications
strategies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 37 No. 3,
pp. 183-191.
Ferris, G.R., Russ, G.S. and Fandt, P.M. (1990), “Politics in
organizations”, in Giacalone, R.A. and Rosenfeld, P. (Eds),
Impression Management in the Organization, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, ARRB
Group Limited, VT.
Flight, R.L., Flight, R.L., Coker, K.K. and Coker, K.K.
(2016), “Brand constellations: reflections of the emotional
self”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 134-147.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement errors”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gabriel, Y. (2000), Storytelling in Organizations: Facts, Fictions,
and Fantasies, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gensler, S., Völckner, F., Liu-Thompkins, Y. and Wiertz,
C. (2013), “Managing brands in the social media
environment”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 27
No. 4, pp. 242-256.
George, A.M. (2000), “The new public relations: integrating
marketing and public relations strategies for student
recruitment and institutional image building: a case study of
the university of Texas at San Antonio”, Journal of Nonprofit
and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 17-31.
Gereffi, G. (1999), “International trade and industrial
upgrading in the apparel commodity chain”, Journal of
International Economics, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 37-70.
Ghodeswar, B.M. (2008), “Building Brand identity in
competitive markets: a conceptual model”, Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 4-12.
Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Wiedmann,
K.P. and Hennigs, N. (2013), “A cross-cultural exploratory
content analysis of the perception of luxury from six
countries”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 229-237.
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,
Pine Forge Press, CA.
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L., Compeau, L.D. and Levy, M.
(2011), “Evolving pricing practices: the role of new business
models”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20
No. 7, pp. 510-513.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010),
Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hazlett, K. (2014), “Social TV: how marketers can reach and
engage audiences by connecting television to the web, social
media, and mobile”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 511-516.
He, Y., Chen, Q. and Alden, D.L. (2012), “Consumption in the
public eye: the influence of social presence on service
experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 3,
pp. 302-310.
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S. and Brodie, R.J. (2014),
“Consumer Brand engagement in social media:
conceptualization, scale development and validation”, Journal
of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Hu, H.H. and Parsa, H.G. (2011), “Self-monitoring, dining
companions and the usage of alternative currencies”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 228-237.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus
new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in
strategic management research: a review of four recent
studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 195-204.
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N. and Deng, X. (2007), “A
meditation on mediation: evidence that structural equations
models perform better than regressions”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 140-154.
Jin, S.A. (2009), “The roles of modality richness and
involvement in shopping behavior in 3D virtual stores”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 234-246.
Johnson, D. (2007), “Achieving customer value from
electronic channels through identity commitment,
calculative commitment, and trust in technology”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 2-22.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2003), “How do brands
create value?”, Marketing Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 27-31.
Kumar, A., Lee, H.J. and Kim, Y.K. (2009), “Indian
consumers’ purchase intention toward a United States versus
local Brand”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 5,
pp. 521-527.
Labrecque, L.I. (2014), “Fostering consumer–brand
relationships in social media environments: the role of
parasocial interaction”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 134-148.
Laroche, M., Toffoli, R., Zhang, Q. and Pons, F. (2001), “A
cross-cultural study of the persuasive effect of fear appeal
messages in cigarette advertising: China and Canada”,
International Journal of Advertising: The Review of Marketing
Communications, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 297-317.
LaTour, M.S. and Zahra, S.A. (1988), “Fear appeals as
advertising strategy: should they be used?”, Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 5-14.
Lawer, C. and Knox, S. (2006), “Customer advocacy and
Brand development”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 121-129.
401
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for
common method variance in cross-sectional research
designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1,
pp. 114-121.
Liu, C.M. (2002), “The effects of promotional activities on
Brand decision in the cellular telephone industry”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
McKee, R. and Fryer, B. (2003), “Storytelling that moves
people”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 51-55.
McSpadden, K. (2015), “You now have a shorter attention
span than a goldfish”, Time, available at: http://time.com/
3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/ (accessed 6 July 2016).
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O.C. and Ferrell, L. (2005), “A
stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in
marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 9/10,
pp. 956-977.
Mohamed, A.A., Gardner, W.L. and Paolillo, J.G.P. (1999),
“A taxonomy of organizational impression management
tactics”, Advances in Competitiveness Research, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 108-130.
Morrison, K. (2015), “91% of retail brands use two or more
social media channels”, Social Times, available at: www.
adweek.com/socialtimes/yesmail-retail-brands-social-media-
channels/622117 (accessed 26 July 2016).
Noort, G.V., Kerkhor, P. and Fennis, B.M. (2008), “The
persuasiveness of online safety cues: the impact of prevention
focus compatibility of web content on consumers’ risk
perceptions, attitudes and intentions”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 58-72.
O’Brien, R.M. (2007), “A caution regarding rules of thumb for
variance inflation factors”, Quality & Quantity, Vol. 41
No. 5, pp. 673-690.
Ogden, S. and Clarke, J. (2005), “Customer disclosures,
impression management and the construction of legitimacy:
Corporate reports in the UK privatized water industry”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 313-345.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J. and Ipeirotis, P. (2010), “Running
experiments on amazon mechanical turk”, Judgement and
Decision Making, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 411-419.
Parsa, H., Lord, K.R., Putrevu, S. and Kreeger, J. (2015),
“Corporate social and environmental responsibility in
services: will consumers pay for it?”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 250-260.
Pavlou, P.A. and Fygenson, M. (2006), “Understanding and
predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of
the theory of planned behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No.
1, pp. 115-143.
Pérez, A. and del Bosque, I.R. (2012), “The role of CSR in the
corporate identity of banking service providers”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 145-166.
Perks, K.J., Farache, F., Shukla, P. and Berry, A. (2013),
“Communicating responsibility-practicing irresponsibility in
CSR advertisements”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No. 10, pp. 1881-1888.
Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in
organizational research: problems and prospects”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P.
(2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS
procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation
models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and
resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research
Methods, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Purnawirawan, N., de Pelsmacker, P. and Dens, N. (2012),
“Balance and sequence in online reviews: how perceived
usefulness affects attitudes and intentions”, Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 244-255.
Ronkko, M. and Ylitalo, J. (2010), “PLS marker variable
approach to diagnosing and controlling for method
variance”, ICIS 2011 Proceedings, available at: http://aisel.
aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/researchmethods/8/ (accessed
1 January 2017).
Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R.A. and Riordan, C.A. (1995),
Impression Management in Organizations: Theory,
Measurement, Practice, Routledge, London.
Sargeant, A., Hudson, A. and West, D. (2008),
“Conceptualizing Brand values in the charity sector: the
relationship between sector, cause and organization”, The
Service Industries Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 615-632.
Scarpi, D. (2012), “Work and fun on the internet: the effects of
utilitarianism and hedonism online”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 53-67.
Schlenker, B. (1980), Impression Management: The Self-Concept,
Social Identity and Interpersonal Relations, Brooks Cole
Publishing Company, Monterey.
Schniederjans, D., Cao, E. and Schniederjans, M. (2013),
“Enhancing financial performance with social media: an
impression management perspective”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 911-918.
Seraj, M. (2012), “We create, we connect, we respect,
therefore we are: intellectual, social and cultural value in
online communities”, Journal of Interactive Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 209-222.
Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J. and Warshaw, P. (1988), “The
theory of reasoned action: a Meta-analysis of past research with
recommendation for modifications and future research”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 328-344.
Smith, A., Fischer, E. and Yongjian, C. (2012), “How does
Brand-related user-generated content differ across
YouTube, facebook, and twitter?”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 102-113.
Spear, S. and Roper, S. (2013), “Using corporate stories to
build the corporate Brand: an impression management
perspective”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 491-501.
Srivoravilai, N., Melewar, T.C., Liu, M.J. and Yannopoulou,
N. (2011), “Value marketing through corporate reputation:
an empirical investigation of thai hospitals”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 27 Nos. 3-4, pp. 243-268.
Stein, L. (2016), “In the future of advertising, attention is the
new currency”, Branding Magazine, available at: www.
brandingmagazine.com/2016/07/20/in-the-future-of-advertising-
attention-is-the-new-currency/ (accessed 22 July 2016).
402
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
Tafesse, W. (2016), “An experiential model of consumer
engagement in social media”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 424-434.
Tedeschi, J.T. and Riess, M. (1981), “Identities, the
phenomenal self, and laboratory research”, in Tedeschi, J.T.
(Ed.), Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological
Research, Academic Press, New York, NY.
University of MN (2010), Principles of Marketing, M Libraries
Publishing, Minneapolis, MN.
Van de Ven, B. (2008), “An ethical framework for the
marketing of corporate social responsibility”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 339-352.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F. (1996), “A model of the
antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test”,
Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 451-482.
Wang, X., Chunling, Y. and Wei, Y. (2012), “Social media
peer communication and impact on purchase intentions: a
consumer socialization framework”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 198-208.
Further reading
Kim, A. and Ko, E. (2010), “Impacts of luxury fashion brand’s
social media marketing on customer relationship and
purchase intention”, Journal of Global Fashion Marketing,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 164-171.
About the authors
Dara G. Schniederjans is an Assistant Professor of Supply
Chain Management at the University of Rhode Island, College
of Business Administration. Dara has authored and co-
authored research papers focused on theoretical elaboration
and subsequent testing of models related to the interface of
technology, innovation and supply chain management. Her
focus is on the sustainability and societal factors and
implications. She has also co-authored text books and served as
a guest co-editor for a special issue on “Business ethics in Social
Sciences” in the International Journal of Society Systems Science.
She has also served as an ethics track chair, website coordinator
and new faculty development consortium co-coordinator for
Decision Sciences Institute. She currently teaches graduate and
undergraduate courses in Supplier Relationship Management
and Operations Management. Dara G. Schniederjans is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: schniederjans@
uri.edu
Stephen A. Atlas researches behavioral factors that influence
consumer financial decisions. In particular, his research explores
how time preferences and framing impact consumer decisions
involving recurring financial consequences such as mortgages
and subscriptions. He is the principal investigator of the Mental
Accounting and Pricing Lab, an interdisciplinary group of
students and faculty researching consumer decision making and
behavioral economics. His work has appeared in the Journal of
Marketing Research, Southern Economic Journal, the Journal of
Virtual World Research and Advances in Consumer Research.
Locally, his research has been featured in the Providence Journal
and WPRO News. Atlas earned his PhD in Business from
Columbia University. His dissertation was selected as a winner of
 Impression management for corporate brands
Dara G. Schniederjans, Stephen A. Atlas and Christopher M. Starkey
the 2013 Doctoral Dissertation Competition in Behavioral
Pricing by the Pricing Center at Fordham University and was a
finalist in the Mary Kay Doctoral Dissertation Competition
awarded by the Academy of Marketing Science. He also received
BA in Economics from Brown University and MA in Economics
from Tufts University, where he examined how social norms
influence online financial choices. Previously, he worked as a
consultant with Deloitte. At URI, Atlas teaches Marketing
Research and Customer Analytics.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
403
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2018 · 385–403
Christopher M. Starkey is a PhD Student in Finance at
the University of Rhode Island, College of Business
administration. Chris has published a paper in
Transportation Research Part D and has co-authored one
textbook in business analytics. He has also presented papers
at the Academy of Management and Production and
Operations Management Society meetings. He has taught
courses in Principles of Microeconomics and Principles of
Macroeconomics.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.