1. Research Methods
Theme: Class Room Presentation
Date: 20th June 2013.
Topic: The Ingratiation Construct: An Assessment of the Validity of the
Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviour in Organisational Settings
(MIBOS)
Research Scholars: Allison W. Harrison, Wayne A. Hochwarter,
Pamela L. Perrewe, David A. Ralston.
Source: Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998, Vol.83, No.6, 932-943.
Presented by : Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013.
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 1

2. Prelude
Fundamental postulates of this paper:
- “Substantive Research without proper construct validation
can lead to dysfunctional consequences” *Schwab, 1980+.
- “Excessive measurement error has led researchers to
inaccurately reject or accept hypothesis instead of
having these outcomes based on theoretical arguments”.
[Bagozzi, Yi & Phillips, 1991].
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 2

3. What is Ingratiatory Behaviour
“ A class of strategic behaviours illicitly
designed to influence a particular other
concerning the attractiveness of one’s personal
qualities” (Jones, 1964, P.11)
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 3

4. What is MIBOS
- Tool / Instrument for measuring Ingratiatory Behaviour in Organisational
settings.
- Developed by Kamalesh Kumar and Michael Bayerlein, 1991.
- Salient Features of MIBOS:
MIBOS
OPINION
CONFIRMITY
(7 ITEMS)
FAVOUR
RENDERING (6
ITEMS)
SELF
PRESENTATION
(4 ITEMS)
OTHER
ENHANCEMENT
(7 ITEMS)
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 4

5. Checklist of MIBOS developed by KK & MB
(1991)
Description Y/N Remarks
Conceptualisation Stage:
a) Whether extensive lit. analysis done Y Initial studies refers 1964
b) Whether Construct clarity was established Y MIBOS to measure
subordinate’s behaviour
towards superior.
c) Whether expert panels / other valid measures used
during item construction
Y
d) Whether pretesting of items done Y Pretesting was done with
learned population to validate
67 items.
e) Whether screening of unrelated items deleted
while pretesting
Y 67 items reduced to 55 items.
f) Whether individual to total correlation tested Y 55 items reduced to 27items
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 5

6. Checklist of MIBOS developed by KK & MB
(1991) .. contd
Description Y/N Remarks
g) Whether Social Desirability Test done Y 27 items reduced to 24 items
h) Whether Factor Analysis done Y Upto second factor analysis done.
i) Whether Reliability Test done for MIBOS Y Internal Consistency and Test – Retest
Consistency established
j) Whether Acquiescence Response Test (ART)
done to measure the general tendency factor
Y (less than 0.11)
k) Whether content validity test done Y Done with different set of employees
l) Whether convergent validity test done Y Correlation of 4 factors taken: a) Self
monitoring Skill
b) Need for power
c) Locus of Control
d) Machiavellianism
m) Whether discriminatory validity done to
check whether any other factor has significance
influence on construct
Y Factors correlated were
Assertiveness, rationality, exchange of
benefits, upward appeal and
coalition. (less sf)
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 6

7. ASSESSMENT OF THE VALIDITY OF MIBOS
Exhaustive work done by A.W Harrison & others, 1998.
Approaches used:
1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
2. Convergent Validity
3. Discriminant Validity.
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 7

8. Areas of Improvement / shortcomings targeted
to address by this research work
- To address the psychometric properties of the MIBOS scale
(Shrienshein & Hinkin, 1990)
- Though MIBOS is a valid measure there are few alternative full scale
measure of ingratiation is available ( as per Watt, 1993).
- In the area of Construct Validity,
“Kacman & Valle (1997) reported that 15 of the 24 items double
loaded and hence stability of the factor structure was not fully
established.”
- GFI (0.792) and AGFI(0.785) used to check double loading – not
acceptable results.
- Double loading items were checked which resulted GFI and AGFI as
0.836 and 0.785 respectively and concluded as lack of fit.
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 8

9. Alternate conceptualisation work done by A.W. H
& others
1. Examined 4 factor model of Kumar & Beyerlein (1991).
2. Examined K & B conceptualisation as a second order structure
in model taking into consideration the foll. Study:
“Kacman and Valle (1997) found that the 4 factors of the
MIBOS were highly correlated and therefore may possibly be
indicating only one construct”.
3. MIBOS as unidimensional.
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 9

10. Convergent Validity of A.W.H & others
“ Campbell and Firske (1959) suggested that Convergent Validity of a
measure is demonstrated when independent methods of measurement
lead to comparable results”.
Hence A.W.H & others decided to include more factors and assessed the
relationship between MIBOS and the foll:
1. Locus of Control 7. Self monitoring
2. Machiavellianism 8. Self liking
3. Resource Scarcity 9. Fear of negative evaluation
4. Role clarity and role ambiguity 10. More comparable measures.
5. Management Style (autocratic) With the above factors, H1 – H11 was
formed.
6. Need for Power
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 10

11. Alternate Sampling work done by A.W. H &
others
Extended the sample group to 4 different set.
Sample set 1 288 Managers from manufacturing
organisation
Sample set 2 144 members of professional organisation.
Sample set 3 452 clerical personnel of University
Sample set 4 279 employed undergraduates.
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 11

12. Reliability Assessment of MIBOS done by A.W. H
& others
Synopsis of Reliability assessment:
1. Reliability estimates are satisfactory
2. Hinkin (1995) recommended the use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) as a rigorous method of examining factor structure.
Hence three alternate conceptualisation of ingratiation were analysed with
CFA using LISREL 8.
3. Harris & Schaubroeck, 1998, James & James 1989 recommends for study
of absolute fit. Hence GFI, AGFI and NFI were used to measure the absolute
fit.
4. Sweeney & Mc Farlin (1993) recommended the use of “Squared Multiple
correlation” for construct validity and since it is the “best practice” the same
has been followed.
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 12

13. Analysis of Results of work done by A.W. H &
others
Criteria Description
Construct Validity GFI – Poor for all the three construct models.
Sq. Multiple Correlation – Consistently low for all the three
models.
Convergent Validity Hypo: (H1 to H10) not favorable correlation with MIBOS.
H11: Somewhat favorable correlation with MIBOS
(H11: MIBOS scores should be positively correlated with
comparable measures of ingratiatory tactics)
Social Desirability No Correlation existed except few in students set of sample
which has been ignored.
Discrimant Analysis In addition to 5 discriminant factors used by KK & B, three
more are used viz. job focused, supervisor focused and self
focused impression tactics.
Final correlation is as large as 0.61 and hence DV to be
questioned.
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 13

14. Inferences and identified future area of research
of work done by A.W. H & others
Inferences FRA
1. None of the structural models were
adequate
1. Critically assess and perhaps modify
item working for the existing scale.
2. Internal consistency though exists,
but not sufficient for construct validity
2. Perhaps there are more than four
possible sets of ingratiation tactics.
3. Kacmar & Valley (1997) concluded
that MIBOS might suffer due to item
wording.
3. Attempts to be made to compare
results of MIBOS with constructs
measured with alternate methods.
4. All assessments of validity produced
weak results.
4. May chose to compare MIBOS to a
small number of carefully worded
constructs that have undergone rigorous
construct validation.
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 14

15. Thanks
20th June 2013 Abdul Rahman, EFPM 2013 15