A Latent Profile Analysis of Impression Management Subgroups in the General Population and Their Individual Trait Correlates

Abstract Background Impression management (IM) pervades human social life and shapes employment, belonging, and safety from stigma. Although IM comprises distinct facets, little is known about how they co-occur within individuals. We examined whether two key facets of IM, intentional use and self-efficacy, differentiate subgroup profiles in the general population as well as the individual trait correlates and mental health patterns of these subgroups. Methods Using self-report survey data from a large representative U.S. general population sample ( N = 972), we conducted latent profile analysis based on separate composite scores for IM intentional use and IM self-efficacy. Corrected multinomial logistic regression further characterized the socio-motivational, cognitive, and neurodivergent trait correlates of subgroup membership. Corrected distal outcome models compared symptoms of anxiety and depression, fatigue, and authenticity across subgroups, accounting for classification uncertainty. Results Three subgroups emerged. A “high intentional use and high self-efficacy” subgroup was marked by heightened social-evaluative pressures and ADHD traits and reported the poorest mental health, possibly capturing individuals who feel capable of managing impressions yet are compelled to do so due to social pressures. A “low intentional use and high self-efficacy” subgroup reported the most favourable mental health, likely capturing individuals who manage impressions selectively and live in environments with low evaluative threats. Finally, a “low intentional use and low self-efficacy” subgroup was marked by higher autistic traits, lower perspective taking and cognitive flexibility, and elevated fatigue, which may encompass people who find IM difficult and/or withdraw from demanding interactions. Notably, the subgroups with the poorest and most favourable mental health reported comparable IM self-efficacy, differing mainly in IM intentional use that appears mainly driven by social pressures. Conclusions This work extends prior variable-centred work with a multi-faceted, person-centred account of IM and signposts new research directions to understand individual differences. These findings suggest that feeling capable of managing impressions does not necessarily correspond with better psychological wellbeing when IM is used extensively. Moreover, the findings suggest that efforts to support wellbeing, especially for those facing greater social-evaluative pressure and minority stress, may be better directed at changing the social conditions that mandate sustained IM.