ABSTRACT
Differences in Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) response latencies between groups instructed to respond honestly or fake were explored. There were 120 undergraduate students who completed a computer administered MMPI-2 with instructions to either respond honestly, to underreport psychopathology, or to overreport psychopathology. Results showed that subjects required significantly more time to respond in a manner that was inconsistent with their response set when pattern of endorsement (acceptance vs. rejection) was considered and less time when pattern of endorsement was not considered. The differential response of subjects across groups suggests that response latencies are related to response styles and that future research may indicate a methodology for utilizing response latencies in assessing response validity.
Subject(s)
MMPI , Psychometrics , Truth Disclosure , Analysis of Variance , Female , Humans , Male , Reaction Time , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
This article presents a review and critique of research on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) subtle items in regard to their validity as measures of their scales' characteristics. The main categories of focus are their convergent and discriminative validity, the paradoxical effect, and the issue of whether removing these items would improve MMPI validity. Important problems in the methodologies are noted and discussed in some detail. These methodological concerns and the conflicting results across studies obscure firm conclusions on the validity of the subtle items, although strong support is lacking. However, more evidence is needed before deciding to remove these items from the MMPI; therefore, this article provides recommendations for future research.
ABSTRACT
Cognitive processing of pain and fear information was examined using a methodology based on the bioinformational theory of emotion. Undergraduate volunteers (n = 48) participated in an imagery assessment procedure involving audio presentation of pain, fear, or pain plus fear experimental scripts. Action and neutral scripts were presented as control stimuli. Heart rate and self-reported affective judgements were assessed. Results indicated that pain scripts were rated more negatively, and were associated with feelings of less dominance than the other experimental scripts. Fear scripts elicited greater heart rate acceleration than either pain or pain plus fear scripts. The direction of physiological and verbal response to pain scripts and fear scripts, however, was very similar, differing only in amplitude; greater heart rate response and more negative ratings were manifested relative to action or neutral scripts.
