Interpreting the MMPI-2 K scale: Self-deception and impression management revisited.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Factor-analytic studies have revealed two underlying content dimensions of socially desirable responding: self-deception and impression management (Nichols & Greene, 1997; Paulhus, 1984, 1986). The K validity scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (Butcher et al., 1989) has been associated with the self-deception factor without adequate empirical confirmation. The present study addressed this deficiency by examining the scale within Paulhus's (1984, 1986) two-component model of socially desirable responding. Participants were 712 undergraduate students (174 men, 538 women) from a medium-sized Canadian university who volunteered for partial course credit. As predicted, a two-factor model was found to underlie various measures of socially desirable responding. The MMPI-2 K scale and the Social Desirability Scale (Edwards, 1963) loaded on the self-deception factor, whereas the Impression Management scale (BIDR; Paulhus, 1991), the Eysenck Personality Inventory Lie scale, and the Self-Deceptive Enhancement scale (BIDR; Paulhus, 1991) loaded on the impression management factor. The results and discussion center on the interpretation of the K scale as a measure of self-deception in non-clinical populations. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 39-02, page: 0606. Adviser: Kenneth Cramer. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2000.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".