Posey C D, Hess A K
J Pers Assess. 1984 Apr;48(2):137-44. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4802_6.
Fifty-eight adult male felons were given the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the Buss - Durkee Hostility Inventory ( BDHI ), and the Draw-a-Person Test (DAP) to test the relative sensitivity of subtlety or obviousness of items to response sets. The inmates were randomly assigned to three response set groups: a fake-aggressive group, a fake-nonaggressive group, and a standard-instruction control group. The MMPIs were scored for five obvious and five subtle aggression or hostility research scales. The BDHI is a totally obvious test, whereas the DAP is a very subtle measure. A paradoxical relationship between response set and subtlety of the scales was hypothesized, such that the obvious scales could be successfully faked , but the subtle scales would show scores in the opposite from the intended direction. It was found that the inmates did correctly manipulate the obvious scales, but the subtle scales did not consistently show the hypothesized trend. Possible reasons for this are discussed, including the nature of the scales used and characteristics of the population.
对58名成年男性罪犯进行了明尼苏达多相人格测验（MMPI）、巴斯-杜克敌意量表（BDHI）和画人测验（DAP），以测试项目的微妙或明显程度对反应定势的相对敏感性。这些囚犯被随机分为三个反应定势组：假攻击组、假非攻击组和标准指导对照组。对MMPI的五个明显的和五个微妙的攻击或敌意研究量表进行评分。BDHI是一个完全明显的测试，而DAP是一个非常微妙的测量方法。假设反应定势与量表的微妙程度之间存在一种矛盾关系，即明显的量表可以被成功伪造，但微妙的量表会显示出与预期方向相反的分数。结果发现，囚犯确实正确地操纵了明显的量表，但微妙的量表并没有始终如一地显示出假设的趋势。讨论了可能的原因，包括所用量表的性质和人群的特征。
