an analysis of mmpi participant profiles-teiverlaur final rev

7/28/2019 An Analysis of MMPI Participant Profiles-Teiverlaur FINAL Rev.

1/24

MMPI-2 PARTICIPANT PROFILES IN THE MOMENT OF TRUTH

An Analysis of MMPI-2 Profile of theParticipants of the International Reality

Show The Moment of Truth

Maria TeiverlaurUniversity of Tartu, Viljandi Culture Academy

Jaan HuikEstonian Academy of Security Sciences

Online Publication Date: Jan. 10, 2013

Journal of Media Psychology, Volume 17, No. 3, Winter, 2013

AbstractThe MMPI and MMPI-2 have been widely used to assess personality characteristics not only inclinical settings but also in personnel screening to evaluate psychological adjustment and

personality traits. This study examined 49 participants who were selected to the reality TVshow The Moment of Truth in Estonia between 2008 and 2010 using MMPI-2. The showdemands boldness and frankness from the participants who have to answer delicate questions

by saying yes or no knowing that their truthfulness is measured by the polygraph. The aimof the study was to analyze the personality of participants using MMPI-2 concerning the

psychological profiles of winners and non-winners also. Based on the results on the validityand clinical scales of the MMPI-2, the participants can be characterized as independent,natural, open, enthusiastic, ambitious, adventurous, suspicious, imaginative, to some extent

psychologically and physically restless and self-centered persons who need attention andemotional excitement. They tend to excessively rationalize, are good in creating a firstimpression but sometimes behave unexpectedly. They have many relationships which aresuperficial and if in a relationship, they prefer to be dominant. When specific features of theirMMPI-2 profiles were analyzed then subgroups of participants emerged using cluster analysis,unrealists, worriers, concealers, and adventurers. The winners in the show hadsignificantly lower outcomes on clinical scale 6 compared to non-winners (those who did notwin any money) which indicates that winners are psychologically more balanced, calm, and notso sensitive and responsive to the opinions of others than non-winners.

Keywords: reality show, MMPI-2, The Moment of Truth

1


2/24


Between 2008 and 2010 the internationally well-known reality TV show The Moment

of Truth (referred to as the show") was broadcasted in Estonia on Channel 2 where it set a

viewer record and reached to the top of Channel 2 rankings. In that period there was large

media coverage of the show. Never before had the participants of a TV show been so frank

and outspoken. According to the rules of the show the participants answered a number

questions by saying yes or no and by doing this exposed their secrets to the public

concerning various issues such as sexual behavior, money dealing, drinking, lying, stealing etc.

Examples of the questions in the show were: Have you lied to your husband/wife about how

much money you make?; Have you ever stolen anything from work?; Are your bored with

you sex life?; Are you afraid of somebodyin your family?; Can you be trusted?; Do you

get any pleasure seeing other people suffering?.

Persons who were participating in the show were expected to cope with stress and

remain psychologically stable after answering frankly to the delicate questions. Bagby (2011)

noted that MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) have been used for the

selection of participants for the reality shows, however, there is hardly any literature on

psychological description of the persons involved in The Moment of Truth. Therefore, it

would be useful to examine the psychological profiles of persons who participated in the show.

This is possible because the rules in selecting participants to the show include administering a

MMPI-2.

It should be noted that family members and significant others had a large effect on the

applicants as they had to be in the audience during the show. Applicants who perceived that

their answers to the questions might hurt and humiliate themselves or others had a chance to

withdraw from the show after casting. Similarly, if family members or close friends did not

turn up to the recording of the show then it was not possible for the applicants to participate in

the show. Thus, it was essential for the applicants to discuss difficult questions with their

families and friends to avoid the escalation of a conflict after answering the questions in the

show.

Current study

As not everyone is inclined to answer delicate questions in front of hundreds of

thousands of TV viewers, then some interesting questions arise. How can the persons

2


3/24


participating in this intriguing TV show be described? Are the persons psychologically similar

or different? Further, how can the winners and non-winners be psychologically described?

The aim of this study is to examine the psychological profiles of the participants of

The Moment of Truth based on the MMPI-2 results. First, it is hypothesized that the

participants of the show can be divided into different homogeneous character subgroups based

on the results of the MMPI-2. Second, it is hypothesized that there are statistically significant

differences between the winners and non-winners (i.e. those who did not win any money in the

show) based on the results of the MMPI-2.

Method

Participants

The participants of the study were persons who took part in the reality TV show The

Moment of Truth in Estonia which was broadcasted on Channel 2 between 2008 and 2010.

Forty-nine persons participated in this show of whom 27 (55.1 %) were males and 22 (44.9 %)

females. The mean age of the participants was 33.1 years (SD = 8.9) ranging from 20 to 60

years. Of the participants 20 persons (40.8%) were 20 to 29 years old; 21 persons (42.8%)

were 30 to 39 years old; four persons (8.2%) were 40 to 49 years old and four persons (8.2%)

were 50 to 60 years old. 12.3 % of the participants had primary or basic education, 61.2 %

secondary or vocational secondary education and 26.5 % had finished some or all college. All

participants were Estonian.

Procedure

Channel 2 obtained the license to produce The Moment of Truth in Estonia. The

show was conducted in compliance with all necessary requirements. The participants were

found by advertising the show on TV where they were informed about the possibility of

winning a large sum of money. Up to a one million Estonian kroons 1 (approximately 80,645

US dollars, 1 USD is about 12.4 kroons) could have been won if the participants would take

part in the show and answer all the questions truthfully. The principle of the show is that if the

participant answers all 21 questions truthfully in a row then (according to the polygraph

results) he/she has a possibility to win the top prize. Participants who answered the first six

1Estonia changed its currency from kroon to euro on January 1st

2011.

3


4/24


questions truthfully the could win 10,000 EEKs; for answering the 11 questions, the prize

would be 25,000 EEKs, for 15 questions, 100,000 EEKs; for 18 questions, 200,000 EEKs; for

20 questions 500,000 EEKs, and for all 21 questions 1,000,000 EEKs.

The applicants had to be at least 18 years old and it was necessary to get the consent of

some of their relatives and friends to appear in the show. The relatives and friends had to give

some additional information about the participant which was needed for the composition of

questions for the polygraph. Adults whose work was related to the state secrets and secret

services were not able to apply.

The producers of the show evaluated the applicants attractiveness, charisma, and

stress-resistance, and based on that evaluation decided who were suitable for the show. All

participants passed through the selection process - filling in an online questionnaire, taking part

in a conversation, taking a screen test in the TV studio , and finally psychological research with

the MMPI-2.

The first step for the applicants was to fill in an online questionnaire and send it to

Channel 2. This questionnaire contained personal data, questions related to the applicants life

and the show. Filling in the questionnaire was necessary for the pre-employment screening of

the applicants by the organizing team. Approximately 800 persons sent their questionnaires to

Channel 2 and after the pre-employment screening 180 persons were invited to the casting of

whom only 86 decided to attend.

The applicants had to participate in a conversation with the members of the organizing

team, a screen test in the TV studio and a meeting with a clinically experienced psychologist to

fill in the MMPI-2 test. The results of the MMPI-2 and psychological anamnesis had to specify

the psychical state and the personality of the applicant. Based on the results of the interview,

psychological history and MMPI-2 scores, applicants who were depressed and had suicidal

risks were excluded from the selection process.

Administration of the MMPI-2 took place after the conversation in small groups and in

separate quiet rooms, usually with three to five applicants at a time. There was enough space

for them to sit separately and to concentrate and answer independently to the MMPI-2

questions. The applicants were initially informed about MMPI-2 testing and they were given

4


5/24


the standard instruction how to fill in the MMPI-2 by a psychologist. They were instructed to

read each item, consider its content and asked to respond to the item directly and honestly. The

time for filling in the MMPI-2 was not limited. Each applicant was provided with an MMPI-2

booklet and an answer sheet. The responses were scored manually by a psychologist.

Following Craigs (1999) instructions, an MMPI-2 profile was deemed invalid if more than 30

items had been omitted.

The organizing team led by the producer Teet Margna chose the participants according

to the outcomes of the conversation, the screen test in the TV studio and the results of the

MMPI-2. During the interviews the presence of interesting life events, secrets, communication

skills and self-assurance were evaluated by the organizing team. The events and behaviors

which happen rarely in everyday life accounted for the criteria of interesting life.

Psychological peculiarity, communication skills, self-assurance, stress-resistance, psychological

durability and attractiveness was assessed by the experts based on the accounted behavior

during the conversation and on the results of the MMPI-2. During the screen test in the

studio, the attractiveness, capability to perform and stress resistance of the applicant became

more evident. Applicants biography had to be interesting; he or she had to be able to perform,

be expressive with vivid communication, and also be psychologically durable.

The questions for the show were composed separately for every participant by the

organizing team with the help of the relatives and friends who gave additional information

about the participants life. The truthfulness of the answers was measuredby the polygraph

using a typical pre-employment screening test (Lykken, 1998). Before the show, the players

had to take the polygraph test where they were asked about 50 questions. During the live show

(without knowing the polygraph test results) the participants were asked 21 questions again.

MMPI-2

As one of the requirements of the show was that the applicants be evaluated concerning

their personality. The MMPI-2 was used for that purpose. Personality inventories are useful

tools for psychologists as well as other professionals to provide fairly objective information

about a person (Marshall-Lee, 2001). MMPI represents one of the most widely used and

studied psychological test in psychology (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2001). Far more research

5


6/24


papers have been published about MMPI than about any other psychological test (Graham &

Lilly, 1984). MMPI-2 has a strong psychometric reliability and validity, and it is widely used to

assess personality and emotional disorders (Hall, Bansal & Lopez, 1999).

Despite of the fact that the MMPI was originally developed for the use in medical and

psychiatric screening, a number of studies have documented the effective use of the MMPI in

personnel screening, employment, and forensic decisions (Butcher, 1994; Friedman, Lewak,

Nichols, & Webb, 2001). MMPI has been used even in the astronaut selection process

(Butcher, 2004). The use of MMPI in non-clinical settings has increased dramatically in the

years before its revision (Graham, 2000).

MMPI-2 has been used also in screening the applicants of reality TV shows. Boyd

(2009) focuses on how the producers chose the participants for the reality TV show Wife

Swap with the help of psychological consultants reviewing the results of the MMPI-2 for each

participant. Those participants who reached the late phase of deep psychological assessment,

were chosen to the show. Bagby (2011) notes the necessity of appropriate screening of reality

TV applicants with the MMPI-2 - RF. It should be added that the applicants of reality TV have

been examined also by MMPI-2 - RF and NEO-PI-R (Bagby & Marshall, 2003). Following

Graham, (2000) and Carver & Scheier (2004), a brief description of the MMPI-2 scales is

presented in Table 1.

The interpretation of the MMPI-2 results was based on Graham (2000). According to

Graham, MMPI-2 scores above 70 points on the T-scale are considered to be high and T-

scores below 40 low. The T-distribution is a fixed standardized distribution with a mean value

of 50 and value of a T-score 65 represents the cutoff point where normal and pathological

groups are most reliably discriminated (Nichols, 2001).

Table 1

Description of the MMPI-2 Validity and Clinical Scales

Validity scales

L scale (Lie) High scores indicate of not being honest and frank in

answering the items.

6


7/24


F scale (Infrequency) High scores indicate that a person may have responded

randomly to the items or may be exaggerating problems.

K scale (Correction) High scores approached defensively, may have tried to

fake to be good in responding to the items.

Clinical scales

Scale 1 (Hypochondriasis) High scores refer to cynical and defeatist person who may

be have bodily concerns.

Scale 2 (Depression) High scores indicate despondent, distressed, depressed.

Scale 3 (Hysteria) Persons with high scores have remarkable need for

attention and affection, they are immature psychologically

and egocentric.

Scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviate) High scores refer that person is adventurous, rebellious,

have disregard for social standards, self-centered.

Scale 5 (Masculinity Femininity) High scores provide indication of level of traditional

male/female interest.

Scale 6 (Paranoia) High scores refer that a person is guarded and suspicions,

and feels harassed.

Scale 7 (Psychasthenia) High scores indicate that a person is anxious, rigid, tense

and worrying.

Scale 8 (Schizophrenia) High scores exhibit social alienation, bizarreness in

thinking, and vivid imaginations.

Scale 9 (Hypomania) Persons with high scores are emotionally excitable,

impulsive, and hyperactive.

Scale 0 (Social Introversion) Persons with high scores are shy, withdrawn, and

uninvolved in social relationships.

Results and Discussion

7


8/24


The data was analyzed with SPSS version 20. Using a one-way ANOVA differences in

gender, age, and education were examined. There were no statistically significant differences

between L, F and K scales, and between other scales except on scale 5 there was a significant

difference between males and females (males M= 47.2, SD = 8.0 vs femalesM= 54.9, SD =

9.6, p< .05). In further analysis we do not differentiate between gender, age and education

because of the relatively small sample size.

When we examine the mean scores of validity scales L, F and K (see Table 2 and Figure

1) it can be said that participants were frank and their responses can be trusted. The mean of

the L scale 48.4 (T < 50) indicates that participants responded frankly to the items; they are

self-confident, independent, and able to admit minor faults and shortcomings. Such persons

tend to be strong, natural, able to communicate their ideas effectively, although they can be

seen sometimes as cynical by others. The mean of the F scale 56.4 (T-score range from 50 to

65) indicates that the participants function adequately in most cases in their everyday

situations. The mean of the K scale 45.7 (T-score range from 40 to 55) demonstrates that the

participants are psychologically well-adjusted; they exhibit wide interest in life; they are clever,

enterprising, enthusiastic, verbally fluent; and tend to take a dominant role in the relationships.

Table 2

Results of the Basic Scales of the MMPI-2 T-scores (n=49)

Scales M(SD) 95% CI Min Max Range

L 48.4 (9.6) [45.7, 51.2] 33 74 41

F 56.4 (11.7) [53.0, 59.7] 39 87 48

K 45.7 (8.8) [43.2, 48.2] 30 64 34

1 55.8 (7.2) [53.8, 57.9] 39 73 34

2 50.1 (9.7) [47.2, 52.9] 32 73 41

3 49.8 (9.4) [47.1, 52.5] 33 78 45

4 61.9 (9.5) [58.7, 64.2] 41 79 38

5 50.6 (9.5) [47.9, 53.4] 24 69 45

6 58.9 (15.4) [54.5, 63.2] 30 89 59

8


9/24


7 57.5 (11.8) [54.1, 60.9] 35 91 56

8 60.1 (10.6) [56.9, 63.0] 42 94 52

9 57.4 (13.6) [53.6, 61.3] 31 92 61

0 40.7 (7.1) [38.6, 42.7] 30 57 27

Note. CI = confidence interval; Min = minimum scale value; Max = maximum scale value;

Range = difference between Max and Min.

Figure 1. Means of the MMPI-2 T-scores with 95% confidence intervals.

Characterizing the participants based on the MMPI-2 scales some conclusions can be

made about their personality using Grahams (2000) interpretation guidance. Attention is paid

to the results above the average (T > 50) of scales 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and to the outcome of scale 0

which was below the average (T < 50).

The participants of the show can be characterized as independent, natural, open,

talkative, enthusiastic, ambitious, adventurous, suspicious, extraverted, imaginative, sometimes

psychologically and physically restless, self-centered persons. The tendency to blame their

difficulties on other people was observed and they tend to rationalize excessively. They create

a good first impression but sometimes behave unexpectedly; also the need for attention and

emotional excitement occurred. They tend to take a dominant role with their partner; however,

they have many superficial relationships. It must be added that this reflects not only to the

9


10/24


psychological nature of the participants but also tells something about the members of our

community, according to Scannells (1996, p. 55) note that the minimal components of any

persons identity-kit is our kind of society.

The mean value of scale 3 (T = 49.8) indicated that most of the participants did not feel

remarkable fascination to expose themselves in this show. Although they had a remarkable

need for attention and affection, they were not necessarily fascinated to expose themselves

(range from 33 to 78, see Table 2). It should be added that the range was largest on scale 9

(range = 61) and smallest on scale 0 (range = 27) which demonstrates that the participants

were homogeneous concerning the social extraversion and different regarding emotional

excitability and activeness.

Cluster Analysis of the Sample

In this research we used k-means cluster analysis to examine whether the participants of

the show can be divided into different homogeneous character subgroups based on the

outcomes of the MMPI-2. It was found that four cluster model fit the best by Aron and Aron

(2003), e.g. the value of chi-square was smaller ((3) = 7,245) than the cutoff score for the

chi-square distribution 7,815 on significance level ofp = .05 (and therefore the null hypothesis

was retained). The number of the persons in the four subgroups did not differ significantly.

Graham (2000) has noted that there is a difference in interpreting MMPI T-scores.

Some researchers consider T-scores above 70 as high whereas others define high scores in

terms of the upper quartile in a distribution. Low scores have been defined to be below 40 but

also as scores in the lowest quartile of a distribution. Based on these criteria it can be indicated

that most of all average results of the MMPI-2 on the ground T-scores are outside medium

sphere in the subgroups 1 (see Table 3 and Figure 2). Keiller and Graham (1993) studied the

characteristics of high-, medium-, and low-scoring persons in the MMPI-2 normative sample

on clinical scales and concluded that the low scores convey important information but not so

much as the high scores. They noted that the medium scores and the low scores are more

similar to each other than the high scores. Now different subgroups are described in detail.

Table 3

10


11/24


Results of the Scales of the MMPI-2 T-scores of Different Subgroups

Scales Subgroup 1

(n = 5)

Subgroup 2

(n = 12)

Subgroup 3

(n = 14)

Subgroup 4

(n = 18)

M SD Range M SD Range M SD Range M SD Range

L 47.8 8.7 23 44.8 6.4 19 56.9 8.9 36 44.4 8.4 37

F 74.6 8.0 22 58.9 11.1 34 48.3 6.0 19 55.9 10.3 37

K 42.0 8.7 21 41.1 5.7 21 54.1 6.5 19 43.3 7.9 31

1 62.2 6.6 16 56.8 7.2 24 56.6 6.1 24 52.8 7.1 30

2 57.0 8.7 21 58.2 8.8 25 48.4 8.6 28 44.2 6.4 23

3 59.2 7.8 20 50.2 5.3 16 51.1 12.2 45 45.9 7.8 30

4 73.6 5.7 13 67.4 7.4 22 57.3 6.1 20 57.3 9.1 32

5 47.0 5.8 15 52.5 9.8 33 45.4 10.5 37 54.5 7.4 27

6 79.0 11.8 25 69.6 10.2 29 52.0 15.0 49 51.6 10.1 39

7 61.8 7.4 19 72.3 9.9 37 53.8 6.3 21 49.3 6.4 29

8 73.8 12.7 32 66.2 7.5 26 57.1 8.3 30 54.2 8.0 27

9 74.2 9.7 23 56.2 9.7 31 45.4 7.5 26 62.9 12.6 48

0 42.6 8.7 23 46.3 6.3 23 37.1 5.4 17 39.1 6.5 25

11


12/24


Figure 2. Means of the MMPI-2 T-scores of different subgroups.

Subgroup 1

This group includes five persons (10.2 % of all the participants; mean age 32.0 years,

SD = 7.8; two males and three females; one with primary or basic education, three with

secondary or vocational secondary education, one with higher or incomplete higher education).

When the results of validity and clinical scales of Subgroup 1 were compared to the other

subgroups then the following differences emerged (see Table 4).

Table 4

Multiple Comparisons (ANOVA) of the MMPI-2 Scales between the Subgroups

Scales M1 M2 M1 M3 M1

M4

M2 M3 M2 M4 M3 M4

L 3.0 -9.1 3.4 -12.1**

.4 12.5**

F 15.7*

26.3**

18.7**

10.6*

3.0 -7.6

K .9 -12.1

*

-1.3 -13.1

**

-2.2 10.8

**

1 5.4 5.6 9.4 .3 4.0 3.7

2 -1.2 8.6 12.8*

9.8*

14.0**

4.2

3 9.0 8.2 13.3*

-.9 4.2 5.1

4 6.2 16.3**

16.3**

10.1*

10.1*

0.0

5 -5.5 1.6 -7.5 7.1 -2.0 -9.1

6 9.4 27.0

**

27.4

**

17.6

**

18.0

**

.4

7 -10.5 8.0 12.5*

18.5**

23.0**

4.5

8 7.6 16.7*

19.6**

9.0 11.9**

2.9

9 18.0*

28.8**

11.3 10.8 -6.7 -17.5**

0 -3.7 5.5 3.5 9.2**

7.2*

-2.0

Note. M1, M2, M3 and M4 are means of subgroups 1, 2, 3 and 4; * p< .05, two-tailed.

**p 55) indicate that these persons tend to be conventional, socially confirming,

trying to create a favorable impression by being not honest in responding to the items. They

15


16/24


may be defensive, denying, repressing and tend to claim their virtues to a greater extent than

most of the people.The outcome of the F scale (T < 50) indicates that these persons are

socially confirming and may have tried to create a better impression of them in responding to

the MMPI-2 items. The scores of the K scale (T = 40 - 50) demonstrate positive self-

evaluation.Such persons tend to be well-adjusted psychologically - they are independent, self-

reliant, have wide interests, get along wellwith other people, tend to take the dominant role in

their relationships and are capable of coping problems in their daily life.

Vincent, Linsz and Geene (1966) state that the results of the L scale are correlated with

education, i.e. for more educated persons L scale tend not to increase. Butcher (1994) notes

in his psychological assessment of the airline pilot applicants with the MMPI-2 that the pilots,

as other job applicants, presented a defensive manner on personality tests and a large increase

on L and K scales was quite common. In our research only the members of the Subgroup 3

were not frank and were interested in creating a favorable impression by not being honest in

answering the items. All the scores of the clinical scales in the Subgroup 3 were below 60 (T

an analysis of mmpi participant profiles-teiverlaur final rev

Documents