An Analysis of MMPI Participant Profiles-Teiverlaur FINAL Rev

MMPI-2 PARTICIPANT PROFILES IN THE MOMENT OF TRUTH 1
An Analysis of MMPI-2 Profile of the

Participants of the International Reality
Show The Moment of Truth
Maria Teiverlaur
University of Tartu, Viljandi Culture Academy
Jaan Huik
Estonian Academy of Security Sciences
Online Publication Date: Jan. 10, 2013
Journal of Media Psychology, Volume 17, No. 3, Winter, 2013
Abstract
The MMPI and MMPI-2 have been widely used to assess personality characteristics not only in
clinical settings but also in personnel screening to evaluate psychological adjustment and
personality traits. This study examined 49 participants who were selected to the reality TV
show The Moment of Truth in Estonia between 2008 and 2010 using MMPI-2. The show
demands 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 aim
of 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 validity
and 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 and
emotional excitement. They tend to excessively rationalize, are good in creating a first
impression but sometimes behave unexpectedly. They have many relationships which are
superficial and if in a relationship, they prefer to be dominant. When specific features of their
MMPI-2 profiles were analyzed then subgroups of participants emerged using cluster analysis,
unrealists, worriers, concealers, and adventurers. The winners in the show had
significantly lower outcomes on clinical scale 6 compared to non-winners (those who did not
win any money) which indicates that winners are psychologically more balanced, calm, and not
so sensitive and responsive to the opinions of others than non-winners.
Keywords: reality show, MMPI-2, The Moment of Truth

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 somebody in 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
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
st
1
Estonia changed its currency from kroon to euro on January 1 2011.
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
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 measured by 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
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.

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

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 females M = 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

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
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 of p = .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
Results of the Scales of the MMPI-2 T-scores of Different Subgroups
Scales Subgroup 1 Subgroup 2 Subgroup 3 Subgroup 4
(n = 5) (n = 12) (n = 14) (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

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 M2 M3 M2 M4 M3 M4
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 .01, two-tailed.
The results of the Subgroup 1 were: (i) significantly higher (p .05) on the F scale and
scale 9 than the results of the Subgroup 2; (ii) significantly lower (p .05) on the L and K
scales, and significantly higher (p .05) on the F scale and on scales 6, 8, and 9 than the results
of the Subgroup 3; and (iii) significantly higher (p .05) on the L and F scales and on scales 2,
3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 than the results of the Subgroup 4. To sum up, it is possible to conclude that
the Subgroup 1 stands out in vivid imaginations, suspicions, activity, impulsivity, selfishness
and rebelliousness.
The results of the Subgroup 1 validity scales are following (see Table 3). The outcome
on the L scale 47.8 (T < 50) indicates that the participants in this subgroup answered frankly to
the items. They are confident about themselves; in some cases they may exaggerate negative
characteristics. They are self-reliant, communicate their ideas effectively and they may be
described as cynical by others. The result of the F scale 74.6 (T = 65 - 79) points that they have
certain social, political, or religious convictions and there is a possibility for the presence of
psychical instability. The score of the K scale 42.0 (T = 40 - 55) indicate that they maintain
their healthy balance between positive self-evaluation and self-criticism; they are
psychologically well adjusted, independent, and take a dominant role in relationships. They are
also enthusiastic and verbally fluent; have wide range of interests; think clearly and approach
problems in reasonable and systematic way. Participants in this subgroup have scores higher
than 70 on scales 4, 6, 8, and 9; and on the F scale.
On the basis of these MMPI-2 outcomes the members of the Subgroup 1 can be
described as suspicious, distrustful, eccentric, psychologically restless, creative, and sociable.
They have a vivid fantasy, imaginations and unusual thoughts. They also have a wide range of
interests; they are preoccupied with abstract or theoretical matters; they are rebellious,
nonconforming, and cynical. They are extroverted, enthusiastic, outspoken, impulsive,
unconventional, narcissistic, immature, energetic and talkative; and can be seen as emotionally
moody by others. They do not plan their behavior very well; however, they blame others for
their difficulties. Sometimes they exaggerate problems; they have a strong need to achieve;
they have many relationships but they avoid deep emotional ties with people.
Results on scale 3 indicate that the persons in the Subgroup 1 will expose themselves in
a more fascinating way than the persons from the Subgroup 4 (see Table 4) because outcome
of scale 3 of the Subgroup 1 is significantly higher than the outcome of the Subgroup 4.
Comparative results of scale 3 between other subgroups were not significant. The results of the
validity and clinical scales of the Subgroup 1 compared to the other subgroups indicate that the
participants of this subgroup can be called unrealists.
Subgroup 2
This group consists of 12 persons (24.5 % of all participants; mean age 32.0 years, SD
= 7.4; eight males and four females; three with primary or basic education; eight with
secondary or vocational secondary education; one with higher incomplete higher education).
When the results of validity and clinical scales of the Subgroup 2 were compared to the other
subgroups then the following differences emerged (see Table 4). The results of the Subgroup 2
were: (i) significantly lower (p .05) on the F scale and on scale 9 than the results of the
Subgroup 1; (ii) significantly lower (p .05) on the L and K scales, and significantly higher on
the F scale and scales 2, 4, 6, 7, and 0 than the results of the Subgroup 3; and (iii) significantly
higher (p .05) on scales 2, 4, 7, 8, and 0 than the results of the Subgroup 4. Considering
these outcomes it could be said that the members of the Subgroup 2 feel insecure and are more
anxious than the members of the other subgroups.
The results of the Subgroup 2 validity scales were as follows. The scores on the L scale
(T < 50) demonstrate that the participants answered frankly to the items and are socially
responsive, independent and self-critical. They are able to communicate their ideas effectively,
although at times they may be described as cynical and sarcastic by others. The results of the F
scale (T = 50 to 65) indicate that such persons typically function adequately in most aspects of
their lives. The result of K scale (T = 40 - 55) show good adjustment and coping with problems
in their daily life. The members of this subgroup are mostly independent and self-reliant
persons who like to take a dominant role in their relationships. The participants who belong to
Subgroup 2 have the most increased result on scale 7 (T = 72.3) and less increased results on
scales 6 (T = 69.6) and 4 (T = 67.4) (see Table 3).

On the basis of the MMPI-2 results it can be said that the persons of this subgroup tend
to experience psychological discomfort; they feel tense, worry about future and are emotionally
involved. Sometimes they feel that they are not part of their social environment and they tend
to blame others for difficulties. They have feelings of insecurity; they tend to ruminate and
overemphasize rationality; they are nonconforming and distrustful. Such persons have a wide
range of interests; however, they are distrustful, self-critical, guarded, suspicious, rigid and
moralistic, having high standards of performance for self and others. They are extroverted,
frank, have many contacts, tend to take dominant role in relationships but avoid deep
emotional ties. A person belonging to this subgroup can be seen as emotionally moody by
others. Considering the results of the validity and clinical scales of the MMPI-2 of the
Subgroup 2 compared to the other subgroups suggest that the members of this subgroup can
be called worriers.
Subgroup 3
There were 14 persons in this subgroup (28.6% of all the participants; mean age 32.2
years, SD = 8.1; 42.9% females and 57.1% males). Almost 7.2 % persons of this subgroup had
primary or basic education, 71.4% had secondary or vocational secondary education and
21.4% had higher or incomplete higher education. When the results of validity and clinical
scales of the Subgroup 3 were compared to the other subgroups then the following differences
emerged (see Table 4). The results of the Subgroup 3 were: (i) significantly lower (p .05) on
the F scale and on scales 6, 8, and 9, and significantly higher (p .05) on the L and K scales
than the results of the Subgroup 1; (ii) significantly lower (p .05) on the F scale and on scales
2, 4, 6, 7, 0, and significantly higher (p .05) on the L and K scales than the results of the
Subgroup 2; and (iii) significantly lower (p .05) on scale 9 and significantly higher (p .05)
on the L and F scales than the results of the Subgroup 4. These results refer that the members
of the Subgroup 3 differ from the other subgroups in their defensive and denying style, and
dishonesty.
The results of the validity scales of the Subgroup 3 were following. The outcomes of
the L scale (T > 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
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 well with 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 <
60, see Table 3).
Based on the MMPI-2 results it is possible to conclude that this group includes persons
who are extroverted, talkative, cheerful; they like to fantasize and have many contacts. Despite
of having a large number of contacts, they avoid close relationships. They have deficiency of
empathy and they tend to be self-centered. They try to manipulate others to satisfy their needs
and they are demanding and critical with others. Such persons may be irresponsible. They have
a wide range of interests; have a strong need to achieve and are not rigid in attitudes and
opinions. They are interested in power, status and recognition, and tend to seek for a
competitive situation. They try to create a favorable impression of themselves and are
defensive, denying and not honest. Considering the above this subgroup can be called
concealers.
Subgroup 4
Most of the people who were selected to the show belonged to this subgroup. There
were 18 persons in this group (36.7 % of the all participants; mean age 34.9 years, SD = 10.9;
55.6% females and 44.4% males). 5.6% had primary or basic education, 50.0% had secondary
or vocational secondary education, 44.4 % higher or incomplete higher education. When the
results of the validity and clinical scales of Subgroup 4 were compared to the other subgroups
then the following differences emerged (see Table 4). The results of the Subgroup 4 were: (i)
significantly lower (p .05) on the L and F scales, and scales 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 than the
Subgroup 1; (ii) significantly lower (p .05) on scales 2, 4, 7, 8, and 0 than the Subgroup 2;
and (iii) significantly lower (p .05) on the L and K scales, and increased on scale 9 than the
Subgroup 3.
Characterizing the persons who were included in the Subgroup 4, it must be noted that
the results of the L scale (T < 50) indicate that these persons responded frankly; they were able
to communicate their ideas effectively although in some cases they exaggerated their negative
characteristics; they were perceptive, socially reliant and confident enough about themselves,
and able to admit to minor faults and shortcomings. The outcome of the F scale (T = 50 - 60)
shows that persons with scores at this level typically function adequately in most aspects of
their lives. Some particular problematic areas such as work, health or family relationships may
exist. The results of the K scale (T = 40 - 55) suggest a healthy balance between positive self-
evaluation and self-criticism. Such persons tend to be well adjusted, independent, self-reliant
and have high intellectual abilities and wide interests. They are enthusiastic, enterprising,
verbally fluent and tend to take a dominant role.
Based on the results of the clinical scales (see Table 3) it can be said that the persons in
the Subgroup 4 tend to be ambitious and energetic, active, extroverted, talkative, uninhibited
and able to create good first impressions. These persons are optimistic, cheerful and self-
confident; their feelings are not easily hurt and they like adventures. They have self-indulgent
tendencies and impulsive reactions. Sometimes they tend not to accept responsibility for their
behavior and they rationalize shortcomings and failures. They seem to be incapable of forming
deep emotional ties and are likely to seek emotional stimulation and excitement. They are
interested in power, status and recognition; they tend to seek out for a competitive situation.
They are extroverted and energetic; they experience no difficulty in making decisions; they are
non-rigid, expressive and get along well with other people. Considering the results on the
validity and clinical scales of the MMPI-2 of the Subgroup 4 compared to the other subgroups,
the persons belonging to the Subgroup 4 can be called adventurers.
Winners and non-winners
There were 22 winners (10 males and 12 females, mean age 32.9, SD = 10.5) and 27
non-winners (i.e. those who did not win any money; 17 males and 10 females; mean age 33.9,
SD = 7.6) in the show. The players won the following sums of money: one player 10,000 EEK;
11 players 25,000 EEK; 15 players 100,000 EEK; six players 200,000 EEK and one player
500,000 EEK; the rest of the 27 players did not win anything. By education, one winner and
five non-winners had primary and basic education; 15 winners and 15 non-winners secondary
and vocational secondary education; six winners and seven non-winners higher or incomplete
higher education. There were no significant differences between the non-winners and winners
concerning gender, age and education.
Analyzing the MMPI-2 profile of the winners and non-winners it must be noted that the
results of winners and non-winners differed significantly (p .05) on scale 6 (winners M =
54.0, SD = 11.5 vs non-winners M = 62.9, SD = 17.1, see Table 5 and Figure 3).
Table 5
The Results of the Winners and Non-winners on the Scales of the MMPI-2 T-scores (ANOVA)
MMPI-2 Winners Non-winners F p
Scale (n = 22) (n= 27)
M SD 95% CI M SD 95% CI
L 46.4 7.7 [42.9, 49.8] 50.2 10.8 [45.9, 54.4] 1.91 .17
F 55.0 9.7 [50.7, 59.3] 57.5 13.1 [52.3, 62.7] .54 .46
K 46.2 9.8 [41.8, 50.5] 45.4 8.0 [42.2, 48.5] .10 .75
1 57.2 7.2 [54.0, 60.4] 54.7 7.1 [51.9, 57.5] 1.52 .22
2 49.5 7.9 [46.0, 53.0] 50.6 11.1 [46.2, 55.0] .15 .70
3 49.8 10.5 [45.2, 54.5] 49.8 8.6 [46.4, 53.2] .00 .99
4 62.0 8.1 [58.4, 65.5] 61.0 10.7 [56.8, 65.2] .12 .73
5 51.5 7.8 [46.1, 54.9] 49.9 10.8 [45.7, 54.2] .33 .57
6 54.0 11.5 [48.8, 59.1] 62.9 17.1 [56.2, 69.7] 4.41 .04
7 54.8 9.4 [50.7, 59.0] 59.7 13.1 [54.5, 64.9] 2.14 .15
8 58.9 8.3 [55.2, 62.5] 60.9 12.2 [56.1, 65.7] .44 .51
9 56.3 12.7 [50.7, 61.9] 58.4 14.4 [52.7, 64.1] .30 .59
0 40.6 7.9 [37.1, 44.0] 40.8 6.7 [38.4, 43.4] .01 .91
Note. CI = confidence interval.
Figure 3. Means of the MMPI-2 T-scores of the winners and non-winners.
The results of the non-winners on scale 6 (T = 60 - 70) indicate that such persons tend
to be excessively sensitive and overly responsive to the opinions of others; they are suspicious
and guarded; rigid in their opinions and attitude; they are seen by others as emotionally
unstable and moody; they may experience sadness, withdrawal and anxiety; they express
resentment and behave in an argumentative manner. However, the winners are psychologically
more balanced, calm, and not so sensitive, suspicious and rigid in their opinions and attitudes
as non-winners.
Psychophysiological reactions were measured with the polygraph in this show to
determine whether the answer was the truth or a lie and players chance to win the prize
money depended on these results. High scores of the non-winners on scale 6 compared to the
winners give reason for the interpretation that the non-winners have: (i) high regard for others
that makes them sensitive; (ii) hesitations in their answers unknowing what is right or wrong;
and (iii) fear to express truth and self-defending or lying.
When the winners and non-winners were divided between subgroups then in the
Subgroup 1 (unrealists) were four non-winners and one winner; in the Subgroup 2
(worriers) eight non-winners and four winners; in the Subgroup 3 (concealears) nine non-
winners and five winners; and in the Subgroup 4 (adventurers) six non-winners and 12
winners. Most of the winners belonged to the Subgroup 4 (adventurers) who could be
described as self-reliant, extroverted, independent, optimistic, enthusiastic; sometimes tending
not to accept responsibility for their behavior. Their feelings are not easily hurt; they seek for
emotional stimulation, adventures and recognition.
Summary
This research examined the MMPI-2 results of the participants who took part in the
reality TV show The Moment of Truth in Estonia. Several conclusions can be made based on
the findings.
Characterizing the participants of the show based on the results of the scales of the
MMPI-2 it should be noted that the participants were extroverted, talkative, independent,
enthusiastic, ambitious, adventurous and self-centered. They like to take a dominant role with
partners, were sociable and had many superficial relationships. They tend to blame their
difficulties to other people; they are suspicious and imaginative, and sometimes psychologically
and physically restless. Psychologically they are well-adjusted and create a good first
impression but sometimes unexpected behavior and also need for emotional excitement and
attention occur.
Based on cluster analysis of the results of the MMPI-2 the participants were divided
into four homogeneous subgroups which were called as unrealists, worriers, concealears
and adventurers. The members of the Subgroup 1 (unrealists) were mostly suspicious,
distrustful, self-centered, extraverted, active, somewhat rebellious, emotionally excitable,
sometimes exaggerating problems, outspoken, impulsive. They had peculiar thoughts, vivid
imaginations, and some degree of disregard for social standards. They tended to take a
dominant role in their relationships. The subgroup 2 (worriers) could be described as rigid,
moralistic, somewhat tense, anxious, incline to worrying, guarded, frank, extraverted, self-
centered, taking dominant role in relationships, nonconforming, having high standard of
performance for self and others, and may be seen as moody by others.
The persons in the Subgroup 3 (concealers) were trying to create a favorable
impression of themselves, were often in defensive state, denying and not honest. They were
extroverted, cheerful, have many superficial relationships, self-centered, manipulate with others
into satisfying their needs and are demanding and critical with others. Finally, the members of
the Subgroup 4 (adventurers) were extroverted, energetic, self-confident, optimistic, non-
rigid, self-indulgent, active, enterprising, adventurous, joyful, created a good first impression,
got along well with others, relaxed, and having many superficial contacts.
When analyzing the MMPI-2 profiles of the winners and non-winners, it became
evident that the winners had a significantly lower outcome on scale 6 compared to non-
winners. The winners were less suspicious, rigid, and resentful; they did not tend to be overly
sensitive and responsive to the opinions of others compared to non-winners. It indicates that
the winners were less anxious and calmer than non-winners.
Conclusions
The personalities of the persons who participated in the TV show The Moment of
Truth differed significantly. Most of the persons who applied and were selected to the show
belonged to the subgroup adventurers - they were enterprising, optimistic, independent, and
seeking for excitement. The findings of the study indicate that MMPI-2 is an important tool for
measuring the personalities and clarifying the psychical state of participants of the show. It is
interesting to note that among the participants the need to expose themselves for the sake of
money was not important. Based on the MMPI-2 results it became evident that the likelihood
of a person winning a sum of money was larger if he/she was not sensitive and suspicious; not
responsive to the opinions of others; and stays self-confident, calm and outspoken.
The producers of the show should take into account the following when planning the
show. First, for the players who belonged to the subgroups unrealists, worriers, and
concealers could be offered a possibility to participate in the psychological counseling after
the participation in the show because, based of their personality profiles, they may experience
increased anxiety, may worry and be more suspicious, and depressed.
Second, when testing the applicants in the reality shows it is possible to design the
profiles for the producers who they wish to see in the show based on MMPI-2, and after that
to choose the persons who fit best with the profiles and expectations of the producers. This
approach is useful also from the economical perspective. Concerning the format The Moment
of Truth, it is possible to estimate who many of the participants can win the prize money.
References
Aron, A. & Aron, E.N. (2003). Statistics for psychology (3th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bagby, R.M. (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.personality.org/.../2011/SPA_2011_Conference_Program
Bagby, R.M. & Marshall, M.B. (2003). Positive impression management and its influence on
the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: A comparision of analog and differential
prevalence group design. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 333-339.
Boyd, B. (2009, March 13). Crass Conscious. Daily Variety, 302(50), A1-A2.
Butcher, J. N. (1994). Psychological assessment of airline pilot applicants with the MMPI-2.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 62(1), 31-44.
Butcher, J. N. (2004). Personality assessment without borders: Adaptation of MMPI-2 across
cultures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(2), 90-104.
Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (2004). Perspectives on Personality. Boston [etc.]: Pearson.
Craig, R., J. (1999). Interpreting personality tests. A clinical manual for MMPI-2, MCMI-III,
CPI-R, and 16 PF. New York [etc.]: Wiley.
Friedman, A. F., Lewak, R., Nichols, D. S., & Webb, J. T. (2001). Psychological assessment
with the MMPI-2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Graham, J. R. (2000). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Graham, J. R. & Lilly, R. S. (1984). Psychological testing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Hall, G. C. N., Bansal A., & Lopez, J. R. (1999). Ethnicity and psychopathology: A meta-
analytic review of 31 years of comparative MMPI/MMPI-2 research. Psychological
Assessment, 11, 186-197.
Keiller, S.W. & Graham, J.R. (1993). The meaning of low scores on MMPI-2 clinical scales
of normal subjects. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61(2), 211-223.
Lykken, D. T. (1998). A tremor in the blood. Massachusetts, USA: PERSEUS BOOKS.
Marshall-Lee, E. (2001). Aggregated relative validity of MMPI-2. Profiles of African

American and Caucasian college students. University of Mississippi.
Murphy, K. R. & Davidshofer, C. O. (2001). Psychological testing. Principles and
applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Nichols, D.S. (2001). Essentials of MMPI-2 assessment. New York: Wiley.
Scannell, P. (1996). Radio, television, and modern life. Oxford: Blackwell
Vincent, K. R., Linsz, N.L., & Greene, M.I. (1966).The L scale of the MMPI as an index of
falsification. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 22, 214-215.
Return to home page
*Corresponding author: Maria Teiverlaur
Address: University of Tartu Viljandi Culture Academy, Posti 1, Viljandi, 71004, Estonia
e-mail: maria.teiverlaur@carlnet.ee
Phone +372 556 42 0 42

An Analysis of MMPI Participant Profiles-Teiverlaur FINAL Rev

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

An Analysis of MMPI Participant Profiles-Teiverlaur FINAL Rev

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

MMPI-2 PARTICIPANT PROFILES IN THE MOMENT OF TRUTH 1

An Analysis of MMPI-2 Profile of the

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

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

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

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

participants were Estonian.

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

services were not able to apply.

whom only 86 decided to attend.

risks were excluded from the selection process.

items had been omitted.

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

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

years before its revision (Graham, 2000).

most reliably discriminated (Nichols, 2001).

Description of the MMPI-2 Validity and Clinical Scales

answering the items.

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.

be have bodily concerns.

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

have disregard for social standards, self-centered.

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

and feels harassed.

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.

uninvolved in social relationships.

Results and Discussion

because of the relatively small sample size.

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

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

Range = difference between Max and Min.

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

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

persons identity-kit is our kind of society.

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

Scales Subgroup 1 Subgroup 2 Subgroup 3 Subgroup 4

(n = 5) (n = 12) (n = 14) (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