Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cashel, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Martin-Cannici, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Cashel, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Martin-Cannici, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the Detection of Defensiveness

Mary Louise Cashel

University of North Texas

Richard Rogers

University of North Texas

Kenneth Sewell

University of North Texas

Cynthia Martin-Cannici

Red River Clinic

The use of scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) to detect defensiveness in criminal and nonclinical samples was evaluated. Forty-five male inmates of a county jail and 38 male undergraduate psychology students were provided with incentives to complete the PAI under two conditions: standard instructions and experimental instructions to feign a specific, positive role. A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) yielded significant main effects of condition (responding honestly or defensively), order (standard vs. defensive instructions first) and group (student or offender). A step-wise discriminant function analysis significantly predicted honest and feigning conditions with a hit rate of 84.1%. A more effective cutting score for the Positive Impression scale is recommended.

Assessment, Vol. 2, No. 4, 333-342 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/1073191195002004004
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J Offender Ther Comp CriminolHome page
L. C. Morey and B. D. Quigley
The Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in Assessing Offenders
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, June 1, 2002; 46(3): 333 - 349.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
J. E. Kurtz and L. C. Morey
Use of Structured Self-Report Assessment to Diagnose Borderline Personality Disorder during Major Depressive Episodes
Assessment, September 1, 2001; 8(3): 291 - 300.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
L. C. Morey and V. W. Lanier
Operating Characteristics of Six Response Distortion Indicators for the Personality Assessment Inventory
Assessment, September 1, 1998; 5(3): 203 - 214.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
R. Rogers, K. L. Ustad, and R. T. Salekin
Convergent Validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory: A Study of Emergency Referrals in a Correctional Setting
Assessment, March 1, 1998; 5(1): 3 - 12.
[Abstract] [PDF]