The Japanese edition of MMPI wasadministered twice to a group of 214 Japanese cadets. The first administration was under the usual instructional set. Two weeks later, the Ss were divided into three subgroups consisting of approximately an equal number of Ss which differed according totest-taking instructional set. Two experimental groups (favorable set group and unfavorable set group) and one control group (neutral set group) were utilized. The introduction of favorable or unfavorable set produced significant changes in the MMPI scores of testees. The K correction has not been found sufficiently valuable to in dicate the faking bad profiles. In order to test the efficiency of validity indicators, it has been planned to make a comparison of the validating scores obtained from the three different set groups. The results reported in the present study indicated that the three keys (L, F, K), considered singly, are able to identify faking sets to some extent and that Hs raw score, utilizedsingly, was more successful in discriminating the faking good from the normal scores, but theirmaximum efficacy is realized in combination. The results of this study confirmed Gough'sresults that the F-K index has a superior value to detect a normal person who has tried to fake. In the present data, the F-K cutting score for the faking bad profiles was plus seven. This cutting score would correctly classify 97 per cent of the normal cases and 83 per cent of the faking bad cases. A new index-L raw score plus K raw score minus Hs (Hypochondriasis scale) raw score- was presented to detect the faking good set. The highest phi coefficient was given by a cutting score of plus 21. This cutting score would correctly classify 97 per cent of the normal cases and 90 per cent of faking good cases. The F-K index and the L+K-Hs index may be considered as efficient measures to detectmalingering and test dissimulation in the MMPI.
What do we do in case of frustration which gives us on emotion like hostility or shame? Some of us may blame others and some may be embarrassed.The present study is concerned in a restricted way with the role of communication in reducing emotional tensions, and is related to the type of behavior toward frustration. The major hypothesis to be tested was as follows: In a situation where emotional frustration and hostile attitude is instigated, opportunity for communication directed toward the instigator (when compared with the lack of this opportunity) will lead to relatively less residual hostility toward the instigator. EXPERIMENT Subjects: The subjects were 60 female students of the college, chosen as the high aggressive type of frustration and the less aggressive type, by rating of the Rosenzweig P-F Study and the questionaire made for this research. Procedure: The subjects who were scheduled to appear individually at theexperimental room were introduced to a participant of the experiment. The experimenter, in her preliminary instructions. said the purpose of this study was to discover how students could learn another´s personalities by direct communication. This served as the pretext for the experiment. Before proceeding with the main business of communication to one another, both thi subject and the participant were each instructed to write an initial a “personality sketch” consisting of her first impressions of the other. This muchaccomplished, subjects began the communication process, on which the restriction that the content of communication must refer to self was imposed. The participant intended to characterize her as arrogant and opinionated, instigating hostility in the subjects. Her role was standardized and well rehearsed inadvance. 30 of the subjects (No-Com group) were not permitted to communicate after the instigation. The remaining 30 subjects (Com group) were permitted additional communication after the instigation. At the conclusion of this period, each of them wrote a final personality sketch of her partner. RESULTS In treating the data, content analyses were done separately for their pre-experimental and the post-experimental“personality sketches” of theparticipant (instigator), and the additionalcommunication by thesubjects in Corn group. 1) The subjects who were permitted to communicate back to an instigator immediately afterinstigation to hostility showed more post-experimental friendliness toward the instigator. It gives qualified confirmation to the hypothesis. 2) The difference between two groups may be rather attributable to sudden removal of the communication channel forNo-Com group, than the positive function of the communication for Corn group. 3) Between the type of reaction to frustration and the residual hostility toward the instigator, no marked relation was noticed. 4) Aggressionis not the immediate psychologicalconse quence of frustration. The emotion aroused may be broad and diffuse, by the interaction of many factors such as the individual´s past experience and the present situation as perceived by the individual. We can not simply classify one´s type of reaction to frustration, nor define consumatory function of communication to act as aggressive behavior which implies frustration.