A social desirability scale for the MMPI-2. Which of the two: Wiggins (WSD) or Edwards (ESD)?

Abstract

The objective of this research aims to comparatively analyze the diagnostic accuracy of two social desirability detection scales that have been obtained from the 567 items that comprise the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Wiggins Wsd Scale and Edwards ESD Scale. The 583 participants (232 men and 351 women) were differentiated into two groups according to their way of answering: Honest response group (N = 310) who replied truthfully following the guidelines of MMPI-2, and simulated response group (N = 273) who were instructed to intentionally and consistently show a positive image of themselves. The results have shown a higher diagnostic accuracy and predictive power, although less reliability (Cronbach's α) for the Wiggins (Wsd) Scale than for Edwards (ESD).

Full text

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 2009, 1(2), 147-163
ISSN: 1889-1861
T
T
H
H
E
E
E
E
U
U
R
R
O
O
P
P
E
E
A
A
N
N
J
J
O
O
U
U
R
R
N
N
A
A
L
L
O
O
F
F
P
P
S
S
Y
Y
C
C
H
H
O
O
L
L
O
O
G
G
Y
Y
A
A
P
P
P
P
L
L
I
I
E
E
D
D
T
T
O
O
L
L
E
E
G
G
A
A
L
L
C
C
O
O
N
N
T
T
E
E
X
X
T
T
Volume 1, Number 2, July 2009
T
T
h
h
e
e
o
o
f
f
f
f
i
i
c
c
i
i
a
a
l
l
J
J
o
o
u
u
r
r
n
n
a
a
l
l
o
o
f
f
t
t
h
h
e
e
SOCIEDAD ESPAÑOLA DE PSICOLOGÍA JURÍDICA Y FORENSE
Website: http://www.usc.es/sepjf

Editor
Ramón Arce, University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain).
Associate Editors
Gualberto Buela-Casal, University of Granada (Spain).
Francisca Fariña, University of Vigo (Spain).
Editorial Board
Rui Abrunhosa, University of O Miño (Portugal).
Ray Bull, University of Leicester (UK).
Thomas Bliesener, University of Kiel (Germany).
Fernando Chacón, Complutense University of Madrid (Spain).
Ángel Egido, University of Angers (France).
Antonio Godino, University of Lecce (Italy).
Günter Köhnken, University of Kiel (Gemany).
Friedrich Lösel, University of Cambridge (UK).
María Ángeles Luengo, University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain).
Eduardo Osuna, University of Murcia (Spain).
Ronald Roesch, Simon Fraser University (Canada).
Francisco Santolaya, President of the Spanish Psychological Association (Spain).
Juan Carlos Sierra, University of Granada (Spain).
Jorge Sobral, University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain).
Max Steller, Free University of Berlin, (Germany).
Francisco Tortosa, University of Valencia (Spain).
Official Journal of the Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense
(www.usc.es/sepjf)
Published By: SEPJF.
Volume 1, Number, 2.
Order Form: see www.usc.es/sepjf
Frequency: 2 issues per year.
ISSN: 1889-1861.
D.L.: C-4376-2008

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 2009, 1(2), 147-163
Correspondence: Fernando Jiménez, Facultad de Psicología. Dpto. Personalidad, Evaluación y
Tratamiento Psicológico. Universidad de Salamanca. Avda. de la Merced, 109.- 37005. Salamanca
(Spain). E-mail: fjimenez@usal.es
A SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE FOR THE MMPI-2. WHICH
OF THE TWO: WIGGINS (WSD) OR EDWARDS (ESD)?
Fernando Jiménez, Guadalupe Sánchez & Cristina Tobón
University of Salamanca
(Received: 13 January 2009; revised 18 May 2009; accepted 20 May 2009)
Abstract
The objective of this research aims to
comparatively analyze the diagnostic accuracy
of two social desirability detection scales that
have been obtained from the 567 items that
comprise the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Wiggins Wsd Scale and
Edwards ESD Scale. The 583 participants (232
men and 351 women) were differentiated into
two groups according to their way of answering:
Honest response group (N = 310) who replied
truthfully following the guidelines of MMPI-2,
and simulated response group (N = 273) who
were instructed to intentionally and consistently
show a positive image of themselves. The
results have shown a higher diagnostic accuracy
and predictive power, although less reliability
(Cronbach's α) for the Wiggins (Wsd) Scale
than for Edwards (ESD).
Keywords: MMPI-2, Social
Desirability, Edwards (ESD) Scale, Wiggins
(Wsd) Scale, Malingering.
Resumen
El objetivo de esta investigación
pretende analizar comparativamente la precisión
diagnóstica de dos escalas detectoras de
Deseabilidad Social que han sido obtenidas de
los 567 ítems que componen el Inventario
Multifásico de Personalidad de Minnesota-2
(MMPI-2): la escala Wsd de Wiggins y la ESD
de Edwards. Los 583 participantes (232 varones
y 351 mujeres) fueron diferenciados en dos
grupos según su forma de contestar: grupo
sincero (N = 310), que contestaron de forma
sincera siguiendo las directrices de MMPI-2, y
simulador (N = 273), que fueron instruidos para
mostrar intencionada y coherentemente una
imagen favorable de sí mismos. Los resultados
han demostrado una mayor precisión
diagnóstica y poder predictivo, aunque menor
fiabilidad (α de Cronbach), en la escala de
Wiggins (Wsd) que en la de Edwards (ESD).
Palabras Clave: MMPI-2, Deseabilidad
Social, Escala de Edwards (ESD), Escala de
Wiggins (Wsd), Simulación.

148
Jiménez et al.
Introduction
In the work on the psychological assessment of an individual´s personal
characteristics, both in the forensic (Andrews & Meyer, 2003), organizational (Salgado,
2005), or penitentiary field, is becoming more common to find situations where the
assessed person may not be reporting emotional or psychological problems with the
sincerity and honesty required by the test, if they know of the possibility of not being
discovered and obtaining benefits such as: child custody, evasion of criminal
prosecution or reduction of penalty severity, a vacant job, financial compensation, or
sick leave injury benefits.
Malingering is defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-IV, 1995) as “the intentional production of false or grossly
exaggerated physical or psychological symptoms, motivated by external incentives such
as avoiding work or military duty; obtaining drugs or financial compensation; or
evading criminal prosecution. Under some circumstances, malingering may represent
adaptive behavior for example, feigning illness while a captive of the enemy during
wartime" (p. 698).
Social desirability has been a recurring theme in psychological assessment. To
present a socially desirable image is an intrinsic feature of an individual´s personality,
but when normal limits are exceeded psychologists must be careful to detect the
examinee’s attempt to malinger.
Over the past 50 years research on social desirability and its involvement in
various contexts of personality disorders assessment, has been a topic of great concern
and interest to practitioners of psychology and behavior analysts. Generally it has been
concluded that social desirability affects any methodology that is based on the
assessment of personality, and this includes self-questionnaires (Edwards & Edwards,
1992; Jiménez & Sánchez, 2002; Preti et al, 2007, Rogers, 2008), ipsative measures
(Cornell & Dunlap, 1994), and forced-choice questionnaires (Christiansen, Burns &
Montgomery, 2005).
Different types of research on social desirability have a special impact
according to their particular denomination and definition. For Bagby & Marshall,
(2004) self-deception is characterized as a general willingness to think about themselves
in a slightly favorable way. The impression management is defined by Barrick & Mount

Eur. j. psychol. appl. legal context, 1(2): 147-163
149
(1996) as a deliberate attempt to distort their own responses with the intention of
making a favorable impression on others" (p. 262). Crowne & Marlowne (1960)
consider social desirability as simply to present oneself favorably. Either way there are
many variables, both personal and situational, which may determine socially desirable
responses in a person.
Given the importance of ensuring data reliability, some researchers have
worked with diverse social desirability scales (Edwards, 1962; Elvekrog & Vestre,
1963; Fordyce, 1956, Hanley, 1956; Heilbrun, 1964), simulation condition groups in
diverse contexts and with other types of complementary scales (Arce, Fariña, Carballal,
& Novo, 2006, Graham, Watts, & Timbrook, 1991, Jiménez & Sánchez, 2003, Rogers
2008, Rogers & Bender, 2003). Other authors have taken interest in sensitivity and
specificity analysis using the ROC curve method (Nicholson, Mouton, Bagby, & Buis,
1997; Pelegrina Ruiz-Soler, & Wallace, 2000), with the objective of detecting different
manipulations of the provided data.
In the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI, Hathaway &
McKinley, 1940, 1983), and in its following restructured version (MMPI-2, Butcher,
Graham, Tellegen, Dalhstron, & Kaemmer, 1989), interest has been drawn to the
development and inclusion of a set of validity scales that can detect exaggeration or
minimization of psychopathology (often referred to as fake-bad and fake-good,
respectively), creating a second generation of scales for the detection of distortions in
response-patterns in the MMPI-2 (simulation and defensiveness).
The new revision of the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Graham, Tellegen, Dalhstron &
Kaemmer, 2001) in its configuration of the validity scales, combines traditional scales
(L, F and K) with other new experimental scales, such as: Edwards Social Desirability
(Edwards, 1957), the Wiggins Social Desirability (Wiggins, 1959) and the Other
Deception scales (Nichols & Greene, 1991).
The first version of the Social Desirability Scale ESD of Edwards (1953) was
developed with 79 items. In the process of refining the scale, years later, Edwards
(1957) conducted a study with 10 judges to select those items in the MMPI that evoke
socially desirable responses. He selected items that could differentiate between
individuals scoring high or low on the scale, thereby reducing its length to 39 items, 12
of which correspond to the Infrequency Validity Scale (F), and 9 to the Welsh Anxiety
Scale (A) that should be answered as false if wished to be considered as socially
desirable.

150
Jiménez et al.
Finally, a further restructuration by Greene (2000) reduced the scale to 37
items. This adjustment reflects, in general, "absence of psychopathological problems,
good attention and concentration skills, and acceptable social relations" (p. 102),
solving in turn the problem of saturation of psychopathological symptoms, which is one
of the most frequent critics made on this types of scales when trying to assess social
desirability (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, Ferrando & Chico, 2000).
Wiggins' Social Desirability Scale Wsd (1959) was developed in order to
discriminate between a group of subjects (N = 178) trained to respond to the MMPI in a
manner as to appear socially desirable (or what was considered in American culture as
socially desirable), from another group (N = 140) who was instructed to respond
truthfully under the standard instructions of the MMPI manual. Baer, Wetter, Nichols,
Greene, & Berry (1995) found that the Wsd added complementarity to the Lie Scale (L),
and the Defensiveness Scale (K), differentiating well between students instructed to
provide a favorable image of themselves, from those who responded honestly to the
MMPI-2. Despite the existing evidence and limited research on the Wiggins scale,
Graham (2000) suggested it was a good quality scale worthy of being included in the
second generation of MMPI-2 validity scales group.
When both scales are compared they appear to be different. The item
composition for each scale was analyzed. Founding, on one hand, that 7 (21.21%) of the
33 items that constitute the Wiggins scale (Wsd) correspond with the MMPI-2 Lie Scale
(L), 4 (12.12%) with the MMPI-2 Hypomania (Ma) items, and 3 (9.09%) with the
MacAndrew Alcoholism Scale (Mac-r), the same items presented by the controlled-
Hostility (O-H) scale. On the other hand, for the 37 items of the Edwards scale (ESD), 6
(16.22%) correspond to the MMPI-2 Masculine Gender Role (GM) scales, 5 (13.51%)
with the Defensiveness Scale (K), 4 (10.81%) with the MMPI-2 Ego-strength scale (Es)
and the same values all correspond with the Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN)
scale.
From these data three important elements can be noted: 1) the two scales do not
share any items. 2) There are only two validity scales of the MMPI-2 considered in each
scale, the Lie Scale (L; 21.21%) in Wiggins, and the Defensiveness Scale (K; 13.51%)
in Edwards. 3) None of them have a special impact on psychopathology indicative
scales.
For the development of their scales, both Wiggins (1959) and Edwards (1953),
used the 567 items that comprise the MMPI-2, although each different in number (33

Eur. j. psychol. appl. legal context, 1(2): 147-163
151
for Wiggins and 37 for Edwards) and between them. Professionals using the MMPI-2 as
an assessment tool may be interested in knowing which of the two scales offers better
diagnostic accuracy, with the intention to choose one over the other. Based on this
question, this research has a twofold objective: 1) To verify that both scales (Wsd and
ESD) detect and discriminate, to a significant degree, people who simulate their
responses on the MMPI-2 answering in a socially desirable manner; 2) To determine
which one is better in terms of greater diagnostic accuracy, offering greater confidence
to professionals in their psychological evaluations.
This matter was studied trough the responses given by two groups of
participants, each one instructed to respond to the MMPI-2 in different directions: the
honest response group replied in an open and honest way, and the simulated response
group did a simulated performance trying to present a more socially favorable image.
Method
Participants
The total number of participants for this study was N= 583 normal subjects
(232 males and 351 females), with no evidence of any psychiatric or psychological
disorder. The mean age of the sample was 28.34 years (SD= 9. 56), with a range of 19
to 63. The sample was divided into two groups: honest response group and simulated
response group.
The honest response group had to replied in an open and honest way following
the instructions of the MMPI-2 manual, and is made up of N= 310 subjects (118 males
and 192 females), with a mean age of 29.69 (SD= 11.09) for males and 29.28 (SD=
9.72) for women. The "Simulated Response Group” was given specific instructions to
respond trying to present a socially favorable image of themselves, and is composed of
N= 273 subjects (114 males and 159 females) with a mean age of 27.95 (SD= 9.37) for
males, and 26.47 (SD= 7.95) for women. Demographic variables such as educational
level, occupation, religion, ethnicity or socio-cultural level are not considered in the
present study since they are not expected to have a particular impact on the results. All
participants reside in different regional communities of the Spanish geography.

152
Jiménez et al.
Materials and experimental design
In order to evaluate verbal cues, we used a video-recording, approximately 2
minutes long, about a robbery. Specifically, the film depicted a supermarket car-parking
and the arriving of a pick-up; some hooded and armed men get down the pick-up and
assault a security van; unexpectedly, two plainclothes policemen get down a parked jeep
and a gun battle between robbers and policemen begins; one of the robbers tries to come
up the pick-up holding a bag stolen from the security van, but he/she is shot by one of
the policemen; another robber tries to get back the bag, but he/she drops it at once under
the policemen’s fire and comes back to the pick-up, leaving at high speed.
Instruments
The Spanish adaptation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
(MMPI-2) (Ávila & Jimenez, 1999, Butcher et al., 1989) was used in the study. All the
37 items of the Edwards Scale ESD, and the 33 of the Wiggins Scale Wsd were
extracted from the 567 that comprise the MMPI-2.
Procedure and design
The methodological approach has followed two lines: a quasi-experimental
(post hoc) investigation since participants were assigned to groups before starting the
study (Salkind, 1998), and a descriptive investigation to compare main differences
between the social desirability scales, with the intention to prove which of them could
show better diagnostic accuracy.
All participants responded voluntarily the MMPI-2 questionnaire. The honest
response group was asked to follow guidelines on sincerity and self-reference. The
simulated response group was given the following instruction in order to ensure the
achievement of a proper socially desirable image: "You have in front of you a
questionnaire with truth or false questions, to which you must answer giving a good
positive image of yourselves".
Aiming to bring greater objectivity and consistency to the study, MMPI-2
protocols with a sum of double marks and blank responses above ≥ 30, and those who
reached a raw score of ≥ 15 (equivalent to 72T) in the VRIN variable, were eliminated.

Eur. j. psychol. appl. legal context, 1(2): 147-163
153
Data analysis
All questionnaires were read by optical readers (Datascan, 2500) and scored
with a specific software program (Leycotest). For the statistical analysis of the variables
the SPSS 16.0 version was used. Based on the primary objective of the study, both
scales, Edwards (ESD) and Wiggins (Wsd), were comparatively analyzed. Specifically,
for each scale, analysis on th
were conducted. An analysis of their structure (factor analysis) was also done, and to
simplify its interpretation, only the four factors with the greatest variance were selected,
deleting in the Varimax Rotation absolute values lower than 0.40. Differences between
the mean scores for each group were drawn. And their correlations with the traditional
validity scales (L, F, K, VRIN) and the basic clinical scales of the MMPI-2 were
obtained and analyzed as well. A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was
also conducted to determine accuracy of the scales.
Firstly developed in the 50s within the Theory of Decision (Swets & Pickett,
1982) and originally designed to detect radar signals, ROC analysis was latter on
applied to the field of biomedicine (Zweig & Campbell, 1993), providing a good
method to discriminate accuracy of assessment instruments. Therefore, with ROC
values, it can be determined the specific contributions on diagnostic accuracy,
sensitivity, specificity and predictive power for each of the two scales considered in the
study.
Results
Using Cronbach’s α as a measure of homogeneity of items, a significant
difference between the two scales was found: 0.298 for Wiggins with 33 items (N= 533;
91.4% valid) and 0.745 for Edwards with 37 items (N= 540; 92.6% valid).
Table 1. Factor structure of the scales. Total variance explained.
Wiggins Scale (Wsd)
Edwards Scale (ESD)
Factors
Variance %
Accumulated %
Variance %
Accumulated %
1
18.823
18.823
18.911
18.911
2
5.862
24.684
4.461
23.372
3
4.694
29.379
3.797
27.169
4
4.274
33.652
3.633
30.801

154
Jiménez et al.
Table 1, shows the factorial structure of items in which there is a remarkable
similarity between the two scales across the variance of their first four factors. The first
factor in each scale, is shown with an almost 19%.
In Table 2, the four factors with the greatest variance are presented. The first
Wiggins element is composed of 8 items, four of which correlate with the Lie Validity
Scale (L). Edwards’s first element, with the same variance (18.9%), is composed of 4
items two of which correlate with the Masculine Gender Role (GM) Scale.
It becomes difficult to make an interpretation on the diagnostic implications of
each scale (Wiggins and Edwards), for qualities such as: being sure of yourself,
hardworking and laborious, realistic, controlled over their own feelings, sociable and
polite, honest and altruistic, can be established by Wiggins scale. While being an open
person, expansive, sociable, insensitive to criticism, eased in tense situations, and
resistant to depression, might be the features that Edwards Scale could denote. But
when it comes to diagnosis, both lack in the use of the psychopathological dimensions
of the MMPI-2.
Table 2. Factorial structure of the scales. Rotated component matrix.
Wiggins Scale (Wsd)
Edwards Scale (ESD)
Factors
Factors
Items
1
2
3
4
Ítems
1
2
3
4
Wsd25
.441
So8
-.658
Wsd29
.489
So31
.515
Wsd40
-.442
So48
.408
Wsd77
.501
-.535
So127
.480
Wsd93
.599
So146
.619
Wsd100
.579
So168
.727
Wsd133
.675
So172
.403
Wsd184
.441
So221
.449
Wsd194
-.543
So238
.708
Wsd201
.694
So243
.669
Wsd203
.536
So289
.569
Wsd207
.430
So299
.444
.405
Wsd211
.617
So335
-.722
Wsd248
-.566
So420
.520
Wsd326
.698
So469
.480
Wsd341
.659
Wsd345
.485
Wsd351
.601
Wsd354
.740

Eur. j. psychol. appl. legal context, 1(2): 147-163
155
Table 3 shows descriptive statistics by gender for each group in relation to each
scale. The size effect (d= 1.68) obtained from the sincere response group (N= 310) and
the simulated response group (N= 273) was acceptable. Significant differences are
observed between mean scores of each study group and by gender.
Not assuming the homogeneity of variance (Levene’s F= 11.743 for Wiggins
and 29.763 for Edwards, p<0.001 in both), the t-test with the appropriate degree-of-
freedom correction shows results of t(509.611)= -28.421; p<.001, between the two
groups for the Wiggins scale, and, t(570.430)= -16.117; p<.001, for the Edwards scale.
Regarding to gender, differences are also significant. Assuming the
homogeneity of variances in Wiggins [Levene´s F= 3.717, p= 0.054)], there are
differences found between men and women, t(581)= 2.410, p<.05. In Edwards the
results are on the limits of statistical significance, but still, not assuming the
homogeneity of variance [Levene´s F= 5.047, p<.05)] the degree-of-freedom correction
implies the existence of differences although not as intense, t(528.564)= 1.974, p<.05.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for groups and gender.
Groups
Gender
Scales
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Honest
Males
(n = 118)
Wiggins (Wsd)
14.68
3.218
Edwards (ESD)
26.31
5.464
Females
(n = 192)
Wiggins (Wsd)
13.18
3.330
Edwards (ESD)
24.78
5.659
Both
(n = 310)
Wiggins (Wsd)
13.75
3.363
Edwards (ESD)
25.36
5.626
Simulator
Males
(n = 114)
Wiggins (Wsd)
23.09
4.296
Edwards (ESD)
31.93
4.261
Females
(n = 159)
Wiggins (Wsd)
22.92
4.396
Edwards (ESD)
32.07
4.362
Both
(n =273)
Wiggins (Wsd)
22.99
4.347
Edwards (ESD)
32.01
4.313
Table 4 shows correlations for Wiggins (Wsd) and Edwards (ESD) scales in
both groups and with the Clinical Validity Scales of the MMPI-2. In general, results
show a sign and value parallelism between groups.
First, a considerable negative correlation of both Social Desirability scales with
most of the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales is present. These data confirms that none of these
scales are positively related with any of the MMPI-2 pathology indicative variables.
Second, in regards to the Validity Scales, both the Wsd and the ESD, showed higher and

156
Jiménez et al.
significant correlations in the Simulated Response Group, with high values for L, K and
F scales (the latter with a negative value).
For the Simulation Group, Wiggins scale had a greater association of r= . 668
with the Lie scale (L), and less with the Defensiveness Scale (K), r= 0 320. By contrast,
for the same group, Edwards had a better correlation with K scale (r= .735), and
somewhat lower with the L scale (r= .558).
Table 4. Correlations of social desirability scales: Wiggins (Wsd) and Edwards (ESD), with the
main MMPI-2 variables.
Honest (n = 310)
Simulators (n = 273)
MMPI-2
Wiggins (Wsd)
Edwards (ESD)
Wiggins (Wsd)
Edwards (ESD)
Validity Scales
Wsd
1
.089
1
.375**
ESD
.089
1
.375**
1
L
.466**
.286**
.668**
.558**
F
.028
-.639**
-.307**
-.776**
K
.040
.738**
.320**
.735**
VRIN
-.038
-.335**
-.192**
-.626**
Basic Clinical Scales
Hs
.032
-.274**
-.322**
-.372**
D
-.157**
-.547**
-.148*
-.421**
Hy
-.070
-.080
-.148*
.098
Pd
-.121*
-.254**
-.228**
-.249**
Mf
-.269**
-.180**
-.017
-.013
Pa
-.025
-.486**
-.108
-.471**
Pt
-.129*
-.705**
-.152*
-.373**
Sc
-.029
-.655**
-.276**
-.544**
Ma
.192**
-.202**
.126*
-.238**
Si
-.244**
-.630**
-.486**
-.735**
Note: ** p<.01 (two tailed test); * p<.05 (two tailed test); L= Lie; F= Infrequency; K=
Defensiveness; VRIN= Variable Response Inconsistency; Hs= Hypocondria; D= Depression;
Hy= Hysteria; Pd= Psychopathic Deviate; Mf= Masculinity/Feminity; Pa= Paranoia; Pt=
Psychastenia; Sc= Schizophrenia; Ma= Hypomania; Si= Social Introversion.
With the ROC method, the diagnostic accuracy of both scales was evaluated. A
maximum value of accuracy of 1.00 and a minimum of 0.5 was established for the Area
Under the Curve (AUC). In this analysis the honest response group was considered as
negative and the Simulated Response Group as positive. Table 5 shows values of the
comparative analysis between Social Desirability Scales. The AUC diagnostic accuracy

Eur. j. psychol. appl. legal context, 1(2): 147-163
157
index for the Wiggins scale was higher showing significant difference between AUC
areas (0.099, Standard Error = 0.019; p<.001).
Coordinates of sensitivity (probability of correctly diagnosing an individual
with a particular disorder or disease) and specificity (probability of correctly diagnosing
an individual with no disorder or disease) are also obtained. A cutoff point at 18 in
Wiggins shows sensitivity (true-positives) close to 85%, meaning that, of 100 subjects
with Social Desirability bias, 85 are correctly detected and the remaining 15 would be
considered false-negatives. For Edwards, sensitivity is somewhat higher (close to 90%),
being able to diagnose correctly almost 90% of those who actually have Social
Desirability bias. In this matter, a good sensitivity index is highly valued, but
proportions of false-negatives, may be considered clinically preoccupying the more
serious the disorder or disease.
Table. 5. Statistics related to diagnostic accuracy between Wiggins (Wsd) and Edwards (ESD).
Statistics
Wiggins Scale (Wsd)
Edwards Scale (ESD)
Área under the curve (AUC)
0.939*
0.840
Standard Deviation
0.011
0.017
Confidence interval (95%)
0.916 - 0.957
0.808 – 0.869
Cutoff point
> 18
> 27
Sensitivity
84.98%
89.38%
Specificity
91.94%
64.19%
Positive predictive power(PP+)
90.3%
68.7%
Negative predictive power (PP-)
87.4%
87.3%
* p< 0.001
In the same way, the specificity shown by Wiggins was close to 92%
(percentage of subjects with no Social Desirability bias), with a remaining 8%, that
would be considered false-positives (scale does not detect existence of bias when
present). For Edwards a lower specificity value was obtained (approximately 64%),
suggesting greater probability of committing diagnostic errors.
Finally, the Positive Predictive Power (PP+) considered as the probability of a
social desirability masking effect when the scales used confirm its presence, showed
different results, indicating higher values for Wiggins scale 90.3% while Edwards was
68.7%. However when considering the Negative Predictive Power (PP-; shown in Table
5), as the likelihood of absence of social desirability when the test says otherwise, is
nearly equal for both. Figure 1 shows the ROC curve of each scale with reference of its

158
Jiménez et al.
True-Positive and False-Positive coordinates, suggesting higher accurately for Wiggins
Scale.
ESD
Wsd
0 20 40 60 80 100
100
80
60
40
20
0
100-Specificity
Sensitivity
Figure 1. Diagnostic Accuracy of Wiggins (Wsd) and Edwards (ESD) Scales. ROC Curve
Discussion
This study found that both scales, Wiggins (Wsd) and Edwards (ESD),
selecting different items, can discriminate between those who have responded honestly
to the MMPI-2 and those who have tried to present a socially favorable image. It was
also detected the absence of statistically significant differences between genders,
regardless of their differentiative analysis.
Both, Edwards and Wiggins, were careful not to choose items with
psychopathological connotations (Greene, 2000). Perhaps the only variable that occurs
with some incidence in the Wsd and the ESD is the MMPI-2 Hypomania (Ma), but
correlations in general, of both scales in each group, were all found to have a negative
association with most of the Basic Clinical Scales of the MMPI-2 (see Table 4).
A previous attempt to overcome the limitations encountered in Edwards scale
(1957) was made by Crowne and Marlowe (1960) with their Social Desirability Scale
(SDS), developed with 39 MMPI items that contained several psychopathological
implications. This limitation is still important when professionals seek to assess

Eur. j. psychol. appl. legal context, 1(2): 147-163
159
personality traits with a technique such as the MMPI-2. For the person involved, it may
seem too obvious and easy to present the best of itself or try to deny or underestimate
any psychopathology, if benefits can be obtained. This technique makes it too easy
despite receiving instructions on sincerity and honesty.
Difference found related to the homogeneity among items carried out by a
Cronbach α coefficient, showed a higher item dispersion in Wiggins, quite different
from that seen in Edwards. By contrast in the factorial structure of these scales,
remarkable similarities were found in both the variance of the first factor (Table 1), as
in the composition of items for each of the four factors, who all seemed to denote the
same favorable image but in different context situations (Table 2). This implies that
while Wiggins would identify a person as being sure of him- or her-self, hardworking
and laborious, realistic, controlled over their own feelings, sociable and polite, honest
and altruistic, in the same way, Edwards would identify it as being insensitive to
criticism and anxiety, quiet, self-assured, emotionally positive, sociable, open and
expansive. What is the difference then? It would be necessary to use the scales that
make up their items to find any discrepancies.
In the composition of items presented on Edwards (ESD), 6 correspond to the
Masculine Gender Role (GM) Scale, and do not exist in Wiggins. Their interpretation is
based on clinical judgment associated with positive attributes that are socially desirable.
In the same way, the 4 items that correspond to the Ego-strength Scale (ES) are
presented as a general indicator of mental health associated with spontaneity, good
contact with reality and the ability to cope with everyday life problems and recover
from its consequences. Other correlations indicate that Wiggins has a high association
with the Lie Scale (L) and Edwards with the Defensiveness Scale (K). Paulhus (1986)
had interpreted that the Wsd scale seems to be related with the manipulation of personal
image in the attempt to deceive others, while ESD seemed to refer to a similar
manipulation but in the attempt to deceive one's self. No data is available in this study to
contrast this opinion.
Aiming to compare which scale showed a better diagnostic accuracy, a ROC
analysis was performed contrasting the responses of each group to both social
desirability scales (Wiggins and Edwards). Diagnostic accuracy is reported by a number
of statistics presented in Table 5. The indicator that best summarizes it is the area under
the curve value (AUC), on which one can appreciate that both scales show good
accuracy, though significantly higher in Wiggins scale. Figure 1 refers that superiority,

160
Jiménez et al.
interpreting that the more the curve gets closer to the diagonal that runs from the lower
left corner to the upper right corner, the lower is the diagnostic accuracy of the
examined scale.
Results reported by Wiggins (1959, quoted by Greene, 2000) on a cutoff point
that could identify 75% respondents showing a favorable social image, from those who
answered the MMPI-2 honestly (98%), are remarkably similar to results obtained in this
study. Similarly, the study by Baer, Wetter, and Berry (1992, quoted by Greene, 2000)
on Edwards scale, about people who underestimated their disease, found an optimal
cutoff point of 35 that could correctly identified 79% of simulators and 63% of honest
respondents. The results in Table 5 show similar values to correctly discriminate
simulators.
In Table 5, it can also be observed the values of predictive power (positive and
negative), indicating the superiority of the Wiggins scale. But as data shows, its
diagnostic accuracy is far from 100%.
When using the MMPI-2 to detect Social Desirability simulators, personality
evaluation professionals, should take into account the existence of other validity scales
(L, K, VRIN) that should be complemented with the data on Wsd and the ESD scales
supplied by this study. Being both adequate at identifying social desirability, the Wsd of
Wiggins gives a better contribution to reach an accurate diagnosis on this matter in the
MMPI-2.
By referring to the found superiority and preferred implementation of one scale
over the other on the MMPI-2, this study is implicitly suggesting no complementarity
between the two scales, for the simple reason that, although each scale uses different
items on the MMPI-2, doesn't seem appropriate to have two scales measuring the same
construct. Complementarily is linked to the already existing values of the Infrequency
Validity Scale (F), or the Defensiveness Scale (K).
This study took account of the exclusion criteria listed by the traditional
normalization protocols of the Spanish adaptation of the MMPI-2 (Ávila & Jimenez,
1999), that in turn are based on those proposed by Butcher (1995, quoted by Butcher,
2006, p. 29). “It must be admitted that the absence of TRIN, although it’s a scale used to
detect the tendency to give true or false answers regardless of the content of the item"
(Butcher, 2006, p. 29), should have been considered in this study in order to exclude
protocols.

Eur. j. psychol. appl. legal context, 1(2): 147-163
161
References
Andrews, P., & Meyer, G. (2003). Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale and short
form C: Forensic norms. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 483-492.
Arce, R., Fariña, F., Carballal, A., & Novo, M. (2006). Evaluación del daño moral en
accidentes de tráfico. Desarrollo y validación de un protocolo para la detección
de simulación. Psicothema, 18(2), 278-284.
Ávila, A., & Jiménez, F. (1999). Inventario multifásico de personalidad de Minnesota 2
(MMPI-2). Manual. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Baer, R. A., Wetter, M. W., & Berry, D. T. R. (1992). Detection of underreporting of
psychopathology on the MMPI: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review,
12, 509-525.
Bagby, R. M., & Marshall, M. B. (2004). Assessing underreporting response bias on the
MMPI-2. Assessment, 11, 115-126.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-
deception on the predictive validity on personality constructs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 261-272.
Butcher, J. N. (2006). MMPI-2. A practitioner´s guide. Washington, DC.: American
Psychological Association.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W., Graham, J., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989).
MMPI-2 manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Christiansen, N. D., Burns, G. N., & Montgomery, G. E. (2005). Reconsidering forced-
choice interformats for applicant personality assessment. Human Performance,
18, 267-307.
Cornell, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (1994). On the questionable soundness of factoring
ipsative data: A response to Saville and Wilson. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 67, 89-100.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 349-354.
American Psychiatric Association (1995). DSM-IV. Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de
los trastornos mentales. Barcelona: Masson.
Edwards, A. L. (1953). Manual for the Edwards personal preference schedule. New
York: Psychological Corporations.

162
Jiménez et al.
Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and
research. New York: Dryden.
Edwards, A. L. (1962). Social desirability and expected means on MMPI scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22(1), 71-76.
Edwards, A. L., & Edwards, L. K. (1992). Social desirability and Wiggins’s MMPI
content scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 147-153.
Elvekrog, M., & Vestre, N. (1963). The Edwards social desirability scale as a short
form of the MMPI. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 27(6), 503-507.
Ferrando, P., & Chico, E. (2000). Adaptación y análisis psicométrico de la escala de
deseabilidad social de Marlowe y Crowne. Psicothema, 12(3), 383-389.
Fordyce, W. E. (1956). Social desirability in the MMPI. Journal of consulting
Psychology, 20, 171-175.
Graham, J. (2000). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (3th ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Graham, J., Watts, D., & Timbrook, R. (1991). Detecting fake-good and fake-bad
MMPI-2 profiles. Journal of personality Assessment, 57(2), 264-277.
Greene, R. L. (2000). The MMPI-2. An interpretative manual (2nd ed.). Boston Allyn
and Bacon.
Hathaway, S. R., & Mckinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule
(Minnesota): Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249-
254.
Hathaway, S. R., & Mckinley, J. C. (1983). The Minnesota multiphasic personality
inventory manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Hanley, C. (1956). Social desirability and responses to items on three MMPI scales: D,
Sc and K. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40, 324-328.
Heilbrun, A. (1964). Social-Learning theory, social desirability and the MMPI.
Psychological Bulletin, 61, 377-387.
Jiménez, F., & Sánchez, G. (2002) Sensibilidad al fingimiento de la Escala Psiquiátrica
Fp de Arbisi y Ben-Porath (1995, 1998) en la adaptación española del MMPI-
2. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica, 14(2),
117-134.
Jiménez, F., & Sánchez, G. (2003). Fingimiento de la imagen e índice de simulación F-
K de Gough en la adaptación española del MMPI-2. Revista de Psicología
General y Aplicada, 56(3), 305-317.

Eur. j. psychol. appl. legal context, 1(2): 147-163
163
Nichols, D. S., & Greene, F. L. (1991). New measures for dissimulation on the
MMPI/MMPI-2. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Symposium on Recent
Developments in the Use of the MMPI. St. Petersburg Beach, Fl.
Nicholson, R. A., Mouton, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Buis, T. (1997). Utility of MMPI-2
indicators of response distortion: Receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Psychological Assessment, 9(4), 471-479.
Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In
A. Angleitner, & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via
questionnaires: Current issues in theory and measurement (pp. 143-165).
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Pelegrina, M., Ruiz-Soler, M., López, E., & Wallace, A. (2000). Análisis de variables
mediante curvas ROC y modelos categóricos. Psicothema, 12(2), 427-430.
Preti, A., Rocchi, M., Sisti, D., Mura, T., Manca, S., Siddi, S., Petretto, D., & Masala,
C. (2007). The psychometric discriminative properties of the Peters et al.
delusions inventory: A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48, 62-69.
Rogers, R. (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3th ed.). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Rogers, R., & Bender, D. (2003). Evaluation of malingering and deception. In A.
Goldstein, & I .B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Vol. 11. Forensic
psychology (pp. 109-132). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
Salgado, J. (2005). Personalidad y deseabilidad social en contextos organizacionales:
implicaciones para la práctica de la psicología del trabajo y las organizaciones.
Papeles del Psicólogo, 92, 65-75
Salkind, N. J. (1998). Métodos de investigación (3rd ed.). México: Prentice Hall.
Swets, J. A., & Pickett, R. M. (1982). Evaluation of diagnostic systems: Methods from
signal detection theory. New York: Academic Press.
Wiggins, J. S. (1959). Interrelations among the MMPI measures of dissimulation under
standard and social desirability instructions. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
23, 419-427.
Zweig, M. H., & Campbell, G. (1993). Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: A
fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clinical Chemistry, 39, 561-
577.

Instructions
Presentation
The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, the Official Journal of the Sociedad Española
de Psicología Jurídica y Forense, publishes empirical articles, theoretical studies and focused reviews of topics
dealing with psychology and law (e.g., legal decision making, eyewitness). Papers driven to both legal
systems, inquisitorial and adversarial, will be welcome as well as papers based in concrete laws of a European
country. Neither the Editors nor Publishers accept responsibility for the views or statements expressed by the
authors.
Paper submission
Manuscripts should be submitted electronically to the Editors to the e-mail address of the journal
(ejpalc@usc.es). Postal address should be used exceptionally (The European Journal of Psychology Applied to
Legal Context, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, E-15782 Santiago, Spain).
Submission of a paper to this journal implies that it represents original work not previously published, and that
it is not being considered elsewhere for publication.
Review
The manuscripts will be reviewed by two external blind referees. The reviews are anonymous for authors and
reviewers. Author identities will be removed before sending out a manuscript to the reviewers.
Copyright
Authors submitting a manuscript do so with the understanding that if it is accepted for publication the
copyright of the manuscript, including the reproduction of the paper in all forms and media, shall be
transferred to the publisher.
Permissions and responsibility
The author is responsible for obtaining permission necessary to quote from other works, to reproduce material
already published, and to reprint from other publications. The opinions expressed and the contents of the paper
are under exclusive responsibility of the author(s) and do not reflect the point of view of The European
Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context.
Style
Manuscripts must be adhere to the instructions on references, tables, figures, abstract, format, narrative style,
etc. as described in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th edition).
Manuscripts that do not fit to the style set forth in this manual will not be considered for publication.
Check list of requirements
The abstract should be 150-200 words.
Title page (include the authors´name, affiliations, full contact details).
Full paper text (double spaced with numbered pages and anonymised).
References (APA style).
Tables and figures placed at the end of the paper or attached separately.

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context
____________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
Articles
A social desirability scale for the MMPI-2. Which of the two: Wiggins
(WSD) or Edwards (ESD)?
Fernando Jiménez, Guadalupe Sánchez and Cristina Tobón 147
Norms in social representations: Two studies with French young drivers
Sandrine Gaymard 165
Implication degree and delay on recall of events: An experimental
and HDV study
Antonio L. Manzanero, Sofián El-Astal and Javier Aróztegui 183
Homicide and domestic violence. Are there different psychological
profiles mediated by previous violence exerted on the victim?
Miguel Ángel Soria, Inmaculada Armadans, María Rosa Viñas
and Montserrat Yepes 205
Discriminating real victims from feigners of psychological injury
in gender violence: Validating a protocol for forensic settings.
Manuel Vilariño, Francisca Fariña and Ramón Arce 221
Volume 1 Number 2 July 2009