Effects of the manipulation of instructional set on the Coopersmith Self-esteem Inventory were studied for high school boys and girls. Total self-esteem scores were significantly greater under the ‘fake good’ instructional set than under either the control or ‘fake bad’ set (p < .01); there were no significant sex differences or a significant interaction between sex and instructions, The Lie scores were significantly different for all three sets of instructions (p < .01), but there were no significant sex differences or interactions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BieliauskasV. J.MirandaS. B.LanskyL. M.Obviousness of two masculinity-femininity tests. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 314–318.
2.
BraunJ. R.GomezB. J.Effects of faking instructions on the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 388–390.
3.
BraunJ. R.La FaroD.Effects of a good impression set on the Thorndike Dimensions of Temperament. Journal of Educational Measurements, 1967, 4, 237–240.
4.
BraunJ. R.La FaroD.Effect of salesman faking instructions on the Contact Personality Test. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22, 1245–1248.
5.
CoopersmithS.Antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman, 1968.
6.
GomezB. J.BraunJ. R.Effects of ‘salesman candidate’ sets on the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 192.
7.
KeehnJ. D.Neurotic questionnaire responses as simulated by normal individuals. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1962, 14, 65–68.
8.
MikesellR. H.CalhounL. G.Faking on the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25, 173–174.
