{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03580562659846547, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017902813299232736, 'mean_word_length': 5.311827956989247, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Taxometric Analysis of Impression Management and Self-Deception in College Student and Personnel Evaluation Settings

The typology of impression management (IM), a deliberate attempt to create a positive social image, and self-deceptive positivity (SDP), an overly positive bias in self-description, was examined using taxometric procedures with Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) underreporting scales and Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, 1988) impression management and SDP scales in a sample of college students. MMPI-2 underreporting scales were then examined in a personnel evaluation sample. IM was found to be taxonic in both student and personnel settings. Given support for the IM taxon, taxometric procedures allow the estimation of the base rate of IM and the classification accuracy of MMPI-2 IM scales in the absence of a separate criterion. Using taxometric procedures, the mean base-rate estimates were .16 and .25 for student and personnel settings, respectively. Overall classification rates ranged from .80 to .94 for MMPI-2 IM scales in the personnel setting.