CPI Good Impression (Gi) Scale

Abstract

The CPI Good Impression (Gi) Scale is a specialized validity measure integrated within the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) designed to assess the degree to which an individual attempts to present an extremely favorable or idealized self-image during testing. The scale was developed using a contrast group methodology, where subjects first completed items under standard conditions and then repeated the test under explicit “good impression” instructions, simulating a high-stakes scenario such as a job interview.

Originally comprising 40 items in the 1957 CPI, five items were modified for the 1987 revision (Gough, 1987). Scores on the Gi scale range from 0 to 40. Scores exceeding 30 are typically interpreted as highly suggestive of response bias or faking good, indicating that the respondent is unwilling to admit to minor flaws or undesirable characteristics, thereby compromising the substantive interpretation of their personality profile.</

Keywords

CPI, California Psychological Inventory, Good Impression Scale, Gi Scale, Social Desirability, Impression Management, Personality Assessment, Response Bias, Faking Good, Validity Scale, Harrison Gough.

Authors

Harrison G. Gough, Floyd L. Ruch (contributed foundational methodology).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Good Impression (Gi) Scale is to function as a validity indicator within the CPI. It helps test administrators determine the respondent’s test-taking attitude, specifically quantifying the tendency to exaggerate socially desirable traits and suppress socially undesirable ones. This measurement is crucial for interpreting the validity of the overall personality profile.

The scale serves to identify protocols where the respondent is engaging in intentional or unintentional positive distortion—a form of impression management—which, if high, mandates a cautious or dualistic interpretation of the remaining CPI scales.

Construct

The Gi scale measures a construct related to social conformity and defensiveness, often referred to as positive self-presentation or impression management. Test development, following Ruch (1942), relied on identifying items that differentiated between normal self-reporting and highly favorable, role-playing self-reporting (e.g., applying for an important position).

Interpretation of the construct is dualistic. Low to moderate scores (below 30) suggest a genuinely conscientious and socially conventional individual who possesses many socially desirable traits (e.g., dependability, politeness). However, scores above the cutoff suggest a level of defensiveness and overcontrol, where the individual claims desirable qualities well beyond those confirmed by external raters, indicating an unwillingness to acknowledge typical human failings.

Validity

Substantial validity data supports the Gi scale’s interpretation, particularly its relationship with external ratings of social behavior and self-control. Convergent validity studies utilized Q-sorts provided by external judges (spouses and trained assessors) to rate CPI respondents.

For 400 respondents rated by their spouses, high Gi scores positively correlated with traits such as being: 1) A conscientious and serious-minded person; 2) Well-organized, capable, patient, and industrious; values achievement; 3) Gentle, considerate, and tactful; and 4) Gets along well with others. For 793 respondents rated by trained assessors using Q-sorts, high Gi scores correlated with: 1) Being fastidious; 2) Favoring conservative values; 3) Being a genuinely dependable and responsible person; and 4) Tending toward overcontrol of needs and impulses, binding tensions excessively, and delaying gratification unnecessarily. This evidence confirms that high scorers are highly controlled, socially conventional individuals, but also suggests a pronounced defensiveness, highlighted by external ratings of being “overcontrolled” and interviewer observations of being “well groomed, well dressed, and polite.”

Reliability

The reliability of the CPI Gi scale has been documented through measures of internal consistency and test-retest stability.

• Internal Consistency: Gough (1987) reported alpha coefficients of .77 for both male and female college students, indicating acceptable internal consistency for the scale items.

• Test-Retest Reliability: Test-retest correlations were reported as .68 after a 1-year interval for both male and female high school students. This moderate correlation suggests reasonable stability of the construct being measured over time, acknowledging that some fluctuation in self-presentation styles is expected.

Factor Analysis

The CPI Gi scale is primarily utilized as a specialized validity scale rather than a core personality factor. While not typically subjected to independent factor analysis in the way the main CPI scales are, the content and validation data confirm that the scale loads heavily on factors related to conventionality, self-control, and social conformity. Its development method (contrast groups) ensured maximum differentiation related to the response set of presenting oneself favorably, rather than measuring a pure, orthogonal personality dimension.

Instrument

Test Type: Personality Inventory Validity Scale

Format: Dichotomous (True/False) self-report items.

Language Available: English (Original version); available in other languages as part of the full CPI translation.

Population Group: General population, including adolescents and adults.

Age Group: High school age (typically 15 years and older) through adulthood.

Population Details: Normative data reported by Gough (1987) included diverse samples: 4126 college students (Mean = 18.5, s.d. = 5.9), 100 nurses (Mean = 18.6, s.d. = 5.5), and 345 prison inmates (Mean = 17.9, s.d. = 7.0).

Test Methodology: Contrast Group Method, where item selection was based on differentiating responses given under normal instructions versus those given under explicit “good impression” instructions.

Keywords

CPI, Harrison Gough, Response Set, Social Conformity, Overcontrol, Defensiveness, Faking Good, Personality Test, Psychological Measurement, Validity.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Harrison G. Gough’s work predates widespread ORCID usage.)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: Consulting Psychologists Press (Original Publisher)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and its associated scales, including the Gi scale, are proprietary instruments administered and distributed by official publishers (originally Consulting Psychologists Press, now typically through The Myers-Briggs Company). Use requires appropriate permissions and professional qualifications.

Fee: Standard fees apply for the purchase of test materials, scoring services, and administration manuals for the CPI.

Test Year: Initial inclusion in CPI (1957); Revised CPI version (1987).

Reference’s

Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory administrator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Lanning, K. (1989). Indirect measurement of social desirability: The California Psychological Inventory Good Impression scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(2), 269–291.

Ruch, F. L. (1942). A technique for detecting attempts to fake personality test scores. Psychological Bulletin, 39, 439–440.

Items of the CPI Good Impression (Gi) Scale

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Sample Items

1. I always follow the rule: business before pleasure. (T) TRUE FALSE
2. I have never deliberately told a (F)
3. I enjoy hearing lectures on world (T)

Complete Scale

The CPI booklet numbers for the items keyed “True” are 14, l 03, 127, 133, 140, 165, 195, 222, 254. The items keyed “False” are l 0, 30, 34, 38, 42, 44, 48, 56, 66, 70, 78, Bl, 91, 101, 102, 109, 120, 150, 153, 159, 170, 178, 203, 207, 231, 238, 248, 262, 268, 273, 289, 293.