Positive attitudes toward telephone pranking by impersonation and opposition to its legal restriction and punishment.

Type discrimination

0.045 bits

Mean agreement

28%

Types

Highest:
SEE+53%
Lowest:
LSE+12%
ILE
+28%
ESE
+24%
SEI
+45%
LII
+29%
EIE
+23%
SLE
+45%
LSI
+19%
IEI
+29%
SEE
+53%
LIE
+27%
ILI
+37%
ESI
+25%
LSE
+12%
IEE
+23%
EII
+14%
SLI
+16%

Functions

Strongest:
Se+2.69
Weakest:
Qe-2.34
Ni
+1.24
Ne
-0.50
Si
-0.02
Se
+2.69
Ti
-0.65
Te
-1.83
Fi
-1.04
Fe
+0.10
Qi
+0.57
Qe
-2.34
Di
-1.69
De
+1.18

Quadras

α
+0.30
β
+0.08
γ
+0.66
δ
-1.05

Clubs

NT
+0.19
ST
-0.45
NF
-0.51
SF
+0.77

Big 5

O
+0.31
C
-0.26
E
+0.43
A
-0.56
N
-0.40
Classic names

Dimensions

Strongest:
Perceiving0.57
Second:
Individualism0.48

Small Groups

Top 3

Top Groups

1

Operational Style:
Scheming

15

1.15
2

Time Strategy:
Visceral

9

1.04
3

Argumentation Style:
Diplomat

12

0.84

1

Mode of Will:
Self-Effacing

4

-0.76
2

Way of Life:
Householder

16

-0.76
3

Quadra:
Delta

20

-1.05

Psychopathology

HiTOP

General factor (p)

+0.5266th pct

Superspectra

EmD
-0.90
Psy
+0.02
Ext
+1.52

Spectra

Somatoform
-0.99
Internalizing
-0.81
Thought Disorder
-0.14
Detachment
+0.12
Disinhibited Ext.
+1.53
Antagonistic Ext.
+0.98

Intercorrelations

nearest items
Sections