Defensiveness in the Criminally Insane

Abstract

The MMPI and 16 PF were administered to 45 forensic patients and scores on five derived measures of defensiveness were computed. The 10 highest and 10 lowest scoring subjects were assigned to either a high or low defensiveness group and their responses analyzed with regard to the Schizophrenia, Paranoia, Psychopathic Deviate and Hostility clinical scales and sub-scales of the MMPI according to past or present items. Results confirm that high defensiveness subjects are selectively and cautiously interpreting items so as to admit to significantly less overall pathology and relatively less present pathology than low defensiveness subjects. This finding represents a consistent strategy of defensiveness rather than an artifact of false response bias. This study has implications for personality assessment in Forensic Psychology and the potential of trend analysis for the prediction of future dangerous behavior in a forensic patient population.

Detection of deception on the millon clinical multiaxial inventory (MCMI)

“…The results of this study suggest that in forensic populations, the MCMI Validity index may be more effective for identifying individuals given specific instructions to fake bad than for identifying individuals who may have distorted responses in a more subtle fashion. These results are consistent with Audobon and Kirwin's (1982) argument that standard correction scores may not be sensitive enough with forensic populations that have a critical stake in the outcome of their tests. The results are also consistent with data reported in the MCMI manual, in which Millon (1982) found that MCMI respondents given specific instructions to fake bad produced invalid (39%) or unreliable (16%) profiles in 55% of the cases.…”

Differential patterns of responding among three groups of chronic, psychotic, forensic outpatients

“…Research with these populations have found L and K to relate to denial (Lanyon & Lutz, 1984;Lanyon, Dannenbaum, & Brown, 1991), "faking-good" (Gendreau, Irvine, & Knight, 1973;Hunt, 1948;Rice, Arnold, & Tate, 1983), defensiveness (Audubon & Kirwin, 1982;Lawrence, 1996), paranoid psychopathology (Fjordbak, 1985), severity of pathology (Roman et al, 1990), forensic status (Bagby et al, 1994), and underreporting of psychopathology (Baer, Wetter, & Berry, 1992). Despite clinically useful findings, the results of these studies were confounded by their failing to account for diagnostic specificity; they used heterogeneous groups.…”

“…Despite the paucity of research on forensic assessment, forensic psychologists extensively utilize psychological tests in risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. Forensic psychiatric patients often are guarded, defensive, and deny their mental illness (Audubon & Kirwin, 1982;Bagby, Rogers, & Buis, 1994;Bannatyne, 1996;Fjordbak, 1985;Roman, Tuley, Villanueva, & Mitchell, 1990;Wasyliw, Grossman, Haywood, & Cavanaugh, 1988); all characteristics of a response style that can constrict psychological testing results and require interpretation by the forensic examiner (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1998).…”

The Evaluation of Truthfulness in Alleged Sex Offenders' Self-Reports: 16PF and MMPI Validity Scales

“…Although this experimental design is appropriate for the initial validation of these scales, such a design may produce data of limited generalizability to the clinical situations targeted by these scales (Pankratz & Erickson, 1990). There have only been a few studies on the use of the 16PF with actual forensic samples (Audubon & Kirwin, 1982;Dalby, 1988;Irvine & Gendreau, 1974;Langevin, Paitich, Freeman, Mann, & Handy, 1978;Lanyon et al, 1989), and even fewer have examined the use of the 16PF validity scalles with sex offenders.…”