Deterring malingered psychopathology: The effect of warning simulating malingerers

Abstract

The utility of a warning to deter malingering on measures of personality and psychopathology was examined. Sixty-seven first year psychology students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: unwarned malingerers, warned malingerers, and controls. Participants in the two malingering groups were given a financial incentive to simulate believable psychological impairment. Warned malingerers received an additional warning that the tests could detect malingering and that detection would result in loss of course credit. Controls received standardized test instructions. It was hypothesized that the malingering incentive would be sufficient to induce malingering, but that a deterrence theory warning would have a subsequent deterrent effect. Between-groups analyses indicated that the warning used in this study significantly altered test performance on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and revised Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90-R). Warned malingerers scored significantly lower (faked less) than unwarned malingerers on the majority of the psychopathology scales and frequently approximated control group performances. These results support the effectiveness of a warning to complement existing malingering detection methods.

Exaggerating Psychopathology Produces Residual Effects That Are Resistant to Corrective Feedback: An Experimental Demonstration

“…Thus, it appears that malingerers continue to report above-average symptom levels even when they have been warned before testing (King & Sullivan, 2009) or have been provided with feedback during testing (Suchy et al, 2012). This phenomenon fits well with the observation that malingering produces residual effects.…”

“…For example, in an experimental study, King and Sullivan (2009) found that warned malingerers instructed to simulate believable psychological impairment had lower depression scores compared with unwarned malingerers, yet they reported higher depression levels than those of control participants. Employing a similar design, Sullivan and Richer (2002) observed that warned malingerers had an intermediate position between controls and unwarned malingerers with regard to their self-reported psychopathology, suggesting that warnings have corrective potential but do not lead to complete normalization (see also Etherton & Axelrod, 2013;Gorny & Merten, 2005).…”

“…Both deterrence theory (King & Sullivan, 2009) and the cautious feedback approach seem to assume that potential malingerers have control over their symptom reporting and that providing them with warning or feedback information will motivate them to normalize their scores. On the other hand, and as already noted, the empirical literature suggests that the corrective effects of warnings do not produce complete normalization.…”

Malingering: An Unusual Cause of Resistant Hypertension

“…However, with experience, malingerers have developed awareness of single detection strategies, leading to the creation of complex multipronged detection strategies with imperfect utility 10,11 . Some attorneys may undermine psychometric detection of malingering by coaching their clients 12 …”

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Controversies, Diagnosis, and Malingering

“…Typically, self-report tests related to PTSD (e.g., the PCL) are "face-valid" and are "ineffective" in distinguishing between evaluees having genuine PTSD and simulators (e.g., King and Sullivan 2009 ). Even when they are administered in the military context, it has been found that more objective means of assessing negative response bias is ignored (e.g., on the MMPI-2; Arbisi et al 2004 ).…”