Do impression management and self-deception distort self-report measures with content of dynamic risk factors in offender samples? A meta-analytic review

Abstract

Self-report measures provide an important source of information in correctional/forensic settings, yet at the same time the validity of that information is often questioned because self-reports are thought to be highly vulnerable to self-presentation biases. Primary studies in offender samples have provided mixed results with regard to the impact of socially desirable responding on self-reports. The main aim of the current study was therefore to investigate-via a meta-analytic review of published studies-the association between the two dimensions of socially desirable responding, impression management and self-deceptive enhancement, and self-report measures with content of dynamic risk factors using the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) in offender samples. These self-report measures were significantly and negatively related with self-deception (r = -0.120, p < 0.001; k = 170 effect sizes) and impression management (r = -0.158, p < 0.001; k = 157 effect sizes), yet there was evidence of publication bias for the impression management effect with the trim and fill method indicating that the relation is probably even smaller (r = -0.07). The magnitude of the effect sizes was small. Moderation analyses suggested that type of dynamic risk factor (e.g., antisocial cognition versus antisocial personality), incentives, and publication year affected the relationship between impression management and self-report measures with content of dynamic risk factors, whereas sample size, setting (e.g., incarcerated, community), and publication year influenced the relation between self-deception and these self-report measures. The results indicate that the use of self-report measures to assess dynamic risk factors in correctional/forensic settings is not inevitably compromised by socially desirable responding, yet caution is warranted for some risk factors (antisocial personality traits), particularly when incentives are at play.

Investigating the Validity Evidence of the Swedish TriPM in High Security Prisoners Using the PCL-R and NEO-FFI

“…A concern is that respondents try to present themselves more favorably, alternatively that they are susceptible to self-deception and more inclined to an overtly positive self-image. This was addressed in a meta-analysis by Hildebrand et al (61) examining 19 studies assessing dynamic risk factors in self-report measures, which found that socially desirable responding did not compromise their effectiveness in forensic settings, even though antisocial personality traits was a potential problematic trait of concern. The other main concern in addition to misleading self-presentation when utilizing self-report questionnaires is inattentive responding, found to be prevalent in ∼10% of subjects in community populations (62).…”

Exploring the predictive power of impulsivity measures in predicting self-reported and informant-reported inpatient disruptive behaviors

“…For instance, McGrath et al (2010) concluded in their review that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of validity scales, and questioned whether any known scale can accurately assess selfdeception or impression management. Hildebrand et al (2018) reported in their meta-analysis a significant but low (r = −.12) effect size for the association between self-deception (which was encoded by the authors by means of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding inventory; Paulhus, 1984) and self-reported risk assessment in offender samples. The role of the VR scale in the association between self-reported impulsivity and antisocial behavior has not yet been investigated.…”

Lifetime Acts of Violence Assessment (LAVA) predictors of laboratory aggression

“…Recent support for the accuracy of self-report data in forensic assessments has come from a meta-analysis (19 studies, 6,490 convicted offenders, 88 subscale indices, and 38 different questionnaires) measuring trait hostility and/or frank sociopathy (Hildebrand, Wibbelink, & Verschuere, 2018). Evidence was provided by the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1984) of the extent to which the self-report data was contaminated by impression management (intentional distortion) and/or self-deception (unconscious socially desirability).…”