Self-deception in forensic self-reports: Detection, effects and testing the model
Supporting Agencies
- This research has been partially sponsored by a grant of the Minis-try of Science and Innovation of Spain (PID2020-115881RB-I00) and by a grant of the Consellería de Cultura, Educación, For-mación Profesional e Universidades of the Xunta de Galicia (ED431B 2023/09).
Abstract
Background/aims: Dissimulation, understood as a positive self-presentation in self-reports, is suspected in child custody dispute forensic evaluations. Dissimulation is displayed through two-manifestations: concealment of negative qualities (denial of symptoms) and claiming non-existent positive qualities or exaggerating existing ones (social desirability). Moreover, the nature of dissimulation may be conscious (impression management) or unconscious (self-deception). Nevertheless, the effects of self-deception in self-reports of parents involved child custody forensic disputes are unknown. Thus, a field study was designed with the aim of determining the efficacy of self-deception measures, the effects of dissimulation on self-reported mental health markers, and to test the purportedly unconscious nature of self-deception. Method: 223 parents involved in court-mandated child custody proceedings endorsed the MMPI-2 and 100 parents from intact families under standard instructions. The K, S, Esd and PMH4 measures of self-deception, the standard clinical scales and the obvious and subtle subscales were scored. Results: The results exhibited significant higher scores, consistent with dissimulation, were observed in the population suspected of dissimulation (child custody litigants) in K, S, and Esd scales; and a significant association between dissimulation classification and dissimulation suspected population. In relation to the effects of dissimulation, the results showed that the suspected population of dissimulation reported significantly fewer clinical symptoms (denial of symptoms) and more positive qualities related to being granted child custody (social desirability). Finally, the results suggested that the underlying process of self-deception is not unconscious for the individual exercising conscious control over his/her biased responses. Discussion: The implications of the results for forensic psychology evaluation of child custody dispute cases and the two-component model for dissimulation are discussed.
Downloads
-
Abstract616
-
pdf197
References
Ackerman, J. J., & Pritzl, T. B. (2011). Child custody evaluation practices: A 20-year follow-up. Family Court Review, 49, 618-628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01397.x
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition, text revision (DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
Amado, B. G., Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2015). Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7(1), 3-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002
Arce, R. (2017). Análisis de contenido de las declaraciones de testigos: Evaluación de la validez científica y judicial de la hipótesis y la prueba forense [Content analysis of the witness statements: Evaluation of the scientific and judicial validity of the hypothesis and the forensic proof]. Acción Psicológica, 14(2), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.14.2.21347
Arce, R., Fariña, F., Seijo, D., & Novo, M. (2015). Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Assessment, 22(6), 769-777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191114558111
Arce, R., Marcos, V., Sanmarco, J., & Fariña, F. (2024). Is the self-reported information by male sentenced of violence against women in the intervention phase valid? Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 34(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2023a3
Baer, R. A., & Miller, J. (2002). Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.16
Bagby, R. M., & Marshall, M. B. (2004). Assessing underreporting response bias on the MMPI-2. Assessment, 11(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191104265918
Butcher, J. N., J. R. Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2019). MMPI-2. Inventario Multifásico de Personalidad de Minnesota-2. TEA Ediciones.
Butcher, J. N., & Han, K. (1995). Development of an MMPI-2 scale to assess the presentation of self in a superlative manner: The S Scale. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 10, pp. 25-50). LEA.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). LEA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Dryden.
Corrás, T., Seijo, D., Fariña, F., Novo, M., Arce, R., & Cabanach, R. G. (2017). What and how much do children lose in academic settings owing to parental separation? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1545. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01545
Gancedo, Y., Sanmarco, J., Marcos, V., & Seijo, D. (2021). Estimating the efficacy of Fptsd Scale to report malingering of PTSD: A meta-analytic review. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 12(1), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.23923/j.rips.2021.01.044
Fariña, F., Arce, R., & Real, S. (1994). Ruedas de identificación: De la simulación y la realidad [Line-ups: A comparison of high fidelity research and research in a real context]. Psicothema, 7, 395-402. http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/935.pdf
Fariña, F., Arce, R., Vilariño, M., & Novo, M. (2014). Assessment of the standard forensic procedure for the evaluation of psychological injury in intimate-partner violence. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17, e32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.30
Graham, J. R. (2011). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Greene, R. L. (2011). The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF: An interpretive manual (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Harris, R., & Lingoes, J. (1955). Subscales for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Langley Porter Clinic, San Francisco.
Hildebrand, M., Wibbelink, C. J., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Do impression management and self-deception distort self-report measures with content of dynamic risk factors in offender samples? A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 58, 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.02.013
Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Meyers, J. E. (2009). 40 plus or minus 10, a new magical number: Reply to Russell. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(5), 841–849. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040902796735
Mayorga, E. G., Novo, M., Fariña, F., & Arce, R. (2020). Destrezas cognitivas en menores infractores, de protección y normalizados: Un estudio de contraste [Cognitive skills in juvenile offenders, protection normalized youngsters: A contrastive study]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 52, 160-168 https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2020.v52.16
Meehl, P. E., & Hathaway, S. R. (1946). The K factor as a suppressor variable in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 525-564. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0053634
Nichols, D. S. (1992). Development of a global measure for positive mental health. Unpublished manuscript.
O’Donnell, M. L., Creamer, M. Bryant, R. A., Schnyder, U., & Shalev, A. (2006). Posttraumatic disorders following injury: Assessment and other methodological considerations. In G. Young, A. W. Kane & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Psychological knowledge in courts: PTSD, pain and TBI (pp. 70-84). Springer.
O’Donnell, D. E., Huffman, M. C., Burd, T. E., & O’Shea, C. L. (2024). Truth or lie: Ability of listeners to detect deceptive emergency calls of missing children. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 16(2), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2024a9
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609. http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
Paulhus, D. L., & Holden, R. R. (2010). Measuring self-enhancement: From self-report to concrete behavior. In C. R. Agnew, D. E. Carlston, W. G. Graziano, & J. R. Kelly (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 227-246). Oxford University Press.
Puente-López, E., Pina, D., Daugherty, J. C., Pérez-García, M., & Merten, T. (2024). Simulación y validez de la información de síntomas psicopatológicos en España: Conceptos, métodos y desafíos [Malingering and validity of reported psychopathological symptoms in Spain: Concepts, methods and challenges]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 15(2), 66-79. https://doi.org/10.23923/j.rips.2024.02.077
Rogers, R. (2018a). An introduction to response styles. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 3-17). Guilford Press.
Rogers, R. (2018b). Structured interviews and dissimulation. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 301-322). Guilford Press.
Strong, D. R., Greene, R. L., Hoppe, C., Johnston, T., & Olesen, N. (1999). Taxometric analysis of impression management and self-deception on the MMPI–2 in child-custody litigants. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA730101
Vilariño, M., Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2013). Forensic-clinical interview: Reliability and validity for the evaluation of psychological injury. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 5(1), 1-21. https://journals.copmadrid.org/ejpalc/archivos/articulo20180219092235.pdf
Wiggins, J. S. (1964). Convergences among stylistic response measures from objective personality tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(3), 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446402400310
Young, G. (2015). Malingering in forensic disability-related assessments: Prevalence 15 ± 15%. Psychological Injury and Law, 8, 188-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9232-4
Copyright (c) 2025 The authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
About Copyright and Licensing, more details here.
