Week 1
Chapter 1 - An introduction to response styles
-Civil litigation: Juridisch proces door conflict tussen mensen/bedrijven, etc.
-Deception in clinical settings is commonly seen in minimizing perceived distress
or symptoms, in pretending that the therapist’s suggestions are helpful, and in
indicating that homework has been done when it has not.
-Deception also occurs in other settings than the clinical setting.
-The choice a person makes to disclose or decept is often rational and
multidetermined (influenced/caused by multiple factors).
-The decisions one makes are often individualized responses to interpersonal
variables (e.g. a good relationship with a colleague.
-Most individuals engage in a variety of response styles that correspond to their
personal goals in particular settings.
-The general issue of inconsequential (minor, without or with little consequences)
deception must be carefully considered.
-Two extremes of deception:
Tiant hypothesis: When deception is noticed, it is likely that there are
further deceptions in a client’s story. For this reason, deception must be
documented.
Beyond-reasonable-doubt standard: Only convincing evidence of a
reaction style, such as feigning (pretending or faking), should be reported
in criminal trials.
-Especially in forensic practice, the identification of malingering styles is of great
importance in order to establish the reliability of mental health claims.
-Mental health professionals must decide what evidence of response styles
should be routinely included in clinical and forensic reports. These decisions are
influenced by two dimensions:
Accuracy vs completeness of their conclusion.
Use vs misuse of clinical findings by others.
-Standardization of terms and operationalization of response styles are important
for accuracy and replicability.
-A common error is the overspecification of reaction styles (can lead to limited
understanding).
-Professionals are often highly motivated to specify a reaction style, even when
the data is ambiguous. It is therefore important to use the two-step approach for
minimizing overspecification.
-The two-step approach for minimizing overspecification:
Does the clinical data support a non-specific description?
If so, is there sufficient data to determine a specific response style?
-Unreliability: The term that questions the accuracy of reported information. No
assumption is made about the intentions of the individual or the reason for
inaccurate data (if it on purpose or not).
-Nondisclosure: Describes withholding information. No assumptions about
intention.
-Self-disclosure: Refers to how much individuals release about themselves.
-Deception: A term for attempts by individuals to distort or mispresent their self-
,reporting. Deception includes acts of deceit often accompanied by nondisclosure.
-Dissimulation: A general term to describe a wide range of intentional
distortions or misrepresentations of psychological symptoms.
Recommended terms to describe exaggerated pathology are:
-Malingering: The intentional production of false or greatly exaggerated
physical or psychological symptoms motivated by external stimuli.
-Factitious presentations: Are characterized by the ‘intentional production or
feigning’ of symptoms motivated by the desire to assume a ‘sick role’. The
behaviour is thereby present in the absence of external rewards, so there is an
internal motivating factor.
-Feigning: The deliberate fabrication of exaggeration of symptoms without any
assumptions about the goals of the person.
-Psychological testing can be used to identify feigning.
Terms that should be avoided in clinical and forensic settings:
-Suboptimal effort: Is sometimes used as a proxy for malingering. However,
this term can be used with any client because effort is determined by internal
and external factors.
-Overreporting: Refers to an unexpectedly high level of item endorsement
(agreeing with a statement), also known as self-deprecating (zelfspot) reporting.
-Secondary gain: Does have clear definitions, but has conflicting meanings.
Terms used to describe reaction styles associated with simulated adaptation:
-Defensiveness: The denial or minimizing of symptoms.
-Social desirability: The persistent tendency of individuals to present
themselves as positively as possible with respect to social norms. This involves
denial of negative characteristics.
-Impression management: The intentional effort to control others’ perceptions
of you.
Other response styles:
-Irrelevant responding: Refers to the response style in which the individual
does not become psychologically involved in the process. The given responses
are not necessarily related to the content. This possibly reflects disinterest or
negligence.
-Random responding: A subset of irrelevant answers based entirely on chance,
such as when taking a test.
-Acquiescent responding: Commonly referred to as ‘yea-saying’, so saying
yes.
-Disacquiescent responding: Saying no or disagreeing with everything on a
test.
-Role assumption: Individuals may occasionally assume the role or character of
another person when responding to psychological measures.
-Hybrid responding: An individual uses multiple response styles in a situation.
-Malingering is not rare.
-Deception is not evidence of malingering.
-Malingering does not exclude real disorders.
-According to the adaptation model, malingerers engage in a cost-benefit
analysis when choosing to feign symptoms.
-The pathogenic model conceptualizes an underlying disorder as a motivator
,for feigning. The malingerers, in an effort to control their real disability,
voluntarily produce symptoms. As their condition worsens, they are presumably
less able to control the feigned disorder.
-The pathogenic model does not appear to be representative of many
malingerers.
-The criminological model states that the underlying logic is that malingering
is typically an antisocial act likely to be committed by antisocial individuals. The
DSM-5 lists 4 indicators for this (forensic context, antisocial background,
uncooperative and discrepancies with objective findings). However, malingering
is not an antisocial act by an antisocial person and the indicators don’t work well.
-The problem with the criminological model is that it assumes general
characteristics (4 indicators) of malingerers rather than distinctive ones (e.g.,
many malingerers have an antisocial background, but so do many people with
disorders).
-Since most reaction styles are conceptualized as intentional attempts, an
individual’s motivation is important. This motivational basis (explanatory models)
has important implications for clinical and forensic practice.
-Simulated adaptation: A general category that is probably the most common
combination of reaction styles and includes defensiveness, impression
management and social desirability.
-Four basic designs are used in research on reaction styles:
Simulation research: Analogue research randomly assigns participants
to different experimental conditions.
-Results are typically compared to relevant clinical groups.
-The internal validity is strong (standardization, etc.) and the external
validity is weak.
-The classification is testable.
Known-groups comparison: A research method where a measure or test
is used to distinguish between groups that are already known to differ on a
specific characteristic or condition.
-Internal validity is weak (researchers have no control) and the external
validity is strong.
-The classification is testable.
Differential prevalence design: A research approach used to compare
how frequently certain response styles occur between different groups.
-Based on assumed incentives (extrinsic motivation), greater numbers of a
broadly defined group (e.g., litigation/procesvoering) are expected to have
a specific response style when compared to a second group (e.g.,
nonlitigation).
-Internal validity is weak and external validity is weak to moderate.
-The classification is not testable.
Partial criterion design: A research approach where researchers use
only some of the ideal criteria or measures to evaluate or classify
something, rather than all possible criteria.
-By using multiple scales or indicators, researchers seek to increase the
likelihood of an accurate classification. The goal is to achieve a moderate
level of classification. As a partial criterion, it sacrifices accuracy for more
expedient (faster and practical) research.
, -Internal validity is weak and external validity is moderately strong.
-The classification is variable.
Chapter 5 - Syndromes associated with deception.
-Deception is a central component in malingering according to the DSM-5.
-Malingering is described in terms of false presentations and external stimuli.
-In psychotherapeutic settings, it is often assumed that people are sincere and
that they desire personal growth.
-In treatment settings, response style is considered unimportant because the goal
is to improve client functioning.
-In adversarial (vijandige) situations, such as court-ordered evaluations,
examiners deal with a lot of different response styles. Here, deception should be
considered a standard part of the approach process.
-Deception is a multidimensional construct that manifests itself in different ways
across different settings.
-Deception can change in direction and intensity and is often adaptive, but not
always.
-Individuals who engage in misleading behaviours are not always aware of the
reasons why they are misleading.
-If we assume the DSM-5 screening indicators (e.g., background, setting,
discrepancy and assessment attitude) for malingering, we get a large number of
false positives.
-Many individuals who meet the appropriate indicators do not appear to be using
intentional deception.
-However, the DSM-5 screening is still widely used.
-When evaluating feigning and related reaction styles, several conceptual issues
must be considered:
An individual’s motivation must be considered, since malingering and
feigning must be intentional.
Clinicians should not equate (gelijkstellen) test results with a classification
of malingering or feigning. Thus, a single test result should not be used to
establish deception.
-A multimodal approach is empirically best.
The behaviours associated with malingering are not taxonomic.
Clinicians should observe explanatory models of malingering.
-Behaviours associated with deception may include 2 or 3 of the
explanatory models, because explanatory models are not discrete
categories.
Clinicians must agree with each other regarding the use of language
regarding malingering.
-Most types of deception are not related to malingering.
-Deception and disorders of childhood and adolescence:
Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD):
-Behaviours related to deceitfulness are the main component.
-The illnesses involve problems of self-control.
-Sometimes the symptoms reflect behaviours that continue to manifest
into adulthood.
Chapter 1 - An introduction to response styles
-Civil litigation: Juridisch proces door conflict tussen mensen/bedrijven, etc.
-Deception in clinical settings is commonly seen in minimizing perceived distress
or symptoms, in pretending that the therapist’s suggestions are helpful, and in
indicating that homework has been done when it has not.
-Deception also occurs in other settings than the clinical setting.
-The choice a person makes to disclose or decept is often rational and
multidetermined (influenced/caused by multiple factors).
-The decisions one makes are often individualized responses to interpersonal
variables (e.g. a good relationship with a colleague.
-Most individuals engage in a variety of response styles that correspond to their
personal goals in particular settings.
-The general issue of inconsequential (minor, without or with little consequences)
deception must be carefully considered.
-Two extremes of deception:
Tiant hypothesis: When deception is noticed, it is likely that there are
further deceptions in a client’s story. For this reason, deception must be
documented.
Beyond-reasonable-doubt standard: Only convincing evidence of a
reaction style, such as feigning (pretending or faking), should be reported
in criminal trials.
-Especially in forensic practice, the identification of malingering styles is of great
importance in order to establish the reliability of mental health claims.
-Mental health professionals must decide what evidence of response styles
should be routinely included in clinical and forensic reports. These decisions are
influenced by two dimensions:
Accuracy vs completeness of their conclusion.
Use vs misuse of clinical findings by others.
-Standardization of terms and operationalization of response styles are important
for accuracy and replicability.
-A common error is the overspecification of reaction styles (can lead to limited
understanding).
-Professionals are often highly motivated to specify a reaction style, even when
the data is ambiguous. It is therefore important to use the two-step approach for
minimizing overspecification.
-The two-step approach for minimizing overspecification:
Does the clinical data support a non-specific description?
If so, is there sufficient data to determine a specific response style?
-Unreliability: The term that questions the accuracy of reported information. No
assumption is made about the intentions of the individual or the reason for
inaccurate data (if it on purpose or not).
-Nondisclosure: Describes withholding information. No assumptions about
intention.
-Self-disclosure: Refers to how much individuals release about themselves.
-Deception: A term for attempts by individuals to distort or mispresent their self-
,reporting. Deception includes acts of deceit often accompanied by nondisclosure.
-Dissimulation: A general term to describe a wide range of intentional
distortions or misrepresentations of psychological symptoms.
Recommended terms to describe exaggerated pathology are:
-Malingering: The intentional production of false or greatly exaggerated
physical or psychological symptoms motivated by external stimuli.
-Factitious presentations: Are characterized by the ‘intentional production or
feigning’ of symptoms motivated by the desire to assume a ‘sick role’. The
behaviour is thereby present in the absence of external rewards, so there is an
internal motivating factor.
-Feigning: The deliberate fabrication of exaggeration of symptoms without any
assumptions about the goals of the person.
-Psychological testing can be used to identify feigning.
Terms that should be avoided in clinical and forensic settings:
-Suboptimal effort: Is sometimes used as a proxy for malingering. However,
this term can be used with any client because effort is determined by internal
and external factors.
-Overreporting: Refers to an unexpectedly high level of item endorsement
(agreeing with a statement), also known as self-deprecating (zelfspot) reporting.
-Secondary gain: Does have clear definitions, but has conflicting meanings.
Terms used to describe reaction styles associated with simulated adaptation:
-Defensiveness: The denial or minimizing of symptoms.
-Social desirability: The persistent tendency of individuals to present
themselves as positively as possible with respect to social norms. This involves
denial of negative characteristics.
-Impression management: The intentional effort to control others’ perceptions
of you.
Other response styles:
-Irrelevant responding: Refers to the response style in which the individual
does not become psychologically involved in the process. The given responses
are not necessarily related to the content. This possibly reflects disinterest or
negligence.
-Random responding: A subset of irrelevant answers based entirely on chance,
such as when taking a test.
-Acquiescent responding: Commonly referred to as ‘yea-saying’, so saying
yes.
-Disacquiescent responding: Saying no or disagreeing with everything on a
test.
-Role assumption: Individuals may occasionally assume the role or character of
another person when responding to psychological measures.
-Hybrid responding: An individual uses multiple response styles in a situation.
-Malingering is not rare.
-Deception is not evidence of malingering.
-Malingering does not exclude real disorders.
-According to the adaptation model, malingerers engage in a cost-benefit
analysis when choosing to feign symptoms.
-The pathogenic model conceptualizes an underlying disorder as a motivator
,for feigning. The malingerers, in an effort to control their real disability,
voluntarily produce symptoms. As their condition worsens, they are presumably
less able to control the feigned disorder.
-The pathogenic model does not appear to be representative of many
malingerers.
-The criminological model states that the underlying logic is that malingering
is typically an antisocial act likely to be committed by antisocial individuals. The
DSM-5 lists 4 indicators for this (forensic context, antisocial background,
uncooperative and discrepancies with objective findings). However, malingering
is not an antisocial act by an antisocial person and the indicators don’t work well.
-The problem with the criminological model is that it assumes general
characteristics (4 indicators) of malingerers rather than distinctive ones (e.g.,
many malingerers have an antisocial background, but so do many people with
disorders).
-Since most reaction styles are conceptualized as intentional attempts, an
individual’s motivation is important. This motivational basis (explanatory models)
has important implications for clinical and forensic practice.
-Simulated adaptation: A general category that is probably the most common
combination of reaction styles and includes defensiveness, impression
management and social desirability.
-Four basic designs are used in research on reaction styles:
Simulation research: Analogue research randomly assigns participants
to different experimental conditions.
-Results are typically compared to relevant clinical groups.
-The internal validity is strong (standardization, etc.) and the external
validity is weak.
-The classification is testable.
Known-groups comparison: A research method where a measure or test
is used to distinguish between groups that are already known to differ on a
specific characteristic or condition.
-Internal validity is weak (researchers have no control) and the external
validity is strong.
-The classification is testable.
Differential prevalence design: A research approach used to compare
how frequently certain response styles occur between different groups.
-Based on assumed incentives (extrinsic motivation), greater numbers of a
broadly defined group (e.g., litigation/procesvoering) are expected to have
a specific response style when compared to a second group (e.g.,
nonlitigation).
-Internal validity is weak and external validity is weak to moderate.
-The classification is not testable.
Partial criterion design: A research approach where researchers use
only some of the ideal criteria or measures to evaluate or classify
something, rather than all possible criteria.
-By using multiple scales or indicators, researchers seek to increase the
likelihood of an accurate classification. The goal is to achieve a moderate
level of classification. As a partial criterion, it sacrifices accuracy for more
expedient (faster and practical) research.
, -Internal validity is weak and external validity is moderately strong.
-The classification is variable.
Chapter 5 - Syndromes associated with deception.
-Deception is a central component in malingering according to the DSM-5.
-Malingering is described in terms of false presentations and external stimuli.
-In psychotherapeutic settings, it is often assumed that people are sincere and
that they desire personal growth.
-In treatment settings, response style is considered unimportant because the goal
is to improve client functioning.
-In adversarial (vijandige) situations, such as court-ordered evaluations,
examiners deal with a lot of different response styles. Here, deception should be
considered a standard part of the approach process.
-Deception is a multidimensional construct that manifests itself in different ways
across different settings.
-Deception can change in direction and intensity and is often adaptive, but not
always.
-Individuals who engage in misleading behaviours are not always aware of the
reasons why they are misleading.
-If we assume the DSM-5 screening indicators (e.g., background, setting,
discrepancy and assessment attitude) for malingering, we get a large number of
false positives.
-Many individuals who meet the appropriate indicators do not appear to be using
intentional deception.
-However, the DSM-5 screening is still widely used.
-When evaluating feigning and related reaction styles, several conceptual issues
must be considered:
An individual’s motivation must be considered, since malingering and
feigning must be intentional.
Clinicians should not equate (gelijkstellen) test results with a classification
of malingering or feigning. Thus, a single test result should not be used to
establish deception.
-A multimodal approach is empirically best.
The behaviours associated with malingering are not taxonomic.
Clinicians should observe explanatory models of malingering.
-Behaviours associated with deception may include 2 or 3 of the
explanatory models, because explanatory models are not discrete
categories.
Clinicians must agree with each other regarding the use of language
regarding malingering.
-Most types of deception are not related to malingering.
-Deception and disorders of childhood and adolescence:
Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD):
-Behaviours related to deceitfulness are the main component.
-The illnesses involve problems of self-control.
-Sometimes the symptoms reflect behaviours that continue to manifest
into adulthood.
