Samenvatting
SUMMARY Deception in Clinical Settings - Literature and Articles
A summary of all the literature and articles.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 47 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 47 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Deceptions in Clinical SettingsLiterature
Week 1
Chapter 1: An introduction to response styles
Self-Disclosure and Deception in Various Contexts
Self-disclosure in therapeutic relationships often remains incomplete or distorted, even when clients
are deeply engaged. Research indicates that clients intentionally withhold personal information on
topics like substance abuse, relationship issues, and mental health struggles. Many clients minimize
their distress or overstate the effectiveness of therapy to conform to what they perceive as socially
acceptable or to avoid confrontation. Deception is not unique to therapy; it also extends to personal
and professional relationships. For example, in intimate relationships, there are often unspoken rules
about acceptable dishonesty, and many people believe they are better at deceiving their partners than
the reverse.
In the workplace, particularly regarding mental disorders, individuals frequently opt not to disclose
their issues due to fears related to job security and public stigma. Employees often adjust their
response styles based on interpersonal relationships or specific situational demands. Decisions to
disclose or deceive are typically rational and based on a range of factors, from personal comfort levels
to the perceived consequences of honesty.
Fundamentals of Response Styles
Response styles refer to various ways individuals manage the information they present in specific
contexts. These styles can be divided into multiple categories, each reflecting different motives or
behaviors:
1. Nonspecific Terms:
o Unreliability describes the general inaccuracy in reported information without
assuming intent.
o Nondisclosure involves withholding information, which might not necessarily imply
deceit.
o Self-Disclosure concerns the openness with which an individual shares personal
information. High self-disclosure can foster relationships, while reluctance does not
always imply dishonesty.
o Deception encompasses any attempt to distort or misrepresent self-reporting, often
blending acts of deceit and nondisclosure.
o Dissimulation broadly refers to deliberate distortions of psychological symptoms,
which can occur without necessarily fitting into malingering or other specified
deceptive categories.
2. Overstated Pathology:
o Malingering is the intentional production or exaggeration of symptoms motivated by
external incentives like financial gain or avoiding obligations. It involves significant
deceit regarding psychological or physical symptoms.
1
, o Factitious Disorder involves the intentional feigning of symptoms driven by an
internal desire to assume the "sick role", which may or may not include external
incentives.
o Feigning is the deliberate exaggeration or fabrication of symptoms without specifying
the motivation behind it.
Certain terms like suboptimal effort, overreporting, and secondary gain lack precise definitions and
can introduce ambiguity into clinical assessments. Such terms often have multiple interpretations
depending on the context, making them unreliable for forensic evaluations.
Simulated Adjustment and Impression Management
Response styles associated with simulated adjustment often involve presenting oneself more favorably
than reality. Defensiveness is defined as the intentional minimization of symptoms, while social
desirability refers to efforts to align self-presentation with socially accepted norms. Impression
management is about controlling others' perceptions, which could be aimed at maximizing social
outcomes or shaping one's identity in specific scenarios. This can vary widely across different cultural
contexts.
Clinically, defensiveness applies to concealing psychological impairments, whereas social
desirability and impression management are broader, encompassing attempts to present oneself as
more socially acceptable or competent. These behaviors are context-dependent and can shift
depending on the situation, such as during job applications versus more routine interactions.
Other Notable Response Styles
• Irrelevant Responding involves individuals providing answers that are not genuinely
connected to the assessment's content, which might result from disinterest or a desire to
disengage.
• Random Responding is a subset where responses are given without any consideration, often
as a result of careless behavior.
• Acquiescent Responding (yea-saying) and Disacquiescent Responding (nay-saying)
indicate consistent agreement or disagreement without specific reasoning.
• Role Assumption occurs when individuals assume the persona of another during
psychological assessments, reflecting a response style that is less understood but may be
influential in certain scenarios.
• Hybrid Responding involves using multiple response styles in different situations. For
example, someone might respond honestly about most aspects of their life but become
defensive about specific areas like substance abuse.
Misconceptions about Malingering
Malingering is surrounded by myths, which can lead to misdiagnoses:
• It is often assumed that malingering is rare or that only antisocial individuals engage in it.
However, malingering is more common than believed, especially in high-stakes scenarios
like forensic evaluations.
• A common but incorrect belief is that once someone is labeled a malingerer, they always
display that behavior. In reality, malingering is often context-specific, motivated by
particular situational demands, and not a fixed trait.
2
, • Some equate general deception or dishonesty with malingering, which is misleading. Lying
does not necessarily mean someone is feigning a mental disorder.
• Another misconception is that malingering is mutually exclusive from genuine mental
disorders. It is possible for individuals to malinger while also experiencing legitimate
mental health issues.
Clinical and Forensic Models of Response Styles
The motivational basis of response styles plays a crucial role in clinical and forensic settings. The
adaptational model suggests that malingerers engage in a cost-benefit analysis when choosing
whether to feign symptoms, weighing the potential gains against the risks. This model is particularly
evident in forensic contexts, where malingering often involves strategic decisions about how to
manipulate outcomes favorably, such as during evaluations for disability benefits or legal defenses.
Other models, like the pathogenic model, suggest that malingering is motivated by an underlying
psychological condition, which the individual attempts unsuccessfully to control. However, empirical
evidence does not strongly support this model in typical forensic scenarios. The criminological
model, as described by the DSM, ties malingering to antisocial personality traits, but this approach has
a high error rate and lacks utility in accurately distinguishing malingerers in forensic settings.
Research Designs for Studying Response Styles
Four primary research designs are used to study response styles:
1. Simulation Research involves assigning participants to experimental conditions to assess
differences in response styles. This approach is effective in ensuring internal validity but
lacks external validity since participants do not face the actual consequences of response
styles in real-world scenarios.
2. Known-Groups Comparisons require high classification accuracy and independent
validation. This method ensures strong external validity by using real-world participants and
settings.
3. Differential Prevalence Design uses assumed incentives to classify participants broadly.
However, this method is often flawed due to its reliance on proxy variables like litigation
status, which do not reliably classify response styles.
4. Partial Criterion Design relies on multiple scales or indicators to improve classification
accuracy but still falls short compared to known-groups approaches due to its reduced
reliability.
The chapter highlights the importance of using appropriate research designs when studying response
styles. Poorly designed studies can lead to inaccurate conclusions and ultimately affect clinical and
forensic practices negatively.
Looking Forward and Broader Implications
The discussion on response styles extends across multiple domains, from malingering to defensive
behaviors and impression management. Each response style has unique implications in clinical,
forensic, and occupational settings, and understanding these nuances is crucial for accurate
assessments.
The chapter emphasizes that response styles are not fixed but are instead dynamic and influenced by
various personal and contextual factors. Clinicians and researchers are encouraged to consider the
motivational basis behind each response style, ensuring that assessments are both accurate and fair. A
3
, deep understanding of response styles helps professionals make better judgments in complex cases,
particularly when the stakes are high, such as in legal or compensation-related evaluations.
Chapter 5: Syndromes associated with deception
The Nature of Deception in Clinical and Forensic Contexts
Deception is a significant aspect of malingering and is central to forensic evaluations, especially those
ordered by the court. In forensic settings, individuals are more likely to engage in deceptive behavior,
unlike in traditional psychotherapy settings, where honesty is often presumed because most clients
seek treatment willingly. The DSM-5 describes malingering as the intentional production of false or
grossly exaggerated symptoms motivated by external incentives, such as avoiding work, evading
criminal prosecution, or obtaining financial compensation.
In forensic contexts, base rates of symptom exaggeration can be high, with estimates between 15-
30%. This makes recognizing deception a standard part of clinical assessments, especially in
adversarial settings like court-ordered evaluations, where the stakes are high. Deception is described as
a multidimensional construct that varies in direction and intensity across different situations. It is not
a simple, binary classification but can change based on the context and the individual's motives.
Disorders Commonly Associated with Deception
Different psychological disorders are associated with varying forms of deception, often depending on
the context and individual motivations. The chapter examines several syndromes linked to deception:
• Conduct and Oppositional Defiant Disorders (ODD/CD): Deceptive behavior is common
in CD and ODD, especially in adolescents, where deceit is part of poor impulse control or
antisocial behavior. In CD, deceitfulness is a diagnostic criterion, often involving lying and
manipulation to achieve instrumental goals. In ODD, deception manifests indirectly,
frequently relating to negative attitudes toward authority figures. Both disorders, particularly
when associated with psychopathic traits, show deceit as a core element that negatively
impacts relationships.
• Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD): Deception in RAD differs significantly from CD and
ODD in its motivation. For individuals with RAD, deceit may be an adaptive response to past
trauma, used to protect themselves from perceived dangers in social interactions. This form of
deception often stems from a history of abuse and neglect, and understanding these underlying
motivations is crucial in treatment and assessment.
• Factitious Disorder and Factitious Disorder Imposed by Another (FDIA): Factitious
Disorder involves intentional deception about illness or impairment without obvious external
gain, unlike malingering. FDIA (previously called Munchausen by Proxy) involves a
caregiver deliberately inducing or fabricating symptoms in another person, often a child, to
gain attention or sympathy. Diagnosing FDIA is challenging due to the sophisticated nature of
the deception, and it has serious implications, including potential criminal charges against the
caregiver.
• Eating Disorders (Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa): Deception in eating disorders
is widespread, often used to hide behaviors like bingeing, purging, or excessive exercise.
Individuals may lie about their weight, caloric intake, or compliance with treatment. This
deceit serves the purpose of maintaining their illness while avoiding scrutiny or intervention
from others, such as healthcare providers or family members.
• Substance Use Disorders: Deception is central to substance abuse, as individuals often
conceal their drug use, fabricate symptoms to obtain prescription medications, or lie about
4
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper marjolein168. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,56. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 60904 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen