RESEARCH PAPER
Patterns of intentional faking in questionnaire-based study of psychopathy
Submission date: 2017-09-15
Final revision date: 2018-09-11
Acceptance date: 2018-09-13
Online publication date: 2018-12-19
Publication date: 2018-12-17
Current Issues in Personality Psychology 2018;6(4):305-317
KEYWORDS
psychopathyQuestionnaire-based study of personalityfaking-goodfaking-badquestionnaire-based study of personalityfaking goodfaking bad
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The aim of the study was to identify the patterns of two types of faking the results of a self-report study – faking good and faking bad – and to determine their relationships with the images obtained as a result of completing a questionnaire in accordance with the standard instructions and therefore regarded as subjectively true. We investigated faking resulting from a short-term attitude stemming from the presence of a particular theme in the context of the items of a questionnaire assessing psychopathic personality.
Participants and procedure:
The results were collected in a population of participants (N = 173) of full legal age and without a criminal record. To examine the research problem, we used cluster analysis and Pearson’s r correlation coefficient. Calculations were performed in the R environment. The division of participants into homogeneous groups was based on the criterion of optimal breadth of the Silhouette index in accordance with the Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) method.
Results:
Five separate patterns of faking good and three patterns of faking bad during self-report assessment were distinguished. Intergroup differences in traits and behaviors characteristic of psychopathy in the groups distinguished based on the pattern of faking bad were not found.
Conclusions:
It can be concluded that the levels of traits and behavior patterns defining psychopathic personality are related to a particular profile produced as a result of faking good. The present study does not show the existence of a relationship between the level of psychopathy and any particular strategy of presenting oneself in a worse light.
The aim of the study was to identify the patterns of two types of faking the results of a self-report study – faking good and faking bad – and to determine their relationships with the images obtained as a result of completing a questionnaire in accordance with the standard instructions and therefore regarded as subjectively true. We investigated faking resulting from a short-term attitude stemming from the presence of a particular theme in the context of the items of a questionnaire assessing psychopathic personality.
Participants and procedure:
The results were collected in a population of participants (N = 173) of full legal age and without a criminal record. To examine the research problem, we used cluster analysis and Pearson’s r correlation coefficient. Calculations were performed in the R environment. The division of participants into homogeneous groups was based on the criterion of optimal breadth of the Silhouette index in accordance with the Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) method.
Results:
Five separate patterns of faking good and three patterns of faking bad during self-report assessment were distinguished. Intergroup differences in traits and behaviors characteristic of psychopathy in the groups distinguished based on the pattern of faking bad were not found.
Conclusions:
It can be concluded that the levels of traits and behavior patterns defining psychopathic personality are related to a particular profile produced as a result of faking good. The present study does not show the existence of a relationship between the level of psychopathy and any particular strategy of presenting oneself in a worse light.
REFERENCES (55)
1.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington: American Psychiatric Association.
2.
Arendasy, M., Sommer, M., Herle, M., Schützhofer, B., & Inwanschitz, D. (2011). Modeling effects of faking on objective personality test. Journal of Individual Differences, 32, 210–218.
3.
Book, A. S., Holden, R. R., Starzyk, K. B., Wasylkiw, L., & Edwards, M. J. (2006). Psychopathic traits and experimentally induced deception in self-report assessment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 601–608.
4.
Brzezińska, A. I., & Brzeziński, J. M. (2011). Skale szacunkowe w badaniach diagnostycznych [Rating scales in diagnostic studies]. In J. M. Brzeziński (Ed.), Metodologia badań społecznych. Wybór tekstów [The methodology of social studies] (pp. 299–399). Poznań: Zysk i S-ka.
5.
Cleckley, H. (1988). The mask of sanity. An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby.
6.
Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., & Skeem, J. (2007). Understanding the structure of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. An exploration of methodological confusion. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190, 39–50.
7.
Duda, R. O., & Hart, P. E. (1973). Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis. New York: Wiley.
8.
Edens, J. F., Buffington, J. K., & Tomicic, T. L. (2000). An investigation of the relationship between psychopathic personality traits and malingering on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7, 281–296.
9.
Edens, J.F., Buffington, J.K., Tomicic, T.L., & Riley, B.D. (2001). Effects of Positive Impression Management on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 3, 235–256.
10.
Eitan, D. G. (2011). Is the truth visible? Study along the L scale. Open Psychology Journal, 4, 73–87.
11.
Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 385–400.
12.
Furnham, A. (1990). Faking personality questionnaires: Fabricating different profiles for different purposes. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 9, 46–55.
13.
Gacono, C. B., Meloy, J. R., Sheppard, K., Speth, E. B., & Roske, A. (1995). A clinical investigation of malingering and psychopathy in hospitalized insanity acquittees. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 23, 1–11.
14.
Goffin, R. D., & Boyd, A. C. (2009). Faking and personality assessment in personnel selection: Advancing models of faking. Canadian Psychology, 50, 151–160.
15.
Goffin, R. D., & Christiansen, N. D. (2003). Correcting personality tests for faking: A review of popular personality tests and initial survey of researchers. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 340–344.
16.
Groth, J., & Cierpiałkowska, L. (2012). Pięcioczynnikowy model osobowości a profile psychopatii w grupie nieprzestępczej [The five-factor model of personality and psychopathy profiles in the noncriminal group]. Czasopismo Psychologiczne, 18, 107–118.
17.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54.
19.
Hare, R. D. (2006). Psychopaci są wśród nas [Psychopaths are among us]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Znak.
20.
Hare, R. D. (2008). Psychological instruments in the assessment of psychopathy. In A. Felthous & H. Sass (Eds.), The international handbook of psychopathic disorders and the law (pp. 41–67). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
21.
Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., & Newman, J. P. (1990). The revised psychopathy checklist: Reliability and factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 25, 338–341.
22.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy. Development, structural properties, and new directions. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58–88). New York: The Guilford Press.
23.
Jackson, D. N., & Wroblewski, V. R. (2000). The impact of faking on employment tests: Does forced choice offer a solution? Human Performance, 13, 371–388.
24.
Klaver, J. R., Lee, Z., & Hart, S. D. (2007). Psychopathy and nonverbal indicators of deception in offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 337–351.
25.
Kosson, D. S., Gacono, C. B., & Bodholdt, R. H. (2000). Assessing psychopathy: Interpersonal aspects and clinical interviewing. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 203–230). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Methodological advances and developments in the assessment of psychopathy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 99–125.
27.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2006). The self-report assessment of psychopathy. In Ch. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107–132). New York: The Guilford Press.
28.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised. Professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
29.
Lynam, D. R. (2002). Psychopathy from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp. 325–348). Washington: American Psychological Association.
30.
Lynam, D. R., & Derefinko, K. J. (2006). Psychopaty and personality. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 133–155). New York: The Guilford Press.
31.
MacNeil, B. M., & Holden, R. R. (2006). Psychopathy and the detection of faking on self-report inventories of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 641–651.
32.
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812–821.
33.
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Toward an integrated model of applicant faking behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 979–1016.
34.
Meloy, J. R., & Gacono, C. B. (2000). Assessing psychopathy: Psychological testing and report writing. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 231–250). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35.
Miller, J.D., Lynam, D.R., Widiger, T.A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the Five- Factor Model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253–276.
36.
Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., & Widiger, T. A. (2006). The five-factor model of personality disorder. In R. F. Krueger & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 39–70). New York: The Guilford Press.
37.
Neumann, C. S., Malterer, M. B., & Newman, J. P. (2008). Factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI): Findings from a large incarcerated sample. Psychological Assessment, 20, 169–174.
38.
Paluchowski, W. J. (2001). Diagnoza psychologiczna [Psychological assessment]. Warszawa: Scholar.
39.
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.
40.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197–1208.
41.
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
42.
Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 307–317.
43.
Paulhus, D. L., & Holden, R. R. (2009). 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. 221–240). New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org.
45.
Reise, S. P., & Oliver, C. J. (1994). Development of a California Q-set indicator of primary psychopathy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 130–144.
46.
Reynolds, A., Richards, G., de la Iglesia, B., & Rayward-Smith, V. (1992). Clustering rules: A comparison of partitioning and hierarchical clustering algorithms. Journal of Mathematical Modelling and Algorithms, 5, 475–504. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s108....
47.
Rogers, R., & Cruise, K. R. (2000). Malingering and deception among psychopaths. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 269–284). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48.
Sanocki, W. (1970). Postawa wobec badania a wyniki inwentarza osobowości [Attitude towards the study and personality inventory scores]. Przegląd Penitencjarny, 27, 49–72.
49.
Sanocki, W. (1978). Kwestionariusze osobowości w psychologii [Personality questionnaires in psychology]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
50.
Seto, M. C., Khattar, N. A., Lalumiére, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1997). Deception and sexual strategy in psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 301–307.
51.
Siuta, J. (2006). Inwentarz Osobowości NEO-PI-R Paula T. Costy Jr i Roberta R. McCrae [The NEO-PI-R Personality Inventory by Paul T. Costa Jr. and Robert R. McCrae. Polish adaptation: A manual]. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
52.
Snell, A. F., Sydell, E. J., & Lueke, S. B. (1999). Towards a theory of applicant faking: Integrating studies of deception. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 219–242.
53.
Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Psychopathy and the five-factor model of personality. In Th. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy. Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 171–187). New York: The Guilford Press.
54.
Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Blonigen, D. M. (2009). Using existing self-report inventories to measure the psychopathic personality traits of fearless dominance and impulsive antisociality. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1006–1016.
55.
Zickar, M. J., & Robie, C. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 551–563.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2353-561X |
| ISSN: | 2353-4192 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
