The Use of Subtle Items in Detecting Deception
Stephen E. Dannenbaum, Richard I. Lanyon
Abstract
Stephen E. Dannenbaum, Richard I. Lanyon
Abstract
When subjects attempt to fake psychopathology on the MMPI, scores on subtle subscales tend to be lower than those of nonfaking subjects. Our study hypothesized that this paradox comes about because the subtle subscales have no predictive validity, but their face validity for psychopathology is the opposite of the keyed direction for psychopathology. Subjects who attempt to fake psychopathology do so on the basis of item content and thus achieve lower rather than higher scores. Three groups of 80 undergraduates took the MMPI under regular, faking-good, or faking-bad instructions. As expected, faking-bad subjects scored significantly lower than regular subjects on the 100 most subtle items, and this was due to their responses to those. 73 of the items whose face validity was misleading. The results are consistent with other work showing valid uses of subtle items in detecting deception.
OpenAlex reports 26 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
When subjects attempt to fake psychopathology on the MMPI, scores on subtle subscales tend to be lower than those of nonfaking subjects. Our study hypothesized that this paradox comes about because the subtle subscales have no predictive validity, but their face validity for psychopathology is the opposite of the keyed direction for psychopathology. Subjects who attempt to fake psychopathology do so on the basis of item content and thus achieve lower rather than higher scores. Three groups of 80 undergraduates took the MMPI under regular, faking-good, or faking-bad instructions. As expected, faking-bad subjects scored significantly lower than regular subjects on the 100 most subtle items, and this was due to their responses to those. 73 of the items whose face validity was misleading. The results are consistent with other work showing valid uses of subtle items in detecting deception.
Key concepts: Psychology, Psychopathology, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Deception, Malingering, Psychometrics, Personality test, Predictive validity