Negative Validity Test Results are Overlooked in Feigning Determinations

The present study examined whether antisocial personality features in a case vignette raise initial suspicion of feigning and serve as an anchor so that subsequent corrective information is not integrated into the final conclusion. Psychologists (N = 106) were randomly allocated to an antisocial, hysterical, or neutral case vignette. In consecutive steps, they received new information, including corrective information in the form of passes on Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs). Right after the case vignette and each step, they rated the likelihood of feigning and their confidence in this judgment. Finally, participants indicated whether they would mention suspicion of feigning in their report. Our main findings show that baseline likelihood estimates of feigning were elevated across conditions and were higher for the antisocial case vignette than the neutral but not the hysterical case vignette. Furthermore, regardless of case vignette, psychologists did not adjust initial estimates to a meaningful degree in response to SVT/PVT passes. The proportion of psychologists endorsing suspicion of feigning in their report was comparable across conditions, with 58% of the sample endorsing this option. Taken together, although psychologists’ initial likelihood estimates of feigning may be slightly elevated in cases in which the patient fits an antisocial typology, our findings more so suggest that psychologists have a tendency to anchor subsequent estimates to their first judgment. Additionally, psychologists’ failure to integrate SVT/PVT passes into their judgment may indicate insufficient knowledge about the informational value of such scores, an issue that may be countered with education and training.