ABSTRACT
One critical issue that has to be systematically addressed during a forensic psychological evaluation involves determining whether the individuals being evaluated are truthfully reporting symptoms of any claimed psychological disorder and the extent to which their ability to function is affected by their psychological condition. Although determining the accuracy of responses is an important part of any psychological evaluation, there may be different reasons individuals distort their account of their psychological functioning during clinical as opposed to forensic evaluations. In clinical evaluations, individuals may be motivated to exaggerate problems as a “plea for help” if they doubt a clinician will take their problems seriously, or may want to downplay or conceal difficulties because of a desire to control how others see them (Greene, 2000; Paulhaus, 1986) or to protect their view of themselves (Huprich & Ganellen, 2005). In contrast, individuals evaluated in the context of a legal proceeding may be motivated to exaggerate problems to obtain a financial settlement in a civil case; avoid punishment by feigning incompetence to stand trial; claim insanity at the time of the crime; or receive a reduced sentence, such as avoiding the death penalty in a capital murder case.
