ABSTRACT
In recent years, attorneys, physicians, and psychologists have had to become more familiar with the diagnosis of malingering. Patients who malinger are consciously choosing to feign or exaggerate symptoms, often in order to obtain compensation. These same professionals are often given the responsibility of determining the degree to which the expressed symptoms represent valid, exaggerated, or feigned deficits. For example, a substantial subgroup of individuals seeking compensation (20% to 25%) may warrant the diagnosis of malingering (Binder, Villanueva, Howieson, & Moore, 1993; Guilmette, Sparadeo, Whelihan, & Buongiorno, 1994). Recently, Binder and Rohling (1996) completed a comprehensive metaanalytic review of the effect of financial compensation on the experience and treatment of head injury. They found that patients who received economic incentives were significantly more likely to persist in their complaints of sequelae, regardless of the severity of their injury. An earlier meta analysis by Rohling, Binder, and Langhinrichsen-Rohling (1995) found
1Please address correspondence to Martin Rohling, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Psychology University of South Alabama 381 Life Science Building Mobile, AL 36688-0002. mrohling@usouthal.edu
comparable results for chronic pain patients. Specifically, compensated chronic pain patients reported more pain than did noncompensated chronic pain patients even when the two groups’ severity of injuries were comparible prior to receiving compensation. In a third meta analytic study, Binder, Rohling, and Larrabee (1997) found the effect size for residual cognitive deficits from mild head injury was nearly zero (e.g., few, if any deficits can be identified on neuropsychological measures following this type of trauma). One implication of these authors’ body of work might be that, in the absence of financial incentives, few patients would experience sequella due to mild head injuries.
