No abstract

Rogers (1990aRogers ( , 1990b proposed three models to explain why certain persons malinger mental illness: pathogenic, criminological, and adaptational. Highly experienced forensic experts (N = 320) performed prototypical ratings on attributes associated with each model; the highest ratings were given to the adaptational model. In addition, a principal components analysis provided initial empirical support for these three explanatory models. The relevance of these findings to theory and clinical practice is discussed.

Explanatory models of malingering strive to understand the primary motivation underlying attempts to feign. Roger~~ Sewell, and Goldstein (1994) provided empirical support for the concepiualization of pathogenic, criminological, and adaptational models. In the cllrrent slUdy, !l prototypical analysis of 221 forensic experts results in a slightly refined formulation: the adaptational model was decomposed into its two broad dimensions (cost-benefit analysis and adversarial setting). An important finding is that the factor structure for rhe explanatory models remained stable when applied to both forensic and nonforensic cases. As a first investigation, significant differences were observed in prototypical cases of malingering by the category of referral (forensic or nonforensic) and by type of feigning (mental disorders, cognitive impairment, and medical syndromes). Surprisingl>; the feigning of medical syndromes appeared to play a relatively prominent role in both forensic alld nonforensic cases and to be influenced by the apparent adversarial context of the assessment. Finally, important gender differences were observed, especially with nonforensic prototypical cases of malingering.

No abstract