The current study represents the first investigation into feigned Miranda abilities using an inpatient population. We investigated the use of a very generic measure (i.e., the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology, or SIMS) as well as two specialized forensic feigning measures: the Miranda Quiz (MQ) and Inventory of Legal Knowledge (ILK). With a quasi‐random assignment, 82 acute inpatients were evenly distributed to “feigning” and “genuine” groups. The recommended SIMS cut score > 14 performed poorly, misclassifying three‐quarters of the genuine group as feigning. In general, sensitivities on the specialized scales were constrained by the general lack of severe decrements for the feigning group. However, specificities were strong to outstanding. In particular, the MQ floor effect showed some promise but was limited by its small number of items. The strongest potential was observed for the revised ILK scales, especially the Revised Clinical ILK (RC‐ILK). When using single‐point cut scores on two prior correctional samples, the RC‐ILK produced excellent sensitivities (0.94 and 0.96) and outstanding specificities (0.98 and 0.99). Methodological issues and professional implications were discussed in the context of feigned Miranda abilities.

Academic dishonesty (AD) continues to be of great concern in higher education (HE). In this chapter, the authors review literature in this area, with a particular emphasis on preventive interventions. In recent years, with the dramatic increase of international students in HE, the authors also address how cultural diversity may further complicate this issue. A current study of cheating behaviors is discussed comparing a sample of undergraduate college students from the United States (US) with a sample of undergraduate college students from China. With reference to those results, the authors then propose intervention strategies for reducing AD based on the literature and results of this comparative study.

This chapter emphasizes the critical importance of clarity and specificity when identifying and defining response styles in forensic contexts. When differentiating “malingering” from “feigning,” and “defensiveness” from “impression management,” forensic practitioners must convey their findings with scientific rigor and unambiguous concision. Empirically validated detection strategies constitute the foundation of response-style research. They are systematically applied genuine responding as well as feigned and other intentionally distorted presentations. The clinical usefulness of strategy-based scales is illustrated with multiscale inventories and such specialized measures as the SIRS-2. In forensic practice, it is particularly important to minimize shortcuts, such as initial screens, that may jeopardize the validity and accuracy of response-style conclusions. Instead, forensic practitioners are asked to adopt more comprehensive multimethod and multistrategy approaches. This chapter concludes with specific recommendations for improved investigation of response styles in forensic contexts.

The global pandemic has disrupted virtually all countries on health, psychological functioning, and economies, to name a few. Accurate information has also fallen victim to the pandemic, which has been rife with misinformation and conspiracy theories. The current study investigated Covid-19 deceptions related to employment. With complete anonymity via MTurk, 389 participants from the United States rated their likelihood of deception regarding hypothetical four workplace scenarios. The first set of analyses examined differences between high and low risk of deceptions for each scenario based on participants’ self-appraisals. The largest differences were found for general conspiracy beliefs and affective disorders, specifically major depression and generalized anxiety. The second set of analyses focused across the workplace scenarios on two operationalized groups with Likely-Deceptive ( n = 189) vastly outnumbering Likely-Genuine ( n = 55). Personal experiences with Covid-19 dramatically increased deceptions. Testing positive for Covid-19 increased the odds of being in the Likely-Deceptive by twelve-fold. Two discriminant models examined cognitive misbeliefs and psychological functioning. When both were combined, depression and Covid-19 misinformation produced the strongest structure coefficients followed closely by general conspiracy beliefs and generalized anxiety. The far-ranging implications of these findings are discussed.