Detecting malingered memory problems in the civil and criminal arena

Abstract

Feigning a psychiatric or neurological disorder may be an attractive strategy to obtain all sorts of privileges or disability benefits. In the criminal arena, feigning memory loss for a crime (crime-related amnesia) may be a way for defendants to gain sympathy or to promote a diminished capacity defence. Although crime-related amnesia may, under some circumstances, be genuine, in many cases it is more likely to be malingered. Malingered memory problems are a subtle form of deception and what is true for deceptive behaviour in general is also true for malingering memory loss: on the basis of clinical intuition alone, it is difficult to detect. Fortunately, there are methods and tools to evaluate the authenticity of memory problems. It is important that forensic and clinical psychologists familiarize themselves with these techniques.Every now and then, most individuals intentionally conceal or distort important information about themselves. This is true in therapeutic settings, personal relationships, and the legal arena. For a civil litigant or offender who wants to conceal or distort something, memory is an attractive option. The point is that the evaluation of memory depends on verbal self-reports. It is difficult to check directly the extent to which these self-reports truly reflect memory capacity. In addition, memory is a vital capacity. A memory dysfunction interferes with the ability to meet requirements for work and so gives rise to the issue of compensation. In the criminal domain, loss of memory for crime details may indicate the possibility that the crime was unintentional and, in this way, raises the issue of diminished responsibility. This article addresses the concept of malingering in general and that of feigning memory loss in particular. It also focuses on methods to detect feigned memory loss. The first part reviews the literature on the feigning of cognitive dysfunctions in civil cases (e.g. personal injury cases). Several instruments to test this type of malingering are discussed. The second part focuses on claims of crime-related amnesia, and the role of expectancies, psychopathy, and alcohol in such claims. We also briefly discuss guidelines and tests to assess the authenticity of amnesia claims in criminal cases.

The Effects of Alcohol on Crime‐related Memories: A Field Study

“…Our field study illustrates that the poor memory of such individuals is substantial and genuine (e.g. cannot be accounted for in terms of feigning; see also Van Oorsouw & Merckelbach, 2010).…”

Effects of time pressure on strategy selection and strategy execution in forced choice tests

“…Although examinees who are unaware of the correct answer have no choice other than to guess, examinees who try to conceal their knowledge tend to purposefully select incorrect answers. Therefore, test scores fall below chance levels—so‐called underperformance—and can be used as detection criterion (Bianchini, Mathias, & Greve, ; Van Oorsouw & Merckelbach, ).…”

Resistance to coaching in forced‐choice testing

“…Forced‐choice testing (FCT) has been used as a test to detect malingering of sensory impairment (Pankratz, Fausti, & Peed, ). More recently, its use has been extended to detect cases of faked memory loss (e.g., Denney, ; Hiscock & Hiscock, ; Pankratz, ; Van Oorsouw & Merckelbach, ) and concealed information (e.g., Giger, Merten, Merckelbach, & Oswald, ; Meijer, Smulders, Johnston, & Merckelbach, ; Orthey, Vrij, Leal, & Blank, ; Shaw, Vrij, Mann, Leal, & Hillman, ), from which guilty knowledge can be inferred. In the case of concealed information detection, a typical test works as follows: A suspect is presented with a series of questions about the crime.…”