The MMPI-2 Test and response times: Evaluating dissembling behavior in the field of forensics

In the course of their work, experts in the field of forensics must evaluate not only the validity of what has been reported to them, but also the validity of who does the reporting. The entire relationship between subject and forensic science specialist is influenced by a series of elements that may alter the genuineness of a diagnosis (e.g. the examiner’s style; the rigid and constrictive nature of the exam; the repercussions of the outcomes of the exam; the need for the results to be reported to a third party; and the tendency of evaluated subjects to dissemble. Concealment of a syndrome represents a problem in the diagnostic process that results in an increase of false positives. A dissembler is a person who is well aware of the truth, but denies it by mentally managing two conflicting affirmations. In the field of legal medicine and forensics it is necessary to face up to the limits of subjectivity and clinical observations. The use of psychodiagnostic instruments, in these cases, appears to be indispensible. The MMPI-2 test is the principal instrument possessing indices that are able to root out concealing behaviors in subjects who are being examined “Lying and concealing” behaviors are accompanied by verbal and non-verbal elements, including such paralinguistic clues as body language. “The latency period” plays a particularly interesting role among the various forms of non-verbal behavior, and is often considered to be a non-verbal sign that the subject is probably lying . Beginning with the hypothesis that one can expect a longer response time by dissemblers because of their need to “manage mental information”, the goal was set to verify potential information in connection to response times on the MMPI-2 test items as an instrument that can identify concealing behaviors. This study was conducted using the computerized version of the MMPI-2, which is able to automatically calculate response times. Fifty-nine males and 17 females were enlisted and subdivided into four groups based on the reasons for which they underwent legal medical assessment: candidate for a driver’s license; suitability to carry a firearm; appropriateness for a particular job; and fitness to be a parent. These subjects were compared to a control group made up of voluntary subjects deemed to be clinically healthy and not influenced by ulterior advantages or interests regarding the completion of the test. This group was controlled for number, age, and level of education. The usefulness of response times in identifying “dissemblers” from the control gro