Do impression management and self-deception distort self-report measures with content of dynamic risk factors in offender samples? A meta-analytic review. (May 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hildebrand, Martin; Wibbelink, Carlijn J.M.; Verschuere, Bruno
• Is Part Of: International journal of law and psychiatry. Volume 58(2018)
• Page Start: 157
• Page End: 170
• Publication Date: 2018-05
• Subjects: BIDR -- Impression management -- Self-deceptive enhancement -- Offenders -- Meta-analysis; Forensic psychiatry -- Periodicals; Insanity (Law) -- Periodicals; Criminal psychology -- Periodicals; Forensic Psychiatry -- Periodicals; Psychiatrie médico-légale -- Périodiques; Aliénation mentale -- Périodiques; Gerechtelijke psychiatrie; Electronic journals; 614.15
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.02.013
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0160-2527

Abstract

Abstract: Self-report measures provide an important source of information in correctional/forensic settings, yet at the same time the validity of that information is often questioned because self-reports are thought to be highly vulnerable to self-presentation biases. Primary studies in offender samples have provided mixed results with regard to the impact of socially desirable responding on self-reports. The main aim of the current study was therefore to investigate—via a meta-analytic review of published studies—the association between the two dimensions of socially desirable responding, impression management and self-deceptive enhancement, and self-report measures with content of dynamic risk factors using the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) in offender samples. These self-report measures were significantly and negatively related with self-deception ( r = −0.120, p < 0.001; k = 170 effect sizes) and impression management ( r = −0.158, p < 0.001; k = 157 effect sizes), yet there was evidence of publication bias for the impression management effect with the trim and fill method indicating that the relation is probably even smaller ( r = −0.07). The magnitude of the effect sizes was small. Moderation analyses suggested that type of dynamic risk factor (e.g., antisocial cognition versus antisocial personality), incentives, and publication year affected the relationship between impression management and self-report measures with content of dynamic risk factors, whereas sample size, setting (e.g., incarcerated, community), and publication year influenced the relation between self-deception and these self-report measures. The results indicate that the use of self-report measures to assess dynamic risk factors in correctional/forensic settings is not inevitably compromised by socially desirable responding, yet caution is warranted for some risk factors (antisocial personality traits), particularly when incentives are at play.