Validation of the Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS) in the UK and examination of the links between PDS and personality
| Published date | 13 March 2017 |
| Date | 13 March 2017 |
| Pages | 38-50 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-10-2016-0027 |
| Author | Ruth J. Tully,Tom Bailey |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Validation of the Paulhus Deception
Scales (PDS) in the UK and examination
of the links between PDS and personality
Ruth J. Tully and Tom Bailey
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS) (Paulhus, 1998) for
use in the UK. Given the forensic use of the PDS, this study aimed to examine whether the subscales of
impression management (IM) and self-deception enhancement (SDE) predict anti-social personality and
narcissistic personality, respectively.
Design/methodology/approach –A UK general population sample completed the PDS and the
International Personality Disorder Examination personality screening tool (Loranger, 1999). Findings were
compared to original Canadian/US norms. Exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM) and factor
analytic techniques were applied to the data.
Findings –Average total and IM scores were significantly higher in the UK than in the original sample.
The tool demonstrated good internal consistency. The initial two-factor model showed relatively poor fit,
which was significantly improved by application of the novel ESEM approach. Higher IM scores significantly
predicted lower anti-social personality. Higher SDE scores significantly predicted narcissistic personality.
Originality/value –The PDS is applicable in the UK, however, users should use UK norms. When assessing
people, especially in a “high stakes”forensic setting, IM should not be considered socially deviant. Those with
high-SDE scores have been found to be narcissistic; consequently, in clinical practice, high-SDE scorers may
need further violence or personality evaluation.
Keywords Personality, Assessment, Impression management, Deception, Anti-social, Narcissistic
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In forensic evaluation, relevant factors include public safety and liberty of an offender.
Therefore, decep tion is an important i ssue to consider when c onducting asses sment of
individual such as alleged offenders, prisoners, or where criminal injury compensation is
concerned. Deception can be considered a “high stake”issue fo r these individua ls under
assessment, (Goz na et al., 2001), as they have much to lose or gain in assessment contexts.
Those being assess ed may deceive thei r assessor by respo nding in what is captu red in the
literature as “socially desirable responding (SDR)”, whether purposeful (e.g. des cribing
themselves in overly positive terms) or otherwise; they may describe themselves very positively
or exaggerate beca use they lack insight and are actually engaging in self-d eception (Paulhus,
1998). Purposefu l or not, overly positi ve descriptions of attit udes, thoughts and b ehaviours
may result in a biased a ssessment by the eva luator, if they do no t know the extent of any
deception. When prisoners or offenders complete self-report questionnaires, it is often
assumed that they ar e not open in respondi ng due to the effects of i mpression manag ement
(IM) and deception (Mills and Kroner, 2006). Some authors therefore argue that assessors
should be vigilant in every case (see Rogers, 2008). Therefore, forensic psychologists,
psychiatrists and other assessors who are tasked with evaluating persons in forensic contexts
on a daily basis turn to t he literature in ord er to consider clinic al assessment tool s that may
supplement their clinical judgement when considering deception.
Received 18 October 2016
Revised 20 December 2016
Accepted 21 December 2016
Declaration of conflicting interests:
the authors declared no potential
conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this paper.
Funding: the authors received no
financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of
this paper.
Ruth J. Tully is a Consultant
Forensic Psychologist at Tully
Forensic Psychology Ltd,
Nottingham, UK and an
Assistant Professor at the
Centre for Forensic and Family
Psychology, The University of
Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Tom Bailey is a PhD Student at
the Work Psychology Research
Group, The University of
Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
PAGE38
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH,POLICY AND PRACTICE
j
VOL. 3 NO. 1 2017, pp.38-50, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841 DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-10-2016-0027
To continue reading
Request your trial