Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to learn more

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Criminal Justice and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HISCOCK, C. K.
Right arrow Articles by HISCOCK, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Determination of Criminal Responsibility

Application of the Two-Alternative Forced-Choice Stratagem

CHERYL K. HISCOCK

Sam Houston State University

PAMELA J. RUSTEMIER

Sam Houston State University

MERRILL HISCOCK

University of Houston

The two-alternative forced-choice principle, which has been used to detect malingering and "hysterical" symptoms, was applied to the assessment of criminal responsibility in an analog study. Prison inmates and university students completed forced-choice tests of general knowledge and moral reasoning on which below-chance scores indicate dishonest performance. Subjects were assigned randomly to one of three groups: control, naive faking, and coached faking. Significantly greater proportions of subjects in the naive and coached faking groups than in the control group scored significantly below chance on each test. Cutoff scores to maximize accuracy of classification were established for both tests. Implications of the findings for detecting individuals who fake a lack of criminal responsibility are considered, as well as directions for future research with other populations.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 4, 391-405 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0093854893020004007
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
C. Viswesvaran and D. S. Ones
Meta-Analyses of Fakability Estimates: Implications for Personality Measurement
Educational and Psychological Measurement, April 1, 1999; 59(2): 197 - 210.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
C. K. HISCOCK, L. B. LAYMAN, and M. HISCOCK
Cross-Validation of Two Measures for Assessing Feigned Mental Incompetence in Male Prison Inmates
Criminal Justice and Behavior, December 1, 1994; 21(4): 443 - 453.
[Abstract]