Are forensic evaluators more likely to conclude that Black or White defendants are malingering?

Abstract

Objective: Malingering is a particularly stigmatizing forensic opinion that may be prone to racial bias, although scant research has investigated the possibility. We examined whether forensic evaluators are more likely to opine that Black defendants or White defendants are overstating mental health symptoms.

Hypotheses: Study 1 (a field study) was exploratory. Following Study 1 findings, in Study 2 (an experiment), we hypothesized that participants would opine malingering more frequently for a Black defendant compared with a White defendant.

Method: In Study 1, we reviewed a large statewide sample of trial competence reports, of which 558 identified the defendant's race as Black or White. We coded feigning/malingering opinion and defendant race to assess associations. In Study 2, we randomly assigned forensic clinicians (N = 136; 78.7% identified as White only; 93.3% held a clinical doctoral degree; M = 10.7 years since earning highest degree) to read a mock competence report identifying the defendant's race as Black or White. Participants then provided opinions about malingering, competence, and other clinical judgments.

Results: Study 1 demonstrated that one prolific real-world evaluator identified Black defendants as feigning/malingering five times more often than White defendants, although there was no racial disproportionality in the overall sample after accounting for this one evaluator's influence. In Study 2, defendant race was not significantly associated with malingering opinions or virtually any other clinical judgments. Hospital-based evaluators opined malingering more often than evaluators in private practice, and novice evaluators opined malingering more often than experienced evaluators.

Conclusions: Assessing racial bias among forensic clinicians is complex, particularly when the target is a stigmatizing but low-base-rate opinion such as malingering. Results underscore the impact of individual evaluator differences and suggest a need for evaluators themselves, and perhaps state agencies, to monitor forensic opinions to identify potential bias and remediate outlying practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).