Psychological and Social Perspectives on Malingering and Symptom Exaggeration: Conceptualization and Interventions Using Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

Malingering and the production of false symptoms seen in such disorders as Factitious Disorder are an ongoing mystery to medical and mental health professionals. Historically, these presentations have been difficult to identify and treat. As might be expected, individuals with such symptomology rarely agree to participate in research, possibly because of a reluctance to admit to the feigning or exaggerating behaviors and a fear of reprisals. Many different etiologies have been proposed, including the assumption of roles in order to manage impressions, taking control of symptoms in order to gain attention or other rewards or avoid aversive events, and even the production of symptoms that is largely out of awareness such as is seen in conversion or somatoform presentations. By examining historical and present-day beliefs about etiology and treatment interventions, professionals can explore what new types of effective treatment might look like. The behaviorist philosophy that underlies Acceptance and Commitment Therapy proposes a perspective emphasizing effective working in context. This philosophy also suggests individuals sometimes engage in behavior in order to escape from or avoid aversive experiences. Utilizing case examples and fresh behavioral perspectives provides insight and ideas for conceptualization of these behaviors of interest. Using the above conceptualizations, an ACT based treatment of those who produce false symptoms is introduced.

Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges

Supreme Court precedent establishes that the government may not punish children for matters beyond their control. Same-sex marriage bans and non-recognition laws (“marriage bans”) do precisely this. The states argue that marriage is good for children, yet marriage bans categorically exclude an entire class of children – children of same-sex couples – from the legal, economic and social benefits of marriage. This amicus brief recounts a powerful body of equal protection jurisprudence that prohibits punishing children to reflect moral disapproval of parental conduct or to incentivize adult behavior. We then explain that marriage bans punish children of same-sex couples because they: 1) foreclose their central legal route to family formation; 2) categorically void their existing legal parent-child relationships incident to out-of-state marriages; 3) deny them economic rights and benefits; and 4) inflict psychological and stigmatic harm. States cannot justify marriage bans as good for children and then exclude children of same-sex couples based on moral disapproval of their same-sex parents’ relationships or to incentivize opposite-sex couples to “procreate” within the bounds of marriage. To do so, severs the connection between legal burdens and individual responsibility and creates a permanent class or caste distinction.