Do people with knowledge fake better?

Research on malingering that involves analog methods is frequently criticized for using normal subjects Critics have suggested that analog subjects probably perform differently from clinical Malingerers because of the absence of an identifiable incentive for analog malingerers, and because analog subjects have no opportunity to gain knowledge about the disorder to be malingered In contrast, clinical malingerers have an obvious incentive and may have at least a basic knowledge of the characteristics of the disorder they are feigning In this study, psychology graduate students and faculty were asked to malinger a memory deficit on several brief neuropsychological instruments on the premise that malingering would be difficult to detect in this population because of their supposed sophistication Results indicated that in sophisticated subjects, malingering was relatively easy to detect using indices of pattern of performance on standardized neuropsychological instruments, but more difficult to detect using instruments designed to detect malingering based on probability theory, and on specified knowledge of the effects of brain damage.