Predictive validity despite socialdesirability: evidence for therobustness of self-report amongoffenders

JEREMY F. MILLS1, WAGDY LOZA2 AND DARYL G. KRONER3, 1BathInstitution, Bath, Canada and Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada;Kingston Penitentiary, Kingston, Canada; 2Universities of Carleton(Psychology) and Queen’s (Psychiatry), Canada; 3Pittsburgh Institution,Pittsburgh, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACTIntroduction Many professionals believe that self-report questionnaires used topredict recidivism have a low validity. The aim of the present study was to investigatethe assumption that the validity of self-report is vulnerable to self-presentation biasesin offender samples.Method The participants consisted of 124 male offenders who volunteered tocomplete the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ).Results Lower scores on measures of social desirability were significantly associatedwith higher levels of risk (as measured by self-report and a rated actuarial instrument)and a higher likelihood to re-offend. Further, stepwise regression analysis revealedthat social desirability added significantly unique variance in the prediction of violentrecidivism.Discussion The authors propose that impression management may be an enduringperson-based characteristic within an offender sample rather than a situationallydetermined response style. The variance associated with this characterological infor-mation is proposed to be the source of the unique predictive variance.

Introduction

Many forensic/correctional professionals believe that self-report questionnairesare either not valid when used to predict offender recidivism or that they haveinferior validity as compared to professionally rated measures (Kroner andLoza, 2001). Specific concerns regarding self-report measures are their vulnera-bility to lying, manipulation and self-presentation biases. The lack ofconfidence in self-report measures in predicting recidivism may be the result ofa generalization of poor results obtained from research projects using the

140 Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 13, 140–150 2003 © Whurr Publishers Ltd

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 140

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) or other personalitymeasures such as the Socialization Scale (Soc) of the California PersonalityInventory (CPI; Gough et al., 1965) and the Antisocial Scale of the MillonClinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-II; Millon, 1987).

Given that the majority (87%) of correctional psychologists in the UnitedStates use the MMPI (Boothby and Clements, 2000) it is not surprising thatscepticism regarding self-report abounds. The MMPI has a subscale designedspecifically to detect respondents’ attempts to ‘lie’ or to present themselvesdifferently from their true character such as attempting to ‘fake good’ or ‘fakebad’. These lying and faking assumptions are supported by the common beliefamong the public and correctional staff that offenders are ‘cons’ who shouldnot be trusted and would not hesitate to lie or manipulate their responses onpsychological measures. Support for such a belief is echoed by manyforensic/correctional researchers and professionals (Gendreau et al., 1973;Posey and Hess, 1984; Schretlen and Arkowitz, 1990; Holden et al., 1992).Hare (1985) was more vocal by asserting that ‘there is no reason to assume thata suspected criminal or a prison inmate will reveal anything of real clinicalsignificance about himself on a questionnaire or during an interview, or thathis replies will be related to actual behavior in any consistent fashion’ (p. 157).

In spite of the assumption that self-report measures are more susceptible todeception, evidence exists that self-report questionnaires can be accurate,valid (Kendall and Norton-Ford, 1982), and equivalent to traditional methodsof predicting violent recidivism (Kuriychuk, 1990) and general recidivism(Motiuk et al., 1992). Further, self-reported antisocial personality character-istics, such as those reported by Blackburn and Fawcette (1995) have beenshown to predict violent recidivism (Quinsey et al., 1998) and Kuriychuk(1990) found concordance between Blackburn’s self-reported scales and thePCL-R. Self-reported psychopathology has also been shown to be predictive ofinstitutional adjustment problems in samples of both violent and sexualoffenders (Mills and Kroner, 2003a). In addition, the Self AppraisalQuestionnaire (SAQ: Loza, 1996), a self-report questionnaire which wasdesigned specifically to predict offender general and violent recidivism, wasrepeatedly found to be reliable and valid and at least as effective in predictingoffender post-release outcome when compared with four other widely used andprofessional rated measures (Loza et al., 2000; Kroner and Loza, 2001; Loza andLoza-Fanous, 2001).

Paulhus (1984) holds to a two-dimensional nature of social desirability:impression management and self-deception. The former is the favourablerepresentation of the self to others (‘a positive public impression’, Paulhus,2001, p. 56) and the latter is the unconscious defence against thoughts andfeelings that threaten the self. Paulhus went on to make a distinction betweenthe two factors in terms of their psychometric application. Paulhus suggestedthat impression management should be controlled: ‘There is little reason tobelieve that individual differences in impression management bear any

Social desirability and self-report 141

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 141

intrinsic relation to central content dimensions, so its elimination cangenerally be recommended’ (p. 608). However, with regard to self-deception,Paulhus cautions against routinely controlling for this dimension as it may berelated to the construct of interest. Hence, one could be eliminating valuablevariance. More recently Paulhus (2001) suggests that impression managementshould be used more to explain the absence of an effect rather than as a routinecontrol. This cautionary approach is well given, particularly with offendersamples, as controlling for impression management can eliminate statisticallysignificant relationships (Mills and Kroner, 2003b).

If self-report contains socially desirable responding but can nonetheless bepredictive of behaviour, specifically recidivism in an offender sample (Kronerand Loza, 2001; Mills et al., in press) then the evidence suggests thatimpression management is not masking the relationship between predictor andoutcome. Therefore, the presence of impression management may have aunique relationship either to the sample or to the self-report instruments.

The aim of this research was to investigate the validity of the assumptionthat results obtained from a self-report measure, in this instance the SAQ, arevulnerable to self-presentation biases that reduce predictive efficacy. The SAQhas been shown to be related to rated risk prediction instruments (Loza et al.,2000) therefore it contains variance associated with risk prediction. As a self-report instrument it is assumed that it will also contain variance associatedwith social desirability. However, since it is predictive of recidivism it istherefore hypothesized that the risk portion of variance will exceed the portionof variance associated with social desirability.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 124 male offenders who volunteered to participate inthe study during the process of completing psychological assessments forrelease decision purposes. Participants were incarcerated in various institutionsin the Ontario Region of the Canadian Federal Correctional System. Theparticipants’ ages ranged from 18 to 54 years with a mean of 28.9 (SD = 8.2).Racial composition of the sample was as follows: White 80%, Black 11% andOther 9%.

Measures

The Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ; Loza, 1996)

The SAQ consists of 72 ‘true’ or ‘false’ items and has seven clinical subscalesand a validity subscale. The clinical subscales are: Criminal Tendencies(antisocial attitudes, beliefs, behaviours, and feelings), Antisocial Personality

142 Mills et al.

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 142

Problems (characteristics similar to those used to diagnose antisocial person-ality disorder), Conduct Problems (assesses childhood behavioural problems),Criminal History, Alcohol/Drug Abuse, Anti-Social Associates (the offender’sperception of the effect of his associates on his criminal activities), Anger(measures reaction to anger). The Anger subscale is not included in the totalscore of the SAQ owing to the controversial relationship between anger andrecidivism (Loza and Loza-Fanous, 1999a; 1999b). The validity sub-scale,designed to predict careless responses or other problems associated withresponding to self-report measures, consists of eight items that are included inother sub-scales. Offender responses are compared with the criminal recordsheet to check for inaccuracies in responding. The reliability, construct andconcurrent validity of the SAQ have previously been demonstrated (Loza etal., 2000), as has the predictive validity of the SAQ over a two-year (Kronerand Loza, 2001; Loza and Loza-Fanous, 2001) and five-year period (Loza andLoza-Fanous, in press). Also, the SAQ was found to be at least as effective asfour other well-established professional rated and widely used measures for theprediction of recidivism (Loza and Loza-Fanous, 2001). Further, although theSAQ was originally designed for the prediction of post release adjustment, itwas also found to be helpful in the prediction of institutional adjustment andwith the assignment of offenders to treatment programmes (Loza and Loza-Fanous, 2002).

Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1994)

The BIDR is a 40-item self-report measure of the tendency to give sociallydesirable responses on self-reports. The measure comprises two subscales. Self-Deceptive Enhancement (SDE, 20 items) measures the tendency to givehonest (though self-deceived) but inflated self-descriptions. An example of anitem from this scale is ‘I don’t care to know what other people really think ofme’. Impression Management (IM, 20 items) measures the tendency to givesituationally defined inflated self-descriptions. An example of an item fromthis scale is ‘I never cover up my mistakes’. Responses are made on a 1 to 7scale anchored by ‘not true’ (1) and ‘very true’ (7). Scoring of the itemscollapsed the score to one or zero. A score of one was given when the partic-ipant responded with a 6 or 7 on a positively keyed item or with a 1 or 2 on anegatively keyed item. In all other instances a score of zero was given. Kronerand Weekes (1996a) confirmed the reliability and validity of the BIDR withinan offender sample.

General Statistical Information on Recidivism.(GSIR; Nuffield, 1982)

The GSIR was initially developed as an actuarial instrument to predictrecidivism among federally sentenced Canadian offenders. Each of the 15items was associated with re-arrests in a sample of approximately 2500

Social desirability and self-report 143

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 143

offenders. Items were scored according to a weighted system. The items are of astatic nature and include type of current offence, age of admission, previousincarceration and history of violence. The range of GSIR scores is -30 to +26.Negative scores indicate a greater likelihood of re-offending. Twelve of thefifteen items relate to criminal history; three do not – marital status, number ofdependents and employment status at arrest. Subsequent prediction studieshave shown the GSIR to be predictive of general and violent recidivism(Bonta et al., 1996; Kroner and Loza, 2001; Kroner et al., 2002).

Recidivism variables

A sub-sample of 77 participants had been released at the time of this study.Their post-release performance was followed up through a review of their filesand police records. New convictions following release were coded as ‘GeneralRecidivism’ and for those offences that involved violence they were coded as‘Violent Recidivism’.

Procedure

Participants were asked if they would be willing to complete the SAQ forresearch purposes at the same time they completed questionnaires for a psycho-logical assessment for release decision purposes. Participants who agreed signeda consent form for that purpose and were advised that their responses would bekept confidential.

Results

The descriptive statistics for the measures used are reported in Table 1. Base-rates for general and violent recidivism were 49% and 25% respectively.Intercorrelations of the study variables are reported in Table 2. As expectedthe SAQ and the GSIR are significantly and negatively correlated (a negativescore on the GSIR is indicative of greater risk for recidivism). Both instru-ments were also significantly correlated with the outcome measures of generaland violent recidivism. The SAQ was also negatively and significantly corre-lated with Impression Management and Self-Deception. Interestingly, theGSIR was significantly and positively correlated with Impression Managementbut not with Self-Deception. Impression Management and Self-Deceptionwere negatively and significantly correlated with the outcome measure ofviolent recidivism though only Impression Management was related to generalrecidivism.

To test the hypothesis that variance associated with risk was greater thanvariance associated with social desirability in the SAQ scores, step-wiseregression analyses were undertaken to examine the relative contribution ofeach to the prediction of the SAQ score (see Table 3). The GSIR and

144 Mills et al.

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 144

Impression Management were entered into the equation to predict the SAQ.Both variables entered the equation producing a Multiple R of 0.60. Thereported beta values provide an index of the unique contribution that eachindependent variable makes to the prediction of the dependent variable. Inthis analysis both the GSIR and Impression Management variables providestatistically significant unique variance, however the GSIR provides propor-tionally more than does Impression Management. A second step-wiseprocedure was undertaken with the GSIR and Self-Deception entered into theequation to predict the SAQ score. Again, both variables entered the equationproducing a Multiple R of 0.55. Similarly, both the GSIR and Self-Deceptionprovide unique variance in the prediction of the SAQ score. However, thebeta value of the GSIR is more than twice that of Self-Deception.

Given the findings that Impression Management is significantly related torisk (GSIR) and significantly related to recidivism (both general and violent) apost-hoc exploratory analysis was undertaken to examine the relative contri-bution of risk and social desirability to the prediction of recidivism (see Table4). For the outcome of general recidivism neither Impression Management norSelf-Deception contributes significant unique variance to the predictionequation. However, for the outcome of violent recidivism both ImpressionManagement and Self-Deception contribute significantly unique variance tothe equation once risk (GSIR) is accounted for.

Social desirability and self-report 145

Table 1: Normative Data (n = 124)

Instrument Mean SD Range

SAQ 26.9 11.1 2 to 49GSIR –1.6 8.8 –20 to 19Impression Mgmt 9.4 3.9 1 to 19Self-Deception 9.1 3.5 1 to 19

Table 2: Intercorrelations of the variables

Instrument 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. SAQ -2. GSIR –0.51*** -3. Impression Mgmt –0.42*** 0.21* -4. Self-Deception –0.24** 0.07 0.59*** -5. General Recidivism 0.32** –-0.39*** –0.29* 0.02 -6. Violent Recidivism 0.37** –0.29* –0.38** –0.24* 0.46***

Note: Variables 1, 2, 3 and 4 are based on the full sample of 124 participants. Variables 5 and6 are based on a sub-sample of 77 participants for whom follow-up data was available.

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 145

Discussion

The results of the current study demonstrate that self-report, despite thepresence of socially desirable responding, can be an effective predictor ofrecidivism. This is due, in part, to the confirmed hypothesis that the SAQ’svariance associated with risk exceeds the variance associated with social desir-ability. However, the relationship between social desirability and recidivismmay explain why, despite the presence of social desirability, self-report can bean effective predictor.

146 Mills et al.

Table 3: Relative contribution (standardized beta) of risk (GSIR) and social desirability tothe prediction of SAQ scores

OutcomeVariables in regression equation Step 1 Step 2

Equation 1

Standardized beta GSIR –0.51 –0.44**Impression Mgmt - –0.33**

Multiple R 0.51 0.60

Equation 2

Standardized beta GSIR –0.51 –0.49**Self Deception - –0.21*

Multiple R 0.51 0.55

Note: *p < 0.01, **p < 0.001.

Table 4: Relative contribution (standardized beta) of risk and social desirability to theprediction of recidivism

Outcome

Variables in regression equation General recidivism Violent recidivism

Equation 1

Standardized beta GSIR –0.33** –0.18Impression Mgmt –0.17 –0.31**

Multiple R 0.42 0.41

Equation 2

Standardized beta GSIR –0.39*** –0.28*Self-Deception 0.05 –0.22*

Multiple R 0.39 0.37

Note: *p < 0.01, **p < 0.001, ***p < 0.001.

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 146

Impression Management is significantly related to the outcome ofrecidivism. In the case of general recidivism, Impression Management is lessstrongly correlated than a risk scale (GSIR) and in the case of violentrecidivism it is more strongly correlated than a risk scale. Self-Deception has aless robust relationship with the outcome variables. Impression Management issignificantly and negatively related to the SAQ and significantly andpositively related to the GSIR, though much more strongly with the SAQ.Nonetheless, the fact that Impression Management is correlated with an inter-viewer-rated, historically based risk-prediction instrument suggests that thereis something within the construct of Impression Management that is related tocriminal risk. The moderate relationship between Impression Managementand the recidivism variables tends to confirm this observation. In addition, ourexploratory analysis that found Impression Management and Self-Deception toadd significantly unique variance to the prediction of violent recidivismsuggests that there is information beyond historically based risk-relatedvariance that is important to the prediction of violent recidivism. Specifically,the finding that Self-Deception adds to the prediction of violent recidivism isconsistent with earlier findings by Paulhus (1984), which indicated that Self-Deception may be related to personality-based constructs. However,Impression Management, which has been defined by self-presentation charac-teristics, is related to recidivism in much the same way as Self-Deception; infact, the relationship of Impression Management to violent recidivism isstronger than is the relationship between risk and violent recidivism (see Table4).

The nature of these relationships suggests strongly that ImpressionManagement may be viewed as a characterological variable. With othercorrectional and forensic samples an inverse relationship occurred betweenaggression and impression management (Dutton and Hemphill, 1992; Kronerand Weekes, 1996b). In the Kroner and Weekes study the measure ofaggression was rated victim damage; the greater the Impression Managementthe less the victim damage. Impression Management may therefore beassociated with the use of more socially approved interpersonal skills. Thus,those high on Impression Management may commit fewer interpersonalcriminal activities to achieve their goals. Interpreting Impression Managementas indicating an awareness (use) of socially approved interpersonal skills issupported by the aggression/impression management relationship and thedifferent correlations between Impression Management and general andviolent recidivism. The stronger relationship with violent recidivism, wherethere is a person as a victim, suggests that where there is a lower awareness(use) of approved interpersonal skills (lower Impression Management scores)there is a greater likelihood of violence. The same strength of relationship isnot evident between Impression Management and general recidivism, whereoffences without direct victim involvement were included. The weakerrelationship suggests an interpersonal skills component is not as relevant to

Social desirability and self-report 147

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 147

non-interpersonal (non-violent) offences. How social desirability relates toother self-report instruments and recidivism is yet to be determined.

Unlike the MMPI and other personality measures, the SAQ was developedspecifically for the prediction of general and violent recidivism. The SAQ wasdesigned to be multifaceted, covering the predominant predictive contentareas that have been demonstrated as reliable and valid for the assessment andprediction of violent and non-violent post-release offending. Therefore, theSAQ was expected to have a high ‘risk-related variance’ content. Other self-report measures may have different levels of risk and social desirability contentand therefore relate to recidivism differently. However, if, from a clinicalperspective, self-report information is eliminated when social desirability ishigh, valuable information related to recidivism may routinely be excludedfrom criminal risk prediction.

Although there remain some cautions regarding the administration of self-report instruments such as ensuring adequate reading/comprehension levels(Kroner and Loza, 2001) or noticing careless responses, there are many distinctadvantages to using self-report in general and the SAQ specifically. Self-reportquestionnaires such as the SAQ can be effective and reduce the possibility ofassessor biases. Self-report is more convenient and economical to use thantraditional methods of risk assessment and can be administered in groups. TheSAQ can aid clinicians in screening for the diagnosis of antisocial personalitydisorder, a history of conduct disorder, and substance abuse or in the screeningof risk and need.

Notes

The authors would like to acknowledge the help of Ms Anita Cumbleton forher comments and editing of an earlier draft of this paper. The views expressedare those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theCorrectional Service of Canada.

References

Blackburn R, Fawcette, D (1995) The Antisocial Questionnaire: an inventory for assessingpersonality deviation in offender populations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment15: 14–24.

Bonta J, Harman WG, Hann RG, Cormier RB (1996) The prediction of recidivism amongfederally sentenced offenders: a re-validation of the SIR scale. Canadian Journal ofCriminology 38: 61–79.

Boothby JL, Clements CB (2000) A national survey of correctional psychologists. CriminalJustice and Behavior 27: 716–732.

Dutton DG, Hemphill KJ (1992) Patterns of socially desirable responding among perpetratorsand victims. Violence and Victims 7: 29–39.

Gendreau P, Irvine M, Knight S (1973) Evaluating response set styles on the MMPI withprisoners: faking good adjustment and maladjustment. Canadian Journal of BehaviouralScience 5: 183–194.

148 Mills et al.

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 148

Gough HG, Wenk EA, Rozynko VV (1965) Parole outcome as predicted from CPI, MMPI, abase expectancy table. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 70: 432–44l.

Hare RD (1985) A checklist for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. In Ben-Aron MH, Hucker SJ, Webster CD, eds. Clinical Criminology: The Assessment and Treatmentof Criminal Behavior. Toronto, ON: M & M Graphics, pp. 157–168.

Holden RR, Kroner DG, Fekken GC, Popham SM (1992) A model of personality test itemresponse dissimulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63: 272–279.

Kendall PC, Norton-Ford JD (1982) Clinical Psychology: Scientific and Professional Dimensions.New York: Wiley.

Kroner D, Loza W (2001) Evidence for the efficacy of self-report in predicting violent andnonviolent criminal recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 16: 168–177.

Kroner DG, Palmer W, Mills JF (2002) Does accounting for time and individual risk scoresincrease predictive efficiency of criminal risk? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kroner DG, Weekes JR (1996a) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: factor structure,reliability, validity with an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences 21:323–333.

Kroner DG, Weekes JR (1996b) Socially desirable responding and offence characteristics amongrapists. Victims and Violence 11: 263–270.

Kuriychuk M (1990) The assessment of psychopathy and risk-taking behaviour. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Loza W (1996) Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A tool for assessing violent and non-violent recidivism. Unpublished manuscript.

Loza W, Dhaliwal G, Kroner DG, Loza- Fanous A (2000) Reliability, construct, concurrentvalidities of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire: a tool for assessing violent and non-violentrecidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior 27: 356–374.

Loza W, Loza-Fanous A (1999a) Anger and prediction of violent and non-violent offender’srecidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14: 1014–1029.

Loza W, Loza-Fanous A (1999b) The fallacy of reducing rape and violent recidivism by treatinganger. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyMP> 43(4):492–502.

Loza W, Loza-Fanous A (2001) The effectiveness of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) inpredicting offenders’ post-release outcome: a comparison study. Criminal Justice and Behavior28: 105–121.

Loza W, Loza-Fanous A (2002) The effectiveness of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) asan offenders’ classification measure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 17: 3–13.

Loza W, Loza-Fanous A (in press) More evidence for the validity of the Self-AppraisalQuestionnaire (SAQ) for predicting violent and non-violent recidivism: a five year follow-up study. Criminal Justice and Behavior.

Millon T (1987) Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Manual. Minneapolis: National ComputerSystems.

Mills JF, Kroner DG (2003a) Antisocial constructs in predicting institutional violence amongviolent offenders and child molesters. International Journal of Offender Therapy andComparative Criminology 47: 324–334.

Mills JF, Kroner DG (2003b) Anger as a predictor of institutional misconduct and recidivism ina sample of violent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 18: 282–294.

Mills JF, Kroner DG, Hemmati T (in press) The Measures of Criminal Attitudes and Associates(MCAA): the prediction of general and violent recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior.

Motiuk M, Motiuk L, Bonta J (1992) A comparison between self-report and interview-basedinventories in offender classification. Criminal Justice and Behavior 19: 143–159.

Nuffield J (1982) Parole Decision-making in Canada: Research Towards Decision Guidelines.Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada.

Social desirability and self-report 149

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 149

Paulhus DL (1984) Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 46: 598–609.

Paulhus DL (1994) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding: reference manual for the BIDRversion 6. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia.

Paulhus DL (2001) Socially desirable responding: the evolution of a construct. In Braun H,Jackson DN, Wiley DE, eds. The Role of Constructs in Psychological and EducationalMeasurement . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 67–88.

Posey CD, Hess AK (1984) The fakability of subtle and obvious measures of aggression by maleprisoners. Journal of Personality Assessment 48: 137–144.

Quinsey VL, Khanna A, Malcolm B (1998) A retrospective evaluation of the RegionalTreatment Center Sex Offender Treatment Program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 13:621–644.

Schretlen D, Arkowitz H (1990) A psychological test battery to detect prison inmates who fakeinsanity or mental retardation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 8: 75–84.

Address correspondence to: Jeremy F. Mills, Psychology Department, BathInstitution, PO Box 1500, Bath, Ontario, Canada K0H 1G0. Email:MillsJF@csc-scc..gc.ca

150 Mills et al.

CBMH 13.2_2nd 3/10/03 5:54 pm Page 150