ABSTRACT
Introduction: The false consensus effect consists of an overestimation of how common a subject opinion is among other people. This research demonstrates that individual endorsement of questions may be predicted by estimating peers' responses to the same question. Moreover, we aim to demonstrate how this prediction can be used to reconstruct the individual's response to a single item as well as the overall response to all of the items, making the technique suitable and effective for malingering detection. Method: We have validated the procedure of reconstructing individual responses from peers' estimation in two separate studies, one addressing anxiety-related questions and the other to the Dark Triad. The questionnaires, adapted to our scopes, were submitted to the groups of participants for a total of 187 subjects across both studies. Machine learning models were used to estimate the results. Results: According to the results, individual responses to a single question requiring a "yes" or "no" response are predicted with 70-80% accuracy. The overall participant-predicted score on all questions (total test score) is predicted with a correlation of 0.7-0.77 with actual results. Discussion: The application of the false consensus effect format is a promising procedure for reconstructing truthful responses in forensic settings when the respondent is highly likely to alter his true (genuine) response and true responses to the tests are missing.
