Exploring Older Adult Susceptibility to Fraudulent Computer Pop-Up Interruptions

© 2019, Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature. The proliferation of Internet connectivity and accessibility has been accompanied by an increase in cyber-threats, including fraudulent communications. Fake computer updates, which attempt to persuade people to download malicious software by mimicking trusted brands and/or instilling urgency, are one way in which fraudsters try to infiltrate systems. A recent study of young university students (M 18.52-years) found that when such pop-ups interrupt a demanding cognitive task, participants spent little time viewing them and were more likely to miss suspicious cues and accept these updates compared to when they were viewed without the pressure to resume a suspended task [1]. The aim of the current experiment was to test an older adult sample (N = 29, all >60 years) using the same paradigm. We predicted that they would be more susceptible to malevolent pop-ups [2]; trusting them more than younger adults (e.g., [3]), and would attempt to resume the interrupted task faster to limit forgetting of encoded items. Phase 1 involved serial recall memory trials interrupted by genuine, mimicked, and low authority pop-ups. During phase 2, participants rated messages with unlimited time and gave reasons for their decisions. It was found that more than 70% of mimicked and low authority pop-ups were accepted in Phase 1 vs ~80% genuine pop-ups (and these were all approximately 10% higher than [1]). This was likely due to a greater tendency to ignore or miss suspicious content when performing under pressure, despite spending longer with messages and reporting high awareness of scam techniques than younger adults. Older adult participants were more suspicious during Phase 2 performing comparably to the younger adults in [1]. Factors that may impact older adult decisions relating to fraudulent computer communications are discussed, as well as theoretical and practical implications

Using the yes/no recognition response pattern to detect memory malingering

Schindler S, Kißler J, Kühl K-P, Hellweg R, Bengner T. Using the yes/no recognition response pattern to detect memory malingering. BMC Psychology. 2013;1(1): 12.Background Detection of feigned neurocognitive deficits is a challenge for neuropsychological assessment. We conducted two studies to examine whether memory malingering is characterized by an elevated proportion of false negatives during yes/no recognition testing and whether this could be a useful measure for assessment. Methods Study 1 examined 51 participants claiming compensation due to mental disorders, 51 patients with affective disorders not claiming compensation and 13 patients with established dementia. Claimants were sub-divided into suspected malingerers (n = 11) and non-malingerers (n = 40) according to the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). In study 2, non-clinical participants were instructed to either malinger memory deficits due to depression (n = 20), or to perform normally (n = 20). Results In study 1, suspected malingerers had more false negative responses on the recognition test than all other groups and false negative responding was correlated with Minnesota-Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) measures of deception. In study 2, using a cut-off score derived from the clinical study, the number of false negative responses on the yes/no recognition test predicted group membership with comparable accuracy as the TOMM, combining both measures yielded the best classification. Upon interview, participants suspected the TOMM more often as a malingering test than the yes/no recognition test. Conclusion Results indicate that many malingers adopt a strategy of exaggerated false negative responding on a yes/no recognition memory test. This differentiates them from both dementia and affective disorder, recommending false negative responses as an efficient and inconspicuous screening measure of memory malingering

Practice Effects on Story Memory and List Learning Tests in the Neuropsychological Assessment of Older Adults

Two of the most commonly used methods to assess memory functioning in studies of cognitive aging and dementia are story memory and list learning tests. We hypothesized that the most commonly used story memory test, Wechsler's Logical Memory, would generate more pronounced practice effects than a well validated but less common list learning test, the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB) List Learning test. Two hundred eighty-seven older adults, ages 51 to 100 at baseline, completed both tests as part of a larger neuropsychological test battery on an annual basis. Up to five years of recall scores from participants who were diagnosed as cognitively normal (n = 96) or with mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 72) or Alzheimer's disease (AD; n = 121) at their most recent visit were analyzed with linear mixed effects regression to examine the interaction between the type of test and the number of times exposed to the test. Other variables, including age at baseline, sex, education, race, time (years) since baseline, and clinical diagnosis were also entered as fixed effects predictor variables. The results indicated that both tests produced significant practice effects in controls and MCI participants; in contrast, participants with AD declined or remained stable. However, for the delayed-but not the immediate-recall condition, Logical Memory generated more pronounced practice effects than NAB List Learning (b = 0.16, p < .01 for controls). These differential practice effects were moderated by clinical diagnosis, such that controls and MCI participants-but not participants with AD-improved more on Logical Memory delayed recall than on delayed NAB List Learning delayed recall over five annual assessments. Because the Logical Memory test is ubiquitous in cognitive aging and neurodegenerative disease research, its tendency to produce marked practice effects-especially on the delayed recall condition-suggests a threat to its validity as a measure of new learning, an essential construct for dementia diagnosis