Pathology of Lying, Accusation, and Swindling: A Study in Forensic Psychology

Lying--counted only when excessive and a 104 80 notorious characteristic of the individual, (15%) (26%)

False accusations--only recorded when of an 5 16 excessive and dangerous sort, (.7%) (5%)

The exact number of pathological liars is not determinable in our series because of the shading of this lying into other types. It would be safe to say that 8 or 10 of the 1000 were genuine cases of pathological lying according to our definition, that 5 more engaged in pathological false accusations without a notorious career in other kinds of lying. Examples of borderline mental cases showing fantastic lying and accusations are given in our special chapter. Some of the cases of pathological lying given in this work do not belong to the series of 1000 cases analyzed for statistical purposes. The extraordinary number of times several of these individuals appeared in court (resembling in this respect the European case histories) shows that the total amount of trouble caused by this class is not in the least represented by their numerical proportion among offenders.

We have purposely limited our own material for presentation. Here, as elsewhere, we insist on the value of genetics and consequently have busied ourselves at length with those cases where we could gain something like an adequate conception of the antecedents in family and developmental histories and where some measure of the psychogenetic features could be taken. Cases of older individuals with their prolonged and often picturesque careers, equivalent to those recounted in European literature, we have left strictly alone. One ever finds that the older the individual the less one can learn satisfactorily of beginnings of tendencies, just on account of the unreliability of the principal actor in the drama. The cases of older swindlers at first sight seem to offer much for the student of criminalistics, if only for purely descriptive purposes, but in the literature we have failed to find any satisfactory studies of the formative years of such careers. By taking instances of younger pathological liars, such as we have studied, the natural progress into swindling can be readily seen.

In court work we have been brought face to face with many cases of false accusation and, of course, with plenty of the usual kind of lying. Where either of these has been entered into by way of revenge or in belief that it would aid in getting out of trouble, no further attention has been paid to it from the standpoint of pathological lying. Our acquaintance with some professional criminals, particularly of the sneak-thief or pick-pocket class, has taught us that living conditions for the individual may be founded on whole careers of misrepresentation and lies--for very understandable reasons. Self-accusations may sometimes be evolved with the idea of gaining directly practical results, as when a lover or a comrade is shielded, or when there is danger of a larger crime being fastened on the self-incriminator.

In selection and treatment of our material we have confined ourselves as closely as possible to the definition first given in this chapter--a definition that after some years of observation we found could be made and held to. While we would not deny that some of our cases may eventually find their way into an insane hospital, still none of them, except some we have enumerated under the name of border-line types, has so far shown any indication of this. That some of our cases have more or less recovered from a strongly-marked and prolonged inclination to falsify is a fact of great importance for treatment and prognosis.

We see neither reason for including insane cases nor for overlapping the already used classifications which are based on more vital facts than the symptom of lying. Our use of abnormal cases in our chapter, ``Illustrations of Border-Line Types,'' will be perfectly clear to those who read these cases. They represent the material not easily diagnosed, sometimes after long observation by professional people, or else they are clearly abnormal individuals who, by the possession of certain capacities, manage to keep their heads well above the level of social incompetency as judged by the world at large.

We have introduced only the cases where we have had ample proof that the individual had been given to excessive lying of our peculiar type. In the court room and working with delinquents outside the court, it is in rare instances totally impossible to know where the truth finally rests; such have been left out. Then, too, we omit cases in which false accusations have about them the shadow of even a suspicion of vindictiveness. False accusations of young children against parents would hardly seem to have such a basis, and yet in some instances this fact has come out clearly. Grudge-formation on the part of young individuals has all through our work been one of the extraordinary findings; capacity for it varies tremendously in different individuals.

Several forms of excessive lying, particularly those practised by children and adolescents, are not discussed by us because they are largely age phenomena and only verge upon the pathological as they are carried over into wider fields of conduct. The fantasies of children, and the almost obsessional lying in some young adolescents, too, we avoid. There is much shading of typical pathological lying into, on the one hand, the really insane types, and, on the other hand, into the lying which is to be explained by quite normal reactions or where the tendency to mendacity is only partially developed.

It has been a matter of no small interest to us that in planning this monograph we conceived it necessary to consider part of our material under the head of episodic pathological lying and that later we had to omit this chapter. Surely there had been cases--so it seemed to us at first--where purposeless lying had been indulged in for a comparatively short time, particularly during the adolescent period, without expression of a prevaricating tendency before or after this time. When we came to review our material with this chapter in mind we found no sufficient verification of the fact that there was any such thing as episodic pathological lying, apart from peculiar manifestations in cases of epilepsy, hysteria, and other mental abnormalities. A short career of extensive lying, not unfrequently met with in work for juvenile courts and other social agencies, seems, judging from our material, to be always so mixed up with other delinquencies or unfortunate sex experiences that the lying, after all, cannot be regarded as purposeless. It is indulged in most often in an attempt to disguise undesirable truths. That false accusations and even self-accusations are engaged in for the same purpose goes without saying. The girl who donned man's clothes, left home and lived for months a life of lies was seeking an adventure which would offset intolerable home conditions. The young woman who after seeing something of the pleasures of the world was placed in a strict religious home where she told exaggerated stories about her own bad behavior, was endeavoring to get more freedom elsewhere. A young fellow whom we found to be a most persistent and consistent liar was discovered to have been already well schooled in the art of professional criminalistic self-protection. So it has gone. Investigation of each of these episodic cases has shown the fabrications to emanate either from a distinctly abnormal personality or to partake of a character which rules them out of the realm of pathological lying. In our cases of temporary adolescent psychoses lying was rarely found a puzzling feature; the basic nature of the case was too easily discoverable.

A fair question to ask at this point is whether pathological lying is ever found to be the only delinquency of the given individual. We should hesitate to deny the possibility of its being the sole offense, but in our study of a long list of cases, and after review of those reported by other authors, it seems practically impossible to find a case of this. The tendencies soon carry the person over to the production of other delinquencies, and if these do not come in the category of punishable offenses, at least, through the trouble and suffering caused others, they are to be regarded essentially as misconduct.

The reverse of the above question deserves a word or two of attention; are there marked cases of delinquency which do not show lying? Surveying the figures of Ferriani[6] who enumerated thousands of lies, belonging to his nine classes of prevarications, which a group of 500 young offenders indulged in, one would think that all delinquents are liars many times over. But as a matter of fact we have been profoundly astonished to discover that a considerable percentage of the cases we have studied, even of repeated offenders, have proved notably truthful. Occasionally the very person who will engage in a major form of delinquency will hesitate to lie. Our experience shows this to be less true, however, of sex delinquency than perhaps of any other. This statement is based on general observations; the accurate correlations have not been worked up. Occasionally the professional criminal of many misdeeds is proud of his uprightness in other spheres of behavior, including veracity. But even here one would have to classify carefully, for it is obvious that the typical swindler would find lying his best cloak of disguise. On the other hand, a bold safe-blower may look down with scorn upon a form of criminality which demands constant mendacity.

[6] loc. cit.

Realizing that pathological lying is a type of delinquency, and following the rule that for explanation of conduct tendencies one must go to youthful beginnings, we have attempted to gain the fullest possible information about the fundamentals of developmental and family history, early environment, and early mental experiences. Fortunately we have often been able to obtain specific and probably accurate data on heredity. The many cases which have been only partially studied are not included. Successive cross-section studies have been made in a number of cases, and it has been possible to get a varying amount of after-history. Observational, historical, and analytical data thus accumulated have given us a particularly favorable opportunity for discerning the bases of this special delinquent tendency. The results of the various kinds of social treatment which have been undertaken are not the least interesting of our facts.

To enumerate the results obtained on the many mental tests given in most cases seems quite unnecessary for the purpose of this monograph. We have referred to a few points of special interest and rarely have designated the results on tests in our series. In general, the reader probably will be better off with merely the statement of the principal findings and of the mental diagnosis.

Of much interest for the present subject is the development of psychological studies of testimony or report. Because of the natural expectation that the pathological liar might prove to be an unreliable witness our studies on this point will be offered in detail. For years we have been giving a picture memory test on the order of one used extensively abroad. This ``Aussage'' Test is the one described as Test VI in our monograph on Practical Mental Classification.[7] More recently our studies on the psychology of testimony have led us into wider fields of observation, and here the group of cases now under discussion may have to stand by themselves. The picture, the record of testimony on which is given in some detail in our case histories, is that of a butcher's shop with objects and actions that are universally comprehended. After careful and fair explanation of what is about to be undertaken, the picture is exposed for ten seconds, and then the examinee is asked to give a free recital of all he saw. When he states that no more is remembered he is questioned on omitted details. (All told, there are about 50 details of varying importance in the picture.) During the progress of this part of the examination he is asked if he saw 7 objects which might well be in a butcher shop, but which are not in the picture. This is the test for susceptibility to suggestion. All points are carefully scored. Norms on this test, as on many others, it seems hardly fair to give by averages--there is much variation according to mentality and even personality groups. Practically all of our cases of pathological lying range above the age of young childhood, so it is not necessary here to discuss the characteristics of young children's testimony. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that the ordinary individual recalls voluntarily or upon questioning upwards of 20 items, and does not give incorrect items to any extent. On questioning he may perhaps accept one or two of the seven suggestions, but when details in general are asked for he does not add fictional items more than are accounted for by some little slip of memory. One can find definite types of intellectual honesty, even among children of 10 or 12 years of age, when there is no tampering with the truth; if an item has not been observed, there is no effort to make it seem otherwise. For discussion of the results on this test among our pathological liars we refer to our chapter on conclusions.