Pathological Lying, Accusation, and Swindling | Page 7

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