Pathological Lying, Accusation, and Swindling | Page 7

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