WINNETKA, ILL.
June, 1915.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER EDITORIAL ANNOUNCEMENT PREFACE I. INTRODUCTION II. PREVIOUS STUDIES III. CASES OF PATHOLOGICAL LYING AND SWINDLING IV. CASES OF PATHOLOGICAL ACCUSATION V. CASES OF PATHOLOGICAL LYING IN BORDER-LINE MENTAL TYPES VI. CONCLUSIONS INDEX OF AUTHORS INDEX OF TOPICS
PATHOLOGICAL LYING, ACCUSATION, AND SWINDLING
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Through comparison of the literature on pathological lying with our own extensive material we are led to perceive the insistent necessity for closer definition of the subject than has been heretofore offered. Reasons for excluding types earlier described as pathological liars will be found throughout our work. Better definition goes hand in hand with better understanding, and it is only natural that formal, detailed contemplation of the subject should lead to seeing new lines of demarcation.
Definition: Pathological lying is falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, engaged in by a person who, at the time of observation, cannot definitely be declared insane, feebleminded, or epileptic. Such lying rarely, if ever, centers about a single event; although exhibited in very occasional cases for a short time, it manifests itself most frequently by far over a period of years, or even a life time. It represents a trait rather than an episode. Extensive, very complicated fabrications may be evolved. This has led to the synonyms:—mythomania; pseudologia phantastica.
It is true that in the previous literature, under the head of pathological liars, cases of epilepsy, insanity, and mental defect have been cited, but that is misleading. A clear terminology should be adopted. The pathological liar forms a species by himself and as such does not necessarily belong to any of these larger classes. It is, of course, scientifically permissible, as well as practically valuable, to speak of the epileptic or the otherwise abnormal person through his disease engaging in pathological lying, but the main classification of an individual should be decided by the main abnormal condition.
A good definition of pathological accusation follows the above lines. It is false accusation indulged in apart from any obvious purpose. Like the swindling of pathological liars, it appears objectively more pernicious than the lying, but it is an expression of the same tendency. The most striking form of this type of conduct is, of course, self-accusation. Mendacious self- impeachment seems especially convincing of abnormality. Such falsification not infrequently is episodic.