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

by William Healy; Mary Tenney Healy

We have given figures on false accusations here, including other cases than were enumerated in our special chapter on the subject. In that chapter the center of interest was on the false accusations, but it is true that in certain other cases of pathological lying false accusations were indulged in as a somewhat minor offense. The 9 cases enumerated as swindlers showed this offense in varying degrees, as might naturally be expected by the differences in ages, which, if nothing else, makes for variations in the evolution of social and character tendencies. Perusal of the cases shows the small beginnings as well as the flagrant offenses on this order. As we previously have stated, we have avoided dealing with the older careers of notorious swindlers. The nature of the sex offenses can be learned from the case histories by those who wish to make special inquiry. Masturbation we have regarded more as a causative factor, and have spoken of it in a previous section. Truancy we have not enumerated. It goes without saying that it had been indulged in by practically all of the males and by a considerable number of the females in our cases.

The observer of delinquents cannot help being constantly impressed by the fact that the offense of lying seems to the usual offender small in proportion to the commission of other criminalistic deeds. Particularly does this come out when one observes the chronic liar growing up in a household where grave sex and other delinquencies are habitual occurrences. Should his lying be compared with these major anti-social transactions? Indeed, it might be a field for speculation as to whether, given certain qualities of mind, imaginative powers, etc., pathological lying may not play the part of a vicarious delinquency—being to the delinquent apparently less pernicious than more objective offenses. In our case histories may be seen some indications of this.

PROGNOSIS. TREATMENT

In discussing prognosis and treatment we can eliminate at once consideration of pathological lying by the insane. The outcome there depends upon what can be done for the underlying psychosis. We have avoided intimate discussion of these cases, but many suggestions of the unalterableness of the full-fledged tendencies among the insane are found in the European literature cited by us. Even discussion of the outcome of the border-line cases, such as we have given examples of, needs but short shrift. Everyone knows the extreme difficulties of dealing with constitutional inferiors; marked cases are socially fit only for proper colonization. The epileptic, in default of cure of his disease, is ever going to be prone to many peculiar mental states which may involve pathological lying. The slight mental confusion of chorea, which may lead to false accusation, as we have seen in Case 23, is one of the most curable of all abnormal mental states. With proper attention to diagnosis and treatment, favorable outcome of cases of hysteria, such as that in Case 24, is frequently seen. Another type which cannot be handled except by permanent segregation is the thoroughly aberrational and socially dangerous class represented by Case 25, however one designates the type. Much more, undoubtedly, can be done for such a border-line individual as Case 12, if there is sufficient cooperation among educational and reformatory institutions and the courts. It has seemed to us that the chief cause of failure in this interesting case has been the fact that this young man could go on ever entering new social situations and finding new worlds for exploitation because no one had the means at hand for securing facts concerning his past or for ascertaining what any good diagnostician could easily perceive to be his limitations and tendencies.

Very much more to the point is consideration of the actual and possible outcome in cases of pathological lying by normal individuals. Here, as in other matters where bodily, mental, and social issues are blended, no prognosis or outlook can be rationally offered without consideration of possible changes in the circumstances peculiar to the given case. First and foremost stands out the fact that cure of the tendency sometimes happens even after long giving way to it. In this statement we are not contradictory to some previous writers.

As Stemmermann says, out of the general literature there is not much from which one can deduce any principles of prognosis. But, again, we would insist that one of the great weaknesses has been that earlier studies have not carefully distinguished between the mentally normal and the abnormal cases of pseudologia phantastica. When, for instance, Forel speaks of pathological liars as being constitutionally abnormal individuals who are not curable, he fails to differentiate where profitable differentiation can be made. If our own work is of any practical value it is in offering safer grounds for prognosis and treatment. Stemmermann summarizes well her follow-up work done upon cases seen years previously by other observers. Some of these are still in institutions. After a period of well- doing several of these have become backsliders and reverted again to lying and swindling. Very few appear to have been cured, but yet some of the facts of betterment are most convincing. This author states that, at the most, one dares to ponder over the point as to whether there are not cases which recover, particularly when the pathological lying is a phenomenon of adolescence.

Our own material is, in part, too recently studied to form anything like a generalization concerning prognosis. Many years have to elapse before one can be sure there is not going to be a recurrence. But one is not altogether certain that prognostic generalizations are of practical worth for this group of mentally normal pathological liars. So many incidental factors of physical, mental, and social life, with all of the complicated background of the same, come in to make the total result, that experiment and trial with the individual case, while hesitating to give an exact prognosis, is perhaps the only sane procedure. What we do know definitely is the immensely favorable outcome in Cases 1, 4, 7, 19, and the promising betterment in several other instances—all in direct contradiction to what we had expected from survey of previous literature. In several of these cases the years have gone by with nothing but steady improvement. The difficulty in getting adequate treatment, either in home life or by the necessary individual attention elsewhere, makes it impossible to say that many of the others also could not have been favorably influenced. Frequently a total alteration of environmental conditions is necessary, and this, of course, is often very difficult to obtain. Also it is extremely rare that one can get the whole matter, and its sure social consequences, fairly and squarely met by anybody with influence over the individual. Until this can be done, little in the way of good results may ever be expected. The splendid attack made by relatives or others upon the situation in Cases 1, 4, 7, possibly 14, and 19 tells the story of the prime necessity for adequate handling of pathological lying.

Specific treatment of physical conditions should always be undertaken when necessary. It should go without saying that any individual who is open to the temptations of inner stress should be strengthened at all points possible and relieved from all sources of irritation. But, lest anyone should become too much persuaded of the efficacy of surgical or other treatment, it should be remembered that the psychical reactions, even where there is physical irritation, involve the definite wearing of neural paths, with habit formations, which bodily treatment can only slightly alter. An enticing problem to the gynecologist is always the relationship of pelvic, particularly sexual irritations, to conduct. We cannot confirm the idea of a prime causal connection in this particular, although we have evidence that betterment of the physical ailment may lead to less inclination towards the unfortunate behavior. In Case 1 the lying came long before pelvic disease was acquired, but very likely the irritation of the latter led to an accentuation of the psychical phenomena. In Case 6 the typical conduct was persisted in after remedy of the pelvic disorder; so also in Case 3 after relief of abdominal conditions, and in Case 21 after cessation of pregnancy. Other points bearing upon this may be read in our case histories. On the general problem of the possibility of physical treatment it will be noted that a considerable share of all our cases were in good general condition.

In discussing treatment great emphasis should be placed upon the primary necessity for directly meeting the pathological liar upon the level of the moral failures and making it plain that these are known and understood. It is very certain that frequently this type of prevaricator has very little conception of the social antagonism which his habit arouses. There is faulty apperception of how others feel towards the lying, and to what depths the practice of this habit leads. Appreciation of these facts may be the first step towards betterment. In several of the improved cases we have mentioned that it was largely the acquirement of social foresight which made the first step in a moral advance which finally won the day. In this whole matter the first ethical instruction may well be based upon the idea of self-preservation—after all the backbone of much of our morals. When it comes to specific details of treatment these must be educational, alterative, and constructive. In Cases 1 and 3 under treatment we know that when the lying was discovered or suspected the individual was at once checked up and made to go over the ground and state the real facts. The pathological liar ordinarily reacts to the accusation of lying by prevaricating again in self-defense, but when with the therapeutist there has been the understanding that the tendency to lying is a habit which it is necessary to break, the barricade of self- defense may not be thrown up. An alterative measure of great value, then, is directly to meet the specific lie on the spot, as it were, when it is told.

Next, accuracy of report may well be practiced as a special discipline. In these normal cases we have seen that there could be little doubt about the individual having self-control enough to stick to the truth, if the will was properly directed. Indeed, many of our cases were exceptionally bright individuals with many good powers of observation and memory. Had one the opportunity, there can be little doubt but that training in the power to do well on such a test as that afforded by the ``Aussage'' picture would have yielded good results. Indeed, there is some suggestion of this in our table of findings on this test, where we note that pathological liars, when left merely to themselves and their first often comparatively meagre report on the picture, give few incorrect details. The difference in their report as compared with other observers of the picture was found when they answered questions. Since this is the case, there can be little question that training in the power to respond accurately might be gained.