pathology of lying-第59章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
We have naturally been much interested in the result of the ‘‘Aussage'' or Testimony Test work with this present group； on account of the possibility of demonstrating correlations between laboratory work and the individual's reactions in social intercourse； particularly when there has been falsification upon the witness stand。 In general we may say that while we have seen normal individuals who are not falsifiers do just as badly as a number of these individuals； yet for the group the findings are exceedingly bad。 Perhaps the better way of stating it would be to say that not one case shows the sturdily honest type of response which is frequently met with during the course of testing other delinquents； even as young as the youngest of the cases cited here。 Our findings stand in great contrast； we note； to the results on other test work。 When looking at the table given above we see that a large share of our 19 normal cases are up to the average in general ability； and yet as a group they fall far below the average on this Testimony Test。 Take Cases 8 and 9； for instance both of them bright girls with； indeed； considerable ability in many directions； and yet both of them give a large number of extremely incorrect items in reporting what they saw in the ‘‘Aussage'' picture； and also both accept a very large proportion of the suggestions offered。 It seems as if frequently in these cases there is no real attempt to discriminate what was actually seen in the picture from what might have been in a butcher shop。 In most cases the fictitious items were given upon questioning； but without the offering of suggestions。 When the individual was allowed to give merely free recital the result was better。 This； however； follows the general rule。
A general survey of work on other tests has not shown anything immediately significant in correlations； and this makes the result upon the ‘‘Aussage'' much more notable。 Perhaps it may be urged that if these individuals had been told to key themselves up to do this test well； being forewarned that otherwise it would reveal their weaknesses； they could have done better。 Some hint of this may be seen in our story of the results of tests in Case 3。 But of course the same might be argued about the other test work where no such tendency to poor results was discernible。
The following table； with a word of explanation； will serve to bring out results on this test clearly to even the reader unfamiliar with the specific details of this subject。 A general description of the test is found in our introduction。
ITEMS REPORTED ITEMS INCORRECT SUGGESTIONS CASE Denominator=number offered Free On Number Percent Recital Questioning Numerator = number accepted
16 16 12 3 10％ 2/7 15 10 14 3 12％ 2/5 4 12 28 6 15％ 3/4 19 15 8 4 17％ 4/6 3 17 20 7 19％ 0/6 7 11 17 6 21％ 2/5 6 17 12 7 24％ 1/7 13 8 21 7 24％ 4/4 8 16 28 12 27％ 5/7 9 12 32 12 27％ 6/7 14 7 21 8 28％ 4/7 2 10 12 7 32％ 1/5 20 6 9 8 53％ 2/5
Only 13 of our 19 mentally normal cases were found to have had the ‘‘Aussage'' Test done so uniformly that results could be fairly compared； as in the above table。 The reader will find it easy to refer back to the case for noting other correlations with behavior。 In the first double column the items which were given in free recital come first； and in the second part the number of positive responses to questions by the examiner。 The coefficients attached to these represent the number of egregious errors or entirely fictitious items given。 It should be clearly understood that slight deviations from facts； for instance in color； are not counted as errors for our present purposes。 In a later study on this whole topic of the psychology of testimony there will be much more complete itemizing。 The errors in which we are particularly interested can perhaps best be called pure inventions。 In the next double column is given； first； the total number of incorrect items and； then； the percentage of these to the total number of items reported。 In the last column suggestibility is dealt with。 We have been accustomed to offer 7 suggestions； asking the individual whether such and such things which might well be in a butcher shop really appeared in the picture。 For several reasons not all of the 7 suggestions were asked in every case； therefore the result is best viewed as a statement in fractions the numerator being the number of suggestions accepted and the denominator the number of suggestions offered。
As a last statement on this question which we put to ourselves； namely； whether pathological liars show the same traits in the laboratory as they do on the witness stand or in general social life； we can answer in the affirmative。 We may repeat that others have made as bad records as some of this group； but taking the group as a whole； it is unlike any random 13 cases which might be picked out from our other classes of mentally normal offenders。 On the other hand； many a feebleminded testifier has done vastly better than the median of this group。 The errors themselves are of the purely inventional type； such as your ordinary report from a mentally normal person does not contain。 （There is perhaps one interesting exception to this； Case 3。 The report given by this subject included egregious denials of some of the main objects in the picture； and so was fictitious to this extent。 She did not say that she did not know whether these to…be…expected objects really were in the pictureshe insisted that they were not。） So far as suggestibility is concerned； there are great differences among even normal people in all classes。 For comparison with the above group； we may take 63 cases of mentally normal delinquents； all of whom had been offered the full 7 suggestions。 The median error of this group was two。 Lower than the fraction thus obtained was the result on only 4 of the present cases。 We have been interested to see that with some of the pathological liars there is no great suggestibility。 The person is willing to deal in his own inventions； but not with false ideas which others attempt to put in his mind。
DIAGNOSIS
The essentials for the diagnosis of pathological lying are contained in the definition at the beginning of our book。 The above considerations of the physical and mental make…up of pathological liars should leave little question as to what belongs in this class。 Of course here； as in the study of any mental traits； borderline cases difficult to discriminate will always be found。 Sometimes one will not be able to determine whether the individual is a true pathological liar or merely a prevaricator for a normal purpose。 We have already stated our inability to determine this in some cases； and yet the nucleus of the type stands out sharply and clearly； and there can be no doubt as to what is practically meant by the definition。
The differential diagnosis involves consideration of the characteristics of the insane； defective； and epileptic。 We repeat that we agree that the mentally abnormal person may engage in pathological lying quite apart from any expression of delusions； and that during the course of such lying the insanity may not be recognized。 This occurred in many of the cases cited in the foreign literature； and if the prior histories of many individuals now in insane hospitals were known undoubtedly such lying would be frequently noted。 But once the person is recognized as insane he need not be classified as a pathological liar。 This term should be reserved； as we stated previously； for normal individuals who engage in pathological lying。 Of course other observers have noted such lying in people who could not be designated as being mentally abnormal； but our material is peculiarly rich
