Pathology of Lying [117]
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<2> 12<1> 3 10% 2/7 15 10 14<3> 3 12% 2/5 4 12 28<6> 6 15% 3/4 19 15<2> 8<2> 4 17% 4/6 3 17<2> 20<5> 7 19% 0/6 7 11<2> 17<4> 6 21% 2/5 6 17<1> 12<6> 7 24% 1/7 13 8 21<7> 7 24% 4/4 8 16 28<12> 12 27% 5/7 9 12 32<12> 12 27% 6/7 14 7 21<8> 8 28% 4/7 2 10 12<7> 7 32% 1/5 20 6 9<8> 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
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<2> 12<1> 3 10% 2/7 15 10 14<3> 3 12% 2/5 4 12 28<6> 6 15% 3/4 19 15<2> 8<2> 4 17% 4/6 3 17<2> 20<5> 7 19% 0/6 7 11<2> 17<4> 6 21% 2/5 6 17<1> 12<6> 7 24% 1/7 13 8 21<7> 7 24% 4/4 8 16 28<12> 12 27% 5/7 9 12 32<12> 12 27% 6/7 14 7 21<8> 8 28% 4/7 2 10 12<7> 7 32% 1/5 20 6 9<8> 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