Development and Validation of the Pathological Lying Inventory.

Pathological lying has been studied for over a century, but only recently validated diagnostic criteria were developed that consider the frequency, pervasiveness, and chronicity of lying, along with the distress, dysfunction, and risks of danger caused by lying. Using these new criteria, we crafted a set of survey items aimed at measuring those features. In study 1, we carried out exploratory factor analyses that confirmed a three-factor model for our resultant 19-item Pathological Lying Inventory (PLI). In study 2, we validated the PLI against several measures, demonstrating the scores on the PLI are associated with frequent, pervasive, and chronic lying, psychological distress, social dysfunction, and negative life outcomes. In study 3, we conducted a test-retest reliability analysis of the PLI over two weeks, demonstrating that the PLI has high test-retest reliability. Finally, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the three-factor structure of the PLI. We believe that the PLI will offer researchers and clinicians a brief and valid tool for assessing the degree to which people exhibit patterns of pathological lying.

Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity.

Pathological lying, originally called “pseudologia phantastica,” has an established history within clinical practice and literature, although it has not been recognized as a psychological disorder within major nosological systems. With the movement in psychological sciences toward theory-driven, empirically supported diagnoses, the current study sought to empirically test whether pathological lying aligned with nosological definitions and could be defined as a diagnostic entity. The evidence supports establishment of pathological lying as a distinct diagnostic entity. A definition of pathological lying, etiological considerations, and recommendations for future research and practice are presented.

Development of the Lying in Everyday Situations (LiES) Scale.

Researchers have developed various scales that measure the use of lying in specific contexts, but there are limited tools that measure the use of lies more broadly across the various contexts of day-to-day life. We developed a questionnaire that assesses the use of various forms of lying, including protecting others, image enhancement, saving face, avoiding punishment, vindictiveness, privacy, entertainment, avoiding confrontation, instrumental gain, and maintaining and facilitating relationships. The results of a factor analysis brought our original 45-item scale down to a two-dimensional, 14-item scale that we have titled the Lying in Everyday Situations (LiES) scale. In three studies, the concurrent validity of the scale was assessed with several domain-specific lying scales, two Machiavellianism scales, a social desirability scale, and reports of actual lie frequency over a 24-hour period. The scale was also assessed for interitem consistency (Cronbach’s α) and test-retest reliability. We found that the LiES scale was a reliable and valid measure of lying. The LiES scale may be a useful tool for assessing the general tendency to lie across various contexts.

Personality Traits Associated with Various Forms of Lying.

In this study, we explored the relationship between personality traits and the tendency to lie. Specifically, we examined the correlation between various forms of lying and the personality factors of self-esteem, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. We developed a lie scale that assessed the tendency to tell three types of lies: altruistic, self-serving, and vindictive. A total of 352 participants completed the lie scale, the Ten-Item Personality Inventory, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Self-esteem, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness were negatively correlated with lying, while neuroticism was positively correlated with lying. Multiple regression analyses were used to determine the unique set of personality predictors for each type of lie.

Pathological Lying: Psychotherapists’ experiences and ability to diagnose.

Pathological lying has been discussed in the research literature for more than a century, mostly in case studies. Recent research has supported pathological lying as a diagnostic entity, although it remains absent from nosological systems. The current study aimed to survey practitioners about their experiences working with clients who engage in pathological lying and to examine practitioners' abilities to diagnose pathological lying.

Deceptive Communication in the Workplace: An Examination of Beliefs about Verbal and Paraverbal Cues.

Lies and other forms of deception in the workplace exact a tremendous financial toll on companies and organizations around the world. In this study, 240 employees from numerous businesses and municipal organizations completed a survey in which they indicated the degree to which they believed various aspects of communication change when people lie in the workplace. In support of the hypothesis, the employees held incorrect beliefs about fifteen of the eighteen verbal and paraverbal communication cues that were examined, suggesting that most employees may lack the information necessary to detect liars. The implications of these finding are discussed.

Deception in Therapy: Frequency, Typology, and Relationship.

Deception in therapy has been documented anecdotally through various narratives of therapists. The investigation of its occurrence within therapy has largely been overlooked. We explored the reported frequency of deception within psychotherapy, the types of deception used within therapy, the likelihood of people lying to a therapist compared to other groups of people, and client perceptions of the types of deception that therapists use. Ninety-one participants were provided with a series of deception examples, asked questions about the use of these types of deception within therapy, and asked generally about their use of deception in therapy. We found that a majority of the participants had been deceptive in therapy, and a majority were willing to be deceptive in future therapeutic contexts. Participants were more likely to use white lies than other forms of deception in therapy. Lastly, participants were less likely to lie to therapists compared to strangers and acquaintances. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Does Information about the Frequency of Lying Impact Perceptions of Honesty?

In the psychological research literature, deception is often discussed as a ubiquitous phenomenon. However, recent research has revealed that the mean of two lies per day is highly misleading due to a skewed distribution, with most people telling zero lies on any given day. We sought to explore how the presentation of statistics on lie frequency affects understandings of lie frequency, veracity judgments, behavioral intentions, beliefs about others’ propensity to lie, suspicion, and attitudes. In Study 1, 176 participants were randomly exposed to two explanations of deception research findings that either described lying as ubiquitous or not. Results revealed that the differing explanations of lie frequency did not produce significant differences on the dependent measures. In Study 2, 114 participants were randomly assigned to watch a video of a researcher discussing one of three deception literature prompts. Results indicated that a more nuanced presentation of the skewed distribution of lie frequency led participants to believe that lying is less ubiquitous, but had no effect on veracity judgments, behavioral intention, beliefs about others’ propensity to lie, suspicion, and attitudes. Implications and considerations for reporting lie frequency are discussed.