Advertisement

The Phenomenology of Lying in Young Adults and Relationships with Personality and Cognition

  • Jon E. GrantEmail author
  • Helen A. Paglia
  • Samuel R. Chamberlain
Original Paper
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

Despite research suggesting that lying may be a normal aspect of development and a fairly frequent occurrence in many adults, surprisingly little is known about its phenomenology and possible associations with relevant personality traits and cognitive functions. University students were invited to participate in an online study, which included a 91-item questionnaire and four neurocognitive tasks (selected to focus on frontal lobe function). The survey included questions about frequency of lying and reasons for doing so, mental health history, personality traits, religiosity, and insight into lying. Those who lied daily (“Daily Liars”) were compared to those who lied less frequently (“Non-Daily Liars”). 18.1% of the sample reported lying every day. Daily Liars showed worse grade point averages, quality of life, and self-esteem. Daily Lying was associated with negative functional impact on school, social, and family/home domains. We did not find evidence that is was associated with frontal lobe dysfunction on the cognitive tasks examined.

Keywords

Lying Impulsivity Personality 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

Dr. Grant has received research grants from NIAAA, AFSP, TLC Foundation, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Grant receives yearly compensation from Springer Publishing for acting as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Gambling Studies and has received royalties from Oxford University Press, American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., Norton Press, and McGraw Hill. Dr. Chamberlain’s research is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Fellowship to Dr. Chamberlain (110,049/Z/15/Z). Dr. Chamberlain consults for Cambridge Cognition, Shire, and Promentis. Ms. Paglia has no potential conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ford CV, King BH, Hollender MH. Lies and liars: psychiatric aspects of prevarication. Am J Psychiatry. 1988;145(5):554–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feldman RS, Forrest JA, Happ BR. Self-presentation and verbal deception: do self-presenters lie more? Basic Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;24:163–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gylfason HF, Arnardottir AA, Kristinsson K. More on gender differences in lying. Econ Lett. 2013;119:94–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhattacherjee Y. Why we lie. Natl Geogr. 2017:31–51.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McLeod B, Genereux RL. Predicting the acceptability and likelihood of lying: the interaction of personality with type of lie. Personal Individ Differ. 2008;45:591–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Phillips MC, Meek SW, Vendemia JM. Understanding the underlying structure of deceptive behaviors. Personal Individ Differ. 2011;50(6):783–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gozna LF Vrij A, Bull R. The impact of individual differences on perceptions of lying in everyday life and in a high stake situation. Personal Individ Differ. 2001;31(7):1203–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00219-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foerster A, Wirth R, Kunde W, Pfister R. The dishonest mind set in sequence. Psychol Res. 2017 Jul;81(4):878–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suchotzki K, Verschuere B, Van Bockstaele B, Ben-Shakhar G, Crombez G. Lying takes time: a meta-analysis on reaction time measures of deception. Psychol Bull. 2017 Apr;143(4):428–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morgan AB, Lilienfeld SO. A meta-analytic review of the relation between antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive function. Clin Psychol Rev. 2000;20(1):113–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chamberlain SR, Derbyshire KL, Leppink EW, Grant JE. Neurocognitive deficits associated with antisocial personality disorder in non-treatment-seeking Young adults. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2016;44(2):218–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ford CV. Lies, lies, lies: the psychology of deceit. American Psychiatric Press. 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schreiber L, Odlaug BL, Grant JE. Impulse control disorders: updated review of clinical characteristics and pharmacological management. Front Psych. 2011;2:1.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang Y, Raine A, Lencz T, Bihrle S, Lacasse L, Colletti P. Prefrontal white matter in pathological liars. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187(4):320–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Modell JG, Mountz JM, Ford CV. Pathological lying associated with thalamic dysfunction demonstrated by [99mTc]HMPAO SPECT. J Neuropsychiatr Clin Neurosci. 1992;4(4):442–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oliveira C, Levine T. Lie acceptability: a construct and measure. Commun Res Rep. 2008;25(4):282–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dahling JJ, Whitaker VG, Levy PE. The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. J Manag. 2009;35:219–57.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eisen JL, Phillips KA, Baer L, Beer DA, Atala KD, Rasmussen SA. The Brown assessment of beliefs scale: reliability and validity. Am J Psychiatry. 1998;155(1):102–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon, Williams JBW. The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R personality disorders (SCID-II). Part I: Description. J Personal Disord. 1995;9:83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    American Psychiatric Association (APA). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC. 2000.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koenig HG, Büssing A. The Duke University religion index (DUREL): a five-item measure for use in Epidemological studies. Religions. 2010;1;1(1):78–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Young KS. Internet addiction: the emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychol Behav. 1998;1(3):237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koffarnus MN, Bickel WK. A 5-trial adjusting delay discounting task: accurate discount rates in less than one minute. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014 Jun;22(3):222–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Owen AM, Morris RG, Sahakian BJ, Polkey CE, Robbins TW. Double dissociations of memory and executive functions in working memory tasks following frontal lobe excisions, temporal lobe excisions or amygdalo-hippocampectomy in man. Brain. 1996;119(Pt 5):1597–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baker SC, Rogers RD, Owen AM, Frith CD, Dolan RJ, Frackowiak RS, et al. Neural systems engaged by planning: a PET study of the tower of London task. Neuropsychologia. 1996;34(6):515–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Owen AM, Roberts AC, Polkey CE, Sahakian BJ, Robbins TW. Extra-dimensional versus intra-dimensional set shifting performance following frontal lobe excisions, temporal lobe excisions or amygdalo-hippocampectomy in man. Neuropsychologia. 1991;29(10):993–1006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Talwar V, Lee K. Social and cognitive correlates of children's lying behavior. Child Dev. 2008 Jul-Aug;79(4):866–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sarzyńska J, Falkiewicz M, Riegel M, Babula J, Margulies DS, Nęcka E, et al. More intelligent extraverts are more likely to deceive. PLoS One. 2017 Apr 27;12(4):e0176591.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chandler M, Fritz AS, Hala S. Small-scale deceit: deception as a marker of two-, three-, and four-year-olds' early theories of mind. Child Dev. 1989;60(6):1263–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon E. Grant
    • 1
    Email author
  • Helen A. Paglia
    • 1
  • Samuel R. Chamberlain
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral NeuroscienceUniversity of Chicago, Pritzker School of MedicineChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT)CambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations