Personality traits that contribute to the non-recognition of lies

Yanovsky Mikhail Ivanovich ORCID: 0000-0002-9265-6917 PhD in Psychology Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Donetsk National University 283001, Russia, Donetsk People's Republic, g. Donetsk, ul. Universitetskaya, 24 m.i.yanovsky@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Malishevskaya Evgeniya Vladimirovna Student, Donetsk State University 283001, Russia, Donetsk Republic, Donetsk, Universitetskaya, 24 zhenya.malishevskaya.02@inbox.ru

Nowadays, there is a kind of global social testing of the ability to distinguish between true and false political information, and the split into the past and the non-past of this "test" is one of the main reasons for the modern political confrontation. An amazing fact is the presence of a large number of people: 

1) who, with a minimum of information, understood and understand what is a lie, i.e. they do not succumb to the "hypnosis" of lies;

2) and, conversely, who, even in the face of obvious irrefutable facts, having sufficient information for analysis, easily become (or remain) victims of deception.

It begs an explanation that there are intrapersonal psychological mechanisms for distinguishing or not distinguishing lies, attitudes to lies, and sometimes they are stronger than possession of objective information. Indeed, it is logical to believe that the mechanisms of distinguishing between truth and falsehood - due to their significance for human life – are embedded in the structure of personality, and are not only a manifestation of the functioning of the cognitive sphere of the subject. But if so, then they can be investigated accordingly – through the personal properties of a person and their connections. We have implemented this approach in this paper.

So, the object of our research is the perception of lies, the subject is intrapersonal psychological mechanisms that cause discrimination or non–discrimination of lies.

What is a lie? The answer of the well-known American specialist P. Ekman is as follows: "I define a lie, or deception, as an action by which one person misleads another, doing it intentionally, without prior notification of their goals and without a clearly expressed request from the victim not to disclose the truth" ^{[7; p. 23]}. This definition is indisputable, and allows us to give a reasonable differentiation of cases of lies and non-lies. However, by pointing out the formal signs of a lie, it does not sufficiently contribute to understanding the psychological essence of a lie.

In his dissertation, S.I. Simonenko comes to the conclusion that psychologically a lie is a violation of intrapersonal integrity, coherence: "A lie is a conflict of truthful and false ideas in a person's mind" ^{[6, p. 9]}.

D.M. Egorov suggests considering a lie and a liar as part of a certain psychological system that also includes a whistleblower ^[3].

The French sociologist and psychologist of the early twentieth century J. Duprat characterizes the lie as a "psychosocial act of suggestion". Thus, he drew attention to the presence of an element of suggestion in the lie, suggestion ^[1].

Apparently, it is wrong to reduce a lie only to a distortion of information. Lying is also a form of intersubjective relations. Therefore, its recognition depends on the ability to navigate in them, and to withdraw, not to depend on them, relying on the intrapersonal potential.

Thus, in the study of V.M. Devishvili and co-authors, the correlation of the ability to recognize false information with intrapersonal emotional intelligence was revealed, in the absence of such a correlation with interpersonal emotional intelligence ^[2]. This confirms that the recognition of lies is a personal problem, even intrapersonal, depends on the development of internal reflection of the personality. A.Y. Koroleva cites data suggesting that introversion contributes to the recognition of lies ^[4].

Research by I.F. Prokhorova showed a connection between the ability to recognize lies with field independence and reflective cognitive style ^[5].

Thus, the recognition of lies is clearly related to intrapersonal processes, to the peculiarities of the internal organization of the individual.

Let's offer our view on the phenomenon of lies.

To characterize this phenomenon, it is convenient to use the categories "form" and "content". A lie is the creation and use of forms (words, images) that do not reveal, but mask the content (create fictitious forms). In this sense, the situation of lying creates a certain asymmetry: it is possible to mentally trace how the liar moved from the content to the fictitious form, but it is impossible to return from this fictitious form to the original content (lack of reversibility). The point of deception is to prevent the recipient from reaching this content. Therefore, the deceiver becomes "hidden", he is outside the artificial "world" that he creates for the deceived. Thus, the deceiver and the deceived are, as it were, not on equal terms. The situation of lying is asymmetric, so it is generally characterized by disequilibrium. This, we believe, is reflected in the states of the participants in the situation of lies, for example, in the experience of inequality: the deceiver feels as if he is superior, feels superior, the deceived feels as if he is limited by something, deprived of freedom of action or rights, as if he is in a virtual cocoon. Deception is an excess of one's power, for one side, and a groundless restriction of freedom, for the other side.

The deceiver is self-asserting; by the presence of seemingly unreasonably self-asserting, "self-satisfied" behavior, it is possible, apparently, to identify the possible presence of deception, in the absence of its obvious signs. As well as by the presence of one of the participants in the situation (the one who is the victim of deception) experiencing the causeless inability to do something, as if paralyzed. On the other hand, the feeling of falling into a virtual cocoon can create the illusion of security for the deceived. Therefore, the state of "being deceived" has its illusory paradoxical appeal. In this sense, the Freudian idea of the intrinsic motivation of the "victim of deception" position is not unfounded.

If the attribute of the deception situation is disequilibrium and irreversibility, then this gives reason to assume that the mechanism of intuitive deception recognition consists in recognizing the disequilibrium in the information and in the situation in which it is served. The presence or absence of equilibrium can be used as a reference point, a support for such recognition.

In this regard, the result of one of our studies is interesting, in which the adequacy and accuracy of information perception increased in people who watched a film that created a mood of conscientiousness ^[8].  Other film genres (comedy, type film) did not cause such an effect. This is understandable just taking into account the fact that conscience is nothing but the principle of reversibility, balance in interpersonal relations (the "golden rule" of morality: "And so in everything, as you want people to do with you, so do you with them, for this is the law and the prophets" (Matthew 7:12)).

Lie recognition requires the ability to recognize hidden, or hidden information. In another of our studies, it was proposed to navigate the situation of information scarcity ^[9]. The success of orientation correlated with a combination of two factors: 1) lack of egocentrism, i.e. the ability to reflexively look at the situation both from the inside and from the outside, and 2) adherence to ideal, i.e. transpersonal, values. This combination means flexibility, plasticity of consciousness combined with reliance on moral principles. In fact, this is the basis of equilibrium: mobile, reversible processes organized around a fixed axis of equilibrium. This provides consciousness with the possibility of seeing information from different positions, but without loss of coherence, unity of consciousness.

Indeed, deception usually creates a "picture" as if sewn from different "patches", incoherent, and without an axis that allows you to connect parts of information. For example, we are tied to a certain angle of the object's vision so that we do not notice what we should not notice.

So, our hypothesis is that the situation of lies is characterized by a basic disequilibrium of its components, in particular, the initial inequality, the asymmetry of the positions of the participants in the situation of relations. The deceiver creates a fictitious controlled information cocoon for the deceived. A lie is not just a distortion of information, but a form of building a relationship between one person and another. The ability to recognize a lie is determined by sensitivity to disequilibrium and asymmetry in the system of relations in a situation.

Experiment

The study was conducted in the spring of 2023 among the youth of Donetsk. These are university students, the average age is 20 years. The study involved 32 girls and 8 boys.

The criterion for lie recognition was the presentation of stimulus material to the subjects, consisting of 10 real and 10 fake news. The subjects were asked to select false and truthful news from this list. As a result, the subjects were divided into two conditional groups. The subject fell into the group of "well-discerning truth and lies" with a correct assessment of 8 or more truthful or false "news". Accordingly, the subject fell into the group of "poorly recognizing truth and lies" with the correct recognition of truthfulness-falsity of less than 8 "news". The number of 8 was chosen to divide the entire sample into 2 equal parts.

An example of true news: "A neural network trained on Mars data has discovered hitherto unknown geological formations on the planet." An example of false (fake) news: "Artificial Intelligence has developed a new language that only children can understand and use."

To characterize the subjects, a 16-factor personality questionnaire of R. Kettell (form A) and a self-attitude test questionnaire of V.V. Stolin and S.R. Pantileev were used.

Results

The results of the self-attitude test by V.V. Stolin and S.R. Pantileev are surprising in that, according to all indicators, the self-attitude of persons who do not recognize lies poorly turned out to be of a higher level (in particular, according to the total indicator "Global Self-attitude" at the level p ? 0.03) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Average scores of those who distinguish lies poorly and those who distinguish lies well according to the method  Questionnaire of self-attitude of V.V. Stolin and S.R. Pantileev.

Fig. 1. Average scores of poorly discriminating lies and well discriminating lies according to the methodology of the Self-attitude Questionnaire of V.V. Stolin and S.R. Pantileev.

This corresponds to our model of the lie situation, in which one of the characteristic properties of its structure is presumably the inequality of the statuses of two subjects – the deceiver and the deceived. An overestimated level of self–attitude among those who do not distinguish lies is a sign of a possible acceptance of the position of inequality as a norm for themselves. Taking such a position as the norm, a person may also be inclined to accept a situation of lies as corresponding to this position in its psychological structure. In other words, the truth is uncomfortable for a person with an inflated self-attitude, because it equalizes everyone and deprives them of a sense of specialness, of separateness. Lying creates a psychological barrier between subjects, but the barrier just helps to maintain an inflated self-attitude. Therefore, presumably, people with an inflated self-attitude are more willing to lie, and also feel relatively comfortable in the role of victims of deception. But in addition to personal satisfaction, an overestimated level of self-attitude also contributes to blocking the work of reflection. Thus, part of the mental apparatus is excluded from participation in the reflection of information, the subject perceives information from a private limited, sometimes randomly selected, position, which he cannot change due to the blocking of reflection. Such a person is more likely to become a victim of deception.

Next, we will consider the results of R. Kettell's 16-factor personality questionnaire.

In Table 1, you can see a large number of statistically significant differences between poorly discriminating lies and well discriminating lies.

Table 1

The results of statistical analysis according to the method of R. Kettell

The results of statistical analysis according to the method of R. Kettell

(Note: bold font highlights properties that are relatively more characteristic of poorly discriminating lies)

Note that there is no difference in the level of intelligence between the two groups. This is a significant result; it means that we have no reason to say that the non-recognition of lies is due to a low level of mental abilities.

Poorly discriminating lies are characterized by personal characteristics: emotional stability, restraint, low normativity of behavior (unscrupulousness), courage, credulity, practicality, straightforwardness, calmness (calm self-confidence), conformity, low self-control.

For the convenience of interpretation, it is possible to combine these properties into 4 groups, each of which includes substantially similar characteristics.

Credulity, conformity, straightforwardness; generalizing conditional name – naivety.

Skepticism; low normativity of behavior; generalizing conditional name – pragmatism.

Courage, low self–control; generalizing conditional name - behavioral intemperance.

Emotional stability, restraint, calmness; the generalizing conditional name is emotional restraint.

Note, first, the presence of two properties that directly correspond to the non–discrimination of lies: credulity and conformity - naivety in the group. Why these features are characteristic of persons who do not distinguish lies well does not require special comments.

Relatively unexpected, from an ordinary point of view, is the presence of practicality and low normativity of behavior in non-discriminating lies) (the pragmatism group). There is a common stereotype that it is difficult to deceive a person who no longer believes in any values, has acquired cynicism. It turns out, on the contrary. Apparently, moral values, support ideally do not distort the perception of information, but make it more holistic, gives depth. Perhaps the support is ideally needed as an element of the balance that is needed to distinguish the truth, as we described it above. The experience of the post-Soviet 90s has shown that the refusal to rely on the ideal (in particular, ideology), contrary to expectations, turns a lot of people into victims of deception.

Courage, low self–control (group behavioral intemperance) - impulsivity in external actions, disequilibrium with the external environment. The lack of balance causes the ease of making superficial decisions. As a result, the insignificant can cause a violent reaction, and the essential, but requiring attention, can be ignored. This, obviously, makes a person an easy prey for a deceiver. In addition, the very behavioral incontinence as such means the ease of transition to inequality in the system of relations. Perhaps that is why an impulsive person is more comfortable with a situation of lies built on inequality.

The presence in the list of properties of people who do not distinguish lies well, emotional stability, restraint, calmness (the emotional restraint group) is also somewhat unexpected. This is at odds with the stereotype that emotions are a hindrance to objectivity. It turns out that this is not the case. Apparently, the emotionality of a person is involved in determining the truthfulness of information, it can be assumed as an additional channel of information. Emotions can distort information, but the natural expression of one's emotional reactions and "listening" to them, analyzing them, help to more accurately evaluate the information received. Emotional restraint suppresses this channel.

So, let's summarize this part of the analysis. It is easier to deceive people: naive (gullible) and emotionally blunted, down-to-earth pragmatic, while expansive ("arrogant").

Classical literature has long reflected this in the images of its characters. Thus, Jourdain from Moliere's famous comedy "The Bourgeois in the nobility" ("Le Bourgeois gentilhomme", exact translation: bourgeois gentleman) embodies just this set of features. Jourdain as a type is a reference victim of fraud.

Statistically significant correlations between personality traits are of great interest for analysis. They may indicate not just personal properties of greater or lesser weight, but functioning psychological structures. We determined correlations separately in persons who do not distinguish lies well, and separately in those who distinguish lies well.

In persons who do not distinguish lies well, the correlations are as follows (p ? 0.05).

Fig. 3. Correlations of personality traits in persons who do not distinguish lies well (Kettell's method) (direct correlations).

Fig. 3. Correlations of personality traits in persons who do not distinguish lies well (Kettell's method) (direct correlations).

We see four correlational pleiades of different composition.

The first of them (conformism + conservatism + calmness + straightforwardness) we would characterize as a personal structure that ensures the malleability of the individual to the social environment, while at the same time internal passivity, inertia. Such a structure causes passive submission of a person to the "magnetism" of a lie – when a person prefers to maintain a comfortable relationship with a liar, instead of the risk of breaking off relations after revealing the truth. Also, if we rely on our equilibrium model as a support for truth-lie recognition, then it should be said that compliance with the environment (conformism) against the background of internal rigidity (conservatism + calmness + straightforwardness) leads to a loss of balance with the environment, even with a small external pressure. Such an imbalance will most likely result in the subject experiencing himself as a victim, with the subsequent desire to compensate for the imbalance – to take the place of his "abuser", i.e. to become a kind of "punisher". But both the position of the "victim" and the position of the "punisher" are manifestations of a deliberate inequality in relations. Thus, here we come again to the statement that poor discrimination of lies is probably associated with a tendency to inequality relations.

The second pleiad can be described as "pragmatic imperiousness": practicality, combined with rigidity and dominance. These properties, firstly, imply a certain degree of coarsening of human consciousness, loss of "subtle" sensitivity and unbiased attentiveness. This in itself contributes to the non-recognition of lies. Secondly, pragmatic dominance, power is a deliberate rejection of balance in a situation in favor of "disequilibrium", asymmetry (most likely in its favor, but not necessarily) as the principle of both actions and visions of the situation. A lie is also an attempt to unilaterally control one person by another. Therefore, it is quite logical to believe that pragmatic dominance is "consonant" with relationships in the structure of the deception situation. The truth is, as it were, "too democratic", the same for everyone, thereby depriving them of a sense of their exclusivity and power over others. An imperious pragmatist, therefore, psychologically feels comfortable in the structure of deception, in the position of a deceiver, or even in the position of a deceived one, because in this case there is a power–dependence relationship.

The third correlation galaxy – emotional stability + low normativity (in particular, irresponsibility) – we would call "internal laziness" (in modern slang, unwillingness to "bother"). Obviously, this reflects an unwillingness to make internal efforts to recognize lies. The same can be said about the fourth galaxy – relaxation + low self-control.

All these characteristics taken together: compliance with the external social environment, internal inertia and laziness, plus imperious pragmatism, make up the content of the image of the same "bourgeois gentleman" that we mentioned above. Probably, this image reflects a certain social type, with egocentrism characteristic of it. Egocentrism, if we rely on J. Piaget, causes maladaptation and, therefore, inadequacy of cognitive structures of consciousness in relation to reality. The situation of self–deception and deception is natural for an egocentric.

Let us apply the identified factors that cause the non-recognition of lies to understanding why a significant part of the population of Ukraine was covered by the hood of total deception.

Thus, the tendency to support social loyalty with internal (intrapersonal) inertia is really characteristic of a significant part of the population of Ukraine. It can be assumed that this is one of the reasons for the ease of information manipulation in this country. Another reason is pragmatic dominance, which allows itself to put itself outside the norms of morality (devalue them in comparison with their practicality). This is also typical for a significant part of the population. Such pragmatism fits well with the myth being created about one's "exclusivity", and this contributes to feeling comfortable in the structure of deception: deceiving, or becoming a victim of deception – both help to avoid feelings of equality and community with people. "Internal laziness", unwillingness to make internal efforts, along with low normativity (reduced social responsibility) are also characteristic of a large part of Ukrainian citizens.

We should add that, in our opinion, this is equally applicable to the United States.

Next, we will characterize the correlations of personal properties of persons who distinguish lies relatively well.

Fig. 4. Correlations of personality traits in persons who distinguish lies well (Kettell's method).

Fig. 4. Correlations of personality traits in persons who distinguish lies well (Kettell's method).

The first thing to note is that seven properties are included in one of the two correlation pleiades at once. A larger volume of interrelations of personal properties means a higher level of internal integration of the personality, including, probably, the ability to hear oneself.

The central place in the structure of the pleiad is occupied by a bundle of nonconformism – radicalism (= propensity for innovation). This, apparently, is the axis of the mental structure that allows you to distinguish between truth and falsehood. In fact, it is a combination of independence with internal mobility, plasticity. The role of nonconformism in the rejection of lies is the ability to take an independent position, to get out of the "field" of relations with the source of information. What is the role of radicalism? We believe that this quality provides a kind of inquisitiveness of the mind, readiness to search and change the position. Thus, it is difficult to catch such a person in the limited framework set by the subject of deception. But in addition, such a combination (independence + mobility) is characteristic of a person who is in a state of internal dynamic balance. This again indirectly confirms our assumption that the realization of the principle of equilibrium is what distinguishes the psychological structure of the situation of truth from the psychological structure of the situation of lies. Therefore, a person with a high level of mobile internal balance is more sensitive to its presence or disturbance in the external environment, in any objects.

The bundle of nonconformism – radicalism connects the two parts of the pleiades. The first one – nonconformism + dreaminess + anxiety + tension – can be assumed to express the presence of a developed intense inner life of the individual. The combination of radicalism + suspicion + high normativity – probably expresses readiness for internal efforts on the basis of high internal "slats", demands; this is what manifests itself in such a quality as perfectionism. Thus, the intense inner life associated with efforts to improve, to improve what you are doing is what helps to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

In other words, the truth is recognized by the seeker, who does not calm down on the answers given to him.

The presence of dreaminess and high normativity in the galaxy speaks of idealism and moral exactingness. We have already mentioned the stereotype that attitudes to pragmatism make a person a realist, help to get rid of illusions, which means not to be deceived. In fact, we see that this is not the case. Apparently, the attitude to pragmatism leads to the devaluation and ignoring of part of the perceived information, neglect of subtle signals that may be essential for an adequate assessment of information. In addition, a moral view is a view that encompasses the connections of the object being evaluated (an event, a person, an information message): connection of form and content, connection of personality and society, act and situation, etc. Also, a moral view is a view with a kind of intrapersonal support, based on the moral axis of consciousness, on conscience. Therefore, such a view is based on equilibrium as the principle of the structure of something. In this sense, moral consciousness can recognize lies as an element of disharmony (for example, caricature) in information.

Anxiety, tension and suspicion as part of the main pleiad of personality traits of persons who are good at recognizing lies, apparently provide an internal mobilization of a person for attentiveness and thoroughness of information analysis. This result coincides with other similar studies ^[1].

The correlation of diplomacy with intelligence (the second, small galaxy) probably means that interaction with people is a well-thought-out, conscious, reflective sphere for the individual. It is clear that this gives the experience of recognizing someone else's positions, someone else's motivation, which is important for the ability to recognize truth-lies.

Conclusions

Persons who do not distinguish well between false messages have personality traits. Along with the obviously assumed traits of credulity and conformity, they are also characterized by: an inflated level of self-attitude, imperiousness combined with pragmatism, internal inertia and passivity, emotional restraint. In general, the assumption of lying as an action that creates disequilibrium in a situation, inequality relations, is confirmed. Therefore, persons who are good at recognizing lies are distinguished by the ability to maintain internal balance, balance with the social environment and equality relations with people. Their ability to recognize lies acts as a sensitivity to imbalance, to inequality.