Most of us know someone whose stories require a little discounting. We listen, raise an eyebrow, and move on. Living closely with repeated deception is another matter. When yesterday’s explanation disappears beneath today’s invention, ordinary conversations become exhausting. We begin checking facts that once required no checking.

Pathological lying brings these costs into focus. A fabricated story may briefly protect someone from embarrassment or make an ordinary life sound extraordinary. Yet the people drawn into that story must live with its consequences. Trust weakens, decisions rest on false information, and honest efforts to resolve problems go nowhere. It is difficult to build a better life while continually rewriting the life we already have.

Understanding Pathological Lying

Pathological lying has a long clinical history. In 1891, the German physician Anton Delbrück described people whose extraordinary fabrications did not fit comfortably within existing psychiatric categories. The term pseudologia fantastica emerged from this early work. Researchers continue to debate whether pathological lying should constitute a separate disorder or be understood within other conditions (Curtis & Hart, 2020; Frierson & Joshi, 2018).

It is not a separate diagnosis in the DSM-5-TR, as Drew Curtis’s Clinical Science and Deception Lab notes. That uncertainty calls for care with the label. Calling someone a pathological liar may express considerable frustration, but frustration does not establish a clinical explanation. Repeated deception deserves attention because of what it does to people’s lives, whether or not a particular diagnostic label applies (Curtis, n.d.).

When Lying Becomes Pathological

People lie to conceal mistakes, avoid conflict, or improve the impression they make. A person can also lie frequently for a clear advantage. The clinical concern becomes more specific when repeated lying causes substantial difficulties and feels hard to control.

Drew Curtis and Christian Hart proposed looking for a pattern that persists across situations for more than six months and involves serious disruption, distress, and risk of harm. These are proposed research criteria, not an official diagnostic checklist. The number of lies someone tells, or how long the behavior has lasted, cannot settle the question alone (Curtis & Hart, 2020).

In their study, 83 of 623 participants reported that they or others considered them pathological liars. This group described greater distress and problems in several areas of life, especially relationships. The participants came from selected online sources and a university, so the finding does not tell us how common pathological lying is in the general population (Curtis & Hart, 2020).

More recent work has focused on asking clearer questions about the problem. A 19-item questionnaire examines how often lying occurs, how upsetting it becomes, and how it interferes with relationships. Its developers cautioned that they had not established a score that reliably separates clinical cases from other patterns of lying. It can help organize assessment without providing a diagnosis on its own (Hart et al., 2024).

Pseudologia Fantastica and Elaborate Stories

Pseudologia fantastica commonly refers to enduring, elaborate fabrications that go well beyond what any obvious practical goal would require. Stories may combine real events with invented accomplishments, dramatic misfortunes, or an embellished personal history. The person may repeatedly appear as a remarkable hero or an unusually unfortunate victim (Birch et al., 2006).

The terms pseudologia fantastica and pathological lying are often used interchangeably, although some authors treat pseudologia fantastica as a narrower pattern. A lack of obvious financial or practical gain does not mean the behavior has no purpose. Attention, relief from painful feelings, or protection of a desired identity may matter even when tangible benefits are absent (Birch et al., 2006; Frierson & Joshi, 2018).

False Accounts Can Have Different Explanations

A false account does not always mean someone knowingly lied. A person may sincerely hold a mistaken belief or describe an event inaccurately because of memory difficulties. Clinicians need to distinguish these possibilities from deliberate deception. Frequent lying also does not, by itself, establish narcissistic or antisocial personality disorder (Birch et al., 2006).

What May Sustain Repeated Lying

There is no single established cause of pathological lying. Clinical accounts describe possible roles for protecting self-esteem, wish fulfillment, emotional avoidance, and the desire for attention. These possibilities guide questions about an individual’s experience; they do not establish that every repeated lie comes from insecurity or childhood trauma (Birch et al., 2006; Frierson & Joshi, 2018).

Immediate Relief and Growing Costs

A lie can solve a problem for the next five minutes. It may postpone an uncomfortable conversation, protect a fragile image, or produce admiration that feels difficult to earn otherwise. The trouble begins when that small relief becomes the preferred response to discomfort.

In Curtis and Hart’s study, the group identified with pathological lying reported more relief from anxiety after lying and a greater sense of being out of control. They also reported that lies grew from earlier lies. This is consistent with a cycle in which immediate relief encourages repetition, although the study did not follow people over time to establish how such a cycle develops (Curtis & Hart, 2020).

John Birtchnell offers a related clinical interpretation in The Two of Me. He describes lying that becomes automatic, with one fabrication requiring another until the invented account becomes difficult to untangle. His suggestion that fear of being known may contribute is an interpretation rather than an established explanation for everyone who lies compulsively (Birtchnell, 2004).

The immediate reward can become increasingly expensive. Persistent denial makes correction difficult. A person may preserve an appearance of success while avoiding the work of change. This concern also appears in discussions of defense mechanisms: protection from discomfort can become costly when it repeatedly prevents us from examining what happened.

Lying to Ourselves

Deception becomes especially troublesome when we begin accepting the account we created for others. In Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me), Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson explain how self-justification protects our preferred view of ourselves. When behavior conflicts with that view, we may reinterpret events and soften our sense of responsibility rather than change the behavior (Tavris & Aronson, 2007).

Their discussion concerns a common human tendency, not a diagnostic theory of pathological lying. Still, it illuminates an uncomfortable possibility. A self-protective explanation may become sincerely convincing to the person offering it. Sincerity and factual accuracy remain different questions.

Self-deception brings the subject closer to home. We need not tell extraordinary stories to distort our lives. We may minimize an injury we caused, inflate our contribution, or repeatedly describe a choice as something forced upon us. These everyday defenses do not amount to pathological lying, but they can interfere with the honesty that growth requires.

How Repeated Deception Damages Relationships

The damage extends beyond discovering that a particular statement was false. Once deception becomes a pattern, even truthful statements may meet suspicion. Ordinary decisions become harder when the information behind them repeatedly proves unreliable.

In The Science of Trust, John Gottman describes how trust makes interaction less demanding: we can act without continually checking a partner’s intentions and promises. Mistrust can reverse that ease, leaving people searching for evidence and questioning exchanges that once felt ordinary. His relationship framework helps explain the burden of verification, although it is not a study specifically of pathological lying (Gottman, 2011).

Research on ordinary relationship dishonesty adds a complementary perspective. Mazzini and colleagues examined 656 participants’ accounts involving current, former, or hypothetical romantic partners. Participants described broken trust, emotional distance, and pressure to maintain earlier deceptions. These were reported experiences of dishonesty broadly, rather than findings from a clinical sample diagnosed with pathological lying (Mazzini et al., 2025).

This matters for emotional intimacy. Being close to someone involves sharing enough of our experience for them to know us. A fabricated account may attract attention while concealing the very difficulties a relationship needs to address.

In severe circumstances, false accounts can affect people far beyond a relationship. Birch and colleagues described a forensic case involving fabricated accusations and substantial harm to others. Frierson and Joshi examined how elaborate deception can complicate psychiatric evaluations in criminal proceedings. Such cases illustrate possible consequences; they do not mean that people who lie compulsively are necessarily violent or criminal (Birch et al., 2006; Frierson & Joshi, 2018).

Responding to Repeated Lying

When deception affects our lives, we may become absorbed in proving the next falsehood. Sometimes verifying an important claim is necessary. Yet exposing a contradiction cannot guarantee an admission, an apology, or lasting change.

A practical response is to focus on specific events and consequences. We can explain what information we need, check claims that affect important decisions, and decline to repeat a story we have reason to doubt. Relationship boundaries help clarify what we are willing to participate in. These are ways of protecting decisions and relationships, rather than methods for diagnosing or treating someone else.

Some deception is part of gaslighting, in which manipulation undermines another person’s confidence in their experience of reality. Paige Sweet’s research places this process within relationships shaped by power and abuse. Lying and gaslighting can overlap, but the concepts are not interchangeable, and disagreement alone does not establish either one (Sweet, 2019).

Protecting the Story or Repairing the Harm

An explanation for lying may help us understand a behavior without resolving what it has done. Acknowledging a false account, recognizing its effects, and addressing its consequences are different tasks from persuading others that the deception was understandable. This distinction connects the article’s concern with truth to personal responsibility.

Research on apologies helps explain why acknowledgment can be difficult. Karina Schumann found that participants who first reflected on important personal values offered fuller apologies and fewer defensive responses when writing what they would say after a conflict. This suggests that protecting a sense of personal worth can sometimes make admitting fault less threatening. The studies did not test treatment for pathological lying or demonstrate lasting changes in behavior (Schumann, 2014).

Research on self-forgiveness offers a related distinction. Michael Wenzel and colleagues separate accepting wrongdoing while recovering self-respect from feeling better by minimizing responsibility. Their work supports keeping accountability and self-respect together; it does not establish that an admission alone produces restitution or restores trust (Wenzel et al., 2012).

For a person affected by repeated deception, compassion need not require continued reliance on an unreliable account. Consistent, trustworthy behavior can provide a basis for rebuilding trust, while the injured person retains the right to decide what closeness or involvement is appropriate.

Treatment and the Possibility of Change

The evidence does not support declaring that people who lie compulsively cannot change. It also does not justify promising an established cure. In an American Psychological Association interview, Curtis and Hart discussed cognitive behavioral and behavioral approaches as possible treatment directions while acknowledging the lack of research establishing effective treatments specifically for pathological lying (American Psychological Association, 2023).

Birch and colleagues likewise discussed possible interventions and reported anecdotal improvement in their case. An individual account cannot demonstrate general treatment effectiveness. Professional help may be useful, while the evidence for particular treatments remains limited (Birch et al., 2006).

For someone troubled by their own lying, describing the pattern honestly to a qualified clinician is a meaningful starting point. Assessment can explore when fabrication occurs, what it seems to accomplish, and whether other difficulties need attention. Loved ones can hope for improvement while making decisions based on the behavior they actually experience.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

A convincing story can attract admiration, secure sympathy, and sometimes carry a person surprisingly far. Yet recognition gained through fabrication leaves the underlying work undone. Being believed is a poor substitute for becoming the person we claim to be.

For most of us, the useful question is closer than a judgment about someone else’s character. Where have we made an excuse so often that we stopped examining it? What truth have we postponed because acknowledging it would require an apology or a difficult change?

Honesty can be uncomfortable. It exposes limitations and places responsibility back in our hands. It also gives us something dependable to work with. The conversation that once disappeared beneath another invention may finally become a conversation about what happened and what can happen next.

Associated Concepts

• Self-Deception: Forming or maintaining a misleading belief as preferred conclusions influence how we handle evidence.
• Self-Justification: Explaining choices or behavior in ways that preserve a favorable view of ourselves, sometimes at the expense of acknowledging error.
• Defense Mechanisms: Largely unconscious psychological processes that protect against distress and may alter awareness of uncomfortable experiences.
• Emotional Intimacy: A close emotional connection involving trust, vulnerability, and the sharing of personal experience.
• Integrity: Acting in ways that align with personal values and principles, including when doing so is uncomfortable.

References

American Psychological Association (2023). Can a Pathological Liar Be Cured? With Drew Curtis, PhD, and Christian L. Hart, PhD. Speaking of Psychology, Episode 222, encore [Podcast transcript]. Website: APA interview and transcript.
(Return to Main Text)

Birch, Cheryl D.; Kelln, Brad R. C.; Aquino, Emmanuel P. B. (2006). A Review and Case Report of Pseudologia Fantastica. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 17(2), 299–320. DOI: 10.1080/14789940500485128.
(Return to Main Text)

Birtchnell, John (2004). The Two of Me: The Rational Outer Me and the Emotional Inner Me. Psychology Press. DOI: 10.4324/9780203501979.
(Return to Main Text)

Curtis, Drew A. (n.d.). Clinical Science and Deception. Website: Clinical Science and Deception Lab. Accessed October 31, 2026.
(Return to Main Text)

Curtis, Drew A.; Hart, Christian L. (2020). Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity. Psychiatric Research and Clinical Practice, 2(2), 62–69. DOI: 10.1176/appi.prcp.20190046.
(Return to Main Text)

Frierson, Richard L.; Joshi, Kaustubh G. (2018). Implications of Pseudologia Fantastica in Criminal Forensic Evaluations: A Review and Case Report. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 63(3), 976–979. DOI: 10.1111/1556-4029.13616.
(Return to Main Text)

Gottman, John M. (2011). The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN: 9780393705959.
(Return to Main Text)

Hart, Christian L.; Curtis, Drew A.; Terrizzi, John A. (2024). Development and Validation of the Pathological Lying Inventory. Current Psychology, 43, 21218–21228. DOI: 10.1007/s12144-024-05900-1.
(Return to Main Text)

Mazzini, Rachele; Malfilâtre, Anna Louise; Lilleholt, Lau; Power, Séamus A.; Zettler, Ingo (2025). Dishonesty in Romantic Relationships: A Framework of Forms, Content, Dominant Motives, and Consequences. Personal Relationships, 32(3), e70028. DOI: 10.1111/pere.70028.
(Return to Main Text)

Schumann, Karina (2014). An Affirmed Self and a Better Apology: The Effect of Self-Affirmation on Transgressors’ Responses to Victims. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 89–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.013.
(Return to Main Text)

Sweet, Paige L. (2019). The Sociology of Gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. DOI: 10.1177/0003122419874843.
(Return to Main Text)

Tavris, Carol; Aronson, Elliot (2007). Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. Harcourt. ISBN: 9780151010981.
(Return to Main Text)

Wenzel, Michael; Woodyatt, Lydia; Hedrick, Kyli (2012). No Genuine Self-Forgiveness Without Accepting Responsibility: Value Reaffirmation as a Key to Maintaining Positive Self-Regard. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(5), 617–627. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1873.
(Return to Main Text)

Last Update: January 3, 2026