Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:25:49.356Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Authors' reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Y. Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089–1061, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
A. Raine
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

The findings reported by Kruesi et al are intriguing. We showed that adult pathological liars had 22% more prefrontal white matter than normal controls and 26% more than antisocial controls. Based on mean values reported by Kruesi et al, they too found higher prefrontal white matter/whole brain volumes in adolescent liars compared with both normal controls (14.7%) and antisocial controls (50%). Their sample of adolescent liars was small (n=4) and therefore underpowered for the detection of a true increase in prefrontal white matter. We therefore believe that the results of Kruesi et al support our findings rather than refute them. With a larger sample size they may well have found a statistically significant increase in prefrontal white matter in liars. An important difference between the two studies is that the mean age of our adult pathological liars (36.5 years) was more than twice that of the adolescent liars (15.9 years). Since prefrontal white matter may not be fully developed until 30 years of age (Reference Paus, Collins and EvansPaus et al, 2001), there may be insufficient development of prefrontal white matter in adolescents to facilitate pathological lying. Taken together the findings suggest a neurodevelopmental hypothesis whereby individual differences in white matter predispose more to lying in adulthood when neurodevelopment is complete.

A further difference between the studies is that although our pathological liars were matched with controls for IQ, the control group of Kruesi et al had a 31 point higher IQ than the liars, which may affect their findings. A further important difference is that we assessed pathological lying in adults, whereas Kruesi et al appear to be assessing excessive lying in adolescents. There may be a continuum of lying from normative lying (controls) to excessive lying (the adolescents of Kruesi et al) to pathological lying (our adults). Whether prefrontal white matter (or any other brain structure) is related in a neurodevelopmental context to this lying continuum remains to be determined.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

This study was supported by grants to A.R. from the National Institute of Mental Health (Research Scientist Development Award K02 (MH01114-01, Independent Scientist Award K02 MH01114-01 and 5 RO3 MH50940-02) and from the Wacker Foundation.

References

Paus, T., Collins, D. L., Evans, G., et al (2001) Maturation of white matter in the human brain: A review of magnetic resonance studies. Brain Research Bulletin, 54, 255266.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.