Organization behavior

1 23

Journal of Business Ethics ISSN 0167-4544 Volume 106 Number 4 J Bus Ethics (2012) 106:389-400 DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1015-6

Detecting Honest People’s Lies in Handwriting

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Springer

Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you

wish to self-archive your work, please use the

accepted author’s version for posting to your

own website or your institution’s repository.

You may further deposit the accepted author’s

version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s

request, provided it is not made publicly

available until 12 months after publication.

Detecting Honest People’s Lies in Handwriting

The Power of the Ten Commandments and Internalized Ethical Values

Thomas Li-Ping Tang

Received: 7 August 2011 / Accepted: 28 August 2011 / Published online: 24 September 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Can managers detect honest people’s lies in a

handwritten message? In this article, I will briefly discuss

graphology and a basic model of interpersonal communi-

cation. I will then develop a fundamental theoretical

framework of eight principles for detecting lies based on

the basic communication model, handwriting analyses, and

the following assumptions: For most people, it is easier to

tell the truth than to tell lies. This applies to handwritings

also. When most honest people lie, they try to hide their

stressful emotions in the encoding process. As a conse-

quence, they deviate from their own normal writing and

violate their own personal moral standards. Interestingly

enough, the art or science of detecting a lie in a handwritten

sample is to focus not on what they write, but on how they

write it. These 24 exhibits (cases) written in 11 lan-

guages—used in different parts of the world—help man-

agers apply this important theoretical framework of

interpersonal communication, understand the encoding

process, pinpoint these sudden emotional changes, decode

handwritten messages, unlock the secrets, reveal the mes-

sage’s true meanings, and detect people’s lies.

Keywords Graphology � Handwriting analysis � Interpersonal communication � Language � Culture � Detecting lies � Cases

To a large extent, unethical cultures, created by CEOs and

top executives ‘‘informally’’ at the organization level, had

caused executives’ ethical lapses and scandals at Enron,

WorldCom, and Tyco. Besides increasing effectiveness and

efficiency in organizations and maintaining sustainability

in the world market, many top executives face the daunting

task of curbing infectious cheating, prevalent corruption,

and unethical behaviors in business, on Wall Street and

also on Main Street (Tang and Chen 2008; Tang and Chiu

2003). For the past several decades, researchers have

stressed the importance of incorporating contextual vari-

ables in studying behavioral ethics (Ajzen 1991; Bamber-

ger 2008; Kish-Gephart et al. 2010; Martin et al. 2007;

McCabe et al. 2006; Rousseau and Fried 2001; Tang and

Tang 2010; Tang et al. 2011; Treviño 1986) because most

people look to the social context to determine what is

ethically right and wrong, obey authority figures, and do

what is rewarded in organizations (Ariely 2010).

Many studies have paid attention to the contextual

variables in studying behavior ethics. For example, getting

Harvard, MIT, Yale, and Princeton students to contemplate

their own ethical values by recalling the Ten Command-

ments or signing an honor code eliminates cheating com-

pletely, while offering poker chips doubles the level of

cheating (Ariely 2008a). Other researchers support these

findings (Aquino et al. 2009). In a field study, the legal

enforcement and corrupt cultures at the local and entity

levels have significant impacts on corruption—unpaid

parking violations among United Nations diplomats living

in New York City (Fisman and Miguel 2007). These

studies suggest that most people are subject to all kinds of

‘‘temptations’’ in the environment triggering them to

behave either ethically or unethically (Baumeister 2002).

Further, ‘‘when cheating is one step removed from cash,’’

people rationalize and justify their dishonesty easily. ‘‘Such

T. L.-P. Tang (&) Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones

College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University,

Murfreesboro, TN 37132, USA

e-mail: ttang@mtsu.edu

123

J Bus Ethics (2012) 106:389–400

DOI 10.1007/s10551-011-1015-6

Author's personal copy

latitude is the force behind the Enrons of the world’’

(Ariely 2008a, p. 24). We can not afford to allow such

scandals and corruption to occur again and again in our

society.

It is almost impossible for managers to directly observe

and record employees’ actual cheating, embezzlement,

kickback, bribery, corruption, and all different forms of

unethical behaviors which are usually performed in private

or behind closed doors with the following exceptions: e.g.,

formal criminal investigations of corruption cases, police

records, and laboratory experiments. Most researchers have

to study behavioral ethics by asking people to complete

surveys or answer questions in interviews. Behavioral

ethics can be examined from several perspectives: bad

apples, bad cases, and bad barrels (Kish-Gephart et al.

2010). It is interesting to note that, however, researchers

usually receive what they ask for and people are willing to

provide accurate information for specific questions in an

anonymous survey (Richman et al. 1999; Schoorman and

Mayer 2008). Recently, De Jonge and Peeters (2009) and

Fox et al. (2007) showed the convergence of the incum-

bent’s self-report and the coworker’s peer-report on

counterproductive work behavior. Self-reported corrupt

intent (intention) is a reasonable surrogate measure of

corruption (behavior).

In this study, I focus on written communication, hand-

written samples, in particular. This is an interesting topic

for researchers and practitioners. Specifically, unethical

behaviors are usually performed in private or behind closed

doors. Therefore, it is difficult to measure, document, or

verify. Further, due to the application of new communi-

cation mediums (e.g., e-mail, text messaging) in recent

years, most people have used less and less handwritten

messages in communication. Most people forget that these

handwritten materials do provide extremely valuable

information. With less practice in using handwritten

communication, most people are more vulnerable than

before in revealing their inner secrets and emotions. This

article focuses on detecting lies in handwritten samples—

showing individuals’ behavioral changes due to internal

and external moral values and standards.

A quick search using the ISI (Web of Knowledge)

database on August 4, 2011, researchers quickly identified

85 articles using the term graphology and 911 articles using

the phrase handwriting analysis in the literature. Further,

practically, no research has combined graphology and

detecting lies (two search terms) in the ISI database. This

article fills the void: I will present a general theoretical

framework, treat 24 exhibits in 11 languages around the

world for detecting lies using graphology as case studies

(Falkenberg and Woiceshyn 2008), and teach researchers

and practitioners (teachers and managers) the principles of

detecting handwritten lies.

Graphology and Handwriting Analysis

Researchers and practitioners have studied the reliability

and validity of graphology and handwriting analysis

(Blinkhorn 1993) for numerous purposes, such as identi-

fying personal attributes/personality in personnel selection

(Anderson et al. 2010; Bangerter et al. 2009; Klimoski and

Rafaeli 1983; Rafaeli and Klimoski 1983) and predicting

personality (Dazzi and Pedrabissi 2009; Furnham and

Gunter 1987), stress (Keinan and Eilatgreenberg 1993), and

suicide attempts (Mouly et al. 2007). However, most

researchers tend to consider graphology as well as other

techniques such as polygraphs, honesty tests, biodata, and

personality inventories more invasive and less favorable as

personnel selection tools than interviews and work samples

(Hausknecht et al. 2004; Kravitz et al. 1996). Some argue

that graphology should not be used in a selection context

(Driver et al. 1996; Furnham and Gunter 1987). Others

suggest that it deserves more attention in future research.

Moreover, Americans tend to view the use of graphology

with a more negative connotation than people in France

and other European countries (Bergmann 2010; Steiner and

Gilliland 1996).

Some researchers (Ben-Shakhar et al. 1986; Nevo 1988)

argued that graphology can predict occupational success.

Specifically, Ben-Shakhar et al. (1986) found that in view of

the graphology’s low reliability, the aesthetic features of

one’s handwriting (under one’s voluntary control) predict

supervisor satisfaction that reflects one’s willingness to

please, to ‘‘do well,’’ to match up to some standard. Despite a

lack of empirical validity, unflattering to graphology, its

users so often prepared to swear by it. Graphology may have

two other kinds of compelling ‘‘validities’’—face validity

and personal validity. According to Ben-Shakhar et al.

(1986), ‘‘face validity refers to the fact that handwriting

appears to have the right kind of properties for reflecting

personality. Personal validation refers to the subjective

feeling imparted by exposure to a graphological analy-

sis that it is accurate and right on the button, that it man-

aged to capture the true core of one’s personality’’ (p. 652).

Unfortunately, neither of these two types of validation

can substitute for straightforward empirical validation. It

appears that different topics related to graphology and

handwriting analysis, still in its infancy of rigorous, empir-

ical research in different parts of the world, continue to

attract researchers and practitioners’ attention and excite

empirical debate in the literature.

The Practice

Although managers may have no direct evidence of

cheating behaviors per se, they may indirectly detect lies

390 T. L.-P. Tang

123

Author's personal copy

by asking employees to put it in writing their psychological

experiences of an event in question (e.g., cheating, deviant

behavior, misbehavior, or corruption). Following Ariely’s

(2008a) basic principles for research, managers can detect

handwritten lies by first establishing a baseline perfor-

mance when employees tell the truth and then comparing

that with any future self disclosure for signs of deviation.

When honest people lie in their hand written presentations,

they are subject to their internal, personal, psychological

emotions, feelings, or external ‘‘temptations’’ that trigger

them to deviate from their normal behaviors. The sudden

changes from ‘‘telling the truth’’ to ‘‘telling a lie’’ can be

observed clearly but may be difficult to analyze and

quantify using statistics. On the basis of handwritten

samples collected for more than three decades, I have

identified eight psychological principles that help managers

unlock the secrets of decoding handwritten communica-

tion, pinpoint emotional changes in handwritten messages,

reveal the message’s true meanings, and detect people’s

lies.

A Theoretical Model of Communication and Detecting

Lies

Using the theoretical model of interpersonal communica-

tion, people develop an idea in their mind first. Then, people

use their personal ‘‘encoding’’ process and compose a

message (what they say) that may, consciously or uncon-

sciously, reveal the deepest inner emotions and feelings

(how they say it). This message is then delivered to the

receiver using many different forms of medium. In recent

years, due to new technologies and equipments, many

consider messages delivered using our new medium, such

as an e-mail, or text messaging, ‘‘impersonal’’ and ‘‘cold’’

because portions of the message—emotions and feelings—

have been lost in the communication process. The use of

standardized emoticons does not reveal one’s real emotions

and deep feelings at all. The communication noise, medium,

and our lack of knowledge, skills, and abilities in deci-

phering the ‘‘decoding’’ mechanisms (breaking the code)

may cause the receiver to lose the majority of the infor-

mation in the decoding process and accept only the message

at face value. In order to check the accuracy of the received

message, the receiver may contact the sender and verify the

message. This is the feedback loop in the communication

process. In short, the whole communication process

involves the following components and steps: (1) identify a

message to be conveyed, (2) encode message, (3) transmit

message through communication channel(s), (4) receive

message, (5) decode message, (6) understand the message,

and (7) send a feedback message to sender to verify the

accuracy of information/message.

This basic communication model is useful for conducting

handwriting analysis and gaining deep understand of hand-

written materials. Handwriting is brain writing that is mostly

controlled by our brains and our deepest inner thoughts and

feelings. Handwriting is slightly different from other

thought-to-body activities (e.g., breathing, standing, walk-

ing, and eating). As mentioned, different features of one’s

handwriting are all under writers’ voluntary control (Ben-

Shakhar et al. 1986). In this article, I will briefly describe the

‘‘decoding’’ process for handwritten materials and help

readers understand the true meaning of the message.

Most people in the US and around the world have been

conditioned to write on lined notebook papers by writing to

the ‘‘right’’ of the red vertical line and ‘‘above’’ the blue

horizontal lines in a very structured environment. We have

adopted these fundamental concepts. We write from ‘‘left’’

to ‘‘right’’ regardless of language (e.g., Chinese, English,

French, German, Spanish, etc.). However, other languages

may differ significantly by writing from ‘‘right’’ to ‘‘left’’

(e.g., Arabic and Hebrew) or from top to bottom and from

right to left (Chinese).

Here is an exercise that managers can utilize in organi-

zations. To collect a handwritten sample, one can simply

provide a blank unlined sheet of paper. Without any visible

guides, people become vulnerable and must create their

own imaginary horizontal and vertical lines on the paper.

Baseline data can be established by asking people to state

some verifiable facts and personal information for several

lines, e.g., write continuously their name, name of the

organization, recent events, and work experiences in orga-

nizations. Then, managers can ask their employees to

describe an event in question by writing continuously in the

same paragraph. For regular experiential exercises, honest

people are asked to write a true story and embed a lie that no

one else knows. This exercise is similar to Harvard Psy-

chologist David McClelland’s Thematic Apperception Test

(McClelland 1985; McClelland and Steele 1972). The

purpose of using a projective test is to provoke the subjects/

participants to reveal their unconscious ideas or thoughts by

asking them to respond and write down their feelings

regarding ambiguous photos or pictures/paintings. The

content of the stories allows researchers to identify common

themes in these stories: need for achievement (nAch), need

for affiliation (nAff), and need for power (nPower) as well

as general motivation, personality styles, behavior patterns,

leadership styles, attention to details, values, and beliefs.

The Major Principles of Detecting Lies

Telling the truth (in writing) is very easy, simple, and

without stress. We write consistently, quickly, and without

much thinking or reservation, on ‘‘autopilot.’’ We maintain

Detecting Honest People’s Lies 391

123

Author's personal copy

the same slant, write from left to right (for most people),

and adopt the same format for all the alphabets/letters

consistently. For most honest people, telling a lie is

stressful which may pose a threat to their moral standards.

As mentioned, contemplate one’s own ethical values by

‘‘recalling the Ten Commandments or signing an honor

code’’ eliminates cheating completely. Following Ariely’s

argument, religion in general, the Ten Commandments in

particular, moral standards, and other ethical values and

cultures in the social environment around different parts of

the world greatly enhance people’s ethical decision mak-

ing. Since commonly accepted values in many religions

around the world and basic moral standards exist, most

people attempt to be honest and ethical.

When honest people lie, they must exert an extra effort,

hide their emotions, and make a plan in advance. When

making a mental preparation for this event—telling a lie,

their handwriting is slightly different from their normal

truthful writing. Following the psychological literature on

self-presentation and deception (DePaulo 1992; DePaulo

et al. 2003; Schlenker and Leary 1982), the focus is not on

what they say, but mainly on how they say it in the

handwritten message.

Managers utilize the following principles to detect

emotional changes and the locations of the lies. First, when

honest people lie, most of them violate their own estab-

lished standard—the imaginary ‘‘left’’ margin of their own

writing. This self-imposed imaginary vertical left margin

can be identified by connecting the first several lines that

are mostly true, or connecting the first line with the last one

of the entire message. Most honest people have only one

single straight line as their own left margin, or their moral

standards. When people change from ‘‘telling the truth’’ to

‘‘telling a lie,’’ the sudden change of emotions and feelings

is very obvious, dramatic, and very easy to detect because

telling a lie is a significant violation of their moral stan-

dards (Exhibits/Cases 1–15, see Exhibit/Case 1, in partic-

ular). On the other hand, some sophisticated people with

low emotional stability tend to change their standards

quickly and frequently and have multiple left-hand side

margins, or multiple standards. Even with multiple mar-

gins, we can detect these changes and identify several

possible locations of their lies (Exhibits 2, 9).

The starting point of a lie depends on the extent to which

they prepare for the lie in advance. Since people may tell

their lie at any point in their story, a few people may think

ahead of the time, have a general plan for the whole story,

and gradually write the story out. The starting point of the

lie is located far ahead of the actual lie (Exhibit 4). Others

may present multiple ideas in separate sentences in that one

sentence (with the lie) has nothing to do with the previous

sentences. Then, the starting point of the lie and the actual

lie are pretty close (Exhibits 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 12).

The starting point of a lie is located at the point where

the tip of a line ‘‘minutely’’ breaches or intersects the

imaginary vertical ‘‘left’’ margin, signifying the sudden,

abrupt, and unexpected change in their emotions. The

actual lie starts on that line or on the following one. In

some cases, it starts at the last few words of the previous

line (Exhibits 3, 6). This single principle detects about 80%

of the lies (Exhibits 1–15). Exhibit 15 shows two hand-

writing samples/cases written in Arabic: one by a male

students and the other by a female student from Saudi

Arabia. As we all know, Arabians write from ‘‘right’’ to

‘‘left’’ that is in the direct opposite direction of the Western

culture. In this case, breaches or intersects the imaginary

vertical ‘‘right’’ margin reveal the lies.

Second, when telling the truth, people have confidence

in their writing, are eager to let others know their feelings,

and tend to write with a right-leaning slant. When telling a

lie, people try to ‘‘withdraw’’ or ‘‘hide’’ their feelings,

emotions, and expression and become more introverted or

less extroverted at that moment, because they do not want

others to know. These emotions cause the writers to write

with a slightly left-leaning slant, compared to truthful

words. It does not matter if the writers are right or left

handed. The sudden changes of the slant for the pronoun

‘‘I’’ (Exhibits 13, 16) or numbers (Exhibits 17, 18) are

obvious give away signs.

Third, since it takes time, effort, and consideration to

present a lie, people consciously or unconsciously lift their

pen from the paper while thinking about the lie, without

knowing it (Rosenblum et al. 2003). By the time they figure

it out what to write in the story and put the pen down again

onto the paper, they create a large space between the truth

and the lie (Exhibit 19).

Fourth, due to a lack of confidence in telling lies, people

write their lies slightly ‘‘smaller’’ than other words

(Exhibits 20, 24). Fifth, the lies are slightly ‘‘below’’ the

self-imposed imaginary horizontal line, i.e., one’s moral

standards, subconsciously (Exhibits 20, 21, 24). Sixth, the

Exhibit 1 The starting point of a lie is located at the point where the tip of a line ‘‘minutely’’ breaches the imaginary vertical left-hand side margin. In this first sample above, the pronoun ‘‘I’’ of Line 4 intruded

significantly to the left of the pronoun ‘‘I’’ of Line 3, and the

imaginary left-hand side margin. The lie was underlined. The second ‘‘I’’ on Line 3 (the vertical line of I), i.e., the actual start of the lie, and the first ‘‘I’’ on Line 4 (the bottom line of I) had a left-leaning slant

392 T. L.-P. Tang

123

Author's personal copy

lies may be ‘‘less clear’’ due to ‘‘lighter’’ pen pressure or

color on the paper (Exhibits 23, 24). People try to do it on

purpose and make it as vague and ambiguous as possible.

Seventh, people re-visit the ‘‘crime scene,’’ re-trace their

lies, try to cover up, and make words visually obvious with

multiple strokes and extremely dark color (Exhibits 16, 22,

23, 24). Low self-esteem habitual liars trend to trace some

words or letters repeatedly, even in their ordinary writing

(trying to cover their tracks). Thus far, all these principles

detect something extraordinary, or out of place, in the

presentation of ideas. A large majority of lies can be

detected using these general guidelines, without reading

even the content of the message.

Finally, the logical next step is to look at the message

itself in context. The key issue, idea, or words of the whole

story is usually located in a circle in the middle of the

whole message. One can identify the origin of this circle by

finding the geometric center of ‘‘the entire written mes-

sage’’ on a piece of paper (not the center of the paper) and

drawing a circle with roughly a two-inch radius that covers

five lines—two lines above and below. The key words

inside this circle usually reveal the essence of the message.

Sometimes, the lie is also right in the middle of this large

circle (Exhibits 7, 10, 12). Knowledge regarding the

meaning of the messages can be enhanced by applying

these techniques and asking for feedback from writers to

verify the interpretations. I usually mark the possible

locations of the lie on the paper with a red-ink pen and then

ask all participants to underline the actual lie on the paper.

This allows people to verify the accuracy of detecting the

lies, a process of continuous improvement. This step also

Exhibit 2 Among this male student’s three imaginary

margins, the actual lie,

underlined, can be identified using the third vertical line

Exhibit 3 This female Mexican student in the US printed the story in almost block letters carefully and meticulously. Due to a ‘‘minute’’ breach in this sample, I drew a line to show the exact location of her

lie. The vertical line intercepted Line 4 slightly and was clearly on top of the first letter of Line 5. The actual lie, underlined, started on Line 4 and continued to Line 5

Exhibit 4 A male Mexican student wrote this specimen in

Spanish, I drew a line to show

the left-hand margin which went

through the tip of the first letter

of Line 4. That was the starting

point of his lie. He planned the

whole story ahead of time

before he started to write it.

Therefore, the actual lie,

underlined, was on the last line. Again, this was a very careful

and meticulous person

Detecting Honest People’s Lies 393

123

Author's personal copy

completes the whole feedback loop in the interpersonal

communication model. Among exhibits/cases, a real case

involving a student who was caught cheating can be found

in Exhibit 23. Further, Exhibit 24 reveals another cheating

story which will be described below.

A Case Study

There is an intriguing story related to the Ten Command-

ments (Exhibit 24). Let us re-visit the key point one more

time: As mentioned, getting Harvard, MIT, Yale, and

Princeton students to contemplate their own ethical values

by recalling the Ten Commandments or signing an honor

code eliminates cheating completely (Ariely 2008a;

Aquino et al. 2009). One may expect that after reading the

Ten Commandments, people will behave ethically. After

cheating and then reading the Ten Commandments, indi-

viduals may feel guilty for their behaviors, try to lessen the

severity of the situation, and react defensively.

After a cheating incident and reading the Ten Com-

mandments, when signing a pledge, stating that ‘‘…If I have cheated in taking the test…, I (full name) have vio- lated God’s Ten Commandments and will be sorry for the

rest of my life,’’ the writer avoided his cognitive disso-

nance and rationalized the behaviors. First, the writer

omitted the ‘‘full name’’ completely in order to avoid fur-

ther embarrassment and remove himself from the Ten

Commandments. Second, the writer overcorrected the slant

by writing the ‘‘I’’ with a right-leaning slant, wanting to

forcefully advocate a viewpoint. Third, the writer strongly

and completely denied the statement by inserting a small,

Exhibit 5 A French student in France wrote the story. The lie

was underlined and can be identified easily following the

first rule—a clear violation of

the left-hand side imaginary

margin

Exhibit 6 A Chinese student in France provided this specimen

in French. The starting point of

the lie (the letter d of Line 9) crossed the left-hand side

imaginary margin and violated

the self-imposed standard. The

actual lie was highlighted (Lines 8 and 9)

394 T. L.-P. Tang

123

Author's personal copy

barely visible word ‘‘not’’ (making it as vague and

ambiguous as possible) on the top between the words will

and be, to the pledge—claiming: ‘‘I…will ‘not’ be sorry for

the rest of my life.’’ This rationalization process allowed

the writer to explain the guilty feelings away and maintain

peace, suggesting that ‘‘this incident did not bother me, and

I will be OK.’’ Fourth, the writer violated both the left

vertical margin and the horizontal line of the self-imposed

standards proclaiming the above point, retraced several

words (e.g., the ‘‘rest’’ of…) repeatedly, and provided a smaller and much simplified signature on the written doc-

ument (not shown in the Exhibit). Specifically, when he

wrote ‘‘I have violated God’s Ten Commandants’’ (Line 4)

and ‘‘sorry for the rest of my life’’ (Line 5), his feelings

sagged significantly below the horizontal line (Line 3,

above) (see Exhibit 24).

Exhibit 7 A female Iranian student in the US (who was familiar with her native language—Farsi) wrote her story in English. Line 4 clearly

intersected the vertical imaginary left margin. The lie, circled by the student, was right in the middle of the large circle, located in the middle of the whole story

Exhibit 8 This sample was provided by a male student in the US who wrote his story in German. Line 3 clearly intersected the vertical

imaginary left margin. The lie, circled by the student, started on Line 3 and was right in the middle of the large circle, located in the middle of the whole story

Exhibit 9 A female exchange student in the US from Taiwan wrote her story in traditional Chinese. There were two left-hand side

margins. The lie, underlined, can be detected by the second left margin

Exhibit 10 A male executive in an EMBA program wrote his

story in simplified Chinese. The

lie, circled on Lines 5 and 6, can be detected by the left-hand side

margin and was in the large circle covering 5 lines

Detecting Honest People’s Lies 395

123

Author's personal copy

In essence, when this writer was ‘‘cornered’’ to face the

moral values, ethical standards, or powerful perceived

demand characteristics of ‘‘the Ten Commandments’’, he

bluntly distorted the pledge statement, indirectly confessed

the cheating behaviors, and tried to cover up. From another

perspective, this person, under mounting psychological

pressure, might have behaved ‘‘irrationally’’ by adding the

word ‘‘not’’ to the pledge and revealing his inner most

feelings (Ariely 2008b). Should the writer avoid altering

the pledge, then, readers may have fewer clues to identify

the cheating behavior. Our third point mentioned above

seemed to predict that another twist was also forthcoming.

Although this person confessed cheating ‘‘in person’’, he

denied his original admission of the cheating incident

1 week later. In this case, the dishonest person has not only

cheated but also lied repeatedly.

Exhibit 11 A left vertical margin identified this female

Indian student’s two lies (lines

3–4 and 5–6) in her story

Exhibit 12 This female Russian student in the US wrote her story in her native language. She had a ‘‘minute’’ breach in this sample. I drew a line to show that the vertical line was clearly on top of the first letter

of Line 5. The actual lie, underlined, was on Line 5 and in the center of the large circle

Exhibit 13 A female statistician/Ph.D. from

Indonesia wrote the same lie in

her native language first and,

then, in English. The lie was the

last word in the story in both

examples: everyday. Notice the

large space before the lie and

the left-leaning slant of the word

‘‘I’’ (underlined) in the English sample

396 T. L.-P. Tang

123

Author's personal copy

Conclusion

Handwritten messages clearly reflect writers’ deepest

thoughts, emotions, and feelings ‘‘at the moment’’ they put

the message down on paper using their encoding process.

With knowledge, skills, and abilities to detect emotional

changes, we may read a person like a book, decoding the

hidden messages in their handwritten materials and obtain-

ing rich meaning in the communication process. The psy-

chology of detecting lies is applicable to different languages

in many cultures around the world. In fact, managers can do it

without even knowing the content or language of the mes-

sage because most people around the world adopt similar

Exhibit 14 A male professor in the US, native of Congo, wrote the story in the language of the capital: Lingala, above. The lie was on

Lines 3–4 (underlined). The same professor above wrote the second story in French, the official language of Congo, below

Exhibit 15 This handwriting specimen above was provided by a male student from Saudi Arabia. Please note that this writing is different from

the Western culture in that Arabians write from ‘‘right’’ to ‘‘left.’’

Following the same principle, one may detect the lie by checking the

right-hand side margin. Top of the right-hand side column, a female

Arabian student’s lie can be detected using the same principle

Exhibit 16 The sudden change of the slant for the pronoun ‘‘I’’ on Line 3 (the vertical line and both top and bottom horizontal lines of ‘‘I’’) was an important cue, compared to the other pronouns (‘‘I’’s) on

Lines 1 and 2. The writer wrote: I dropped my daughter off at Day

Care. However, he changed his mind, crossed off the word

‘‘daughter,’’ and wrote the word ‘‘son,’’ claiming that the sentence

on Line 3 was true. However, one may see that he started the lie on

Line 3. The actual lie was on Line 4

Exhibit 17 The numerical number 3 breached the left-hand side margin. Comparing the two numbers, 3 and 4, the number 3 had a much stronger left-leaning slant which revealed the lie in the story

Exhibit 18 Compared to Line 2, the numerical number 7� of Line 3 intersected the imaginary vertical left margin, violating the self-

imposed standard. In addition, when you compared all the numbers,

you may find that the ‘‘�’’ was the lie because it had a left-learning slant in this sample. This writer suffered significantly in her attempt to

quit smoking. There were two revealing signs. One was the letter ‘‘y’’ in the word ‘‘drastically’’ and the other was the letter ‘‘f’’ in the phrase ‘‘for me’’. The lower loop of the letter ‘‘y’’ failed to cross over to the top of the imaginary horizontal line. It curved downward (not

upward). The lower loop, much smaller than other letter ‘‘y’’ or ‘‘g’’ in this sample, almost failed to exist. The lower loop of the letter ‘‘f’’ was written backward and also long and fairly deep, showing an

‘‘abnormal’’ level of ‘‘physical’’ stress and strain

Detecting Honest People’s Lies 397

123

Author's personal copy

expressions in revealing their emotional changes and in

encoding their handwritten communication.

Similar to the Ten Commandments, values and hyper-

norms in other religions, cultures, and countries may incite

comparable emotions and reactions in most honest people.

In this article, my exhibits/cases cover 11 languages: i.e.,

Arabic, Chinese (traditional), Chinese (simplified), Lingala

(one of the four national languages in Congo), English,

French (written by French, Chinese, and Congolese),

German, Indian, Indonesian, Spanish, and Russian, from

peoples in the US with background from different parts of

the world and in some other countries (China and France).

Although this is not an exact science but an art, discovering

such lies allows us to start a conversation and foster true

communication. Completing the feedback loop of the

communication model verifies the accuracy of detecting

lies and shows the basic form of personal validation,

mentioned by Ben-Shakhar et al. (1986). In short, the focus

is not on ‘‘what’’ they say, but ‘‘how’’ they say it. Gra-

phology allows researchers to spot ‘‘writers’ thoughts and

emotions at that moment’’ only, that may have nothing to

do with the criteria in the future. Therefore, it is difficult to

establish predictive validity in statistical, empirical studies.

Future researchers need to explore the issues related to

reliability and validity using statistics in the literature.

Exhibit 19 The extra large space after the word ‘‘drove’’

was the revealing sign of the lie:

‘‘to Nashville’’

Exhibit 20 The lie was expressed below the horizontal imaginary line: ‘‘and did my laundry’’

Exhibit 21 In this exhibit, the lies were again expressed below

the horizontal imaginary line.

This one is more difficult to

detect than the one in Exhibit

20. In this case, the writer did

not have a very productive ‘‘day

today’’ due to the poor work

done with the ‘‘marketing’’

group. Look for the letters ‘‘y’’ and ‘‘g’’ in this specimen

Exhibit 22 You may spot the lie from a distance when you

look at the whole sample above.

‘‘My solo went well’’ was the

lie. The writer traced the

starting point of the lie, i.e., the

letter ‘‘M’’ of the word ‘‘My’’ many times trying to cover the

track that he left behind

398 T. L.-P. Tang

123

Author's personal copy

Executives and educators can easily learn the tacit

knowledge, skills, and also the limitations of the tech-

niques discussed in this article, put them into practice in

business and academic environments, and prevent cheat-

ing and lying from recurring in our society. Most people

are subject to all kinds of ‘‘temptations’’ in the environ-

ment (Baumeister 2002) that trigger them to behave either

ethically or unethically. Therefore, in order to maintain

sustainability, executives and educators need to take bold

actions, re-affirm basic and fundamental values, create a

sea change of ethical cultures and behaviors in our aca-

demic and business environments, and make the world a

better place to live.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Editor-in-Chief Alex C. Michalos for his suggestions and encouragement, Dan Ariely

and Kenneth Tillery for their inspiration, comments, and support, and

colleagues and students for their participation in this project.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Anderson, N., Salgado, J. F., & Hulsheger, U. R. (2010). Applicant

reactions in selection: Comprehensive meta-analysis into reac-

tion generalization versus situational specificity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(3), 291–304.

Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W.

(2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The

interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141. Ariely, D. (2008a). How honest people cheat. Harvard Business

Review, 86(2), 24. Ariely, D. (2008b). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that

shape our decisions. New York: Harper/Perennial. Ariely, D. (2010). You are what you measure. Harvard Business

Review, 88(6), 38. Bamberger, P. (2008). Beyond contextualization: Using context

theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in management research.

Academy of Management Journal, 51, 839–846.

Exhibit 23 This student was caught cheating and was asked to write the last statement on Line 8. The word ‘‘I’’ intersected the left vertical

margin, The word ‘‘I’’ was ‘‘less clear’’ due to ‘‘lighter’’ pen pressure or pen color and has a left-leaning slant. There was a large space before ‘‘taking the test.’’ The words ‘‘I’’ and ‘‘test’’ were traced

several times. Comparing ‘‘I have,’’ ‘‘taking,’’ and ‘‘test’’ on Line 8

with the same/equivalent words on Line 2, the former showed a left-

leaning slant than the latter because this student realized that he was

caught cheating and was extremely stressful when he was asked to

write this sentence

Exhibit 24 A student was asked to copy and sign the pledge. His feelings sagged significantly below the horizontal line when he wrote ‘‘I have violated God’s Ten Commandants’’ and ‘‘sorry for the rest of

my life’’. The extremely small and almost invisible word ‘‘not’’ was

inserted between ‘‘will’’ and ‘‘be’’ on the top, making it ‘‘will ‘not’ be

sorry’’ (Line 5). He retraced many words repeated and violated the

left margin on Lines 4 and 5. The writer could not deny the violation

of the Ten Commandments. In order to reduce cognitive dissonance

and maintain peace, he denied the consequences of his wrongdoing,

acted irrationally, and admitted cheating, indirectly

Detecting Honest People’s Lies 399

123

Author's personal copy

Bangerter, A., Konig, C. J., Blatti, S., & Salvisberg, A. (2009). How

widespread is graphology in personnel selection practice? A case

study of a job market myth. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(2), 219–230.

Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure,

impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 670–676.

Ben-Shakhar, G., Barhillel, M., Bilu, Y., Benabba, E., & Flug, A.

(1986). Can graphology predict occupational success: Two

empirical studies and some methodological ruminations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 645–653.

Bergmann, J. F. (2010). Graphology: Further study warranted.

International Journal of Clinical Practice, 64(5), 661–661. Blinkhorn, S. F. (1993). Graphology: The writing is on the wall.

Nature, 366(6452), 208–208. Dazzi, C., & Pedrabissi, L. (2009). Graphology and personality: An

empirical study on validity of handwriting analysis. Psycholog- ical Reports, 105(3), 1255–1268.

De Jonge, J., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2009). Convergence of self-reports

and coworker reports of counterproductive work behavior: A

cross-sectional multi-source survey among health care workers.

International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 699–707. DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation.

Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 203–243. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L.,

Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118.

Driver, R. D., Buckley, M. R., & Frink, D. D. (1996). Should we write

off graphology? International Journal of Selection and Assess- ment, 4(7), 78–86.

Falkenberg, L., & Woiceshyn, J. (2008). Enhancing business ethics:

Using cases to teach moral reasoning. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(3), 213–217.

Fisman, R., & Miguel, E. (2007). Corruption, norms, and legal

enforcement: Evidence from diplomatic parking tickets. Journal of Political Economy, 115(6), 1020–1048.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., & Bruursema, K. (2007). Does your

coworker know what you’re doing? Convergence of self- and

peer-reports of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 41–60.

Furnham, A., & Gunter, B. (1987). Graphology and personality:

Another failure to validate graphological analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 8(3), 433–435.

Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant

reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 639–683. Keinan, G., & Eilatgreenberg, S. (1993). Can stress be measured by

handwriting analysis? The effectiveness of the analytic method.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42(2), 153–170. Kish-Gephart, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Treviño, L. K. (2010). Bad

apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about

sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1–31.

Klimoski, R. J., & Rafaeli, A. (1983). Inferring personal qualities

through handwriting analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychol- ogy, 56(3), 191–202.

Kravitz, D. A., Stinson, V., & Chavez, T. L. (1996). Evaluations of

tests used for making selection and promotion decisions.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 4(1), 24–34. Martin, K. D., Cullen, J. B., Johnson, J. L., & Parboteeah, K. P.

(2007). Decide to bribe: A cross-level analysis of firm and home

country influences on bribery activity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1401–1422.

McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Academic

dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes,

and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 294–305.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine

what people do. American Psychologist, 40(7), 812–825. McClelland, D. C., & Steele, R. S. (1972). Motivation workshops: A

student workbook for experiential learning in human motivation. New York: General Learning Press.

Mouly, S., Mahe, I., Champion, K., Bertin, C., Popper, P., De Noblet,

D., et al. (2007). Graphology for the diagnosis of suicide

attempts: A blind proof of principle controlled study. Interna- tional Journal of Clinical Practice, 61(3), 411–415.

Nevo, B. (1988). Yes, graphology can predict occupational success:

Rejoinder. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66(1), 92–94. Rafaeli, A., & Klimoski, R. J. (1983). Predicting sales success

through handwriting analysis: An evaluation of the effects of

training and handwriting sample content. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 212–217.

Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., & Drasgow, F. (1999). A

meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-

administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and

interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 754–775. Rosenblum, S., Parush, S., & Weiss, P. L. (2003). The in air

phenomenon: Temporal and spatial correlates of the handwriting

process. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(3), 933–954. Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location:

Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 22, 1–13.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-

presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 641–669.

Schoorman, F. D., & Mayer, R. C. (2008). The value of common

perspectives in self-reported appraisals: You get what you ask

for. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 148–159. Steiner, D. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1996). Fairness reactions to

personnel selection techniques in France and the United States.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 134–141. Tang, T. L. P., & Chen, Y. J. (2008). Intelligence vs. wisdom: The

love of money, Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across

college major and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 1–26. Tang, T. L. P., & Chiu, R. K. (2003). Income, money ethic, pay

satisfaction, commitment, and unethical behavior: Is the love of

money the root of evil for Hong Kong managers? Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 13–30.

Tang, T. L. P., & Tang, T. L. N. (2010). Finding the lost sheep: A

panel study of business students’ intrinsic religiosity, Machia-

vellianism, and unethical behavior intention in a public institu-

tion. Ethics and Behavior, 20(5), 1–28. Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Ansari, M. A., Lim, V. K. G., Teo, T.

S. H., Arias-Galicai, F., Garber, I., Vlerick, P., Liang, J., Akande,

A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A. S., Borg, M. G., Charles-

Pauvers, B., Cheng, B. S., Chiu, R. K., Codoban, I., Du, L. Z.,

Garcia de la Torre, C., Higgs, R. C., Jen, C. K., Kazem, A. M.,

Kim, K., Luna-Arocas, R., Malovics, E., Moreira, A., Nnedum,

A. U. O., Osagie, J. E., Osman-Gani, A., Özbek, M. F., Pereira,

F. C., Pholsward, R., Pitariu, H. D., Polic, M., Sardžoska, E.,

Stembridge, A. F., Tang, T. L. N., Tombolani, M., Trontelj, M.,

Urbain, C., Canova, L., & Manganelli, A. M. (2011). The love of

money is the root of all evil: Pay satisfaction and CPI as

moderators. In L. A. Toombs (Ed.), Best Paper Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Antonio.

Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations: A

person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11, 601–617.

400 T. L.-P. Tang

123

Author's personal copy