Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Detection of Deception Via Handwriting Behaviors Using a Computerized Tool: Toward an Evaluation of Malingering

  • Published:
Cognitive Computation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines whether a non-intrusive computerized system that analyzes handwriting can detect deception in health care. Health systems are required to deal with false information given by some patients about their health (malingering). Studies have shown that clinical ability to detect deception is limited, and evidence suggests that better results can be achieved by using assessment tools than by relying on human detection. Currently, tools for detecting deception are intrusive and therefore less suitable for the clinician–patient relationship. Within-subject experimental design compared deceptive writing with truthful writing of 98 participants aged 21–36, recruited from the University of Haifa. They wrote true and false sentences about their medical condition on a paper affixed to digitizer that was part of a computerized system. Deceptive and truthful writings for all the subjects were compared. In the next phase, using profile analysis, subjects were divided into three groups according to their handwriting profiles, and the differences between deceptive writing and truthful writing of each profile were analyzed. Deceptive writing was found to be broader and took longer to write than truthful writing. Three distinct profiles were emerged, and significant differences in specific spatial and temporal measures were found for each profile. Preliminary results provide a unique perspective on detecting deception with this computerized tool. Possible applications for the health system and other fields, such as human sorting and internal security, are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rogers R, Duncan JC, Sewell KW. Prototypical analysis of antisocial personality disorder: DSM-IV and beyond. Law Hum Behav. 1994;18:471–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. LoPiccolo CJ, Goodkin K, Baldewicz TT. Current issues in the diagnosis and management of malingering. Ann Med. 1999;31:166–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Butcher JN, Graham JR, Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A, Dahlstrom WG, Kaemmer B. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2: manual for administration and scoring. 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sharland MJ, Gfeller JD. A survey of neuropsychologists’ beliefs and practices with respect to the assessment of effort. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;22:213–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bianchini KJ, Etherton JL, Greve KW, Heinly MT, Meyers JE. Classification accuracy of MMPI-2 validity scales in the detection of pain-related malingering: a known-groups study. Assessment. 2008;15:435–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lewis JL, Simcox AM, Berry DTR. Screening for feigned psychiatric symptoms in a forensic sample by using the MMPI-2 and the structured inventory of malingered symptomatology. Psychol Assess. 2002;14:170–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ben-Shakhar G, Furedy JJ. Theories and applications in the detection of deception: a psychophysiological and international perspective. New York: Springer; 1990.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Rogers R. Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. New York: The Guilford Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Feder KP, Majnemer A. Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2007;49:312–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Faundez-Zannuy M, Hussain A, Mekyska J, Sesa-Nogueras E, Monte-Moreno EA, Chetouani M, Garre-Olmo J, Abel A, Smekal Z, Lopez-de-Ipiña K. Biometric applications related to human beings: there is life beyond security. Cogn Comput. 2013;5(1):136–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Luria G, Rosenblum S. Comparing the handwriting behaviours of true and false writing with computerized hand-writing measures. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2010;24:1115–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Miller GR, Stiff JB. Deceptive communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Baddeley AD. The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends Cogn Sci. 2000;4:417–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brewer WF. What is recollective memory? In: Rubin DC, editor. Remembering our past: studies in autobiographical memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996. p. 19–66.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldman-Eisler F. Psycholinguistics: experiments in spontaneous speech. New York: Academic Press; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ekman P. Lying and deception. In: Stein NL, Ornstein PA, Tversky B, Brainerd C, editors. Memory for everyday and emotional events. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Shiffrin RM, Schneider W. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:127–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fiske ST. Thinking is for doing: portraits of social cognition from daguerreotype to laserphoto. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63:877–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bonny AM. Understanding and assessing handwriting difficulties: perspective from the literature. Aust Occup Ther J. 1992;39:7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Weintraub N. Handwriting: understanding the process. Isr J Occup Ther. 1997;6:E33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Longstaff MG, Heath RA. A nonlinear analysis of the temporal characteristics of handwriting. Hum Mov Sci. 1999;18:485–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Latash LP. Automation of movement: challenges to the notions of the orienting reaction and memory. In: Latash ML, editor. Progress in motor control. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1998. p. 51–88.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Meulenbroek RGJ, Van Gemmert AWA. Advances in the study of drawing and handwriting. Hum Mov Sci. 2003;22:131–220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Luria G, Rosenblum S. A computerized multidimensional measurement of mental workload via handwriting analysis. Behav Res Method. 2011;44(2):575–86. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0159-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosenblum S, Chevion D, Weiss PLT. Using data visualization and signal processing to characterize the handwriting process. Pediatr Rehabil. 2006;9:404–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mergl R, Tigges P, Schröter A, Möller HJ, Hegerl U. Digitized analysis of handwriting and drawing movements in healthy subjects: methods, results and perspectives. J Neurosci Methods. 1999;90:157–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tinsley HEA, Brown SD. Multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling. In: Tinsley HEA, Brown SD, editors. Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2000. p. 3–36.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Tucha O, Laufkotter R, Mecklinger L, Klein H, Lange K. Handwriting of adult patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In: Meulenbroek RGJ, Steenbergen B, editors. Proceedings of the tenth biennial conference of the international graphonomics society. The Netherlands: University of Nijmegen; IGS Pub. 2001. p. 58–62.

  30. Teulings HL. Optimatization of movements duration in accurate handwriting strokes in different directions in young, elderly, and Parkinsonian subjects. In: Meulenbroek RGJ, Steenbergen B, editors. Proceedings of the tenth biennial conference of the international graphonomics society. The Netherlands: University of Nijmegen; IGS; 2001. p. 40–45.

  31. Werner P, Rosenblum S, Bar-On G, Heinik J, Korczyn A. Handwriting process variables discriminating mild Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2006;61(2):136–228.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rosenblum S, Miller A, Weiss PL. Functional handwriting abilities and activity of daily living performance among multiple sclerosis patients. In: Proceedings of the 22nd congress of the European committee for treatment and research in multiple sclerosis. Spain: Madrid; 2006.

  33. Cooke NJ, Winner JL. Human factors of homeland security. In: Boehm-Davis DA, editor. Reviews of human factors and ergonomics, vol. 3. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2008. p. 79–110.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Driskell JE, Salas E, Driskell T. Social indicators of deception. Hum Fact J Hum Fact Ergon Soc. 2012;54:577–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Services, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 31905, Haifa, Israel

    Gil Luria & Allon Kahana

  2. Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 31905, Haifa, Israel

    Sara Rosenblum

Authors
  1. Gil Luria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allon Kahana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara Rosenblum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gil Luria.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luria, G., Kahana, A. & Rosenblum, S. Detection of Deception Via Handwriting Behaviors Using a Computerized Tool: Toward an Evaluation of Malingering. Cogn Comput 6, 849–855 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-014-9288-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-014-9288-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation