TENDENCY TO DECEPTION AND SELF-DECEPTION IN INDIVIDUALS WITH DIFFERENT CHARACTER ACCENTUATIONS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/psy-2026-7-4Keywords:
deception, self-deception, character accentuations, Leonhard's typology, deceptive behavior, SDQ, psychocorrectionAbstract
The article presents results of an empirical study examining the relationship between character accentuation types and the tendency toward deception and self-deception. The theoretical basis includes the evolutionary-psychological concept of self-deception by W. von Hippel and R. Trivers, the social-cognitive approach of B.M. DePaulo and A. Vrij, and K. Leonhard's typological concept. Deception is viewed as a multicomponent phenomenon with cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and motivational dimensions; self-deception as a process of motivated distortion of self-perception beyond the subject's full awareness. Key forms of self-deception identified include denial, rationalization, positive illusions, projection, and motivated reasoning. The study involved 47 participants (aged 18–58). Three psychodiagnostic instruments were used: K. Leonhard–H. Schmieschek Character Questionnaire, O.Yu. Kosianova's «Types and Motives of Deception» questionnaire, and O.Yu. Kosianova's Ukrainian-language adaptation of the SDQ (2025). Statistical analysis employed descriptive statistics and correlational analysis (Spearman's coefficient, Shapiro-Wilk test) in SPSS. The reputation-preservation motive was found to correlate significantly and positively with five accentuation types: pedantic (ρ = +0.537), excitable (ρ = +0.523), hyperthymic (ρ = +0.491), anxious (ρ = +0.388), and emotive (ρ = +0.348); the manipulation motive showed inverse associations with dystyhmic (ρ = −0.457), excitable, pedantic, and hyperthymic accentuations. The most robust finding regarding types of deception is a negative correlation between «self-justification» and six accentuation types (hyperthymic, excitable, pedantic, emotive, anxious, and demonstrative), suggesting that carriers of these types rely on typologically conditioned defense mechanisms rather than overt self-justification. Associations between accentuations and SDQ self-deception scores were limited; elevated overall self-deception was found specifically among individuals with the exalted accentuation type. The findings expand knowledge of personality determinants of deceptive behavior and support the typological approach in psychodiagnostics and psychocorrection. A psychocorrective program «Authenticity Without a Mask» has been developed, targeting deceptive behavior correction in accordance with the individual's accentuation profile.
References
Косьянова О.Ю. Адаптація українномовної версії опитувальника самообману (SDQ). Результати психометричного аналізу SDQ. Наукові записки. Серія: Психологія. 2025. № 4. С. 43–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/cusu-psy-2025-4-5.
Косьянова О.Ю., Андреадакі А. Роль акцентуацій характеру у формуванні адаптивних стратегій подолання стресових ситуацій. Наука і освіта. 2025. № 2. 30–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24195/2414-4665-2025-2-4.
Bozoglu G., Dereboy C., Dereboy I. F. Character accentuations and psychological defenses in a non-clinical sample. Personality and Individual Differences. 2022. Vol. 184. Article 111214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111214.
DePaulo B.M., Kashy D.A., Kirkendol S.E., Wyer M.M., Epstein J.A. Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996. Vol. 70. № 5. Р. 979–995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979.
DePaulo B.M., Lindsay J.J., Malone B.E., Muhlenbruck L., Charlton K., Cooper H. Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin. 2003. Vol. 129, № 1. Р. 74–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74.
Ekman P. Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage. New York : Norton, 1985. 390 p.
Ekman P., Friesen W.V. Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry. 1969. Vol. 32, № 1. Р. 88–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1969.11023575.
Makowski D., Pham T., Lau Z. J., Brammer J. C., Lespinasse F., Pham H., Schötzel C., Chen S. H. A. NeuroKit2: A Python toolbox for neurophysiological signal processing. Behavior Research Methods. 2021. Vol. 53. Р. 1689–1696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01516-y.
Sackeim H. A., Gur R. C. Self-confrontation and psychopathology. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1978. Vol. 35, № 10. Р. 1180–1184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770340062005.
Sackeim H. A., Gur R. C. Self-deception, other-deception, and self-reported psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1979. Vol. 47, № 1. Р. 213–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.47.1.213.
Taylor S.E., Brown J.D. Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin. 1988. Vol. 103. № 2. Р. 193–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193.
von Hippel W., Trivers R. The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2011. Vol. 34, № 1. Р. 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10001354.
Vrij A. Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities. 2nd ed. Chichester : Wiley, 2008. 448 p.





