Lying in everyday life

This article presents findings of qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with a group of "frequent liars" and another of "rare liars" who provided their subjective perspectives on the phenomenon of lying. Participants in this study previously had maintained a diary of their social interactions and lies over the course of one week, which allowed to assign them to one of the two groups: frequent or rare liars. Thematic analysis of the material followed by elements of theory formulation resulted in an extended lying typology that includes not only the target of the lie (the liar vs. other) but also the motivation (protection vs. bringing benefits). We offer an analysis of what prevents from telling the truth, i.e. penalties, relationship losses, distress of the lied-to, and anticipated lack of criticism for telling the truth. We also focus on understanding moderatorsof consequences of lying (significance of the area of life, the type of lie and capacity ...

American Psychologist, 1991

Lies are considered bad, immoral, and reprehensible. Yet there is considerable evidence that prevarication is a ubiquitous feature of human social interaction. Psychologists, as well as others in society, often use deceptive techniques for the "social good," and there are a number of conditions under which lying is seen as acceptable. There are also numerous situations in which the "truth" cannot be discerned. This article argues that a psychology of lying needs to be developed that is focused on understanding how actors and observers come to view the world and particular situations, rather than on the detection and punishment of lying.

2010

Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 2017

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by ICPR. This eoffprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com".

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1997

It was tested whether the same factors people take into account when involved in the decision to lie apply to the evaluation of lies presented in scenarios. The scenarios represented 12 different situation categories formed by the crossing of the ntotivr for lying (social. individualistic, egoistic), the relative importance of the situation (important matter, unimportant matter), and the closeness of the relation between the subject and the receiver of the lie (best friend, acquaintance). The acceptability of lying was evaluated from 2 perspectives (self, others) by 180 women of the general public. The results show that as the interest of the person that is lied to becomes greater, lying becomes more acceptable. As the interest of the liar becomes greater, lying becomes less acceptable. The systematically higher estimations of acceptability attributed to others indicate a false-uniqueness effect.

International Journal of Neurolinguistics & Gestalt Psychology, 2021

Lying emerges from the hedonistic nature of humans to avoid pain and to increase pleasure. It can be also seen that we lie not only for personal gains but also for others' gain too. It is a known fact how, telling a lie is costly: emotionally, cognitively, and physiologically. Lie-tellers experience negative emotions, cognitive impairment, physiological stress, and reveal this through nonverbal cues. Systematic detailed information was depicted about types of lying along with providing an overview of convergence and divergence.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2014

It has been commonplace in the deception literature to assert the pervasive nature of deception in communication practices. Previous studies of lie prevalence find that lying is unusual compared to honest communication. Recent research, and reanalysis of previous studies reporting the frequency of lies, shows that most people are honest most of the time and the majority of lies are told by a few prolific liars. The current article reports a statistical method for distinguishing prolific liars from everyday liars and provides a test of the few prolific liars finding by examining lying behavior in the United Kingdom. Participants (N = 2,980) were surveyed and asked to report on how often they told both little white lies and big important lies. Not surprisingly, white lies were more common than big lies. Results support and refine previous findings about the distinction between everyday and prolific liars, and implications for theory are discussed.

Linguæ & - Rivista di lingue e culture moderne, 2021

What happens when we lie? What do we lie for? Are we always aware of it? Can we define its nature once and for all? Since the beginning of history, human beings have tried to define and interpret lying according to criteria provided to them by changing cultural environments and worldviews, so to give this phenomenon a definite place in their existence. All domains of human knowledge – from mythmaking to philosophy, from theology to neuroscience, from art to linguistics – have been involved. This special issue of Linguæ & aims to contribute to this multi- and interdisciplinary discourse by proposing a common core of insights on lying through contributions from the humanities and psychology.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1998

In 2 diary studies, 77 undergraduates and 70 community members recorded their social interactions and lies for a week. Because lying violates the openness and authenticity that people value in their close relationships, we predicted (and found) that participants would tell fewer lies per social interaction to the people to whom they felt closer and would feel more uncomfortable when they did lie to those people. Because altruistic lies can communicate caring, we also predicted (and found) that relatively more of the lies told to best friends and friends would be altruistic than selfserving, whereas the reverse would be true of lies told to acquaintances and strangers. Also consistent with predictions, lies told to closer partners were more often discovered. To understand the role of lying in close and casual relationships, it may be important to understand both the nature of the lies that are told in everyday life and the nature of close relationships. Over the past several decades, a handful of studies of lying in everyday life have been published (

This admirable book offers both a wealth of detailed, practical information about lying and lie detection and a penetrating analysis of the ethical implications of these behaviors. It is strongly recommended to physicians, lawyers, diplomats and all those who must concern themselves with detection of deceit."