HealthResJ, health, medicine, nursing, research https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/HealthResJ/sitemap

How has psychology improved understanding of why people lie?

PDF
Published: Apr 2, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/healthresj.34576
Keywords:
Lying moral balance model self-concept maintenance theory psychopathology
Dominika Sobieska
Student, University of Derby (UK), at Mediterranean College campus, Athens, Greece
Georgios Pilafas
Accredited Lecturer in Psychology, Psychotherapy and Research, University of Derby (UK) at Mediterranean College campus, Athens, Greece | Program Leader of the ‘BSc (Hons) Applied Psychology’ Program, University of Derby (UK) at Mediterranean College campus, Ath-ens, Greece
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2299-8257
Penelope Louka
Accredited Lecturer in Psychology, Psychotherapy and Research, University of Derby (UK) at Mediterranean College campus, Athens, Greece | Deputy Head of Academic Affairs, Mediterranean College, Athens, Greece | Head of the School of Psychology, Mediterranean College, Athens, Greece
Abstract

The present special article discusses upon the question ‘why people lie’. The answer to the later question has concerned the common mind and scholars since antiquity. However, no universal answer has been provided yet. In general psychology much attention has been paid to clinical perspectives of human behavior. In such a manner, the answer to the question of ‘why people lie’ has always had a moral and ethical base regarding the theoretical frameworks that explain any given answer. In recent years though, much attention has been given to two key models/theories which derive from the basic and core field of psychology. The first is the ‘moral balance model’, while the second one is the ‘self-concept maintenance theory’. In this article, the question is addressed from both viewpoints and a conclusion is drawn based on the strengths and limits between the two key models/theories that try to explain why people lie.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Special Articles

Copyright notice:

Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the Health and Research Journal the right of first publication.

License:
Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, including for commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and the original publication in this journal, a link to the license is provided, and any changes are indicated.

Attribution requirement:
Any reuse must include the article citation and DOI (where available), and indicate if changes were made.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Hart CL, Jones JM, Terrizii JA, Curtis DA. Development of the Lying in Everyday Situations Scale. Am J Psychol. 2019;132(3). Available from: https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.132.3.0343
Isenberg A. Deontology and the Ethics of Lying. In: Calla-ghan W, editor. Aesthetics and Theory of Criticism: Select-ed Essays of Arnold Isenberg. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press; 1988. p. 245–264.
Mahon JE. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In: Zal-ta EN, editor. The Definition of Lying and Deception. Stan-ford University: The Metaphysics Research Lab; 2015.
Peterson CC. The role of perceived intention to deceive in children’s and adults’ concepts of lying. Br J Dev Psychol. 1995;13(3). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1995.tb00677.x
Hancock JT, Thom-Santelli J, Ritchie T. Deception and de-sign: the impact of communication technology on lying behavior. In: CHI 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing; 2004 April 24-29; Vienna, Austria. New York: Association for Computing Machinery; 2004.
Capraro V, Perc M, Vilone D. The evolution in lying in well-mixed populations. J R Soc Interface. 2019;16(156). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2019.0211
Talwar V, Crossman A. Liar, liar…sometimes: Understand-ing social-environmental influences on the development of lying. Curr Opini Psychol. 2022; 47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101374
Lee JYS, Imuta K. Lying and Theory of Mind: A Meta-Analysis. Child Dev. 2021;92(2):500-510. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13535
Meiting L, Hua W. The dark side of white lies: Parenting by lying in childhood and adolescent anxiety, the media-tion of parent-child attachment and gender difference. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;119:2. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105635
Nisan M. Moral balance: A model of how people arrive at moral decisions. In: Wren TE, editor. The moral domain: Essays in the ongoing discussion between philosophy and the social sciences. The MIT Press; 1990. p. 283-314.
Barkan R, Ayal S, Gino F, Ariely D. The pot calling the ket-tle black: distancing response to ethical dissonance. J. Exp. Psychol. 2012;141(4):766-770. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027588
Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D. The Dishonesty of Honest Peo-ple: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance. J Mark Res J. 2008;45(6). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.63
Laningham AJ. Bridging Self-Concept Maintenance & Truth-Default Theories [dissertation]. [Alabama]: Univer-sity of Alabama; 2021. 69p.
Jacobsen C, Fosgaard TR, Pascual-Ezama D. WHY DO WE LIE? A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE DISHONESTY LITERA-TURE. J. Econ. Surv. 2018;32(2):357-370. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12204
Gneezy U, Rockenback B, Serra-Garcia M. Measuring lying aversion. J Econ Behav Organ. 2013;93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.03.025
Yaniv G, Siniver E. The (honest) truth about rational dis-honesty. J. Econ. Psychol. 2016;53:131-140.
Santos RM, Zanette S, Kwok SM, Heyman GD, Lee K. Ex-posure to Parenting by Lying in Childhood: Associations with Negative Outcomes in Adulthood. Front. Psychol. 2017;8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01240
Most read articles by the same author(s)