Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
People claim to value honesty. However, people also tell prosocial lies, or deception
with benevolent intentions, to those they are close to. This presents an apparent
contradiction between a stated value and observable action. Though deception carries a
negative connotation and can have damaging consequences on societal networks, this
primarily applies to selfish lies. People lie for a variety of reasons, but prosocial lies are
commonly told by those in closer relationships and inevitably can build trust, which is in
that in a variety of relationships, including between parents and children, such prosocial
lies can sometimes build trust better than honesty can. This explains the reason why
people both value truth but are willing to lie for others: both honesty and deception are
used to promote relational stability, as both can serve as tools to ultimately promote the
well-being of another person. Though prosocial lies may have unintended negative
Introduction
Out of all of the content in the Bible, perhaps one of the most recognizable parts
is the Ten Commandments. One of the Ten Commandments refers to lying: “You shall
not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16, English Standard
Version). God commanded His people to be honest with one another, placing it on the
same list as stealing and murder. These commandments remain true to this day for both
Christians and unbelievers alike. However, people also lie to one another on a
consistent basis, even in close relationships (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). People hold
truth as a value while being willing to lie for various reasons. This poses an apparent
contradiction between stated value and action. This contradiction only exists when
considering selfish deception. People claim to value honesty. However, people will
benevolently lie to one another in spite of that value because they value relationship
stability more fundamentally than honesty, for honesty is just one way to achieve
relational stability.
Stephan, & Urrutia, 2007). This value translates across national borders and cultures.
Several studies conducted to test the perceived value of honesty in separate and
distinctly different cultures show that regardless of the culture surveyed, honesty ranked
Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). The need for honesty applies to societal relationships as well.
Honesty is considered essential to build trust (Levine & Schweitzer, 2015). A company
reports. A king could not rule the kingdom if his vassals lied about enemy forces
WHEN TRUTH AND LIES WORK TOGETHER 4
approaching. A congregation would not be able to grow spiritually if the pastor lied
Regardless of the cultural context or time period, honesty plays a crucial part of
with one another to promote trust. The closer the relationship, the more powerful this
correlation. This is especially true for familial relationships. Parents are reported to
highly value their children’s honesty for various reasons, such as knowing how to best
protect them and provide for them (Lavoie, Leduc, Crossman, & Talwar, 2016). Without
this level of trust, it would be difficult for a parent to understand their child’s needs.
In contrast to this value for honesty, a breach of trust through dishonesty creates
damaging effects on interpersonal relationships that are difficult to repair (Levine &
debate over creating a precise definition for deception because of the different contexts
and nuances that people can lie in (Bok, 2001). There are several contexts where
deceiving someone is not actively considered deception, such as the telling of a joke.
reflects elements of dishonesty in that the actor intends to mislead the audience (Bok,
2001). In an attempt to address the context in which an individual deceives another, the
following definition for deception is proposed: people lie when “[they] assert something
that [they] believe to be false” (Fallis, 2009). In this definition, assert means to
understand that the situation calls for telling the truth, yet the individual lies anyway
WHEN TRUTH AND LIES WORK TOGETHER 5
(Fallis, 2009). A person that tells a joke is not actively lying since the individual
understands the situation is comedic and the audience will not be inclined to take the
considered deception though: the situation demands that the individual tells the truth.
The application of this deception toward other people induces strong negative
Dunbar, Kaski, & Barrio, 2014). For example, school-age children that observe adults
lying will model this behavior and are more likely to selfishly lie themselves (Lavoie, et
al., 2016). Parents and children need to trust one another in order to provide for one
another. The case of a parent lying to a child can therefore influence the child to lie to
the parent, creating a divide. In romantic couples, individuals that perceive their partner
deceives them on a regular basis report lower relationship satisfaction numbers than
those that actively trust their partner (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). The damaging
demonstrate that perceived anti-social deception can constrict social networks, reducing
social cohesion (Iñiguez, et al., 2014; Wiltermuth, Newman, & Raj, 2015). A breach of
trust for selfish reasons can break down interpersonal relationships entirely, which shifts
other people, thereby fragmenting the ability for a society to function (Iñiguez, et al.,
2014). In other words, people that cannot trust one another cannot rely on one another,
limiting effectiveness in business and open communication. Those that are willing to
deceive another for personal reward are more willing to do so the greater the reward,
even at the expense of the one deceived (Gneezy, 2005). This can create an
WHEN TRUTH AND LIES WORK TOGETHER 6
another for their own benefit, which creates suffering for the gain of another (Wiltermuth,
et al., 2015). Thus, the actions of one deceiving actor can influence others to model this
behavior, disrupting significant portions of the social network. Considering all of these
Yet, people do lie, though for a variety of reasons. One out of ten interactions
within a marriage context will result in a deception comment (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998).
People get charged for lying during court testimonies even after swearing to tell the
truth. Exploring an example described earlier, parents indeed lie to their children and to
other people (Lavoie, et al., 2016; Hays & Carver, 2014). This is in direct contrast to the
fact parents will often teach their children to always tell the truth and that lying is always
wrong (Lavoie, et al., 2016; Hays & Carver, 2014). Children can see the difference
between what the parents instruct and what they practice. Children that realized their
parents’ deception will model their behavior to also lie, though normally for more selfish
reasons than why the parents lied (Hays & Carver, 2014). This presents a stated
contradiction of value: parents state that they value honesty, but their actions lie in
contrast to this stated belief. In reality, most adults, including parents, are willing to lie to
other people if they feel it will either protect themselves, their loved ones, or directly
benefit the one being lied to (Lavoie, et al., 2016; Xua, Luo, Fuc, & Lee, 2009). These
beneficial lies are called prosocial lies, as they are intended to create positive
environments for others as opposed to just the self (Lupoli, Jampol, & Overis, 2017).
Here is a theoretical example of prosocial lying: one man is attracted to a girl and
wishes to receive advice from his friends about how to approach her. He is socially
apprehensive and wants input from his trusted friends before taking action, as he is
unsure of how she will respond to his advances. His friends do not think that she will be
receptive to him, but do not want to discourage their friend. In order to protect his
feelings, they tell him that he is a good guy and that he should have confidence in
asking her out. This convinces the man to ask the girl out, but she turns his advances
In this example, the man’s friends intentionally deceived him. However, their
intention was for his benefit, as they wanted to protect his feelings and wanted him to be
successful. However, this ultimately backfired. Even though prosocial lies are told in
contexts to benefit the recipient of the lie, it can lead to unintended consequences
(Lupoli, et al., 2017). For prosocial lies, these consequences are typically negative. A
something (Wiltermuth, et al., 2015). The example of the man and his friends
demonstrates this false confidence. The friends had good intentions, but the
However, prosocial lying can also lead to positive consequences. Consider the
widely known example of Santa Claus. Parents in different cultures across the world will
tell their children about Santa Claus (Prentice, Manoservitz, & Hubbs, 1978) and how he
brings the children presents for Christmas. Young children hear stories and songs about
Santa from their parents and their societies at large. Parents know that the one placing
presents under the tree for Christmas is in fact themselves. However, many parents still
WHEN TRUTH AND LIES WORK TOGETHER 8
deceive their children about Santa’s existence. This is an example of a prosocial lie that
does not create direct negative consequences and arguably encourages positive
influences on children (Prentice, et al., 1978). For children, Santa adds another element
to the already exciting season. Even though Santa is not a real person, parents still
increases a child’s cognitive abilities (Prentice, et al., 1978). The story of Santa, though
inherently deceptive, is propagated for prosocial reasons and brings wonder to many
children’s Christmases.
The benefits of prosocial lying in interpersonal and societal contexts do not stop
with the word deception, prosocial deception can increase the size and strength of
deception. The reason for this is counterintuitive: “lying can increase trust” (Levine &
Schweitzer, 2015). Honesty is demonstrated to build trust, yet prosocial deception can
build trust despite the disparate nature of honesty and deception. Individuals will
demonstrate increased trust toward those that will deceive them for benevolent reasons
(Levine & Schweitzer, 2015; Lupoli, et al., 2017; Levine, et al., 2018). However, this
previously.
maintaining relationships, but they still lie to one another even when considering this
people lie to one another, even prosocially? Prosocial lying has the potential for both
WHEN TRUTH AND LIES WORK TOGETHER 9
negative and positive consequences (Lupoli, et al., 2017), so why take the risk?
Understanding why people value honesty at all provides the answer. Prosocial
lying and deception with altruistic intentions can actually build trust because of the
perceived benevolence from both parties (Levine & Schweitzer, 2015; Lupoli, et al.,
2017; Wiltermuth, et al., 2015). Even if the act of deception is normally associated with
negative consequences, the results of this deception are not always negative and both
the deceiver and receiver can understand this. Reasons for prosocial lying range from
compassion to mutual gain (Lupoli, et al., 2017). In other words, perceived benevolence
builds trust. Honesty typically demonstrates this benevolence, but can actually be
utilized with the intent to harm and be just as destructive as anti-social deception
(Iñiguez, et al., 2014). What maintains the relationship is the perceived benevolence of
the individual, whether telling the truth or lying (Iñiguez, et al., 2014). Honesty and
deception are both tools that are used to build or harm relationships.
demonstrate that there are a series of “value domains” shared across cultures
(Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). These domains are categories of universal values shared by
humanity as a whole. One of these domains is the prosocial domain, which is the
“positive, active concern for the welfare of others” (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). This
concern for welfare directly ties into the philosophical concept of well-being. Though
“balance point between an individual’s resource pool and the challenges faced” (Dodge,
Daly, Huyton, & Sanders, 2012). The different categories of resources and challenges
WHEN TRUTH AND LIES WORK TOGETHER 10
are psychological, social, and physical in nature. An individual needs balance between
the resources in these areas and the challenges that these resources can answer
(Dodge, et al., 2012). In some cases, honesty may not be able to provide all the
another person owns. Prosocial lying has the capacity to provide resources to meet the
challenges another person faces, such as emotional security and social power (Dodge,
et al., 2012; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). For example, telling the raw truth about a
person’s appearance may hurt them, but a well-intentioned lie can boost their self-
confidence. Meeting these needs builds stronger social networks and ultimately trust
(Iñiguez, et al., 2014; Wiltermuth, et al., 2015; Mealy, et al., 2007; Xua, et al., 2009).
People can meet the needs of others through both truth and lies.
This proposes the idea that people in reality value relational stability over honesty
itself. The prosocial domain of human value is addressed with benevolent intentions and
actions, which is why prosocial lies can build trust. An overabundance of honesty can
even be perceived to be harmful to relationships since there are instances where telling
the truth would violate the trust of another individual (Iñiguez, et al., 2014; Levine &
Schweitzer, 2015). Honesty does not immediately translate into trust, just as deception
does not immediately translate into harm. Well-being represents a deeper value domain
that focuses on the protection and promotion of the welfare of others (Schwartz &
Bilsky, 1987). This explains why cultures will claim to hold honesty as a value, yet
al., 2007). This also explains why in some contexts, prosocial lies are not considered
WHEN TRUTH AND LIES WORK TOGETHER 11
acceptable even if benevolent (Lupoli, et al., 2017; Xua, et al., 2009), as maintaining the
In other words, trust is just one tool to promote the prosocial welfare of others. In
fact, both honesty and deception can serve as proper means to build relationships when
utilized properly. In cases where honesty would fail to best maintain relational stability,
prosocial lying is utilized for the benefit of the other. These altruistic lies can lead to the
“smooth running of society” in cases where raw honesty would potentially harm the
relationship and create tight social networks that are built on trust from benevolence
(Iñiguez, et al., 2014). This is why many parents will deceive their children. Though it
may be through lies, parents can protect their children from potential harm and give
them better opportunities to mature (Lavoie, et al., 2016). The relationship between the
parent and child is more important than the value of honesty itself, and if an action
contradictory to honesty provides a better means to target the well-being of the other
However, there are still drawbacks to relying on deception to build and maintain
relational stability. Even though prosocial lies are intended for the benefit of others, the
consequences of the lie can still be detrimental to relational stability (Lupoli, et al.,
2017). The theoretical example of the man who asked his friends for advice is just one
case where good intentions could go wrong. Also note that though prosocial lying can
have positive effects, there could be other options that also present positive outcomes
(Lupoli, et al., 2017; Xua, et al., 2009). Even if a prosocial lie may be helpful in a
situation, other options such as telling the truth or abstaining from saying anything may
also yield benefits. Helpful untruth is rated less positively than helpful truth (Xua, et al.,
WHEN TRUTH AND LIES WORK TOGETHER 12
2009). In cases where both honesty and a prosocial lie can both maintain relational
stability, honesty has less risk involved. One reason for this is that the liar and the
recipient of the lie may hold incongruent evaluations of the prosocial lie (Levine, et al.,
2018). Even if the actor that deceives evaluates the lie will be for the other’s benefit, the
other may not receive this evaluation the same way. The person telling the lie will
inevitably make a judgement about whether to tell the prosocial lie by weighing on the
consequences to him/herself to the benefit for the other, while the recipient will be more
concerned about the consequence of the deception (Levine, et al., 2018). Since the
recipient is, regardless of intention, lied to, they will place greater weight on the
benevolence of the intention behind the lie than the person who tells the lie. These
Parents that tell prosocial lies to their children can inadvertently influence them to
adopt dishonest behavior (Lavoie, et al., 2016; Hays & Carver, 2014). Adult parents
have developed social skills to promote the use of prosocial lies, but young children
have not. Even though the parent may lie with benevolent intentions in mind, the child
will often adopt a selfish deception policy, as they do not yet possess the advanced
socialization skills of their older parents (Lavoie, et al., 2016; Xua, et al., 2009; Hays &
In addition, the context in which prosocial lies are told is important when
considering relational health and well-being. It is easier for those already close to each
other to accept prosocial lies, as they established a foundation of trust (Mealy, et al.,
2007). When trust is already established, both parties can filter the deception through
the trust as a lens. Lying to someone considered a stranger or not in the social network
WHEN TRUTH AND LIES WORK TOGETHER 13
evaluates negatively regardless of the intention (Mealy, et al., 2007). Along a similar
note, the social status of the individuals involved can determine the acceptability of
deception. For example, an employee can lie to the boss about workforce morale,
stating it is positive while it is actually negative, in order to cheer the boss up. This lie is
told with benevolent intent in mind, but if the boss finds out about the deception, he will
not receive it well. It only makes sense to utilize prosocial lies to maintain relational
Regardless of these risks, both honesty and deception are used to maintain the
deeper value of relational stability and well-being. Prosocial lies can benefit the one
deceived, “preserving the dyadic relationship between the stability of the relationship”
(Iñiguez, et al., 2014). Since people value the welfare of others, it only makes sense
that whatever means to best promote their welfare is fair game to use. This is why
adults see both prosocial lying and telling the truth for the benefit of others in a positive
light (Xua, et al., 2009). Romantic relationships develop from both: prosocial lies told to
a partner can convey trust on the other’s side, but there is still a need for honesty in the
relationship (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). In the end, the relationship is considered most
This research paper attempts to explain why those that claim to value honesty
are still willing to lie for others. This paper follows universal human principles to make
evaluations of people across different cultures. Even though different cultures all
evaluate prosocial lies positively, the degree to which it is acceptable is different for
different people groups (Mealy, et al., 2007; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). In addition, this
paper does not account for instances where people do not actively value honesty.
Though societies may generally hold that honesty is an important value to maintain
relationships, this does not speak for individuals who may disagree with this. For
example, Euro-Americans rated the acceptability of selfishly lying to others more highly
than Ecuadorians (Mealy, et al., 2007). Following this thought, it is possible that parents
may not teach their children to be honest in all situations and may even encourage their
children to lie. Parents may also lie to their children to selfish reasons rather than
benevolent ones.
Lastly, this paper does not explore the implications of these findings in relation to
an absolute moral code. For example, the Bible takes a clear position against lying: “do
not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices…”
(Colossians 3:9). Deception of any kind is deemed unacceptable by such a moral code,
Conclusion
yet they are willing to lie to one another in an altruistic manner. This is because people
value relational health and stability more fundamentally than honesty, as honesty is
simply one way to achieve this. Both honesty and deception become tools to promote
the welfare of another person, building tighter social networks and trust through
consequences for both the liar and the recipient, it is worth considering using prosocial
and always will be an important value for society, but rather than discount other ways to
communicate with people, acknowledging the usefulness of the occasional prosocial lie
may in fact remove elements of hypocrisy from our actions (Levine & Schweitzer, 2015).
Sometimes, truth and lies can work together to accomplish the same thing.
WHEN TRUTH AND LIES WORK TOGETHER 16
References
https://ezproxy.sagu.edu/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/ent
ry/routethics/deceit/0?institutionId=8888
DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships.
Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of defining
95(1), 384-394.
Hays, C., & Carver, L. J. (2014). Follow the liar: the effects of adult lies on children's
Iñiguez, G., Govezensky, T., Dunbar, R., Kaski, K., & Barrio, R. A. (2014). Effects of
Lavoie, J., Leduc, K., Crossman, A. M., & Talwar, V. (2016). Do as I say and not as I
think: Parent socialisation of lie-telling behaviour. Children & Society, 30(4), 253–
264. doi:10.1111/chso.12139
Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust.
Levine, E., Hart, J., Moore, K., Rubin, E., Yadav, K., & Halpern, S. (2018). The
Lupoli, M. J., Jampol, L., & Oveis, C. (2017). Lying because we care: Compassion
1026–1042. doi:10.1037/xge0000315
Mealy, M., Stephan, W., & Urrutia, I. C. (2007). The acceptability of lies: A comparison
Prentice, N. M., Manosevitz, M., & Hubbs, L. (1978). Imaginary figures of early
childhood: santa claus, easter bunny, and the tooth fairy. American Journal of
Wiltermuth, S. S., Newman, D. T., & Raj, M. (2015). The consequences of dishonesty.
Xua, F., Luo, Y. C., Fuc, G., & Lee, K. (2009). Children’s and adults’ conceptualization
and evaluation of lying and truth-telling. Infant & Child Development, 18(4), 307–
322. doi:10.1002/icd.631