Everyday lies in close and casual relationships.

DePaulo, Bella M.; Kashy, Deborah A.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63

Cited by 444 publications

(425 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(93 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

400

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The relationship between compassion and prosocial lying may differ depending on the in-group/out-group membership of the lie target, or the lie teller's perceived closeness to the target. People feel more compassion towards those to whom they are closely related (Cialdini et al, 1997), and people also tell more prosocial lies to close others than selfish lies (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). Thus, it is possible that an interaction exists between compassion and the closeness of the lie target on prosocial lying, such that compassion would exert an even stronger influence on prosocial lies told between friends, coworkers, or relationship partners.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lying because we care: Compassion increases prosocial lying.

Lupoli

Jampol

Oveis

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosocial lies, or lies intended to benefit others, are ubiquitous behaviors that have important social and economic consequences. Though emotions play a central role in many forms of prosocial behavior, no work has investigated how emotions influence behavior when one has the opportunity to tell a prosocial lie-a situation that presents a conflict between two prosocial ethics: lying to prevent harm to another, and honesty, which might also provide benefits to the target of the lie. Here, we examine whether the emotion of compassion influences prosocial lying, and find that compassion causally increases and positively predicts prosocial lying. In Studies 1 and 2, participants evaluated a poorly written essay and provided feedback to the essay writer. Experimentally induced compassion felt towards the essay writer (Study 1) and individual differences in trait compassion (Study 2) were positively associated with inflated feedback to the essay writer. In both of these studies, the relationship between compassion and prosocial lying was partially mediated by an enhanced desire to prevent emotional harm. In Study 3, we found moderation such that experimentally induced compassion increased lies that resulted in financial gains for a charity, but not lies that produced financial gains for the self. This research illuminates the emotional underpinnings of the common yet morally complex behavior of prosocial lying, and builds on work highlighting the potentially harmful effects of compassionan emotion typically seen as socially beneficial.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lying because we care: Compassion increases prosocial lying.

Lupoli

Jampol

Oveis

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, DePaulo and Kashy (1998) found that lying was commonplace, but that people were selective with respect to the types of lies they were willing to tell and to whom they were willing to tell them. The theory of self-concept maintenance (Mazar et al, 2008) models this approach to engaging in unethical behavior.…”

Section: Hypothesis 1 Mindfulness Is Associated With a Lower Incidenmentioning

confidence: 99%

In the Moment: The Effect of Mindfulness on Ethical Decision Making

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many unethical decisions stem from a lack of awareness. In this article, we consider how mindfulness, an individual's awareness of his or her present experience, impacts ethical decision making. In our first study, we demonstrate that compared to individuals low in mindfulness, individuals high in mindfulness report that they are more likely to act ethically, are more likely to value upholding ethical standards (self-importance of moral identity, SMI), and are more likely to use a principled approach to ethical decision making (formalism). In our second study, we test this relationship with a novel behavioral measure of unethical behavior: the carbonless anagram method (CAM). We find that of participants who cheated, compared to individuals low in mindfulness, individuals high in mindfulness cheated less. Taken THE WHARTON RISK MANAGEMENT AND DECISION PROCESSES CENTEREstablished in 1984, the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center develops and promotes effective corporate and public policies for low-probability events with potentially catastrophic consequences through the integration of risk assessment, and risk perception with risk management strategies. Natural disasters, technological hazards, and national and international security issues (e.g., terrorism risk insurance markets, protection of critical infrastructure, global security) are among the extreme events that are the focus of the Center's research.The Risk Center's neutrality allows it to undertake large-scale projects in conjunction with other researchers and organizations in the public and private sectors. Building on the disciplines of economics, decision sciences, finance, insurance, marketing and psychology, the Center supports and undertakes field and experimental studies of risk and uncertainty to better understand how individuals and organizations make choices under conditions of risk and uncertainty. Risk Center research also investigates the effectiveness of strategies such as risk communication, information sharing, incentive systems, insurance, regulation and public-private collaborations at a national and international scale. From these findings, the Wharton Risk Center's research team -over 50 faculty, fellows and doctoral students -is able to design new approaches to enable individuals and organizations to make better decisions regarding risk under various regulatory and market conditions. The Center is also concerned with training leading decision makers. It actively engages multiple viewpoints, including top-level representatives from industry, government, international organizations, interest groups and academics through its research and policy publications, and through sponsored seminars, roundtables and forums.More information is available at http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk. Many unethical decisions stem from a lack of awareness. In this article, we consider how mindfulness, an individual's awareness of his or her present experience, impacts ethical decision making. In our first study, we demonstrate that...

show abstract

“…One exception is the situation in which truthful information may harm another individual's feeling. In this situation, lying is sometimes condoned or practiced (Bussey, 1999;DePaulo & Bell, 1996;DePaulo & Kashy, 1998;Lee & Ross, 1997;Sweetser, 1987).In Chinese society, the Western egalitarian notion of the free flow of information does not hold. The principle of veracity is based neither solely on information accuracy nor on whether truthful information may harm another individual's feeling.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-cultural differences in children's choices, categorizations, and evaluations of truths and lies.

Cameron

et al. 2007

Developmental Psychology

121

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined cross-cultural differences and similarities in children's moral understanding of individual-or collective-oriented lies and truths. Seven-, 9-, and 11-year-old Canadian and Chinese children were read stories about story characters facing moral dilemmas about whether to lie or tell the truth to help a group but harm an individual or vice versa. Participants chose to lie or to tell the truth as if they were the character (Experiments 1 and 2) and categorized and evaluated the story characters' truthful and untruthful statements (Experiments 3 and 4). Most children in both cultures labeled lies as lies and truths as truths. The major cultural differences lay in choices and moral evaluations. Chinese children chose lying to help a collective but harm an individual, and they rated it less negatively than lying with opposite consequences. Chinese children rated truth telling to help an individual but harm a group less positively than the alternative. Canadian children did the opposite. These findings suggest that cross-cultural differences in emphasis on groups versus individuals affect children's choices and moral judgments about truth and deception.Keywords cross-cultural; deception; individualism; collectivism; moral development Children around the world are socialized to adhere to the moral and social value systems of their culture and to do what is seen as right and not what is considered wrong. In many cases, the values of a culture are consistent with each other. They promote a coherent set of morally and socially acceptable behaviors. However, it is not unusual that in some situations certain cultural values collide with each other, and in such a circumstance, a moral-social dilemma Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kang Lee, Institute of Child Study, University of Toronto, 45 Walmer Road, Toronto, Ontario M5R 2X2, Canada, or to Genyue Fu, School of Education, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China. E-mail: kang.lee@utoronto.ca or fugy@zjnu.cn. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript might arise. One such dilemma is whether to tell a lie that may help a group or an individual or to speak the truth that might have the opposite effect.The question of what a lie is and whether it is wrong to lie has been a subject of intense debate among Western philosophers and theologians throughout history. There are numerous schools of thought on the issue that generally fall on a continuum. At one extreme, philosophers such as St. Augustine (1952), Kant (1949), andBok (1978) assumed that lying necessarily involves a speaker who knowingly makes a false statement with the intent to deceive. As long as a statement fits this description, it is a lie regardless of the context in which it is uttered. Also, these theorists held a deontological view of the moral implication of lying: Lying is intrinsically wrong and has a constant disvalue regardless of context. Lies must under all but the mo...

show abstract

Everyday lies in close and casual relationships.

Cited by 444 publications

References 39 publications

Lying because we care: Compassion increases prosocial lying.

Lying because we care: Compassion increases prosocial lying.

In the Moment: The Effect of Mindfulness on Ethical Decision Making

Cross-cultural differences in children's choices, categorizations, and evaluations of truths and lies.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About