Lying because we care: Compassion increases prosocial lying.

Abstract

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.

Gendered white lies: Women are given inflated performance feedback compared to men

“…There were no other statistically significant differences as a function of gender on trait perceptions, including warmth and competence, which have in the past been implicated in gender biases in communication (Bergsieker et al, 2012;Kray, Kennedy, & Van Zant, 2014). Moreover, as feedback veered towards a white lie participants inferred that the manager perceived the employee as warmer, which is consistent with past work showing that those who elicit compassion are more likely to be told white lies (Lupoli et al, 2017). We continue to explore the relationship between the white lies gender bias and the trait perceptions of those who are told white lies in Study 2.…”

“…Most of us have likely told a spouse that their cooking tastes great, when in fact it doesn't, or told a friend we like their new partner, when in fact we don't. White lies are often told because we strive to maintain social bonds (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and are driven by various interpersonal goals, such as the desire to avoid a negative reaction (Fisher, 1979;Turner, Edgley, & Olmstead, 1975), to help the recipient in some way (Erat & Gneezy, 2012;Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2013), to avoid harming the relationship or the other person (DePaulo & Bell, 1996;Lupoli, Jampol, & Oveis, 2017), or to present one's self in a positive light to others (Carver, Glass, & Katz, 1978) or themselves (Camden, Motley, & Wilson, 1984).…”

The ends of empathy: Constructing empathy from value-based choice

“…Similarly, the term compassion collapse is used because compassion, not just empathy, reduces in response to large numbers , and is susceptible to parochialism (Saucier et al, 2005) and can conflict with justice (Batson et al, 1995) and produce dishonesty (Lupoli et al, 2017). By the logic of arguments against empathy, these should also be dismissed.…”

“…More recent work finds that trait and state compassion are related to increased lying to prosocially benefit others (Lupoli, Oveis, & Jampol, 2017), Ends of empathy 46 suggesting that compassion may interfere with moral rules against dishonesty. Empathy has also been linked to hostility (Keller & Pfattheicher, 2013) and aggression (Buffone & Poulin, 2014).…”

Does “Could” Lead to Good? On the Road to Moral Insight

“…In these dilemmas, individuals are often caught in a conflict that entails sacrificing a moral principle (e.g., acting ethically and fairly, being loyal, and avoiding harm) in order to protect or uphold duty to another individual (e.g., a coworker, supervisee, manager) or entity (e.g., team or organization). To resolve these dilemmas, individuals may prioritize one imperative over another, resulting in deontological or utilitarian choices (Greene et al, 2008), prosocial lies (Levine & Schweitzer, 2014Lupoli, Jampol, & Oveis, 2017), pro-organizational unethical behaviors (Umphress et al, 2010), taboo tradeoffs (Fiske & Tetlock, 1997), and necessary evils (Margolis & Molinsky, 2008;Molinsky & Margolis, 2005).…”