The Evolutionary Psychology of Deception and Self-Deception

Abstract

This study was directed towards testing evolutionary hypotheses concerning the adaptive advantages of deception and the relationship between deception and self-deception. Explanations are argued for in terms of the consequences for evolutionary fitness contributing to individual survival within the human species. Darwin's theory of natural selection within the framework of evolutionary psychology provides the theoretical background for the study. The broad or covering hypothesis addressed is that deception and self-deception each involve a kind of consciousness or strategic cognitive process and that they have co-evolved through the operation of natural selection due to their importance and worth for the survival of the individual. The study is empirical, conducted by using the technique of secondary analysis on the data yielded by the World Values Survey collected in 45 countries in its second wave of 1990 to 1993 as well as on a South African sample containing variables of interest to the study. Findings show a significantly positive relationship between deception and self-deception. However, the relationship between deception and evolutionary fitness promoting factors, derived by factor analysis, was inconclusive. Findings nevertheless do suggest an overall trend that while deception is favourable in the short-term, it is counter-favourable in the long-term - deception at the end of the day does not pay.

Self-Deception Reduces Cognitive Load: The Role of Involuntary Conscious Memory Impairment

“…Third, only the ways in which participants deceive themselves and hide information were studied. Deception and self-deception may also occur by means of distortion and forgery (Moomal and Henzi, 2000). Future research could study the multiple functions of deception.…”

How neuroscience might advance the law

“…Evolutionary theorists have argued that self-deception can evolve as an effective mechanism for deceiving others (Trivers 1985, pp. 415-418;Moomol & Henzi 2000). The idea is that the telltale physiological signs of deception can be suppressed only if the actor himself is unaware of his deceptive behaviour.…”

“…See also Becky McCall, Brain fingerprints under scrutiny, at http:// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3495433.stm. 9 On theory of mind and its role in making cooperative decisions (see, generally, Fletcher et al 1995;Happe et al 1996;Frith 2001a,b;McCabe et al 2001 Moomol & Henzi (2000) for a discussion of competing theories of self-deception.…”

Lying: deception in human affairs

“…Given the presence of deception at almost all levels of biological phenomena, some scholars claim a genetic and evolutionary basis for deception in general and lying in particular (see, for example, Nyberg [1993], Rue [1994], Moomal and Henzi [2000]). Thus, Serban's book Lying: Man's Second Nature (2001) asserts:…”

“…Efforts to salvage self-deception from logical self-contradiction have taken the form of recognizing an unconscious component (see, for example, Barnes [1994], Trivers [1985], Moomal and Henzi [2000]). As Gur and Sackheim emphasize, in their adroitly titled paper, "Self-Deception: A Concept in Search of a Phenomenon" (1979), in self-deception, either the lying or the acceptance of the lie cannot be subject to the actor's awareness.…”