UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)
Disentangling deceptive communication : situation and person characteristics as
determinants of lying in everyday life
Backbier, E.H.F.
Publication date
2001
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA):
Backbier, E. H. F. (2001). Disentangling deceptive communication : situation and person
characteristics as determinants of lying in everyday life. Thela Thesis.
General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
44
Whenn and Why do we Tell Lies?
Ann Analysis of Self Reported Lies
Althoughh everyone lies regularly, if not every day (DePaulo, Kirkendol, Kashy, Wyer & Epstein,, 1996), this behaviour has seldom been the subject of research. By far the most researchh focuses on exposing liars by asking which verbal and/or non-verbal signals betray thatt a person is telling lies and how good people are at detecting lies (for an overview of researchh into the detection of lies, see Kalbfleisch, 1994 or Vrij, 1998), Other studies have usedd questionnaires to establish people's dispositions in connection with lying. The underlyingg assumption is that people with certain characteristics are more inclined to lie thann those who possess those characteristics to a lesser degree. Examples of these types of personalityy scales are the MMPI lie scale (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943), the EPI lie scale (Eysenckk & Eysenck, 1964) and the Machiavellianism scale (Christie & Geis, 1970). Answeringg a questionnaire by giving socially acceptable responses has also been equated withh lying (see Paulus, 1986). It has never been demonstrated, however, that such characteristicss actually result in an increased propensity to lie. Lies are told more often in certainn situations than in others, but that people with certain characteristics are generally moree inclined to tell lies is mere conjecture.
Ourr point of view on lying is that it has a particular function in the daily dealings among peoplee and that virtually all of us resort to lying fairly regularly. Other researchers who regardd lying as a functional interpersonal communication strategy are Buller and Burgoon (1994),, DePaulo et al. (1996), and Robinson (1996). The function of lying is to enable the
userr to avoid violating (so as to protect others or to avoid hurting them) or openly violating (forr example to protect or to benefit himself or herself) the social rules in a specific context.. Thus, although lies may certainly have their roots in malevolence, this is by no meanss always the case. The comments above illustrate our conclusion of Chapter 3 that in thee first instance, lying is likely to be the result of the types of social situations in which a personn finds himself or herself rather than of personal characteristics. The social situations inn which a choice 'must' be made between telling a pain-giving or a disadvantageous truth andd a flattering or advantageous lie, can be described as interactions characterised by a communicativee dilemma. In such situations, the frequency with which persons find themselvess in them may be directly linked to the frequency with which they tell lies. By studyingg the characteristics of the interactions in which lies are told, we can learn a great deall about the situations in which people tend to lie; in other words, when and why people usee lies as a communication strategy.
Onee way of examining further the 'situation-induced lie hypothesis' is by asking people to reportt and comment on their most recent lie. Whether a certain utterance can be deemed a liee depends on the person who delivers it. It is assumed that we are dealing with a lie only whenn the messenger is aware that what he or she is communicating does not correspond withh the knowledge, views, feelings or motives he or she holds; and that he or she is makingg the statement with the intention of creating a discrepancy between the information knownn to himself or herself and that known to the receiver (Meerum Terwogt-Kouwenhoven,, 1993, p. 25). Asking people to report a self-told lie guarantees that their communicatedd message has satisfied the criterion of a 'conscious creation of a discrepancy'.. Asking the respondents to describe the context (to whom, why, what about andd with what effect) allows us to examine the characteristics of the interactions in which liess are told. The reason for choosing the most recent lie is to prevent the respondent from selectingg the least serious lie from his or her repertoire. Moreover, the most recent lie may alsoo be the easiest to recall (see DePaulo et al., 1996).
AA systematic and useful way of analysing the reports is by developing a table of characteristicss of self-reported lies. A table of characteristics makes it possible to identify anyy patterns in the reports and to systematically study differences between, for example, liess told by male and female respondents. Given the nature of the data, i.e. descriptions of liess in their context, the case-oriented quantifying method of analysis was chosen. This is a
combinationn of the hermeneutic method, which attempts to interpret individual cases, and statisticss in the social sciences, which focus on patterns in relationships. This method makess it possible to classify and subsequently quantify qualitative data or parts of it (see, forr example, Kuckartz, 1995a; Mason, 1996). Which categories or subcategories can be usedd to produce an accurate description of the reported lies? How are the various categoriess or subcategories divided? And which lies can be deemed prototypes given the
frequencyfrequency with which the various categories or subcategories occur in the reports? These questionss will first be answered for the entire group and then for various subgroups of
respondents.. A systematic comparison of the reports of the various subgroups can provide betterr insight into the influence of situation-linked aspects on the decision to lie. Because theree is strong evidence suggesting that gender and age relate to the nature and type of interpersonall communication strategies which people adopt (see, for example, Reis, Lin, Bennett & Nezlek, 1993) and that this also translates into differences in lying (see, for example,, DePaulo et al., 1996; DePaulo, Epstein & Wyer, 1993), the differences between liess told by male and female respondents and by younger and older respondents will also bee examined.
Thee present study is exploratory in nature. Apart from the more general assumptions set outt in this introduction, no specific hypotheses will be presented concerning the results of thee analysis. First, a description will be given of how the research material, i.e. the self-reportedd lies, was obtained. This will be followed by a brief description of the development off the coding table and an explanation of the categories and subcategories. Next, the distributionn of the various lie characteristics for the entire group and the four subgroups of respondentss will be presented. Finally, on the basis of the prototypical lies, conclusions willl be formulated in regard to when and why lies are told.
M e t h o d d
RespondentsRespondents and Procedure
Thee research material comprises lies told by 160 first-year psychology students reported duringg a session of a collective pilot study at the University of Amsterdam in 1995. The respondentss were 96 women and 64 men bom between 1956 and 1976. Most respondents (60%)) were 18 to 21 years old, 29% was 21 to 26 years old, and 11% was 26 to 40 years old. .
Thee lies were reported by way of a written assignment. After a brief introduction to the study,, the respondents were asked to write as accurately as possible about the last time they hadd lied; when, to whom, what about and why they had lied, what they had said, how the personn to whom they had lied reacted, and whether the lie had had the desired effect. It was stressedd that the researchers regarded lying as a functional communication strategy and that thee strategy of collecting personal accounts of lies during a collective test session provided thee respondents with the best guarantee of anonymity.
DevelopingDeveloping a Coding Table
Itt turned out that the analysis of the research material could be divided into three stages. Stagee one consisted of developing a provisional coding table (category system).1 The main categoriess were often defined by searching for components that evolved from the written assignments.. The subcategories often crystallised from the specific interpretation of those variouss components of the report in which, given the 'breadth' of the sub-categories, the coderss compromised between 'frequency' (not too few and not too many), 'significance' ('mother'' is more significant than 'woman'), and 'mutual exclusivity' (the word or part of aa sentence which falls within a particular main category can fall within only one of its sub-categories).. The second stage consisted of testing and adjusting the provisional coding table.. Finally, all the reports were coded using the definitive coding table. Care was taken throughoutt the coding process to express the perspective of the liar in the coding and not thatt of the 'external evaluator.'
11
The computer program WINMAX (Kuckartz, 1995b) was used to develop the category system and code the reportedd lies. This program supports both qualitative and quantitative data processing and makes it possible too describe or test quantified qualitative data using SPSS.
Figuree 4.1 shows the main- and subcategories that were included in the coding table. The left-handd column shows who and what prompted the respondents' act of lying. The target personss are listed in order of strength of emotional bond between them and the respondent, fromfrom greatest to least. The middle column indicates the person or situation that induced the lie,, what the lie was about and the type of lie that was told. The type of lie is listed in order off gravity from most to least. The right-hand column shows the effects of the lie. How did thee respondent feel the lie was received? Did the respondent feel the desired effect had beenn achieved and how did the respondent feel in retrospect about having lied? Finally, not includedd in the table, but subject to coding, was the time frame in which the lie was told. Thiss characteristic was coded to check at a later stage whether and to what extent the respondentss had reported their lies selectively. A distinction was made between recent lies (toldd on the day the lie was reported or during the two preceding days) and non-recent lies (toldd at a point prior to the two days preceding reporting).
ReliabilityReliability of the Analysis
Twoo researchers who worked closely together undertook the development of the coding tablee and the coding process itself. Respondents tended to write in telegraphic style that sometimess impeded the coding process. If a section of text in a report did not contain enoughh information to allow it to be placed with full certainty in one of the sub-categories off a particular main category, this piece of text was coded using a miscellaneous sub-category.. If a particular aspect was not described at all (for example, whether the lie was believedd or accepted), obviously nothing was coded. A further complication in applying thee coding table was the sections of text which, according to one interpretation, belonged inn a particular sub-category, but did not according to another. The two coders assessed thesee border-line cases at their discretion.
CharacteristicsCharacteristics of
OccasionOccasion Lie
Target Referent
-- Parents - Liar -- Mother - Target -- Father - Third party -- Partner - Object -- My girlfriend - Study -- My boyfriend
-- Ex-girlfriend - Content
-- Ex-boy friend - Positive Feelings -- A female friend - Negative Feelings -- A male friend - Achievement/Knowledge
Consequence Consequence -Belief/Acceptance e -Yes s -No o -- Unclear Effect t -- Desired -- Undesired -- Undecided Evaluation
-- Fellow-student(s), male - Lack of achievement/Knowledge - Positive -- Fellow-student(s), female - Actions/Plans/Intentions
-- A girl/woman - Facts/Possessions -- A boy/man - Reason -- Someone Type e -- Straight Lie Reason - Exaggeration
-- Own benefit - Distortion -- To create an impression - Subtle Lie -- Psychological well-being - Unclear -- Practical
-- To create an impression & Psychological -- To create an impression & Practical reason -- Psychological well-being & Practical reason -- Altruistic
-- Psychological well-being -- Own benefit & Altruistic
-- Impression about oneself & Other's well-being -- Own practical reason & Other's well-being -- Own practical reason & Other's practical benefit
-- Negative -- Neutral
-- Own psychological well-being & Own practical reason & Other's practical benefit -- Don't know
R e s u l t s s
AA total of 130 of the 160 reports were suitable for coding using the table of lie characteristics.. A few respondents reported not being able to remember lying (n=14) or havingg never lied (n=7). The remaining nine reports not included in the analysis, contained liess that could not be understood as such, descriptions of how the respondents regarded lyingg in general, and descriptions of lies that more closely resembled jokes.
Tablee 4.1 Frequencies and Percentages of Subcategories of Persons to Whom the Lie was Told andand the Reasons for Lying
TargetTarget (N = 129)
Parents,, Mother, Father Partner,, My girl/boyfriend Ex-girl/boyfriend d AA female/male friend Fellow-student(s)) fe/male AA girl/woman AA boy/man Someone e ReasonReason (N=lll) Ownn benefit
Too create an impression Psychologicall well-being Practical l
Impressionn & Psychological Impressionn & Practical Psychologicall & Practical Altruistic c
Psychologicall well-being Ownn benefit & Altruistic
Impressionn & Other's well-being Practicall & Other's well-being Practicall & Other's practical benefit Psychological,, Practical & Other's pr benefit Don'tt know Frequenciess Percentages 377 28.7 188 14.0 33 2.4 199 14.7 55 3.9 133 10.1 200 15.5 144 10.9 777 69.4 200 18.0 (26.0) 55 4.5 (6.5) 477 42.3 (61.0) 11 0.9 (1.3) 22 1.8 (2.6) 22 1.8 (2.6) 166 14.4 166 14.4 (100) 177 15.3 33 2.7 (17.6) 88 7.3 (42.9) 55 4.5 (29.4) 11 0.9 (5.9) 11 0.9
OccasionOccasion for the Lie
Thee occasion for the lie was defined by those who were lied to and the reason for the lie (seee Table 4.1). A striking feature is the broad distribution across 15 categories of targets (peoplee lied to). The mother of the respondent and 'a boy or man' (for example, a male colleague),, however, are clearly the largest groups of people to whom the lies were told. Mostt reports (85.4%) also gave the reason why the respondent had lied. This was usually forr his or her own benefit, often to avoid having to do something unpleasant and/or to gain something.. Respondents also often lied to create an impression about themselves, or to get orr keep the other person in a good mood. If respondents reported having lied not solely for thee benefit of the other's psychological well-being, it was usually in combination with practical,, selfish motives (for example, to avoid an unpleasant activity or to get something theyy desired).
CharacteristicsCharacteristics of the Lie
Thee lie itself was characterised by which person or what issue was involved, the subject of thee lie and the type of lie (see Table 4.2). The lie usually concerned the respondent personally,, i.e. something he or she had done, something that had happened to him or her, orr something he or she had experienced. The reported lie was also often related to an object,, place or event. The subject of the lie was reported in almost all cases (96.9%). Theree was no particular subject that was lied about most frequently. Many respondents presentedd behaviour or plans contrary to reality, made up a reason to excuse behaviour, or liedd about an explicit fact. Although less often reported, positive feelings were expressed twicee as often as negative feelings. Most respondents told straight lies; they communicated informationn that surely contradicted the truth. A slightly smaller number of respondents liedd by distorting information (a qualitative change) and an even smaller group lied by exaggeratingg (a quantitative change). Only a few respondents lied in a subtle manner by givingg a misleading representation of the truth.
CharacteristicsCharacteristics of the Consequences
Thee consequences of the lie were typified by the belief or acceptance of the lie on the part off the target person, the effect of the lie, and how the liar judged his or her lie in retrospect. Inn more than half the reports (61.5%), the respondents mentioned something about whether thee target person accepted or believed the lie. In 80% of these cases, the respondents believedd the lies had been successful. Only five respondents reported that their lie had not
beenn believed or accepted, and 11 respondents wrote that they could not decide on this point.. In more than half of the reports (64.6%), the effect of the lies, i.e. whether or not the goall had been achieved, was described. In the majority of these cases the respondents indicatedd that the lies had had the desired effect (n=71). Only seven respondents reported thatt they had not achieved their goal, and six said that the effect was unclear. A number of respondentss voluntarily evaluated their behaviour in the relevant situation. Their judgementt was usually negative (n=12) and sometimes neutral (n=5). Only two respondentss regarded their lying as having been positive.
Tablee 4.2 Frequencies and Percentages of Subcategories of the Person or Issue to which the Lie waswas Related, the Content of the Lie and the Type of Lie
ReferentReferent (N=125) Liar r Target t Thirdd party Object t Study y ContentContent (N=\26) Positivee Feelings Negativee Feelings
(Lackk of) Achievement/Knowledge
Frequencies s 67 7 3 3 14 4 27 7 14 4 18 8 8 8 11 1 Percentages s 53.6 6 2.4 4 11.2 2 21.6 6 11.2 2 14.3 3 6.3 3 8.8 8 rtcrtc nuns/ r lans/ inienuuns
Facts/Possessions s Reason n TypeType (N= 130) Straightt Lie Exaggeration n Distortion n Subtlee Lie Unclear r JO O 24 4 29 9 50 0 21 1 38 8 11 1 10 0 ZS.b ZS.b 19.0 0 23.0 0 38.5 5 16.2 2 29.2 2 8.5 5 7.7 7
LiesLies Told by Women Versus Lies Told by Men
Bothh women and men often named their mothers as the person they had lied to (see Table 4.3).. Women also tended to lie in particular to 'a boy or man', while men lied either to 'a
boyy or man* or to 'a girl or woman". Further, women lied to a girlfriend more often than to aa boyfriend, and men lied more often to a male friend than to a girlfriend. Finally, it was interestingg to note that female respondents reported having lied to their boyfriends considerablyy more often than male respondents reported lying to their girlfriends. In most cases,, the men and women said they lied for their own benefit. The men in particular aimed att obtaining something or at escaping from an unpleasant activity. Both sexes, however, alsoo often lied to create a certain impression of themselves. Further, the women more than thee men said to lie regularly to protect someone's feelings, e.g. not to hurt someone.
Tablee 4 J Percentages of the Subcategories of the Occasion for Lying (Target, Reason) by FemaleFemale and Male Respondents
Target Target
Parents,, Mother, Father Partner,, My girl/boyfriend Ex-girl/boyfriend d AA female/male friend Fellow-student(s)) female/male AA girt/woman AA boy/man Someone e Reason Reason Ownn benefit
Too create an impression Psychological l
Practical l
Impressionn & Psychological Impressionn & Practical Psychologicall & Practical Altruistic c
Psychological l Ownn benefit & Altruistic
Impressionn & Other's well-being Practicall & Other's well-being Practicall & Other's practical benefit Psychh & Pract & Other's pr benefit Don'tt know Percentagess for Femalee respondents 100100 (n = 78) 26.8 8 17.9 9 2.6 6 16.6 6 1.3 3 7.7 7 16.7 7 10.3 3 100100 (n = 70) 62.33 (n = 44) 20.33 (32.6) 5.88 (9.3) 30.44 (48.8) 1.44 (2.3) 2.99 (4.7) 1.44 (2.3) 18.8(w=14) ) 18.88 (100) 17.44 (« =11) 4.33 (25.0) 8.77 (50.0) 4.33 (25.0) (-) ) 1.44 ( n = l ) Percentagess for malee respondents 100100 (n = 51) 30.8 8 7.7 7 1.9 9 11.5 5 7.7 7 13.5 5 13.5 5 11.5 5 100100 (n = 42) 81.88 (« = 34) 18.22 (22.2) 2.33 (2.8) 59.11 (72.2) (-) ) (-) ) 2.33 (2.8) 6.88 (n = 3) 6.88 (100) 11.4(«« = 5) (-) ) 4.55 (40.0) 4.55 (40.0) 2.33 (20.0) ' '
Liess told by both male and female respondents were connected to something they had done,, something that had happened to them or something they had experienced (see Table 4.4).. The reported lies were also often related to an object, a place or an event. This profile iss comparable to the overall picture for all respondents together. The subject matter of the liess differed between the sexes. Although men and women both described mostly lies about actions,, plans or intentions, the women also reported telling lies giving a reason to excuse theirr behaviour, while the men also told untruths about facts and/or possessions. Most men andd women had cast their lies in the form of a straight lie. The women who did not hide the truthh behind false information distorted the facts. Women reported few exaggerations of thee truth. The men who did not tell straight lies reported about as many instances of distortionn as of exaggeration.
Tablee 4.4 Percentages of Subcategories of Lie Characteristics (Referent, Content and Type)
byby Female and Male Respondents
Referent Referent Liar r Target t Thirdd party Object t Study y Content Content Positivee Feelings Negativee Feelings
(Lackk of) Achievement/Knowledge Actions/Plans/Intentions s Facts/Possessions s Reason n Type Type Straightt Lie Exaggeration n Distortion n Subtlee Lie Unclear r Percentages s for r femalee respondents 100100 (n 52.1 1 1.4 4 13.7 7 20.5 5 12.3 3 100100 (n 13.0 0 5.2 2 9.1 1 28.6 6 15.6 6 28.6 6 100100 (n 38.5 5 14.1 1 34.6 6 9.0 0 3.8 8 == 73) == 77) == 78) Percentagess for malee respondents 100100 (n = 51) 54.9 9 3.9 9 7.8 8 23.5 5 9.8 8 100100 (n = 49) 16.3 3 8.2 2 8.2 2 28.6 6 24.5 5 14.3 3 100100 (n=52) 38.5 5 20.4 4 21.2 2 8.2 2 14.3 3
Accordingg to their own reports, men appear to be more successrul liars than women. For example,, a larger percentage of men than women reported that their lie had been believed (91%% of the 33 as opposed to 72% of the 47). The men did not report disbelief on the part off the target persons, whereas women occasionally did. The same pattern was evident in thee reports on the effect of the lies. The reports which indicated whether the respondents' objectivess had been achieved were usually positive, though somewhat more so among the menn than the women (91% of the 32 as opposed to 81% of the 52). Reports that showed thatt the objective had not been achieved were more frequent among the women than the menn (11.5% as opposed to 3.1%). Although in percentage terms men and women were equall in evaluating their lying as being negative (64.3% of the 14 and 60% of the 5), the remainingg women evaluated their action as being neutral and the remaining men evaluated theirr action as positive.
LiesLies Told by Young Respondents Versus Lies Told by Older Respondents
Youngg and older respondents differed somewhat in the people they lied to and in their reasonss for lying. The young respondents reported having lied to their mother more often, whilee the older respondents lied more often to a person whom they described less specificallyy (see Table 4.5). Other people who the younger respondents reported lying to relativelyy frequently were a boy or man, a girl or woman, and a girlfriend. For the older respondentss these were a boyfriend, their mother, and a boy or a man. Both groups usually reportedd having lied out of self-interest, generally to achieve something and/or to avoid an unpleasantt activity. In this respect, the older respondents differed from the younger ones in thatt they never mentioned a combination of the different kinds of self-interest. The group off older respondents did, however, combine their self-interest with that of the other party, ratherr than mentioning only the advantage to the other party.
Tablee 4.5 Percentages of Subcategories of the Occasion for Lying (Target, Reason) by
YoungerYounger (18-20) and Older (21-39) Respondents
Target Target
Parents,, Mother, Father Partner,, My girl/boyfriend Ex-girl/boyfriend d AA female/male friend Fellow-student(s)) fe/male AA girl/woman AA boy/man Someone e Reason Reason Ownn benefit Impression n Psychological l Practical l
Impressionn & Psychological Impressionn & Practical Psychologicall & Practical Altruistic c
Psychological l Ownn benefit & Altruistic
Impracticall & Other's well-being Practicall & Other's well-being Practicall & Other's practical benefit Psyy & Pract & Other's pract benefit Don'tt know Percentagess for youngerr respondents 100100 (n = 82) 31.7 7 8.6 6 2.4 4 17.1 1 3.6 6 12.2 2 17.1 1 7.3 3 100100 (n = 69) 68.11 (n = 47) 20.33 (29.8) 2.99 (4.3) 37.77 (55.3) 1.44 (2.1) 2.99 (4.3) 2.99 (4.3) 17.4(n== 12) 17.44 (100) 13.00 (n = 9) 1.44 (11.1) 4.33 (33.3) 5.88 (44.4) 1.44 (11.1) 1.44 (/i = 1) Percentagess for olderr respondents 100100 (n = 47) 23.4 4 23.4 4 2.1 1 10.7 7 4.2 2 6.4 4 12.8 8 17.0 0 100100 (n = 43) 71.4(nn = 31) 14.33 (22.6) 7.11 (9.7) 50.00 (67.7) (-) ) (-) ) (-) ) 9.55 {n = 5) 9.55 (100) 19.00 (n = 7) 4.88 (14.3) 11.99 (71.4) 2.44 (14.3) (-) )
--Thee younger and older respondents differed little from one another in regard to what the reportedd lie referred to. The lies generally referred to something of the respondents themselvess (see Table 4.6), but also often related to an object, a place or an event. This profilee is comparable to the overall picture of all respondents together. In regard to the contentt of the lies, small differences were found between the two sub-groups. The lies reportedd by the younger respondents were generally related to behaviour, plans or intentions.. The lies reported by the older respondents were generally related to reasons,
usuallyy an excuse for behaviour. Lies that expressed feelings that were more positive than inn reality were twice as apparent among the older respondents than the younger ones. Most youngg respondents reported straight lies. A small group among the younger respondents had,, to a lesser degree, distorted the facts. Among the older respondents, straight lies and distortionn of the facts were equally evident.
Tablee 4.6 Percentages of Subcategories of Lie Characteristics (Referent, Content, Type) by YoungerYounger (18-20) and Older (21-39) Respondents
Referent Referent Liar r Target t Thirdd party Object t Study y Content Content Positivee Feelings Negativee Feelings
(Lackk of) Achievement/Knowledge Actions/Plans/Intentions s Facts/Possessions s Reason n Type Type Straightt Lie Exaggeration n Distortion n Subtlee Lie Unclear r Percentages s for r youngerr respondents 100100 (n 55.3 3 2.6 6 11.8 8 19.7 7 10.5 5 100100 (n 10.3 3 7.7 7 7.7 7 35.1 1 21.8 8 20.5 5 100100 (n 40.2 2 15.9 9 26.8 8 8.5 5 8.5 5 == 76) == 78) == 82)
Percentagess for older respondents s 100100 (n = 48) 50.0 0 2.1 1 10.4 4 25.0 0 12.5 5 100100 (n = 48) 20.8 8 4.2 2 10.4 4 22.9 9 14.6 6 27.1 1 100100 (n = 48) 35.4 4 16.7 7 33.3 3 8.3 3 6.3 3
Thee younger respondents were a little more optimistic about the belief or acceptance of theirr lies than the older respondents (84% of the 45 and 74% of the 35). Both groups were reasonablyy similar in their opinions concerning the effects, generally reporting that their objectivee had been achieved (87% of the 55 and 79% of the 29). The older respondents weree less clear than the younger respondents as to whether their objective had been
achieved.. In terms of percentages, more older respondents evaluated their lying as negative (71%% of the 7 as opposed to 58% of the 12).
C o n c l u s i o n n
Thee self-reports provided a reasonably diverse impression of everyday lies. Combining the categoriess most frequently reported produces a clear picture of when and why people tell eachh other lies. The prototypical lie of the respondents was a lie told to the mother of the respondent,, or to a boy or man, for self-oriented practical reasons, about actions, plans or
intentionsintentions on the part of the respondent him/herself, in the form of a straight lie which was believed,believed, or at least accepted, and which had the desired effect. For example:
'The'The last time I told a lie was today (6-11) at 6.15 p.m. when I was on the point of leavingleaving the house. My mother telephoned and at the end of the conversation asked if I hadhad had a good meal seeing that I was leaving the house so "early". I said "Yes ", althoughalthough I hadn 't eaten anything. I said that because I had to leave quickly so as not toto be late and because I didn 't feel like explaining why I hadn't eaten anything.'
(Male,(Male, age 19)
Thiss lie illustrates that the respondents often lied if they thought it would prevent a negativee response (towards themselves) from their interaction partner. The lie is thus intendedd to control the course of the interaction. In cases involving parents, it is also likely thatt the respondents are fairly well able to predict the parent's reaction to their telling the truthh and their telling a lie. The decision to lie to (one of) the parents is therefore probably takenn quite quickly.
Thee prototypes for female and male respondents are not the same as they are for younger andd older respondents. In addition to actions, plans or intentions, the prototypical lies for femalee respondents can also relate to a reason. For example:
TheThe last time I lied was two weeks ago to my employer. I had worked too much and still hadhad a lot to do for my exams, which were coming up a few days later. I telephoned and said II was ill. (It was the first time that I had reported sick in a long time.) My lie had the desireddesired effect. I didn't have to work.' (Female, age 24)
Thiss lie illustrates that a further purpose of lying is 'to gain something'. The respondent clearlyy assesses that the chances of gaining that 'something' are far smaller if the truth is toldd instead of a lie. The reader might wonder whether it was really necessary to lie to the
employerr on this particular occasion. But the respondent knows her interaction partner betterr than we do and decided otherwise. Although not mentioned by the respondent, what wass likely involved is the fact that by telling her employer that she was ill, she avoided creatingg a bad impression. If she had given the real reason her employer might have concludedd that the respondent had trouble organizing her time.
Inn addition to the mother of the respondent, or a hoy or man, the prototypical lie among malee respondents can also be told to a girl or woman, and in addition to actions, plans or intentionsintentions can just as easily relate to facts or possessions. For example:
'That'That was about one week ago to a staff member of the computer room at the Faculty of GeographicGeographic Sciences. I lied to him because I told him that 1 was also studying social geographygeography which I no longer am. This meant I could still use the computers. He believed meme and let me do what I wanted. So the lie had the desired effect.' (Male, age 21)
Again,, this lie is about obtaining something that would likely not be obtained if the truth wass told. This lie also illustrates why lies are frequently told to 'boys and men' for the purposee of obtaining something. Men seem often to be gatekeepers and are often in a positionn to decide whether or not to give a person permission to do something (e.g. take a dayy off), or to allow access or entry (e.g. to a computer room or a job). The situation above alsoo shows once more the importance of experience or prior knowledge in regard to the decisionn to lie. The respondent obviously knows that his lie to the staff member is unlikely too be found out.
Amongg the younger respondents (18-20 years old), the prototype is the same as that for all respondents,, whereas the prototypical lie reported by the older respondents (21-39 years old)) deviates greatly from the general prototype. This lie is not told to the mother, or to a boyy or man, but to someone or to the respondents' male friend, it does not relate to actions, planss or intentions but to a reason and can just as easily be delivered in the form of a straightstraight lie or as a distortion of the truth. For example:
ToldTold acquaintances that we (partner and I) were too busy to visit. Was accepted. Why the lie?lie? We didn't feel like it. When: Saturday (so 2 days ago). Effect: we happily stayed at home.home. So objective was achieved! (Female, age 27)
Thiss lie is a further illustration of the fact that lying is used to prevent something deemed negativee from happening, thus controlling the interaction process. Here, what has to be preventedd in the first instance is 'visiting acquaintances', and in the second instance
probablyy (not mentioned by the respondent) 'hurting the acquaintances' feelings*. Given thee frequency with which the response 'too busy* is used instead of 'don't feel like it', one might,, for that matter, suspect that society regards the first reason (an excuse) to be more sociallyy acceptable than the second one (the truth).
D i s c u s s i o n n
Thee suggestion presented in the introduction that a person must first be 'in a position' to lie iss indirectly confirmed, among other things, by the observation that far fewer male respondentss reported lying to their girlfriends than female respondents reported lying to theirr boyfriends. We assume, therefore, that the male respondents have girlfriends less oftenn than the female respondents have boyfriends, which means that the male respondents aree less often in a situation which 'required' their lying to 'their girlfriend'. Similarly, the discrepancyy in lies between older and younger respondents can be explained partly by 'circumstances'.. The youngest respondents often still live 'at home' and are therefore still subjectt to certain parental authority. The older respondents, however, are going to be accountablee to their partners about their feelings as opposed to accountable to parents aboutt their behaviour. Thus, analysis of the self-reported lies also showed that the nature of thee relationship between the liar and the interaction partner determines the content of and explicitt reasons for the lies.
AA further point which became apparent during the analysis was that despite the fact that mostt research seems to assume simple motives (see for example Chapter 2; Buller & Burgoon,, 1994) multiple motives can also play a role, both implicitly and explicitly. Twentyy percent of the reports mentioned two or more reasons for lying. Even when only onee reason had been given, a second or third reason could often be presented (later on) whichh (could have) influenced the decision to lie in the given situation. It is possible that peoplee think up further reasons afterwards so as to justify their behaviour. It may also be thatt the more reasons a person can think of for lying in a given situation, the greater the chancee that the advantages of lying soon outweigh the truth. Whatever the case, this findingg is an interesting point for further research into factors that influence the decision to lie. .
Thee emphasis on the (spontaneous) evaluative aspects of telling lies indicates why people persistt in resorting to lying: lying is usually an effective strategy to achieve a set goal. Nevertheless,, a small percentage of respondents evaluated their behaviour (in retrospect) as beingg negative. They were sorry they had not been (more) honest, they were ashamed of havingg lied, or they felt guilty. A negative evaluation usually went hand-in-hand with the factt the lie had not had the desired effect. The respondents had not received the response theyy had hoped for, or they had entirely miscalculated the situation. Negative evaluations weree also accompanied by the respondents knowing in advance that lying would not providee the solution to the problem at hand. These kind of experiences probably contribute too people generally 'not liking to lie'.
Mostt of the reports (79.2 %) indicated when the lie had taken place. The lies were usually toldd on the same day or on one of the two preceding days (recent: n= 54) as often as they weree told longer ago (not recently: n= 49). This distribution was also found when the groupss were divided into female and male or into younger and older respondents. Although itt is possible that the written assignment did not actually elicit the most recent lie from all respondents,, it is equally possible that it did. Although many people lie every day, not everyonee does. Thus, a reported lie that was told at least two days previously could well be thee most recent one. A further argument is that people differ considerably in the way they definee 'lying' (Backbier, 1994; Robinson, 1996). In the instructions, lying was defined as: thee communication of information in whatever form which does not correspond to the truth.. First, it depends on what the respondent experiences as the truth and second, what thee respondent defines as a lie. Hence, it may be that some of the respondents only regard contradictionn or denial of the truth as a lie. However, it may also be that instances of contradictionn or denial of the truth are more easily recollected. The fact that a smaller percentagee of distortions and a larger percentage of straight lies were found among the less recently-toldd lies supports both arguments.
Moree than half of the reported lies could be characterised as individualistic lies. Given that earlierr studies have shown that social lies are generally more acceptable than individualisticc (and egoistic) lies (see Chapter 2), it can be concluded that most respondentss did not try to create as favourable an impression as possible of themselves in theirr report. Previous research (among others, Backbier, 1994) has shown that people often havee difficulty in remembering everyday lies. The 14 respondents who indicated not being
ablee to remember lying therefore seem a highly plausible number. The fact that seven respondentss reported (virtually) never lying also corresponds to earlier observations. The ninee general descriptions or jokes can probably be described best as 'incomplete answers', whichh occur in most studies.
Thee table which our analyses produced differs from the taxonomy derived from the diary studyy carried out by DePaulo et al. (1996), as it also included characteristics relating to the occasionn and effect of the lies. This enabled us to support our hypothesis that lie telling is mostt often a reaction to situational demands. A lie is told to elicit a desired effect from the interactionn partner or else to prevent an undesired response. The lie usually serves the interestss of the liar, but can also be told (partly) in the interests of the interaction partner. Thee lie is often an answer attuned to expectations towards or on the part of, or the anticipatedd response of, the interaction partner. Our table is not yet complete, however. If moree 'elaborate' data had been available, the table could, for example, have been expanded too include characteristics of 'the medium' by which lies are told (e.g. in person, by telephone,, letter or e-mail) and the direct or indirect reason for telling the lie (e.g. did the interactionn partner ask a question before the lie was told). Follow-up research will have to showw which aspects of the table need changing or supplementing. For this purpose the tablee could also be used to analyse reports by other populations and/or material obtained fromm interview.
