Factors influencing an individual's tendency to lie, as per deception experts' findings
Different circumstances shape instances of deception. The audience varies – from a faceless government, specific donors, to a vast online following. The method of dissemination of a presumed falsehood also differs – on administrative forms, through intermediaries, or via social media.
The variation leads researchers like me to ponder the factors that influence falsehoods. Does a personal connection increase or decrease the likelihood of honesty? Is deception more prevalent through text or email, compared to phone or in-person interactions?
An increasing body of research seeks to address these queries, and some of the findings are intriguing. They offer insights – on the areas of life where one might be more likely to lie, as well as on areas where trust must be exercised with caution. As the previous director of The Honesty Project and the author of “Honesty: An Inquiry into the Virtue of Integrity,” I am particularly interested in whether people generally tend to be honest or not.
For more: Has the rise of social media increased the frequency of lies?
Determining the frequency of deception
Most lying research asks participants to report their own deceptive behavior, such as during the last day or week. (Whether liars can be trusted to truthfully disclose their lying is another matter.)
The groundbreaking study on deception frequency was conducted by psychologist Bella DePaulo in the mid-1990s. It focused on face-to-face interactions and involved a group of student participants and another group of volunteers from the University of Virginia's surrounding community. The community members average a lie per day, while the students they narrated two lies per day. This finding became the standard in the field of honesty research and facilitated the assumption among many researchers that deception is widespread.
However, averages do not reflect individual cases. It could be that every individual in the group tells one or two lies per day. But it's also possible that there are some individuals who deceive often and others who deceive rarely.
In an influential 2010 study, this latter scenario is indeed what Michigan State University communication researcher Kim Serota and colleagues found. Out of 1,000 American participants, 59.9% claimed they hadn't lied at all in the past 24 hours. Of those who admitted to lying, most said they'd told very few lies. Participants reported 1,646 lies in total, but half of them came from just 5.3% of the participants.
This general pattern in the data has been replicated several times. Deception tends to be rare, except in the case of a small group of frequent deceivers.
For more: Observing children learn how to deceive
Does the medium influence deception?
Might deception become more frequent under various conditions? What if we consider communication methods other than face-to-face interactions, such as text, email, or phone conversations?
Research indicates that the medium doesn't have a significant impact. For instance, a 2014 study by Northwestern University communication researcher Madeline Smith and her colleagues found that when participants were asked to look at their 30 most recent text messages, 23% said there were no deceptive texts. For the rest of the participants, the vast majority said that 10% or fewer of their texts contained lies.
A recent study by David Markowitz at the University of Oregon successfully replicated earlier findings that compared the rates of deception using different technologies. Does deception occur more frequently on text, on the phone, or via email? Based on survey data from 205 participants, Markowitz found that on average, people told 1.08 lies per day. Once again, the distribution of deception is influenced by some frequent deceivers.
Not only were the percentages relatively low, but the differences between the frequency at which lies were told via different media were also not substantial. However, it might be surprising to find that, say, using video chat for lying was more common than lying face-to-face, with email being the least common medium.
Factors such as recordability and synchrony could be at play. The fact that communication is recording might curb the inclination to deceive – perhaps concerns about detection make deception less attractive. Synchronicity also seems to matter. Many lies occur in the moment, so it makes sense that when there's a delay in communication, such as with email, deception would decrease.
For more: Understanding non-verbal cues
Does the intended receiver impact deception?
Apart from the medium, does the intended recipient of a potential deception have any influence?
Initial thoughts might suggest that people deceive strangers more frequently than friends or family, due to the impersonal nature of the interaction in the former case and the bonds of empathy and concern in the latter. However, matters are somewhat complex.
In her classic work, DePaulo found that people tend to tell what she called “everyday lies” more often to strangers than to family members. For example, these are smaller lies like "complimenting her (that) her muffins were the best ever" and "exaggerating how sorry they were for being late." DePaulo and colleague Deborah Kashy reported that participants in one of their studies lied less than once per 10 social interactions with spouses or children.
In the study, it turns out that substantial fibs about topics like infidelity or injuries were usually told to closer partners, with 53% of such lies being admitted amongst the community participants and a staggering 72.7% amongst student volunteers. It seems that individuals might prioritize safeguarding their relationships over upholding the truth in these instances. Interestingly, participants were also found to stretch the truth more towards friends and family compared to strangers.
Digging Deeper into the Truth
It's important to highlight that these are preliminary findings, requiring further replication to validate. There's also a need for cross-cultural research involving non-Western participants, and various factors like age, gender, belief systems, and political leanings are worth exploring.
On the whole, the findings suggest that dishonesty might be relatively uncommon even for many individuals, including in digital communications. However, it's essential to be alert and diligent in distinguishing and steering clear of those who consistently lie excessively. If you're a habitual fibber yourself, you might not have acknowledged that you belong to a minority betraying trust.
Keep Exploring: A World of Untruths: Navigating the Maze of Honesty
Read also:
Despite the widespread assumption based on DePaulo's research, a significant number of individuals claim to have not lied at all within a 24-hour period. (Kim Serota et al., 2010)
Moreover, research suggests that frequent deception is often concentrated among a small group of individuals, while many others may tell very few lies. (Serota et al., 2010)
In this context, promoting wellness could involve fostering an environment that encourages honesty and discourages excessive deceit, potentially leading to improved interpersonal relationships and overall well-being.
