While honesty is widely valued, people tend to perceive so-called prosocial liars - those who bend the truth to avoid hurting others - as more moral, according to a study by psychologists.
The study, led by Katarzyna Cantarero, PhD, of SWPS University, and Michał Białek, PhD, of the University of Wrocław, and published in the British Journal of Social Psychology, found that flexible behaviour can be considered morally preferable in some contexts.
Nearly 900 participants from the United States, recruited through the online platform Prolific, were presented with stories about four people evaluating two cooks whose dishes had failed. One cook was described as receptive to criticism, while the other struggled with negative feedback.
Participants rated the morality, trustworthiness, and predictability of feedback providers who either told the truth directly, lied to spare feelings, or adjusted their feedback depending on the recipient.
The results showed that people using prosocial lies to avoid causing distress were rated as more moral than those who delivered blunt truth. “Prosocial liars” who offered overly optimistic feedback were seen positively, likely because they demonstrated sensitivity to the needs of others.
Individuals described as “socially sensitive,” who adjusted feedback depending on the recipient’s ability to handle criticism, were similarly rated. These providers told the truth to those able to handle it while softening or even lying to those who might be hurt. Participants did not penalize this inconsistency.
“A socially sensitive feedback provider was not considered less moral than an honest one, suggesting that such an attitude is tolerated when it aligns with social needs. This indicates that people strategically adjust their preferences for honesty based on social cues,” Cantarero said in an SWPS University press release.
Despite these moral evaluations, participants generally preferred honest feedback for themselves and others. About 70% indicated they would select an honest person to evaluate their own performance, and the same applied when choosing for others.
However, the preference shifted when evaluating someone known to struggle with criticism. For emotionally sensitive individuals, participants favoured feedback that comforted and motivated rather than strictly conveyed the truth.
“The study showed that when participants were selecting a feedback provider for themselves, those who provided honest feedback were more likely to be considered, as opposed to those who used prosocial lies. However, when making this choice for people who do not handle criticism well, participants more often preferred feedback tailored to that person's level of sensitivity,” Cantarero said. (PAP)
PAP - Science in Poland
ekr/ agt/
tr. RL
