Contextual and Individual Factors Associated with the Interpretation and Usage of Prosocial Lies

Abstract

Lying is a complex and multifaceted aspect of human communication, often viewed as a moral or social transgression. Growing up, children are instilled with the message that it is important to be honest. However, not all lies are told for malicious purposes, and there are situations where telling a lie may be socially appropriate and provide beneficial for the recipient. Prosocial lying is defined as a type of lie that is socially beneficial and enhances the quality of social interactions by minimizing harm to others. Within everyday exchanges both children and adults use prosocial lies on a frequent basis. While there may be social benefits to using prosocial lies, overuse or inappropriate use has negative outcomes. Thus, it is important for children to know how and when prosocial lying is more/less appropriate. My doctoral dissertation examines how contextual and individual factors relate to children’s reasoning about prosocial lies. I examined this for both children’s perceptions of lies, namely, how children felt the emotions of both the lie-teller and the lie-listener may be affected by the lie, as well as children’s endorsement of lies (versus truth), that is, how likely they themselves would be to use lies in varying contexts. There were two contextual factors manipulated with my work. First, I examined the listener’s knowledge of the situation, thereby allowing my work to build upon the rich body of work that has examined children’s sensitivity to and use of others’ knowledge to guide their communication. Second, I explored the role of statement content (i.e., whether there was a reference to an opinion or to reality), building on past work that has shown children’s sensitivity to the moral weight of lies based on content. With respect to individual differences, I focused on the role of empathy in relation to perceptions/endorsement of prosocial lies, exploring whether increased sensitivity to others’ emotional states (i.e., empathy) was associated with children’s perception/endorsement of prosocial lying within certain contexts. My central focus was on the performance of school-aged children, a developmental stage chosen as children in this age range would both understand the function of prosocial lies generally and show sensitivity to the content of lies. However, to assist with understanding developmental shifts in performance, I also assessed how adults would respond on similar tasks.

Two studies were conducted with different groups of children and adults. Study 1 focused on children’s (8–11 years, N=80) and adults’ (N=192) perceptions of the emotional impact of prosocial lies (and truths) for both lie-tellers (i.e. speakers) and listeners. Participants read/heard a series of eight vignettes describing a negative event wherein a speaker says either a truth/lie (referring to their opinion or reality) to a listener who was/was not aware of the negative event. Before and after the statement was uttered, participants rated the emotions of both characters. Results demonstrated that the statement content did not affect children’s or adults’ perceptions of listener/speaker emotions. Both children and adults perceived that listeners would feel better after hearing a prosocial lie regardless of their knowledge state, suggesting that there may be a social benefit even when a prosocial lie is unlikely to deceive. However, following a lie, when listeners were unaware of the negative event (versus aware), their emotions were rated as more positive, suggesting that participants were tracking the listener’s knowledge state and using this to gauge emotional outcomes. Children with higher empathy showed better accuracy in detecting lies (when told to ignorant listeners) and adults with better empathy perceived knowledgeable listeners as feeling worse following a prosocial lie. Study 2 focused on children’s (8–11 years, N=81) and adults’ (N=218 endorsement of prosocial lies. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in scenarios involving a negative event that another person either knew or did not know about. They then rated how likely they would be to use the truth/lie statements which varied in content (referring to opinion or reality). Results demonstrated that while children endorsed statements similarly for ignorant/knowledgeable listeners, adults endorsed a greater likelihood of using a prosocial lie when the listener was ignorant of the negative event. Both age-groups indicated higher likelihood of telling a prosocial lie about an opinion versus reality. Empathy was not associated with children’s responses but was associated with adults’ communicative choices.

Across the two studies, findings provide insight into how children (and adults) incorporate information about listener knowledge and statement content into their appreciation of prosocial lies. Findings also highlight the differing role of empathy throughout development within the context of these studies. My results have theoretical implications for children’s communicative development and practical considerations for prosocial lying in general.