A classic example is the notorious used car dealer, who lies to customers about the state of the cars that are for sale. Regarding white lies, the picture looks different: The deceiver lies to please the deceived by using affiliative deception. For example, most of us have told a friend that their new hair-cut looks great to please and not irritate the friend, while secretly disliking the hair-cut.
Such deception out of affiliative motives means to lie in order to deepen a relationship, or to please the deceived by saying what they would presumably like to hear. Obviously, the deception in the two examples above stems from very different motives, and therefore is usually met with condemnation in case of black lies, versus affiliation in case of white lies. But are white lies thus desirable and without harm? In this article, we highlight that white lies can cause harm precisely because people use them to foster relationships and affiliation.
More specifically, when people want to affiliate with others, they tend to agree with all questions and statements of others. Thereby, affiliation biases response behavior, even on neutral questions and even when nothing can be gained from the response. Such a response bias can distort responses to health surveys, public policy questionnaires, or eyewitness interrogations; in other words, white lies can cause harm by undermining the effectiveness of public policy or by incriminating innocent others. To support this argument, we first review the underlying motives of back lies versus white lies, and then illustrate how research on the prevention of black lies might also be used to prevent the negative consequences of white lies.
Deception is so common that not only humans, but even animals engage in it. For instance, while apes often simply take food from weaker counterparts, they have also been shown to employ deception. When they can steal food by reaching through opaque instead of see-through tunnels, they often reach for the opaque tunnels so that their competitors cannot detect their actions [ 2 , 3 ]. These cases of deception are exploitative, as the deceiving apes strategically mislead their counterparts for personal benefits e.
But what determines whether or not people and apes engage in such black lies? An obvious factor that influences whether people deceive is whether they think that they will get caught [ 4 ]. For example, low chances of being detected increase deception of taxpayers [ 5 , 6 ].
- Three Reasons Why White Lies Are The Worst Solutions To Your Problems!
- Customer Reviews.
- Accessibility links.
- iOS Game Development: Developing Games for iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch!
- NATURAL YOUNG RECEIPE.
- The Exciting World of Churchgoing?
- The Devils Madonna.
Such behavior is rational, as being detected reduces the gain one can expect. If the lie is easily detected e. Consequently, the salesman will be honest. A common assumption is that, rationally, deceiving for higher, rather than lower gains is more beneficial. Surprisingly however, this is not what psychological research finds. People seem to cheat equally often when both high and low gains are at play [ 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Research suggests that cheating does not only depend on materialistic gains, but also on psychological costs that deception inflicts on the deceiver.
On the one hand, deceiving for larger gains is more attractive than deceiving for smaller gains. Psychological costs — the internal discomfort that people experience when doing something against their beliefs or values — depend on the magnitude of a lie [ 11 ]. In one experiment, participants were paid according to the outcome they secretly rolled with a die. Thus, it seems that the psychological cost of telling a lie increase with the magnitude of the lie [ 11 ].
The psychological costs of a lie are closely linked to what one thinks about oneself. In general, people want to think that they are honest. Telling big lies and deceiving others is incompatible with this image [ 12 ]. Furthermore, measures that highlight that one wants to be a good person increase subsequent honesty. For example, signing on top of a self-report form e. Consequently, people cheat less when completing the form [ 15 ]. In other words, the human desire to view oneself as a moral person can be utilized to deter deception.
Taken together, people try to exploit others with black lies. Whether people engage in black lies depends on whether something can be gained through the deception , whether they will get caught, and whether psychological costs occur. Yet, there is another important factor: the relationship with the deceived. Research shows that cheating socially distant others is more acceptable [ 16 ].
White Lies | Free Listening on SoundCloud
However, people more frequently deceive close others [ 17 ]. A possible explanation is that there is often more to gain from deceiving close others, and more to lose from revealing unpleasant truths. However, we suggest that this is not the only reason. Deception is not only driven by exploitative motives but can also result from affiliative motives.
Therefore, we next discuss cases of deception that result from the motivation to forge a positive relationship with the deceived or to please the deceived. When motivated to affiliate with or to please the deceived, the deceiver tries to infer the intentions and attitudes of the deceived and communicates information accordingly [ 18 ]. In some cases, this is very easy. When telling a friend that their haircut looks great, it is obvious that this answer would please the friend, and the truth would not. Also in other instances, people feel compelled to tell white lies.
People who respond to market research or health behavior questionnaires also often try to give responses that please the person asking the question [ 19 , 20 ]. Yet, telling white lies is not always that simple. How do responders in market research and health surveys more generally infer which answers are expected or desired by the interviewer? Research shows that deceivers rely on the rules and principles of communication to make such judgments. According to these principles, agreement rather than disagreement is expected in most everyday communication [ 21 ].
We all intuitively understand this. For example, imagine you want to invite a friend to your home for a spaghetti dinner. Responders who seek to give expected answers follow the same logic. Thereby, a focus on the assumed intention of the person asking the question results in an affirmative response bias [ 24 ]. Importantly, such an affirmative response bias can unintentionally result in deception from purely affiliative motives.
In fact, recent research highlights the affiliative motive behind such deceptive communication [ 25 ]. In these studies, participants agreed more with survey questions when affiliation was primed, for example by imagining that a friend, who is a likely target of affiliation , will read the answers.
Interestingly, participants showed the same tendency to agree when the questions were about an average person e. In these cases, agreement conveys no desirable or positive information about the deceiver, and there is no benefit to be gained from such responding. Nevertheless, the deceiver responds in a way that matches the expected answer of the deceived, to please the deceived. Remarkably, deception in these instances occurs without any expectation of receiving a favor in return.
People usually tell white lies because they expect something from their counterpart e. Now, we discuss how black lies and white lies affect the deceiver, the deceived, and third parties. In contrast, affiliative deception often entails positive interpersonal outcomes [ 28 ]. In the case of pro-social lies that solely benefit others, observers of the deception like and trust the deceiver more than they like and trust an honest person [ 29 ].
In such cases, telling the truth for the sake of being truthful is seen as selfish and less moral [ 29 ]. Are white lies then without any harm? Even when the motives behind deception are purely affiliative, the deceived as well as third parties might face negative consequences.
White Lies (band)
In the case of survey responding, the deceived researcher may find false results, which could negatively affect policies for third parties such as the general public [ 25 ]. Ultimately, false research results waste taxpayer money when, for example, public health programs to combat obesity or smoking build on such false results. Even more concerning might be cases of affiliative deception in eyewitness interviews. In such situations, witnesses might want to help and please the interrogator.
When assuming that affirmation is the desired answer [ 23 ], witnesses in doubt might respond with yes to questions, because they assume that this is what the interrogator expects. In these cases, innocent third parties might be convicted of crimes, although the deceiver had only affiliative intentions [ 30 ]. Given its negative consequences, much research has been dedicated to the detection of black lies — see [ 31 ] for a comprehensive approach.
Concerning the detection of white lies, research has focused on the detection of socially desirable responding [ 20 , 24 ]. However, white lies also occur on neutral items that convey no desirable information [ 25 ]. More research is needed to study how such deception can be detected. One way to address the problem of white lies in surveys could be using implicit measures that do not rely on explicit verbal questions, or phrasing questions in neutral ways so that people cannot infer which answer might be desired by the person asking the question.
Regarding the personal consequences for the deceiver, we have discussed how telling black lies can be psychologically costly [ 11 ]. Research has not yet investigated whether telling white lies also bears psychological costs for the deceiver. Unlike in the cases of deception due to exploitative motives, the perceived benefits of affiliative deception may outweigh its costs. The positive feeling that results from thinking that one has pleased the researcher might be stronger than the psychological costs of having lied. White Lies formed in October , after writing songs that they felt didn't suit their original band.
After delaying their first performance for five months to build up media hype, they earned a recording contract with Fiction Records days after their debut. Sign in to the BBC, or Register. White Lies UK post-punk band. Formed February Last Played on BBC. Official Links. White Lies.
- Navigation menu.
- BBC navigation.
- White Lies.
Read more at Wikipedia. This entry is from Wikipedia , the user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors and is licensed under an Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons License. If you find the biography content factually incorrect or highly offensive you can edit this article at Wikipedia. Find out more about our use of this data.
Show more Show less. Farewell to the Fairground Last played on. Tokyo Last played on. Death Last played on. William Wright. Unfinished Business. Unfinished Business Last played on. Russell Walker. Bigger Than Us.
Bigger Than Us Last played on. Fire And Wings. Fire And Wings Last played on.
- Renal Cancer: Contemporary Management!
- White Lies (2).
- Coffee Maestro.
- Data Protection Choices;
- White Lies on Apple Podcasts.
- Handbuch Knast und Strafvollzug: (Über-) Leben im deutschen Gefängnis (German Edition).
Janice Long. Time To Give. Time To Give Last played on. To Lose My Life. To Lose My Life Last played on.