Is lying always wrong? Not necessarily, according to one study that reveals the circumstances under which deception can be considered ethical circumstances under which, indeed, people would prefer to be deceived. The study highlights one of the extraordinary nuances of effective relationships: know when deception is the right thing to do.
Lying, or any form of deception, is a negative and destructive behavior that is proscribed in organizations—at least theoretically. ReReal-lifeypically complicates theory, and a study from the University of Chicago Prof. Emma Levine reveals that whether deception is, unwarranted and destructive is heavily dependent on the context. Levine conducted a series of inductive and empirical studies, involving more than 1500 participants, to develop a framework that captures the parameters of that context.
Levine first surveyed 304 participants exploring potential situations that justified deception. The participants were asked to give specific examples of situations in which they would want to be lied to or when they believed that lying was ethical. Nearly all of the participants agreed that if telling the truth caused “unnecessary harm” to an individual, it was better to deceive that person.
Further analyzing the participants’ responses to her open-ended questions, Levine identified two general situations in which participants felt telling the truth caused unnecessary harm: 1) if the truth caused immediate harm, such as emotional distress, and 2) if the truth had little instrumental value that is, the person being lied to (the “target”) could not change his or her thinking or behavior as a result of knowing the truth. Giving bad news to someone on their deathbed or someone suffering from dementia has little instrumental value since the person can do little with the information.
These two elements are the basis of Levine’s simple 4 quadrant framework for justifying deception or the truth: If the truth harms an individual in some way and serves no purpose for that individual, it is better to lie. In all other cases high immediate harm but high instrumental value, low immediate harm but high instrumental value, and low immediate harm and low instrumental value it is better to tell the truth.
The open-ended responses from the 300 participants allowed Levine to identify eight specific life and relationship situations in which deception was considered the more ethical course of action because the truth would cause immediate harm and had low instrumental value. Levine distilled these eight situations into eight “implicit rules of deception”, which state that it is acceptable to lie:
Levine tested the unnecessary harm framework that people endorse deception if the truth leads to immediate harm or has no instrumental value through a series of experiments. These experiments involved participants reading vignettes of little scenarios depicting situations involving a decision to tell the truth, or lie and then deciding whether to endorse deception or the truth for such situations.
Using the vignettes, the endorsement question, and in some cases follow-up questionnaires, the experiments each involving different groups of participants confirmed empirically that:
In a final experiment, Levine did not present participants with situations but instead asked them to think about when they last struggled with whether to tell the truth or lie. These real-life situations confirmed the role of immediate harm and instrumental value in deciding whether or not to lie, although,h in this experiment, other explanations (e.g., the liar’s self-interest) sometimes played a supporting role as well. Throughout the experiments, Levine investigated different perspectives (the potential liar, the person who might be lied to or told the truth, and third-party observers), and in general found little difference between outcomes (e.g., whether to endorse deception or truth).
Effective teamwork or collaboration, which require successful relationships, are the building blocks of much of the work being done today. While organizational policies of no deception might make sense theoretically, this illuminating study highlights the nuances of deception, recognizing that in some cases, deception is the more ethical course of action. This research offers a framework through which leaders can better judge the actions of followers by taking into account the shades of grey in real-life relationships that might be ignored in management and leadership texts.
Emma E. Levine profile at the University of Chicago, Booth School of Business
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/directory/l/emma-levine
Community standards of deception: Deception is perceived to be ethical when it prevents unnecessary harm. Emma E. Levine. Working Paper (Feb 15, 2021).
Ideas for Leaders is a free-to-access site. If you enjoy our content and find it valuable, please consider subscribing to our Developing Leaders Quarterly publication, this presents academic, business and consultant perspectives on leadership issues in a beautifully produced, small volume delivered to your desk four times a year.
For the less than the price of a coffee a week you can read over 650 summaries of research that cost universities over $1 billion to produce.
Use our Ideas to:
Speak to us on how else you can leverage this content to benefit your organization. info@ideasforleaders.com
