W
en
.-.cC­
C'CI
.c
...... J-
CI)
-D::
-::s
....I .-0
en
c
c:: ­LL ..
-c:c c::
....I
::)
ca
C
E
"C
G)
-
LL
...
+'
G)
.e
0
z
0
~
'"0'""
~~
~
-~
0
p::
;..
~
~
z
~
CI)
I­
.c
~
C'CI
:..,
0
l-
::s
...
W
0
..
:::E:
>t-
-Z
CHAPTER
1
Everyday Inventions of Everyday Life T
hink about the last time you were lied to.
It may take you a minute. Most of the time when I
ask people about when they were last deceived, they need a few
moments before coming up with something. Eventually, they
will recollect the story of the mechanic who overcharged for an
unnecessary repair, or the date who promised to call the next
day and was never heard from again.
Lies that took some kind of emotional or financial toll are
the ones that generally spring to mind when we think about
the deception we encounter. This makes sense. Events that are
painful or dramatic tend to be memorable, and tend also to
shape our impressions of the circumstances-like being lied
to-that surround them. My guess is that the lie you came up
with as the one you most recently encountered involved a blow
to either your heart or your wallet.
The reality of deception, though, is very different from what
such painful memories lead us to believe. Our relationship to
lying is far more intimate than the occasional encounter with
a duplicitous mechanic or dishonest lover. Think again, more
carefully, about the last time you were lied to. Perhaps you
5
THE LIAR IN YOUR LIFE
Everyday Inventions of Everyday Life
picked up your dry cleaning, and when you thanked the per­
just as we smile when the man handing us our dry cleaning lies
son handing it to you, he responded, "My pleasure"- although
about the pleasure he took in laundcring oLlr clothes. there are
both of you knew there was almost no chance that doing your
lies society accepts, and even encourages. I ndccd, deception is
laundry had given him any pleasure at all. Or maybe you 'vvere
so deeply ingnlined in the functioning of our societ y that if we
in line at the grocery store and you struck up a COJl\TrsatioIl
removed it, we might not recognize the society that resulted.
\\ith the woman in line ahead of you ..Maybe she told you shc'd
\ \'c probably \\"Ouldn't be very comfortable living in it. either.
never had to wait in line so long before. Really?
The fact is that much of ,vhat we think we know about de­
Or perhaps the last time you checked your e-mail you were
ception is, simply put, not true. Misconceptions too often mask
offered a share of a Nigerian inheritance, which you could
lying's prominence in our society and the ambiguities that sur­
claim for only a few thousand dollars in taxes. Or maybe you
round its operation. So the first step to understanding the role
watched television or listened to the radio, and heard about this
of lying in our lives may be to consider the many ways we mis­
or that product's miraculous or lik-altering virtues. IVfaybe an
understand it.
in/(nnercial promised you savings, but only provided you "act
Amanda and the Seven Dwarfs
now. "
The truth is, we are lied to frequently, even in the course
1\ lormer student of mine, whom I'll call Gary, moved to
of a single day. Most of the lies we don't notice, or don't eveIl
Santa Fe a kw years ago to pursue a career in rcal estate. (You'll
consider to be deception. Spam e-mail, deceptive advertising,
f()rgive me for fudging the names and other minor details in
and disingenuous social niceties form almost an omnipresent
this story, and in other personal anecdotes that appear in the
white noise that we've lcamed to tune out. Regardless of what
that lies are a typical feature of our everyday experience. That
book. My only concern is to protect the innocent, as they say on
Dragnet. The essentials, of course, are the truth, the whole truth,
and so forth.) Gary is a devoted marathoner, and he joined a
we do disregard so much deception only underlines how com­
recreational club of runners in his <lre<l. Another member of
mon it really is.
Lying is not limited to one aspect of our society, one type
this club \vas a young woman named Amanda. She and Gary
f(.1J in love.
of person, or one kind of institution. As we'll sec, lying perme­
j\lllanda told Gary about her troubled upbriIlging. Her
ates the way we get to know one another and the way \ve f(xnl
mother had died when she was young, and she was estranged
relationships. It is a part of how we educate our children and
from her father. As a teenager, she had battled cancer. Gary was
how we elect our leaders. It is essential to our economy, and it
sympathetic, and impressed at the courage and toughness she
is essential to t he media.
showed in overcoming these hardships. After they'd dated for a
we choose to accommodate or ignore, though, the fact remains
lVIore strikingly, while lying sometimes occurs as an aberra­
little under a year, Gary proposed, and Amanda accepted. They
tion in these and other arenas, often its manifestations are the
bought an apartment together and started to plan their wedding.
rule. \Ve tend to think of lying as something we censure. But
In the J(Jllowing weeks, though, Amanda began to complain
6
7
Everyday I nventions of Everyday Life
THE LIAR IN YOUR LIFE
of feeling fatigued and lethargic. She showed little enthusiasm
Now let's consider another incident of deception, one that
ft))' putting together an invitation list or selecting a reception
is also remarkable but that occurred in a br different context
venue. Since this was wholly out of character for the energetic
from Gary's broken engagement to Amanda. In 1991, seven top
woman he knew, Gary encouraged her to see her ductor-a
executives from leading American tobacco companies, among
man Amanda trusted and whoIll she had been seeing since col­
them the CEOs of Philip Morris, Brown & \Villiamson, and
lege. Because she was anxious about her doctor's \'isit, Gary
U.S. 'I ()bacco, testified before the House Subcommittee on
offered to go with her.
Health and the Environment. The "seven dwarfs," as they were
At the doctor's office, Gary and Amanda described Aman­
later dubbed, had been called as part of the committee's on­
da's symptoms. Amanda's doctor said that mononucleosis
going efforts to bring attention to the health dangers of ciga­
sounded like a potential explanation, but he would have to ex­
rettes. All seven of these men were asked whether they believed
amine her. Gary then asked whether a diagnosis of mono was
nicotine to be addictive. And each man answered in turn, un­
more likely based on Amanda's history of cancer. As Gary de­
der oath, that he did not. The statement "1 believe that nicotine
scribed it to me weeks later, the doctor looked at him blankly
is not addictive" was repeated again and again.
and asked, "Cancer?"
\Vhat the seven dwarfs did not volunteer was research Big
Amanda had never had cancer. Nor did she ha\,(-' mono.
Tobacco itself had done, demonstrating that nicotine, in fact,
~or
\Vhat she did have, or so it seems, is mythomania, more com­
is addicti\'(-'.
did they mention that their companies had
monly described as compulsive lying. Amanda wasn't estranged
made efforts to enhance the addictive powers of the nicotine
from her father, and her mother was vcry much alive. Amanda
in the cigarettes they sold. Three months after their testimony,
had hidden her fairly close relationship with her parents from
the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into
Gary, along with a whole host of other facts about her basically
whether they had committed per:iury with their "nicotine is not
happy and completely healthy background.
addictive" assertion.
The relationship, and the lies, unraveled quickly but not
The stories of Gary and Amanda, on the OJ1e hand, and the
llcatly. Gary had to explain to all his friends and family why he
sevcn dwarfs of Big Tobacco, on the other, would seem to have
shan~
little ill common, other than the fact that they both have lying
was canceling his wedding. He had to buyout Amallda's
of the apartment, which he ewntually sold, at a loss. And he
at their corc. But taken together, these stories provide a fairly
had to start a big part of his life all over again.
comprehensive picture of how most of us bclic\,(-' deception
1 wouldn't be surprised if you've heard stories similar to
functions in our society. Those telling the lies in both stories
Gary's. Perhaps you've personally encountered a compulsive
seem generally representative of the kinds of people we typi­
liar and experienced tlw unnerving revelation that everything
cally think of as liars: lying, as practiced by Amanda, was an
you know about him or her might be
f~dse.
Compulsive lying is
abnormal behavior, one indicative of mental imbalance. She
not a common condition, but the anecdotes that accompany it
may be an extreme casc, but liars are generally thought of as
tend to be remembered.
standing outside the norm for social behavior. They are more
8
9
Everyday Inventions of Everyday Life
THE LIAR IN YOUR LIFE
morally lax and more manipulative
or simply more crazy­
many of the most notorious historical events
the Greek infil­
titan an "ordinary" person. The seven dwarfs embody another
tration or Troy, the Holocaust, the invasion of Iraq
feature of the lying stereotype. \Ve can see these men in the
deception on a grand scale.
-involve
ruthless liar mold, displaying a \\illingness to sacrifice the truth
Yet the fact is that most of the lies to wh ieh we arc exposed
in order to make a profit or to escape punishment. They aren't
on a daily basis, the ones that influence us the most, do not
fi t the pattern we find in the splashier examples of deception.
crazy, but they are greedy or guilty enough to be dishonest.
In both of these incidents of deception, too, we can identify
Indeed, the lies that matler most to our everyday lives come
innocent victims of the lies. Amanda tricked and emotionally
not from compulsive liars or depraved business executives. Ex­
manipulated Gary for her own purposes, whatever they might
traordinary liars may attract the most attention, but an accu­
have been. Cl 'he Big Tobacco executives perpetrated their fraud
rate portrait of deceit reveals that most of the liars in our lives,
against a congressional subcommittee and, more broadly,
and the lies they tell, arc characterized mainly by how com­
against the American public in general. In other words, they
monplace they really are.
lied to us.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, in both cases the
act of lying was a clear violation of conventional standards fix
Everyday Inventions
It is probably comforting to beliCH' that we encounter few
~lachiavellian
behavior. Amanda's lies violated the bonds of trust she shared
liars in our daily lives. Perhaps someune with a
with her fiance, and so Gary broke ofT their engagement. The
bent or with psychological problems like Amanda's might lie
tobacco executives broke their oath to tell the truth, and le­
repeatedly to our face. Ordinary people, though, are less likely
gal action followed. In broad terms, the lies in both cases were
to do so. Or, at least, that's what we'd like to think.
This assumption turns out to be wrong. A wealth of psy­
wron/", and were censured as such.
In sum, tlwn, both of these stories, while different in their
chological research has for decades provided evidence that it's
particulars, fit our common conception of how lyiIlg works.
not ollly the atypically immoral who lie frequelltly. Illdced, my
One story played out in a private arena, the other in public,
own research into deception, whieh has spall ned more than
but in both cases the structure was the same: atypical individu­
four decades now, has repeatedly shown lying to be far more
als employed deception to victimize innocent people and wnc
cOIllmon in daily life than we think. To attempt to find out
justly condemned for it. Indeed, because such stories arc so
IT­
just how common, I (along with my studentsJames Forrest and
markable and draw so much attention, they almost difine the
BeI~amin Happ) conducted a study of more than a hundred
stereotype of deceit. As with the lies touched on earlier, those
people in ordinary social situations. CI 'he results of this study
of the duplicitous mechanic and the dishonest date, when we
have major implications fc)r how we understand the lying in our
think about lying, these are the kinds of dramatic events that
life -and garnered media attention that ranged far beyond the
shape our impressions. They arc also consistent with the "big"
circles of academia.
dcccpt ions found throughout the history of civilization. I nckecL
10
The setup of the study was fairly simple Two at a time, I had
11
THE LIAR IN YOUR LIFE
participants meet, and I asked these unacquainted individuals
to
spend ten minutes getting to know each other. I didn't tt'll
Everyday Inventions of Everyday Life
I did, though, introduce one other twist into the basic struc­
ture
or the
t'xperiment. I wanted to know if the frequency of
the part icipants, though, that I was conducting a st ud) of ly­
lying might change with the specifics of the conversation. Per­
ing. I nstead, I said I was interested in investigating hO\\ people
haps some social interactions were more prone to deception
interact when they meet someone new. Something else I didn't
than others.
mention \vas that each pair's entire conversation would be se­
'l()
try to find out, I told some of the participants to attempt
cretly videotaped. (Ironically, researchers who study deception
to come off as very likable. In other cases, I told one of the par­
end up employing a good deal of it in their research.)
ticipants to convince the other that he or she was very compe­
After the conversation finished, 1 revealed the secret sur­
tent. Everyone else I instructed simply to get to know the other
veillance to the participants. I then asked one of each pair to re­
person. I reasoned that while assigning goals to certain people
view the video \vith me. As the participant watched the video, I
did introduce a slightly greater degree of artificiality into the
asked him or her to identify, moment by moment, any instances
experiment, social situations in which one person is trying to
in which he or she said something that was "inaccurate."' (I pur­
demonstrate his or her charm or poise to another are very com­
posely didn't ask participants to report "lies," want ing to avoid
mon. And again: none of the people in the study knew I was
their becoming defensive or embarrassed and, consequently,
even interested in lies. As far as the pairs of strangers were con­
not admitting to deception. The term "inaccurate" seemed less
cerned, deception had no relevance whatsoever to the study.
charged than "lie.")
The conversations between the participants generally un­
There is a difference worth emphasizing between this study
folded as you might expect: some initial, tentative "How are
and other laboratory studies of deception. lVlost studies of ly­
you?"s and "vVhere are you from?''s, followed by a more com­
ing, many of my own included, involve a fairly artificial setup.
fortable exchange of personal details and opinions as the chat
For example, a participant might be asked to watch a series
got rolling. One conversation between a man and a woman
of short video clips of people cit";cribing their upbringing and
I'll call Tim and Allison was fairly typical. Tim was a college
then identify in which clips participants had been told by tht'
student with a laid-back disposition suggestive of someone at
experimenter to lie. That sort of thing doesn't usually happen
ease with himself. Once he and Allison had gotten a little bit
in reallik. However, we meet new people all the time. ;"faybe
acquainted, he told her about his band.
the COl1\'(Tsations we have with strangers don't usually occur
in a small room with a two-way mirror, but meeting and get­
TIM:
ting to know someone else is a fundamental part of social life.
ALLISON:
vVhatever other conditions my study introduced, at its heart it
TIM:
vVe just signed to a record company, actually.
Yeah, Epitaph.
did seem to reproduce a typical, everyday experience. I hoped,
ALLISON:
then, that the data I gleaned would be particularly relevant to
TIM:
an exploration of deception in ordinary life.
ALLISON:
12
Really?
Do you sing or ...
Yeah, I'm the lead singer.
vVow!
13
THE LIAR IN YOUR LIFE
Another participant, Natasha, also discussed with her part­
ner her musical background, talking about how she entered
r
!
~
Everyday Inventions of Everyday Life
"getting to know you" chat attracted national media attention.
competitions as a pianist and toured the country with a cham­
The CBS Evening News, the BBC, the New York Times, and the
Washington Post all covered the story. I was often asked whether
ber group. She also managed to weave into the conversation
that she'd been a member of her honor society in high school.
my results could be explained by some circumstance unrelated
It was all more or less what you'd expect from two strangers
making small talk-one person, directly or just unconsciously,
trying to impress another with his or her achievements, or just
passing the time by discussing his or her life.
would be easy-and maybe a little comforting-to conclude
that the randomly selected participants in my study just hap­
pened to be unusually duplicitous. Or one might reason that
What makes all of the above examples remarkable is that
they are all lies. Natasha never toured the country, and never
they normally would. But my later research on conversations
between unacquainted strangers has shown, fairly consistently,
quite managed to be inducted into the honor society. Tim's
that they lie to each other about three times every ten minutes,
band didn't sign with Epitaph. In fact, there's no band at all.
both inside and outside the lab. With apologies to the media
Tim's musical expertise is limited to, in his words, "a couple
chords." And these are only a few examples of what I found to
be an extraordinary pattern. Participants in my study didn't
just lie occasionally. They lied a lot.
to how people "actually lie" in the real world. Admittedly, it
some factor in my study induced people to lie far more than
outlets that shined a spotlight on my work, the results of this
study really weren't extraordinary. They were typical. The ex­
traordinary thing is how much, it turns out, people lie to each
other.
Participants watching themselves on video confessed to lies
High rates of lying are common even outside conversations
that were big and small, rooted in the truth and fantastic, pre­
dictable and unexpected, relatively defensible and simply baf­
between strangers, who are unlikely to encounter each other in
fling. Further, the lying was hardly limited to the participants
the future. We might be able to accept that new acquaintances
lie to each other with regularity, but we'd think that people
to whom I had given a directive to appear likable or competent.
These people lied with greater frequency, but even those with
no specific agenda lied regularly.
with any sort of established social bond would not. Yet this is
All told, I found that most people lied three times in the
course of a ten-minute conversation. Some lied as many as
conversations between strangers, as in my study; in interactions
between spouses and lovers; within families; and on the job.
twelve times. Bear in mind, too, that after the fact, participants
might have been reluctant to confess to their "inaccuracies."
Lies occur regularly in all such contexts. The exact frequency
This would only lead to an underreporting of the incidences
of deception, though. In other words, it's possible that the fre­
quency oflies was even higher than three lies per conversation.
My finding that most people told three lies in a ten-minute
14
not the case. Psychologists such as myselfhave conducted scores
of studies examining interpersonal deception: as it plays out in
is difficult to measure. A study like mine works fine to examine
interactions between people who are meeting for the first time,
but it's not as if this setup lends itself to, say, conversations be­
tween a husband and wife in bed.
However, diary research studies, in which participants
15
THE LIAR IN YOUR LIFE
Everyd ay I nventions of Everyday Life
are asked to record their daily social interactions and indicatt'
":\ed" leads to a series of complications and, because it's a
which contained lies, show that lying occurs regularly even in
Hugh Grant movie, ends up helping \\'ill find love. The tropt'
the most intimate relationships. Although deception occurs at
is a
lower levels bet\\cen those with a close bond and often involves
lie-about having a passion for dance or a lucrative career- in
lies meant to put anot her person at ease ("Of course you're not
order to win the interest of some desirable romantic partner.
f~lmiliar
one in romantic comedies: the hero tells a giant
putting on weight"), lying is still a routine part of the rapport
\Ve probably don't spend much time vvondering why a to­
between spouses, lovers, close friends, and family members. No
bacco executive would lie to a congressional subcommittee
relationship has been found
about the dangers of cigarettes. l'\or does it baffle us when a
lO
be immune to dishonesty.
The weight of evidence is thus compelling and clear: people
are lied to with great frequency in their daily lives. \Vhile the
mechanic tells us a replacement part costs three times more
than it actually does. While
\\C'
might question the character of
extent and content of Amanda's deception of Gary may have
the people who tell such lies, the reasons for the lies themselves
been extreme, tlw bct that she lied regularly is not. ] ,ying in
seem straightforward. Tobacco ext'cutives want to evade a truth
our society is not "abnormal." The normal people who fill our
that would harm their business and perhaps leave them legally
lives do it all the time, in all sorts of ordinary interpersonal
culpable; greedy mechanics hope to bilk ignorant customers
situations.
out of a kw dollars more. Profit, the avoidance of punishment:
The question becomes, \Vhy? \Vhy do people fecI compelled
th(~y
these are the sorts of motivations we often associate with de­
don't belong to or honors they never
ception. If we add Amanda's example into our considerations,
earned:) \Vhat are the lies that oecur so regularly when we talk
we might include mental imbalance as another conventionally
with someone new- or sometimes even with a person we know
understood motive for lies.
to
make up bands
Yet greed, evasion of punishment, or some degree of insan­
well--all about? To put it simply: Why all the lies?
To answer these questions, we'll need to reconsider some of
ity arc not adequate explanations fiJI' much of the lying that oc­
our fundamental ideas ahout the motivations behind deception.
curs in daily litc'. Unacquainted strangers usually have nothing
Stories like those of Am an cia duping Gary or the seven dwarfs
material to gain or any consequences to avoid through decep­
trying to dupe us tend to make us think about lying in terms
tion. Nor is t hert' profit involved in many of the other inter­
of what it does to the person who is fooled. The central issue,
personal interactions that make up atypical day, and which
though, may be what lying doesjoT the person telling the lies.
researchers have found to be riddled \vith lies. Conditions like
mythomania are very rare; mental problems can account for
"We Have So Much in Common"
only a small portion oflics.
BI!V, starring Hugh Grant and
Ironically, the fiction of movies like Abuut a BI!Y may provide
adapted from a l'\ick Hornby ]HWel, the thirty-something pro­
more of a clue for the motivations behind the bulk of the decep­
tagonist, \Vill, pretends to haH' a son so he can join a single­
tion we encounter than real-life incidents like t1w tobacco hear­
In the 2002 film About
IZ
parents' group to med \yomen. Predictably, the
16
in\'(~ntion
of
ing. In the I11m'ics, deceptive behavior is exaggerated and played
17
THE LIAR IN YOUR LIFE
Everyday I nventions of Everyday Life
for laughs. Yet using deception to win aflection may be so com­
here is not only that such behavior is common, as psychologi­
mon in the movies because it is so common in reality, too.
cal research has shown, but also that mirroring of opinion to
'['0
see what does motivate llluch interpersonal deception,
avoid disagreement and demonstrate similarity is widely con­
let's examine more closely the lies told during my experiment.
sielereel
to
be normal. If you later tell a ii'iend that you liked your
As I mentioned, I gave some of the participants particular goals
date but spent your dinner with her arguing over politics and
fClr huw to present themselves: some of them were instructed to
expressing disinterest in her hobbies, he might give you credit
come off as likable, others as competent. And while participants
for honesty, but he would also think you were a complete social
with no particular goal lied frequently, tellingly, those who had
moron. Deception is such a common technique for ingratiation
a self-presentation agenda lied more. Tellingly, also, the kinds
that its lack strikes us as aberrant.
Now let's look at the participants in my study I told to try to
oflies participants told varied based on their goals.
Let's first consider the participants instructed to impress
appear competent. The lies of this group reveal another pmver­
their partner with their likability. These people tended to tell
I'ul lnoti\'ation for interpersonal deception, one more directly
lies about their feelings. They distorted their true opinions and
psychological than social. Participants instructed to come off as
emotions, often in order to mirror those expressed by their
competent tenckd to lie about their biographies. They invented
partners. If their partner expressed a preference iClr Chinese
achin'ements and plans that would enhance the way they were
lewd, lelr instance, they would claim to like Chinese j()od, too,
pcrcci\ed. 'I 'hey spoke of academic honor socie( ics they didn't
even if they hated it. This kind of mirroring behavior is exactly
belong to and of career ambitions they had no intention of ful­
the kind we sec enacted for comedic eflect in so many movies.
filling. In other words, in order to impress their partners as
In fact, psychologists have found the mirroring of opinions,
competent, they made up stories about being competent.
even at the cost of the truth, to be a very common strategy
I want to emphasize again that I didn't encourage any of the
for ingratiating oneself with others. The reasoning behind
participants to lie. Indeed, when I spoke with participants with
such behavior is rather straightforward. Most people shy away
sc If~pres('ntatioll goals after their COllvcrsat iOlls, they reported
from conflict and disagreement. They build relationships with
that they hadn't felt encouraged to be deceptive. Deception was
others based on fundamental things they have in
In
a strategy they selected on their own to achieve their goal. But
order to itlrm a relationship with another person, then, one
why would so many people lie to appear competent or likable?
would want to avoid the areas or dissonance and emphasize the
\ Vhy not 'just be yourself'?
COIIIIIIOlI.
\Ve can answer these questions if we consider what 'Just
commonalities.
Imagine yourself on a first date. If you find your date
being yourseW' means. Often, when someone gives us this ad­
'~just
charming and attractive, it would be an obvious tactic to try to
vice, the implication is that
at least gloss over your disgust for her preferred political party
approach to any social situation. In fact, "just being
and to maybe feign more interest than you actually have in her
if we examine it closely, turns out to be a fairly complicated
discussion of \Vest African folk music. What bears cmphasi.'i
pruccss, invoking a complex balancing of a range of factors.
18
19
being yourself' is the simplest
yourself~"
THE LIAR IN YOUR LIFE
To begin with, when we interact with another person, there
I
Everyday I nventions of Everyday Life
we can see how it can easily slide into deception. Again, every
is always a larger social context that shapes the encounter. If
interaction involves decisions about which attributes to empha­
we see
size and
it
friend at a party, for example, we will speak with him
to
minimize, which impulses to fCJllow and which to
difft:rently than we would if we visited him in his cubicle at his
ignore. At some point, we may not be choosing among our ac­
office. The din('rent standards f()r behavior in the different St't­
tual traits and ClUr sincere react ions. \ \'e may simply fabricate
tings have to be taken into account in the ''self'' we present to
the traits and reactions the social situation calls fl)r, or that we
our friend. This self is further shaped by the content of the cn­
think it calls for. In other words, we might lie.
counter, emotional or otherwise. If a friend has just lost his cat,
I n addition to this, there is another complexity to 'Just be­
we wouldn't be much a friend if we didn't express sympathy; if
ing yourself." We aren't always confident in ourselves. Insecu­
a friend announces her engagement, we wouldn't be much of
rities are part of human nature. All of us, at times, question
a friend if we didn't express joy. Such social standards fe)r how
our own good qualities-whether we are really smart enough,
we ought to act are weighed against expressions of our "true"
attractive enough, capable enough. Lying can allow us to navi­
f(~elillgS.
gate social situations in which we don't feel we quite measure
Finally, working in coruunction with our sensitivity to con­
up. Like the participants in my study who attempted to appear
text is an almost constant interest in projecting a positive image
competent by making up stories of their competence, if we kar
of ourselves. :\0 matter where we are or who we arc talking
we don't embody the qualities a particular situatiun calls for,
to, we generally want to show our better qualities. \Vhich of
we can substilllt e a fiction that docs.
these qualities we express is again illl1uenced by the nature of
Think back to Amanda and the lies she told Gary about
the interaction we are involved in. For example, our excellent
her deceased parent and her battle with cancer. I t's probably
sense of humor isn't much use at funerals, but our caring, sensi­
not a 'vvorthwhile exercise to try to draw thirclhand conclusions
tive nature is. On the other hand, our scnse of humor might be
about why she did \\hat she did. But if we assume that there
precisely \vhat we want to show on a first date, or to a prospec­
was at least
tive client.
miration, of attempting to present }wrself in a \vay that was
SOflH-'
clement of wanting to win sympathy and ad­
'just being yourself," it turns out, takes effort. Indeed, psy­
more appealing to Gary than she believed the facts allowed for,
chologists have long discussed it as something that takes creative
we can identify elements of conventional social behavior in her
effort. Our expression of who we are involves choices that re­
mythomania.
Hect social and interpersonal context, our mood, our personal­
ity, our need to maintain our
sclf~image,
.[he key difkn-'nce, of course, is that Amanda man ipulated
and on and on. The
Cary practically all t he way to the altar. Common interpersonal
fact that we are able to perform this process with little con­
deception is usually far less menacing. \Vithout a doubt, every
scious clTort every day and in nearly every conversation speaks
lie, by definition, involves deceit and implicit manipulation
to our vast intelligence as social beings.
but that cloes not mean that every lie is employed in the service
Still, if' W(c consider
self~prcscntatinll
20
as a creative process,
of deception and manipulation. \Yhen Tim told Allison about
21
r
THE LIAR IN YOUR LIFE
Everyday Inventions of Everyday Life
his nonexistent band and his nonexistent record contract, he
it can be argued that an ability to lie is a valuable social skill.
did so vvithout any larger agencb of fooling her into doing this
Consider whether you would really want to form a relationship
or thinking that. For all he knew, he would never see Allison
with someone who pointed out every area of disagreement or
again. Tim's lies seemed to involve Allison only secondarily.
could not comince you of his feigned interest in your hobbies.
His primary goal seemed to be fostering his own persona or
In mallY ways, deception is not so difkrcnt from tact; indeed,
addressing his own insecurities \vhen meeting a new person. To
one could make a case that sometimes they arc act uany one
put it simply, Tim's lies were about 7 im.
and the same.
\Ve now see how another aspect of the conventional concep­
Regardless of the terminology we apply to interpersonal
tion oflying is debunked by reality. Stories like that of Amanda
deception, it's important to recognize that it is both a common
and of the seven dwarf, of Big Tobacco make us think of lying
and an accepted feature of ordinary conversation. Strict hon­
as a tool used to victimize or exploit ordinary people. More
esty is often directly opposed to what we consider to be stan­
commonly, though, ordinary people use lying to quell their own
darel social behavior. Lying, as strange as it sounds, is more
insecurities, to build a friendsh ip, or to avoid a disagreement.
normal.
Sometimes, too, lying can be used within a conversation to
But if lying is more frequently used to keep a conversation
benefit t he conversation itself. There are times in any interac­
mO\'ing than to cheat or manipulate, this raises an important
tion wlwn a strict adherence to the truth would only interrupt
question: Does lying matter as much as we think? Perhaps,
its natural How, probably needlessly. \Vhen a friend wants to tell
since there arc no obvious victims to much deception, its fre­
you about the great time he had in Montauk over the weekend,
quency in our culture should not be so alarming. Maybe lying,
and asks you, "You know where Montauk is, right?," it borders
outside of the kind practiced by Amanda or the seven dwarfs of
on the pointless, not to mention the tedious, to stop his story
Big Tobacco, doesn't really matter so much.
and find out exactly where the town might be. The conversa­
This line of thinking may be comforting, but unfortunately
tion gcws much more smoothly if you nod, and say, "Oh, sure,
it is also misleading. While many lies don't cost us money or
Montauk." I call such deception "lies of social convenience."
happiness, they do cost us something. The idea that some don't
Tlwse lies grease the wheels of social discourse. They are not
is surprisingly common, though. Many of us like to think that
about /c}oling someone or achin'ing illicit gain. They arc a tac­
there are lies that are so insignificant, they aren't even really
tic
to
make communication easier, or sometimes even possible.
lies at all.
As we will discuss more fully in future chapters, psycholo­
gists have found an association between socially successful peo..
The Myth of the Little White Lie
pie and skill at deception. In other words, popular people, for
We have seen how deception is pervasive in daily life, but
whatever reason, tend to be good liars. vVhik it is easy to exag­
not deception as we commonly think of it. A coworker may
genlte the meaning of this finding (we can't say, for instance,
claim to like the Yankees in order to steer clear of an argument
that popular people are popular because they are good liars),
about the Red Sox. The woman in line ahead of
22
23
lIS
at Star­
THE LIAR IN YOUR LIFE
Everyday I nventions of Everyday Life
bucks may kign a familiarity with our company to avoid the
less warm, less intirnate, less comf(Jrtable than those that are
inconvenience or saying that she's never heard of it.
more honest.
\Vhen I tell people that ten-minute conversations often in­
The common lies in everyday life may not hurt us in an
clude three lies, and sometimes more, they are usually shocked.
easily measurable way, then. But they have the efrect or making
But when I cxplai n the !lmct ion or tllCse Iics, the shock gi\cs
nlTyclay
way to a kind of ambivalence. "But th()sc are just little white
a society so prone to cleceit in so many of its aspects: Ol1r
lies," I've been told more than ()nce' aiJout some of the more
oftcn smudged. 'I 'he accumulation of' these many smudges can
common forms of interpersonal deception.
erode our trust in one another, it can make us cynical about our
This is what I call the Myth of the Little Vlhitc Lie. Accord­
ing to this myth, "little white lies" are not the same thing as
"real" lies. "Little' white lies," like a lie of social
conveni(~nce
lif(~
that much less friendlv. This is the cost ofliving in
lif(~
is
media and government, it can make us generally less attent ive
to the world around us. vVhatever our particular response
to
or
the lies in our lives, tlw fact is that we han' one. All lies have an
the "My pleasure" we hear on receiving our dry cleaning, arc
impact. It's probably EliI' to say that some have a greater impact
so negligible--or so the myth says--that they shouldn't even
than others, but given their volume, not even the smallest lie
be grouped with lies like those of the seven dwarfs. "Real" lies
can be wholly ignored.
arc bad: they cost money or cause pain. "Real" lies arc morally
furthermore, when people find out they arc being lied to,
wrong. "Little vvhite lies," by (somewhat circular) deflnitioll,
the ('f"fect is immediate and almost ahvays negative. In a study
don't hurt anyonf'.
] conducted in which participants learned that they'd been lied
Unfortunately, the Myth or the Little \Vhite Lie is basically
to during a eonnTsation they'd just held with another person,
a fairy tale. Although "little white lies" may be less egregious
these participants immediately formed a negative impression of'
than "real" lies, they still-like all deception---involve some
the individual who had lied to them. Their conversational part­
degree of \·ictimization. If a lie sllcceeds, someone is always
n(']" was seen as unt1"llstworthy, unlikable, and generally more
j()oled. And, crucially, even if the target ofthc lie doesn't
(kvious. But here's t he most insidious consequence: those who
kllCl\\
were duped typically began to increase the level of their lies in a
this, the liar docs.
Bella DePaulo, a n'scarcher at the University of California,
subsequent conversation with tl](' person who lied to them. In
Santa Barbara, and her stuclents have found repeated and con­
short, lies -- even the tiny white Iies of everyday conversation-­
sistent cvideno' that lying
beget more lies.
even "white" Iving--takes a toll on
the teller or the lie. Lying call cause a "twinge of distress," in
DePaulo's words, making liars je'e1 a little worse than they did
bel'ore they told a lie. further, this coloring of mood can last
even aftcr the conversation has returned to more honest terri­
tory. The sum efIect of th is is what DePaulo calls an emotional
"smudge" on the interaction. Conversat ions involving Iies arc
24
25