While most of us value honesty, we consider those who skew reality to avoid hurting others to be more moral. Despite that, we prefer to hear the harsh truth when the feedback concerns us, according to a study conducted by psychologists from SWPS University and the University of Wrocław.
Honesty is a universally valued trait, and we typically prefer honest feedback providers, perceiving them as reliable and predictable. Furthermore, we tend to attribute a higher level of morality to people who behave predictably than to those who lack consistency. However, in some situations, flexible behaviour may be perceived as more moral than rigid honesty.
In a new study, researchers - social psychologist Katarzyna Cantarero, PhD, a professor at the SWPS University (Institute of Psychology, SWPS University) and psychologist Michał Białek, PhD, a professor at the University of Wrocław (Institute of Psychology, University of Wrocław) - decided to investigate how we judge and select feedback providers: from those who are always honest to those who lie to avoid hurting the recipient. They published their results in the British Journal of Social Psychology.
Truth or prosocial dishonesty?
Nearly 900 participants from the United States, recruited via the online research platform Prolific, took part in the study. They were presented with the stories of four people evaluating two cooks who had unsuccessfully prepared their dishes. One cook was described as responding well to criticism, while the other was described as struggling with negative feedback.
In the first study, the researchers examined how people evaluate the morality, predictability, and trustworthiness of feedback providers. Some told the truth, some lied, and depending on the condition, some adjusted their feedback to the cooks' sensitivities, while others did not. The second study examined preferences for the types of feedback providers when participants were choosing for themselves or for others (including individuals known to be vulnerable and less able to handle criticism).
Sensitive, and therefore more moral
It turned out that people who resorted to prosocial lies (those intended to spare someone distress) were evaluated as more moral than those who told the truth directly. "Prosocial liars" who provided overly optimistic feedback, were perceived positively, likely because they demonstrated sensitivity to the needs of the other party.
People described as "socially sensitive", able to tailor their feedback to the recipient, were evaluated similarly. People in this group told the truth to those who are able to face it, while softening their feedback (and even lying) for those who might be hurt by criticism. This inconsistency did not lower their moral assessment; the study participants accepted a flexible approach to truth, assuming it served others.
Interestingly, 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, explains Katarzyna Cantarero from the Institute of Psychology at the SWPS University, co-author of the study.
I choose honesty for myself but protect others
Although we tend to give higher moral ratings to prosocial liars, the study shows that most of us do not want to receive such feedback. When it comes to selecting a person to evaluate our own performance, we definitely prefer someone who will be honest. This is what 70% of participants indicated in the study. The same applies when selecting a feedback provider for someone else.
However, the situation changes when it concerns a person known to struggle with negative feedback. For emotionally sensitive people, we prefer to choose a feedback provider who will comfort them and keep them motivated.
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, as compared to choosing a feedback provider for those who did not exhibit excessive sensitivity to criticism, Cantarero says.
According to the authors, research findings suggest that we often believe that there is no universal, ideal feedback strategy in interpersonal relationships. People value the ability to respond to another person's emotional needs and tailor the communication to them depending on the social context.
The paper " Selective (dis)honesty: Choosing overly positive feedback only when the truth hurts " was published in the British Journal of Social Psychology.
