Selective (dis)honesty: Choosing overly positive feedback only when the truth hurts.

Area of Science:

• Social Psychology
• Behavioral Economics

Background:

• Individuals often face situations requiring feedback after task performance.
• The choice of feedback provider can be influenced by perceptions of morality and recipient vulnerability.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate how individuals judge and select feedback providers based on recipient characteristics and feedback style.
• To explore the interplay between honesty, prosocial lying, and perceived morality in feedback provider selection.

Main Methods:

• Two studies were conducted with a total of 886 participants.
• Participants evaluated and selected feedback providers based on hypothetical scenarios involving recipients handling criticism differently.
• Scenarios manipulated recipient vulnerability and the feedback provider's honesty (prosocial lying vs. direct honesty).

Main Results:

• Prosocial liars providing overly positive feedback were judged as more moral than honest providers.
• Despite this, honest feedback providers were generally preferred for oneself and others.
• Participants preferred prosocial liars for vulnerable recipients and favored 'sensitive' providers (adjusting honesty based on recipient's criticism handling) for vulnerable individuals.

Conclusions:

• Individuals strategically adjust their preferences for honesty versus lying in feedback providers based on social cues and recipient needs.
• Inconsistent honesty (prosocial lying) is tolerated when it aligns with perceived social needs, particularly for vulnerable individuals.