SLS Web Magazine

Why do people lie? Lying is a behavior whose roots are more complex than we imagine. This article will briefly explore some of the manifold causes of lying. Deliberate deception often finds its way into the lives of nearly everyone. Deception, in fact, is regarded as endemic to all creatures. Even animals, you may be surprised to discover, use deception. One interesting occasion of lying among animals occurred with the gorilla, "Koko." This gorilla, after several years of tutelage by a master trainer, learned the basic elements of sign language. After acquiring the ability to communicate with humans, something interesting happened. One day, Koko´s residence was equipped with a new sink and faucet. At this time, Koko was looked after by a trainer´s aide. After the faucet was installed, Koko broke it. Everybody knew she broke it. The trainer´s aide was simply not strong enough to break it. Regardless of this fact, Koko signed that her trainer´s aide broke it. In this way, Koko used her new-founded powers of language to lie. She also tried to pass the blame to the third party. Since no one taught Koko how to lie, we can say, with some degree of assurance, that deception is found even within animals.

The existence of deception among animals is documented. In the "Dance of Deception," Dr. Harriet Goldhor Lerner describes how a chimp deceived her fellow chimps: "A chimp misdirects her group away from a food source, covers up her own movements so that the location of the food can´t be traced, and returns later to dine by herself." (pp. 11-12). This example clearly adds credence to the idea that deception is something found among animals. Once we realize that animals can lie, we become aware that animals are more clever than we would like to believe. Lying is not limited to homo sapiens. Humans, however, are more sophisticated deceivers. We all have the capacity, if not always the inclination, to lie. But what motivates us to lie?

During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, President Clinton took lying to new heights, or, should we say, depths. His first response to accusations of illicit relations, on major network television, we may all remember was, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Months later, also on major network television, he admitted his fault, "Indeed I did have an improper relationship with Miss Lewinsky." His confession, however, lacked the sincerity which would have given it wider acceptance. Beyond that, he pretty much held onto his deceitful ways. He came across as somewhat evasive and dodging. Here we see a man, vested with perhaps the most power in the world, abuse it by deliberately misleading an entire nation. So we see that even in a position that was once thought to be dignified and honorable, deceit rears its ugly head. Lying is actually a politician´s tool. But what about lying at our level, the average, everyday people?

As children, many of us can remember doing something wrong and then getting caught. Once caught, we often lied to cover up the behavior that went amiss. Various techniques are used for this. If we had siblings, for instance, we often blamed them for our own misconduct. We said to our parents, "he made me do it," or, "she made me do it." Fear of punishment, then, is the primary motive for lying. We knew that what we did deserved a spanking. In order to find a way out of the punishment, we told a fib. This type of lying is outside the bounds of justifiable behavior, simply because it attempts to release a person from responsibility for their own actions. Much like Bill Clinton´s case, this lie is used to "put distance" between the misbehavior and its perpetrator. Then, by blurring the origin of the lie, its status as "lie" can not be detected. It is as old as time itself: When God discovered that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam, out of fear of punishment, replied, "The woman gave me some fruit, so I ate it." This response, indirectly, is the exact same response as children. Like Adam and Eve and Koko, children pass the blame to others instead. Consequently, shifting the blame requires the issue of a lie; the two cannot be separated.

But there are many other motives for lying. Self-preservation, or even survival, can depend on a lie. Take the man who cheats on his wife and later denies it. This type of lying is told as a means to preserve his family and himself. That is, if he were to admit to his wife and family that he had an affair, he would risk suffering the break-up of his marriage and family itself. By using lies to explain away this behavior, which, actually, points toward dissatisfaction with his marriage, the real problem escapes notice; namely, adultery. Is this what happened with Bill Clinton? Was he trying to protect his wife and daughter from undue embarrassment and emotional harm? It is doubtful. There is a stronger likelihood that Bill Clinton was seriously worried about his place in the annals of history, rather than the well-being of Hillary and Chelsea. Despicable as it sounds, Clinton´s lies were more than likely used to preserve himself and his public standing. In this way, Clinton survived the accusations by means of a lie. Self-preservation was Clinton´s motive for lying.

The survivalist´s lie, then, can have some value. But in the long run, these lies are eventually exposed. The fact is, lies have a tendency to compensate themselves; this is called the "snowball effect." In other words, once a lie is told, others soon follow to justify the previous ones, and so on, and so on.... Lying for survival will ultimately fail, and lying only serves to make matters worse. In Clinton´s case, self preservation, or even just "saving face," gave the lie its value. But his lie, despite its apparent value, still cannot be sanctioned.

The third motive for lying is to compensate for something called "survival anxiety." Goldhor-Lerner brings this to our attention. When parents lie to protect their children from information they would not be able to handle, the results bob to the surface: "When children sense information is being withheld, they become confused and anxious, lose their sense of trust, and often end up blaming themselves. In searching for a way to explain the inexplicable, they create private beliefs, myths, and fantasies." Goldhor-Lerner, page 142. This example suggests that children may craft lies as a way to relieve anxiety. They do this because they have no other way of coping with the upsurgence of confusion in their psyche..The lie they absorb acts as a burr that "beats up" on the children, by clouding their understanding. Then, in turn, they create their own lies. So we begin to see with these examples, that whatever the undergirding of a lie is, it inevitably leaves a wake of destruction in its path.

Lies as acts of aggression is the fourth motive I found for lying. Some psychologists´ findings delineate that lies are told for the purpose of deliberately injuring another person: "Bursten (1972) described this as achieving a feeling of superiority by ´putting something over´ on another person. Thus, lies can be conceived as a form of verbal aggression or sadism." The Psychology of Deceit, Charles V. Ford, M.D., pp. 89-90. When lies are told for this reason, mutual respect for the general welfare of persons is lost. A lie, once discovered as such by the recipient, gives the impression that he or she´s rights have been trampled on. And to make matters worse, these type of lies do not always yield to analysis. They can be perpetrated under the guise of innocence and still create the harm that is desired. The fact is, a recipient of a lie is being treated as less than human. The lie becomes a source of denigration, which ultimately violates their inalienable right to the truth. Further still, the lie casts a cloud over their perception of matters. In this way, lies can also be seen as sources of confusion. They disrupt the equilibrium of everyday affairs. Lies as acts of aggression, are like intellectual terrorism.

Lies are also told as a way to create a haven of fantasy. This can be categorized under the title, "lies as wish fulfillment." This type of lie is very common in children of the ages 4-7 years. Children often confuse a wish with reality. They believe that if a fantasy is spoken out loud, it will come true. This idea, then, can give rise to all kinds of falsehood. Among some of these false notions would be such ideas as "My daddy is a king and I live in a castle," or "Puff the Magic Dragon visited me last night in my bedroom." The fact is, neither of these are true, but the mere mention of them, the child believes, will bring it to pass. As we get older, of course, this type of thinking gradually erodes. The overspreading of ideas does not guarantee their becoming reality, nor is this process believed or enacted with advancing years.

And then there is the manipulative lie. This lie can be a part of the inner self straight through adulthood. Adults sometimes hold onto the manipulative lie because they have found that it is useful. They discover that it can often serve to reach their own ends and grow a liking towards it. People sheltering the manipulative lie find it a very convenient way of structuring their associations with others. They recognize that lying can paint an impressive picture of themselves with minimal effort expended. By crafting lies about themselves, they can create an identity that is in tune with their private beliefs of who they are. For example, a person who plays a sport at the amateur level, but believes that he plays with professional expertise, may say, "Next year I´ll be drafted into the pros," or, "I used to play at the professional level." These carefully crafted misrepresentations of themselves, or their ability, are often mixed with an element of truth, although not completely true. As such, these type of lies are very persuasive.

Next in the series of motives for lying is the lie to maintain self-esteem. "People with low self-esteem often experience a sense of failure...in an effort to regulate self-esteem, the individual may use prevarication in an attempt to close the gap between reality and their grandiose demands." The Psychology of Deceit, Charles V. Ford, M.D., pp. 99-100. In this case lying is used to cover up a personal inadequacy. In other words, when talents are not there but may be required, lying is used as a substitute to the missing aptitude. For some people, their expectations for themselves are so high (grandiose demands), that they cannot meet them any other way than to lie. For example, a person may believe that he will, or must, win the Nobel Prize, although this achievement is far beyond his or her scope. This is what is called a grandiose demand. It is the belief in an accomplishment that, for all intents and purposes, is highly unlikely to be achieved. It is valid to conclude, then, that for those who suffer from grandiose demands, lying patches the void their inadequacies create. Or, lying allows them to "reach up" for something that they have no other way to attain. These people "walk" with lies by making them their companions. Their image--in their own conception--is enhanced by the lie, which thereby elevates their self-esteem. In this way, lying acts as sutures to a conscience torn by inadequacy.

One of the more intriguing bits of information I came across while researching this article is the influence of hereditary on lying. Is lying in our genes? And if it is, why do some people lie more than others? And, why are some more successful with this tactic? This may seem to be a paradox, because how can something that is thought to be directly controlled by moral and ethical decision, have a genetic basis? What is the relationship, in this case, between science and behavior? There is some evidence for the notion of lying as having a genetic basis: "Rowe (1986) investigated several potential causes of delinquency and found that general environmental factors, such as social class or child-rearing styles, were not influential. Significant factors did include the intrafamily environment and genetics." (The Psychology of Deceit, Charles V. Ford, M.D. pp. 65-66).

From this information we can glean two significant facts. One, since delinquency was not correlated with social class or child-rearing, the conclusion can be drawn that there are other factors at work. Are these factors genetic? Is delinquency, if not a result of environment, a result of hereditary influence? Maybe so. And, since delinquency can be a carrier for deceit, or lying, then it follows that lying may have a genetic component to it also. In other words, if delinquency is correlated to genes and lying is a part of delinquency, then, by logic, lying and genes might be correlated too. Nevertheless, some people may find it very disturbing that genes can play a role in lying. This could quite possibly lead to the awful conclusion that those who lie persistently are doing so at the beck and call of the double helix! Such knowledge is deep, very grave, and frightening. It suggests that we are no more than puppets on a genetic string.

Finally, we should take a look at the language of lying. Several researchers have found, surprisingly, that our language itself tends to favor lying:

The English language has many terms and euphemisms to describe lying.

Karpman commented that the number of synonyms for "truth" is small,

From this it appears that the very language itself supports the act of lying. The total number of words related to lying exceeds at least three hundred! Perhaps the growth of the vocabulary of lying is a result of the human tendency to do so. Since all humans sometimes lie on occasion, rather than tell the truth, the very language itself might accommodate this behavior. Under this view, the terms used to connote lying could actually grow within the language, much like weeds sprout up on a lawn of green grass. A language that grows from lying, then, can enhance the habit´s survival, since it becomes all too easy to construct a lie. The degree of difficulty for lying is eased by the rich vocabulary that supports it.

Consider this, too. A language that supports lying can breed what are called "master liars." During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton demonstrated this tendency. His language utilized the vocabulary of lying, to serve his purposes. Yet another memorable utterance, under oath, was Clinton´s response, "It depends what "is" is." It follows then, that with mastery of the English language, or any language for that matter, one can gain mastery of lying, should the person have a mind for it. Clinton, I think, simply made the most of his education, intelligence, and wit, to deceive. He is a person very adept at the use of the vocabulary of lying, and very concerned with his public image. This concern is largely prevalent among politicians, so it can be passed over without much ado. They must have this concern, simply to win re-election, stay in office, and ultimately, perpetuate their views in political thought. Perhaps the best precaution I could make for "master liars" is that they stay away from perjuring themselves. Time will tell if this is, indeed, what happened with President Clinton.

Thus, it appears that lying is a practice that all have recourse to, and it´s sad to say that a lie is never very far from leaving our mouths. When faced with a difficult situation, some people may resort to lying. There really is no complete and total method of washing lying out of our mentality, but with a resolution to do so as minimally as possible, perhaps the battle against falsehood can be won. But, more often than not, we treat our own lying in a glib way. We are more likely to pass over our small, petty lies, since to do this gives us peace of mind. It´s the big lies that leave a mark on our conscience. Fear of punishment, compensation against survival anxiety, aggression, fantasy fulfillment, manipulation, building self-esteem, and finally, genetics, are all established motives for lying. With a wealth of reasons for lying, it´s hard to avoid it altogether. Why fall prey to lying? Because we are human.

References:
1. The Dance of Deception, Harriet Goldhor-Lerner, Ph.d.
2. The Psychology of Deceit, Charles V. Ford, M.D.