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

StatusVoR
Simple item page
cris.lastimport.scopus2025-12-13T04:11:09Z
dc.abstract.enIn two studies (N = 886), we examined how individualsjudge and select feedback providers for those who eitherhandle criticism well or poorly after performing a low-quality task. Prosocial liars who provided overly positivefeedback, were judged as more moral than honest feedbackproviders. However, despite this, honest feedback providerswere preferred for both oneself and others. Interestingly,when choosing a feedback provider for a vulnerablerecipient versus a generic other, participants preferred aprosocial liar in the former case. Similarly, a ‘sensitive’feedback provider, defined as someone who tells the truthto individuals who handle criticism well but offers overlypositive feedback to those who struggle, was also favouredwhen the recipient was vulnerable compared with when therecipient was unspecified. Notably, the sensitive providerwas not judged as less moral than the honest one, suggestingthat inconsistent (dis)honesty is tolerated when it alignswith social needs. These findings indicate that individualsstrategically adjust preferences for honesty versus lyingbased on social cues.
dc.affiliationWydział Psychologii we Wrocławiu
dc.affiliationInstytut Psychologii
dc.contributor.authorCantarero, Katarzyna
dc.contributor.authorBiałek, Michał
dc.date.access2025-11-23
dc.date.accessioned2025-12-09T12:32:59Z
dc.date.available2025-12-09T12:32:59Z
dc.date.created2025-10-21
dc.date.issued2025-11-23
dc.description.abstract<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p> In two studies ( <jats:italic>N</jats:italic>  = 886), we examined how individuals judge and select feedback providers for those who either handle criticism well or poorly after performing a low‐quality task. Prosocial liars who provided overly positive feedback, were judged as more moral than honest feedback providers. However, despite this, honest feedback providers were preferred for both oneself and others. Interestingly, when choosing a feedback provider for a vulnerable recipient versus a generic other, participants preferred a prosocial liar in the former case. Similarly, a ‘sensitive’ feedback provider, defined as someone who tells the truth to individuals who handle criticism well but offers overly positive feedback to those who struggle, was also favoured when the recipient was vulnerable compared with when the recipient was unspecified. Notably, the sensitive provider was not judged as less moral than the honest one, suggesting that inconsistent (dis)honesty is tolerated when it aligns with social needs. These findings indicate that individuals strategically adjust preferences for honesty versus lying based on social cues. </jats:p>
dc.description.accesstimeat_publication
dc.description.grantnumber2020/39/B/HS6/02196
dc.description.granttitlePoza dylematem wagonika. Wyznaczniki i konsekwencje powszechnego dylematu moralnego między prawdą a kłamstwem
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.physical1-15
dc.description.sdgQualityEducation
dc.description.versionfinal_published
dc.description.volume65
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bjso.70020
dc.identifier.eissn2044-8309
dc.identifier.issn0144-6665
dc.identifier.urihttps://share.swps.edu.pl/handle/swps/2073
dc.identifier.weblinkhttps://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.70020?af=R
dc.languageen
dc.language.abstracten
dc.pbn.affiliationpsychologia
dc.rightsCC-BY
dc.rights.questionYes_rights
dc.share.articleOTHER
dc.subject.encharacter judgement
dc.subject.enfeedback
dc.subject.enmoral judgement
dc.subject.enprosocial dishonesty
dc.swps.sciencecloudsend
dc.titleSelective (dis)honesty: Choosing overly positive feedback only when the truth hurts
dc.title.journalBritish Journal of Social Psychology
dc.typeJournalArticle
dspace.entity.typeArticle