News

~ 843 words ~ 5 548 characters | Reading time: 4 minutes

Did it taste good? So, is the worst truth always better than the best lie?

If you know that someone is sensitive, is it worth telling the truth if it may hurt them? If you lie, how will others judge your behavior? Whom would you choose to evaluate your own work – someone completely honest or someone who adjusts their comments to your sensitivity? These and other questions were addressed in research on prosocial lying and its moral evaluation conducted by the president of the PSPS, Prof. Katarzyna Cantarero (SWPS University) and Prof. Michał Białek (University of Wrocław).

Katarzyna Cantarero Michał Białek

WPROWADZENIE | Giving honest feedback on a completed task may seem like a good solution, as it helps correct mistakes. Such behavior is perceived as moral because it is consistent with one of the most cherished values, the truth. In practice, however, providing feedback is rarely so simple. In everyday situations, one often has to decide whether to say everything directly or to soften the message in order not to hurt the other person. A completely honest evaluation can sometimes cause emotional harm or discourage further attempts, especially when the recipient is particularly sensitive to criticism.
When both honesty and the recipient’s well-being are at stake, the question arises of how the morality of the person making the choice is judged. Another interesting issue is how people who are inconsistent in their evaluations are judged– those who are completely honest at times and soften the truth at others. Prof. Katarzyna Cantarero and Prof. Michał Białek conducted experimental studies examining how consistent and inconsistent feedback about a poorly prepared dish is evaluated when given to a sensitive person who is handling negative feedback poorly and to a person who copes well with criticism.

HYPOTHESES | The researchers expected that individuals who adjust their feedback to the recipient would be judged as more moral than those who rigidly adhere to honesty or those who are excessively positive. It was also assumed that a provider of strictly honest feedback would be judged slightly less moral than someone who adapts their message. Additionally, it was predicted that participants would prefer honest feedback for themselves but would choose adjusted feedback for people who handle negative feedback poorly.

EXPERIMENT 1 | The study (N = 296) examined judgments of morality, predictability, and credibility of inconsistent feedback providers, comparing them with two types of consistent providers.

Participants read statements from four individuals providing feedback about poorly prepared meals made by two people (the feedback recipients). Among the recipients, one person was described as coping well with criticism, while the other was described as sensitive to criticism and handling it poorly.

(1) Consistent honesty – a character completely honest, telling both recipients the truth.
(2) Consistent prosocial lies – an overly positive character who lied to both recipients.
(3) Inconsistent and inadequate feedback – a character who inappropriately adjusted feedback (i.e., lied to the person who tolerated criticism well and told the truth to the person who handles it poorly).
(4) Inconsistent prosocial lies and truth telling – a character who adjusted the feedback depending on whether the recipient handled criticism well or poorly.

RESULTS | Morality. Contrary to expectations, individuals who provided positive feedback to both people preparing the meals were rated as the most moral. The next highest moral evaluations were given to those who adjusted their feedback to recipients’ needs (telling the truth to a person who coped well with criticism and using a prosocial lie with a sensitive person) and those who were consistently honest. The lowest moral ratings were given to the inadequate feedback provider.

Predictability and trustworthiness. The character rated as most predictable and trustworthy was the one who gave honest feedback to both recipients. The least predictable and trustworthy was the character who used a prosocial lie toward the recipient who coped well with criticism and told the truth to the sensitive recipient.

EXPERIMENT 2 | The study (N = 584) compared preferences for the four types of feedback providers when participants made choices for themselves and for others, including people who are sensitive and cope poorly with criticism. The same vignettes as in Experiment 1 were used.

RESULTS | Overall, the results showed that, both for oneself and for others, the most frequently chosen person was the one who was consistently honest. Moreover, a provider of honest feedback was chosen less often for a sensitive recipient than for a recipient whose sensitivity was unspecified.

Participants more often selected a prosocial liar for a sensitive recipient than for a recipient for whom no information about sensitivity to criticism was provided. A similar preference was observed when choosing a person who adjusted feedback to the recipient—this person was selected more often for a sensitive individual than for someone whose reaction to criticism was unspecified.

SUMMARY | The experiments show that people are more inclined to protect others from painful truths when the recipient’s sensitivity is clearly signaled. Inconsistency in evaluation is perceived as immoral only when it contradicts social norms. However, when making a choice of a feedback provider, people generally prefer individuals who give honest feedback.

✍️ ORIGINAL ARTICLE Cantarero, K., Białek, M. (2026). Selective (dis) honesty: Choosing overly positive feedback only when the truth hurts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 65(1), artykuł e70020.

Image by 🌸♡💙♡🌸 Julita 🌸♡💙♡🌸 from Pixabay