Development of Cultural Perspectives on Verbal Deception in Competitive Contexts

Abstract

Verbal deception may be considered morally reprehensible or acceptable depending on culturally relevant contextual factors and ethical perspectives. In the current study, Euro-Canadian (n = 180) and Han Chinese (n = 180) children ages 8 to 16 were recruited to investigate their moral evaluations of lying and truth-telling in competitive situations. The participants classified a story character’s statement told to either harm or help themselves or collectives of various group sizes (i.e., their class, school, or country) as a lie, the truth, or something else. Participants then made moral judgments regarding the statements and provided justifications for their evaluations. Chinese children’s evaluations became more nuanced with age: They evaluated lies told to benefit a collective as less negative than Canadian children, and truths told to harm a collective as more negative. These evaluations became more pronounced with the increasing size of the collectivity. Cultural and contextual factors relevant to evaluations and justifications of verbal deception are discussed.

Effect of lie labelling on children's evaluation of selfish, polite, and altruistic lies

“…Dmytro et al . () showed that children's evaluation of altruistic lies was positively related to the size of the group that would benefit from the lie. Hence, in the present study, the polite lies may not appear to be as good as the altruistic lies because the lie recipient receives less actual benefit, in that only some intangible feelings are saved at no cost on the liar's part.…”

“…The difference has been explained in terms of an emphasis on social harmony and interdependence in the collectivist Chinese culture (Fu et al ., ; Kim, Kam, Sharkey, & Singelis, ; Wang, Bernas, & Eberhard, ). Hence, lying for the collective good is also evaluated positively by Chinese children (Dmytro et al ., ; Fu, Evans, Wang, & Lee, ; Fu, Xu, Cameron, Heyman, & Lee, ). Our current results therefore raise an interesting question: If concepts such as modesty and collective benefit are factored into liar motive, would the lie then become more ‘resistant’ to the label effect, especially in collectivist cultures?…”

“…For instance, Ma et al (2011) demonstrated that when evaluating white lies 7-to 11-year-olds did consider how much actual harm would result from not receiving the blunt truth, and also how embarrassed the lie recipient would be in relation to audience size if the truth was told. Dmytro et al (2014) showed that children's evaluation of altruistic lies was positively related to the size of the group that would benefit from the lie. Hence, in the present study, the polite lies may not appear to be as good as the altruistic lies because the lie recipient receives less actual benefit, in that only some intangible feelings are saved at no cost on the liar's part.…”

Understanding the development of honesty in children through the domains‐of‐socialization approach

“…As such, cultural groups influence children's perceptions of honesty, presumably through socialization agents such as parents. A topic within the literature on lie‐telling that is relevant to the group participation domain is differences in perceptions of honesty between collectivistic and individualistic cultures (Dmytro et al, 2014; Fu, Xu, Cameron, Heyman, & Lee, 2007; Lee, Xu, Fu, Cameron, & Chen, 2001; Lo, Fu, Lee, & Cameron, 2020). Generally, these studies have demonstrated that, although all children define truths and lies similarly, how they evaluate the morality of truths and lies and what factors they consider when doing so differs across cultures.…”

Cross-cultural, developmental psychology: integrating approaches and key insights

“…The IDV dimension provides a measure of the degree to which people in a society are integrated into groups, with values such as autonomy and privacy held in higher regard among individualistic societies and values such as social harmony and loyalty valued more highly in collectivistic societies (Allik & Realo, 2004;Bochner, 1994;Hofstede, 1984Hofstede, , 2011 . The individualism versus collectivism contrast has been particularly influential in shaping cross-cultural work in developmental psychology (Chiu Loke et al, 2014;Dmytro et al, 2014;Greenfield et al, 2003;Krassner et al, 2016) . For instance, researchers have used the IDV dimension to explain why modesty behaviors vary across societies.…”