The Psychology of Deceit - Ambur

1 The Psychology of Deceit : implications for record - keeping by OrganizationsOwen Ambur , May 19, 2002 Lest there be any doubt about the pervasiveness of Deceit , Charles Ford lays it to rest in assertingin the title of the first chapter of his book: Everybody Lies. Elucidating on that point in theintroduction to Lies! Lies! Lies! The Psychology of Deceit , he proffers:.. lying is part of the interface between a person s internal and external worlds .. there isan internal world composed of beliefs, fantasies, and perceived realities, and there is anexternal world of shared beliefs, or reality .. we lie if we deceive others as to what webelieve in our personal internal world, or we engage in self-deception if we distort orchange information as it passes from the external world into the internal lying,self-deception, and the assessment of reality are closely related to one another.

2 (p. xii)Ford concludes his introduction to the topic of lying by suggesting the most important lesson wecan learn is how we use lies to deceive ourselves (p. xiii). It seems strange that we wouldmislead even ourselves but self-deception is one of many paradoxes cited by Ford, who observes:.. lies are a ubiquitous phenomenon. Much of our psychic energy is spent sorting out theday-to-day, hour-to-hour information that bombards Everyone continuously sharesand receives information and must simultaneously evaluate both the effect of theinformation transmitted and the accuracy of information received. Only the foolish andthe naive accept as true everything that is said or written. (p. 3)Addressing the impact of one type of exaggeration, commercial advertising, as an example ofmyriad forms of Deceit , Ford notes:Puffery suggests the superiority of [an] advertised product through implication rather thanby literal research indicates that puffery claims are effective and influenceconsumers [and] the consumer tends to keep believing the claims of puffery afterpurchasing the product, even if the claims are People need to believe theymade the right choice in buying the product, so they deceive themselves into believingthat the product is superior!

3 (pp. 8 & 9)With further reference to the effectiveness of deceitful advertising, Ford avers: implications (including deceptive messages) about products are frequently deliveredthrough nonverbal Interestingly, but not surprisingly, these nonverbalcues are often more effective than just words because they evoke more associativethoughts and fantasies than words alone. Among the nonverbal messages found inadvertisements are pictures and music. (p. 9) .. subtle advertising is not only veryeffective, but also, because of the lack of overt promises, almost impossible to regulate.(p. 10)Turning to politics, where Deceit is so commonly accepted as to be a major focus of humor, Fordsays:Although it is by no means certain that politicians lie more frequently than other people,there can be little doubt that politicians do deceive.

4 Perhaps because of their highvisibility and the fact that their actions are recorded by the media, they are caught in theact more frequently and thus appear to lie more frequently than to other Why dopoliticians [and others] make false statements that are ultimately certain to do them moreharm than good? .. To explain such lapses in truth-telling, one must search forpsychological explanations rather than political motives. (p. 11, emphasis added)Note that Ford suggests the key difference between politicians and the rest of us is that they aremore likely to be caught in their lies because of the fact their words and deeds are recorded .Whereas politicians shade the truth to impress others, Ford suggests a different primarymotivation for the rest of us:Lying becomes an essential component of the process of individuation ( , establishmentof personal autonomy and comfortable interpersonal relationships).

5 Perhaps the mostimportant reason that people lie, however, is that the lie facilitates self-deception; peoplelie to others in order to lie to themselves. (p. 20)Lying (pun intended) on the continuum between the masses, which are the target of thepolitician s lies, and ourselves as individuals, who are the primary targets for all of us, are thesmaller groups with which we associate. Likewise, lying on the continuum between lies and thetruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are secrets which may be true or false, butwhich are accepted as truth by the in-group with which they are shared. As Ford points out:A secret is something known to one or more persons but deliberately hidden from one ormore other Secrets are often closely related to By withholdinginformation, the secret-holder may knowingly create false beliefs in Secrets serveto maintain privacy.

6 And also to support the functions of a group. Shared secretsincrease bonding, maintain cohesiveness, and protect family or organizational requires honest communication and a shared understanding of knowledge,which are obviously impaired by keeping secrets. (pp. 32 & 33)With respect to self versus others, Ford notes:Greenwald suggests that the individual has the cognitive bias of egocentricity; that is,one s self is the focus of knowledge. An individual tends to see himself or herself asresponsible for desired outcomes but not for undesired ones. Thus, there is resistance tonew or different information, which may be selectively ignored (cognitive conservatism).(p. 35)Needless to say, it is far easier to ignore information that is not clearly and explicitly recorded.

7 Insupport of the requirements for secrecy and cognitive conservatism, Ford observes:.. many of our cognitive functions (information processing) are like a software program devoid of content per se, but directing the input and use of new information. In addition,some of the information may be stored that is not readily accessible to conscious is growing evidence that neuroanatomical or physiological factors may play animportant role in the compartmentalizing of thoughts and feelings. Thus, in a veryconcrete fashion .. conflicting data may be stored in different files that do not interactwith one another. (p. 37)Compartmentalization is a common, if not necessary feature of large organizations. It serves toinsulate individuals from complexities exceeding the capacity of human , ego defense mechanisms serve to protect us from information that exceeds ourpersonal capacities to accept failure.

8 As described by Ford (pp. 38 - 43), a number of the personalego defense mechanisms have obvious parallels in organizational behavior:Denial represents a rejection of reality and of facts that are readily projection refers to frank delusions about external reality. Internal needsmassively distort involves grossly reshaping external reality to meet one s inner is the process of attributing one s own unacknowledged thoughts or feelings toanother fantasy is a mechanism in which there is a denial and retreat from problems inthe external world. It serves to provide partial gratification of unmet needs forinterpersonal relationships or to bolster is the mechanism by which one compartmentalizes ideas, memories, orexperiences that may elicit intolerable feelings, moving them out of conscious describes the process of moving one s fears and concerns from a highlyconflictive and anxiety-provoking situation to one that is more , isolation, andrationalization are terms used to describe closely relatedand often interlocking ego mechanisms.

9 Individuals are aware of the external facts of thesituation but isolate emotion and often attempt to provide reasons to explain refers to a process of blocking from consciousness those ideas or feelings thatprovoke anxiety or are painful to experience. Repression may include lapses of memoryor the failure to acknowledge one s differs from repression in that one consciously or subconsciously excludesthoughts or feelings from the conscious but retrieves the memories and deals with them atthe appropriate is the ability to be playful and to laugh at oneself. It differs from wit, which maybe a sadistic attack on another person. The person who has learned to use humor canaccept personal failings ( nobody is perfect ) without devastating loss of cites Vaillant in explaining a theoretical four-level hierarchy of the maturity of ego defensemechanisms ranging from Narcissistic as the least mature, to Immature, to Neurotic, and finallyto Mature with suppression and humor ranking among the most mature.

10 (pp. 43 & 44).Interestingly, he notes:.. the level of maturity .. appears highly correlated with the degree of level-one defenses (narcissistic), reality is distorted or disavowed. Self-deception atthis level is so great that it interferes with reality testing. With level-two defenses(immature), the individual remains largely unaware of thoughts and feelings that are actedon with maladaptive behavior or that are disavowed and projected to another level-three defenses (neurotic), self-deception is largely manifested by thecompartmentalization of mental activity. There is a considerable increase in one sawareness, ideas, and emotions, but the ambivalence of a conflictive issue may be keptout of consciousness by splitting. Active self-deception is most readily identified at thislevel.