White lies

In this paper we distinguish between two types of white lies: those that help others at the expense of the person telling the lie, which we term altruistic white lies, and those that help both others and the liar, which we term Pareto white lies. We find that a large fraction of participants are reluctant to tell even a Pareto white lie, demonstrating a pure lie aversion independent of any social preferences for outcomes. In contrast, a nonnegligible fraction of participants are willing to tell an altruistic white lie that hurts them a bit but significantly helps others. Comparing white lies to those where lying increases the liar's payoff at the expense of another reveals important insights into the interaction of incentives, lying aversion, and preferences for payoff distributions. Finally, in line with previous findings, women are less likely to lie when it is costly to the other side. Interestingly though, we find that women are more likely to tell an altruistic lie

Mathematical white lies

Colin Foster and Mike Ollerton discuss the complexities of making 'always-true' mathematical statements in the classroom

Real Lies, White Lies and Gray Lies: Towards a Typology of Deception

Despite its aversive label, deception is an extremely common social behavior that the average person performs on a daily basis (Camden, Motley, & Wilson, 1984; DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996; Turner, Edgley, & Omstead, 1975). In fact, the use of white lies is so widespread they are often viewed as a form of communication competency that is necessary to successfully negotiate social interactions (Camden et al, 1984; Di Battista, 1994; Knapp & Comedena, 1975; Knapp, Hart, & Dennis, 1974). This study aimed to explore how college students perceive white lies and differentiate them from other types of lies using in-depth interview and focus group data. Participants\u27 evaluations of deception indicate three main types of lies: real lies, white lies, and gray lies. In order to differentiate between the three types of lies participants reported considering the intention, consequences, truthfulness, acceptability, and beneficiary of the lies. It was concluded that participants\u27 perceived real lies as being unacceptable, malicious, self-serving, complete fabrications of the truth that held serious consequences. White lies were perceived as altruistic lies that were trivial, partially true, lacking malicious motives, and generally acceptable to use. Gray lies were said to consist of lies that were ambiguous in nature or held the characteristics of a real lie yet were still viewed as justifiable given the circumstance. These results, their practical and theoretical implications, and areas for future research are discussed

Comprehension of lies and white lies in Cantonese-speaking children

Thesis (B.Sc)--University of Hong Kong, 2009."A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science (Speech and Hearing Sciences), The University of Hong Kong, June 30, 2009."Includes bibliographical references (p. 29-30).published_or_final_versionSpeech and Hearing SciencesBachelorBachelor of Science in Speech and Hearing Science

White Lies.

The audio-visual research asks why certain events, experiences and aspects of everyday life are rendered visible and made public while others are elided or overlooked in contemporary Nepal. This subject is explored from the point of view (P.O.V.) of photographers based in the country. The main output of this research is an observational documentary film, White Lies, The Emancipated Spectator in Contemporary Nepal. The provided imagery highlights how photographic forms of representation are linked with notions of power and recalls Hall's argument that "What is not said is as important to what is said as the things that are actually in the picture" (2013: 15). Acknowledging the events during fieldwork the research also questions the idea of film as a method to generate knowledge.La recherche audio-visuelle questionne pourquoi certains événements, expériences et aspects de la vie quotidienne sont rendus visibles et rendus publics tandis que d'autres sujets sont éludés ou négligés au Népal contemporain. Le sujet est exploré à partir du point de vue (P.O.V.) de photographes vivant au Népal. Le corpus photographique fourni met en évidence la manière dont les formes photographiques de représentation sont liées aux notions de pouvoir et rappelle l'argument de Hall: "Ce qui n'est pas dit est aussi important pour ce qui est dit que ce qui est réellement dans l'image" (Hall 2013: 15). Le résultat principal de cette recherche est un film documentaire d’observation; Pieux mensonges. Le spectateur émancipé du Népal contemporain (original: White Lies. The Emancipated Spectator in Contemporary Nepal). En mentionnant les événements survenus au cours du travail de terrain, la recherche questionne également l'idée du film comme méthode de production de connaissances.La investigación audiovisual pregunta por qué ciertos eventos, experiencias y aspectos de las experiencias cotidianas devienen visibles y son hechos públicos mientras otros temas son ignorados u omitidos en el Nepal contemporáneo. Este tema es investigado desde el punto de vista de fotógrafos nepaleses. Las imágenes proporcionadas muestran cómo las formas fotográficas de representación están relacionadas con ciertas nociones de poder, y recuerdan al argumento de Hall: "Lo que no se es tan importante como que la se dice, así como aquello que está realmente en la imagen " (Hall 2013: 15). La mayor parte del resultado de ésta investigación es un documental observacional; Mentiras Blancas. El espectador emancipado en el Nepal contemporáneo (original: White Lies, The Emancipated Spectator in Contemporary Nepal). Reconociendo los eventos ocurridos durante el trabajo de campo, ésta investigación también cuestiona la idea del cine como método para generar conocimiento

White lies and black lies: What they have in common and how they differ

In everyday life, people sometimes tell “black lies”, and sometimes “white lies”. For both types of lies (or deceptioni), the deceiver communicates misleading information to another person or group namely the deceived [1]. However, a large difference exists between black lies and white lies: With black lies, the deceiver tries to gain something at the cost of the deceived. In other words, the deceiver exploits the deceived out of self-interest. A classic example is the notorious used car dealer, who lies to customers about the state of the cars that are for sale. Regarding white lies, the picture looks different: The deceiver lies to please the deceived by using affiliative deception. For example, most of us have told a friend that their new hair-cut looks great to please and not irritate the friend, while secretly disliking the hair-cut. Such deception out of affiliative motives means to lie in order to deepen a relationship, or to please the deceived by saying what they would presumably like to hear. Obviously, the deception in the two examples above stems from very different motives, and therefore is usually met with condemnation in case of black lies, versus affiliation in case of white lies. But are white lies thus desirable and without harm? In this article, we highlight that white lies can cause harm precisely because people use them to foster relationships and affiliation. More specifically, when people want to affiliate with others, they tend to agree with all questions and statements of others. Thereby, affiliation biases response behavior, even on neutral questions and even when nothing can be gained from the response. Such a response bias can distort responses to health surveys, public policy questionnaires, or eyewitness interrogations; in other words, white lies can cause harm by undermining the effectiveness of public policy or by incriminating innocent others. To support this argument, we first review the underlying motives of back lies versus white lies, and then illustrate how research on the prevention of black lies might also be used to prevent the negative consequences of white lies

Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: a meta-analysis

Whether there are gender di erences in lying has been largely debated in the past decade. Previous studies found mixed results. To shed light on this topic, here I report a meta-analysis of 8,728 distinct observations, collected in 65 Sender-Receiver game treatments, by 14 research groups. Following previous work and theoretical considerations, I distinguish three types of lies: black lies, which benefit the liar at a cost for another person; altruistic white lies, which benefit another person at a cost for the liar; and Pareto white lies, which benefit both the liar and another person. The results show that: males are significantly more likely than females to tell black lies (N=4,173); males are significantly more likely than females to tell altruistic white (N=2,940); and results are inconclusive in the case of Pareto white lies (N=1,615). Furthermore, gender di erences in telling altruistic white lies are significantly stronger than in the other two cases

Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: a meta-analysis

Whether there are gender di erences in lying has been largely debated in the past decade. Previous studies found mixed results. To shed light on this topic, here I report a meta-analysis of 8,728 distinct observations, collected in 65 Sender-Receiver game treatments, by 14 research groups. Following previous work and theoretical considerations, I distinguish three types of lies: black lies, which benefit the liar at a cost for another person; altruistic white lies, which benefit another person at a cost for the liar; and Pareto white lies, which benefit both the liar and another person. The results show that: males are significantly more likely than females to tell black lies (N=4,173); males are significantly more likely than females to tell altruistic white (N=2,940); and results are inconclusive in the case of Pareto white lies (N=1,615). Furthermore, gender di erences in telling altruistic white lies are significantly stronger than in the other two cases