Paternalistic lies

"It's Not Literally True, But You Get the Gist:" How nuanced understandings of truth encourage people to condone and spread misinformation

People have a more-nuanced view of misinformation than the binary distinction between "fake news" and "real news" implies. We distinguish between the truth of a statement's verbatim details (i.e., the specific, literal information) and its gist (i.e., the general, overarching meaning), and suggest that people tolerate and intentionally spread misinformation in part because they believe its gist. That is, even when they recognize a claim as literally false, they may judge it as morally acceptable to spread because they believe it is true "in spirit." Prior knowledge, partisanship, and imagination increase belief in the gist. We argue that partisan conflict about the morality of spreading misinformation hinges on disagreements not only about facts but also about gists.

Teach Me Fishing or Give Me the Fish: Differential Effects of Receiving Autonomous and Dependent Help on Task Performance

Research on workplace helping behavior highlights the need for a more balanced perspective that acknowledges both the positive and negative consequences of receiving help. The purpose of this study is to investigate how the mechanisms through which we receive autonomous and dependent help differentially impact recipient task performance, as well as the boundary condition for such effects. Drawing on social information theory, we examined the mediating role of task- and self-focused processes, and the moderating role of perceived prosocial motivation. Through a two-wave and two-source field survey, we collected matched data from 350 employees and their direct supervisors. We examined our hypothesized model with path analysis using Mplus 7.4. Results indicated that receiving autonomous help improved task performance by leading recipients into task-focused processes, and perceived prosocial motivation further strengthened this positive indirect relationship. In contrast, receiving dependent help reduced task performance by eliciting recipients to engage in self-focused processes, and perceived prosocial motivation further augmented this negative indirect relationship. Overall, we spotlight the differential consequences of receiving autonomous and dependent help on recipients and encourage further inquiry about the role of social information processing in the helping literature.

Impression (mis)management: When what you say is not what they hear

Impression management is a fundamental aspect of social life. From self-promotion to feedback giving, from advice seeking to networking, people frequently find themselves in situations where they need to make a positive impression on others. Despite the long-term benefits of making a favorable impression, impression management attempts can backfire in unintended ways. In this article, I review recent research on self-presentation, social cognition, and communication to explain when and why people have misguided intuitions about their impressions on others, document common impression management mistakes, and propose more effective strategies to minimize actor-target asymmetries in social interactions. This review provides a theoretical framework to understand the psychology of impression (mis)management, as well as the risks and rewards of different self-presentation strategies.

Prosocial lies: Causes and consequences

Prosocial lies-lies that are intended to benefit others-are ubiquitous. This article reviews recent research on the causes and consequences of prosocial lies. Prosocial lies are often motivated by the desire to spare others from emotional harm. Therefore, prosocial lies are frequently told in situations in which honesty would cause heightened emotional harm (e.g. when a target is fragile) and by people who are sensitive to others' emotional suffering (e.g. those high in compassion). However, targets only react positively to prosocial lies when they prevent emotional harm and when honesty lacks instrumental value (i.e. when they prevent unnecessary harm). Outside of these situations, targets typically view prosocial lies as paternalistic and therefore penalize those who tell them.

Integrating Empathy and Interpersonal Emotion Regulation

When individuals experience empathy , they often seek to bolster others’ well-being. But what do empathizers want others to feel? Though psychologists have studied empathy and prosociality for decades, this question has yet to be clearly addressed. This is because virtually all existing research focuses on cases in which improving others’ well-being also comprises heightening their positive affect or decreasing their negative affect and helping them reach their own emotional goals. In this review, I argue that real-life empathic goals encompass a broader range—including sometimes worsening targets’ affect or contravening their wishes in order to improve their well-being—that can be productively integrated into the framework of interpersonal emotion regulation (IER). I review the empathic IER spectrum in a number of contexts, including close relationships, professional caregiving, and group-based emotions. Integrating empathy and IER provides a synthetic and generative way to ask new questions about how social emotions produce prosocial actions.

Difficult conversations: navigating the tension between honesty and benevolence

Difficult conversations are a necessary part of everyday life. To help children, employees, and partners learn and improve, parents, managers, and significant others are frequently tasked with the unpleasant job of delivering negative news and critical feedback. Despite the long-term benefits of these conversations, communicators often approach them with trepidation, in part, because they perceive them as involving intractable moral conflict between being honest and being kind. In this article, we review recent research on egocentrism, ethics, and communication to explain why communicators overestimate the degree to which honesty and benevolence conflict during difficult conversations, document the conversational missteps people make as a result of this erred perception, and propose more effective conversational strategies that honor the long-term compatibility of honesty and benevolence. This review sheds light on the psychology of moral tradeoffs in conversation, and provides practical advice on how to deliver unpleasant information in ways that improve recipients' welfare.