When is a lie acceptable? Work and private life lying acceptance depends on its beneficiary

Katarzyna Cantarero , Eftychia Stamkou , Marisol Navas , Alejandra del Carmen Dominguez Espinosa , Piotr Szarota

Abstract

In this article we show that when analyzing attitude towards lying in a cross-cultural setting, both the beneficiary of the lie (self vs other) and the context (private life vs. professional domain) should be considered. In a study conducted in Estonia, Ireland, Mexico, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden (N = 1345), in which participants evaluated stories presenting various types of lies, we found usefulness of relying on the dimensions. Results showed that in the joint sample the most acceptable were other-oriented lies concerning private life, then other-oriented lies in the professional domain, followed by egoistic lies in the professional domain; and the least acceptance was shown for egoistic lies regarding one’s private life. We found a negative correlation between acceptance of a behavior and the evaluation of its deceitfulness.
Author Katarzyna Cantarero (Wydział Zamiejscowy w Sopocie)
Katarzyna Cantarero,,
- Wydział Zamiejscowy w Sopocie
, Eftychia Stamkou
Eftychia Stamkou,,
-
, Marisol Navas
Marisol Navas,,
-
, Alejandra del Carmen Dominguez Espinosa
Alejandra del Carmen Dominguez Espinosa,,
-
, Piotr Szarota
Piotr Szarota,,
-
Journal seriesJournal of Social Psychology, ISSN 0022-4545, e-ISSN 1940-1183, (A 20 pkt)
Issue year2018
Vol158
No2
Pages220-235
Publication size in sheets0.75
Keywords in EnglishCross-cultural; egoistic lies; lying acceptance; other-oriented lies; work and private life
ASJC Classification3207 Social Psychology
DOIDOI:10.1080/00224545.2017.1327404
URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1327404
Languageen angielski
File
Cantarero_When is a lie acceptable_2017.pdf 1.34 MB
Cantarero_ośw_2018.pdf 19.84 KB
Score (nominal)20
Score sourcejournalList
Publication indicators Scopus SNIP (Source Normalised Impact per Paper): 2016 = 0.578; WoS Impact Factor: 2017 = 1.227 (2) - 2017=1.645 (5)
Citation count*
Cite
Share Share

Get link to the record


* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.
Back
Confirmation
Are you sure?