Are Deception and Lying Different?

At Deception And Truth Analysis (D.A.T.A.) we are frequently asked by our Clients, investors, and the curious: Are deception and lying different? Also, what about fraud? This may seem a boring topic, but we have an institutional view that shapes so much of what we do. For example, how we present information to you, what emerging news is interesting to us (e.g. scandals and fraud), and even how we direct our research efforts. Crucially the definitions of what is a lie, what is deception, what is fraud, and are there even differences between them is not settled science. Here then is our institutional view about whether deception and lying are different.

Are all lies morally equivalent?

Some in the Deception Science community believe that all lies are morally equivalent. That is, a kid lying about having taken cookies from the cookie jar and a military official lying about having taken part in a genocide are the same morally. While we at D.A.T.A. appreciate the attempt at drawing an absolute moral principle, we strongly disagree with this view. We do believe that there is a difference between these types of lies.

1. D.A.T.A. Institutional View #1: Lies may be distinguished from one another morally by the severity of consequence on its victims.

Embedded in our belief is an assumption: that the consequences of a lie on others matters in evaluating lies. That, in turn, implies that we can evaluate lies based on severity of outcome.

What is a lie?

Let’s share with you what we believe is the best academic definition of a lie coming from its foremost authority, Aldert Vrij, PhD:

“[A] successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue.”[i]

Vrij’s definition has several advantages:

1. 1. It incorporates intent as an important component of a lie. So, statements made in ignorance or due to forgetfulness do not count as a lie. Neither do sarcastic comments count as a lie.
   2. Lying does not require the use of words. Think of the student feigning illness to avoid going to school.
   3. It states the important lack of forewarning in a lie, so a magician’s performance is not considered a lie, because audience members know beforehand that they will be deceived.
   4. It incorporates attempts at deception, and not just successes. This definitively puts the burden of responsibility on the liar.
   5. While we like Vrij’s definition best among the academics’ there is a subtle (and we believe important) assumption lurking in his thoughts that we object to. Namely, if we refer back above to D.A.T.A.’s view that lies are not all morally equivalent due to damages done, then Vrij’s definition does not really allow for a key distinction to be made. Let’s explore this further.

Is there a difference between a lie and deception?

What is missing from Vrij’s definition is the idea that the liar and the lied-to may both benefit from the lie. At D.A.T.A. we believe this is a meaningful distinction. Specifically, we think that a deception differs from a lie because in deception it is possible for both parties to benefit. Whereas, in a lie only one party may benefit, per Vrij’s definition up above.

But how can it be that a lie (né a deception) benefits both parties? Some examples should help.

In Social Settings

In social settings deception is actually encouraged, not discouraged. If your significant other asks you if he looks good in his tuxedo before an important business function most partners understand that the socially correct answer is, “yes.” Similarly, children are encouraged to tell, for example, grandma that her cookies are delicious even if the opposite is true.

In fact, in Deception Science some academics label the distinction we are making between deception and lies with the labels “pro-social” and “anti-social” lies. At D.A.T.A. we think definitions should reveal more than they obscure, and we think using the “pro-social” and “anti-social” nomenclature does not convey the distinction well. Here is a question for consideration that we believe reveals why the deception ≠ lying is more revealing than “pro-social” vs. “anti-social” labeling:

Question: Does if feel worse to be told “You are a liar” or “You deceived me”? 

We think this mild thought experiment highlights that there is an important distinction between the words lying and deception. By contrast, if someone says “you are a pro-social liar” that requires an academic understanding of the word “pro-social” that only professors appreciate.

Last on this point, there are many additional settings beyond social where deception and lying are distinguishable.

Deception in Sporting Settings

In sports, deception is appreciated by competitors and even encouraged. For example, in cricket or baseball, bowlers/pitchers disguise their bowls/pitches to batsmen/batters. But batsmen/batters appreciate the lie. In the sport of US football plays are created and orchestrated with deception at their very heart. Again, the defense appreciates the opponent’s deception. And few competitors or fans would discredit clever deception on the part of the opposing side. Why?

There are several reasons why deception is acceptable in sports. First, let’s return to Vrij’s definition of a lie he crucially includes the importance of “forewarning” in his definition. In sports there is adequate forewarning. That is, both teams know that deception is an acceptable part of their sports. And because deception can be beneficial in life it makes sense that it is appreciated in competitions where human capability is being measured/scored while playing. If a defender in basketball wants to measure her qualities, then she appreciates the dribbler that has good fakes that increase the challenge, and hence the rewards of a good challenge that anticipates and counters the fake.

If the preceding is true, then why is cheating eschewed in sports? What constitutes cheating? At D.A.T.A. we think of cheating as more akin to lying than to deception because in cheating only one competitor benefits from the action. What is being measured in sport is human capability, and specifically the mind-body connection. This is why we object at an instinctual level to steroid use, or doctoring the ball or bat in baseball, and so on. We recognize that there is a lie present and that the liar is competing unfairly.

What is also important here as a distinction is intention. In sport the intention is not winning at all costs. If it were, then murder would be acceptable means to a win. Instead, what makes a sport a form of play is because of the agreement by participants to play by a set of rules. That is, forewarning as to acceptable behavior. Though Vrij includes forewarning in his definition of lying, he does not allow for both parties to benefit from deception.

Deception in Business Settings

At D.A.T.A. we have been told many times by venture capitalists that they want startups to dream big. Some have even told us that they prefer companies that claim that they can be “unicorns” (i.e. a company with a $1 billion+ valuation). Yet, venture capitalists know that most companies will never be unicorns. But because startups are given this feedback by prospective investors, there are incentives to represent themselves as unicorns.

Here again, both parties benefit from an institutionalized deception. Venture capitalists benefit because they believe thinking like a unicorn encourages founders to imagine a bigger world. Founders also benefit because they are likely to receive more capital by behaving as unicorns.

Theranos, by comparison, knowingly lied about its technology and only its founders stood a chance to benefit. Again, to D.A.T.A. there is an important difference between lies and deception.

Deception in Medical Settings

Deception is also a part of medicine. After all, what is the “placebo” in drug trials other than a form of deception? Because patients in drug trials are aware that they may be given a placebo, then this is a form of deception, not lying.

2. D.A.T.A. Institutional View #2: Deception is distinguished from lying because both parties, the deceiver and the deceived may benefit from the deception.

3. D.A.T.A. Institutional View #3:Deception is a successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, with forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue and that may benefit both the deceiver and the deceived.

4. D.A.T.A. Institutional View #4: Lying is a successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue and that benefits only the deceiver.

What is fraud?

Last up for consideration is what distinguishes fraud from lying and deception? In a legal setting fraud is typically defined as follows:[ii]

• “intentionally creating or reinforcing an impression that is false;
• “failing to correct an impression that is false and that the person does not believe to be true if there is a confidential or fiduciary relationship between the parties;
• “preventing another from acquiring information that is relevant to a transaction; and
• “failing to disclose a known lien or other legal impediment to property being transferred.”

What should be obvious from the above definition of fraud is that it is a lie and not mere deception. So how is fraud different from a lie according to D.A.T.A.? We believe fraud is a lie where the damages are measurable by some means. 

This includes frauds where a company has lied resulting in financial damages (see our work on scandals). Another example is that fraud may result in significant time lost, too. For example, if a company misrepresents its capabilities in filling out an RFP from a prospective client this is a fraud. The reason is that the time spent by the client uncovering the misrepresentation in their due diligence, while not necessarily resulting in a financial loss, does result in a loss of time.

Popularly people who misrepresent their capabilities are sometimes labeled as frauds. At D.A.T.A. we believe these people are more popularly labeled as liars, and if their lies result in measurable loss then their actions/behaviors/choices may be described as fraudulent.

5. D.A.T.A. Institutional View #5: All frauds are lies and all lies are deception. But not all deception is a lie and not all lies are fraudulent.

At D.A.T.A. we have placed the word deception in the heart of our name. We are confident that our technology measures around 90% of deceptive behavior for word samples of around two pages. Not all of these deceptions are necessarily lies, or even fraudulent. Nonetheless, we are certain that you as a due-diligence professional desire to know when deception is present in those with whom you do business.

Conclusion

It is far from settled in Deception Science the definitions of deception, lies, and fraud. At D.A.T.A. we believe that not all lying is morally equivalent. This leads to our institutional belief that deception, lying, and fraud all deserve different definitions. In deception, it is possible for both the deceiver and the deceived to benefit. In lying, only the liar benefits. Last, fraud is a lie in which the consequences are quantifiable.

References:

[i]Vrij, Aldert. Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities, Second Edition. Wiley (2008), p. 15

[ii]Gordon, Jason. “Criminal Fraud – Explained” The Business Professor. 24 September 2021. Accessed 3 June 2022 https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/criminal-civil-law/activity-constituting-fraud