- Introduction
In the dialogue Cratylus, Socrates professed, “There is nothing worse than self-deception—when the deceiver is at home and always with you” (Plato, 1953, p. 374). Conversely, psychologist William James, writing in Principles of Psychology, contested that “the art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook” (William James, 1890, p. 369). Together, these two differing assertions call for an examination of what it means to deceive oneself, how it occurs, and its effects on individuals’ performance.
The dictionary definition of deception is “the act of hiding the truth, especially to get an advantage” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). Hence, self-deceit, or self-deception, can be defined as the act of hiding the truth from oneself, either by not admitting or believing the truth, by exaggerating the truth (von Hippel et al., 2011), or by believing something that is actually false (Deweese-Boyd, 2023). Self-deceit, as defined above, is complex, and is not necessarily easy to navigate. It can manifest in various forms, from Freudian defense mechanisms to cognitive forms such as avoidance and belief persistence. It may have both positive and negative personal and societal effects, being intertwined with many professions and areas of life. Through the lens of psychology, economics, and cognitive science, this essay studies self-deceit and examines its effects.
- The Psychodynamic Perspective of Self-Deceit
One of the earliest frameworks for understanding self-deceit stems from the theories of Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. He and later his daughter, Anna Freud, systemized numerous defense mechanisms that describe self-deceit as a method to defend the ego, the mind’s “core rational sense of self” (Warren, 2014, para. 5). The American Psychological Association (APA) Dictionary of Psychology defines defense mechanisms as “reaction pattern[s] employed by the ego to protect itself from the anxiety that arises from psychic conflict” (APA, 2018). Individuals' egos can be threatened when uncomfortable truths that conflict with their existing beliefs are introduced, exacerbating psychological pain and driving cognitive dissonance, an “unpleasant psychological state resulting from inconsistency between two or more elements in a cognitive system” (APA, 2018). Defense mechanisms such as denial, rationalization, and projection can help reduce such mental discomfort, showing how individuals can unconsciously deceive themselves.
II.1 Denial
Denial is when “unpleasant thoughts, feelings, wishes, or events are ignored or excluded from conscious awareness” (APA, 2023). It occurs when individuals unconsciously refuse to accept reality or facts that are troubling them. For example, a student who constantly fails tests may unconsciously deny the true cause (which is lack of preparation) and instead believe that they are naturally bad at test-taking.
II.2 Rationalization
Rationalization is a mostly unconscious defense mechanism where someone creates logically-sounding explanations to justify their behavior or thoughts that would have caused them internal anxiety, guilt, or other negative emotions. Self-deceit is often caused by someone rationalizing shortcomings into reasons other than their true cause. According to Bortolotti et al. (2012), an individual may blame someone else for his or her own limitations or shortcomings to preserve his or her ideal image of themselves. An example of rationalization is an employee upset after being passed over for a promotion rationalizes the event to protect his ego by believing that his employer was expressing favoritism.
II.3 Projection
Projection occurs when an individual unconsciously attributes their own negative thoughts and feelings onto another person to disown unwanted thoughts (Baumeister et al., 1998). The individual “projects” their thoughts and feelings to avoid recognizing their true traits. For example, a person who lies frequently may claim that others lie frequently instead.
- Cognitive Forms of Self-Deceit
Cognitive forms of self-deceit transition from the traditional Freudian psychodynamic perspective to modern frameworks to understanding deception that focuses on observing cognitive and behavioral phenomena. Similarly to the psychodynamic perspective, individuals may experience mental discomfort and cognitive dissonance when confronted with information contradictory to their beliefs and attempt to avoid them. People can purposefully avoid seeking discomforting information through information avoidance, refuse to believe contradicting knowledge through belief persistence, and recall events with self-serving bias. Self-deceit may also play a role in overconfidence as well.
III.1 Information Avoidance
Information avoidance is a common, conscious phenomenon that “prevent[s] or delay[s] the acquisition of available but potentially unwanted information” (Sweeney et al., 2010). Protecting the ego by avoiding conflicting information can create illusions of control and autonomy. For example, a person might avoid looking at his credit card statements because seeing them will force him or her to confront their spending problem and can cause dissonance. By avoiding looking at the statements, they will preserve their illusion of control and may continue their unhealthy spending.
III.2 Belief Persistence
Belief persistence, or belief perseverance, is the tendency to maintain a pre-existing belief despite being presented with compelling contradictory evidence (APA, 2018). Individuals double down on their beliefs because they cannot accept that they would be wrong and it would be hurtful to admit it. This self-deceiving phenomenon restricts individuals from acknowledging the truth or others’ perspectives. A famous example of this phenomenon was a UFO religion studied by Festinger et al. (1956) who still believed in an imminent apocalypse even after it did not occur.
III.3 Self-Serving Bias
Self-serving bias occurs when an individual associates successes with their abilities while denying responsibility for failures. Self-serving bias is “a form of self-deception designed to maintain high self-esteem" (APA, 2018). For example, an athlete may attribute a victory to their superior skill, talent, and preparation, but explain a loss by defaulting to unfavorable conditions or referee bias. Furthermore, the phenomenon of self-serving recall is a form of self-serving bias as it involves curated and biased recall of events in order to preserve self-esteem.
III.4 Is Overconfidence Self-Deceit?
The above forms of self-deceit discussed, which bolster the ego and self-image, naturally prompt the question: is overconfidence a type of self-deceit? Overconfidence occurs when an individual holds an overly positive self-image that is inconsistent with reality and “is not justified” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). It logically follows that self-deceit, which distorts individuals’ perceptions of themselves and reality, can contribute to overconfidence. Individuals’ self-perception can be shaped through both psychodynamic defense mechanisms and cognitive forms of self-deceit outlined earlier, such as twisting one’s recollections and avoiding information that would otherwise hurt their egos. By reducing and shunning feared negative information, a person may develop a more positive self-image (Taylor et al., 1988).
Lack of metacognition, the “awareness and analysis of one’s own learning or thinking processes” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.) can pave the way for self-deceit and lead to overconfidence. Fig. 1 below compares individuals’ confidence levels to their actual levels of competence in a given task.
[Unavailable]
Fig. 1 – A summarized diagram of the Dunning-Kruger effect (Kruger & Dunning, 1999); graph produced by the author.
Kruger and Dunning (1999) showed that individuals who scored in the lower quartiles on various tests drastically overestimated their competence in the subject areas. The lack of metacognitive insight may allow people to deceive themselves into believing such distorted self-perceptions.
- Is Self-Deceit Always Counterproductive?
Like Socrates condemning self-deceit in Cratylus and William James suggesting its potential value in Principles of Psychology, scholars have held differing views on the effects of self-deceit. Psychology is a vast field, and collaboration and corroboration between it and other major fields, such as economics, have yielded applicable models and findings to discuss the effects of self-deceit. This section explores conditions under which self-deceit can be detrimental or beneficial. Fig. 2 below provides a framework for the discussion. The thick, upward-sloping blue line (line A) indicates the progress of a constructive event over time (e.g., physical training or learning a new skill) in the absence of self-deceit. Conversely, the thick, downward-sloping blue line (line B) indicates the progress of a destructive event over time (e.g., progression of a disease or harmful spending) in the absence of self-deceit. The dashed lines around lines A and B are the progress of these events under the influence of self-deceit.
[Unavailable]
Fig. 2 – Possible effects of self-deceit on non-deceived baselines (lines A, B); graph created by the author.
IV.1 Self-Deceit as Detrimental
It is easy to draw the conclusion that self-deceit can be rather detrimental to performance and progress. After all, deceit carries a negative connotation, and rightfully so. Naturally, if one avoids discomforting yet useful information, uses defense mechanisms that distort perception, and is excessively overconfident due to self-deceit, it may lower the rate of progression of a constructive event (i.e., shifting line A to line A2 in Fig. 2) or exacerbate the deteriorating rate of a destructive event (i.e., shifting line B to line B2). For instance, if a person avoids an early cancer screening test due to the fear of diagnosis (a form of denial and information avoidance), then his or her future health outcome will likely be worse than if the screening test had been taken.
IV.2 Self-Deceit as Beneficial
Although self-deceit is widely considered detrimental to individual performance and well-being, self-deceit may be beneficial in some situations. Some researchers have found that self-deceit bolsters performance and progress because it creates a “positive view of oneself,” which maintains the ego and self-esteem, thereby increasing motivation (Bénabou & Tirole, 2003, pg. 6). When a moderate degree of self-deceit is then introduced, such as slightly overestimating one’s abilities and the future outcomes of a task while downplaying earlier failures, it may boost performance (shifting line A to line A1) through increased confidence and motivation. For example, an athlete who believes that they have a natural talent for a sport might train harder and endure more setbacks, thereby increasing progress over time.
Conversely, on a negative baseline (line B), conditions regress without influence from self-deceit. When some self-deceit is introduced, the decline may flatten out or even turn positive, shifting line B to line B1. For instance, an individual facing a chronic health condition who stays optimistic by having an exaggerated confidence in their ability to recover may be more motivated to adhere to treatment plans and engage in healthier behaviors. According to Gärdenfors (2023, para. 15), “Studies conducted on HIV-positive people revealed that those with excessively positive perceptions of themselves exhibited a significantly slower progression of the disease.” This supports the idea that extra motivation and overestimation can help individuals' progression and well-being.
Regarding information avoidance, some studies have shown that it may also have positive effects. The article Financial Inattention by Sicherman et al. (2016) documented that when some investors are aware of their inclination to sell during a market downturn and then purposefully neglect their portfolios during bear markets, they may actually improve investment returns, demonstrating that deliberate inattention can be an asset when used strategically, supporting William James’ assertion that “the art of being wise is the art of knowing what to overlook.”
- Concluding Remarks
Self-deceit is a natural psychological phenomenon that individuals often employ to combat negative thoughts, beliefs, or information that may harm their current belief systems and self-esteem. Self-deceit occurs in a variety of forms, from Freudian defense mechanisms to cognitive forms such as information avoidance, belief persistence, and self-serving bias. Certain forms of self-deceit (e.g., avoidance, belief persistence) can lead to over-confidence, which may, in turn, boost motivation and task initiation probability for more difficult or risky tasks.
Hiding the truth from oneself, or what we call self-deceit, serves as a double-edged sword. The nature of self-deceit is complex and judging its effects, whether positive or negative, heavily depend on the situational context. Additionally, returning to the opposing views stated in the Introduction, we can now construe that self-deceit is neither entirely beneficial nor entirely destructive. It sometimes protects and motivates us while sometimes blinds us. Through clearly characterizing self-deceit and discussing how it manifests itself as well as its effects, we can better judge when it helps and when it harms, and thereby become wiser.
References
American Psychological Association. (2018, April 19). belief perseverance. https://dictionary.apa.org/belief-perseverance.
American Psychological Association. (2018, April 19). cognitive dissonance. https://dictionary.apa.org/cognitive-dissonance.
American Psychological Association. (2018, April 19). defense mechanism. https://dictionary.apa.org/defense-mechanism.
American Psychological Association. (2018, April 19). self-serving bias. https://dictionary.apa.org/self-serving-bias.
American Psychological Association. (2023, November 15). denial. https://dictionary.apa.org/denial.
Baumeister, R., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. (1998). Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology: Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial. Blackwell Publishers. https://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/personality/readings/freuddefense…;
Bartolotti, L. & Mameli, M. (2012, February). Self-Deception, Delusion and the Boundaries of Folk Psychology. Humanamente. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3364711/.
Bénabou, R. & Tirole, J. (2003). Self-Knowledge and Self-Regulation: An Economic Approach [Final Version, April 2001]. The Psychology of Economic Decisions. https://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/selfkselfrfin.pdf.
Cambridge University Press & Assessment. (n.d.). deception. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/deception.
Deweese-Boyd, I. (2023). Self-Deception. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-deception/.
Festinger, L., Riecken, H.W., & Schachter, S. (1956, January 1). When Prophecy Fails. Harper & Row Publishers.
Gärdenfors, P. (2023, July 16). The Noble Art of Self-Deception. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-is-a-human/202307/the-nobl…;
James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology (Vol. 1). Henry Holt and Company.
Kruger, J. & Dunning, D. (2000, January). Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12688660_Unskilled_and_Unaware…;
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). metacognition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metacognition.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). overconfidence. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overconfidence.
von Hippel, W. & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Cambridge University Press. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/swann/files/2016/03/brooks-17-18.pdf
Sicherman, N., Loewenstein, G., Seppi, D.J., & Utkus, S.P. (2015, November 19). Financial Inattention. Oxford University Press. https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/loewenstein/FinancialAttention.pd…;
Sweeny, K., Melnyk, D., Miller, W., & Shepperd, J. A. (2010). Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why. Review of General Psychology, 14(4), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021288
Plato. (1953). The Dialogues of Plato (B. Jowett, trans.). Clarendon Press.
Taylor, S.E. & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
Warren, C.S. (2014). Honest Liars: Using Psychological Theory to Understand Self-Deception. Psi Chi. https://www.psichi.org/page/183EyeSprSum14aWarr.
Comments
Log in or register to post comments.