Selective (Dis)honesty: Choosing Overly Positive Feedback Only When the Truth Hurts

• DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/uprhv_v1
• Publication Date: 2025-04-28T18:54:26Z
• Authors: Katarzyna Cantarero; Michal Bialek

In two studies (N = 886), we examined how individuals judge and select feedback providers for those who either handle criticism well or poorly after performing a low-quality task. Prosocial liars who provided overly positive feedback, were judged as more moral than honest providers. However, despite this, honest feedback providers were preferred for both oneself and others. Interestingly, when selecting a provider for a vulnerable recipient versus an unspecified other, participants favored a prosocial liar for the former. Similarly, a "sensitive" feedback provider—who tells the truth to those who handle criticism well but offers overly positive feedback to those struggling—was preferred for vulnerable recipients. Notably, the sensitive provider was not judged as less moral than the honest one, suggesting that inconsistent (dis)honesty is tolerated when it aligns with social needs. These findings indicate that individuals strategically adjust preferences for honesty versus lying based on social cues.