Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Self-deception

Self-deception is a psychological process whereby individuals acquire, maintain, or act upon false beliefs or distorted perceptions of reality, driven by motivations such as emotional comfort, self-enhancement, or the facilitation of interpersonal deception, despite awareness of contradictory evidence.^[1]^[2] This phenomenon manifests empirically in patterns like overconfidence in personal abilities, selective memory favoring positive outcomes, and discrepancies between explicit self-reports and implicit measures of cognition, which suggest unconscious biasing mechanisms rather than mere error.^[3]^[4] Philosophically, self-deception poses paradoxes, including the static puzzle of simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs and the dynamic challenge of intentionally inducing one's own false conviction without self-sabotage.^[5] In evolutionary terms, it is theorized to confer adaptive advantages by enabling more convincing lies to others—through reduced cognitive cues like hesitation or guilt—while compartmentalizing unflattering truths in the unconscious mind to preserve conscious self-regard and social signaling.^[6] Empirical support includes studies showing self-deceivers exhibit lower physiological stress when propagating falsehoods and higher social success in competitive contexts, though benefits diminish under repeated evidentiary confrontation.^[7]^[3] Notable characteristics include its prevalence across cultures and contexts, from everyday rationalizations to pathological forms in disorders like depression or addiction, where it correlates with impaired decision-making and reduced adaptability.^[8] Controversies persist over its intentionality—whether it requires deliberate effort or emerges from automatic motivational biases—and its net utility, as unchecked self-deception can lead to maladaptive outcomes like financial ruin or relational failures, underscoring tensions between short-term psychological relief and long-term causal fidelity to reality.^[9]^[10]

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Scope

Self-deception denotes the motivated acquisition and maintenance of a false or misleading belief in the face of substantial countervailing evidence, often serving to protect the self from psychological discomfort or to facilitate interpersonal advantages.^[11] This process typically involves selective attention to confirmatory information, rationalization of dissonant facts, and sometimes subconscious partitioning of awareness, whereby part of the mind recognizes the truth while another endorses the deception.^[12] Empirical studies indicate that self-deception manifests in domains such as overestimation of personal abilities, with participants in experiments rating their performance above objective benchmarks by margins of 20-30% on average.^[13] The scope of self-deception encompasses both static beliefs and dynamic behaviors, ranging from mild positive illusions—such as the tendency to view oneself as above average in traits like driving skill, reported by 65-80% of surveyed drivers despite statistical impossibility—to more profound denials of reality, like persisting in harmful habits despite medical warnings.^[2] It excludes unintentional cognitive errors or random misperceptions, requiring a motivational component that biases evidence evaluation, as evidenced by neuroimaging showing heightened activity in reward-related brain areas during self-flattering judgments.^[14] Unlike clinical delusions, which often involve global reality distortion without preserved insight, self-deception preserves some latent awareness of truth, allowing for potential reversal under scrutiny, though resistance to disconfirmation persists due to ego-protective mechanisms.^[15] This bounded phenomenon operates within everyday cognition, influencing decisions from personal relationships to professional judgments, but does not extend to fully dissociated states like those in dissociative identity disorder.^[16] Self-deception involves the motivated adoption and maintenance of false beliefs through biased processing of information, distinguishing it from unintentional cognitive errors or neutral judgment heuristics that prioritize accuracy without goal-directed distortion.^[6] This motivation often serves self-protective or interpersonal functions, such as enhancing confidence or facilitating deception of others, rather than arising from mere cognitive shortcuts like standard confirmation bias.^[6] Key mechanisms include selective information search that favors confirmatory evidence—such as delaying review of negative medical test results or preferring ideologically aligned news sources—and biased interpretation that reframes ambiguous data to support preferred narratives, as seen in polarized responses to the same evidence in debates over capital punishment.^[6] Unlike cognitive dissonance, which entails psychological tension from conflicting cognitions (e.g., awareness of health risks while continuing harmful behaviors) resolved via attitude adjustment or behavioral change, self-deception specifically injects erroneous facts into one's belief set to render a suboptimal decision ex ante optimal, without necessarily addressing the underlying conflict through non-distortive means.^[17] For instance, an investor might systematically ignore evidence of risks to convince themselves of a flawed opportunity's viability, going beyond dissonance reduction's typical rationalizations.^[17] Self-deception also contrasts with delusions, which manifest as fixed, pathological false beliefs impervious to overwhelming counterevidence (e.g., persistent claims of supernatural abilities despite disproof), whereas self-deceptive distortions are typically flexible, context-bound, and non-clinical, allowing for partial responsiveness to reality under scrutiny.^[17] It differs from moral licensing, where prior virtuous acts (e.g., charitable donations) justify subsequent immoral ones without altering factual beliefs about the acts themselves, lacking self-deception's proactive fact injection for decision optimization.^[17] Definitions of self-deception vary, with some equating it to positive illusions—optimistic biases from selective attention or forgetting unwelcome data—while stricter views require the false belief to endure disconfirming evidence or coexist with an unconscious true belief, setting it apart from transient or untested illusions.^[12] Biased memory processes further demarcate it, as individuals distort recollections (e.g., retroactively attributing success to innate skills rather than effort) or confabulate justifications for choices, driven by motives like self-esteem preservation, unlike unmotivated memory errors.^[6] These elements underscore self-deception's active, often subconscious partitioning of cognition to sustain deception, beyond passive avoidance in denial or post-hoc excusing in mere rationalization.^[6]^[12]

Historical Perspectives

Philosophical Origins

The philosophical discussion of self-deception originated in ancient Greek thought, with Socrates emphasizing it as a fundamental barrier to genuine knowledge. Socrates characterized self-deception as the mistaken belief that one possesses understanding in areas where ignorance prevails, often stemming from unexamined assumptions that masquerade as wisdom.^[18] This Socratic insight, preserved through Plato's dialogues, positioned self-deception not merely as error but as a willful evasion of inquiry, exemplified in the elenchus method where interlocutors' pretensions to expertise unravel under scrutiny, revealing their underlying ignorance.^[19] Plato developed this theme systematically in The Republic, introducing the "lie in the soul" as the gravest form of falsehood, wherein an individual harbors contradictory convictions—affirming both truth and its negation simultaneously—thus engendering psychic fragmentation.^[20] Occurring around 375 BCE, this concept underscores self-deception's internal peril: unlike noble lies told to others for societal harmony, the lie in the soul deceives the self without external agency, corrupting reason's dominion over desire and spirit.^[21] Plato argued that such deception arises from unchecked appetites blinding the soul to reality, necessitating philosophical education to purge it and restore unity.^[22] Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics (circa 350 BCE), extended these ideas through akrasia, or weakness of will, where agents knowingly pursue inferior ends due to perceptual distortions that approximate self-deceptive rationalizations.^[23] Unlike full ignorance, akrasia involves partial awareness overridden by passion, implying a motivated misrepresentation of goods that echoes Platonic internal conflict but attributes it to cognitive partitioning rather than outright belief contradiction.^[24] In the early modern period, René Descartes confronted self-deception epistemologically in Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), framing it as the peril of assenting to unclear ideas under motivational influence, akin to Socratic false knowledge but amplified by hyperbolic doubt to test indubitability.^[25] Descartes viewed unchecked senses and preconceptions as sources of self-induced error, advocating methodical skepticism to dismantle deceptive faculties and secure foundational truths immune to such subversion.^[26] This approach marked a shift toward self-deception as a solvable methodological issue, influencing subsequent rationalist inquiries into belief formation.

Emergence in Psychological Science

The concept of self-deception entered psychological science with Else Frenkel-Brunswik's 1939 paper "Mechanisms of Self-Deception," which analyzed it as a defense mechanism involving selective perception, denial, and rationalization, particularly in individuals exhibiting authoritarian prejudice and intolerance of ambiguity.^[27] Her empirical approach drew on psychoanalytic ideas but applied them to measurable social attitudes, marking the first dedicated psychological investigation rather than purely philosophical speculation.^[28] This work highlighted self-deception's role in maintaining cognitive consistency amid conflicting evidence, though it received limited immediate follow-up amid broader focus on Freudian theory without rigorous testing. Interest waned post-World War II, overshadowed by behaviorism and early cognitive psychology, until the late 1970s when Harold Sackeim and Ruben Gur pioneered empirical operationalization. In their 1979 study, they developed questionnaires to distinguish self-deception (denying unfavorable truths to oneself) from other-deception (lying to others), administering them to 250 undergraduates alongside psychopathology inventories.^[29] They identified self-deception through dissociations, such as subjects rating themselves more positively when reading statements aloud versus silently, suggesting subconscious avoidance of dissonance; higher self-deception scores correlated negatively with reported psychopathology, implying an adaptive function in mental health.^[30] Their follow-up argued the phenomenon warranted phenomenon status beyond mere concept, providing the first quantifiable evidence via response biases and implicit-explicit belief splits.^[30] This operational framework spurred growth in the 1980s, integrating self-deception with cognitive dissonance theory and emerging social cognition research. Studies began testing it as a trait-like bias, with scales like the Self-Deception Questionnaire revealing consistent patterns in self-enhancement and denial across populations.^[31] By the 1990s, empirical work expanded to neuroimaging and experimental paradigms, confirming motivational influences on belief formation without invoking paradoxical intentionality, though debates persisted on measurement validity given reliance on indirect indicators.^[32] These developments established self-deception as a verifiable process in psychological science, distinct from mere error or bias, supported by replicable findings on its prevalence in everyday cognition.

Philosophical Dimensions

Core Paradoxes

The primary paradoxes in philosophical accounts of self-deception emerge when the phenomenon is modeled on interpersonal deception, leading to apparent logical impossibilities. The static paradox posits that self-deception requires an individual to hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously: the self-deceiver must know the truth (believe p) while also believing the falsehood (not-p), as the deceiver's awareness of reality is necessary to conceal it from the deceived part of the mind.^[33]^[34] This violates the principle that beliefs are typically consistent within a single cognitive agent, raising questions about how partitioned mental states could sustain such duality without collapsing into mere error or ignorance.^[35] The dynamic paradox challenges intentionalist theories, which hold that self-deception involves a deliberate intention to induce a false belief. To succeed, the agent must form an intention to believe not-p despite knowing p is true, but this intention presupposes ongoing access to the truth, which would prevent the acquisition of the targeted false belief and render the project self-undermining.^[33] For instance, intending to convince oneself of a comforting lie requires monitoring the deception's progress, yet such vigilance preserves knowledge of the underlying facts, perpetuating a motivational tension between evidence and desire.^[36] These paradoxes, first systematically articulated in mid-20th-century analytic philosophy, underscore the strain on rational agency, as self-deception appears to demand both hyper-rational control (to orchestrate the deceit) and irrational credulity (to accept the outcome).^[37] A further implication, sometimes termed the paradox of intentionality, extends these issues to the motivational structure: if self-deception is goal-directed, the self-deceiver's awareness of the goal (to evade discomfort or maintain self-esteem) implies meta-knowledge that sabotages sincerity, akin to an actor who cannot fully inhabit the role while recalling the script.^[38] Empirical analogs in cognitive psychology, such as selective attention biases, suggest these paradoxes may reflect over-literal analogies to other-deception rather than inherent impossibilities, but philosophical treatments emphasize their persistence in explaining motivated false beliefs without positing divided minds or subpersonal modules.^[39]

Intentionalist and Non-Intentionalist Theories

Intentionalist theories of self-deception model the phenomenon as a form of intentional agency akin to interpersonal deception, wherein the agent purposefully induces a false belief in a partitioned aspect of their mind while retaining disbelief in another.^[40] These accounts require the self-deceiver to engage in deliberate strategies, such as selective attention or evidence manipulation, to foster the desired belief, thereby resolving the static paradox of holding contradictory beliefs (p and not-p) through mental compartmentalization.^[41] Proponents, including those emphasizing robust purposiveness, argue this intentionality explains the motivated nature of self-deception, distinguishing it from mere error by positing that the agent knows the truth yet acts to obscure it from conscious access.^[42] Critics contend, however, that such models amplify the dynamic paradox: intentionally acquiring a false belief presupposes awareness of its falsity, undermining the deception's success.^[43] Non-intentionalist theories reject the need for explicit intention to deceive, attributing self-deception instead to subpersonal or motivational biases that systematically distort evidence evaluation without conscious aim.^[35] Alfred Mele, a prominent defender, describes typical self-deception as "twisted" belief acquisition driven by desires that bias information processing—such as heightened skepticism toward disconfirming evidence or overemphasis on confirming data—resulting in a false belief that feels epistemically justified.^[44] In his 2001 analysis, Mele argues this process avoids paradoxes by lacking the interpersonal deceiver's knowledge of deceit, relying instead on automatic cognitive mechanisms amplified by motivation, as evidenced in experimental paradigms showing desire-influenced judgment shifts without reported intent.^[45] Agentive variants, like Kevin Lynch's 2020 framework, incorporate limited agency through habitual or dispositional tendencies to favor self-enhancing interpretations, preserving responsibility without full intentionality.^[38] The debate hinges on empirical testability: intentionalist views predict detectable strategic behaviors, potentially verifiable via introspection or neuroimaging of executive control, whereas non-intentionalists align with findings from cognitive psychology demonstrating implicit biases in belief updating under emotional stakes, such as reduced neural activity in error-detection regions during motivated reasoning.^[46] Neither paradigm fully resolves source credibility issues in self-reports, as biased subjects may understate intentions, but non-intentionalist accounts gain traction from replicable lab studies (e.g., selective exposure experiments post-2000) over anecdotal philosophical introspection.^[47]

Evolutionary Theories

Trivers' Theory of Self-Deception

Robert Trivers, an evolutionary biologist, proposed that self-deception functions primarily as an adaptive mechanism to facilitate deception of others in social interactions. According to this theory, individuals who deceive themselves about their own motives, abilities, or actions can more convincingly mislead others, as genuine belief in falsehoods eliminates detectable cues of conscious lying, such as physiological arousal, inconsistent narratives, or behavioral hesitation.^[1] This unconscious internalization of deception allows the conscious mind to promote self-serving falsehoods without the self-awareness that might betray insincerity.^[48] Trivers argued that natural selection favored self-deception because interpersonal deception confers reproductive advantages, such as gaining resources, mates, or alliances by manipulating perceptions of one's traits or intentions. For instance, overconfidence in one's prowess—achieved through self-deceptive bias—can project unshakeable conviction, deterring rivals or attracting partners more effectively than accurate but modest self-assessments.^[49] The theory posits a modular mind structure, where unconscious processes handle reality-based information (e.g., genuine skill limitations) while the conscious self accesses a sanitized, positively biased version, enabling fluid social maneuvering without internal conflict leaking outward.^[6] In his 2011 book The Folly of Fools: The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life, Trivers extended the theory to explain widespread human follies, including ideological delusions and group-level self-deceptions that amplify individual biases for collective cohesion or competitive edge. He emphasized that self-deception's costs, such as poor decision-making from distorted realities, are outweighed by benefits in zero-sum social contests, where deceiving others yields asymmetric gains.^[50] Trivers contrasted this with deliberate lying, noting that self-deception operates below awareness, often via motivated reasoning or selective memory, to maintain the illusion indefinitely.^[51]

Adaptive Roles in Interpersonal Deception

Self-deception enhances the success of interpersonal deception by enabling deceivers to suppress behavioral and physiological cues that betray conscious lying, such as nervousness, inconsistent narratives, or elevated stress responses. Evolutionary theorists propose that deceiving oneself about the truth allows individuals to present falsehoods with genuine conviction, making them harder for others to detect. This adaptation minimizes the risk of failed deception, which could lead to social ostracism or retaliation in ancestral environments where deception was common in competition for resources, mates, and status.^[1] A key mechanism involves reduced cognitive load: conscious deceivers must juggle awareness of the truth alongside the fabricated story, increasing mental effort and error rates, whereas self-deceived individuals operate from a unified, albeit false, belief system that streamlines communication and rehearsal. This facilitates more fluid and persuasive delivery, as the deceiver avoids the mental partitioning required for deliberate lies. Empirical tests support this, with experiments showing that participants induced to self-deceive about their abilities exhibit fewer detectable deception cues and higher persuasion rates compared to those aware of their dishonesty.^[1]^[52] Additionally, self-deception provides a buffer against post-deception consequences; if exposed, self-deceived deceivers can maintain plausible deniability, claiming sincere belief rather than intentional fraud, which reduces retribution from targets or observers. Studies on positive illusions—self-enhancing biases akin to self-deception—demonstrate that such distortions correlate with superior negotiation outcomes and social influence, as overconfident presentations signal commitment and deter scrutiny. For example, in mock sales scenarios, individuals with inflated self-views outperformed others in convincing buyers, attributing success to unfeigned enthusiasm rather than scripted guile. This adaptive linkage underscores self-deception's role in bolstering competitive interpersonal strategies, though it risks long-term errors if unchecked by reality.^[1]^[12]^[52]

Empirical Evidence and Testing

Empirical tests of evolutionary theories of self-deception, particularly Trivers' hypothesis that it aids interpersonal deception by suppressing cues to conscious lying, have employed experimental paradigms measuring memory access, persuasion success, and behavioral biases. In a series of studies using a dual-retrieval memory task, participants (total N=144 across three experiments) were instructed to deceive either high-status (e.g., a teacher) or equal-status (e.g., peer) targets about personal traits. Self-deception was operationalized as reduced access to self-relevant true information during the deception phase (first retrieval), with recovery in a solitary second retrieval. Results showed significantly lower hit rates and sensitivity (d') when deceiving high-status targets—for instance, in Study 1, high-status hit rate dropped from 0.77 to 0.65 (F(1,42)=27.06, p<0.001)—indicating adaptive temporary suppression of veridical self-knowledge to avoid detection cues, with effects persisting in voluntary deception scenarios.^[53] Further evidence links self-deception to enhanced persuasion in motivated contexts. In an experiment with 306 participants assigned to persuade others about a target's likeability, those incentivized to form self-deceptive beliefs (via biased information selection) exhibited greater alignment between their convictions and persuasive arguments, yielding higher persuasiveness ratings (interaction F(2,300)=9.09, p<0.001). This supports the adaptive interpersonal function by demonstrating how self-conviction reduces inconsistencies detectable by audiences.^[52] Game-theoretic models of self-deception as self-signaling have also received experimental validation. In a categorization task with 85 participants incentivized for accuracy on unfamiliar stimuli, self-deceptive endorsements (misclassifying items to affirm preferred outcomes) occurred at rates of 53% under classification bonuses and 73% under anticipation bonuses (p<0.05), with self-reported confidence peaking at moderate deception levels, consistent with signaling internal states to oneself without full awareness of conflict.^[54] Reviews of broader psychological literature corroborate these findings indirectly through reduced deception cues. For example, meta-analyses identify verbal and nonverbal inconsistencies as primary detection signals, which self-deception minimizes by compartmentalizing true beliefs unconsciously, as evidenced in longitudinal studies where deceivers with self-enhancing biases evaded detection longer among familiar others.^[48] However, direct causal evidence remains constrained by measurement challenges, such as reliance on indirect proxies like implicit attitudes or short-term memory tasks, with calls for longitudinal and cross-cultural designs to strengthen evolutionary inferences.^[48]

Psychological Mechanisms

Cognitive and Motivational Processes

Cognitive processes underlying self-deception include selective attention to favorable evidence, biased interpretation of ambiguous information, and distortions in metacognitive monitoring of one's own beliefs and attributions. In contexts of high ambiguity, individuals form false beliefs by flexibly attributing behaviors to internal or external causes in a self-serving manner, as ambiguity allows for interpretive leeway that aligns with desired outcomes.^[55] Empirical studies using modified numerical discrimination tasks demonstrate that self-deception emerges in effortless cheating scenarios, where prediction errors correlate with inflated self-efficacy beliefs (r = .27, p = .018), rather than in effortful contexts requiring deliberate control.^[55] Metacognitively, this involves impaired self-awareness, linked to reduced activity or altered signaling in the anterior medial prefrontal cortex (amPFC), as evidenced by fMRI and event-related potential (ERP) data showing differential frontal slow wave amplitudes during self-enhancing versus self-diminishing predictions.^[55] Motivational processes propel these cognitive biases by prioritizing self-enhancement, dissonance reduction, and emotional comfort over accuracy. Desires to maintain a positive self-view or avoid anxiety motivate the selective processing of information, often operating through subsystems that generate self-serving conclusions without full conscious oversight.^[56] Self-deception thereby serves as an affective coping mechanism, integrating motivational goals with cognitive distortions to sustain false beliefs that buffer against negative feedback.^[10] A key mechanism reducing the costs of self-deception is the impairment of involuntary conscious memory (ICM), which temporarily suppresses spontaneous recall of contradictory truths, thereby lowering overall cognitive load compared to interpersonal deception. Experiments employing NASA-TLX workload assessments found self-deception groups reported significantly lower mental demand (M = 33.79) than deception groups (M = 62.02, p < 0.01), with ICM impairment more pronounced when deceiving high-status targets (M = 5.36 vs. M = 7.40 for low-status, p < 0.01).^[14] Under high cognitive load, self-deception rates increase (M = 47.36 vs. M = 30.98 for low load, p < 0.01), suggesting it functions as an automatic, low-effort strategy to resolve motivational conflicts.^[14] These processes can be bidirectional, encompassing both self-aggrandizing illusions and self-diminishing false beliefs, depending on contextual incentives.^[55]

Associated Biases and Heuristics

Self-deception often manifests through cognitive biases that systematically distort information processing to align with desired self-views or outcomes. Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek, interpret, and recall information in ways that confirm preexisting beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence, plays a central role in sustaining self-deceptive narratives.^[57] For instance, individuals prone to self-deception may disproportionately attend to supportive data, such as selectively remembering successes while downplaying failures, thereby reinforcing illusory competence or moral self-regard.^[58] This bias facilitates self-deception by creating a feedback loop where dissonant realities are filtered out, as evidenced in experimental paradigms where participants rated ambiguous feedback more favorably when it aligned with ego-protective hypotheses.^[57] Motivated reasoning represents another intertwined process, wherein cognitive efforts are directed toward justifying conclusions that serve emotional or motivational needs rather than objective truth, effectively enabling self-deception without full awareness of the distortion.^[59] In this framework, desires—such as preserving self-esteem or avoiding anxiety—bias evidence evaluation, leading to rationalizations that mask unflattering truths; for example, smokers may emphasize rare cases of long-term health despite statistical risks to maintain the deception of personal invulnerability.^[60] Empirical studies demonstrate that such reasoning activates when stakes are high, with neural patterns indicating preferential processing of self-serving interpretations over neutral analysis.^[59] The optimism bias, characterized by overestimating the likelihood of positive events and underestimating negatives, functions as a self-deceptive heuristic by fostering unrealistic expectations that buffer against harsh realities.^[61] This bias is not merely erroneous forecasting but can involve motivated memory retrieval, where past experiences are selectively recalled to support inflated self-projections, as opposed to deliberate lying to oneself. Research distinguishes this from pure self-deception by attributing it partly to probabilistic processing heuristics rather than conscious suppression, though it persists in self-deceptive contexts like denying personal health risks.^[61] In aggregate, these biases and heuristics underscore self-deception's reliance on efficient but error-prone mental shortcuts that prioritize psychological comfort over accuracy.^[62]

Neuroscientific Findings

Neuroimaging studies have identified the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) as a central region in self-deception, linking it to self-referential processing, metacognitive monitoring, and the suppression of dissonant information.^[63] The mPFC's role appears to facilitate biased self-attributions by integrating emotional and cognitive signals, potentially allowing individuals to maintain false beliefs without conscious conflict.^[55] Disruption of mPFC activity, as induced in experimental settings, correlates with reduced self-deceptive responding, suggesting its necessity for sustaining motivated misbeliefs.^[64] Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research demonstrates that self-deception activates the mPFC alongside ventrolateral prefrontal regions during tasks involving impression management and biased self-evaluation, distinct from overt lying which more heavily recruits dorsolateral prefrontal areas for executive control.^[65] In one paradigm, participants engaging in effortless cheating showed heightened mPFC activity tied to the formation of false self-beliefs, indicating that self-deception may emerge from automated, low-effort cognitive distortions rather than deliberate suppression.^[66] These patterns differ from interpersonal deception, where broader frontoparietal networks handle theory-of-mind inferences about others' beliefs.^[67] Electroencephalography (EEG) findings reveal frontal slow-wave amplitudes as markers of self-deceptive tendencies, particularly in ambiguous scenarios where attributional uncertainty enables distorted metacognition.^[68] Increased slow-wave activity in anterior regions correlates with reduced metacognitive accuracy, supporting the view that self-deception involves impaired error signaling and confidence calibration in prefrontal networks.^[55] Positron emission tomography (PET) evidence further implicates dopaminergic modulation within these circuits, enhancing motivational biases that reinforce self-flattering illusions over veridical self-assessment.^[69] Emerging data from brain stimulation and lesion studies reinforce the mPFC's causal involvement, with transient inactivation leading to more veridical self-reports in moral and ability domains.^[70] However, variability across studies highlights context-dependence, as self-deception recruits overlapping but non-identical networks compared to confabulation or false memory, underscoring the need for paradigms distinguishing intentional from incidental biases.^[71]

Clinical and Applied Contexts

Associations with Mental Disorders

Self-deception exhibits inverse associations with depression, where individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder demonstrate significantly lower levels of self-deceptive tendencies compared to healthy controls, potentially exacerbating negative self-appraisals and rumination.^[72] A 2010 study found that depressed participants scored lower on self-deception measures and exhibited reduced cooperative behaviors, suggesting that diminished self-deception may contribute to the persistence of depressive symptoms by failing to mitigate harsh self-criticism.^[72] Conversely, moderate self-deception correlates with better mental health outcomes, buffering against depression through self-enhancing biases that promote resilience, as evidenced by longitudinal data linking higher self-deception to lower depressive symptom severity over time.^[73]^[74] In psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, self-deception often manifests as anosognosia or unawareness of illness, a phenomenon distinct from depressive insight deficits yet correlated with them.^[75] Research from 1999 analyzed 50 schizophrenia patients and reported that unawareness of illness positively related to self-deception scales, independent of depression levels, implying a motivated denial mechanism that impairs treatment adherence.^[75] Extreme forms of self-deception in these contexts can escalate into fixed delusional beliefs, where individuals rationalize contradictory evidence to maintain coherence, as modeled in computational studies of paranoia showing self-deception amplifying overconfidence in erroneous self-perceptions.^[13]^[76] Associations with anxiety disorders reveal self-deception as a coping strategy that attenuates acute distress but may become maladaptive at high levels.^[74] Empirical findings from a 2014 study of 200 adults indicated that self-deception inversely predicted anxiety symptoms, functioning as a cognitive buffer, though excessive reliance obscured underlying anxiety, potentially delaying intervention.^[74] In personality disorders like narcissism, self-deceptive grandiosity sustains inflated self-views, correlating with distorted metacognition and interpersonal dysfunction, as per factor analyses of self-deception questionnaires linking it to narcissistic traits over general psychopathology.^[77] Paranoia, often comorbid with anxiety or psychosis, further entwines with self-deception, where heightened suspiciousness drives biased evidence interpretation, per 2021 modeling that attributed group differences in self-deceptive overconfidence primarily to paranoia rather than anxiety alone.^[78] Delusional disorders represent a pathological extreme, where self-deception transitions from adaptive distortion to entrenched false beliefs resistant to disconfirmation.^[79] Philosophical and empirical analyses posit that while everyday self-deception involves intentional anxiety reduction, its dysregulation in delusions—such as those in affective psychosis—renders subjects potentially responsible if motivational elements persist, though neurocognitive deficits complicate attribution.^[79] Cross-sectional data from forensic samples confirm elevated self-deception in delusional patients, associating it with poorer insight and higher recidivism risks, underscoring causal pathways from unchecked self-deceptive processes to clinical impairment.^[80] These links highlight self-deception's dual role: protective in moderation against mood disorders but contributory to psychotic decompensation when amplified.

Factors Influencing Persistence and Decay

Self-deception persists when individuals avoid or selectively process disconfirming evidence, reinforced by motivational pressures to maintain positive self-views or reduce cognitive dissonance. In experimental paradigms, such as general knowledge tests allowing cheating, overconfident predictions indicative of self-deception remain elevated across initial trials without repeated unbiased feedback on actual performance.^[81] In clinical settings, particularly substance dependence, self-deception manifests as denial and rationalization of drug use, sustaining addiction by minimizing awareness of long-term harms while emphasizing perceived short-term benefits like craving relief; scores on self-deception measures are significantly higher in dependent patients (mean differences p<0.001), correlating positively with craving intensity and personality disorders such as borderline (prevalence 34.5%).^[82] Persistence is further bolstered by inconsistent or ambiguous environmental cues, as well as internal factors like core addiction beliefs that distort reality to justify continued use.^[83] Negative correlation with abstinence duration (β = -0.271, p = 0.036) underscores how ongoing reinforcement from drug effects and social contexts impedes decay.^[83] Decay occurs primarily through sustained confrontation with empirical reality, as demonstrated in longitudinal studies where self-deception erodes only after multiple exposures to accurate performance feedback, such as exact test scores revealing discrepancies between predictions and outcomes (e.g., overprediction t=3.67, p=0.001 on initial post-cheat trial, diminishing by fourth trial t=1.13, p=0.27).^[81] Real negative feedback—providing precise disconfirming data—accelerates this process more than ambiguous feedback (e.g., "below average"), eliminating inflated self-predictions by subsequent trials in forward-looking paradigms.^[84] In addiction treatment, decay correlates with prolonged abstinence and targeted interventions disrupting denial, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy emphasizing evidence of consequences, which lowers self-deception and improves prognosis.^[83] However, self-deception revives rapidly upon re-exposure to self-enhancing opportunities, like renewed cheating incentives, overriding prior learning (F=6.73, p=0.01).^[81] Monetary rewards can similarly hasten revival by amplifying motivational biases.^[84]

Empirical Illustrations

Real-World Examples

A common manifestation of self-deception occurs in self-assessments of competence, where individuals systematically overestimate their abilities compared to peers, defying statistical realities. For example, in empirical investigations, the majority of drivers—approximately 93% in one study of Swedish motorists—rated themselves as safer and more skillful than the average driver, despite accident data indicating otherwise.^[85] This illusory superiority persists even among those with objectively poor performance, as seen in tasks requiring logical reasoning or grammar, where bottom-quartile participants placed themselves in the 62nd percentile.^[86] Such distortions arise from deficient metacognition, enabling individuals to maintain motivating but false beliefs about their efficacy. In interpersonal and familial settings, self-deception often sustains overly positive views of close relations despite disconfirming evidence. Parents, for instance, may convince themselves of a child's academic prowess amid failing grades by reorganizing beliefs (e.g., deeming the subject irrelevant), selectively avoiding facts like parent-teacher reports, or discrediting unfavorable sources.^[87] This process, documented in analyses of everyday cognition, bolsters the parent's self-concept as a competent guardian but can prolong inaction on underlying issues, as the deceived party resists integrating reality-altering information.^[88] Self-deception also appears in risk perception during uncertain events, such as initial responses to novel health threats. During the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, some individuals downplayed potential vaccine side effects to avert anxiety and preserve behavioral continuity, employing strategies like ambiguous interpretation of preliminary data despite emerging safety evidence.^[87] While this temporarily stabilizes motivation and self-image in ambiguous conditions, it can exacerbate collective risks when contradicted by accumulating empirical data, highlighting self-deception's dual potential for short-term equilibrium at the expense of adaptive long-term responses.^[88]

Experimental Paradigms

One prominent experimental paradigm for detecting self-deception involves the bogus pipeline, a technique where participants are connected to a fake physiological monitoring device, such as a purported lie detector or biofeedback machine, to elicit more honest self-reports by convincing them that deception will be detectable.^[89] This method reveals discrepancies indicative of self-deception when responses under bogus pipeline conditions differ from standard self-reports, as seen in studies where high-defensiveness individuals, such as repressors, alter their trait anxiety reports under the belief of involuntary truth revelation, suggesting interference with self-deceptive strategies.^[90] The paradigm's utility lies in its ability to bypass conscious self-presentation, though ethical concerns arise from its inherent deception, with meta-analyses confirming its effectiveness in uncovering socially undesirable attitudes across numerous studies since its development in the late 1960s.^[91] Another paradigm employs incentive-based categorization tasks to induce and measure self-deceptive judgments, particularly in the self-signaling framework, where participants categorize ambiguous stimuli (e.g., dot patterns as words or non-words) under financial rewards that motivate biased perceptions favoring self-enhancement.^[54] In such experiments, participants reliably exhibit self-deception by perceiving more positive outcomes than objective measures warrant, with error rates decreasing under incentives that align with self-serving interpretations, providing evidence that self-deception facilitates interpersonal deception by reducing cognitive cues of insincerity.^[6] This approach demonstrates self-deception as an adaptive process, replicable across trials, though it requires careful control for demand characteristics to isolate genuine bias from strategic responding. The forward-looking self-deception paradigm tests self-deception's cognitive costs by having participants form optimistic predictions about future performance (e.g., on trivia questions) before receiving feedback, comparing cognitive load via secondary tasks like mental arithmetic.^[14] Experiments show that self-deceivers experience reduced cognitive load compared to deceivers, as involuntary belief formation in self-deception avoids the dual mental tracking required for deliberate lies, with follow-up tests confirming impaired recall under self-deceptive conditions due to suppressed counterevidence.^[3] When paired with repeated evidence confrontation, self-deception decays slowly but revives quickly without sustained challenge, highlighting its persistence as a motivated process rather than mere error.^[92] These paradigms collectively underscore self-deception's empirical detectability through methodological manipulations that exploit motivational asymmetries, though results vary with ambiguity levels, as vague feedback enables self-serving reinterpretations more than precise data.^[93]

Criticisms and Debates

Challenges to the Concept's Coherence

The concept of self-deception encounters significant philosophical challenges, primarily through two interrelated paradoxes that question its logical coherence. The static paradox posits that self-deception requires an individual to simultaneously hold a belief p and its negation not-p, which appears incompatible with the nature of belief as a unified cognitive state.^[46] This tension arises because genuine belief implies commitment to truth, rendering contradictory beliefs incoherent within a single mind unless partitioned into dissociated compartments, a mechanism lacking empirical support in standard psychological models.^[36] Critics argue this paradox undermines literal interpretations of self-deception, suggesting instead that apparent cases reduce to mere error or bias without true deception.^[94] The dynamic paradox compounds the issue by highlighting the impracticality of intentional self-deception: to deceive oneself, one must intentionally adopt a false belief while evading awareness of the deception, yet forming such an intention presupposes knowledge of the falsehood, which sabotages the process.^[46] Intentionalist accounts, which analogize self-deception to interpersonal lying, falter here, as the deceiver and deceived cannot coherently occupy the same conscious agent without motivational inconsistencies surfacing.^[95] Empirical attempts to operationalize self-deception in experiments often evade this by measuring biased information processing rather than verified intentional duality, further questioning whether the phenomenon coheres as a distinct mental state.^[15] These paradoxes have led some theorists to reject self-deception as a unified concept, proposing deflationary alternatives like motivated irrationality or selective attention, where desires influence evidence evaluation without requiring paradoxical belief structures.^[94] For instance, Alfred Mele contends that assuming intentionality and contradictory beliefs mischaracterizes ordinary cases, which better align with non-intentional mechanisms such as biased confirmation-seeking, avoiding the paradoxes altogether.^[46] Such critiques emphasize that while self-flattering errors occur, labeling them "self-deception" imports interpersonal deception's intentionality, which empirical data from cognitive psychology—showing gradual belief shifts via heuristics rather than deliberate deceit—does not substantiate.^[54] This perspective prioritizes causal processes like affective coping over paradoxical agency, rendering the traditional concept explanatorily superfluous.^[96]

Alternative Explanations

Motivated reasoning offers an explanation for biased belief maintenance without invoking the intentional deception central to traditional self-deception accounts. In this framework, individuals engage in goal-directed cognitive processing that selectively interprets or seeks evidence supporting desired conclusions, often through effortful but subconscious mechanisms rather than deliberate self-misleading. Ziva Kunda's seminal work demonstrated this in experiments where participants, motivated by personal relevance, generated plausible causal arguments favoring conclusions like the non-harmful effects of alcohol or caffeine consumption, achieving high-quality rationales aligned with their interests.^[97] This process avoids the paradox of simultaneously holding true and false beliefs by treating discrepancies as resolvable through asymmetric evidence evaluation, rather than partitioned mental states.^[98] Positive illusions provide another non-deceptive account, positing systematic overoptimism about one's abilities, control over events, and future outcomes as evolved cognitive adaptations rather than motivated falsehoods. Shelley Taylor and Jonathon Brown argued that such mildly inaccurate self-perceptions—prevalent in approximately 70-80% of non-depressed individuals—correlate with superior mental health outcomes, including lower depression rates and better coping under stress, based on meta-analyses of self-report and behavioral data from the 1980s onward.^[99] Unlike self-deception, which implies conflict between awareness and belief, positive illusions reflect default perceptual heuristics that prioritize functionality over veridicality, as seen in longitudinal studies linking illusory superiority to resilience without evidence of internal duplicity. Critics of self-deception theories, including revisionist philosophers, contend these illusions suffice to explain overconfidence phenomena, such as unrealistic optimism in risk assessment, without necessitating a "deceiver" module overriding a "duped" one. Affective coping mechanisms further challenge self-deception by attributing belief distortions to emotion-driven adjustments in evidence weighting, independent of intentional misrepresentation. Empirical investigations show that negative affect prompts selective discounting of disconfirming information, as in studies where anxious participants overweight ambiguous threats while minimizing alternatives, leading to persistent but non-paradoxical errors resolvable via mood induction interventions.^[100] This aligns with Bayesian models of cognition, where motivational priors asymmetrically update posteriors without dual beliefs, explaining persistence in domains like health denial—e.g., smokers underrating lung cancer risks by 40-50% despite statistical knowledge—through valence-based filtering rather than self-lie.^[8] These alternatives, supported by experimental paradigms avoiding introspection biases inherent in self-deception attributions, suggest many cases stem from modular, automatic processes rather than unified agential deception.^[46]

Potential Adaptive Benefits

Self-deception has been hypothesized to provide evolutionary advantages by enhancing the efficacy of interpersonal deception. In ancestral environments, where deception could secure resources, mates, or status, individuals who deceived themselves into believing false but self-serving narratives were better equipped to convince others, as genuine belief minimizes detectable cues of dishonesty such as hesitation, gaze aversion, or physiological arousal.^[1] This adaptation likely arose through the partitioning of information, where self-deceptive mechanisms suppress access to contradictory evidence in conscious awareness while preserving subconscious utilization of accurate knowledge for strategic actions, thereby reducing the cognitive and behavioral leakage inherent in deliberate lying.^[48] Beyond facilitating external deception, self-deception promotes adaptive self-enhancement biases that bolster confidence and motivation. Overly positive self-appraisals, a form of self-deception, encourage persistence in competitive pursuits by fostering illusions of superiority or control, which empirical studies link to higher achievement in tasks requiring sustained effort, such as academic or professional endeavors.^[101] For instance, individuals engaging in self-deceptive rationalizations after setbacks maintain elevated self-esteem, enabling quicker recovery and renewed action compared to those confronting unvarnished failures, a pattern observed in longitudinal data on goal attainment.^[3] Self-deception also mitigates short-term psychological costs, such as anxiety or cognitive dissonance, allowing organisms to function effectively under uncertainty. By involuntarily biasing memory and interpretation toward favorable outcomes, it lowers the mental effort required for maintaining false beliefs relative to conscious suppression, as evidenced in experiments showing reduced neural load during self-deceptive recall.^[7] This efficiency could have been selected for in environments demanding rapid decision-making, where accurate but demoralizing self-knowledge might impair performance, such as in foraging or conflict scenarios.^[102] Furthermore, self-deceptive positivity correlates with enhanced affect regulation, where higher self-deceivers exhibit stronger priming of positive stimuli and attenuated negative responses, supporting resilience in social hierarchies.^[103]

References

[1]
The evolution and psychology of self-deception - PubMed
In this article we argue that self-deception evolved to facilitate interpersonal deception by allowing people to avoid the cues to conscious deception.
[2]
The what and why of self-deception - ScienceDirect
We first classify three distinct definitions of self-deception, ranging from a view that self-deception is synonymous with positive illusions.<|separator|>
[3]
The slow decay and quick revival of self-deception - PMC
We find that self-deception diminishes over time only when self-deceivers are repeatedly confronted with evidence of their true ability.
[4]
[PDF] Self-Serving Bias and Self-Deception 1
It appears that Gur and Sackeim (1979) proposed a definition of self-deception that was testable, and their studies offered the first empirical evidence that ...
[5]
Some Paradoxes of Self-Deception - Cambridge University Press
Some Paradoxes of Self-Deception. Jean-Pierre Dupuy. The problem of lying to, or deceiving oneself is currently one of the most debated in analytical philosophy ...
[6]
[PDF] The evolution and psychology of self-deception
Abstract: In this article we argue that self-deception evolved to facilitate interpersonal deception by allowing people to avoid the cues.
[7]
Self-Deception Reduces Cognitive Load: The Role of Involuntary ...
Jul 30, 2019 · This is called “self-deception.” Self-deception is a personality trait and an independent mental state, it involves a combination of a conscious ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[8]
The better to fool you with: Deception and self-deception
Self-enhancement is the most widely documented form of self-deception, as we are notoriously overconfident in our abilities (overestimation), our ranking ...
[9]
Full article: Self-deception and automatic belief
Self-deception is a common phenomenon. Most traditional accounts of self-deception agree that self-deception is doxastic as it involves the acquisition of a ...3. Spinozan Belief... · 4. Spinozan Self-Deception · 6. Theoretical Advantages Of...<|control11|><|separator|>
[10]
Self-deception as affective coping. An empirical perspective on ...
In the philosophical literature, self-deception is mainly approached through the analysis of paradoxes. Yet, it is agreed that self-deception is motivated ...
[11]
Self-deception - Ian Deweese-Boyd - PhilPapers
We may say generally, however, that self-deception is the acquisition and maintenance of a belief (or, at least, the avowal of that belief) in the face of ...
[12]
None
### Summary of Self-Deception Definitions and Relation to Positive Illusions, Motivated Reasoning, and Biased Beliefs
[13]
Paranoia, self-deception and overconfidence - PMC - PubMed Central
Oct 7, 2021 · Self-deception, paranoia, and overconfidence involve misbeliefs about the self, others, and world. They are often considered mistaken.
[14]
Self-Deception Reduces Cognitive Load: The Role of Involuntary ...
This is called “self-deception.” Self-deception is a personality trait and an independent mental state, it involves a combination of a conscious motivational ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[15]
Self-Deception, Delusion and the Boundaries of Folk Psychology - NIH
In a fairly uncontroversial characterisation, self-deception involves beliefs that are acquired and maintained in the face of strong counter-evidence and that ...
[16]
A Functional Analysis of Self-Deception | Journal of the American ...
Jul 17, 2025 · In self-deception, then, the self engages in some deceptive behavior and this behavior misleads the self. Thus, while it may but need not be ...
[17]
Distinguishing Self-Deception from Delusion, Moral Licensing ...
Sep 18, 2017 · v) Cognitive Dissonance: Self-deception should not be confused with cognitive dissonance reduction, where cognitive dissonance reduction is ...
[18]
Descartes: Truth and Self-deception - jstor
Jul 28, 2015 · This is the philosophical threat of self-deception, which was defined by. Socrates as imagining we know what we do not really know. Descartes ...
[19]
Socrates and Overcoming Self-Deception | Toward a Contemplative ...
What Socrates uncovered was the self-deception of those who claimed to be wise. Through dialogue fueled by probing lines of questioning, he revealed the ...
[20]
Plato's Lie In The Soul - World History Encyclopedia
Apr 5, 2023 · Plato's concept of the True Lie is important in itself as an expression of the dangers of self-deception but also because it can be said to ...
[21]
[PDF] Lies in Plato's Republic: poems, myth, and noble lie - Revistas UC3M
Nov 24, 2017 · And since a self-deception requires beliefs of something and its negation, the “lies in the soul” introduce a contradiction in our soul (DEMOS.
[22]
[PDF] Lies in Plato's Republic: poems, myth, and noble lie - HAL-SHS
Feb 23, 2023 · And since a self-deception requires beliefs of something and its negation, the “lies in the soul” introduce a contradiction in our soul (DEMOS.
[23]
AKRASIA - Wilkerson - 1994 - Ratio - Wiley Online Library
Aristotle's account of akrasia is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons ... deception; and sometimes they may have difficulty in comparing the goods and ...
[24]
[PDF] Akrasia: Judgement, Knowledge and the Surd - Rerum Causae
from most discussions of incontinence: self-deception, overpowering desire, lack of imagination and the rest.” (2001, p.28) When he presses deeper, however ...
[25]
Descartes: Truth and Self-deception | Philosophy | Cambridge Core
Jul 28, 2015 · note 4, 86) Yet Frankfurt interprets this in Descartes' terms of an external deceiver ('he is deceived') and not as a process of self-deception.
[26]
Descartes: Searching for Truth by Self-deception - Shai Frogel
Descartes finds that self-deception is a very productive tool in our searching for truth, since it expands our ability to free ourselves from our actual ...
[27]
Mechanisms of self-deception. - APA PsycNet
Mechanisms of self-deception. Citation. Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1939). Mechanisms of self-deception. The Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 409–420. https://.
[28]
Mechanisms of Self-Deception - Taylor & Francis Online
Mechanisms of Self-Deception. Else Frenkel-Brunswik Institute of Child Welfare, University of California, USA. Pages 407-420 | Published online: 30 Jun 2010.
[29]
Self-deception, other-deception, and self-reported psychopathology.
Administered inventories designed to assess self-reported psychopathology, other-deception (lying), and self-deception to a group of 250 undergraduates.
[30]
Self-deception: A concept in search of a phenomenon. - APA PsycNet
Sackeim, H. A., & Gur, R. C. (1979). Self-deception, other-deception, and self-reported psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(1) ...
[31]
Factors in the self-deception questionnaire: associations ... - PubMed
A negative correlation between the Self-Deception Questionnaire (SDQ, Sackeim & Gur, 1978, 1979) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, Beck, 1967) has been ...
[32]
Self-deception: An Introduction - ScienceDirect.com
Self-deception has been studied by philosophers and psychologists for some time. Frenkel-Brunswik (1939) published the first psychology paper.
[33]
Self-Deception - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Oct 17, 2006 · Self-deception involves a person who (a) as a consequence of some motivation or emotion, seems to acquire and maintain some false belief despite evidence to ...Paradoxes, Puzzles, and... · Morality and Self-Deception · Collective Self-Deception
[34]
[PDF] THE PERVASIVE QUALITY OF SELF- DECEPTION
According to Fernández, explanations of self-deception should: 1. Avoid the “static paradox.” 2. Avoid the “dynamic paradox.” 3. Avoid using any ad ...
[35]
[PDF] Cognitive Bias, Intentionality and Self-Deception - Dialnet
The first step in understanding self-deception is to address its inherent paradox, which arises when it is conceptually pinned to the construct of other- ...
[36]
[PDF] toward a different understanding of self-deception - PhilArchive
We saw that if one considers self-deception to be closely analogous to interpersonal deception, two paradoxes appear to emerge: first, the static paradox—the ...
[37]
Paradoxes of Self-Deception - jstor
In this paper we shall examine D statement of the problem and his solution, and we shall try to sh there remain unsolved two paradoxes of self-deception whose ...
[38]
[PDF] An Agentive Non-Intentionalist Theory of Self-Deception - PhilArchive
The self-deception debate often appears polarized between those who think that self-deceivers intentionally deceive themselves ('intentionalists'), and those ...Missing: intentionality | Show results with:intentionality<|separator|>
[39]
Self-deception: A paradox revisited | Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Feb 3, 2011 · Von Hippel & Trivers (VH&T) present the case that self-deception evolved because it enables individuals to be good deceivers of others. By ...Missing: intentionality | Show results with:intentionality
[40]
Self-Deception, Intentions, and Contradictory Beliefs - jstor
Philosophical accounts of self-deception can be divided into two broad groups - the intentionalist and the anti-intentionalist. On intentionalist.
[41]
INTENTIONALISM AS A THEORY OF SELF-DECEPTION
This paper discusses intentionalism, a theory claiming that self- deception is intentional behavior that aims to produce a belief that the agent does not share.
[42]
Ivan Cerovac, Intentionalism as a Theory of Self-Deception
This paper discusses intentionalism, a theory claiming that self-deception is intentional behavior that aims to produce a belief that the agent does not share.Missing: non- | Show results with:non-
[43]
An agentive non-intentionalist theory of self-deception
Jan 1, 2020 · Intentionalism invites paradox because the self-deceiver is conceived to intentionally act in a deceptive, epistemically suspect manner.
[44]
Alfred R. Mele, Self‐Deception Unmasked
Mele argues that the most common form of self-deception results from the biasing influence that a person's desires have upon her collection and interpretation ...
[45]
Self-deception and selectivity - Alfred R. Mele - PhilPapers
This article explores the alleged “selectivity problem” for Alfred Mele's deflationary position on self-deception.
[46]
[PDF] Real self-deception - MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit
Abstract: Self-deception is made unnecessarily puzzling by the assumption that it is an intrapersonal analog of ordinary interpersonal deception.<|separator|>
[47]
An agentive non-intentionalist theory of self-deception
We cannot definitively say that Mele is a non-agentivist however, since he sometimes describes cases where the subject's intentional actions are clearly ...
[48]
The evolution and psychology of self-deception
Feb 3, 2011 · Self-deception in the co-evolutionary struggle between deceiver and deceived. If (as Dawkins argues) deceit is fundamental in animal ...
[49]
Deceit and Self-Deception by Robert Trivers – review - The Guardian
Oct 7, 2011 · Trivers explains how natural selection favours self-deception. His vision of deceit encompasses the self, others, the family and even ...
[50]
The Folly of Fools by Robert Trivers - Hachette Book Group
In stock Free delivery over $35The Folly of Fools. The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life. The ... In his bold new work, prominent biological theorist Robert Trivers unflinchingly ...
[51]
[PDF] The Elements of a Scientific Theory of Self-Deception
A theory of self-deception based on evolutionary biology requires that we explain how forces of natural selection working on individuals—and the genes within.
[52]
Self-deception facilitates interpersonal persuasion - ScienceDirect
This research shows that self-deception might help people persuade others. •. In so doing, this research provides a non-paradoxical account for self-deception.
[53]
Deceiving Yourself to Better Deceive High-Status Compared to ...
Jul 1, 2014 · The results support the view that self-deception responds to status hierarchy that registers probabilities of deception detection such that ...Missing: early | Show results with:early
[54]
Self-deception as self-signalling: a model and experimental evidence
If self-deception is merely the manifestation of a bias, then the self-deceived will by definition get what they want. A bias that misfires, i.e. one that ...
[55]
Self‐deception: Distorted metacognitive process in ambiguous ...
Self‐deception describes a situation where an individual actively misrepresents reality to one's mind with a desired false belief (Trivers, 2000), though he/she ...
[56]
Where the Motivation Resides and Self‐Deception Hides: How ...
Nov 20, 2007 · This paper explores how motivated cognition accomplishes the goal of self-deception. It proposes that self-serving conclusions are produced ...<|separator|>
[57]
What Is Confirmation Bias? | Psychology Today
Apr 23, 2015 · Confirmation bias, anxiety, and self-deception. Confirmation bias can also be found in anxious individuals, who view the world as dangerous.
[58]
Stop Fooling Yourself! (Diagnosing and Treating Confirmation Bias)
Oct 22, 2024 · Confirmation bias (CB) is a cognitive bias that allows us to fool ourselves by selectively filtering data and distorting analyses to support favored beliefs or ...Our Biased Brains · Confirmation Bias · Randomization<|separator|>
[59]
Motivated Reasoning | Psychology Today
Motivated reasoning is when biased reasoning leads to a conclusion, often outside of conscious awareness, to fit pre-existing beliefs and avoid cognitive ...
[60]
How do desires explain motivated reasoning? | Synthese
Aug 29, 2025 · According to this view, motivated reasoning is literal self-deception: The motivated ... Self-deception's puzzles and processes: A return to a ...Missing: mechanisms | Show results with:mechanisms
[61]
Cognitive optimism: self-deception or memory-based ... - PubMed
It is suggested that in these situations, the optimistic bias is not attributable exclusively to self-deception or wishful thinking.
[62]
The optimist within? Selective sampling and self-deception
On the classic conception of self-deception, a heavy smoker who believes her future health prospects are good may also harbour a more accurate – and less rosy – ...
[63]
The medial prefrontal cortex: a potential link between self-deception ...
The Medial Prefrontal Cortex (MPFC) is crucial for normal social functioning in humans. Because of its involvement in social monitoring, self-awareness, and ...
[64]
Full article: The medial prefrontal cortex: a potential link between self ...
We have previously found that disruption of the MPFC leads to more honest responses, which implies that the MPFC may be critically involved in self-deception.
[65]
Neural correlates of self-deception and impression-management
Self-deception and impression-management manipulation and 'faking bad' were associated with activation of medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and left ventrolateral ...
[66]
[PDF] What Are the Neural Correlates Self-Deception? - DiVA portal
This systematic review synthesizes findings from neuroimaging and brain stimulation studies, shedding light on the neural processes underlying self-deception ...<|separator|>
[67]
Neural mechanisms of deception in a social context: an fMRI ...
Jul 1, 2020 · In conclusion, this fMRI replication study points out that socio-cognitive processes are an essential part of deceptive behaviour. We ...
[68]
Self‐deception: Distorted metacognitive process in ambiguous ...
Oct 29, 2022 · Our findings suggest self-deception is a false belief associated with a distorted metacognitive mental process that requires ambiguity in attributions of ...
[69]
[PDF] Neural correlates of self-deception and impression-management
This PET study provided convincing evidence of the selective influence of the brain dopaminergic system on the expression of emotional and behavioural ...
[70]
The medial prefrontal cortex: a potential link between self-deception ...
The Medial Prefrontal Cortex (MPFC) is crucial for normal social functioning in humans. Because of its involvement in social monitoring, self-awareness, ...
[71]
Can fMRI discriminate between deception and false memory? A ...
These results provide some evidence to suggest that fMRI can discriminate between deception and false memory.
[72]
Adaptive significance of low levels of self-deception and cooperation ...
The primary goal of the present investigation was to determine if individuals with depression exhibit both low levels of self-deception and cooperation.
[73]
Illusions and mental health: Liabilities of self-deception. - APA PsycNet
Recent research has indicated that the absence of depression is associated with self-enhancing cognitive biases. Some researchers have postulated that these ...
[74]
Full article: Examining well-being, anxiety, and self-deception in ...
We concluded that a small amount of self-deception is fine, and possibly even healthy, but when these levels are high we may fail to realise that we are anxious ...
[75]
Unawareness of illness and its relationship with depression and self ...
Unawareness of illness and its relationship with depression and self-deception in schizophrenia · Authors · Affiliation.
[76]
Paranoia, self-deception and overconfidence - Research journals
Oct 7, 2021 · Though anxiety and paranoia are highly correlated, paranoia appears more responsible for the group differences in self-deception and the ...
[77]
Self-deception and discrepancies in self-evaluation - ScienceDirect
The focus of the present research is on self-deception. Notwithstanding, to gain a broader perspective, we have also measured narcissism. Theoretically, ...
[78]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8525769
[79]
Self-deception in and out of illness: are some subjects responsible ...
Oct 31, 2017 · Occurs in schizophrenia, affective psychosis, and in organic ... Barnes is more explicit about self-deception's anxiety-reduction function.
[80]
Exploring the (Mal)adaptive Consequences of Self‐Deceptive ...
Nov 28, 2023 · Additionally, further research is necessary to more clearly delineate the constructs of self-deception and positive illusions and situate them ...
[81]
The slow decay and quick revival of self-deception - Frontiers
We find that self-deception diminishes over time only when self-deceivers are repeatedly confronted with evidence of their true ability (Study 1); this learning ...
[82]
Self-deception as a mechanism for the maintenance of drug addiction
Results: Results showed that individuals with substance dependence exhibit elevated scores of self-deception, particularly in the domains of active denial, ...Missing: persistence empirical
[83]
[PDF] Self-deception as a mechanism for the maintenance of drug addiction
The responses are rated on a five-point Likert scale (see. Table 1). Page 3. Self-deception as a mechanism for the maintenance of drug addiction. 15.
[84]
The influence of different negative feedback on the decay of self ...
Jan 22, 2025 · Negative feedback fosters the decay of self-deception by diminishing unrealistically positive beliefs. Furthermore, the allure of monetary ...
[85]
Are We Confusing Self-Deceptive Enhancement with Illusory ...
May 20, 2012 · Towards a Bottom-Up Approach to Self-Deception →. Are We Confusing Self-Deceptive Enhancement with Illusory Superiority? Posted on May 20 ...
[86]
The Noble Art of Self-Deception | Psychology Today
Jul 16, 2023 · Self-deception is ubiquitous. For example, we tend to think we are more intelligent, honest, friendly, original, and reliable than average.Self-Deception Is Not Always... · Key Points · How We Deceive Ourselves
[87]
Researchers analyze the role of self-deception in everyday life
Jan 7, 2022 · An example from the coronavirus situation · Deception in the language game. · Students with high internal moral principles and accurate ...
[88]
https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2021.2019693
[89]
When the bogus pipeline interferes with self-deceptive strategies
trait anxiety and defensiveness under bogus pipeline (Experiment 1) and in a mixed design ( ... deception as well as self-deception. Alternatively, under ...
[90]
When the bogus pipeline interferes with self-deceptive strategies
Aug 18, 2010 · It is suggested that repressor's discrepant self-reports under bogus pipeline and standard conditions may reflect aspects of other-deception as ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[91]
Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical review and meta ...
College students' reactions to social psychological experiments involving deception. ... Dissonance theory, self-perception and the bogus pipeline.
[92]
Temporal view of the costs and benefits of self-deception - PNAS
Mar 7, 2011 · More broadly, the findings of these experiments offer evidence that debates about the relative costs and benefits of self-deception are informed ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[93]
Self-deception requires vagueness - ScienceDirect.com
We predicted that we would only observe self-deception when the feedback was vague enough to allow people to change their behavior in a self-serving direction ...
[94]
REAL SELF-DECEPTION - University of Southampton Web Archive
Self-deception is neither irresolvably paradoxical nor mysterious and it is explicable without the assistance of mental exotica.2. Three Approaches To... · 3. Motivated Belief And The... · 6. Intentionally Deceiving...
[95]
Intentional Self-Deception in a Single Coherent Self - jstor
model of self-deception as lying to oneself immediately leads to what has been called the doxastic paradox of self-deception-a paradox of self-deceptive.Missing: intentionality | Show results with:intentionality
[96]
[PDF] Self-deception as affective coping. An empirical perspective on ...
In this paper, we argue, with the help of findings from cognitive neuroscience and psychology, that self-deception is a type of affective coping. First, we ...<|separator|>
[97]
Motivated Reasoning: A Brief History - Psychology Today
May 25, 2022 · The influence of Ziva Kunda's concept of motivated reasoning continues to spread. What are its origins ... self-deception under the heading of ...
[98]
Sage Reference - Encyclopedia of Social Psychology
reasoning; as such, motivated reasoning seems to entail self-deception. The necessity to uphold the illusion of objectivity may seem to entail that people ...
[99]
[PDF] Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on ...
The fact that individuals who are most apt to engage in self-deception also score lowest on mea- sures of psychopathology further suggests that accurate self-.<|control11|><|separator|>
[100]
[PDF] Self-deception as affective coping. An empirical ... - PhilArchive
Feb 23, 2016 · In this paper, we argue, with the help of findings from cognitive neuroscience and psychology, that self-deception is a type of affective coping ...Missing: decay | Show results with:decay
[101]
Temporal view of the costs and benefits of self-deception - PMC - NIH
Four experiments examine situations in which people go beyond merely explaining away their misconduct to actively deceiving themselves. We find that those who ...
[102]
Self-deception's adaptive value: effects of positive thinking and the ...
William von Hippel and Robert Trivers argue that, despite appearances, there is good reason to think that self-deception is an adaptation by arguing: (1) self- ...
[103]
Are self-deceivers enhancing positive affect or denying negative ...
In all studies, individuals higher in self-deception displayed stronger positive priming effects, defined in terms of facilitation with two positive stimuli ...