We’re all trying to make our lives better.

If we work off the assumption that, generally speaking, we’re all trying to make our lives better (not worse), then if we ever find ourselves inclined to lie, it must be because our mind is telling us something good will come from doing it. That is to say, in the moment that we lie, our mind must be focused on the upside of lying (as opposed to downside).

Now, that’s not to say that our mind is always focused on the upside of lying. No. Just in that moment. Just in the moment we find ourselves doing it. When the opportunity presents itself.

And that’s not to say that our mind anticipates long-term gain, either. No, just for that moment. The moment in which the decision is being made.

In fact, there might be a big part of us that doesn’t like lying. It could be the very part of us reading this right now! But there’s an internal conflict.

Why me?

The reality is, we all lie from time to time. However, some of us come to have more positive experiences with lying over time than others. If we look to our past, we’ll likely find at least one meaningful instance in which lying had a positive impact on us. It turns out, these experiences tend to have a resounding impact on how we come to think about lying later in life — the value of it, our ability to do it, etc.

This, in turn, has a meaningful impact on what our mind does today, in moments when the opportunity to lie presents itself again.

Auto-focus.

What we do in a given moment, is largely determined by automatic processes, like where our mind focuses (e.g., on the upside or the downside of an action). Let’s refer to this automatic process as ‘auto-focusing’.

If our mind auto-focuses on the upside of lying (e.g., positive attention, praise, relief), then our mind can be said to be anticipating a positive impact (something good). And if our mind is focused on how good it will feel (the upside), it can’t also be focused on how bad it will feel (the downside). To focus one’s attention means to take it away from something else. This biased focus on the upside of lying (at the expense of the downside) will then stir up associated feelings of motivation (the urge to act).

Conversely, if our mind auto-focuses on the downside of lying (e.g., guilt, regret, shame), then that is to say that our mind is anticipating a negative impact (something bad). We subsequently feel dis-inclined to do it and therefore don’t (remember: we’re not trying to make our lives worse).

Choices.

Now, we still have a choice. We can either proceed with telling the lie or try to inhibit it and tell the truth (despite the want).

Sometimes, this ‘inhibiting’ or ‘controlling’ works. It may even work for some time. But what many will report is that they eventually find themselves returning to the behaviour and the lying returns.

Why? Because they never addressed the underlying motivation to engage in the behaviour in the first place (and the associated tendency for their mind to auto-focus on the upside).

Instead, they might have just had very good self-discipline and control managing their motivation. However, the want still remains. It can die-down for a period, but many will find it returns.

If not control and discipline, then what?

Well, what if we could go to the source of the motivation? What if, instead of just managing the downstream effects of the motivation and constantly inhibiting the behaviour, we could move upstream to where it all comes from?

This would require working at the level of ‘deeper cognitions’ (beliefs, rules and assumptions) — our fundamental mental representations of lying.

Why deeper cognitions?

For our attention to auto-focus on one impact over the other, implies something about what we expect to happen, which in turn implies something about what we believe about that thing.

For example, if we generally believe or assume that lying will make us feel good and have a positive impact on our life, then — in moments of opportunity — our mind is more likely to auto-focus on the upside.

Many of us are unaware of the deeper cognitions and mental representations underlying our own behaviours. It’s natural for us to make attempts at rationalising why it is we do what we do, and sometimes we’re right, but often we’re wrong. That goes for Psychologists and other health professionals too!

Example: the truth-teller

Imagine, for a moment, someone you know who never — or rarely ever — lies. Now imagine that they’ve just been presented with an opportunity to lie. Perhaps it’s to you, or someone else you know in their life. Take a moment to bring this scenario to mind.

Now, once you have that image in your mind, let’s ‘zoom in’ and see what’s actually happening for them in the their mind in that moment.

In that moment (the opportunity to lie), their mind imagines what it would be like to lie. True to them, they imagine the guilt, regret, shame, and disappointment. They imagine feeling bad (i.e., negative impact). In other words, their mind auto-focused on the downside. Given they, like you and me, are not trying to make their lives worse, they subsequently choose not to lie.

So, even though they had a clear opportunity to lie, their mind expects pain and disappointment. And when mind is focused on the downside, it can’t simultaneously be focused on the upside. As such, there’s a preferential bias in what their mind expects to happen, significantly influencing how they feel (in this case, not motivated to lie).

Why does their mind auto-focus on the downside? Perhaps they assume:

• “Lying will only make me feel worse.”

• “Lying is not worth it in the long run.”

• “Lying will make me feel bad (as a person).”

• “Lying is too much effort (too difficult to maintain).”

• “I won’t get away with it (I’ll get caught, and that will be painful).”

• “I’m not a ‘good liar’.”

• “Lying will make me feel bad/guilty for misleading others.”

Whatever it is, the conclusion is “don’t lie”.

Conversely, if they assumed they could get away with it, that it would make them feel good about themselves, that the negative consequences would be minor, then chances are, in that moment, their mind would auto-focus on the upside, and they would feel inclined to do it. They want to feel good (and avoid pain) just like you and me!

So, what’s the solution?

Understand your mind. Specifically, understand how it’s been working with lying – what it’s been doing automatically, ‘in the moment’ – and address the underlying ‘deeper cognitions’.

The reality is, lying is having an overall negative impact on your life and making you feel bad. But that’s not the reason why you do it.

In the moment, your mind is telling you a very different story. It’s focused on the upside. The positives. The gains.

Understand your mind, address the deeper cognitions, and learn how to take a more active role in committing to actions that are more aligned with how you want to act.   

Addressing deeper cognitions.

Once identified, these deeper cognitions need to be carefully interrogated. Does what they say stack up to reality? What experiences do we have that conflict with them? What experiences can we have now that can provide a more accurate depiction of what happens?

Ultimately, we’re trying to update our deeper cognitions about how lying works and the impact it has on our life. When we do that, we change the expectation about what will happen when we lie. We change the auto-focus.

Is that the end of treatment?

For some, this may be where treatment ends. The insights garnered will be enough to set them on a course of auto-focusing on the downside of lying.

For most, however, there’s an all-important final stage. This is often the most therapeutic part. It’s a sometimes-confronting process, in which we expose ourselves to the ways in which we have been unintentionally holding ourselves back from acknowledging the full reality of this behaviour.

To do so, we introduce the concept of ‘modes’ (i.e., mindsets; different ways of thinking and being). We learn how to actively and repeatedly take a new ‘mode’ going forward. And it doesn’t stop. It’s an ongoing process. But it gets easier and easier, more and more automatic.

Preferential activation.

The old ‘mode’ remains. We can never ‘eliminate’ that learning, only add new learning that successfully competes for preferential activation in our mind. The goal is to make this new learning highly targeted at the specifics underlying the original learning, such that we have a new, dominant pathway that gets activated under the relevant circumstances (in moments where opportunity arises).

FAQs

Is it possible that I lie because I’m afraid of rejection, or because I can’t stand the disapproval of others?

Perhaps. But that still implies a faulty assumption that lying will result in the opposite: acceptance and approval (positive impacts). In other words, our mind still expects something positive, which isn’t going to happen (a disconnect between the story our mind tells us and reality).

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that lying comes from focusing on how bad it will feel to tell the truth (as opposed to how good it will feel to lie)?

That sure makes a lot of sense! However, if it’s a thing we do, it implies that there’s something positive we expect to come from doing it. Regardless of expecting a negative from not doing it, we expect a positive from doing it.

Couldn’t it be said that the positive I expect from doing it is the relief of being ‘saved’ from the pain of telling the truth?

True! But why is it that you think that lying will save you from pain? Why don’t you think that lying will cause you more pain than the pain of telling the truth? In other words, there still appears to be an inaccurate perception of the value of lying.

Indeed, many people tell the truth everyday despite the pain. The difference is, they also expect something bad to come from lying. The anticipated pain from lying (e.g., being caught) is greater than the pain from telling the truth. Yes, one pain is usually more delayed than the other, but there’s plenty of people with issues with delayed gratification or impulsivity that will still choose to tell the truth.