Folk Intuitions about Lying

1. Folk Intuitions about Lying Adam Arico (Philosophy, University of Arizona) Don Fallis (Information Resources, University of Arizona)

2. “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”– George Costanza

3. Acting and Sarcasm

4. Standard Philosophical Definition of lying to X • You say that p to X. • You believe that p is false. • You intend to deceive X by saying p.

5. Intending to Deceive “Two big monsters tied me in a big sack.”

6. Bald-faced Lies

7. Carson Definition of lying to X • You say that p to X. • You believe that p is false. • You warrant the truth of p by saying p. • You do not believe that you do not warrant the truth of p by saying p. • p is false.

8. The Mixed-up Politician case

9. “A person is to be judged as lying or not lying according to the intention of his own mind, not according to the truth or falsity of the matter itself.” – Saint Augustine

10. Mathiesen’s Unreliable Witness case “Of course, I am pretty bad with dates and times.”

11. Gricean Maxims • Do not say what you believe to be false. • Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. • Make your contribution as informative as is required. • Avoid ambiguity.

12. Fallis Definition of lying to X • You say that p to X. • You believe that p is false. • You believe that you are in a situation where the following norm of conversation is in force: “Do not say what you believe to be false.”

13. “Prototype” or “Exemplar” Concept

14. Predictions • If the folk hold something like the Standard Definition, they should deny that bald-faced lies are lies, strictly speaking. • If the folk hold something like Carson’s definition, then • (a) they should deny that one is lying when they add a warrant-defeating provision to their false statement, • (b) they should deny that one is lying whenever they are in a non-warranting situation (e.g., when they are giving a performance).

15. Prediction ChartDoes the theory say it’s a lie?

16. Prediction ChartDoes the theory say it’s a lie? Experiment 1

17. Prediction ChartDoes the theory say it’s a lie? Experiment 1 Experiment 2

18. Experiment 1 • Give participants four kinds of scenarios • Straight-forward lie • Straight-forward truth • “Proviso” (includes a claim that defeats or undermines warrant) • Bald-faced lie • Ask them whether each is a lie: • 7-point Likert (1=“Definitely not a lie”, 7=“Definitely a lie”) • Participants got all four kinds.

19. Materials • 6 Vignettes, each w/ a different storyline, but all with the same essential structure: • Broken Trophy (self-serving) • Broken Trophy (other-serving) • Gambler • Visiting Mother • Running • Aunt Jane • All 6 vignettes had all 4 kinds of scenarios mentioned above (straight lie, straight truth, proviso, and bald-faced)

20. Example – Straight Lie • Last night, during a particularly wild party, Chris found her swimming trophy, one of her most prized possessions, broken, its pieces scattered across the floor.  Tonight, Chris is trying to figure out who broke her trophy. Chris says to Jamie, "So, somebody was in my room last night and broke my trophy.  Did you see anything?” As it turns out, Jaime did see something. In fact, Jamie clearly remembers that she was the one who broke Chris's trophy.  Since everyone knows that Mel is always breaking stuff, Jamie responds to Chris, "Yeah, um, Mel broke your trophy." Did Jamie lie to Chris about who broke the trophy?

21. Example – Straight Truth • Last night, during a particularly wild party, Chris found her swimming trophy, one of her most prized possessions, broken, its pieces scattered across the floor.  Tonight, Chris is trying to figure out who broke her trophy. Chris says to Jamie, "So, somebody was in my room last night and broke my trophy.  Did you see anything?"  As it turns out, Jaime did see something. In fact, Jamie clearly saw that it was Mel who broke Chris's trophy.  Although everyone knows that Mel is always breaking stuff, Jamie responds to Chris, "Yeah, um, Mel broke your trophy." Did Jamie lie to Chris about who broke the trophy?

22. Example – Proviso • Last night, during a particularly wild party, Chris found her swimming trophy, one of her most prized possessions, broken, its pieces scattered across the floor.  Tonight, Chris is trying to figure out who broke her trophy. Chris says to Jamie, "So, somebody was in my room last night and broke my trophy.  Did you see anything?"  As it turns out, Jaime did see something. In fact, Jamie clearly remembers that she was the one who broke Chris's trophy.  Since everyone knows that Mel is always breaking stuff, Jamie responds to Chris, "Yeah, um, Mel broke your trophy. But I was kinda drunk, and there were lots of people in there, so I could be wrong." Did Jamie lie to Chris about who broke the trophy?

23. Example – Bald-Faced • Last night, during a particularly wild party, Chris found her swimming trophy, one of her most prized possessions, broken, its pieces scattered across the floor.  Tonight, Chris is trying to figure out who broke her trophy. Chris says to Jamie, "So, somebody was in my room last night and broke my trophy.  Did you see anything?"  As it turns out, Jaime did see something. In fact, Jamie clearly remembers that she was the one who broke Chris's trophy.  Although everyone, including Chris, knows that Mel has been out of town all week, Jamie responds, "Yeah, um, Mel broke your trophy." Did Jamie lie to Chris about who broke the trophy?

24. Results

25. More Results – Bald-Faced

26. Discussion – Experiment 1 • Contrary to the standard definition, the folk rate bald-faced cases exactly the same as ordinary, straight-forward lies. • In fact, there was a weak but significant correlation between the two (r =.277 (216), p (two-tailed) <.0001). • Insofar as the folk rate bald-faced cases just like ordinary cases of lying, and insofar as bald-faced lies are not told with the intent to deceive, the standard requirement that one is lying only if she is intending to deceive seems mistaken.

27. More Results – Proviso

28. Discussion – Experiment 1, cont’d • Carson claims that one lies only if she warrants the truth of something that she believes to be false. Thus, if one were to preface (or append) her false claim with a warrant-defeating statement, as in our proviso cases, she would not fulfill Carson’s requirement for lying. Proviso cases, then, should not be considered lies. • However, the folk overwhelmingly rate such cases as lies. Again, there was a significant, albeit weak correlation between proviso cases and straight-forward lies (r=.171 (215), p(two‑tailed)<.05). • As far as the folk are concerned, one can tell a lie even when she explicitly denies that she is warranting the truth of her claim

29. Experiment – Stage 2 • 1 basic storyline, 4 variations: • Vignettes varied according to (a) whether a politician thought he was giving an authentic interview, and (b) whether he was actually giving an authentic interview. • Both the politician and the audience believe that it is a performance (he thinks he’s appearing on SNL, and he really is appearing on SNL); • Only the politician believes that it is a performance (he thinks he’s appearing on SNL, but he is really appearing on Evening News); • Only the audience believes that it is a performance (he thinks he’s appearing on Evening News, but he’s really appearing on SNL); • Neither believes that it is a performance (he thinks that he’s appearing on Evening News, and he really is appearing on Evening News) • Asked participants if the politician is lying • Same 7-point Likert scale

30. Example • The life of a presidential candidate is a very busy and often hectic one. This past election, for instance, one Senator made four separate appearances via satellite in a single Saturday. One of these appearances was an interview with CBS Evening News’ Katie Couric. However, one of the Senator’s aides mistakenly told him that this wasn’t the Katie Couric interview, but a fake interview with Saturday Night Live’s Amy Poehler (as Katie Couric). In this interview, when the real Couric, asked the Senator what he felt was the greatest weakness in his opponent’s platform, the Senator responded “First of all, Katie, I’m told that he said in one speech that he wants to invade Spain in order to fight terrorism.” Now, the Senator knew that his opponent never said any such thing, but he thought that he was appearing on Saturday Night Live and that saying it would fulfill a caricature of himself, as comedic performances are supposed to do. Did the Senator lie about his opponent’s platform?

31. Example • The life of a presidential candidate is a very busy and often hectic one. This past election, for instance, one Senator made four separate appearances via satellite in a single Saturday. One of these appearances was an interview with CBS Evening News’ Katie Couric. However, one of the Senator’s aides mistakenly told him that this wasn’t the Katie Couric interview, but a fake interview with Saturday Night Live’s Amy Poehler (as Katie Couric). In this interview, when the real Couric, asked the Senator what he felt was the greatest weakness in his opponent’s platform, the Senator responded “First of all, Katie, I’m told that he said in one speech that he wants to invade Spain in order to fight terrorism.” Now, the Senator knew that his opponent never said any such thing, but he thought that he was appearing on Saturday Night Live and that saying it would fulfill a caricature of himself, as comedic performances are supposed to do. Did the Senator lie about his opponent’s platform?

32. Example • The life of a presidential candidate is a very busy and often hectic one. This past election, for instance, one Senator made four separate appearances via satellite in a single Saturday. One of these appearances was an interview with CBS Evening News’ Katie Couric. However, one of the Senator’s aides mistakenly told him that this wasn’t the Katie Couric interview, but a fake interview with Saturday Night Live’s Amy Poehler (as Katie Couric). In this interview, when the real Couric, asked the Senator what he felt was the greatest weakness in his opponent’s platform, the Senator responded “First of all, Katie, I’m told that he said in one speech that he wants to invade Spain in order to fight terrorism.” Now, the Senator knew that his opponent never said any such thing, but he thought that he was appearing on Saturday Night Live and that saying it would fulfill a caricature of himself, as comedic performances are supposed to do. Did the Senator lie about his opponent’s platform?

33. Predicted Results

34. Predicted Results Key Data Point

35. Results

36. Even More Results • There was, however, a significant difference between ratings for when the politician believed he was interviewing with Couric and ratings for when the politician believed he was mock interviewing with Poehler. • Ratings for falsehoods told when the politician was appearing on Saturday Night Live were rated significantly lower than ratings for falsehoods told when the politician believed he was on Evening News (t (211)=6.263, p< .0001).

37. Discussion Data Supports Fallis’ Internalism

38. Discussion, cont’d Data Supports Fallis’ Internalism But what’s going on here?

39. Discussion, cont’d • There are two noteworthy features of the two responses for cases in which the senator believes he’s appearing on SNL: • First, both ratings are well above 1. • Second, when the senator is actually appearing on the Evening News, the ratings are higher than when the senator is actually appearing on SNL. • These features require some explanation.

40. Why are both so high? • There are a few possible explanations for why folk rate these cases so high: • Perhaps the fact that the vignettes involved politicians elicited a higher response. • Maybe the folk assume all politicians are liars, and this assumption is inflating their ratings. • It might be that participants were confusing the question about the senatorlying with a question about the senator’s character lying. • Maybe the two falsehoods weren’t extreme enough to be recognized as merely comedic lines. • Participants may have thought that the senator was still delivering a political message about his opponent, under the disguise of humor, and were responding to whether the message was a lie.

41. What about the difference between the two? • The ratings are higher when the senator is actually on Evening News than when he is actually on SNL, even though he believes in both cases that he is on SNL. • This provides some support Carson’s view that external facts make a difference. • But interestingly, Carson does not think that external facts should make a difference when the politician believes that he is not warranting. • Also, the difference in the ratings is not significant. • t (108) = 1.545, p = .125

42. However • On the other hand, when we hold each external condition fixed and compare cases in which the senator believes he’s on SNL to cases in which the senator believes he’s on Evening News, we see significant differences in both. • Actually on SNL: t (107) = 5.075, p<.0001 • Actually on Evening News: t (101) = 3.95, p<.001

43. That is…

44. Carson v. Fallis – Conclusion • It seems, then, that the internal feature of the senator’s belief is a stronger factor in folk judgments of lying than is the external feature of the situation. • That is, in judging whether x is a lie, whether or not the agent believes that she is in a warranting situation is more relevant than whether or not the agent in fact is in a warranting situation.

45. Thank You.

46. Potential Objection • Given the often volatile nature of political discourse, we might expect to see personal political affiliations to influence participants’ ratings of the senator lying. • Maybe the data are skewed by a political bias among UofA undergrads and certain features implicit in the vignettes.

47. Response • With this worry in mind, we created two versions (for all 4 variations): • One depicted the senator stating a falsehood about a liberal opponent • One depicted the senator stating a falsehood about a conservative opponent

48. Example – Conservative Lie • The life of a presidential candidate is a very busy and often hectic one. This past election, for instance, one senator made four separate appearances via satellite in a single Saturday. One of these appearances was a fake interview with Saturday Night Live’s Amy Poehler (as Katie Couric). One of the senator’s aides was careful to remind him that this was not the Katie Couric interview, but the fake interview with Saturday Night Live’s Amy Poehler in character as Katie Couric. In this interview, when Poehler (pretending to be Couric) asked the senator what he felt was the greatest weakness in his opponent’s platform, the senator responded “First of all, Katie, I’m told that he said in one speech that he wants to invade Spain in order to fight terrorism.”Now, the senator knew that his opponent never said any such thing, but he also knew that he was appearing on Saturday Night Live and that saying it would fulfill a caricature of himself, as comedic performances are supposed to do.

49. Example – Liberal Lie • The life of a presidential candidate is a very busy and often hectic one. This past election, for instance, one senator made four separate appearances via satellite in a single Saturday. One of these appearances was a fake interview with Saturday Night Live’s Amy Poehler (as Katie Couric). One of the senator’s aides was careful to remind him that this was not the Katie Couric interview, but the fake interview with Saturday Night Live’s Amy Poehler in character as Katie Couric. In this interview, when Poehler (pretending to be Couric) asked the senator what he felt was the greatest weakness in his opponent’s platform, the senator responded “First of all, Katie, I’m told that he said in one speech that he wants to kill newborn babies to promote stem cell research.”Now, the senator knew that his opponent never said any such thing, but he also knew that he was appearing on Saturday Night Live and that saying it would fulfill a caricature of himself, as comedic performances are supposed to do.

50. Results • No effect for political affiliation. • When we compared ratings for the Conservative Lie to ratings for the Liberal Lie, there was no significant difference. • For self-identified liberals, F (1, 84)=.770, p =.383; • Self-identified moderates, F(1, 28)=.005, p =.946; • Self-identified conservatives, F(1, 57)=.456, p =.502; • And no political identification, F(1, 36)=.206, p =.653.