A Polish study into relationship dynamics suggests that people who are less satisfied with their romantic partnerships may harbour a greater preference for hearing lies, particularly prosocial ones, over blunt truth. The research also indicates that such individuals often perceive outright truth-telling as more harmful. The paper, published in The Journal of Social Psychology, was led by Sebastian Wnęk and Katarzyna Cantarero.
Honesty is widely regarded as a cornerstone of healthy intimate relationships, fostering trust and commitment. Yet the researchers note that complete truthfulness is not always the best course when it could inflict unnecessary emotional pain. Prosocial lies, intended to benefit a partner rather than the liar, are often judged more favourably and can help maintain harmony, preserve self-esteem and reinforce positive perceptions of the relationship.
The authors point to the possibility that such deceptive but well-intentioned communication supports optimism and resilience within a relationship. Emotional resilience—the ability to adapt to stress—may shape whether people favour difficult truths or reassuring versions of events, with less resilient individuals finding harsh information harder to manage.
In framing their analysis, Wnęk and Cantarero reference the Theory of Resilience and Relational Load, which posits that supportive interactions help couples build emotional reserves. From this perspective, occasional prosocial dishonesty can function as a protective form of communication, though it can create ongoing tension between honesty, kindness and relationship stability.
The study involved 672 Polish adults who had been in a romantic relationship for at least one year, recruited from a research panel. Of these participants, 336 were women, and the average age was 46. Respondents earned points exchangeable for items such as headsets and flash drives for taking part.
Participants were presented with six scenarios involving themselves and their partner. In three scenarios, the partner could lie egoistically or tell the truth; in the other three, the partner could tell a prosocial lie or tell the truth. They then indicated which option they would prefer to hear in each scenario.
Alongside the scenario tasks, participants completed a suite of assessments measuring relationship satisfaction (the Relationship Assessment Scale), emotional resilience (the Brief Resilience Scale), closeness, perceived importance of truth, perceptions of how blatant truth affects a relationship, conflict avoidance, and whether they would lie prosocially to their partner.
Results showed a general preference for prosocial lies over egoistic lies. Those who demonstrated a higher overall preference for hearing lies—whether prosocial or egoistic—tended to report somewhat lower relationship satisfaction and to view truth as more harmful. They also perceived themselves as more likely to tell a prosocial lie and showed a lower overall preference for the truth. By contrast, a higher preference for egoistic lies correlated with a sense of somewhat reduced closeness to their partner.
To explain these patterns, the researchers tested a statistical model proposing that lower relationship satisfaction might make blatant truth seem more harmful, thereby increasing the appeal of prosocial lies. The data supported this possibility.
The model further suggested that the relationship between relationship satisfaction and the perceived harm of blatant truth could depend on emotional resilience. Specifically, among those with high resilience, the link between low relationship satisfaction and viewing truth as harmful was stronger than among those with lower resilience.
“Taken together, our research not only offers a useful material that can be used in future studies that focus on deception, but also underscores the complexity of prosocial lying in romantic relationships. While prosocial lies are often viewed as more acceptable than egoistic lies, their use appears to be nevertheless undesired in satisfied romantic relationships. However, when satisfaction is low and individuals perceive truth-telling as potentially harmful, they may prefer positive illusions to honest communication,” the study authors concluded.
The researchers caution that the study’s design does not allow causal inferences. They emphasise that while the findings illuminate how relationship satisfaction and resilience relate to lie preferences, they do not establish cause and effect.
The paper, If I cannot bounce back easily, can I handle the truth? Satisfaction in romantic relationships, resilience and preference towards prosocial lies, was authored by Sebastian Wnęk and Katarzyna Cantarero.
