Emotional Expression and Health

Advances in Theory, Assessment and Clinical Applications

Ivan Nyklícek, Lydia Temoshok, Ivan Nyklícek, Lydia Temoshok, Ad Vingerhoets

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781135446758
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Clinical Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Emotional Expression and Health looks at the role emotional expression and inhibition may play in staying healthy or falling ill. Written by leading experts in the field, chapters focus on: * how we can measure emotional expression or inhibition and how we can distinguish between their various facets
* the role of attachment, and development of emotional information processing
* alexithymia, emotional suppression, deception, emotional disclosure, defensiveness, repression, psychological mindedness, and emotional intelligence and self-efficacy. This unique approach will be of interest to all those in the fields of health and medical psychology and psychiatry, and behavioural medicine, as well as professionals working with patients in whom emotional expression or inhibition may play a role in a disease's etiology, course, or prognosis.

Part I
Theoretical perspectives

Chapter 1

Lying and self-deception in health and disease

Charles V.Ford

Introduction

Deceit and the need to detect deception are prevalent in the animal kingdom, and reaches their highest evolutionary development in Homo sapiens. Deceit is an intricate part of human communication involving, via a dynamic process, selfdeception and the deception of others. When used in “normal” ways, we are often unaware of our deceptive communications to others. Deceit serves to promote social support and helps to sustain mental and physical health. However, blatant (pathological) forms of deceit may, to the contrary, be destructive to the self and others. The sophisticated person uses deceit in a subtle manner while, in contrast, crude and pathologic deceit is frequently associated with neurocognitive dysfunction or distorted developmental processes.

The language of lying

“Man was given a tongue with which to speak and words to hide his thoughts.” This Hungarian proverb indicates the ubiquity of deceptive communications. In fact, the development of different languages and symbolic communication has been hypothesized as being the result of the need for social groups to maintain cohesion and secrecy (Steiner, 1975). The ways in which man can deceive are almost endless. Included are the words we speak, or don’t speak, as well as our non-verbal channels of communication. Further, colloquialisms, words, and nonverbal communication are often culture specific. That which may be considered a polite communication in one culture may be considered a lie in another. Saying “No” in some cultures is considered unacceptably rude and therefore “Yes” does not always necessarily mean yes.

The following brief descriptions of various forms of deceit will serve to lay a foundation for topics considered in this communication.

Definition

Lying, by definition (in American dictionaries), involves the deliberate misstatement of information believed by the protagonist to be false and with the intent to deceive. This definition involves not only the content of a communication but also its intent. It is interesting and important to note that one can speak “the truth” with the intent to deceive, thereby leading the “target” to a false belief. This is commonly done by providing only half the truth, leading the intended target of the communication to a false assumption. For example, a person late to an appointment may say that there was an automobile accident that had tied up traffic. The statement itself may be factually true but “in truth” the automobile accident had nothing to do with the person’s tardiness. The person who hears the proffered excuse may assume, however, that the tardiness was due to the accident and not the fault of the late person.

Euphemisms

Lies, lying and accusations about lying are highly charged emotional words. The statement “you are a liar” can be the basis of a feud or end a friendship forever. In an effort to avoid such highly emotionally charged words, the English language has evolved a number of euphemisms that serve to communicate the idea of deceit yet fall short of calling someone a “liar”. It has been reported that the German language contains even more euphemisms than the English language (Shibles, 1985).

Non-verbal deceit

Words are only one channel of communication between persons. Other forms of communication include non-verbal messages that are both symbolic gestures (and often very culturally determined) and expressions of emotion (e.g. anger), skepticism, affection, or of one’s somatic state (e.g. pain) (DePaulo, 1988). Nonverbal communications include gestures, posture, bodily movements and inflections of voice and other sounds (e.g. sighs, groans, and changes in pitch) (Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Johnson et al., 1975).

Levels of deceit

In terms of the sophistication of the attempt to deceive another person, are at least four separate levels of deceit have been described (Leekam, 1992; Ford, 1996). Ordinarily as children mature they develop the capacity to deceive at the third level; highly skilled liars may achieve the fourth level. These levels are as follows.

1. A simple false statement without any capacity to determine what another person may know or divine about the situation. For example, a small child with cookie crumbs smeared all over his/her face may make a statement that he/ she did not eat the cookies.
2. The liar takes into account that the target of a lie may have some information by which the veracity of the statement can be judged. Thus one will not say something false when the target of the lie can readily detect that it is not true. For example, at level two a liar would not say that it is raining outside knowing that the recipient of the communication can quickly look outside to determine the weather.
3. This level of lying involves the capacity, while making a false statement, to read the non-verbal expressions of the recipient of the lie and, depending on the degree of credulity perceived, make alterations in the statements being presented. For example, a student who is making an excuse about why homework has not been completed may change the story mid-stream if the teacher appears to be non-convinced.
4. Lying at this level, the highest and most skillful form of deceit, involves the capacity of the liar to dissociate his or her non-verbal communications from the words being spoken in such a manner as to provide mixed messages. For example, a politician may praise another person while communicating nonverbally that in truth he has no respect for that individual. As a result, he can say “honestly” that he has said nothing except nice things when in truth the communications have been damning.

Self-deception

Terminology around the issue of self-deception has been the subject of philosophical treatises. In my opinion, and that of at least some philosophers, self-deception can be described in terms of the various “ego defense mechanisms” (Hamlyn, 1985). In labeling these forms of self-deception one is describing phenomology rather than providing explanations. We can speculate that many, if not all, of these defense mechanisms have neurophysiological mechanisms, which will ultimately be better understood. These mechanisms by which self-deception is initiated and/or maintained include, among others, denial, projection, rationalization, isolation, dissociation and repression.

Socio-biology of deceit

Prevalence in animal kingdom

Deceit is prevalent throughout the animal kingdom. In a world of eat-or-beeaten, deceit may be the determining factor as to whether one has a meal in order to live another day, and whether one avoids being a meal in order to live another day. Camouflage is a passive form of deception. Active forms of deception include defensive behaviors such as piloerection in order to appear larger or more formidable, or the emission of false signals to attract would-be sexual partners of another species who instead become a meal (Lloyd, 1986; Lewin, 1987; Stowe et al., 1995). Deceitful behaviors that are apparently willful have been described in dogs, primates, and elephants (deWaal, 1986; Morris, 1986; Mills, 1997). From this we can see that the deceitfulness of man has a rich phylogenetic legacy.

Driving force in the evolution of the human brain

It has been hypothesized by Robert Trivers (1971) that the evolution of the human brain was propelled by an “arms race” influenced by the selective advantages of effective deception and, as the counterpoint, the capacity to detect deception by others. Trivers (1985) has also hypothesized that deception is most effective when the deceiver also believes the false message being delivered. Therefore, self-deception has evolved simultaneously with deception of others. One example is the infatuated person who makes statements of love to intended sexual partners. Deceit can be used to create power or to compete for sexual (reproductive) opportunities. Similarly, the capacity to detect such manipulative ploys is to the advantage of the would-be victim.

Irrespective of whether deceit was the driving force in the evolution of the human brain, there can be little question that it is the neo-cortex of the prefrontal cerebral lobes that functions as the decoder and modulator of the subtleties of social interaction. Further, this wondrous piece of computing equipment requires an extensive period of time for development and maturation. Young humans require extensive parental investment and prolonged protection prior to the achievement of independence. We can postulate from this need for protection during maturation the development of families and extended families. Further, for groups to remain cohesive, there must be commitment; some individuals sacrifice for the whole (altruism) and loyalty one to another. I propose that the need to create and maintain group cohesion, in order to provide protection for the young and for effective collecting and conservation of food resources, is responsible for the codification of moral values. Accurate nondeceptive communications within the group are essential for the group to function effectively. Deceptive communications to other competing groups may also be effective ways of preserving and extending the power of a social group. Thus, in a hierarchy of moral values, loyalty ranks higher than truthfulness (in the abstract). One example of this principle is the sociological study of a gang in a large city, in which it was found that lying to fellow gang members was condemned, but lying to outsiders was praised (Miller et al., 1961).

Research by DePaulo and Kashy (1998) can be interpreted in support of the above postulate. They found that “normal” persons lied frequently, but more often to persons with whom they did not have a close relationship (56–77 percent of all social interactions!) than to persons with whom they had very close relationships such as a spouse or lover (10 percent of social interactions). Moreover, lies to a close acquaintance were more likely to be altruistic (e.g. to protect the other’s self-esteem) than lies to strangers, which were likely to serve self-enhancement. Subjects also reported more distress about lying to persons close to them.

Deceit as a normal developmental skill

Lying is often condemned as a “naughty” behavior in children and regarded as reflecting moral deficits in adults. “In truth”, lying is a developmental skill, which is necessary for the preservation of the sense of self, the maintenance of individual autonomy, and the capacity to relate well with other persons. People whom we call “liars” or “pathological liars” are generally unsuccessful liars, while those who are more successful and skillful are not identified as such. To provide an analogy, the prisons are full of unsuccessful criminals; successful liars become chief executive officers of health insurance companies. The following discussion outlines the development of deceit and how it is incorporated as a healthy part of one’s coping mechanisms and interpersonal skills.

Defensive lies

The first lies that children tell are of denial or defensive, in order to protect one from disapproval or punishment. They begin to appear at approximately age two and consist of statements such as “I didn’t do it” or disclaimers of knowledge as to how something may have happened. These lies are fairly primitive and it does not require much skill to detect them as untruthful statements. In addition to possible incriminating evidence, the child has little control over the non-verbal expressions that give him away. Some children will also lie in a playful or humorous way to frustrate parents or to provide entertainment; ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I Theoretical perspectives
• Part II Individual differences and assessment
• Part III Developmental aspects
• Part IV Expression in specific ways and groups