Lying in Everyday Situations Test (LiES)

The Lying in Everyday Situations Scale (LiES) was developed to better understand how and why people lie in everyday life. While lying has long been studied in psychology, much of the earlier research focused on extreme forms of deception such as criminal lying, pathological lying, or laboratory-based experiments that did not always reflect real-life situations. Researchers recognized that lying is actually a common social behavior that occurs in many ordinary interactions. Because of this, Christian L. Hart, Jelisa M. Jones, John A. Terrizzi Jr., and Drew A. Curtis created the LiES to measure everyday lying in a more realistic and structured way.

The scale was designed to capture the different motivations people may have when they lie. Previous studies had shown that not all lies serve the same purpose. Some lies are told to maintain social harmony, protect relationships, or avoid conflict. Other lies are told with more harmful intentions, such as hurting someone, gaining revenge, or manipulating others. The developers of the LiES aimed to distinguish between these different motivations by organizing the test into two main categories of lying behavior.

To create the scale, the researchers generated a set of statements describing situations in which people might lie in everyday life. Participants are asked to rate how likely they are to engage in each behavior using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. This format allows researchers to measure individual differences in lying tendencies while still keeping the questionnaire easy to complete. The scale contains 14 items in total and is divided into two subscales: Relational Lying and Antisocial (or Vindictive) Lying.

The Relational Lying subscale focuses on lies told for social or interpersonal reasons. These lies are often used to avoid conflict, hide embarrassing behavior, maintain harmony, or protect someone’s feelings. In many cases, these types of lies are considered socially acceptable or even polite in certain situations. For example, people may tell small “white lies” to prevent arguments or to avoid hurting someone emotionally. Because these lies are motivated by relationship management rather than harm, they represent a more socially oriented form of deception.

In contrast, the Antisocial or Vindictive Lying subscale measures lies that are intended to harm others or gain satisfaction from deception. These lies may be used to attack people, seek revenge, manipulate others, or create conflict. Compared with relational lies, antisocial lies reflect more hostile or aggressive motivations. Research using the LiES has found that this type of lying is generally less common but tends to be associated with certain personality traits related to antagonism or manipulation.

One of the goals of the LiES was to provide a reliable and valid tool for studying lying behavior in psychological research. The scale has been used to examine relationships between lying and various personality characteristics, including traits such as honesty, agreeableness, and aspects of the so-called “dark” personality traits. By separating relational and antisocial forms of deception, the LiES allows researchers to explore how different motivations for lying relate to broader patterns of behavior and personality.

Overall, the Lying in Everyday Situations Scale provides a concise and practical way to measure how often individuals lie and why they do so. By focusing on common social contexts and distinguishing between different types of deceptive motivations, the test helps researchers better understand the role of lying in everyday human interaction.

References

• Christian L. Hart, Jelisa M. Jones, John A. Terrizzi, Drew A. Curtis. (2019). Development of the Lying in Everyday Situations Scale. The American Journal of Psychology, 132 (3), 343-352. doi: https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.132.3.0343.
• Littrell, S., Risko, E.F. and Fugelsang, J.A. (2021), The Bullshitting Frequency Scale: Development and psychometric properties. Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 60: 248-270 e12379. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12379