Self-Deception: A Case Study in Folk Conceptual Structure

Theoretical debates around the concept of self-deception revolve around identifying the conditions for a behavior to qualify as self-deception. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed that various candidate features—such as intent, belief change, and motive—are treated as sufficient, but non-necessary, conditi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inReview of philosophy and psychology Vol. 16; no. 2; pp. 545 - 572
Main Authors Isern-Mas, Carme, Hannikainen, Ivar R.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.06.2025
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1878-5158
1878-5166
DOI10.1007/s13164-024-00743-y

Cover

More Information
Summary:Theoretical debates around the concept of self-deception revolve around identifying the conditions for a behavior to qualify as self-deception. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed that various candidate features—such as intent, belief change, and motive—are treated as sufficient, but non-necessary, conditions according to the lay concept of self-deception. This led us to ask whether there are multiple lay concepts, such that different participants endorse competing theories (the disagreement view), or whether individual participants assign partial weight to various features and consequently waver in cases of middling similarity (the conflict view). In Experiment 3, by-participant regression models uncovered that most participants additively consider multiple characteristics of the prototype of self-deception, while only a minority of participants treat a characteristic (or a combination thereof) as necessary and sufficient. In sum, by disambiguating interpersonal disagreement and intrapersonal conflict in a within-subjects design, the present experiments indicate that the lay concept may primarily exhibit a prototype structure. In closing, we suggest that future research deploying this method may help to explain why experimental research on philosophical concepts often engenders partial support for competing theories.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:1878-5158
1878-5166
DOI:10.1007/s13164-024-00743-y