Although honesty would seem to be the foundation of every successful relationship, there may be times when you wonder if it’s always wise to tell the truth.
Jessie is convinced that her partner, Chris, would be better off not knowing exactly how much a home repair will cost. She sets aside whatever small amounts she can to cover up the true expense, figuring that there’s no point in causing Chris to get as upset as she is. After all, it won’t change anything, and at least she can protect Chris from unnecessary stress.
You might wonder, though, if Jessie is really being all that altruistic. What if the heavy expense is her own fault? Maybe she didn’t check around enough to get cheaper estimates. Or maybe the need for the expense was due to her own carelessness (that cabinet drawer didn’t break itself). Now, her dishonesty seems to be serving an entirely different—selfish—purpose.
The Prosocial Lie vs. the Egoistic Lie
As noted by SWPS University’s Sebastian Wnęk and Katarzyna Cantarero (2026), although “people value honesty as essential in relationships … they also acknowledge situations in which … deception … is not only acceptable but, at times, ethically justified.” Truth can cause emotional pain, so sparing one’s partner can be a good idea. On the other hand, because honesty is such a “cherished value” for many people, people may prefer the “unvarnished truth” (p. 1). In general, research shows that the prosocial lie (the one that spares others) is more acceptable than the egoistic lie (the one that maintains positive illusions).
When considering whether to lie to protect yourself vs. your partner, one factor that can enter into the equation is whether your partner seems like someone who can, as the saying goes, “handle the truth.” Chris may worry more than Jessie does about the financial security of the couple, necessitating the prosocial lie.
According to the theory of resilience and relationship load (TRRL), people build up positive emotional reserves when their partners are loving and kind to them. If their partners are harsh and critical, these reserves become depleted, and they become more vulnerable to relational strain. But the tipping point is reached more readily with people who tend to be lower in resilience. Prosocial dishonesty serves to preserve the less resilient partner’s reserves.
Testing TRRL on Long-Term Couples
Using a sample of 672 couples living in Poland (average age 46), Wnęk and Cantarero used a scenario-based method to elicit preferred responses to prosocial vs. egoistic lies. As an example, both members of a couple complete a running competition. In the prosocial condition, one partner lies, saying she finished slower than her partner. In the truthful condition, the partner told the truth, and in the egoistical condition, the partner lied in order to look faster.
The individual’s resilience was tested with a brief resilience scale (e.g., “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”). Participants also completed measures of preferences for the truth in reaching one’s goals, closeness, and conflict avoidance. They were also asked to indicate whether, on the whole, they would lie prosocially, egoistically, or not at all to their own partner.
The findings showed that, in general, people with higher relationship satisfaction were less likely to prefer either kind of lie. As the authors concluded, “excessive use of lies, even prosocial ones, can signal relational distress and ultimately harm relationship satisfaction” (p. 10).
Resilience did not prove to affect preference for either type of lie, contrary to prediction. However, putting all variables together in one analysis showed that people lower in resilience tended to interpret truthful feedback as harmful. Consistent with TRRL, when people are low in resilience, prosocial lies by the partner may help “stabilize emotional equilibrium” (p. 10).
Yet, prosocial lies aren’t the answer either. A lie is a lie, and still not as desirable as being honest, conclude the authors. Partners who believe it is necessary to lie, or who prefer hearing lies, have relationships that are on shakier grounds than those with a foundation of truth. Rather than being a way to preserve relationships, prosocial lies can unravel strong bonds between partners.
Resilience Essential Reads
From Lies to Truth: The Path Forward
Thinking back on Jessie and Chris, the Polish findings suggest that Jessie might consider finding a way to let Chris know just how much the damage was as a result of this expense. Trying to preserve his equanimity by keeping him from knowing the truth will only create the basis for more deception.
In line with TRRL, people who are afraid to tell their partners the truth when the truth is bad are not actually helping them build greater resilience. Deception, whether prosocial or egoistical, doesn’t give a low-resilience partner the opportunity to learn how to cope with bad news. As the authors note, this is a “potentially risky strategy.”
Furthermore, as is true in deception research in general, lies become the breeding ground for more lies. At what point do you roll things back to the truth, revelations that can only weaken the trust between partners? After all, if your partner lies to you about one thing, isn’t it likely that there are other lies in the mix as well?
To sum up, trying to preserve a partner’s ability to cope with hard truths can become a strategy that can both weaken a relationship and potentially backfire. Maintaining honesty while protecting a weaker partner’s resilience will, in the long run, provide greater fulfillment for you both.
