We agree with von Hippel & Trivers (VH&T) that motivation plays a key role in self-deception. There are reasons to believe, however, that self-deception is part and parcel of normal goal operation, instead of constituting a specific adaptation for negotiating the social world. To support this argument, we discuss the selfish goal model of behavior (Bargh & Huang Reference Bargh, Huang, Moskowitz and Grant2009), which holds that human judgment and behavior were driven (unconsciously) by goal pursuit programs prior to the evolution of a central executive self. Next, we review research suggesting that all goals – even conscious ones – maintain this ability to operate autonomously and thus are capable of producing effects that appear, on the surface, to “deceive” the individual self.
Evolutionary theorists have argued that consciousness and strategic, intentional mental processes were relatively late arrivals in human evolutionary history (e.g., Corballis Reference Corballis, Zelazo, Moscovitch and Thompson2007; Donald Reference Donald1991). If so, then another, unconscious, system must have directed hominid behavior in adaptive ways prior to the evolution of consciousness.
Indeed, evolutionary biologists and psychologists view motivations as the crucial link between genetic influences and adaptive behavior (Dawkins Reference Dawkins1976; Tooby & Cosmides Reference Tooby, Cosmides, Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby1992). Because of constantly changing and shifting environmental conditions, coupled with the very slow rate of genetic change, direct genetic controls over behavior tend to be inflexible and unable to adapt quickly enough to changes in the environment. Genes program the individual with generally adaptive motivations, which are translated as “goal programs” within the nervous system (Mayr Reference Mayr1976).
These goals had to guide the individual toward evolutionarily adaptive outcomes in the local environment without the guidance of an executive self – in other words, they must have been capable of autonomous operation. When conscious goal-pursuit processes then came on-line, they likely took advantage (made use) of the already-existing autonomous goal structures (Bargh & Morsella Reference Bargh and Morsella2008). As a consequence, conscious goals retain some features of nonconscious goal pursuits, including the capability to operate independently from the “self” or central executive. Thus, we argue, any goal pursuit, conscious or unconscious, operates autonomously to an extent and can thus produce effects that can be considered “deceptive” from the perspective of the self.
How do goals operate independently from individual guidance while still prodding that individual to achieve the goal's end state? Research suggests that both conscious and nonconscious goals, once active, exert temporary downstream effects upon the individual's information processing and behaviors in ways that facilitate successful pursuit of that goal. An active goal's systematic influence can be considered “selfish” because it is geared toward attaining its desired end state, regardless of whether the consequences of goal pursuit (e.g., temporary valuation of stimuli) are consistent with the values of the stable self-concept. For instance, participants perceive goal-facilitating stimuli as bigger (Veltkamp et al. Reference Veltkamp, Aarts and Custers2008), closer (Balcetis & Dunning Reference Balcetis and Dunning2010), and more likable (Ferguson Reference Ferguson2008) when that goal is active than when it is not. These influences can be considered deceptive because as perceptions of reality, they are shifted in inconsistent, sometimes inaccurate ways.
Because they also operate autonomously (once intentionally activated), even consciously pursued goals can produce effects which deceive the individual. Bargh, Green, and Fitzsimons (Reference Bargh, Green and Fitzsimons2008) tested the hypothesis that all goal pursuits, conscious and unconscious alike, operate autonomously and so can produce consequences unwanted at the level of the self. In their experiments, participants watched a videotape of two people in an office with the explicit, conscious goal of evaluating one of the people for a job. Some participants were told the job in question was a restaurant waiter; others were told it was a newspaper crime reporter position. During the interview, the two conversation partners were interrupted by a person who behaved in either a rude and aggressive or a polite and deferential manner.
Note that the desired personality characteristics of a waiter and a crime reporter are mirror opposites: The ideal crime reporter is tough and aggressive, whereas the ideal waiter is polite and deferential. After viewing the video, participants were asked how much they liked not the job candidate (on whom they had been consciously focused), but this interrupter. Unsurprisingly, participants in the control and the waiter-job conditions liked the polite interrupter more than the rude interrupter. However, participants in the reporter-goal condition (for whom rudeness and aggressiveness are desired traits) liked the rude interrupter more than the polite interrupter. Because the interrupter's traits matched the desired qualities of the currently active goal, he was evaluated positively by people prepared to evaluate a crime reporter – though as the control condition indicates, he would not have been liked at all in the absence of this active goal. Thus, even consciously pursued goals can lead to self-deception by producing effects contrary to the individual's (i.e., self's) preferences.
Moreover, both conscious and unconscious goal pursuits can turn off, independently from self-direction or awareness, thus producing potentially self-deceptive effects. When a goal is completed it temporarily deactivates, inhibiting the mental representations involved in the pursuit of that goal (Förster et al. Reference Förster, Liberman and Higgins2005). The goal's downstream influence on the person's cognition and behavior evaporates, now allowing the production of behavior that is inconsistent with previous actions. For example, participants given the opportunity to disagree with blatantly sexist remarks were ironically more likely afterward to recommend a man for a stereotypically male job than if they had not had the counterarguing opportunity (Monin & Miller Reference Monin and Miller2001). Similarly, when supporters of then-candidate Barack Obama were given a chance to express that support, afterwards they were counterintuitively more likely to rate a job opening as more suitable for Whites than for Blacks (Effron et al. Reference Effron, Cameron and Monin2009). In these studies, successfully asserting egalitarian values temporarily completed participants' self-valued goals to appear egalitarian; this goal completion caused the production of behaviors counter to the participants' self-professed values – in other words, it produced self-deception at the behavioral level.
Instead of evolving to facilitate the deception of others, self-deception may be a natural consequence of the autonomous goal operation that characterized our pre-conscious past. Goal structures predated the evolution of a central self and so must have operated autonomously to guide the individual toward their specific desired end states. Research suggests they continue to do so today.
We agree with von Hippel & Trivers (VH&T) that motivation plays a key role in self-deception. There are reasons to believe, however, that self-deception is part and parcel of normal goal operation, instead of constituting a specific adaptation for negotiating the social world. To support this argument, we discuss the selfish goal model of behavior (Bargh & Huang Reference Bargh, Huang, Moskowitz and Grant2009), which holds that human judgment and behavior were driven (unconsciously) by goal pursuit programs prior to the evolution of a central executive self. Next, we review research suggesting that all goals – even conscious ones – maintain this ability to operate autonomously and thus are capable of producing effects that appear, on the surface, to “deceive” the individual self.
Evolutionary theorists have argued that consciousness and strategic, intentional mental processes were relatively late arrivals in human evolutionary history (e.g., Corballis Reference Corballis, Zelazo, Moscovitch and Thompson2007; Donald Reference Donald1991). If so, then another, unconscious, system must have directed hominid behavior in adaptive ways prior to the evolution of consciousness.
Indeed, evolutionary biologists and psychologists view motivations as the crucial link between genetic influences and adaptive behavior (Dawkins Reference Dawkins1976; Tooby & Cosmides Reference Tooby, Cosmides, Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby1992). Because of constantly changing and shifting environmental conditions, coupled with the very slow rate of genetic change, direct genetic controls over behavior tend to be inflexible and unable to adapt quickly enough to changes in the environment. Genes program the individual with generally adaptive motivations, which are translated as “goal programs” within the nervous system (Mayr Reference Mayr1976).
These goals had to guide the individual toward evolutionarily adaptive outcomes in the local environment without the guidance of an executive self – in other words, they must have been capable of autonomous operation. When conscious goal-pursuit processes then came on-line, they likely took advantage (made use) of the already-existing autonomous goal structures (Bargh & Morsella Reference Bargh and Morsella2008). As a consequence, conscious goals retain some features of nonconscious goal pursuits, including the capability to operate independently from the “self” or central executive. Thus, we argue, any goal pursuit, conscious or unconscious, operates autonomously to an extent and can thus produce effects that can be considered “deceptive” from the perspective of the self.
How do goals operate independently from individual guidance while still prodding that individual to achieve the goal's end state? Research suggests that both conscious and nonconscious goals, once active, exert temporary downstream effects upon the individual's information processing and behaviors in ways that facilitate successful pursuit of that goal. An active goal's systematic influence can be considered “selfish” because it is geared toward attaining its desired end state, regardless of whether the consequences of goal pursuit (e.g., temporary valuation of stimuli) are consistent with the values of the stable self-concept. For instance, participants perceive goal-facilitating stimuli as bigger (Veltkamp et al. Reference Veltkamp, Aarts and Custers2008), closer (Balcetis & Dunning Reference Balcetis and Dunning2010), and more likable (Ferguson Reference Ferguson2008) when that goal is active than when it is not. These influences can be considered deceptive because as perceptions of reality, they are shifted in inconsistent, sometimes inaccurate ways.
Because they also operate autonomously (once intentionally activated), even consciously pursued goals can produce effects which deceive the individual. Bargh, Green, and Fitzsimons (Reference Bargh, Green and Fitzsimons2008) tested the hypothesis that all goal pursuits, conscious and unconscious alike, operate autonomously and so can produce consequences unwanted at the level of the self. In their experiments, participants watched a videotape of two people in an office with the explicit, conscious goal of evaluating one of the people for a job. Some participants were told the job in question was a restaurant waiter; others were told it was a newspaper crime reporter position. During the interview, the two conversation partners were interrupted by a person who behaved in either a rude and aggressive or a polite and deferential manner.
Note that the desired personality characteristics of a waiter and a crime reporter are mirror opposites: The ideal crime reporter is tough and aggressive, whereas the ideal waiter is polite and deferential. After viewing the video, participants were asked how much they liked not the job candidate (on whom they had been consciously focused), but this interrupter. Unsurprisingly, participants in the control and the waiter-job conditions liked the polite interrupter more than the rude interrupter. However, participants in the reporter-goal condition (for whom rudeness and aggressiveness are desired traits) liked the rude interrupter more than the polite interrupter. Because the interrupter's traits matched the desired qualities of the currently active goal, he was evaluated positively by people prepared to evaluate a crime reporter – though as the control condition indicates, he would not have been liked at all in the absence of this active goal. Thus, even consciously pursued goals can lead to self-deception by producing effects contrary to the individual's (i.e., self's) preferences.
Moreover, both conscious and unconscious goal pursuits can turn off, independently from self-direction or awareness, thus producing potentially self-deceptive effects. When a goal is completed it temporarily deactivates, inhibiting the mental representations involved in the pursuit of that goal (Förster et al. Reference Förster, Liberman and Higgins2005). The goal's downstream influence on the person's cognition and behavior evaporates, now allowing the production of behavior that is inconsistent with previous actions. For example, participants given the opportunity to disagree with blatantly sexist remarks were ironically more likely afterward to recommend a man for a stereotypically male job than if they had not had the counterarguing opportunity (Monin & Miller Reference Monin and Miller2001). Similarly, when supporters of then-candidate Barack Obama were given a chance to express that support, afterwards they were counterintuitively more likely to rate a job opening as more suitable for Whites than for Blacks (Effron et al. Reference Effron, Cameron and Monin2009). In these studies, successfully asserting egalitarian values temporarily completed participants' self-valued goals to appear egalitarian; this goal completion caused the production of behaviors counter to the participants' self-professed values – in other words, it produced self-deception at the behavioral level.
Instead of evolving to facilitate the deception of others, self-deception may be a natural consequence of the autonomous goal operation that characterized our pre-conscious past. Goal structures predated the evolution of a central self and so must have operated autonomously to guide the individual toward their specific desired end states. Research suggests they continue to do so today.