The quality of lies and its relation with moral judgment and interoception

The field of deception has fascinated humanity throughout history. Lies are a common aspect of our interpersonal relationships and occur in one out of every four conversations. The construct of deception should not be considered as a single entity, rather consisting of several constructs, such as executive functions, moral judgment, and interoception. However, the literature regarding the possible link among these constructs is missing. To address this gap, 36 participants were recruited for the current study. They were required to complete three questionnaires measuring anxiety, interoception and moral judgment. After completing the assignments, each participant engaged with a fictitious crime scenario. They were required to provide a truthful and a deceptive account regarding their whereabouts of the previous day. Each statement was coded using reality monitoring and the verifiability approach. The main results showed that good liars evaluated the moral stories as more permissible, compared to non-good liars. Notably, they considered more morally acceptable the Accidental Harm condition, compared to their counterparts. Good liars seem to show an overreliance on intentions, rather on outcomes. Furthermore, results showed that participants with a greater interoceptive ability, also showed a greater ability in deception. This contribution may have serious implications in the forensic field as it shows an opposite pattern from the theoretical background used in the polygraph technique. According to this finding, all behavioural tools detecting feelings of guiltiness of a suspect based on his anxiety, distress, or behaviour, should no longer be considered valid. Overall, the present study is the first attempt to shed light on the possible relationship between the quality of lies, moral judgment and interoception.