Self-Deceit as Self-Preservation

OVERVIEW

Self-deceit, often referred to as self-deception, is described as the act of hiding the truth from oneself (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). However, in order to understand self-deceit, one must first understand the underlying motivations that influence and encourage self-deceit. Self-deceit is a fundamental aspect of human culture and connection, as it forms the basis by which others will perceive an individual, and consequently how the individual will perceive themselves in comparison to their culture’s ideals and expectations (Cheruvalath, 2012). Non-conformity is oftentimes unfavorable, and results in varying extremities of societal consequences, but adverse consequences nonetheless. Self-deceit allows for an individual to externally, and to some extent internally, conform more greatly to their culture, thus minimizing their risk of such consequences (Cheruvalath, 2012). Therefore, self-deceit acts most commonly as self-preservation, as a result of sociocultural influences. 

Self-preservation is generally defined as “behavior based on the characteristics or feelings that warn people or animals to protect themselves from difficulties or dangers” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). In other words, any action or behavior taken to minimize an individual’s risk of harm or vulnerability acts as self-preservation. This can be both external and internal in nature. As an example, if leaving a dangerous situation will result in a higher likelihood of survival, then taking that action is self-preservation. Similarly, if leaving an unhealthy relationship will result in better emotional stability, then taking that action is self-preservation. On this note, conformity acts as self-preservation.

Conformity is the compliance with culturally-specific rules, guidelines, expectations, ideals, practices, etc. (American Psychological Association, n.d.). Humans have a natural tendency to engage in conformity, and some degree of conformity is, in fact, expected from individuals in any given culture, as it is essential to forming social relationships and social harmony (Hodges, 2015) (Flynn, 2023). As such, non-conformity is often dangerous, and can result in othering, abandonment, or in extreme cases, violence from fellow community members. Within conformity, self-deceit will inevitably take place. However, in order to understand how an individual internalizes the importance placed upon conformity, and thus engage in self-deceit, an individual must undergo the never-ending process of enculturation. 

Enculturation is the long, tedious process in which an individual is exposed to, learns about, and consequently assimilates to their native culture’s beliefs, values, and practices (American Psychological Association, n.d.). A common theory amongst sociocultural scientists is that, within the process of enculturation, individuals strive to achieve or emulate their culture’s ideals (Warren, 2014). As such, self-deceit is encouraged by a society, most often with strict expectations and ideals, and consequently serves as a means of social control. By encouraging certain ideals, such as what clothes men and women should wear, what is generally considered attractive, the definition given to success, what defines a family, etc., community members must oftentimes lie to themselves about what they really feel, want, and believe, in order to fit these “socially imposed expectations” (Warren, 2014). As a result, people often believe what they were culturally-conditioned to without factoring whether or not they genuinely believe it to be true.

This serves greatly in self-deceit and, as previously discussed, going against these imposed-ideals will likely result in societal consequences. By aligning one’s beliefs and actions to these ideals, an individual greatly mitigates harm. Therefore, self-deceit directly aids in self-preservation. To give an example, suppose a young boy would much rather play with toy dolls than toy trucks. His family deeply disapproves and his peers poke fun at him whenever the topic arises. As is often the case, physical or verbal threats of violence are made against the boy, as femininity in boys and men is frowned upon in his culture. Consequently, he convinces himself he much prefers hobbies and pastimes considered masculine, as living with the desire for something different whilst simultaneously lying to others would be far too emotionally and mentally draining for him to live with on a day-by-day basis. By engaging in self-deceit, he gains the approval of his society. As such, he’s indirectly taught the social advantages gained from self-deceit outweigh the internal toll. 

Similarly, in the concept of groupthink, in which individuals in a group strive for conformity and thus accept perceived group consensus (Kretchmar, 2021), self-deceit is inescapable. Individuals may convince themselves that the group consensus is rational or something that they agree with, as disagreeing may result in unfavorable consequences. In order to at least minimize risk of harm or vulnerability, an act of self-preservation, they must hide the truth from others and go along with the group consensus. By rationalizing or convincing oneself that the group consensus is agreeable, the individual achieves the goal of conformity, the social advantages that result from conformity, and in turn preserve their physical or emotional safety. Though it’s true that suppressing one’s true beliefs may result in a greater mental toll, individuals are encultured to believe the external, social advantages outweigh the internal cost, as previously discussed. 

Nevertheless, consciously lying requires greater cognitive effort than telling the truth (Verschuere et al., 2018). Furthermore, some theorists argue that self-deceit aids in overall deception, as it eliminates the external cues associated with lying that often result from the cognitive load consciously lying produces, thus aiding the individual’s ability to deceive (Deweese-Boyd, 2006) (von Hippel & Trivers, 2011). Additionally, being aware of such societal consequences that result from either disagreeing or being exposed when lying is just as if not more of a heavy emotional pressure on the individual that may further push them to conformity. Thus, the logical conclusion is that hiding the truth from oneself is the easiest way to minimize one’s risk of harm. 

In a more definitive example self-preservation, self-deceit increases an individual’s likeliness of survival. Should an individual not entirely conform to their community’s ideals or expectations, they’re often at risk of violence. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that, if it is something that can theoretically be kept secret from other community members, the safest option, and the one that results in a higher likelihood of survival, is to keep their non-conformity hidden. However, as previously discussed, consciously lying is cognitively draining and lowers an individual’s chances of successfully deceiving others. Self-deceit, consequently, develops in order to evade such risk of harm (Cheruvalath, 2012). To give an example, suppose a homosexual man has realized, at least to some extent, that he is homosexual.

He lives in a community where this is considered unacceptable, and he may lose community favor, social advantages, familial relationships, and be at great risk of violence or further discrimination. It’s important to consider that he was raised within the same culture as those who are a threat to him, so it’s likely he considers his homosexuality, at least to some extent, unacceptable as well. In order to remain physically safe, and mentally stable for the time being, self-deceit develops as an act of self-preservation, as self-deceit allows for the deceiver to never be fully aware of the intensity of their true feelings. While one can argue that this simply acts as repression, it’s important to consider that repression is, in itself, self-deceit, in that it serves the purpose of deceiving oneself and others. Self-deceit keeps him as mentally well as he can be in such a situation, while simultaneously keeping him safe from external harm. 

Furthermore, it’s always deeply important to consider more heavily an individual’s internal sense of self-preservation. That is, their mental wellbeing. The most notable, and most often discussed, is that self-deceit minimizes the cognitive load associated with consciously lying. It takes a great deal of effort to lie, and in doing so it often makes the deceiver’s lies more obvious to others. Additionally, it was found by Preuter et al., (2023) in British Journal of Social Psychology that consciously lying results in negative self-esteem, and consequently, an increase in overall uncomfortable emotions, as it’s perceived as immoral across the majority of human cultures.

However, self-deceit is different from general deception in that the individual is also deceiving themselves. As such, self-deceit allows an individual to subconsciously see no need to address such feelings of negativity, as they aren’t completely aware they’re lying. Moreover, social connection is found to directly increase an individual’s mental wellbeing, often contributing to their physical wellbeing in turn (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024). By aligning one’s behavior or beliefs to better fit what the majority of people do or believe, regardless of what one truly believes, individuals can form better social harmony, and thus gain better social connections. The logical conclusion in this instance is that self-deceit directly aids in the emotional and, in turn, physical wellbeing of those who engage in it, thereby increasing their likelihood of survival. 

Further, self-deceit also serves the purpose of an internal sense of control. On a smaller scale, self-deceit allows for any given individual to feel like they have more control over a situation than they truly do. In the case of the non-confirming individual, they may feel like their risk of harm and vulnerability (both internal and external) is minimized by self-deceit, thus gaining a sense of control over their situation. Another example could be an individual purposefully justifying or distorting the truth to fit a more pleasant outcome. Even with evidence suggesting the contrary, by making the evidence fit their idea of a more pleasant narrative, the individual feels as though the situation is not completely out of their control.

By confronting whatever it may be that resulted in the development of self-deceit, it’s likely they’ll feel it to be far too much to handle, therefore suppressing the truth is the best outcome in the individual’s mind, thus giving them more control of a situation they feel they do not have. Using the previous example of a homosexual man, suppose he believes he can choose his sexual orientation to better fit his society’s beliefs and protect himself from harm. By deceiving himself, he gains an internal sense of control. Though it’s certainly true suppression results in further harm, the man doesn't immediately have to confront the fact that an unchangeable aspect of himself goes directly against his community’s expectations and ideals, and often results in othering and violence from community members. In other words, a situation out of his control is believed to be controllable, thus aiding in external safety and internal, though most commonly short-term, control. 

CONCLUSION

Every individual experiences and engages in self-deceit. The extent of which one does so and the specifics of such deceit is variable, though remains directly intertwined with the culture in which one was raised. The cultural education, that is to say enculturation, of children is of deep importance to individuals in any given culture, thus indirectly encouraging self-deceit as conformity is increasingly expected as one ages. Furthermore, non-conformity is equally discouraged from a young age, as non-conformity, or any behavior, personality, or trait considered ill-disposed, results in unfavorable reactions from community members. However, it is impossible to expect full conformity from any individual, just as it is impossible to expect complete perfection. Consequently, self-deceit develops in order to preserve one’s conformity and control of an uncontrollable situation, as doing so minimizes one’s risk of harm or otherwise vulnerability. Thus, self-deceit serves the greater purpose of self-preservation, resulting directly from one’s sociocultural influences.

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Conformity. In APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://dictionary.apa.org/conformity

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Enculturation. In APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://dictionary.apa.org/enculturation 

Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Self-deceit. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/self-deceit

Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Self-preservation. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved June 27, 2025, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/self-preservation 

Cheruvalath, R. (2012). Analyzing the Concept of Self-Deception in Indian Cultural Context. Cultura, 9(1), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.5840/cultura20129129 

Deweese-Boyd, I. (2006). Self-Deception. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/self-deception/ 

Flynn, S. I. (2023). Culture and conformity. EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/ethnic-and-cultural-studies/culture-and-conformity

Hodges, B. H. (2015). Conformity and divergence in interactions, groups, and culture. In S. G. Harkins, K. D. Williams, & J. M. Burger (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social influence (pp. 87–106). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199859870.013.3

Kretchmar, J. (2021). Groupthink. EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/groupthink 

Sanne Preuter, Jaeger, B., & Mariëlle Stel. (2023). The costs of lying: Consequences of telling lies on liar’s self‐esteem and affect. British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(2), 894–908. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12711 

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024, May 15). Social Connection. https://www.cdc.gov/social-connectedness/about/index.html 

Verschuere, B., Köbis, N. C., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Rand, D., & Shalvi, S. (2018). Taxing the brain to uncover lying? Meta-analyzing the effect of imposing cognitive load on the reaction-time costs of lying. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(3), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.04.005 

von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x10001354 

Warren, C. S. (2014). Honest Liars: Using Psychological Theory to Understand Self-Deception. Psi Chi, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.24839/1092-0803.eye18.3.12