Yalanın Uygunluğuna İlişkin Yargılarda Benlik Kurgusu, Değerler ve Dindarlığın Rolü

Öz

İnsan yaşamının sosyal bir parçası olan yalan söyleme davranışları toplumda olumsuz bir fenomen olarak görülmesine rağmen bazı durumlarda insanlar tarafından oldukça makul karşılanmaktadır. Bu açıdan yalanın hangi durumlarda kabul edilebilir bulunduğunu incelemek önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma benlik kurgusu, değerler, dindarlık ve farklı yalan türlerinin kabul edilebilirliği arasındaki ilişkileri incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada 605 katılımcı, Yalanın Uygunluğu Testi, Portre Değerleri Anketi ve Özerk İlişkisel Benlik Ölçeğini doldurmuştur. Ayrıca olası tepki yanlılıkları göz önünde bulundurularak sosyal beğenirlik düzeyleri de kontrol amacıyla ölçülmüştür. Hiyerarşik regresyon analizinin sonuçları, dindarlık, muhafazacılık ve öz-genişletim değerlerinin kendini koruma yalanlarının kabul edilebilirliğini yordadığını göstermiştir. İmaj yönetimi yalanlarının kabul edilebilirliği açısından, muhafazacılık ve öz-genişletim değerleri ile özerk-ilişkisel benliğin anlamlı yordayıcılar olduğu görülmüştür. Prososyal yalanın kabul edilebilirliğinin anlamlı düzeyde yordayıcısı olan tek değişkenin öz-aşkınlık değerinin olduğu saptanmıştır. Geçiştirme yalanlarının kabul edilebilirliği, dindarlık ve özerk-ilişkisel benlik tarafından anlamlı olarak yordanmıştır. Çalışmanın bir diğer bulgusu ise muhafazacılık ve öz-genişletim değerleri ile dindarlık ve özerk-ilişkisel benlik kurgusunun zorunlu yalanların kabul edilebilirliğinin anlamlı yordayıcıları olduğudur. Sonuçlar, dindarlık, muhafazacılık ve kendini geliştirme değerleri ile otonom-ilişkisel benlik kurgusu değişkenlerinin, araçsal yalanların kabul edilebilirliğinin önemli yordayıcıları olduğunu göstermiştir. Son olarak, farklı yalan türlerinin toplam kabul edilebilirliği açısından; muhafazacılık ve öz -genişletim değerleri, dindarlık ve özerk-ilişkisel benlik kurgusu değişkenlerinin anlamlı yordayıcılar olduğu bulunmuştur. Bu çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, yalana ilişkin muhakemelerin farklı sosyal faktörlerden etkilendiğini göstermektedir ve bu faktörler bulgular ışığında tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yalan söyleme
• yalanın uygunluğu
• dindarlık
• benlik kurgusu
• değerler

The Role of Self-Construal, Values, and Religiosity on Judgements of the Reasonability of Lying

Öz

Although lying, which is a social part of human life, is seen as a negative phenomenon in society, it is considered quite reasonable by people in some cases. In this respect, it is important to examine in which circumstances lying is acceptable. This study aims to examine the relationships between self-construal, values, religiosity, and the acceptability of different types of lies. A total of 605 participants completed the self-report measures of the Reasonability of Lying Scale, Portrait Values Questionnaire, and Autonomous-Related Self Scale. In addition, considering possible response biases, social desirability scores were also controlled. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis showed that religiosity, conservation, and self-enhancement values were the predictors of acceptability of self-protection lies. In terms of the acceptability of face management lies, conservation and self-enhancement values, and autonomous-relational self were the significant predictors. It was founded that the only variable that was a significant predictor of acceptability of prosocial lie was self-transcendence values. Acceptability of evasion lies were significantly predicted by religiosity and autonomous-relational self. Another finding was that religiosity, conservation and self-enhancement values and autonomous-relational self-construal were the significant predictors of acceptability of necessity lies. The results showed that religiosity, conservation and self-enhancement values, and autonomous-relational self-construal variables were significant predictors of acceptability of instrumental lies. Finally, in terms of the total acceptability of different types of lies; religiosity, conservation and self-enhancement values and autonomous-relational self-construal variables were the significant predictors. The results obtained from this study indicate that evaluations of lying are affected by different social factors, and these factors are discussed in the light of recent findings.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Lying
• reasonability of lying
• religiosity
• self-construal
• values

Kaynakça

1. Algül, A. (2017). İzzüddîn b. Abdüsselâm’in maslahat anlayışı. EKEV Akademi Dergisi, 21(69), 1-30.
2. Allport, G. W. & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0021212
3. Aune, R. K. & Waters, L. L. (1994). Cultural differences in deception: Motivations to deceive in Samoans and North Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(2), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(94)90026-4
4. Aydın, M. S. (2022). Prosocial lie in children: The social and cognitive factors on the acceptability of prosocial lies in middle childhood. Nobel Yayinlari.
5. Aydın, M. S. & Balım, S. (2021). Why do we lie? An explanatory view for lie-telling behaviors of university students and adults. Nesne, 9(20), 291-304. DOI: 10.7816/nesne-09-20-05
6. Aydın, M. S., Meriç, I., Sahin, F. B. & Ergun, E. Y. (2022). Ebeveyn tutumları ve benlik kurgusu ile çocukların yalana ilişkin değerlendirmeleri arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Gelişim ve Psikoloji Dergisi, 3(6), 107-120.
7. Bae, S., Liu, X., & Ng, S. (2022). We are more tolerant than I: self-construal and consumer responses toward deceptive advertising. Marketing Letters, 33(2), 277-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-021-09593-5
8. Balım, S. & Aydın, M. S. (2021). The Development of reasonability of lying scale: The validity and reliability study. Muhakeme Journal, 4(2), 59-77. DOI: 10.33817/muhakeme. 999934

9. Banerjee, K., Huebner, B., & Hauser, M. (2010). Intuitive moral judgments are robust across variation in gender, education, politics and religion: A large-scale web-based study. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10(3-4), 253-281.
10. Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice and private and public life. Hassocks, UK: Harvester Press.
11. Bryant, E. M. (2008). Real lies, white lies and gray lies: Towards a typology of deception. Kaleidoscope: A Graduate Journal of Qualitative Communication Research, 7, 23-48.
12. Cantarero, K., Szarota, P., Stamkou, E., Navas, M., & Dominguez-Espinosa, A. D. C. (2018). When is a lie acceptable? Work and private life lying acceptance depends on its beneficiary. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(2), 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1327404
13. Cesur, S. (2018). Ahlakın sosyal psikolojisi. Hiperlink Yayınevi.
14. Dekking, F. M., Kraaikamp, C., Lopuhaä, H. P., & Meester, L. E. (2005). A modern introduction to probability and statistics: Understanding why and how. Springer-Verlag London Limited.
15. Demirutku, K. (2007). Parenting styles, internalization of values, and the self-concept. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
16. DePaulo, B. M., Ansfield, M. E., Kirkendol, S. E., & Boden, J. M. (2004). Serious lies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26, 147-167. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2602&3_4
17. Dmytro, D., Lo, J., O’Leary, J., Fu, G., Lee, K., & Cameron, C. A. (2014). Development of cultural perspectives on verbal deception in competitive contexts. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(8), 1196-1214.
18. Fu, G., Xu, F., Cameron, C. A., Heyman, G., & Lee, K. (2007). Cross-cultural differences in children’s choices, categorizations, and evaluations of truths and lies. Developmental Psychology, 43, 278–293. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.278.
19. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor.
20. Gunduz, S. (2007). Yaşayan Dunya Dinleri. Presidency of Religious Affairs Publishing.
21. Harris, S. (2013). Lying. Four Elephants Press.
22. Hartshorne, H. & May, M. S. (1928). Studies in the nature of character: Vol. 1 Studies in deceit. New York: Macmillan.
23. Heyman, G. D., Hsu, A. S., Fu, G., & Lee, K. (2013). Instrumental lying by parents in the US and China. International Journal of Psychology, 48(6), 1176–1184. http://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.746463
24. Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. (1999). Measures of religiosity. Religious Education.
25. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
26. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
27. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (1996). Özerk-ilişkisel benlik: Yeni bir sentez. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 11(37), 36-43.
28. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403- 422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959
29. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theories and applications. (2nd ed.). US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
30. Keyes, R. (2004). The post-truth era: Dishonesty and deception in contemporary life. Macmillan.
31. Kim, M. S., Kam, K. Y., Sharkey, W. F. ve Singelis, T. M. (2008). “Deception: Moral transgression or social necessity?”: Cultural-relativity of deception motivations and perceptions of deceptive communication. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 23-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513050701621228
32. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 34-47. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.34
33. Lee, K., Xu, F., Fu, G., Cameron, C. A. ve Chen, S. (2001). Taiwan and mainland Chinese and Canadian children’s categorization and evaluation of lie-and truth-telling: A modesty effect. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151001166236
34. Lo, J. H. Y., Fu, G., Lee, K., & Cameron, C. A. (2020). Development of moral reasoning in situational and cultural contexts. Journal of Moral Education, 49(2), 177-193.
35. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
36. Mealy, M., Stephan, W., & Urrutia, C. (2007). The acceptability of lies: A comparison of Ecuadorians and Euro-Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(6), 689–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.06.002
37. Oliveira, C. M., & Levine, T. R. (2008). Lie acceptability: A construct and measure. Communication Research Reports, 25(4), 282–288. doi:10.1080/08824090802440170
38. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
39. Privitera, G. J. (2015). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. SAGE.
40. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
41. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
42. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-45.
43. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
44. Seiter, J. S., Bruschke, J., & Bai, C. (2002). The acceptability of deception as a function of perceivers’ culture, deceivers’ intention, and deceiver–deceived relationship. Western Journal of Communication, 66, 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310209374731
45. Setoh, P., Santos, R., Zhao, S., Zhang, L., Heyman, G. D., & Lee, K. (2022). Parents with greater religiosity lie less to their children. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 14(1), 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000377
46. Sim, R. L. (2002). Support for the use of deception within the work environment: A comparison of Israeli and United States employee attitudes. Journal of Business Ethnics, 35, 27–34.
47. Stavrova, O., & Siegers, P. (2013). Religious prosociality and morality across cultures: How social enforcement of religion shapes the effects of personal religiosity on prosocial and moral attitudes and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(3), 315–333. http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213510951
48. Sweet, M. A., Heyman, G. D., Fu, G., & Lee, K. (2010). Are there limits to collectivism? Culture and children's reasoning about lying to conceal a group transgression. Infant and Child Development, 19(4), 422-442.
49. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (pp. 117-196). Boston, MA: Pearson.
50. Tong, D., Isik, I., & Talwar, V. (2023). A cross-cultural comparison of the relation between children’s moral standards of honesty and their lie-telling behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 231, 105665.
51. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism‐collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907-924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696169
52. Triandis, H. C., Carnevale, P., Gelfand, M., Robert, C., Wasti, A., Probst, T., Kashima, E. S., Draganos, T., Chan, D., Chen, X. P., Kim, U., de Dreu, C., van de Vliert, E., Iwao, S., Ohbuchi, K. & Schmitz, P. (2001). Culture and deception in business negotiations: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 1(3), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/147059580111008