Why We Think Others Lie More Than We Do
The myth of your tribe as honest broker.
Posted October 31, 2025 | Reviewed by Margaret Foley
When a rival lies or cheats, we demand justice. But when a friend does, we offer excuses. Equally, we believe our team plays by the rules while others bend them.
Yet honesty depends on the messenger.
When someone from our in-group bends the truth, we call it strategic, but when the out-group does it, we call it deceit.
In a modern era of algorithmic bubbles, deep fakes, and partisan feeds, the cost of this bias grows. When we assume the "other side" lies more, we stop fact-checking ourselves. This fuels misinformation and distrust.
A recent study of over 5,000 participants rated out-group members as more likely to lie compared to in-groups—without hard evidence. The more we cling to our group identity , the more distorted our ethical radar tends to become.
That distortion matters. It can fuel whisper campaigns, discrimination , unfair penalization, and disproportionate punishment . All deepen division as polarization continues to intensify.
In the study, participants were offered the opportunity to engage in dishonest behavior that either benefited an in-group or an out-group member.
Interestingly, observers predicted the out-group would lie more than the in-group. But there was no difference.
This common illusion of in-group honest brokers emerges from well-documented mechanisms.
Consider social identity theory. We instinctively categorize others as “us” or “them.” Whether in sports, politics , or religion, we trust the in-group and distrust the out-group.
After all, moral superiority feels safer than self-scrutiny.
Another mechanism is attribution error. When we behave questionably, we ascribe the cause to external situational forces. For instance, “we were under pressure or stressed .” But when others do so, we attribute it to character flaws. For instance, “they’re dishonest or greedy.”
Similarly, a leader notices a cost overrun and assumes the subcontractor must be concealing something. The mistake is seen as deliberate deception . Yet if a departmental colleague misses a deadline or sales target and hides it, the same leader may label it bad timing or unfortunate circumstances.
The assumption that outsiders deceive us more becomes a method of defending our identity. I write about this ethical misjudgment trap in my book TUNE IN . Psychologists call this moral typecasting— seeing “them” as moral violators and “us” as moral victims. This was evidenced when the Houston Astros baseball team was caught in a sign-stealing scandal and charged $5 million. Rival fans condemned it as cheating while supporters framed it as “gamesmanship.”
From boardrooms to domestic situations, loyalty trumps integrity more than we would like to admit. This phenomenon is also evident in business. When Volkswagen manipulated emissions tests, internal teams rationalized the deception as "protecting jobs."
During the Boeing safety crisis, insiders described issues as "communication failures," while regulators called them "cover-ups." This revealed deep tribal bias at an organizational level.
It’s also dominant in politics . Supporters of one party assume the other side cheats, exaggerates, or distorts facts. U.S. Democrats and Republicans may well overestimate the other’s likelihood of lying—despite fact-checking records. Meanwhile, internal party scandals may be downplayed or dismissed.
The same pattern appears in sports, religion, and national identity.
Have you ever considered how misjudging dishonesty can skew perceptions and policies? Law enforcement, corporate oversight, and judicial systems risk focusing on the wrong targets—chasing out-groups while overlooking internal wrongdoing.
From a decision-making perspective, this rush to misjudgment costs in several material ways.
These moral asymmetries waste time, resources, and goodwill. Worse, they erode integrity.
The good news is that perception can be recalibrated. Several science-based remedies can reduce truth gaps.
When our radar is tuned only to others, we blind ourselves to the threats from ourselves. Ethical fading can result from blind spots and deaf spots. Over time, relying on reinterpretation of evidence replaces inbuilt prejudice and builds a more accurate sense of risk.
While we’re wired to overestimate out-group dishonesty and favor in-groups, in today’s interconnected, noisy world, that wiring spreads misinformation. The challenge is to re-evaluate situations as a habit.
Smarter judgment starts with not simply believing you're right but decoding why you think so.
Share this post Facebook Bluesky Linkedin Email
There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.
By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
Nuala Walsh is a non-executive director, behavioral scientist, and adjunct professor at Trinity College Dublin. She is the author of TUNE IN .
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.
This article is part of the Bringwise Psychology Journal — daily insights on human behavior, mental health, and personal growth.