Self-Deception Revisited: A Literature Review on Its Social and Structural Dimensions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/r49d1m43Keywords:
Self-deception, Cultural and Social Perspective, Interventions.Abstract
Self-deception is traditionally conceptualized as an individual-level cognitive error, where an individual holds a belief contrary to available evidence. The current study argues for a more nuanced understanding, positioning self-deception as a socially embedded and psychologically motivated phenomenon, profoundly shaped by identity, emotion, and social power. Drawing on integrated philosophical and psychological literature, this study review theoretical foundations showing that self-deception operates through pre-conscious cognitive mechanisms (e.g., motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance reduction) rather than solely deliberate choice. Critically, we emphasize that the form and function of self-deception are mediated by socio-structural contexts. Cultural norms (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) and socioeconomic factors (e.g., social class) systematically predict self-deceptive tendencies, such as meritocratic beliefs among the advantaged or failure internalization among the disadvantaged. These patterns reveal how self-deception often reinforces collective illusions and perpetuates inequality. To mitigate these effects, multi-level interventions are proposed, including cognitive strategies like bias training to foster critical thinking, and structural reforms like transparency policies to disrupt collective false beliefs. In summary, this review underscores the growing urgency of investigating the ethical dimensions of self-deception, specifically examining the conditions under which and the extent to which such psychological protection remains justifiable in an era marked by algorithmic manipulation and ideological polarization.
Downloads
References
[1] REN M, ZHONG B, FAN W, et al. The influence of self-control and social status on self-deception[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, 9: 1256.
[2] LEE P, RICHTER H. Deception and paradoxes of belief[C]//Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2025 Edition). Stanford University, 2025.
[3] KOROTKOV A D, ZHELTYAKOVA M A, MASHARIPOV R S, et al. Activity of the left inferior frontal gyrus and the error detection mechanism during deception in conditions of different monetary benefit[J]. Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology, 2024, 54: 1323–1331.
[4] MELE A R. Self-Deception Unmasked [M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001:26-28.
[5] KORCZYK K. Absorbed in deceit: modeling intention-driven self-deception with agential layering[J]. Inquiry, 2024: 1-27.
[6] AHMADZADE H, BATOULI S A H, OGHABIAN M A. Brain regions activity during a deceitful monetary game: An fMRI study[J]. Archives of Neuroscience, 2022, 9(2):e122202.
[7] WOLF I, SCHRÖDER T. The critical role of emotional communication for motivated reasoning[J]. Scientific Reports, 2024, 14: 31681.
[8] FLORES C. Identity-protective reasoning: An epistemic and political defense[J]. Episteme, 2025: 1–24.
[9] GAWRONSKI B, BRANNON S M. Cognitive dissonance theory in perspective: Current directions and new horizons[J]. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2023, 68: 1–54.
[10] BLANKEN I, VAN DE VEN N, ZEELENBERG M. A meta-analytic review of moral licensing[J]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2015, 41(4): 540–558.
[11] ZHONG L, RU T, FAN M, et al. The effect of cognitive vagueness and motivation on conscious and unconscious self-deception[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(12): 1330–1340.
[12] KUNDA Z. The case for motivated reasoning[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1990, 108(3): 480–498.
[13] SLOTHUUS R, BISGAARD M. Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in identity-congruent contexts[J]. American Political Science Review, 2021, 115(2): 686–701.
[14] KAHAN D M. Identity-protective cognition and the challenge of democratic decision making[J]. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2022, 18: 1–20.
[15] KUNDA Z. The case for motivated reasoning[J]. Psychological bulletin, 1990, 108(3): 480.
[16] DI TELLA R, PEREZ-TRUGLIA R, BABINO A, et al. Redistribution and beliefs about the source of income inequality[J]. Experimental Economics, 2025.
[17] YILDIRIM A, et al. Examining the distinction between self-enhancement and self-protection in young adults: The roles of basic need satisfaction and psychological adjustment[J]. Análise Psicológica, 2025.
[18] SALVAGIONI D A J, et al. Physical, psychological and occupational consequences of job burnout: A systematic review of prospective studies[J]. PLoS ONE, 2020, 15(9): e0238210.
[19] VRIJ A, et al. Cultural differences in the efficacy of unexpected questions on deception cues: Effects of individualism–collectivism[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023, 14: 1175333.
[20] DAVIDAI S. The psychology of (in)equality: From self-serving beliefs to self-defeating behaviors[J]. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2022, 44: 220–225.
[21] OZER A. Well, you’re the expert: how signals of source expertise help mitigate partisan bias[J]. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 2023, 33(1): 1-21.
[22] OBLOJ T, ZENGER T. The influence of pay transparency on (gender) inequity, inequality and the performance basis of pay[J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2022, 6(5): 646-655.
[23] KAMBAYASHI R, LECHEVALIER S. Why do redistributive policies differ across countries? Analyzing the multiple dimensions of preferences for redistribution[J]. Review of Income and Wealth, 2022, 68(4): 1032-1057.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.







