Selective (dis)honesty: Choosing overly positive feedback only when the truth hurts.

In two studies (N = 886), we examined how individuals judge and select feedback providers for those who either handle criticism well or poorly after performing a low-quality task. Prosocial liars who provided overly positive feedback, were judged as more moral than honest feedback providers. However, despite this, honest feedback providers were preferred for both oneself and others. Interestingly, when choosing a feedback provider for a vulnerable recipient versus a generic other, participants preferred a prosocial liar in the former case. Similarly, a 'sensitive' feedback provider, defined as someone who tells the truth to individuals who handle criticism well but offers overly positive feedback to those who struggle, was also favoured when the recipient was vulnerable compared with when the recipient was unspecified. Notably, the sensitive provider was not judged as less moral than the honest one, suggesting that inconsistent (dis)honesty is tolerated when it aligns with social needs. These findings indicate that individuals strategically adjust preferences for honesty versus lying based on social cues.