Visit: https://a2zcareers.viden.io
The Color Wheel Model of Love
In his 1973 book The Colors of Love, psychologist John Lee compared styles of love to the color wheel. Just as there are three primary colors, Lee suggested that there are three primary styles of love. These three styles of love are: Eros: The term eros stems from the Greek word meaning "passionate" or "erotic." Lee suggested that this type of love involves both physical and emotional passion. Ludos: Ludos comes from the Greek word meaning "game." This form of love is conceived as playful and fun, but not necessarily serious. Those who exhibit this form of love are not ready for commitment and are wary of too much intimacy. Storge: Storge stems from the Greek term meaning "natural affection." This form of love is often represented by familial love between parents and children, siblings, and extended family members. This type of love can also develop out of friendship where people who share interests and commitments gradually develop affection for one another. Continuing the color wheel analogy, Lee proposed that just as the primary colors can be combined to create complementary colors, these three primary styles of love could be combined to create nine different secondary love styles. For example, combining Eros and Ludos results in mania or obsessive love.
Aman Kumar Singh
Compassionate vs. Passionate Love
According to psychologist Elaine Hatfield and her colleagues, there are two basic types of love: Compassionate love Passionate love Compassionate love is characterized by mutual respect, attachment, affection, and trust. Compassionate love usually develops out of feelings of mutual understanding and shared respect for one another. Passionate love is characterized by intense emotions, sexual attraction, anxiety, and affection. When these intense emotions are reciprocated, people feel elated and fulfilled. Unreciprocated love leads to feelings of despondency and despair. Hatfield suggests that passionate love is transitory, usually lasting between 6 and 30 months. Hatfield also suggests that passionate love arises when cultural expectations encourage falling in love, when the person meets your preconceived ideas of an ideal love, and when you experience heightened physiological arousal in the presence of the other person. Ideally, passionate love then leads to compassionate love, which is far more enduring. While most people desire relationships that combine the security and stability of compassionate with intense passionate love, Hatfield believes that this is rare.
Liking vs. Loving
Psychologist Zick Rubin proposed that romantic love is made up of three elements: Attachment Caring Intimacy Rubin believed that sometimes we experience a great amount of appreciation and admiration for others. We enjoy spending time with them and want to be around them, but this doesn't necessarily qualify as love. Instead, Rubin referred to this as liking. Love, on the other hand, is much deeper, more intense, and includes a strong desire for physical intimacy and contact. People who are "in like" enjoy each other's company, while those who are "in love" care as much about the other person's needs as they do their own. ​Attachment is the need to receive care, approval, and physical contact with the other person. Caring involves valuing the other person needs and happiness as much as your own. Intimacy refers to the sharing of thoughts, desires, and feelings with the other person. Based upon this definition, Rubin devised a questionnaire to assess attitudes about others and found that these scales of liking and loving provided support for his conception of love.
On-again, off-again relationships might be toxic ?
Sam and Diane from "Cheers." Ross and Rachel from "Friends." Carrie and Mr. Big from "Sex and the City." These are just some of the notable on-again, off-again couples found in pop culture. While their relationships made for storylines that kept viewers entertained, a researcher from the University of Missouri says that the pattern of breaking up and getting back together can impact an individual's mental health and not for the better. He suggests people in these kinds of relationships should make informed decisions about stabilizing or safely terminating their relationships. Prior research has estimated that more than 60 percent of adults have been involved in on-off relationships, and more than one-third of cohabitating couples reported breaking up and later reconciling at some point. Compared to relationships without this pattern, on-off relationships are associated with higher rates of abuse, poorer communication and lower levels of commitment. "Breaking up and getting back together is not always a bad omen for a couple," said Kale Monk, assistant professor of human development and family science. "In fact, for some couples, breaking up can help partners realize the importance of their relationship, contributing to a healthier, more committed unions. On the other hand, partners who are routinely breaking up and getting back together could be negatively impacted by the pattern." Monk and co-authors Brian Ogolsky and Ramona Oswald from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, examined data from more than 500 individuals currently in relationships. They found that an increase in breaking up and reuniting was associated with more psychological distress symptoms such as depression and anxiety. They did not find meaningful differences between same-sex and heterosexual relationships in this pattern. Partners break up and reunite for a number of reasons, a common one is necessity or practicality. For example, a person might stay in a relationship for financial reasons or partners might stay together because they feel they have invested too much time into the relationship to leave. However, Monk advises that former partners should get back together based on dedication, not obligation. "The findings suggest that people who find themselves regularly breaking up and getting back together with their partners need to 'look under the hood' of their relationships to determine what's going on," Monk said. "If partners are honest about the pattern, they can take the necessary steps to maintain their relationships or safely end them. This is vital for preserving their well-being." Monk offers the following tips for couples who might want to evaluate their relationships: When considering rekindling a relationship that ended or avoiding future breakups, partners should think about the reasons they broke up to determine if there are consistent or persistent issues impacting the relationship. Having explicit conversations about issues that have led to break ups can be helpful, especially if the issues will likely reoccur. If there was ever violence in the relationship, however, or if having a conversation about relationship issues can lead to safety concerns, consider seeking support-services when it is safe to do so. Similar to thinking about the reasons the relationship ended, spend time thinking about the reasons why reconciliation might be an option. Is the reason rooted in commitment and positive feelings, or more about obligations and convenience? The latter reasons are more likely to lead down a path of continual distress. Remember that it is okay to end a toxic relationship. For example, if your relationship is beyond repair, do not feel guilty leaving for your mental or physical well-being. Couples therapy or relationship counseling is not just for partners on the brink of divorce. Even happy dating and married couples can benefit from 'relationship check-ups' in order to strengthen the connection between partners and have additional support in approaching relationship transitions. "Coming out and getting back in: relationship cycling and distress in same-and-different-sex relationships," recently was published in Family Relations, the interdisciplinary journal of applied family science. Monk also serves as a state specialist for MU Extension. The Department of Human Development and Family Science is in the MU College of Human Environmental Sciences.
Toddlers prefer winners, but avoid those who win b
They have only just learnt to walk and talk -- and have only just started to develop social relationships with children of their own age. Yet, these tiny toddlers already use cues of social status to decide which people they prefer or would rather avoid. This has just been established by researchers from Aarhus BSS and the University of California, Irvine, through experiments carried out on toddlers aged 21 to 31 months. Previous research has shown that even nine-month-old infants can grasp a simple conflict of interest. When two individuals block each other's path, the infants will automatically assume that the largest person will defeat the smallest. Lotte Thomsen, professor of psychology at the University of Oslo and associate professor at Aarhus BSS, and her colleagues, established this. Now researchers are taking it one step further by demonstrating how toddlers also themselves prefer to affiliate with the winners of these conflicts and avoid those who they have seen yield to others. The research results have recently been published in Nature Human Behavior in the article "Toddlers prefer those who win, but not when they win by force." "The way you behave in a conflict of interest reveals something about your social status," says Ashley Thomas from UC Irvine, who is the lead author of the article. She continues: "Across all social animal species, those with a lower social status will yield to those above them in the hierarchy. We wanted to explore whether small children also judge high and low status individuals differently." To explore this question, the researchers used the basic paradigm of Lotte Thomsen's previous research where two puppets attempt to cross a stage in opposite directions. When the puppets meet in the middle, they block each other's way. One puppet then yields to the other and moves aside, allowing the other puppet to continue and reach its goal of crossing the stage. Afterwards, the children were presented with the two puppets. 20 out of 23 children reached for the puppet that had "won" the conflict on the stage -- the unyielding puppet. Thus, the children preferred the high-status puppet -- the one that others voluntarily yield to. We do not like people winning by force "Next, we wanted to explore whether toddlers would still prefer the winning puppet if it won by using brute force," says Thomas. The researchers exposed a new group of toddlers to the same puppet show, but this time one puppet would forcefully knock the other puppet over to reach its goal. Now 18 out of 22 children avoided the winning puppet and reached for the victim instead. In line with other social animals, infants thus prefer individuals who appear to have a high status -- but only if their status is acknowledged by others and not if they retort to using raw physical force to get their way. Here toddlers differ from our closest primate relatives -- the bonobo apes -- who still reach for those who use physical force to get their way in similar experimental set-ups. Acquired versus innate The underlying logic of this kind of research is to explore the implicit, given rules and assumptions that humans use for understanding and navigating social relations: What are the shared expectations and basic motives that underpin our social interactions? "Our research shows that it's part of human nature to be aware of social status: Even nine-month-old babies assume that the largest person will win, and even 1 1/2 year-old toddlers seek out those whom other people yield to. However, in contrast to other primates, it's crucial for even the youngest human beings that others also acknowledge someone's social status or priority right. We're generally repulsed by bullies who brutally steamroll others to get their own way," Thomsen explains. This reflects the challenges of living in cultural communities where we depend on learning from and being protected by respected others to whom we defer because they have more competence, know-how, strength or resources to share, but where we must also reach solutions to conflicts of interest that will be acceptable to the majority of people. Long-term socialisation and experience with the ups and downs of social hierarchies and the people at their top -- for instance with good and bad leaders -- might account for such status representations and motives among adults. However, it is harder to see how preverbal infants and toddlers would have already acquired such motives through their own relatively short experience, especially with regards to the minimal experimental situations that the toddlers have not seen before. "Our results indicate that the fundamental social rules and motives that undergird core social relationships may be inherent in human nature, which itself developed during thousands of years of living together in cultural communities," Thomsen concludes.
Teen dating violence is down. But Boys?
When it comes to teen dating violence, boys are more likely to report being the victim of violence -- being hit, slapped, or pushed -- than girls. That's the surprising finding of new research from the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. Overall, fewer teens are experiencing physical abuse from their dating partners, with five per cent of teens reporting dating violence in 2013, down from six per cent in 2003. However, the researchers found 5.8 per cent of boys and 4.2 per cent of girls said they had experienced dating violence in the past year. First author Catherine Shaffer, a PhD student from SFU who was involved in the study, says more research is needed to understand why boys are reporting more dating violence. "It could be that it's still socially acceptable for girls to hit or slap boys in dating relationships," she said. "This has been found in studies of adolescents in other countries as well." She added that the overall decline in dating violence, while small, is encouraging. "Young people who experience dating violence are more likely to act out and take unnecessary risks, and they're also more likely to experience depression or think about or attempt suicide," Shaffer said. "That's why it's good to see that decline in dating violence over a 10-year span. It suggests that healthy relationship programs are making an impact among youth." The study is the first in Canada to look at dating violence trends among adolescents over time, and the first in North America to compare trends for boys and girls. Researchers analyzed data from three B.C. Adolescent Health Surveys involving 35,900 youth in grade 7 to 12 who were in dating relationships. Elizabeth Saewyc, senior study author and UBC nursing professor, said the findings highlight the need for more support programs for both boys and girls in dating relationships. "A lot of our interventions assume that the girl is always the victim, but these findings tell us that it isn't always so," said Saewyc. "And relationship violence, be it physical, sexual or other forms, and regardless who the perpetrator is, is never OK. Health-care providers, parents and caregivers, schools and others can protect teens from dating violence by helping them define what healthy relationships looks like, even before their first date." The study analyzed surveys conducted by the McCreary Centre Society, a community-based organization dedicated to adolescent health research in B.C. Results were published recently in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Heartbeat paces learning, study finds
The electrophysiological activity of the brain is dominated by rhythmically coupled oscillations with different frequencies. The synchrony between oscillations enables effective communication locally and between brain regions. Many physiological functions, such as breathing and heartbeat, are also rhythmically coupled in nature. Furthermore, the rhythms of the brain and body are coupled. For instance, the neural activities of the hippocampus and the breathing pattern have been shown to oscillate in synchrony. The hippocampus is a crucial brain structure for learning, meaning that the rhythmical coupling of the brain and the body might affect the learning process. The Behavioral Neuroscience Group from the Department of Psychology in the University of Jyväskylä studied the effects of the cardiac cycle in a simple learning task. The group investigated how learning is modulated by the cardiac cycle. In the experiments the conditioned stimulus was a tone followed by an air puff directed at the eye. The unconditioned stimulus, the air puff, causes an involuntary eyeblink. Eventually the blinking of the eye occurs spontaneously before the air puff as a result of learning. The neuronal responses to the tone were modulated by the cardiac cycle in both humans and rabbits. In addition, the learning rates of the rabbits were enhanced when the conditioned stimulus was presented during the resting phase of the cardiac cycle. "Our results showed that the processing of the external information varies during the phases of the cardiac cycle," says Tomi Waselius. "It is possible that the activity of the cardiorespiratory neurons in the brain stem affects the overall neural state of the hippocampus and thus the neural processing of the external information. This is only speculation and we have commenced complementary studies to support these ideas." Waselius suggests that it would be interesting to study how bodily rhythms modulate learning in, for example, Alzheimer patients. The article was selected as an APSselect article by the American Physiological Society. The issue consists of the ten best articles published in July and it is now freely available from the website of the Journal of Neurophysiology.
You probably made a better first impression than y
After we have conversations with new people, our conversation partners like us and enjoy our company more than we think, according to findings published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. In our social lives, we're constantly engaged in what researchers call "meta-perception," or trying to figure out how other people see us. Do people think we're boring or interesting, selfish or altruistic, attractive or not? "Our research suggests that accurately estimating how much a new conversation partner likes us -- even though this a fundamental part of social life and something we have ample practice with -- is a much more difficult task than we imagine," explain first authors Erica Boothby, a postdoctoral researcher at Cornell University, and Gus Cooney, a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard University. "We call this a 'liking gap,' and it can hinder our ability to develop new relationships," study coauthor Margaret S. Clark, the John M. Musser Professor of Psychology at Yale University, told Yale News. Boothby, Cooney, Clark, and Gillian M. Sandstrom, Professor of Psychology at the University of Essex, examined various aspects of the liking gap in a series of five studies. In one study, the researchers paired participants who had not met before and tasked them with having a 5-minute conversation featuring typical icebreaker questions (e.g., Where are you from? What are your hobbies?). At the end of the conversation, the participants answered questions that gauged how much they liked their conversation partner and how much they thought their conversation partner liked them. On average, the ratings showed that participants liked their partner more than they thought their partner liked them. Since it can't logically be the case that both people in a conversation like their partner more than their partner likes them, this disparity in average ratings suggests that participants tended to make an estimation error. Indeed, analyses of video recordings suggested that participants were not accounting for their partner's behavioral signals indicating interest and enjoyment. In a separate study, participants reflected on the conversations they'd just had -- according to their ratings, they believed that the salient moments that shaped their partner's thoughts about them were more negative than the moments that shaped their own thoughts about their partner. "They seem to be too wrapped up in their own worries about what they should say or did say to see signals of others' liking for them, which observers of the conservations see right away," Clark noted. Additional studies showed that the liking gap emerged regardless of whether people had longer conversations or had conversations in real-world settings. And a study of actual college roommates showed that the liking gap was far from fleeting, enduring over several months. The phenomenon is interesting because it stands in contrast with the well-established finding that we generally view ourselves more positively than we do others, whether we're thinking about our driving skills, our intelligence, or our chance of experiencing negative outcomes like illness or divorce. "The liking gap works very differently. When it comes to social interaction and conversation, people are often hesitant, uncertain about the impression they're leaving on others, and overly critical of their own performance," say Boothby and Cooney. "In light of people's vast optimism in other domains, people's pessimism about their conversations is surprising." The researchers hypothesize that this difference may come down to the context in which we make these self-assessments. When there is another person involved, such as a conversation partner, we may be more cautious and self-critical than in situations when we are rating our own qualities with no other source of input. "We're self-protectively pessimistic and do not want to assume the other likes us before we find out if that's really true," Clark said. This self-monitoring may prevent us from pursuing relationships with others who truly do like us. "As we ease into new neighborhood, build new friendships, or try to impress new colleagues, we need to know what other people think of us," Boothby and Cooney explain. "Any systematic errors we make might have a big impact on our personal and professional lives." This work was supported by the Templeton Foundation and the Economic and Social Research Council (United Kingdom).
The link between cognitive function and sexuality
The number of people who live at home with Alzheimer's Disease (AD), a brain disease that causes abnormal changes that kill brain cells, is expected to grow from 3.2 million today to more than 8 million in 2050. Experts agree that we know very little about sexuality among people living at home with AD or other cognitive problems. Older adults who have cognitive problems that impact the way they think and make decisions may ask physicians to help managing sexual problems. And caregivers may ask physicians about sexuality in the older adults for whom they provide care. One frequently asked question is: Do older adults always have the capacity to consent to sexual activity? Researchers have previously shown that the majority of people aged 57 to 85 have a spouse or other intimate partner and, among those with a partner, most are sexually active. Having an active sexual life is linked to better physical and mental health, higher quality of life, and lower rates of loneliness. To learn more about the connection between sexuality and cognitive status, researchers designed a new study. They analyzed data from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project to learn more about the relationship between sexual behavior, function, and cognition (people's ability to think and make decisions). Their study was published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. Based on their study, the researchers reported that: - 83 percent of men and 57 percent of women had an intimate partner. The more impaired participants' abilities to think and make decisions were, the less likely they were to have an intimate partner. - Women with lower cognitive scores were less likely than men with lower cognitive scores to have intimate partners. - Nearly half of all men with dementia were sexually active, as were 18 percent of women. - Among people with an intimate partner, the majority of men (59 percent) and women (51 percent) with dementia were sexually active. More than 40 percent of partnered men and women ages 80 to 91 living with dementia were sexually active. - More than 1 in 10 people living with a partner reported feeling threatened or frightened by a partner. This finding was similar among women and men and across different levels of cognitive problems. Experts and guidelines call on physicians to screen for elder abuse (the mistreatment of older people, which can take many forms, including physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, financial exploitation, and neglect), including sexual abuse, but definitions of abuse and standards of consent for sex vary widely. The researchers estimate that, among people living at home who are aged 62 and older, at least 1.8 million men and 1.4 million women with suspected or diagnosed dementia are sexually active. This number will more than double by 2050. However, rarely do these people (especially women) receive a physician's counseling about sexual changes that may occur with dementia or other medical conditions. The researchers suggested that these findings can inform improved counseling, treatment, and person-centered decision-making by physicians and other healthcare providers caring for people with dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Sexual activity is an important aspect of human function throughout your lifetime, said the researchers. They added that respectful care for older adults, including people with cognitive impairments, requires an understanding of sexual norms and problems -- and effective strategies to manage sexual concerns with dignity.
Social class and communication situation
Are people with more money and education dominating and less warm? A social-psychological study at Goethe University scrutinizes stereotypes. How is our behavior influenced by our social class? Sociology has long concerned itself with this question. Whether individuals grow up in a working-class environment or in an academic household, they take on behaviors that are typical for their class -- so goes the hypothesis. The Frankfurt social-psychologist Dr. Anna Lisa Aydin has found new evidence to support this hypothesis. Her study, which she carried out jointly with researchers from Zurich, Hagen, Idaho and Tel Aviv, and which has been published in the scientific journal Social Psychological and Personality Science also shows, however, that people don't just rigidly exhibit class-specific behavior, but respond flexibly to counterparts from other social classes. A large portion of the research on the influence of social class stems from the ideas of the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. He describes how the environment in which we grow up inscribes itself deeply into our identity. Social-psychological authors argue that people from lower social classes have access to fewer resources and can only influence their environment to a limited degree. They therefore rely more on mutual assistance, making solidarity an important value. People identify with this value and behave cooperatively as a result. People from upper social classes, on the other hand, have access to more resources, can choose from among several alternatives, and are less dependent on mutual assistance. This results in individualistic conceptions of the self where shaping the environment according to one's own preferences is paramount. These different modes of behavior therefore constitute adaptions to corresponding social environments. This theory was supported in part by the current study. Overall, more than 2,000 people in Germany were surveyed. For respondents who considered themselves to be members of a lower class, warm and cooperative interaction with other people in their social class was more important than for those who considered themselves members of a higher social class. In addition, those who earned more and were better educated set more value on demonstrating competence and being assertive in their interactions with others than those in the group with lower earnings and less education. The authors feared that these differences in behavior could lead to a further increase in social inequality in Germany. Individuals who exhibit assertiveness have better chances for social advancement. However, the observed differences in behavior were relatively small. The influence of the social class of the individual's counterpart had a significantly greater impact. How do people behave when interacting with someone from a lower or higher social group? The majority of those surveyed described social difference in Germany as unjustified or not very justified. As a result, they found it important to behave warmly and cooperatively toward people with less money and education. Conversely, they set value on appearing competent and assertive toward people with more money and education. These findings are particularly relevant in view of the fact that social inequality is increasing in Germany and other parts of the world, although most people perceive this as unjustified. While research based on sociological theories can explain how this inequality can be exacerbated by conditioning within different social classes, the current study offers an optimistic perspective: in communication situations between people of different classes where class differences are perceived as illegitimate, solidarity with the poor and assertiveness toward the rich are exhibited.
Difficult people have most to gain from practicing
The most disagreeable individuals, who are also the least likely to be kind, can benefit most from behaving more compassionately, a York University study has found. More than 640 people who were mildly depressed took part in the study which tracked the results of online compassion training. Researchers asked the participants, who were on average in their mid-30s, to take part in one of three online compassion intervention exercises including a control condition. They were asked to complete their exercise and report back via an online platform every other day for three weeks. Two months later, disagreeable participants who performed acts of kindness in close relationships showed the greatest reductions in depression and greatest increases in life satisfaction. "Everybody needs people," says lead author Myriam Mongrain, Professor of Psychology in York's Faculty of Health. "As a result of their hostility and lack of cooperation, disagreeable types risk getting rejected or ostracized. There is a lot of conflict in their relationships, and they suffer the consequences. We found that providing concrete suggestions to those individuals, giving them ways in which they could express empathic concern in their close relationships was tremendously helpful." Highly disagreeable people often lack empathy, even in their close relationships, said Mongrain. "Implementing these new behaviours might have left them feeling affirmed and liked in their close social circle. This might have been the anti-depressant ingredient in this group," she said. Mongrain adds the findings are particularly noteworthy given that the interventions were administered online and only required 10-15 minutes every other day. In other words, it was easy to implement, could be administered worldwide and had profound effects for some individuals. In another exercise condition involving Loving Kindness Meditation, participants were asked to spend up to 10 minutes meditating on nurturing phrases such as "May you be happy" or "May you be safe." This exercise was of benefit to participants as a whole. However, when examining interactions effects with the disagreeable personality variable, the researchers found that it was the Acts of Kindness exercise that was most helpful for this subgroup. Researchers say the results could have immediate practical applications for social scientists, policymakers, psychology researchers, and health practitioners. The widespread application of compassion interventions could contribute to a more humane and kinder society, particularly when targeted at those prone to hostility. "It's like at the end of the story of the Grinch," says Mongrain. "When he took people in they said his heart grew three sizes bigger, and he also became happy. You can't be an island unto yourself. Sometimes those who are hostile say they don't need people, but at the end of the day, it does affect mood. People get very drained from disagreements with their spouse for example, so the toll that it takes is not to be minimized. This kind of intervention could be an antidote for those who are lacking in compassion." The study is published in the journal, Translational Issues in Psychological Science.
People can handle the truth (more than you think)
Most people value the moral principle of honesty. At the same time, they frequently avoid being honest with people in their everyday lives. Who hasn't told a fib or half-truth to get through an awkward social situation or to keep the peace? New research from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business explores the consequences of honesty in everyday life and determines that people can often afford to be more honest than they think. In the paper, "You Can Handle the Truth: Mispredicting the Consequences of Honest Communication," Chicago Booth Assistant Professor Emma Levine and Carnegie Mellon University's Taya Cohen find that people significantly overestimate the costs of honest conversations. "We're often reluctant to have completely honest conversations with others," says Levine. "We think offering critical feedback or opening up about our secrets will be uncomfortable for both us and the people with whom we are talking." The researchers conclude that such fears are often misguided. Honest conversations are far more enjoyable for communicators than they expect them to be, and the listeners of honest conversations react less negatively than expected, according to the paper, published in the Journal of Experiment Psychology: General. For purposes of the study, the researchers define honesty as "speaking in accordance with one's own beliefs, thoughts and feelings." In a series of experiments, the researchers explore the actual and predicted consequences of honesty in everyday life. In one field experiment, participants were instructed to be completely honest with everyone in their lives for three days. In a laboratory experiment, participants had to be honest with a close relational partner while answering personal and potentially difficult discussion questions A third experiment instructed participants to honestly share negative feedback to a close relational partner. Across all the experiments, individuals expect honesty to be less pleasant and less social connecting than it actually is. "Taken together, these findings suggest that individuals' avoidance of honesty may be a mistake," the researchers write. "By avoiding honesty, individuals miss out on opportunities that they appreciate in the long-run, and that they would want to repeat."