What is self-deceit?

Mankind is born with the innate ability to deceive, yet the most convincing lies are often derived from subconscious internal conflicts—when desires clash with internal values. The mind then distorts perception so exhaustively that the liar falls victim to their own fiction. The psychological phenomenon of self-deceit is sensitive by nature––individuals become so immersed in their meticulously shaped perspective that the implication of reality is perceived as a threat. In this essay, the concept of self-deceit is narrowed down to what William von Hippel and Robert Trivers’s article defines as biased interpretation, misremembering, and rationalization, where one’s cognitive functions are overtaken by their own deception. The line separating what the brain recognizes as truth or fiction eventually fades, and their lies become integrated deeply into their core. Yet rather than viewing self-deceit as a flaw of the mind, it may be understood as a neutral function that shapes one’s perception of the world. Ultimately, self-deceit is the architect behind identity, distorting memories to harmonize with one’s value system and thus defining the sense of self, spawning the psychologically diverse personalities in society.

While memories are believed to reflect truth, studies reveal that they are highly vulnerable to manipulation and distortion. These inaccuracies are firstly shaped by external stimuli––such as verbal suggestions and misleading details after the event––but more powerfully affected by one’s internal value system and its need for coherence. One’s recollection’s vulnerability to external stimuli is explored through the psychological concept known as the misinformation effect. In her landmark study, American psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus gathered participants who observed films of automobile accidents, and were then questioned about the details of the collision. The results showed that “the question ‘about how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’ elicited a higher estimate of speed than questions which used the verbs collided, bumped, contacted, or hit in place of smashed” (Loftus 313), illustrating how recollection is highly susceptible to stimuli received in the aftermath of an event. In addition to the distortion of memories from minor alterations in vocabulary, the “Lost in the Mall” experiment pioneered by Loftus demonstrates how false memories can be implanted into the mind. In this study, researchers provided participants with the false story of being lost in a shopping mall in their childhood, and the results revealed that around 29 percent of individuals “remembered either partially or fully the false event constructed for them.” These findings reinforce the idea that recollection is highly malleable as the mind is able to fabricate memories merely from minimal suggestions. While Loftus’s studies demonstrate how memories are actively reconstructed and vulnerable to misinformation, they can be more deeply shaped by internal forces. Self-deceit, driven by the demand of maintaining a favourable self-image, affects recollection of past experiences by reshaping events to align with a desirable personal narrative. This concept is supported by Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory, which states that “the existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, motivates the person to reduce the dissonance and leads to avoidance of information likely to increase the dissonance” (American Psychological Association). His theory highlights a significant aspect of human cognition––that the brain actively alters one’s comprehension of the world to “reduce the dissonance,” to construct a narrative that heavily favors the protection of one’s values and ego. Thus, this concept illustrates how the brain does not merely retrieve memories as fixed mental recordings, but instead reconstructs them to align with one’s beliefs. Specifically, the retrieval of memories from long-term storage is significantly guided by self-deceit, as each replay of a memory is an opportunity for a reinterpretation of the event by the individual’s current values. Adhering to the theory of cognitive dissonance, these memories are adjusted to reduce psychological discomfort, deceiving the individual into believing that their experiences and past actions reflect their principles. This internalized form of self-deceit manifests in ordinary circumstances, such as relationships, where the concept is presented in the form of a defense mechanism.

Individuals define themselves through interpersonal relationships, as these intimate connections are what provide the mind with the most vivid and meaningful memories. When one is possessed with the power to reach beyond the barriers and empathize on an emotional level, the brain activates its defenses to compensate for this discovered vulnerability. In this way, self-deceit is evident when recalling failed relationships by subtly reframing certain situations so that the self is not burdened by the weight of guilt. The perceptions of individuals under these circumstances are clouded by cognitive dissonance, and thus begin to distort memories to place the blame on the other person in the relationship. This phenomenon occurs as the mind, weighed by emotional guilt, views accountability as a threat to their ego and sense of coherence––the proceeding actions of the individual often align with what Freud defined as denial and rationalization. Specifically, these terms refer to defense mechanisms that one may unconsciously utilize to alter memories: denial, the refusal to accept truth, and rationalization, the forced justification of one’s improper actions. These protective efforts, however, eventually become the mind’s reality, and previous memories are reinterpreted to an extent where the individual can no longer distinguish between what was truly experienced and what was constructed to maintain emotional stability. Ultimately, the manipulation of recollection in such contexts reshapes one’s identity, as it alters the foundational narratives and relationships that construct one's sense of self.

Identity is deeply rooted in the memories one carries, as experiences of the past guide the mind to perceive and interpret the present. While largely reliable, an individual’s recollection is highly malleable, specifically in the process of retrieval––“the process of recovering or locating information stored in memory” (American Psychological Association). The theory that identity is shaped directly by memories has been a strongly argued claim in psychology, and thus, the vulnerability of the mind to self-deceit suggests that one’s idea of the self may have been rooted in the same fictions. In modern psychology, personal identity is termed as “an individual’s sense of self defined by a set of physical, psychological, and interpersonal characteristics that is not wholly shared with any other person, and a range of affiliations and social roles” (American Psychological Association). By this definition, Stanley B. Klein and Shaun Nichols’s piece in Oxford Journals emphasizes the importance of memories in identity formation, stating that “Memory is at the heart of the way most people think about personal identity. It is because I remember my first kiss that I think I am the same person as that awkward adolescent. If I had no memory of past experiences, the sense that I existed in the past would be dramatically compromised.” Their claim presents the sense of self as a continuous timeline, and highlights how past experiences build the foundation of one’s value system, affecting the way they perceive and respond to the world. Despite the evident importance of memories to an individual’s identity, it can be argued that other factors, such as one’s physical body, are more critical to establishing a sense of self, and is especially evident in patients who suffer from memory loss. In his article for Oxford Journals, Mrinal Miri argues that “a person can suffer a total loss of memory of all his past life, without thereby ceasing either to be a person or to be identical with a person in the past,” emphasizing how impairment to one’s recollection will not eradicate their fundamental existence as the same person. However, his claim’s emphasis on an individual’s physical existence fails to account for the significance of social roles, and thus introduces the alternative explanation that the preservation of identity for such patients is derived from the memories of those around them. As presented in the aforementioned definition of personal identity, one’s role in the world overshadows the importance of physical appearance, and is able to compensate for their loss of episodic memories. In essence, the image of a loved one is preserved not by the length of their hair or the color of their eyes, but rather by how they have contributed to one’s own lives, and shaped their sense of self. Even as an individual undergoes significant changes to their body, the sense that they are the same person as they were in the past stems from the experiences of shared connection, illustrating how fundamentally, one’s identity is still rooted in memories. Thus, the concept of self-deceit heavily determines one’s sense of self, as it manipulates and distorts the very foundations upon which identity is built.

The greatest irony in self-deceit lies in the fact that despite its manipulative methods, it guides us towards understanding who we are. Although traditionally viewed as a negative tendency, one’s own deception can be reframed as the distinct protector to their minds, preserving their uniqueness by allowing them to interpret the world in a way that aligns with their personal values. This complexity reveals a paradox: self-deceit permits us to perceive events through a personal lens, yet that lens has been crafted by the very memories that suffered distortion from the mind’s fabrications. If one’s identity, which shapes how they interpret and respond to the world, is built on such unstable foundations, is it possible to truly understand ourselves? Philosopher Marcia Cavell from the University of California, Berkeley, offers a new perspective to the self, stating that “the self […] is not a fixed, static, undivided entity, but one that exists, like feelings, only in process.” Her definition frames self-knowledge as an eternal journey rather than a concrete truth that the individual is meant to discover, and thus compensates for the lack of objectivity in one’s memories. In essence, one arrives at self-understanding not through maintaining a flawless recollection of past events, but through the meaning derived from each experience. The blueprint for how an individual perceives the world is crafted through their environment, upbringing, and momentous memories, and therefore enables the mind to reflect on such experiences in a way that specifically benefits their growth. Ultimately, the question “What actually happened?” does not have an objective answer as each individual interprets the events in distinct ways, and it is this uniqueness that creates the limitless identities that coexist in this world. Thus, self-deceit, while often preventing us from seeing “the truth,” is a necessary cognitive function that establishes the sense of self in each individual.

Self-deceit is a concept that exists as an inevitable factor of cognition, crafting the unique identities of each individual through its interpretation of past experiences. Primarily, this function alters recollection, adjusting one’s perception of events to avoid cognitive dissonance and maintain their internal values. The inaccuracy of memories affects one’s sense of self, as personal identity is a strong reflection of the narratives that the mind preserves. Consequently, the idea of self-deceit as a manipulator of recollection suggests that beyond being a defense mechanism, such deceptions actively construct one’s identity and the lens through which they view the world. While this concept is often viewed as a mental flaw that hinders an individual’s ability to decipher truth, its role as an “architect” reframes the function as a necessary cognitive skill, as it enables the existence of the many identities within society. Ultimately, by tailoring one’s perception to align with their value system, self-deceit becomes a means through which individuals may establish the diverse narratives that define their sense of self, and navigate the future through a perspective that preserves their peculiarities.

Works Cited

American Psychological Association. 19 Apr. 2018, dictionary.apa.org/identity.

American Psychological Association. 19 Apr. 2018, dictionary.apa.org/retrieval.

Cavell, Marcia. "Self-Knowledge and Self-Understanding." American Imago, vol. 65, no. 3, 2008, pp. 357-78. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26305314. Accessed 29 June 2025.

Harmon-Jones, Eddie, and Judson Mills. "An Introduction to Cognitive Dissonance Theory and an Overview of Current Perspectives on the Theory." Cognitive Dissonance: Reexamining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology (2nd Ed.)., 2019, pp. 3-24, https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-001. Accessed 28 June 2025.

Klein, Stanley B., and Shaun Nichols. "Memory and the Sense of Personal Identity." Mind, vol. 121, no. 483, July 2012, pp. 677-702. JStor, www.jstor.org/stable/23321780.

Loftus, E. F. (1997). Creating False Memories. Scientific American, 277(3), 70–75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24995913

Loftus, Elizabeth F. "The Malleability of Human Memory: Information Introduced after We View an Incident Can Transform Memory." American Scientist, vol. 67, no. 3, May-June 1979, pp. 312-20. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27849223.

McAdams, Dan P., and Kate C. McLean. "Narrative Identity." Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 22, n

Miri, Mrinal. "Memory and Personal Identity." Mind, vol. 82, no. 325, Jan. 1973, pp. 1-21. JStor, www.jstor.org/stable/2252498.

von Hippel, William, and Robert Trivers. “The evolution and psychology of self-deception.” The Behavioral and brain sciences vol. 34,1 (2011): 1-16; discussion 16-56. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10001354