Do You Really Mean It ?

Honesty is a cornerstone of human communication and interpersonal trust. The statement, “When you ask me a question, if I can’t give you an honest answer that you don’t want to hear, then you can’t trust me to honestly answer a question by telling you what you do want to hear,” highlights the paradox of selective truth-telling. Let’s consider the psychological and ethical implications of honesty in communication, emphasizing how withholding unwelcome truths undermines trust and distorts authentic relationships.

Trust is built upon consistent honesty, even when the truth is uncomfortable. According to Rotenberg (2019), interpersonal trust depends on the expectation that others will act with reliability, emotional support, and honesty. When individuals choose to conceal or distort information to avoid discomfort, they compromise this expectation. Research in communication studies shows that deception—even when intended to protect feelings—erodes relational trust over time (Levine, 2014).

Moreover, honesty is not merely about factual accuracy but about transparency in intent. If one only provides answers that align with what the listener wants to hear, communication becomes manipulative rather than authentic. This aligns with Bok’s (1999) ethical framework, which argues that lying—even benevolent lying—creates a slippery slope that weakens moral responsibility and interpersonal credibility.

Psychological research suggests that people often avoid delivering unwelcome truths due to fear of conflict or rejection (Vrij, 2008). However, studies on authenticity demonstrate that individuals who communicate openly, even when uncomfortable, foster stronger and more resilient relationships (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). The willingness to share difficult truths signals respect for the other person’s capacity to handle reality, thereby reinforcing mutual trust.

Furthermore, selective honesty can create cognitive dissonance. Festinger’s (1957) theory explains that when individuals act inconsistently with their values—such as valuing honesty but practicing selective truth-telling—they experience psychological discomfort. Over time, this dissonance can erode self-concept and relational integrity.

Thus, as I repeatedly have emphasized in my blog posts and books (e.g., McCusker, 2025), context is critical. Delivering truths that others may not want to hear requires careful consideration of the proper time, place, and person. As Knapp, Vangelisti, and Caughlin (2014) note, interpersonal communication is most effective when it accounts for situational appropriateness and relational dynamics. 

To maximize the chances of supportive and constructive dialogue, several strategies can be applied—First, timing: Choose a moment when the listener is most receptive, avoiding times of heightened stress or distraction. Research on conflict resolution emphasizes that poorly timed disclosures often escalate tension rather than resolve it (Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2011). Second, setting: Select a private and safe environment, particularly when the truth may be emotionally difficult. Public settings can amplify embarrassment or defensiveness, reducing the likelihood of constructive engagement. Third, audience: Consider whether you are the right person to deliver the truth. In clinical or educational contexts, trusted professionals or mentors may be better positioned to communicate sensitive information (Rogers, 1957). Fourth, wording: Frame the truth in language that is clear but compassionate. Using “I” statements and avoiding accusatory phrasing reduces defensiveness and promotes understanding (Gordon, 2000). Fifth, prosody and nonverbal cues: Tone of voice, pacing, and facial expressions significantly influence how messages are received. Supportive prosody conveys empathy and respect, increasing the likelihood of effective communication (Burgoon, Guerrero, & Floyd, 2016). Finally, follow-up support: Difficult truths should be accompanied by reassurance, resources, or constructive next steps. This transforms honesty from a blunt disclosure into a supportive act of care. By integrating these strategies, honesty becomes not only a moral imperative but also a skillful practice that strengthens trust while minimizing harm.

The ethical dimension of honesty in communication is critical. Trust cannot be compartmentalized into “truths we want to hear” and “truths we do not want to hear.” As Habermas (1984) argued in his theory of communicative action, genuine dialogue requires openness and sincerity. Without these, communication can degrade into strategic manipulation rather than mutual understanding. In short, the statement under consideration underscores a profound truth: honesty must be consistent to be trustworthy. If one cannot be relied upon to deliver unwelcome truths, then their willingness to provide welcome truths becomes suspect. 

Psychological research confirms that honesty, even when uncomfortable, strengthens trust, authenticity, and ethical responsibility in communication. Yet, context remains vital—choosing the right time, place, person, and manner of delivery ensures that honesty is not only truthful but also supportive. Ultimately, the integrity of dialogue depends not on selective truth-telling but on the courage to speak honestly in all circumstances, with sensitivity to context.

References

Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. Vintage.

Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal communication. Routledge.

Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (2011). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Gordon, T. (2000). Parent effectiveness training: The proven program for raising responsible children. Three Rivers Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon Press.

Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Advances and directions in self research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9

Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2014). Interpersonal communication and human relationships (7th ed.). Pearson.

Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14535916

McCusker, P. J. (2025). Weaponized Communication: Improvised Explosive Devices. New York: Amazon.

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357

Rotenberg, K. J. (2019). The psychology of trust. Routledge.

Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Wiley.

 

 

More Important Than Sweet Potatoes: Reactance Motivation

No, this blog is not really about sweet potatoes. It just begins with a sweet potato story. 

I attended a Philadelphia Catholic elementary school, and like many students there, had lunch in the cafeteria. In approximately second grade, I remember queuing up to be served. A nun stood behind the line, monitoring what went on the trays. When I passed without getting sweet potatoes, she stopped the line and told the server to plop a blob of canned cold sweet potatoes on my tray. I did not eat them, and stood to go to the school playground for recess. However, the nun pushed me back down in my seat and told me to finish eating. I replied, "But sister, I don't like sweet potatoes". Undeterred, she stood there behind me until the school bell signaled that it was time to return to class. I never did eat the sweet potatoes, and she was not happy about that. So, what does that have to do with anybody? It’s all about reactance motivation.

Psychological reactance theory was first introduced by Jack Brehm (1966) to explain why individuals resist when they perceive their freedom of choice is being threatened. Reactance is defined as an unpleasant motivational arousal that occurs when people feel their autonomy is restricted (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2025). In the cafeteria story, the nun’s insistence that I eat the sweet potatoes represented a direct threat to my freedom to choose what I consumed. The stronger the pressure, the stronger the reactance response became. Rather than complying, I resisted—even though the cost was missing recess.

Reactance is not simply stubbornness; it is a psychological mechanism designed to protect perceived freedoms. When individuals feel coerced, they often respond by asserting their autonomy, sometimes by doing the opposite of what is demanded (Steindl et al., 2015). In this case, the nun’s authority amplified the sense of restriction, which intensified my motivation to resist. The sweet potatoes became symbolic of lost freedom rather than just food.

This phenomenon has broader implications. Reactance motivation explains why people resist persuasion in family settings, health campaigns, political messaging, or even everyday interpersonal interactions. For example, when individuals are told they “must” adopt a certain behavior, they may reject the message outright, even if the behavior is beneficial (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2025). The cafeteria incident illustrates how coercion can backfire, producing resistance rather than compliance.

Understanding reactance is crucial for families, educators, leaders, and advocates. Strategies that emphasize choice, autonomy, and collaboration are more effective than those that rely on force or pressure. In the family and in the classroom, offering individuals options rather than mandates can reduce resistance. In public health, framing recommendations as empowering rather than restrictive can increase acceptance.

The sweet potato story is thus more than a childhood memory; it is a vivid example of how psychological reactance operates in everyday life. When freedom is threatened, even in small ways, people are motivated to restore it. The lesson is clear: persuasion works best when it respects autonomy.

Some might legitimately assert that elementary school-aged Peter merely was being disobedient. After all, sweet potatoes are nutritious, and children should be taught respect for authority. So, I feel compelled to end by briefly addressing how families can maintain authority while supporting healthy identity development.

Excessive coercion fosters not only psychological reactance but also, in the extreme, negative identity formation. The latter is an identity formed in opposition to unfair societal expectations. For example, when continually forced to try to achieve standards that they truly cannot attain, they might seek success in antisocial behavior.  Less extreme—but more common—than negative identity formation is the adoption of negative ideation and negative communication.  There, it’s not so much negative behavior, but obstreperous and negative talk. Families can mitigate these risks by enforcing rules through clarity, collaboration, and respect. Such strategies not only reduce resistance but also empower people to internalize positive identities rooted in autonomy and responsibility. Ultimately, effective rule enforcement requires balancing authority with empathy, ensuring that boundaries guide rather than suffocate identity development.

References

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2025). Psychological reactance theory: An introduction and overview. Motivation Science, 11(2), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000376

Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Understanding psychological reactance: New developments and findings. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(4), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000223