Psychological studies have shown that about half of negotiators lie when they have a motive and opportunity to do so. With this in mind, it's risky to assume one can tell when a negotiator is lying since most studies demonstrate the success rate at detecting lies is about the same as a 50-50 coin toss. 

As a mediator, I accept the fact that people in conflict don't always tell the truth and that I can’t determine if they are or not. Knowing this, I encourage parties to acknowledge they disagree and then focus on the future. For example, consider a business owner and a former employee in conflict over whether the employee violated a non-compete clause after leaving the company. The employer claimed to have evidence to prove the agreement not to compete was breached. The former employee claimed to have evidence this was not the case. And I had no way to determine if the parties were being completely truthful, nor was that part of my role as mediator.

I would say it appeared both parties were making statements beyond what evidence they had. They seemed to both be “overstating” their claims. They could engage in extended litigation that would cost them lost clients and revenue. Or they could negotiate a new, more precise, agreement to not compete.

After agreeing their existing agreement was, at best, ambiguous, they chose to negotiate a new agreement and the issue as to who was being “truthful” became a non-starter.

These days various media outlets report the “non-facts” or “lies” of politicians and popular cultural figures. Self-report studies of how often people lie vary widely from “more than once a day” to “over 100 times a day.” That discrepancy leads one to wonder if some of the self-reports themselves are accurate.

Judeo-Christian traditions are clear: The ninth commandment is the admonition not to bear false witness against your neighbor; and in Proverbs “The six things doth the Lord hate: … a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” (King James Version).

The relationship between lying and conflict is not widely studied, but allow me to report one observation. Volunteer Small Claims Court mediators I’ve trained often report seeing the following occur: All litigants are sworn to tell the truth at the beginning of the day. Some of those litigants are referred to mediation and “tell their story” to the mediator and the other(s) involved in their lawsuit. If the parties don’t reach an agreement in mediation, their dispute goes before the judge. Time permitting, the volunteer mediator may sit in the courtroom to listen to the case. It is not unusual for one of the litigants to tell the judge something completely different to what they said during mediation. These are not “little white lies” but major contradictions that can impact the judge’s ruling. They either lied in the mediation or the courtroom, which is not an unusual occurrence.

The volunteer mediators ask me how they should deal with disputants who they believe to be lying and are often surprised when I tell them “It doesn’t matter.” Mediation is not a forum to “determine the truth.” I say if they were to ask both parties separately who was telling the truth, I would dare say they would each believe they were. I remind them that the objective of mediation is to help the parties reach an agreement about the future, not to determine who is right and who is wrong.

Perhaps in a sense I am suggesting the lying doesn’t matter because it is possible that all the parties are bending the truth to some extent. Lies can get us into conflict; we also use lies to avoid conflict; and we use lies to try and get out of conflicts. 

I would like to hear others’ experiences with lies and conflict.