White lies—such as complimenting a spouse's mediocre meal or a friend's questionable haircut—can preserve relationships. However, in professional settings, where candid feedback is essential for growth, they pose challenges. New research by Lily Jampol, Ph.D. '14, and Vivian Zayas, associate professor of psychology at Cornell University's College of Arts and Sciences, reveals that women often receive less accurate, more flattering performance feedback than men.
In their study, Zayas and Jampol found that women with subpar performance get friendlier but less truthful feedback compared to equally underperforming men.
"White lies help maintain relationships, spare feelings, or cast the giver in a positive light," Jampol explains. While well-intentioned, they can undermine progress in feedback-dependent environments.
"Performance feedback is vital in workplaces and personal development," the authors note. "Everyone deserving improvement should access honest input, irrespective of social group. Our findings spotlight one barrier: gender."
This work builds on extensive prior research documenting gender disparities in evaluations. Women often earn warmer narrative praise but lower objective scores, fewer resources, and softer criticism from managers.
Zayas aimed "to empirically demonstrate a tendency to soften or distort feedback positively—essentially lying—to women in face-to-face interactions."
The team conducted two rigorous studies.
In the first, participants reviewed a hypothetical manager's harsh internal assessment of poor employee work, then the milder direct feedback given. Randomly assigned to truthful (harshest) or deceptive (kindest) versions, they inferred the employee's gender from the feedback.
"Participants strongly assumed the recipient of the least truthful, nicest feedback was a woman," Jampol reports. "This indicates a perceived norm in feedback practices."
The second study tested if participants themselves would lie more to low-performing women. They privately rated two weak essays by initials (AB or SB), unaware of genders.
Post-rating, participants provided direct chat feedback after learning names (Andrew or Sarah). Sarah's public score rose nearly a full point from private ratings, with more positive comments. Andrew's stayed consistent.
These insights highlight a subtle barrier to gender equity, per Jampol and Zayas.
