For many children, the winter holidays centre on a lie. They’re told that every Christmas Eve, a jolly, elderly man visits all the children in the world. He pops down the chimney, leaves gifts (at least for well-behaved children) and then disappears unseen.
Meanwhile, parents everywhere raise their children to be honest and fret if they start telling lies.
For new parents, the myth of Santa Claus then poses a dilemma. Should you practice what you preach and tell your children the truth? Or is there something special about Santa that makes this lie OK?
In a recent publication, I reviewed philosophers’ views on the ethics of deception and applied them to parental lies. Three themes recurred.
First, lying undermines autonomy. Of course, young children don’t have the capacity to make important decisions for themselves, but still, telling children lies to make them behave is manipulative. It stops them from deciding for the right reasons. This includes telling a child that they won’t get Christmas presents unless they are good.
No one’s 20s and 30s look the same. You might be saving for a mortgage or just struggling to pay rent. You could be swiping dating apps, or trying to understand childcare. No matter your current challenges, our Quarter Life series has articles to share in the group chat, or just to remind you that you’re not alone.
Read more from Quarter Life:
How to talk about finances with your partner (especially if one of you makes more money)
Expecting again? Tips for helping your first-born child thrive with a new sibling
Gail Heyman, professor of psychology at UC San Diego, calls the practice of controlling children through lies “parenting by lying”. Her work shows how common it is. In one of her studies four out of five parents admitted to lying to influence the behaviour or emotions of their children.
Second, many philosophers think deception is wrong because it breaches trust. When someone believes our testimony, they trust us. We honour that trust by being honest and breach it when we deceive.
In healthy parent-child relationships, children trust their parents. Young children may have absolute trust. That’s why a lie as preposterous as Santa can endure for so long, even in otherwise sceptical children.
Of course, children trust their parents with much more than just being honest. They trust them to keep them safe too, and sometimes deception might be part of that. The objective truth about horrifying news stories might be too much for a young child and that seems like a fine thing to shield them from.
But this won’t justify the Santa lie because it’s not protecting children from unpleasant truths. After all, we don’t think that families who don’t celebrate Christmas are breaching their children’s trust.
Third, the consequences of the lie matter. Even if a lie is manipulative and breaches your child’s trust, it might be justified if it’s the only way to provide an important benefit or prevent a serious harm.
Social scientists who have looked at the effects of frequently lying to children paint a bleak picture. “Parenting by lying” is associated with lower relationship satisfaction between adult children and their parents, as well as other negative psychological and social effects on the children when they grow up.
There is also some research on the effects of serious lies. These concern topics like whether a child is adopted or about terminal illness in the child or a parent. The data consistently show that children fare better if they are told the truth (in a sensitive, age-appropriate way).
Studying the Santa lie
What about the effects of the Santa lie, in particular? A couple of fascinating studies have quizzed children about when they found out about Santa.
In 1994, psychologists interviewed 52 children who no longer believed in Father Christmas. On average, those children discovered he did not exist at age seven. They reported a wide range of feelings in response. Around half felt sad, disappointed, or tricked. Three out of five said they felt happy. Notably, none of these reactions were very intense.
Thirty years later, a similar study interviewed 48 children aged six to 15. This time, the average age of discovery was eight. Again, nearly half the children reported negative emotions, such as sadness or anger. Similar numbers said they were happy.
These interviews revealed a little more about the positive emotions. The researchers found that the children’s happiness mostly came from relief that they’d still get toys, or satisfaction in being proved right that Santa doesn’t exist.
There seems to be no solid evidence that believing in Santa is important for enjoying Christmas, developing a child’s imagination, or improving critical thinking. And those benefits can still be given to children without deception. The argument for telling the Santa lie based on its purported good consequences is weak.
Opting out of the lie
Even parents who don’t want to pretend that Santa is real may worry about what will happen if they tell the truth. Will their kid tell other children and ruin it for them? Will other parents be annoyed?
In a multicultural society, this is not a new problem – after all, children from different faiths can rub along together at school without anyone getting upset. Some families celebrate Eid, others celebrate Christmas (and others both or neither). Just as the atheist’s child can say: “We don’t believe in God in our house,” your kid can say: “We don’t do Santa at our house.”
I believe that telling your child that Santa really exists is unethical. It’s manipulative, breaches their trust and may cause worry and upset for benefits that can be provided without lying.
Still, it’s worth keeping all this in perspective. There are worse parenting choices. Most children get over the truth quickly and their trust in their parents isn’t shattered. If you have the choice, consider having a magical Christmas where everyone knows Santa is make-believe. But if you’re already knee deep in fibs, don’t worry – just work out how to break the news gently.
Joseph Millum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
