More Than Meets the Eye: The Role of Bluffing in Communication and Success
By Yanely Lopez
Illustration by Yeji Hong
Imagine standing in court, a defense attorney confidently presenting their case while leaving certain details out to protect their client. Is this lying—or is it bluffing? In high-stakes environments like this, the line between deception and strategy blurs, often depending on whether the audience expects full transparency or a calculated persuasion (Fisher, 1993).
The word “bluff” comes from the Dutch term bluffen, which means to brag. Even subtly—such as by maintaining a poker face—a bluffer seeks to project confidence (i.e., bragging), suggesting they have a stronger position than they actually do (Krueger, 2023).
Bluffing works because of its psychological appeal–specifically, the way it manipulates perception. It relies on signaling confidence, often creating doubt or uncertainty in the minds of others. By presenting yourself as more favorable in a situation than you actually are, it encourages counterparts to make decisions based on an assumed advantage (Vitasek, 2022). From a psychological perspective, bluffing exploits cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring, and the fear of loss (Fisher et al., 2011; Marshall et al., 2013). These biases often cloud judgment, making individuals prone to misinterpreting signals and overestimating risks or rewards. Ultimately, bluffing works because it leverages these mental shortcuts, creating a psychological game where perception becomes more important than reality.
You Calling Me a Liar? I Ain’t Calling You a Truther!
Is my opponent, the other party, or the defense attorney lying? Well, it’s not always that simple. While the two terms can intertwine, the difference between them lies in their contexts. Lying (i.e., untrue statements) is often seen as a betrayal of a social contract because it breaks the expectation of honesty in communication (Carr, 2014). However, when neither party expects absolute truth in a situation, bluffing is simply seen as misleading, making another believe that you have an advantage when in reality you do not (i.e., half-truths, misleading omission) (Ethicsworkshop, 2018). While lying is most commonly seen as unethical, bluffing has mixed views, where some see it as a strategy of the game.
Wait, We’re Playing a Game?
Whether a falsehood is a bluff or a lie depends on the honesty expectations of those involved, making the boundary unclear in foreign situations. So, for those who are ‘playing the game’, the principles–or ethics–of business (or e.g., poker) are game ethics (Carr, 2014). In game ethics, participants understand that misdirection is not only allowed but expected, where bluffing becomes a skill and does not carry the moral weight of lying. On the contrary, ‘non-players’, or outsiders who follow different ethics–or principles–like moral or cultural ethics, typically emphasize truthfulness and integrity as fundamentals, where any form of lying may be viewed as deceptive regardless of the context. As a result, there’s an ethical challenge of lying versus bluffing that emerges when these expectations differ—when one party views bluffing as a clever strategy, while another sees it as deceit. When both parties understand and accept the possibility of intentional misdirection, bluffing can be viewed as a strategic game rather than crossing an ethical line. While neither party is “right,” it is always important to consider the situation and others’ (level of) expectations regarding honesty.
So When Can I Lie–I Mean Bluff?
To play a game, there must be some rules, even if it is no rules. Without clear rules or agreed-upon expectations, the lines between bluffing and lying blur. In some settings, like poker or labor negotiations, the stakes are clear, and everyone at the table is aware that deception is part of the game (Carson et al., 1982). But in other scenarios, such as a business negotiation or social interaction, the idea of bluffing can cause friction if the participants don’t share the same understanding of the “game”.
Take the long-studied negotiation strategy, your BATNA–Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement–or also known as your other option (Fisher et al., 2011). While making your opponent think that you have a better deal waiting for you can be beneficial for your behalf, thereby pushing them to accommodate towards your wishes so you do not leave the negotiation, it can also backfire, leading to accusations of unethical behavior (Allhoff, 2003). The key “rational” principle in managing negotiations is that if the deal you are negotiating is better than your BATNA, you should take it (Fisher et al., 2011). However, if you lie about having better alternatives and the opponent cannot accommodate anymore, do you maintain face and walk away from a good deal or potentially damage the relationship and reveal that this is actually the better deal (Carson, 1993)? As a result, it is important to know the risks you will be taking when using bluffs in these situations, and whether or not the difference in fairness is ‘worth it’.
Thus, it’s crucial to know the playing field: the context in which you are engaging, the rules that are implicitly understood, and the players’ assumptions about honesty. When the rules of the “game” are unclear, so too are the ethics around bluffing.
Successful ‘Wins’
Bluffing, when executed well, can lead to successes with others willing to engage in further negotiations (Kaufmann et al., 2017). In poker, a well-timed bluff can force opponents to fold, giving the bluffer an unexpected advantage. In business, bluffing can take the form of strategic silence or exaggerating one’s position to sway negotiations in favor of a deal. A classic business tactic of underplaying your assets or overstating your intentions to gain leverage. In legal settings, lawyers may strategically withhold or emphasize certain details to influence juries or negotiations, walking that fine line between bluffing and manipulation, but overall advantageous for their client (and themselves). Even in social dynamics, where individuals may exaggerate their capabilities to gain influence, form connections, or gain access to opportunities (Li et al., 2014). In all of these instances, successful bluffing depends on timing, awareness of others’ reactions, and understanding when to walk away (Lojo-Wm, 2024).
To Bluff or Not to Bluff, That Is the Question
Bluffing is as much about psychology as it is about strategy, balancing confidence and deception on a tightrope of expectations. Whether you’re at a poker table, in a courtroom, or negotiating a business deal, the key lies in understanding the context and the “rules” of the situation. When both parties recognize bluffing as part of the game, it’s a clever tactic; when they don’t, it risks being seen as deception and manipulation.
Ultimately, the ethics of bluffing boil down to perception and shared understanding. So, before you bluff your way through a high-stakes moment, ask yourself: Do the players at this table know the game we’re playing? And more importantly, are you prepared for the risks if they call your bluff?
References
Allhoff, F. (2003). Business bluffing reconsidered. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 283–289. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25075073
Carr, A. Z. (2014, August 1). Is business bluffing ethical? Harvard Business Review, 143–153. https://hbr.org/1968/01/is-business-bluffing-ethical
Carson, T. (1993). Second thoughts about bluffing. Business Ethics Quarterly, 3(4), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857282
Carson, T. L., Wokutch, R. E., & Murrmann, K. F. (1982). Bluffing in labor negotiations: Legal and ethical issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 1(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00382801
Ethicsworkshop. (2018, February 6). Dilemma: Is business bluffing ethical (w/ discussion) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipWdK8JvyaI
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin.
Fisher, S. Z. (1993). Just the facts, ma’am: Lying and the omission of exculpatory evidence in police reports. New England Law Review, 28(1). https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/906
Kaufmann, L., Rottenburger, J., Carter, C. R., & Schlereth, C. (2017). Bluffs, lies, and consequences: A reconceptualization of bluffing in buyer–supplier negotiations. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 54(2), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12155
Krueger, J. I. (2023, September 29). The psychology of bluffing: Should you call or should you fold? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/one-among-many/202309/the-psychology-of-bluffing
Li, K., Cong, R., Wu, T., & Wang, L. (2014). Bluffing promotes overconfidence on social networks. Scientific Reports, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05491
Lojo-Wm. (2024, July 14). The art of deception: Understanding bluffing in poker. Capitol Casino. https://www.capitol-casino.com/the-art-of-deception-understanding-bluffing-in-poker/
Marshall, J. A., Trimmer, P. C., Houston, A. I., & McNamara, J. M. (2013). On evolutionary explanations of cognitive biases. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(8), 469–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.05.013
Vitasek, K. (2022, September 26). Is bluffing just part of the business game? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevitasek/2022/09/23/is-bluffing-just-part-of-the-business-game/
Yanely Lopez is a third-year Communication Science student at the University of Amsterdam, taking a business minor at Vrije University. She loves bringing ideas to life and is eager to join as an editor and be part of the media and outreach team. She also enjoys trying new foods and activities with friends, running, reading, and spending cozy nights in.
Yeji Hong is a second-year Media and Information Bachelor student at the University of Amsterdam. She enjoys creative activities in general, such as creating videos, digital illustration, taking photographs, and music.