I agree with your view. Because the study result appears to rely on self-reports, it hinges on definitions of key terms by participants, especially what they co

I agree with your view. Because the study result appears to rely on self-reports, it hinges on definitions of key terms by participants, especially what they consider a "lie". If the definition is like yours ("intent to deceive") that can be different than other definitions. Even then it's a spectrum because an innocuous 'white lie' is sometimes a social expectation, like: "I hope us being ten minutes late to the party wasn't a problem..." Not only is that sort of question often answered with a lie, it's expected to be. Depending on the context, the real-question-under-the-question is likely akin to "I hope our being late didn't bother you so much that it's going to create a problem significant enough to require addressing." A more expansive version of your definition might include "an untruth communicated with knowing intent to deceive another in a way likely to cause meaningful harm given the context." That definition would eliminate the example I gave above, however, it could also eliminate many of the 'inconsequential' lies the study reports pathological liars frequently make. Reading the description of the study in OP article (but not the source paper), I felt there was no way to tell how reliable the result might be without knowing a great deal about how the study framed their questions.