A preview of this full-text is provided by SAGE Publications Inc.
Content available from Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
This content is subject to copyright.
from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved.
An Exploratory Investigation of Deception in Close Relationships
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Abstract
This study explores the form and function of deception in close relationships. Free response descriptions of situations involving the deception of a relational partner were obtained from 357 university students and other adults. Descriptions were coded for type of deceptive communication, antecedent condition, type of information and reasons given for being deceptive. Results indicated that falsification was the most frequently reported type of deceptive communication and avoiding hurt to partner was the most frequently reported specific reason for deception. Comparisons across types of relationship revealed that (1) married respondents reported proportionately more instances of omission and fewer instances of explicit falsification relative to other relationship types, (2) dating respondents reported proportionately more reasons focused on protecting their resources and avoiding stress/abuse from partner, (3) dating respondents reported proportionately more reasons focused on avoiding relational trauma/termination, and (4) married respondents reported proportionately more reasons focused on avoiding threats to partner's face/self-esteem. For the total sample, high ratings of relational satisfaction, closeness and perceived partner commitment were associated with the general category of partnerfocused reasons.
... In their work, five motivational factors were identified: 1) to save face, 2) to manage relationships, 3) to exploit, 4) to avoid tension/ conflict, and 5) to control situations. Hample (1980) and Metts (1989) set the focus point on the locus of primary benefit (self, other, relationship). Eckman (1991) elaborated an extensive list of why children lie: 1) to avoid punishment, 2) to get something, 3) to protect friends, 4) to protect one's self, 5) to win admiration, 6) to avoid social awkwardness, 7) to avoid embarrassment, 8) to maintain privacy, and 9) for power over authority. ...
This study delves into the multifaceted nature of deception, examining its evolutionary underpinnings and the intricate interplay of psychological, physiological, and cognitive factors. Through a comprehensive review of historical practices and contemporary research, I elucidate the complex characteristics inherent in the act of deception. From ancient methods of detecting deceit to modern advancements in neuroscience and cognitive psychology, the conceptualization of deception has evolved, revealing its fundamental role in social interactions. Drawing upon theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence, this paper highlights the intrinsic connection between deception and human behaviour, emphasizing the necessity of understanding its nuanced manifestations. By integrating insights from diverse disciplines, I aim to contribute to a deeper comprehension of deception's significance in both evolutionary contexts and contemporary society.
... Deception in communication involves intentionally causing another to adopt a belief known by the deceiver to be false (Zuckerman et al., 1981;Mahon, 2007). This encompasses lies, exaggerations, omissions, and distortions as various manifestations of deceptive acts (Turner et al., 1975;Metts, 1989). Despite variations in definition across disciplines, the consensus underscores the deliberate nature of deception (Mahon, 2007;Gupta et al., 2013). ...
... Deception in communication is the act of intentionally causing another person to have a false belief that the deceiver knows or believes to be false (Zuckerman et al., 1981;Mahon, 2007;Hancock, 2009). Lies, exaggerations, omissions, and distortions are all different forms of deception (Turner et al., 1975;Metts, 1989). While the definition of deception varies across literature, they concur that it is intentional or deliberate (Mahon, 2007;Gupta et al., 2013). ...
... Deception in communication is the act of intentionally causing another person to have a false belief that the deceiver knows or believes to be false (Zuckerman et al., 1981;Mahon, 2007;Hancock, 2009). Lies, exaggerations, omissions, and distortions are all different forms of deception (Turner et al., 1975;Metts, 1989). While the definition of deception varies across literature, they concur that it is intentional or deliberate (Mahon, 2007;Gupta et al., 2013). ...
Verbal deception has been studied in psychology, forensics, and computational linguistics for a variety of reasons, like understanding behaviour patterns, identifying false testimonies, and detecting deception in online communication. Varying motivations across research fields lead to differences in the domain choices to study and in the conceptualization of deception, making it hard to compare models and build robust deception detection systems for a given language. With this paper, we improve this situation by surveying available English deception datasets which include domains like social media reviews, court testimonials, opinion statements on specific topics, and deceptive dialogues from online strategy games. We consolidate these datasets into a single unified corpus. Based on this resource, we conduct a correlation analysis of linguistic cues of deception across datasets to understand the differences and perform cross-corpus modeling experiments which show that a cross-domain generalization is challenging to achieve. The unified deception corpus (UNIDECOR) can be obtained from https://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/data/unidecor.
Honesty is a highly valued virtue, yet it can be challenging to enact when it may compromise our most valued relationships. We tested preregistered hypotheses examining the distinct effects of expressed, perceived, and accurate perceptions of honesty on well-being and change. Romantic partners ( N couples = 214; N individuals = 428) discussed a desired change in the lab and reported on outcomes concurrently and three months later. Honesty was self-reported and rated by observers, with correspondence between these measures observed. Results of multilevel response surface analyses showed that greater expressed and perceived honesty—but not accurate perceptions of honesty—predicted greater well-being, relationship satisfaction, and target motivation to change concurrently, with some benefits emerging over time. The current results indicate that honesty can benefit relationships even when the truth may hurt, with more expressed and perceived honesty fostering better relationships regardless of whether couples share in that perception of honesty.
Prior studies on online deception detection have investigated language differences between deceivers and truth-tellers to fight against online crimes, such as scams and other online threats. As most studies derived from western contexts have centered on English language, the deceptive features identified may not be applicable to other languages, like Thai. This research, therefore, aims to examine whether these features previously identified as associated with deception in English could be applied to Thai, and whether there are any Thai specific features that might be associated with online deception.
The experimental study was conducted in a controlled computer laboratory in a Thai state university. The participants were ninety-six native speakers of Thai in tertiary level. All participants were led to isolated computer terminals in the computer room where they would perform the task. These participants were randomly divided into two groups: 48 chatters and 48 naïve partners. For chatters, they were informed of the true objective of the study, namely, to examine the differences in language use between deceivers and truth-tellers in Thai online chat, so they needed to switch their roles either as truth-tellers (providing only truthful information) or deceivers (convincing their chat partners that they were someone else) in Thai online chat. The other group members as naïve partners were informed that they would participate in two chat sessions with unknown partners to investigate the use of Thai chat language on MSN Messenger. In the first 10-minute chat sessions, naïve partners were paired up with either truth-tellers or deceivers and switched their chat partners in the second 10-minute chat session.
The investigated features used by truth-tellers and deceivers were then analyzed by using statistical analyses: Percentage Differences and Chi-square test. Features with no sub-categories (e.g., participation and demonstratives) were calculated by percentage differences with an arbitrary cut point of fifteen percentage points to identify the noticeable differences between these two groups. Features with sub-categories (e.g., nouns and verbs) were calculated by using chi-square test to investigate whether there were statistically significant differences in the use of features by truth-tellers and deceivers in Thai online chat.
The results show noticeable differences in features with no sub-categories in initiation, opening new topics, spontaneous correction, demonstratives, and frequency of self-references used by deceivers and truth-tellers in Thai online chat. There were also statistically significant differences in features with subcategories in the use of modal verbs, self-references types, and particles between truth-tellers and deceivers at .01 level (p < .01).
To sum up, the findings of the study suggest that most deceptive features, previously identified in English, cannot be transferrable to Thai, however, two Thai-specific indicators (the use of self-references and particles) were also identified as associated with deception in Thai online chat. In other words, the more deceivers manipulated their gender identity, the more they used first personal pronoun and gender particles as a deception strategy when pretending to be someone else in Thai online chat. The findings may be usefully applied in automated online deception detection for Thai and also highlight the need to supplement linguistic investigations of English with investigations of other disparate languages.
Although a considerable body of recent research has addressed the problem of deceptive communication, few studies have examined deceptive communication in personal relationships. We argue that the occurrence, substance, and outcomes of deceptive communication are markedly influenced by the nature of the communicators' relationship. To redeem this claim, we examine how several differences between impersonal and personal relationships may influence deceptive exchanges, and consider some of the implications of the distinctions for future research dealing with deceptive communication in personal relationships.
This study is placed within a dialectic framework, illustrating the contradictory needs that exist for relationship openness and closedness. It explores one type of closedness in close relationships - the `taboo topic'. Ninety ethnographic interviews solicited informant accounts of topics which were `off limits' in the context of an opposite-sex relationship in which they were involved. Results indicated that there were six primary types of `taboo topics': the state of the relationship, extra-relationship activity, relationship norms, prior relationships with opposite-sex parties, conflict-inducing topics, and negatively-valenced self-disclosures. Of these topic categories, the state of the relationship was the most pervasive as a `taboo'. In an analysis of the reasons why topics were `taboo', it was apparent that the informants held a negative vision of relationship talk as destructive, inefficient, futile and risky. Extra-relationship activity, relationship norms, prior relationships, and conflict-inducing topics were avoided largely because of the negative relational metacommunication implicit in those topic categories. The findings are discussed in terms of metacommunication and uncertainty reduction.
This paper develops a theoretical approach to communication in interpersonal conflict which emphasizes the role of attributional processes. According to this view, communicative decisions in conflict are largely a function of social attributions about the intent, causality, and stability of behaviors in conflict. Factors which bias attributions along these dimensions encourage noncooperative conflict stategies. Predictions from this perspective were examined in a field study of college dormitory roommates. Open‐ended descriptions of conflicts experienced by roommates were used to formulate a typology of conflict resolution strategies. The main categories in this typology (“passive‐indirect,” “distributive,” and “integrative”) vary in the extent to which they promote information exchange and are oriented toward individual versus mutual goals. Associations between the conflict strategies reported by subjects, their attributions for conflicts, and conflict outcomes were in the expected direction.
A theory of the importance and effect of an exchange-orientation for marriage and friendship was developed. It was hypothesized from this theory that an exchange-orientation in both members of the pair would be inimical to marriage adjustment and facilitative of situationally determined friendships. An exchange-orientation scale was constructed and administered to married couples and same-sex friendship couples at college, along with a marriage adjustment scale to the former and a friendship-intensity scale to the latter. The data generally supported the hypotheses.
In Phase 1 of this study, communicators responded truthfully or deceptively to positive or negative interrogative probes. In Phase 2, the interviews were shown, at four levels of probe exposure, to observers who rated the communicators' eracity. In Phase 3, verbal and nonverbal cues were correlated with actual and perceived deception. Although exposure level had no effect on detection accuracy, liars and trulhtellers exposed to negative interrogative probes were judged more truthful than those exposed to positive probes. Analysis of the verbal and nonverbal cues revealed that none of the nonverbal cues relied on as indicators of deception were related to actual deception, and only one of the verbal cues (verbal content) was related to actual message veracity. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are offered.
Two studies are reported in which audiotape contestations of married couples were analyzed. A total of 82 couples were involved. The research considered how understanding of feelings is related to verbal and nonverbal communication. Paraling expression of affect was more consistently related to understanding than verbal disclosure. Further, there was a strong tendency for spouses to use their own feelings as a reference for predicting their partner's feelings. These findings suggest that information that is more immediate to the perceiver has the greatest effect on understanding.
Despite the considerable importance often attributed to interpersonal perception between married partners, family members, and other intimates, there have been few theoretical developments that address the distinctive factors affecting perception in these contexts. This article draws upon a broad literature review to suggest how interpersonal perception between intimates may be affected by such factors as familiarity, emotionality, behavioral interdependence, and ideological beliefs about intimacy. Particular attention is given to the role of perceptual bias in intimate conflict and relationship adjustment.