Understanding the Routine Expression of Deceptive Affection in Romantic Relationships

Abstract

Studies suggest that individuals regularly communicate inauthentic affectionate messages to their romantic partners. Yet, most studies do not describe this process, what constitutes deceptive affection, or the functions involved. The study involved a 7-day diary in which participants recorded what they lied about, why they lied, and how they used affection to deceive their romantic partners. Results indicate that participants lied about their own feelings, feelings about their partners, or feelings about the situation. They communicated deceptive affection using verbal messages of confirmation or avoidance, and incorporated nonverbal cues of haptics, proxemics, and kinesics. Motives for the deception included face-saving, conflict management/avoidance, and emotion management. This study provides a clearer picture of how deceptive communication may support and maintain romantic relationships.

Keywords:

• Affection
• Deception
• Deceptive Affection
• Motives For Deception

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Rebecca Chory, Megan Dillow, Ann Frymier, Matt Martin, Jaime Bochantin, and Laura Young. This manuscript represents one of two studies that composed Sean M. Horan's dissertation completed under the direction of Melanie Booth-Butterfield.

Notes

Note. Numbers reflect frequency of occurrence, not number of participants.

Understanding participant mortality: To examine the possibility that the initial sample and final sample may differ, we examined potential differences on the Phase-1 measures. Given the small mortality rate between Phases 2 and 3 (n = 4), analyses focused on differences between those who completed only the first phase (n = 53) versus all three phases (n = 57). There were no significant differences in means by completion rate on affection communicated to partner (all 3 phases, M = 5.94, SD = 0.84; Phase 1 only, M = 5.98, SD = 0.84), t(108) = −0.23, p = .82; or affection received (all 3 phases, M = 6.15, SD = 0.87; Phase 1 only, M = 6.01, SD = 1.00), t(108) = 0.71, p = .48. However, those who completed all three phases deceived significantly less (M = 2.92, SD = 1.12), compared to those who only completed Phase 1 (M = 3.45, SD = 1.43), t(108) = −2.34, p = .02. Consequently, diary respondents in this final sample communicated less deception, but were similar in other ways, compared to those participants who did not complete all phases.

Individuals who feel the pressure of social desirability, for example, may report a lower number of deceptive affectionate messages, compared to those who do not feel similar pressure. Individuals first completed a five-item measure of social desirability (Andsager, Bernker, Choi, & Torwel, 2006). This measure uses a response format ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), and item scores ranged from 2.80 to 4.60 (M = 3.94, SD = 0.34). Sample items included, “I am courteous” and “I deliberately hurt others.” Although this measure demonstrated acceptable reliability in their research (.70; Ansager et al., 2006), it did not achieve an acceptable reliability in this study (α = .44) and, consequently, was not included in analysis.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sean M. Horan

Sean M. Horan (Ph.D., West Virginia University, 2009) is an assistant professor in the College of Communication at DePaul University.

Melanie Booth-Butterfield

Melanie Booth-Butterfield (Ph.D., University of Missouri–Columbia, 1985) is a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University.