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

A crucial part of reinforcing and maintaining romantic relationships is the communication of affection. Within close relationships, affectionate messages have been related to numerous positive factors, including commitment (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2010) and satisfaction (Floyd, 2006a; Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2010). Originally identified as a basic interpersonal need (Schutz, 1958), participants in romantic relationships often view affectionate messages as easily recalled relational turning points (e.g., Baxter & Bullis, 1986; Booth-Butterfield & Trotta, 1994). Most recent work has been grounded in Affection Exchange Theory (AET; Floyd, 2001, 2006a), which offers a comprehensive explanation of the role of affection and its display in relationships.

Rooted in evolutionary psychology, AET (Floyd, 2001, 2006a) considers affectionate communication to be an adaptive behavior leading to long-term survival. Affection is a basic relational resource, and studies indicate that individuals identify affection as an important characteristic in mates (Brann, Horan, & Sidelinger, 2008; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Hansen, 1977). These findings suggests that individuals engaged in the mate selection process have an implicit awareness of the importance of affection—namely, that such communication improves physiological functioning and positively influences relational qualities (e.g., Floyd, 2006a). Accordingly, AET predicts that affectionate communicators should be perceived as more attractive partners in forming quality romantic relationships. If such relationships result in procreation, these attractive mates should be affectionate parents who regularly communicate similar messages to their children. Combined, this long-term pattern of affectionate communication should produce adult children who, when engaged in the mate selection process, will be attractive potential romantic partners, thus affording these adult children more reproductive opportunities. Accordingly, AET views affectionate messages to be pivotal in mate selection, as well as in the rearing of children.

Rationale

When discussing affection, it is important to distinguish between feelings of affection and communicating affection. Feeling affection “involves feeling warmth and fondness toward someone” (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998, p. 59), whereas affectionate communication entails messages that convey these “feelings of fondness, support, and love” (Floyd, 2006b, p. 47). It is plausible, then, that affectionate communication should represent the outward expression of one's internal feelings of affection. Yet, are these two experiences always consistent? Classic studies examining emotion and display rules (Ekman & Friesen, 1975) would suggest that affectionate feelings and expressions are not always congruent. In fact, Buller and Burgoon (1998) described deception as emotional: “Emotions provoke deception, and deception provokes emotions … . Deceit can be about emotions, and emotions can be deceitful” (p. 381).

Turning to AET, the relationship among feelings and expressions of affection is not entirely clear. The theory's second postulate predicts that “affectionate feelings and affectionate expressions are distinct experiences that often, but need not, covary” (Floyd, 2006a, p. 163). Although this postulate argues that affectionate messages and feelings often covary, it also acknowledges that affectionate messages and specific feelings can diverge. Deception research revealed that deceiving is common and, indeed, people do lie about their feelings in close relationships (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996). In a week-long diary study, DePaulo et al. revealed that deceptive messages were commonly communicated to romantic partners, with participants’ feelings the most frequent topic of such deception. Examples of these lies included falsifying an emotion one did not actually experience and expressions of enhanced feelings of liking toward someone or something. This once again suggests that communicators are not always honest when expressing affection.

Combining AET and deception research by DePaulo et al. (1996), the aim of this study is to gain an understanding of how and why communicators express deceptive affection in romantic relationships. Deceptive affection can occur in one of two ways, either through withholding affection or active deceptive affectionate messages (DAMs; Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011). First, it can occur when individuals withhold feelings of affection they genuinely feel (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011; e.g., a partner is hesitant to communicate love too soon in the relationship). This constitutes deception because a source is withholding information and, instead of expressing genuine affection, the source elects to convey a different message. Second, deceptive affection can occur when an individual expresses DAMs, “considered as overt expressions of affection that are not consistent with sources’ internal feelings” (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011, p. 79). These messages are deceptive because they represent situations in which communicators use affectionate messages to mask their true feelings. This study explores active DAMs, rather than instances in which communicators withhold affection. Such DAMs constitute a specific type of romantic partner deception in which both valence of and motive for deception vary and may influence relational factors.

Affectionate Communication

Affectionate communication has long been considered a positive relational experience. Within romantic relationships, affectionate messages are related to conflict resolution (Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann, 2003), jealousy-evoking behaviors (Goodboy, Horan, & Booth-Butterfield, 2012), perceptions of transgressions (Horan, 2012), marital stability or termination (Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith, & George, 2002), and physical health (e.g., Keicolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001; Medalie, Strange, Zyanski, & Goldbourt, 1992). Furthermore, numerous studies indicate that expressing affection enhances physiological functioning (see Floyd, 2006a). Collectively, affectionate communication is associated with many benefits.

Despite the prosocial nature of affection research, some termed it “risky” as well. Floyd (2006a) called for researchers to examine the conditions under which sending or receiving affection could be hazardous. Horan and Booth-Butterfield (2011) argued deceptive affection to be a potential risk for both sources and receivers of messages, due to the potential for detection, conflict, or alteration of relational qualities. However, even if the deceptive message goes undetected, a source may feel psychological discomfort about their communication. Accordingly, this study looks more closely at deceptive affection—that is, how and why communicators express DAMs to romantic partners. Understanding the feelings masked and motives for DAMs may reveal whether DAMs should truly be considered a risk. For instance, if participants use affection to mask manipulative and “darker” feelings, then receiving affection could be a risk for communicators. Before fully exploring these arguments, a review of deception and affection is necessary.

Deception and Affection

Deception is “defined as a message knowingly transmitted by a sender to foster a false belief or conclusion by the receiver” (Buller & Burgoon, 1998, p. 381). Given that honesty is both a relational expectation and a desired characteristic in a mate (Boon & McLeod, 2001; Fishbein, Hennessy, Yzer, & Curtis, 2004; Stewart, Stinnett, & Rosenfeld, 2000), one may think that deception occurs infrequently in romantic relationships. Yet, Kashy and DePaulo (1996) described deception as an “everyday social interaction process” that “is a fact of social life rather than an extraordinary or unusual event” (p. 1037). Supporting this argument, DePaulo and Kashy's (1998) diary research found that one in three interactions with a non-married romantic partner contained deception.

Affection Exchange Theory's second postulate utilizes display rules (i.e., expectations for appropriate expression; Ekman & Friesen, 1975) to argue that people can manipulate their affectionate messages by inhibiting, stimulating, intensifying, de-intensifying, or masking affectionate feelings. Research indicates individuals do, in fact, manipulate affection via display rules (Hayes & Metts, 2008; Strzyzewski, Buller, & Aune, 1996)—that is, individuals express inauthentic affectionate messages, potentially as a means to mask inappropriate feelings.

Display rules are also evident in that communicators maintain expectations about the appropriateness of affection based on perceived contextual norms (Floyd, 1997a, 1997b; Floyd, 1997b). Floyd (1997b), for example, found that it was perceived to be more appropriate to communicate affection to siblings than friends, and it was more appropriate to communicate affection in emotionally intense situations. Consequently, an individual at a family wedding may feel the pressure to express affection to another family member that he or she is not actually feeling based on the norms of the context. Possibly, such contextual expectations could motivate the expression of DAMs.

Floyd (Erbert & Floyd, 2004; Floyd, Erbert, Davis, & Haynes, 2005, as cited in Floyd 2006a) examined how individuals may use affection to manipulate others. Manipulative affection was described as affectionate messages employed for an ulterior motive, specifically as “expressed affection that” participants “did not actually feel,” rather than instances in which participants “reaffirmed genuine affection for a manipulative purpose” (Floyd, 2006a, p. 137). Hence, manipulative affection is similar to deceptive affection because both involve dishonest affectionate expressions, some of which may be manipulative. Floyd et al., (2005) found that 86% of their sample could recall a time when they communicated affection to manipulate another person, and more than one-half of respondents had done so in the previous 30 days. These messages were communicated for a number of motives in diverse relationships.

A recent study of DAMs found that deceivers were minimally bothered and activated by recalls of their deceptive expressions (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011). More important, however, all participants could recall a recent time they communicated deceptive affection to their romantic partners. The combined studies verify that individuals do communicate inauthentic affectionate messages in close relationships. So, the question becomes this: What do these DAMs consist of, and why are they utilized? This diary study seeks to provide a rich description of this process.

Research Questions

This study seeks to understand the expression of deceptive affection, as well as whether sources can recognize and describe such messages. Prior studies indicate that communicators in close (Floyd, Erbert, et al., 2005) and romantic (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011) relationships can recall communicating deceptive affection. Consistent with those findings, this study argues that individuals do communicate deceptive affection; however, it is unknown whether communicators are cognizant of the fact that they convey these deceptive messages to their romantic partners. To test the basic argument that individuals are deceptive with their affection, the first research question asks the following:

RQ1: Can communicators identify instances of deceptive affection?

A main focus of this investigation is to obtain a descriptive understanding of what DAMs entail; specifically, we want to identify (a) feelings individuals routinely lie about to their partners and (b) types of affectionate messages that are used to deceive. Exploring how deceptive affection is communicated is beneficial because it will provide a depiction of these messages in close relationships. Accordingly, the second research question asks the following:

RQ2a: When communicating deceptive affection, what feelings are the subject of deception?

RQ2b: When communicating deceptive affection, what affectionate messages are employed to convey deception?

To fully understand deception, Buller and Burgoon (1994) contended that it is imperative to examine the motive for deceptive acts. Motives are “underlying reasons for deceiving” (Scholl & O'Hair, 2005, p. 381), and are related to how individuals view deception and its acceptability (Buller & Burgoon, 1994; Seiter, Bruschke, & Bai, 2002). O'Hair and Cody (1994) presented a synthesized typology of deceptive motives, arguing that there are two main ways to describe deceptive motives: valence and target—that is, deceptive motives can be aimed at enhancing the relationship, the lie teller, or lie receiver (i.e., target), and have either positive or negative goals (i.e., valence). Respondents in DePaulo et al.'s (1996) study reported telling more self-centered than other-oriented lies. It is interesting to note that when describing specific lies pertaining to feelings, respondents tended to describe those lies as other-oriented intended to benefit the receiver. In a study of manipulative affection, the motives behind the inauthentic messages echoed past research in that they were self-centered, target-centered, and relationship-centered (Floyd et al., 2005). Important for this research is the specific focus on deception about emotions to a romantic partner.

It is probable that DAMs are motivated by both selfish and selfless reasons; yet, these motives remain to be identified. Possible positive reasons behind communicating DAMs could be face-saving, consolation, conflict avoidance, support, and improving mood. Conversely, potential negative motives driving DAMs could be manipulation, avoiding an uncomfortable topic or situation, to receive affectionate communication, and to obtain or avoid sexual contact. Related to AET, understanding source motives for DAMs will shed light on whether deceptive affection is a risk for receivers of affectionate messages. If a number of antisocial motives are discovered, then findings related to this research question will demonstrate that deceptive affection is risky for receivers. However, if mostly prosocial motives are discovered, then deceptive affection may not be of concern to receivers. Thus, the third research question asks the following:

RQ3: What are sources’ motives for communicating DAMs?

Method

To gain a detailed understanding of the deceptive affection process, a three-phase study was undertaken. This design was modeled after prior deception work by DePaulo (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; DePaulo et al., 1996; Kashy & DePaulo, 1996). Phase 1 consisted of an introduction to the study and training addressing how to complete Phase-2 materials. During Phase 1, individuals completed demographic measures, a frequency of deception measure (Cole, 2001), and frequency of affectionate communication measures (Floyd, 2002; Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2010). Phase 2 of the study required that participants maintain a 7-day diary in which they described their DAMs. Finally, Phase 3 consisted of a short follow-up survey asking a variety of questions about partner deception.

Responses were tracked based on a respondent-generated unique identification number that they listed on all submitted materials. Two participants during Phase 3 of the study provided an incorrect identification number that could not be matched to materials submitted during the first two phases; otherwise, all survey responses were successfully grouped.

Participants

Potential volunteers were informed that they must be over 18 and currently in a self-defined romantic relationship for at least 3 months. The 3-month criterion has been imposed in prior AET-based romantic affection research, and is argued to be sufficient for partners to develop relatively normative routines of affectionate interactions (Horan, 2012; Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011). To ensure participants had regular face-to-face interactions, long-distance relationships were excluded. To examine a population in which deceptive affection should actively occur, this study solely focused on non-married romantic partners. DePaulo and Kashy (1998) indicated this group communicates the most frequent deception. Participants were offered minimal course credit for their participation.

Volunteers (110; 46 men and 64 women) were initially recruited from a large, mid-Atlantic university, and completed Phase 1 of the study. Later, 61 volunteers (25 men and 36 women) submitted the Phase 2 diary. The final sample consisted of 57 participants (21 men, 34 women, and 2 unknown), who submitted materials for all three phases. ¹ These final participants ranged in age from 18 to 27 (M = 20.27, SD = 2.09), and had been dating their relational partners for an average of 21.34 months (SD = 18.05). The majority of participants described their relationships as “seriously dating” (89.1%, casually dating = 9.1%, and other = 1.8%), and most reported on opposite-sex relational partners (there were 3 same-sex couples: 2 men reporting on male partners and 1 woman reporting on a female partner). The majority of participants were Caucasian (87.4%, 3.6% Asian, 1.8% Native American, 1.8% Black/African American, 1.8% Hispanic/Latino, and 3.6% “other”). Two participants submitted Phase-3 surveys with incorrect identification numbers; thus, their demographic cannot be reported.

Procedure and Instrumentation

After obtaining institutional review board approval, volunteers were solicited from introductory courses and informed that participation required three phases, including a Phase-1 meeting that would last 20 to 35 min (see training procedures conducted by DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; DePaulo et al., 1996; Kashy & DePaulo, 1996). A three-phase diary method was adopted for two reasons. First, narrowing the focus of their method from all topics of deception communicated to a variety of targets to affection communicated to romantic partners allowed for answers to this study's specific questions. Second, this method was adopted because of the added value diary research affords. Charania and Ickes (2006) encouraged diary research methodologies in relational studies because they are “an excellent way to track individuals over time” (p. 56). Support also comes from McAuliffe, DiFranceiso, and Reed (2007), who examined response accuracy differences between survey and diary research methodologies. They conducted a 3-month study of sexual activity using both surveys and diaries. McAuliffe et al. discovered a significant discrepancy between daily diaries and survey recollections in that respondents typically over- or underreported their sexual activities in surveys, compared to diaries. Such large-scale, longitudinal study demonstrates heightened accuracy of results obtained using diary research, especially for those studies of behaviors with potential social desirability concerns.

Phase 1: Training

Multiple Phase-1, introductory meetings were conducted in small groups, lasting from 20 to 35 min. The purpose of these meetings was to collect demographic information, explain the goal of the research, provide informed consent, explicate relevant concepts (i.e., deception, affection, and DAMs), describe completion of diaries, and respond to questions. No meeting had more than 10 people in attendance. Before content was introduced, participants were asked to complete a series of questionnaires that allow for a basic description of participants, and may explain differences in reporting ² (see Table 1).

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Quantitative Measures

Variable	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	α
Frequency of deception	0.89	8.67	3.20	1.31	0.70
Affection given	2.80	7.00	5.96	0.84	0.82
Affection received	1.50	7.00	6.08	0.94	0.94

Participants completed Cole's (2001) deception measure, designed to “assess the extent to which people conceal information, mislead, and/or deceive their partner” (p. 114). For the first eight items, this measure uses a 7-point Likert type response format, with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The final item of this scale asks respondents to “estimate the number of times” they lie to their partner during 1 week. All items are then summed into one scale, and item scores ranged from 0.89 to 8.67 (M = 3.20, SD = 1.31). Previous reliability was .84 (Cole, 2001), and this study obtained a Cronbach's alpha of .70.

Finally, participants completed modified versions of the Trait Affection Given and Received Scales (Floyd, 2002). These measures were originally designed to capture the propensity to express and receive affection in a variety of relationships, but were modified to capture the frequency of affectionate communication with one's romantic partner (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2010). Respondents rate their agreement with items using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The affection given measure consists of 10 items, and item scores ranged from 2.80 to 7.00 (M = 5.96, SD = 0.84). The affection received measure consists of six items, and item scores ranged from 1.50 to 7.00 (M = 6.08, SD = 0.94). Both the affection given (α = .89) and received (α = .93) scales have been used reliably in past research (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2010), and obtained alphas here were similarly high: .82 and .94, respectively.

After all participants completed the measures, the discussion of content began. Participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to learn more about feelings, deception, and communication in relationships. DePaulo et al.'s (1996) definition was used: Consistent with key deception researchers (e.g., Buller & Burgoon, 1998; DePaulo et al. 1996), deception was defined as occurring when a source purposely misleads a communicator—involving verbal and nonverbal messages. To help safeguard against social desirability biases, it was emphasized that deception is common in romantic relationships and is neither good nor bad, that the researcher will not judge them for lying, and that confidentiality is assured. Next, based on Floyd's (2006a) work, feelings of affection were explained as feelings or emotions of liking, love, and fondness for one's partner, and these were distinguished from expressions of affection, which include verbal and nonverbal expressions of one's feelings of affection. Multiple examples were offered.

After explaining these concepts, DAMs were explained as instances in which a source actively communicated affection to his or her romantic partner that he or she was not genuinely feeling, followed by examples. After each individual explanation of deception, affection, and deceptive affection, questions were solicited. Any confusion was clarified by the researcher until participants indicated they understood concepts.

After reviewing the previous content, the deception record was distributed, and each page was reviewed. The first page included a space for participants to list a time of day that worked best for them to complete the journal. Although participants were encouraged to complete the journal immediately following the expression of a DAM, it was recognized that it was not always possible (e.g., one's partner is still present, or the journal is not with the participant). Encouraging participants to fit in daily time to complete this journal was stressed as a way to promote accurate descriptions and routine responding. Throughout the training, participants were encouraged to call or e-mail with any questions or concerns; the researcher's contact information was immediately made available to participants.

The second page of the journal contained information about the study. Most of the page included a review of the concepts addressed in the training session. Deception, affection, and deceptive affection definitions were included, coupled with messages stressing the frequent nature of deception. A summary of journal directions was provided.

The third page of the journal was a one-page document, and participants were provided with 10 identical copies of this page to record interactions. Participants were instructed to complete this one-page document as soon as possible following the expression of the DAM. At the top of the page, participants were asked to describe the date, time, and location of the interaction. Next, participants were prompted to answer three open-ended questions: What were you feeling (internal)?, What affection did you express (communicated verbally or nonverbally)?, and Why did you choose to express something different than how you felt? These questions allowed for detailed descriptions of specific feelings that are the subject of deceptive affection, the affectionate messages employed during this process, and deceptive motives.

At the close of the meeting, three points were stressed. First, participants were encouraged to complete the diary entries as completely and as honestly as possible. Consistent with the work of DePaulo et al. (1996), participants were told that if they were unsure if something constituted a lie, they should record it. Second, participants were encouraged to call or e-mail Sean Horan with any questions they had. Third, participants were instructed that if they needed additional pages, they should contact an author; however, no participant submitted a request.

Phase 2: Seven-Day Diary

The deception record, explained in the previous section, was modeled on the work of DePaulo and colleagues (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; DePaulo et al., 1996; Kashy & DePaulo, 1996), which was adapted from the Rochester Interaction Record (Wheeler & Nezlek, 1977). Midway through Phase 2, Sean Horan e-mailed participants to remind them to maintain the deception record, invite questions, and inform them of when the researcher would collect materials. Similarly, on the 7th day of Phase 2, an e-mail was sent out reminding participants to submit survey materials. If none of the collection times were viable options for participants, the researcher encouraged participants to set up an appointment for submission. After a brief time period, if participants had not submitted materials, they were once again contacted by e-mail and encouraged to submit materials.

Phase 3: Submission and Additional Measures

On Day 8, after the diary phase was complete, participants were encouraged to submit their diaries and complete additional measures. The purpose of the final survey was to obtain data that would help characterize the communication recorded over the previous week. First, participants were asked how typical the pattern of communication they had with their partner was over the previous 7 days (42.1% described it as typical, 33.3% described it at somewhat typical, 17.5% described it as very typical, and 7.0% described it as not typical). Next, they were asked how successful they thought they were at deception (43.9% described themselves as successful, 38.6% described themselves as somewhat successful, 8.8% described themselves as very successful, and 8.8% described themselves as not successful). Further, they were asked how their frequency of deceptive communication compared to other people their age in relationships, revealing a social desirability tendency (17.5% responded as much as they do, 71.9% responded as less than they do, 1.8% responded as more than they do, and 8.8% responded as undecided). Combined, these responses suggest that most diary respondents believe they are skilled deceivers, reporting on 1 week of interactions that was generally characteristic of their overall communication patterns.

Questions were then asked regarding whether participants reflected on these DAMs, as well as the reactions to discovered DAMs. Initially, participants were asked, “How often did you think about that deceptive affection you communicated?” Individuals categorized their responses as not often (31.6%), somewhat often (54.4%), often (10.5%), or very often (3.5%). The next question asked, “Did your partner ever find out that you lied about your affection? If yes, how did he/she react?” Only 10 participants responded “yes”; 5 explained their partners reacted negatively; 3 reported their partners did “not really care,” “laughed it off,” or were not “too upset”; and the last 2 respondents did not list reactions.

To understand those instances in which no DAMs were communicated, the following question was posed: “If you chose not to communicate deceptive affection to your romantic partner at all this week, why did you make that choice?” Only one person reported that, upon turning in their survey materials, they were not still dating their romantic partner, reporting that the DAM did not play a role. See Note 1 to understand mortality.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Consistent with the goal of understanding the relationship between deception and affection, correlations analyzed overall participants’ affection related to deception frequency. Affection given and received were positively related (r = .25, p = .002), and frequency of deception was negatively related to both expressed (r = −.25, p = .008) and received affection (r = −.32, p = .001). Given that AET and evolutionary theorists predict sex differences, three t tests examined potential differences in frequency of romantic partner deception, expressed affection, and received affection. Men (M = 3.53, SD = 1.35) reported significantly more deception than women (M = 2.97, SD = 1.23), t(108) = 2.23, p = .03; and women (M = 6.14, SD = 0.70) reported communicating more affection than men (M = 5.71, SD = 0.96), t(77.55) = −2.57, p = .01. Reports of received affection did not differ by sex (men, M = 6.24, SD = 0.62; women, M = 5.98, SD = 1.11), t(102.35) = 1.52, p = .13.

RQ1

Fifty-seven diaries were submitted; however, only 51 included descriptions of deceptive affection for analysis. Of the 6 that did not report deceptive affection, 3 explained that they did not communicate any deceptive affection to their romantic partner in the previous week. When looking at their Phase-3 follow-up question—“If you chose not to communicate deceptive affection to your romantic partner at all this week, why did you make that choice?”—3 offered responses explaining that they do not act deceptively toward their partners. The remaining 3 excluded journals provided descriptions of overall deception, but not deceptive affection. (Recall that, in participant training, they were encouraged to record all instances that may constitute deceptive affection, even if they were unsure whether it fit the DAM conceptualization.)

Fifty-one participants submitted diaries that included descriptions of deception that constituted DAMs. They offered 180 descriptions of DAMs, ranging from one to six lies over the week. Thus, individuals communicate an average of 3.30 (SD = 1.78) DAMs to their partners weekly.

The number of DAMs reported did not correlate with how long a deceiver knew his or her partner (r = −.07, p = .63), how long a deceiver had been in a romantic relationship with his or her partner (r = −.02, p = .90), frequency of deceptive communication (r = −.16, p = .25), received romantic partner affection (r = −.09, p = .49), or expressed romantic partner affection (r = .13, p = .37). Similarly, frequency of expressing DAMs did not differ based on sex (men, M = 3.05, SD = 1.49; women, M = 3.47, SD = 1.95), t(52) = −0.86, p = .39, despite the significant sex difference in overall frequency of general partner deception. Further, there were no differences in frequency of DAMs based on relationship type (casually dating, M = 3.80, SD = 2.28; seriously dating, M = 3.32, SD = 1.74; or other, M = 1.50, SD = 7.07), F(2, 51) = 1.23, p = .30; perceived success rate at communicating deception (not successful, M = 1.50, SD = 0.71; somewhat successful, M = 3.35, SD = 2.11; successful, M = 3.50, SD = 1.47; or very successful, M = 3.50, SD = 1.73), F (2, 52) = 0.23, p = .79; or assessments of how “typical” the communication pattern with their romantic partner over the past 7 days was (not typical, M = 3.67, SD = 2.08; somewhat typical, M = 3.93, SD = 2.25; typical, M = 3.14, SD = 1.42; or very typical, M = 2.78, SD = 1.48), F(3, 53) = 0.79, p = .50.

Analyzing RQ2 and RQ3

All responses were analyzed using a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to discover themes that depict the deceptive affection process. Participants’ responses ranged in length; some offered one word, whereas others offered sentences. Thus, consistent with prior studies (e.g., Soliz, 2008), responses to each question were considered as a whole rather than treating individual words as the unit of analysis. To help safeguard against content and coding biases, a qualitative researcher unfamiliar with the study was recruited to initially code the data. The lead researcher trained the coder.

Initially, after reading responses, a process of open coding occurred in which categories were identified (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Categories were consistently compared against themselves and, when necessary, new categories created. When the coding scheme was deemed to be representative, the researcher employed this scheme to code all responses. That researcher then met with the research team, and the first author coded 50% of the data. Intercoder reliabilities and specific codes and descriptors used to organize responses are reported in the following section. See Table 2 for a summary of results.

Table 2 Deceptive Affection Process

Feelings

Self-oriented: 163

Partner-related: 28

Context specific: 44

Messages

Verbal: 98

Confirming responses of affection: 73

Avoidant responses: 25

Nonverbal: 88

Proxemics: 9

Haptics: 65

Kinesics: 14

Motives

Face-saving: 151

Self: 48

Partner: 103

Conflict management/avoidance: 40

Emotion management: 38

RQ2a: Understanding the true feelings behind DAMs

RQ2a asked what feelings were the subject of deception when communicating DAMs. Based on several preliminary readings of the data, a codebook was developed. Feelings behind DAMs were categorized as self-oriented feelings, other-oriented feelings, or context-specific feelings (0.91; Scott, 1955). Self-oriented feelings (n = 163) was the most commonly identified feeling experienced during DAMs. These feelings were largely negative and pertained to emotions that clearly originated from the source; that is, these descriptions were mostly brief and included emotional states, such as “jealous,” “annoyed,” “angry,” “frustrated,” “pissed,” “regret,” “aggravated,” “nervous,” and “emotional.” One participant explained: “I just didn't want to cuddle and hug him. I was in a bad mood”; another described the deceptive affection process by describing his feeling as, “I was feeling the complete opposite of what I told her.”

Partner-related feelings (n = 28) typically involved a negative feeling toward one's partner. These DAMs primarily pertained to attributes about the partner, ranging from appearance (dislike of haircut, clothes, or weight) to activities (dislike of their taste in movies, cooking, singing ability, athletic ability, etc.). For instance, one participant explained: “I told my boyfriend that I like his new haircut when I really didn't.” Another participant explained that he did not like the chocolates his girlfriend made for him as a Valentine Day gift.

Finally, the context-specific category (n = 44), described instances where communicators experienced a negative feeling unique to the situation, not their partner. Some descriptions included “tired,” “hung-over,” “exhausted,” and “stressed.” For instance, a participant explained he or she was “stressed because of the amount of homework that I needed to finish.” Another participant described that, “I felt the need to be working on school work and getting things accomplished. However, my fiancé was in a cuddle/spend time together mood.” In sum, individuals felt a range of emotions when expressing DAMs and, largely, these feelings appeared to be negative.

RQ2b: Understanding the messages that compose DAMs

After developing a codebook and establishing agreement across coders (0.89; Scott, 1955), DAMs were identified as being communicated both verbally and nonverbally.

Verbal DAMs (n = 98) were further categorized as either confirming responses of affection (n = 73) or avoidant responses (n = 25). Confirming responses of affection included situations in which participants communicated verbal affection to their partner that they were not genuinely feeling. Surprisingly, many participants described this as telling partners they “loved” them; other common examples included compliments about appearance and statements of enhanced pleasure or joy about spending time together. One participant reported, “I said, ‘I love you’ when I was getting off the phone, though I really wasn't feeling that.” Another recalled, “I said ‘I love you more than anything in the world. I wish you were here'”; and one participant explained, “She asked if she was the one that I was going to marry. I said, ‘of course sweetheart’.”

Avoidant responses (n = 25) involved situations in which participants communicated affection to avoid something—whether it be spending time with their partner or an awkward or difficult topic or situation. One participant explained that he did not want his girlfriend to go to the bar with him and his friends, so he “was trying to sweet talk her and just want it to be a guy's night out but I was trying to smooth talk her.” Another participant expressed fondness for her partner verbally by telling him she “missed him” when, in reality, she “had already seen him that day” and, thus, did not actually “miss” him. She wanted to avoid interaction with him because she was busy with schoolwork.

Nonverbal DAMs (n = 88) involved the use of space, touch, and movement. First, proxemics (n = 9) involved the use of physical or psychological space. Participants described instances in which they sat close to one another, laid close to one another, hugs, and kisses (e.g., hugs and kisses include reduced space between partners). Second, haptics (n = 65) involved the use of touch, and examples include hugs, kisses, putting an arm around a partner, rubbing, and massages. Finally, kinesics (n = 14) involved physical movement of the body or face. Examples include smiling, breaking eye contact, making a “kissy face,” or playful physical teasing. More important, all were reported as instances of false affection.

RQ3: Understanding the motives behind DAMs

RQ3 asked what motives drove DAMs. After coding (0.89; Scott, 1955), three motives were identified. First, face-saving (n = 151) was identified and organized by efforts to save one's own (self face-saving, n = 48) or partner's face (other face-saving, n = 103). For self face-saving, common descriptions included “to save face,” as well as masking potentially embarrassing or vulnerable feelings (e.g., “so he would not realize how sad or upset I was feeling,” “didn't want to seem like I'm too attached in this relationship,” and “I didn't want her to think that I was into it (Yes I was)”). Other face-saving involved situations where respondents sought to improve their partner's moods or avoid hurting their face. One explained that she lied “so he would feel better about doing poorly.” Other descriptions included avoiding embarrassing partners or making them sad or hurt.

A second major theme, conflict management/avoidance (n = 40), involved deception driven to ease or avoid conflict. Descriptions included instances in which a communicator wanted to stop an argument, avoid an argument, or to settle a problem or fight. For instance, a participant explained: “I just wanted to quit arguing …”; whereas another wrote: “… I didn't want to get into another argument.” In addition, one entry reported: “I hate arguing, especially with my girlfriend. So I always try to end the fight as soon as possible.”

A third theme, emotion management (n = 38), involved DAMs communicated out of habit or routine. For example, one participant explained: “It was sort of habit to say that when getting off the phone. I didn't want to end on a bad note.” Here, participants expressed DAMs because, if they did not, they would induce hurt or negative emotions or conflict. Participants also expressed DAMs here to ease negative emotions—that is, avoiding “controversy” about a discussion or thinking that DAMs were more effective than a “guilt trip.”

Collectively, this week-long diary method allow for a rich description of the deceptive affection process—namely, feelings lied about, affectionate messages used, and motives driving the deception revealed.

Discussion

Before studying how and why individuals communicate DAMs, it was necessary to determine whether people do actually express such messages to their partners. Outcomes from these daily diaries indicate that communicators express approximately three DAMs to romantic partners per week (frequency did not significantly differ based on sex). This is consistent with Floyd et al. (2005), who found that most individuals in their study could recall recently expressing inauthentic affectionate messages to manipulate a variety of targets. This study extends such work by (a) examining all acts of deceptive affection (not just manipulation) and (b) exclusively studying romantic relationships.

Kashy and DePaulo (1996) described deception as normative, and Horan and Booth-Butterfield (2011) reported that all participants could recall or describe an instance of deceptive affection. This study further suggests that expressing deceptive affection is a common experience in romantic relationships—a fact made more striking because our analyses indicated that those in the final sample were less deceptive than other potential respondents.

This frequency of DAM expression has implications for truth biases (i.e., individuals in close relationships often assume partner honesty; McCornack & Parks, 1986). Given the intimate nature of affectionate messages within romantic relationships, it is unlikely that partners question the authenticity of partners’ affectionate messages. Accordingly, individuals in established romantic relationships may be especially prone to assuming that romantic partners’ affectionate messages, compared to other messages, are honest, or at least not to be confronted. This conclusion is supported by the vast majority of participants indicating their deceptive affection went undiscovered. Regardless of their authenticity, affectionate messages signal feelings of support, affection, and closeness and, as a result, may maintain and enhance relational bonds. Thus, DAMs may serve to enhance perceptions of closeness and intimacy. However, to fully understand the influence of DAMs, it is important to examine the feelings and messages that comprise this process.

Deceptive Feelings, Messages, and Motives

Participants’ feelings were found to center in self-oriented, partner-related, or context-specific categories. Largely, these feelings were negative and suggest that DAMs may be indicative of temporary dissatisfaction with a partner or relationship—that is, a communicator may maintain overall love and commitment for the partner but, at the time of DAM expression, experience frustration or other negative affect. Respondents in this research elected to communicate deceptive affection, rather than express their current negative feelings, which could potentially jeopardize their relational state or minimally cause “hassle.” Given that the negative states were transient, deceptive affection was employed to preserve overall relational stability and satisfaction. This reasoning is consistent with prior work identifying affection as a relational maintenance behavior (Guerrero & Bachman, 2006), introducing the possibility that deceptive affection may be expressed to maintain relationships or as a way to cope with difficult situations.

The structure of DAMs was also apparent in the diary analysis. DAMs were verbally communicated as confirming or avoidant, and nonverbally communicated via proxemic, haptic, or kinesic cues. Clearly, DAMs entail a communicative process. Often, these responses were enacted to confirm or avoid the partner, and may be indicative of one's range of tolerance—that is, AET proposes that individuals have a range of tolerance for affection, anchored by their minimum need and maximum threshold for affection. Perhaps, avoidant and confirming verbal and nonverbal DAMs are expressed because a communicator's range of tolerance is violated, and deceptive expressions allow for management of that violation.

Finally, DAMs are apparently a useful tool to achieve the goals of saving face (e.g., self or partner), handling conflict, or emotion management. Such motives for deceptive affection suggest that, when communicating DAMs, people are cognizant of costs and rewards. They want to avoid negative or difficult conversations or feelings—through acts aimed to save face, avoid conflict, and manage negative emotions, lowering costs overall. Most communicators reported being unbothered by their deception in this study. They likely viewed their deceptive expression as low risk and not punitive and, instead, as rewarding because difficult situations were mitigated.

Regardless of why individuals list positive motives for their DAMs, this trend is consistent with prior mate selection and deception research. In the context of evolutionary goals, communicators may express deceptive affection for positive reasons because they are in a relationship with someone viewed as a valued mate. To keep this mate, communicators want to make their partner feel positively, reciprocate affection, and avoid certain topics. Research exploring altruistic deception (e.g., Kaplar & Gordon, 2004) and deceptive typologies with components acknowledging partner benefit and protection (O'Hair & Cody, 1994) suggests that individuals explain some deceptive acts with their partners’ wellbeing in mind. None of the motives in our study were overtly negative. Nevertheless, despite work on altruistic deception and motives, some research suggests that these prosocial deceptive aspects may actually be more myth than reality. Ekman (1985), for example, lamented that it is likely that few acts of deception are actually driven by altruistic reasons. In support, O'Hair and Cody found that the majority of their respondents deceived for self-serving motives. Thus, although individuals report expressing DAMs for positive reasons, this may not be entirely consistent with reality. Future deceptive affection research could adopt a dyadic approach to compare motives and attributions.

Implications

This research adopted a source approach to understanding deceptive affection, but there are implications for receivers of DAMs as well. Because affectionate messages were often expressed to disguise some negative affect, receivers of such messages should not always assume that affectionate messages are positive and pleasant messages from romantic partners. Consequently, for receivers of affectionate messages in relationships, an interesting quandary exists: These affectionate messages may be authentic, or they may be covering negative feelings. The routine nature of deceptive affection only further exacerbates this dilemma.

Some deception researchers have proposed that being able to successfully communicate undetected deception may be a competent communicative behavior (Buller & Burgoon, 1994; Camden, Motley, & Wilson, 1984). This claim has mixed support (e.g., Burgoon & Buller, 1995; Frank & Vasilyeva, 2006), and Camden et al. were even conflicted in their position. Specifically, Camden et al. proposed that effectively communicating deception may be indicative of communication competence; or, conversely, deception may reflect a lack of competence as people could not effectively handle interactions: They do not advocate one view over the other, writing, “[W]e are not going to argue for a position … for we are not in agreement ourselves” (p. 321). Although the view of deception as a skill has mixed backing, this study lends preliminary support to the argument that successfully communicating deception is a relational competency. Because communicators primarily expressed deceptive affection for prosocial reasons while experiencing negative states, it appears that participants maintained an awareness that successfully communicating deception was important to avoid hurting their partners. It may be a functional way to minimally keep the peace and “do no harm.”

Limitations

Although some may consider the sample small (57 completed diary sets), it is relatively consistent with recent communication diary research aimed to describe social processes, not generalize to larger populations. Recent published studies had samples of 21 (Schrodt, Baxter, McBride, Braithwaite, & Fine, 2006) and 22 parents (Braithwaite, McBride, & Schrodt, 2003) and 15 teachers (McBride & Wahl, 2005), who kept interaction logs over a 2-week period. Further, participants recorded their romantic partner interaction over 1 week-long period, yielding descriptions of 180 DAMs. Mortality was an issue in this study, as with any multiphase study requesting a lot of work from participants (e.g., logging interaction over 1 week, compared to simply completing a brief survey). Given that multiphase diary studies vary in their participation requirements, it is difficult provide direct comparisons between our mortality and mortality seen in other studies. However, to help contextualize this study, a recent example from Thompson (2008) is offered. He collected week-long diaries during two different data collections, and addressed mortality for his second data collection, explaining: “Over 80 students were recruited; however, participant mortality was high, particularly since students had the option of participating in other, less labor-intensive research for course credit. This second data set consisted of 21 students … ” (p. 127). Using this as a comparison, our study had a higher response rate, and we previously provided statistical data to help explain mortality.

Despite instructions, it is unknown what the actual length of time was between expressed deception and participants’ descriptions of the communication. Participants were instructed to complete their diaries, whenever possible, immediately following their expressions of deceptive affection. Understanding that this was not always feasible, participants agreed to, at the very least, complete their diaries once per day. However, this is not verifiable in this dataset.

Serota, Levine, and Boster (2010) reported that age was a predictor of deceptive communication, with frequency of deception decreasing with age. Consequently, these descriptive findings are limited to understanding DAMs in young, non-married relationships. Future studies should explore the deceptive affection process in older, more established relationships. Moreover, the frequency of deception measure had an acceptable (.70), yet lower, reliability compared to prior studies, with .84 (Cole, 2001) and .87 (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011). One possible explanation pertains to the small sample size used to calculate reliability. Alternatively, the final item of the deception scale asks participants to estimate how often they lie to their partner. This marks a deviation from the response format used for all prior items, and introduces variability and a potential impact on reliability.

Finally, the source approach adopted in this study limits communicative interpretations of DAMs as it only presents one side of the interaction—that is, the reasons offered for DAMs from sources were not negative, which may have been a way to resolve dissonance experienced after lying to an intimate partner. For those receivers of DAMs, it is unknown, yet unlikely, that positive interpretations of motives would be identified. Prior work supports this notion, finding that there are negative consequences for discovered deception (e.g., Cole, 2001; McCornack & Levine, 1990). McCornack and Levine found that individuals who discovered their romantic partners had deceived them experience intense emotional reactions, depending on a number of factors, and potential termination. Likewise, participants in Cole's study reported that part of their frequency of overall partner deception was due to perceived partner aggression, supporting a chilling effect (Cloven & Roloff, 1993). These reactions, both anticipated and actual, when considered together, suggest that receivers of DAMs may not share similar views of deception. Given that partners in those studies discovered deception indicates that communicators vary in their skill to convey deception.

Considerations and Conclusions

It is worth noting that this inquiry, along with Horan and Booth-Butterfield (2011), are the only known studies to systematically study overt DAMs. Horan and Booth-Butterfield (2011) earlier proposed that DAMs function two ways: first, through overt affectionate messages that are not consistent with internal feelings of affection and, second, by withholding affection. Future studies should explore this other form of deceptive affection—namely, withholding affection, and related implications.

Both affection and deception researchers can gain understanding from this study. First, for affection scholars, this study clearly distinguished between honest and deceptive affection. Future studies may have participants categorize their messages as deceptive or authentic, and discriminating between honest and authentic affection will allow for a more precise understanding of the costs and rewards associated with each message. Second, for deception researchers, this study adopted a holistic source approach—namely, examining the feelings, messages, and motives for deception. Future deception studies may want to take these factors into account to allow for a more complete understanding of deception.

This study begins to offer a more comprehensive view of the extent to which, manner in which, and motives considered as communicators express deceptive affection to their partners. Horan and Booth-Butterfield (2011) found that such messages do not result in physiological or emotional activation, which, combined with these findings, suggests these are normative and low-risk messages. Given the topics and feelings that were masked, deception may have been viewed as a productive choice by communicators. An ideology of complete openness would likely have resulted in conflict and relational turbulence. Thus, we echo the concluding speculation of Horan and Booth-Butterfield (2011) that deceptive affection may, in fact, be “a productive communication tool to avoid problems and thereby strengthen relationship ties” (p. 101).

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.

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.

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.