![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Feeling affection is a key component of romantic relationships, and affectionate communication is associated with a myriad of positive relational benefits. Yet, not all expressions of affection are authentic, and little is known about what factors help explain frequency of partners' deceptive affectionate messages (DAMs). The purpose of this study, therefore, was to explore the relationships among frequency of DAMs and individuals’ beliefs about deception, relational qualities, and general partner deception. Results indicated no relationship exists between the frequency of DAMs and sources’ beliefs about deception; further, no significant relationships were obtained among commitment, satisfaction, and DAM frequency. However, negative relationships were found between general partner deception and all 4 of the beliefs about deception. Likewise, general deception was negatively related to commitment and satisfaction. Implications for sources’ potential differing views regarding deception and deceptive affection are discussed.
Acknowledgments
This project was completed as part of the first author's MA thesis under the direction of the second author.
Notes
Institutional review board approval was obtained. Participants were 54 students from a large, private, urban, Midwestern university; 53 students from a midsize, Northeastern school; 11 non-students from a Western, urban city; three non-students from a large, Southern city; and three non-students from a midsize, Midwest city. Participants reported on 84 male and 37 female partners (three declined to indicate their partners’ sex). The majority of respondents described their relationships as seriously dating (n = 95; 15 reported casually dating, 8 reported being engaged, five reported their relationship type as “other,” and 1 declined to report their type of relationship). Relationships lasted from 3 to 120 months (M = 25.30, SD = 22.41). Most participants were White or Caucasian (108; Native American = 1, Black or African American = 1, Hispanic or Latino = 5, Asian = 2, “other” = 6, and 1 declined to indicate ethnicity.) To participate, individuals had to be over 18 years of age and currently in a self-defined romantic relationship that has lasted for at least 3 months. These criteria had previously been imposed in studies of general and deceptive affectionate communication (Horan, Citation2012; Horan & Booth-Butterfield, Citation2010, Citation2011, Citation2013).
Formatting issues, however, resulted in the majority of participants skipping certain items that were subsequently deleted from analyses. From the scale measuring intentionality, the following items were deleted: “In spite of my best intentions, I sometimes realized that I deceived someone,” “I have caught myself being untruthful without intending to be,” “I have deceived someone else without being aware that I was doing it,” and “I would rather not use deception even if it's to benefit the person I am deceiving”; and from the scale measuring deception is wrong, the following items were deleted: “Deceiving someone else is seldom justified,” and “I cannot bring myself to deceive others even if it's socially justified.” Thus, three items measured intentionality, three items measured deception is wrong, four items measured acceptance of deception, and three items measured upbringing. Reliabilities for each belief are as follows: intentionality = .84, deception is wrong = .85, acceptance of deception = .70, and upbringing = .87. Despite the formatting issues, the reliabilities achieved in this study for three of the four beliefs about deception were higher than those found by Scholl and O'Hair (Citation2005), with only intentionality being lower in this study. Specific comparisons to how the scale was used here compared to Scholl and O'Hair is presented in the Discussion section.
To control for order effects, a second questionnaire format was also used, reordering the survey to commitment, satisfaction, frequency of deception, deceptive affectionate message frequency, and beliefs about deception. Beyond the order of scales, the surveys were identical. Ninety-two people in the sample completed this second survey format. Preliminary analyses revealed none of the variables differed based on survey form, with the exception of intentionality. Participants completing surveys as they were originally explained reported higher intentionality scores (M = 12.22, SD = 4.22), compared to individuals completing the second form (M = 9.41, SD = 4.28), t(122) = 3.21, p < .01.
As a way to further understand deceptive affection, and to explore if individuals view deceptive affectionate messages and deception similarly, frequency of general partner deception was measured. However, reported frequency of deceptive affection and general partner deception were unrelated (r = .13, ns). Other preliminary analyses revealed that men reported higher acceptance of deception (M = 23.89, SD = 3.65), compared to women (M = 22.27, SD = 3.40), t(117) = 2.34, p < .05. The remaining variables did not differ based on sex. Reports of commitment, F(3, 119) = 11.89, p < .001, and satisfaction, F(3, 119) = 10.15, p < .001, significantly differed based on the type of relationship. Post hoc analyses (Tukey's) indicated casually dating (M = 36.80) participants were less committed than other relationship types (seriously dating = 47.99, engaged = 55.63, and “other” = 54.20). Likewise, casually dating participants were less satisfied (25.87), compared to other relationship types (seriously dating = 33.33, engaged = 34.75, and “other” = 33.60). No other variables differed based on relationship type.