Deception in Literature
Problem Statement
A vast amount of research has been done by researchers regarding deception. Communication in close relationships is different then communication in general relationships, also close relationships are different when it comes to roles, rules, and intimacy claims (Metts, 1989, p. 163). Deception in marriage has been looked at (Metts, 1989, p. 163; Miller, Mongeau & Sleight, 1986, p. 498), but those that have ignored detecting deception in a marriage setting. Others have looked at marriage in terms of maintenance strategies (Baxter & Dindia, 1990, p. 187), affectionate behaviors of dating and married couples (Gaines, 1996, p. 242), and interaction within a marriage (Pasch & Davila, 1997, p. 361). Figuring out how to detect lies in a marriage setting would be useful to a marriage couple. Thus, the following problem statement is being proposed for research: How do people in marriage relationships detect deception? Naturally related sub questions are brought forth as well: What types of deceptive communication characterize marriage relationships? What reasons do people in marriage relationships offer to justify deception to their spouse? How do these reasons vary as a function of the number of years married? In what ways are relationship qualities such as satisfaction and closeness associated with patterns of deceptive communication in marriage relationships? In what ways are relationship qualities such as satisfaction and closeness associated with reason for deception in marriage relationships?
Theoretic Expectations
Many people have defined deception detection in several different ways. One definition defined deception detection as the way of “seeing and finding a lie” (Park, et al., 2002, p. 144). Metts (1989, p. 160) defines deception itself as “Involving the intentional misrepresentation of information in order to induce in another person a belief that the deceiver knows to be untrue.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines detection as “A discovery or lying open of that which was hidden; investigation” (1990, p. 449). Deceptive communication “Refers to message distortion resulting from deliberate falsification or omission of information by a communicator with the intent of stimulating in another, or others, a belief that the communicator himself or herself does not believe” (Miller, Mongueau & Sleight, 1986, p. 497). Different theoretic expectations have been created to identify how people detect deception.
Third parties
The first theory states that “people rely on information from third parties, the consistency of statements with prior knowledge, the consistency of messages with physical evidence, or confessions when rendering judgments about the veracity of others’ messages” (Parks, et al., 2002, p. 148). Parks (pp. 148-149) backs up this theory by an example using police detectives in television crime drama. These detectives use third party information, witnesses and informants, to get their information to uncover the truth.
Interpersonal Deception Theory
Buller and Burgoon (2000, pp. 98-99) in their theory state that deceivers tend to adjust to a respondents suspicion and in doing so the respondent has a hard time decipher the lie. This theory also states explains “detection of deception is a hit-and-miss business” (p. 99). Knowing deception detection for a respondent is a hit-and-miss situation can help us better to understand that how people detect lies in deceivers as either being liars or truth tellers.
Reciprocity, avoid punishment, intimacy needs
Another theory created by Cole (2001, p. 113) explains reciprocity, avoiding punishment, or intimacy needs are explanations for deceivers to lie in a romantic relationship. To apply Cole’s theory to how people in marriage relationships detect deception this theory would help a souse to detect a lie (p. 113). A spouse would know that in certain situations such as reciprocity, avoiding punishment, or intimacy needs, people in romantic relationships tend to lie.
Literature Review
This discussion of literature focuses on the findings related to deception detection, the chief variable. Deception detection will be reviewed in general in any relationship. Next, deception detection will be reviewed in intimate homosexual versus homosexual/bisexual relationships, and then deception detection will be reviewed within close and romantic relationships.
Deception Detection in general
Deception detection has been the study of much research for several decades. Deception detection in any relationship as been studied (Parks, et al., 2002). This particular study questions the previous assumptions that “virtually all of research on deception detection is based on the implicit or explicit premise that people detect deception in others, at the time the lie is told, based on non verbal and verbal behavior” (p. 144). This study found that third party information and physical evidence are the two most common ways people tend to detect lies. As stated in this study “these findings might require the development of new methods for studying detection accuracy” (p. 154).
Deception in intimate heterosexual vs. homosexual/bisexual relationships
Another study of deception studied the difference between deception in heterosexual versus homosexual/bisexual intimate relationships (Burdon, 1996). This study noticed little research had been done in the area of deception in regards to sex differences (p. 80). This study states that women tend to use more “white lies” then men to hide their feelings. The findings of this study (pp. 86-87) supported the hypotheses in situations which pertain exclusively to intimate relationships, heterosexuals tend to participate in deceptive behavior with their intimate partners more often then do homosexuals/bisexuals. Also found in this study a strong interaction between sex and sexual orientation.
Deception in close and romantic relationships
Many studies have been done in the context to close and romantic relationships. Blair, Nelson, and Coleman (2001) studied the relationship among deception, power, and self-differentiation in college students’ romantic relationships. The results of this study found men were more apt to be more manipulative in their romantic relationships then were women because they were less aware of their partner’s feelings (p. 69). Another study looked the subjective estimates of success deceiving and attitudes about deception in romantic relationships (Boon & McLeod, 2001). The findings of this study found “people think their efforts to deceive were often met with success. The deceivers thought they were more successful at deceiving then their partners were at deceiving them” (p. 471). Metts (1989) looked at the form and function of deception in close relationships. Metts focuses on three lie types: Falsification, distortion, and omission (p. 169). This study found that 73% of all reasons given for deceiving included avoiding hurt to partner, protecting teller’s image or role performance, avoiding relational trauma, avoiding conflict/unpleasant scene, and avoiding stress/abuse from partner( p. 169).
In summary, the research shows that the reasons deception is done in close and romantic relationships is to benefit one’s self, to keep peace in a relationship, or a partner was unaware of partner’s feelings. Research also found that people in heterosexual relationships are more apt to deceive then those in homosexual/bisexual relationships. Lastly, deception is detected most commonly through third party and physical evidence in the context of relationships in general.
Further Research
The research shows that there are many reasons people in close and romantic relationships tell lies. Deceptive communication has been studied in many contexts. Further research in deception that has not been studied includes according to Burdon (1996) “Very little research has focused on whether there exist individual differences in deceptive behavior” (p. 80). Also asking if deception occurs at high frequency rates in college students’ relationships does this carry forward into marital relationships (Blair, Nelson, & Coleman, 2001, p. 69). Thus, the problem statement already suggested in this paper seeks to find out how people in marriage relationships detect deception. New research is invited to help marriage couples decipher between what is lies and what are truths.
Conclusion
This paper has defined and examined deception detection as the chief variable. A problem statement suggesting future research on how people in marriage relationships detect deception has been proposed. Theoretic expectations have been looked at. Past studies in the context of deception detection in general, deception in heterosexual versus homosexual/bisexual relationships and in close and romantic relationships has been reviewed. Future research on deception detection was suggested.
References
Anderson, D. E., Ansfield, M. E., & DePaulo B. M. (1997). Love’s best habit: Deception in the context of relationships. In P. Philippot, R. S. Feldman, & E. J. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 431-477).Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Baxter, L. A., & Dindia, K. (1990). Marital partners’ perceptions of marital maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 187-208.
Black, H. C. (1990). Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Blair, T. M., Nelson, E. S., & Coleman, P. K. (2001). Deception, power, and self- differentiation in college students’ romantic relationships: An exploratory study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 27(1), 57-71.
Boon, S. D., & McLeod, B. A. (2001). Deception in romantic relationships: Subjective estimates of success at deceiving and attitudes toward deception. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(4), 463-476.
Buller, D., & Burgoon, J. (2000). Interpersonal deception theory. In E. Griffin, G. McClish (Eds.), A first look at communication theory (pp. 90-102). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Burdon, W. M. (1996). Deception in intimate relationships: A comparison of heterosexuals and homosexuals/bisexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 32(1), 77- 93.
Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(1), 107-129.
Gaines, S. O. (1996). Impact of interpersonal traits and gender-role compliance on interpersonal resource exchange among dating and engaged/married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(2), 241-261.
Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall, L. A. (2001). Deception detection: Interrogators’ and observers’ decoding of consecutive statements. The Journal of Psychology, 135(6), 603-620.
Metts, S. (1989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 159-179.
Miller, R. M., Mongeau, P. A., & Sleight, C. (1986). Fudging with friends and lying to lovers: Deceptive communication in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 495-512.
Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrara, M. (2002) How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69(2), 144-157.
Pasch, L. A., Bradbury, T. N., & Davila, J. (1997). Gender, negative affectivity, and observed social support behavior in marital interaction. Personal Relationships: Journal of the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships, 4(4), 361-378.
Peterson, C. (1996). Deception in intimate relationships. International Journal of Psychology, 31(6), 279-288.
