"Theor-yee Theor-yee..Come One Come All"

I have a theory; that theory is just a theory. When you whisper “theory”, the conspiracist pulls you into a dimly-lit ally with a rant that could instantly cause a migraine.  When you speak of “theory”, the layman cringes, shuts down, ignores, or simply exits the conversation with high levels of frustration. When you write of “theory”, the scholar becomes dependent upon you and you develop into a life-blood of social science or any other kind of science for that matter. Theory can be so complicated and thick it takes a sharpened pooper-scooper to sift through for the golden nuggets, or it can be as basic as saying “when it rains trees get wet”. 

We as humans theorize constantly in our daily lives. Theory can often just be another word for generalizing or explaining the way the world works around us. We generalize that if we work, we will get paid. Now, this is certainly is not always the case but the theory that it is, gets us out of bed every day. We generalize that if we shower, we will get clean. This once again, is not always accurate, but it keeps us from clearing rooms out as we enter. Theory gives us organization and structure as well assumptions for survival. Theory is compartmentalizing the spheres of life in which we cannot escape. One sphere or phenomenon we cannot escape is that of deception. At least 25% of all conversations, deception and suspected deception arise (DePaulo 1994). Since deception is so prevalent as well as dynamic in social-life there has been many theories formulated by social scientists as well as everyday people.  In this week’s blog I will examine two deception-theories and how they may relate to the act of deception in romantic relationships; Interpersonal Deception Theory and Social Comparison Theory.

Erving Goffman in 1959 said, “Communication is founded on the presumption of truth”.  Now if that isn’t a theory let this computerized paper I am typing on burst in flames. Waiting…Nope looks like we are safe, a theory it is. We assume, until otherwise tipped off, that when we have conversations with our partner(s) we are receiving nothing but the truth; sadly this not the case. We are deceived more times than any of us will ever be aware of. Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) was formulated to frame interpersonal interaction where the communicator’s believability comes into question. (Buller & Burgoon, 1996)

Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) rests on face-to-face interaction as opposed to deception over the telephone, text, or email. Deception occurs in romantic relationships when one partner attempts to control the information in their messages to convey meanings that depart from the truth. This is purposeful and strategic construction of messages. The partner has goals of getting away with something, gaining access to something, or protecting something. IDT is concerned with: interaction as well as pre-interaction patterns of partners, communicator goals, partner’s typical behavior patterns, expectations, interpretations, evaluations, social skills and contextual factors of interpersonal relationships. (Buller & Burgoon, 1996)

IDT says that if any or all of the expectations of the factors above are negatively affected or even shattered than suspicion arises. When that suspicion is felt by the receiver the partner communicating’s believability becomes questioned or challenged. This theory says deception is essentially a process of mutual influence between two partners who manipulate information to move away from the truth and receivers who try to establish the validity and truthfulness of the messages. When the receiver feels the communicator is not acting according to the patterns of their behavior established in the past, IDT says trustworthiness and authenticity become confronted.

I hope this notion of theory hasn’t heightened your blood pressure quite yet because I have one more to introduce. Social Comparison Theory (SCT) is the idea that, “people are generally motivated to evaluate their opinions and abilities and that one way to satisfy this need for self-evaluation is to compare themselves to others” (Argo, White & Dahl, 2006, pg. 100). This social comparison can be threatening to ones-self. These threats to self can and often will lead to negative reactions. One such negative reaction is the act of deception. Argo and the quoted researchers above performed a study that found; overall people are willing to utilize deception as a protection mechanism in response to social situations that pose a threat to their self-image and/or self-worth.

I think very few people would argue that lying and deceiving your partner is a selfish act. Although past research says people can lie to protect, but I would argue that still remains a selfish act because the deceiver is making attempts at protecting their own personal relationship which benefits themselves. In Social Comparison Theory it is the ego as well as internal and external image that are being defended from threats; this is simply a selfish and self-serving act. The deceiver is lying to their partner in order to protect their image in the eyes of their lover. The deceiver may be comparing themselves to friends and family in romantic relationships to discover what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. The liar may be comparing him/herself to fictional characters in books, movies, or television shows to find out where they themselves stand in their personal decisions, actions, and thoughts. The comparison of others becomes an internal battle in which the deceiver must construct effective tools of protecting their image. Deception becomes the go-to mechanism; often to save-face in their relationship(s).

Lying and deception of your partner may achieve short-term self-focused goals, but the long-term issues and problems that arise may be severe and damaging to your relationship(s). So use discretion on your own personal theories of what’s appropriate in specific situations in your own romantic relationship(s). The theories I have spoken about here are just frames of perspective at looking at deception. Do what feels right, and always trust your intuition, it’s a skill of evolution, do not ignore it.   

References:

Buller D.B., Burgoon, J.K. (1996) “Interpersonal Deception Theory”.  Communication Theory. Vol. 6 Sec. 3.  pp. 203-242.

Argo, J.J., White, K., Dahl, D.W. (2006) “Social Comparison Theory and Deception in the Interpersonal Exchange of Consumption Information.” Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 33. pp. 99-108

"I Lied to her because I Love her." REVISED research question: what are the ways in which people in romantic relationships deceive and why?

            “I lied to her because I love her.” What an interesting and ironic statement. This gem was issued to me in a conversation I recently had with a close friend while having beers and discussing his latest relationship woes with his girlfriend. My friend had misled his partner about a lunch “date” he had gone on a few days before with an ex-girlfriend from his college years. This blast-from-the-past randomly entered his life while on a run in the hills just outside the city and he said it was actually “good to see her”. They dated for about two years long before him and his current girlfriend had even met. This ex-flame, politely asked him to accompany her for a bite to eat so they could “catch up” before she had to fly home the following morning. Although my friend felt a little uneasy about the offer, he made the decision to accept.

            Nothing happened but face-stuffing (with only food of course) and friendly conversation (or so he told me), yet my friend felt compelled to deceive his current girlfriend when she inquired into what he had done for lunch on the day in question. As soon as she asked, he panicked and quickly muttered, “Just grabbed a foot-long from Subway”, and left the room. His girlfriend, who resides in a realm of trust in their relationship, immediately believed him and the conversation topic was dropped and forgotten; forgotten at-least by her.  My friend however, entered a different realm of thought and emotion. He was now in the justification phase of deception. 

            In a 2010 study by Levine, Kim, and Hamel they discussed noted philosopher and ethicist Sissela Bok’s “principle of veracity”. This is a moral asymmetry (or lack of symmetry) between truth and deception in that, “truthful statements are preferable to lies in the absence of special considerations” (Levine, Kim & Hamel, pg. 272). This means people would certainly rather tell the truth because telling the truth is easier and requires no justification. My friend needed to come to terms with him-self and why he felt the need to lie to his current girlfriend. Justification can be exhausting in the struggle externally as well as internally. My friend not only had to battle with himself about the act of going to lunch with an ex, he also had to struggle with the lie itself; this why he almost tricks himself into deception-acceptance with the ironic statement to me of, “I lied to her because I love her.”

            With his justifying statement, he is implying that he deceived his partner in order to protect her. Although he felt he did nothing wrong or inappropriate with the ex-girlfriend, he assumed his current girlfriend might not see it that way. Because he thought his current partner might over-react he issued the lie to her out of necessity, in order to spare her feelings as well as an eruption of an argument between them. In the above study I mentioned, the researchers also brought up R.E. Turner’s (1975) list of five motivations for deception; to save face, to manage relationships, to exploit, to avoid tension or conflict, and to control situations (Levine, Kim, & Hamel 2010). The friend in my example lied in order to avoid a fight as well as keep his current partner’s feelings from being hurt. His goals were self-serving because the deception was the path of least resistance for him. The lie equaled less work in the form of explanations of why he did what he did. His goals of saving face, managing his relationship, avoiding tension or conflict, and controlling the situation seem complicated and thoughtful in yet they were performed and accomplished in a matter of moments; Second nature? Human nature?

            Goals and motive play the most significant roles in deception and the performance of it. “deceit is more or less probable depending on the importance of the goal, the difficulty of goal attainment absent deceit, and the probability of avoiding detection” (2010, pg. 284). People lie for a specific reason(s) because telling the truth is personally-preferable and less work. Often lies and deceit are perceived by the receiver if the specific reasons and motives are easily detectable. My friend’s current girlfriend did not perceive any motive to lie by him in talking about what he had for lunch therefore assumed he was telling the truth.      

            Earlier when I quoted what my friend replied to his wife in response to her asking him what he had done for lunch I wrote, “Just grabbed a foot-long from Subway”. Now this is where deception study gets a little complicated. My friend did in fact have a foot-long sandwich on that day, he just left out that it was with an ex-girlfriend of his. Now, did he truly lie (“truly-lie”, what a concept) when he responded the way he did to his girlfriend’s inquiry in to what he did for “lunch”? Another group of researchers headed by Timothy Levine, in their study, “Self-Construal, Self and Other Benefit, and the Generation of Deceptive Messages”, would argue yes. He is guilty of a form of deception by leaving out specific information. Deception by equivocation or evasion is still deception by any other name. This form of deception is issuing statements to your partners which are not literally false but purposefully avoid any unpleasant truth(s) (Levine, Lapinksi, Banas, Wong, Hu, Endo, Baum, & Anders 2002).

            My friend did not lie when he said he ate at Subway, but he was being deceitful when he left out the information involving the ex-girlfriend even though it may have been potentially harmful to his relationship. In Grice’s (1989) Information Manipulation Theory (IMT), research on deception is viewed as information control. “IMT views deception as arising from covert violations of one or more of Grice’s four Maxims (quality, quantity, relevance, manner)” (Levine 2002, pg. 32). The deceptive leaving-out of information or “lies of omission” fall under the violation of the quantity maxim. My friends chose precisely how much information to give-up and still respond to his current girlfriends’ question.

            Deception in romantic relationships may figuratively come in many shapes, forms, and sizes. It may not all be considered good or bad, but it is certainly relational to motive. Why a person lies to their partner weighs heavily on its perception of being seen as right or wrong, white or dark, or evil and not-so-evil. But if you lie because you love someone, than you really must be some kind of hero. So bravo my lying (or leaving out of important information) about “lunch” friend, kudos to your strength and fortitude…I guess. Hope it never comes back to bite you on your behind. Hmm.   

References:

Levine, R., Kim, R., Hamel, M. (2010) "People lie for a reason: Three experiments documenting the prinicple of veracity", Communication Research Reports. Vol. 27, No. 4. pp. 271-298

Levine, R., Lapinksi, M.K., Banas, J., Wong, C.H., Hu, A.S., Endo, K., Baum, K.L., Anders, L.N., (2002) "Self-Contrual, self and other benefit, and the generation of deceptive messages. Journal of Communication Research. Vol. 31, No.1. pp. 29-47  

"Ohhhhh baby I just orgasmed...Now get off me!"

“Women might be able to fake orgasms but men can fake whole relationships.” This thought-provoking and gender stereotypical bold statement was whispered in my ear by a tiny and fully sassy old-lady who attended one of my Valentine’s day stand-up comedy acts a few years back. She came up to me after the show in response to a few colorful jokes (or at least attempts at humor) about women’s ability to fake and pretend they are orgasming during sex often times to end undesirable and un-pleasurable intercourse with their partner. There should be no dispute in believing faking orgasmic completion is relationship deception. This week I will look at the context of this kind of dishonesty as well as other forms of romantic sexual deception.

In a 2008 study, researchers in the psychology department at Cal State Fullerton found that 45% of people (mostly women) in romantic relationships had in fact faked an orgasm. Since reading this study I have been vigorously attempting, you guessed it, to get ahold of 45% of my past lovers in order to confront them about their possible deception. Just I had expected they all continued their deceptive lies by inflating my sense of sexual self-worth by lying about another category that was concluded in the 2008 study. The researchers also discovered 31% of people tested, reported they had deceived their partners by telling them they were “great in bed” when in fact their partner was “terrible”. The psychologists Marelich, Lundquist, Painter, and Mechanic called this type of relationship deception avoidance motivated. But I’m sure my former partners who said I was “great”, 100% surely meant it…right?

How many of us have lied in order to avoid conflict and confrontation? Wait, let me go ahead an answer that; 99%! (There always has to be an exception or at least some one lying about their lying). That number of 99% is based on my intended as well as unintended social research as a 30 year old ‘serial dater’ and should certainly not be challenged, disputed, or refuted (But I welcome you to try).  Avoidance motivated lies are the most common deceptive practice in romantic relationships. These types of lies could also include; having sex with a partner when you did not want to in order to please them, or even having sex to simply maintain and continue the relationship (Marelich, Lundquist, Painter & Mechanic, 2008).

I’m guilty of these forms of relationship deception and its liberating to admit it. I once told my lover she was an “incredible artist of sex”  when she was actually below or sub-par my expectations while making-lust with her when I truly did not want to in order to keep the relationship going and avoid loneliness ALL while faking an orgasm. I cannot tell whether I am healthy or sick for this; you can decide. The four researchers mentioned above might label me ‘The king of avoidance motivated deception’ because of my frauds all occurring almost simultaneously, which is a crown I would wear proudly the next time I “whore” myself out to avoid conflict and being alone. This paragraph may have had a little facetiousness’ in it but I believe you get my nudge.

Obviously I’m teasing a little bit with my sarcasm; but did you know hurtful-teasing in romantic relationships can be considered another form of deception? In a separate recent study, a group of researchers defined 'deceiving' as essentially any communicator strategically controlling information in their messages to their partner in order to manipulate the truth. Based on this definition, hurtful teasing is then without question, deception. When people tease in romantic relationships they usually point out physical flaws, strange habits, their partners clothing choices, and many other not-so-flattering observations. This can be viewed as truth “in disguise”. In this study, the researchers pointed out that 94% of people in romantic relationships reported using hurtful-teasing as a strategy to disguise the truthfulness of the tease.

A hurtful-tease, related to sex because that’s what the people want to hear about, could be masked in sarcasm with something like; “I love the way your butt jiggles during sex”, or “Ahh my chubby-bunny gets so worn out and exhausted when we make love and your penis is so cute darlin” or even, “Geeze babe, you might wanna start doing kegel exercises, you’re no spring chicken anymore ha-ha”.

The examples of sarcastic hurtful-teasing are considered relationship deception because the person issuing the statements is disguising their upfront and honest feelings in a tongue-in-cheek manner but still hoping for results to serve their own personal interests. The man commenting on his girlfriend’s backside jiggling is trying to playfully inspire her to lose weight. The woman speaking of her man as a “chubby bunny” is hoping for the same, but also throwing spirited ‘poison darts’ at the size of his penis. The man making fun of his lady’s vagina is expecting her do something about it. I think most people would agree with the idea that a strong majority of all jokes have at least a sliver of truth motivating their performance. That sliver being concealed is deception.

I guess what I have learned from these studies on romantic relationships deception is; that I should lie if I really want a successful sexual partnership…or maybe not? Until next time...question everything your partners says or oppositely give them the benefit of the doubt; hell what I know I’m just a ‘serial dater’ with loneliness issues.