Consequences of Deception in Romantic Relationships - Dissertation Example

?Consequences of Deception in Romantic Relationships Introduction Romantic relationships are not necessarily based on complete truth between the couple. From white lies such as praising the partner as the best or the most good looking, there may be withholding of information by an individual from their partner, total avoidance of particular issues, even explicitly deceiving the partner or “reserving the most serious lies for each other” (Cole, 2001, p.107). The reasons for deception may vary from a lack of reciprocal exchange of information, the need for intimacy, avoidance of punishment by the deceived partner, the individuals’ beliefs regarding their relationship’s attachment level, or because of concern for the partner or the relationship. Deception in romantic relationships may have different outcomes: deep rift and conflict, distrust and increasing estrangement between the couple, breaking of the relationship, acceptance and forgiveness, or even complete return of trust towards the deceiver. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to determine the relational outcomes of deception in a romantic relationship. Outcomes of Deception in Romantic Relationships When deception is detected, negative emotional reactions result, particularly when the lies exposed are considered to be significant. In Cole’s (2001) study, 256 individuals (128 couples) were used as the research sample. They were asked to complete questionnaires pertaining to their partner’s and their own communication behavior. The aim was to determine the link between the extent of interpersonal communication and the practice of deception. Moreover, the study examined the roles played by causes for deception such as reciprocity, avoidance of punishment, or deceptive fulfilment of the lack of intimacy in their romantic relationship. The use of deception is more frequently found where relational characteristics are at lower levels. Thus, deception appears to be used as a method for coping with relational problems, and greater use of deception is considered to be “an indicator of overall relational distress” (Cole, 2001, p.125). Cole’s (2001) research study also obtained certain results related to the outcome of deception. Primarily, the best relational outcomes arise from couples avoiding deception while at the same time trusting each other’s fidelity. However, when it becomes known that deception is being practised by one of the partners, there are negative outcomes for everyone involved. When there is a little suspicion, the other partner may be tempted to engage in deception too, thus sending the relationship into a downward spiral. This results in increasing deception by both the individuals, greater suspicion between partners, and progressive deterioration of the romantic relationship. The above study could have been made more useful through a greater focus on the outcomes of deception among the couples where deception was found, thereby providing evidence based results. The research study would need to extend over a longer period of time, to determine how each couple who had experienced deception between them, fared with the passage of time. This is because some couples may reconcile, while others may break up the romantic relationship permanently. In romantic relationships, fidelity is a serious concern for both sexes. Deception by one of the partners can have devastating results on the relationship. When the infidelity comes to light, the betrayed partner’s feelings of being let down can give rise to “unpleasant emotions including depression, anger, self-reproach and jealousy” (Shackelford, Buss and Bennett, 2002, p.299). Infidelity remains as the most serious cause for the dissolution of a relationship leading to divorce, and breaking up of the relationship is resorted to as the most common solution. On the other hand, not all couples break up their relationship because of a partner’s infidelity. Some individuals try to find out all the details from their unfaithful partner to determine the nature and extent of the threat, and to know how involved their erring partner is in the affair, and whether the latter is emotionally committed. Some couples are willing to go through therapy to find out the root causes of the betrayal and to resolve the problems in order to resume their married life with better understanding. On the other hand, some individuals consider the critical nature of this juncture in their marriage, and choose to forgive their partner and work towards a more harmonious relationship (Shackelford et al, 2002). Forgiveness: Sex Differences and the Nature of the Infidelity Deception in long-term romantic relationships may be in the form of sexual or emotional infidelities, or a combination of both. After a partner’s betrayal is revealed, the deceived individual has to choose between two options: either forgive the partner and continue the relationship, or break up permanently. Shackelford et al (2002) hypothesized that there would be sex differences in the particular aspects of infidelity that would impact the possibility of forgiveness or termination of relationship. This is based on the fact that men and women have faced different adaptive problems during their evolutionary history in relation to different forms of infidelity. Thus, from the evolutionary approach, both sex differences and the nature of the infidelity play a part in determining the outcome of deception in a romantic relationship. Among humans in the early period of evolution, a single instance of sexual infidelity could render a man’s paternity uncertain. Therefore, the related risk of investing decades of effort in a rival man’s child rather than his own, made sexual deception entirely unacceptable to the husband. On the other hand, for the ancestral or early woman, her husband committing a single sexual infidelity would not have carried risk to the same extent as above. This is because her genetic maternity would not be affected, and therefore her investments in terms of effort and other resources would still be channelised towards her own genetic offspring. Conversely, emotional infidelity on her husband’s part would indicate diversion of her husband’s energy, resources, commitments and investment in the long term; thus making emotional infidelity unacceptable to the wife (Shackelford et al, 2002). The researchers tested this hypothesis with the help of dilemmas that compelled the choice of one of the options. 256 participants in the study stated the high level of difficulty in forgiving the partner, and the great likelihood of breaking up with the partner, depending on the nature of the infidelity. The research project studied the effect of betrayal on the outcome of deception in relation to factors such as the sex of the deceived partner and the nature of the infidelity. The results of the study confirm the hyothesis that the betrayed person’s sex as well as the nature of the deception directly impact the outcome of deception, in the form of forgiveness of the erring partner, or break up of the relationship. Thus, men as compared to women are unable to a greater extent to forgive a partner’s sexual infidelity than their emotional infidelity. Further, men are more likely than women to break up the relationship as a result of their partner’s sexual infidelity than in response to the partner’s emotional infidelity. On the other hand, women to a greater extent than men find it more difficult to forgive emotional infidelity, and are more likely to break up with their emotionally unfaithful partner. “These sex differences remain even after controlling for effects attributable to age” (Shackelford et al, 2002, p.304). The researchers’ use of forced-choice scenarios or dilemmas has both advantages and limitations. The specific hypthesis tested in the current research aimed to determine whether men and women might be differently affected by sexual versus emotional infidelity. The advantage is that the forced-choice method enabled the discovery of actual differences in the types of infidelity that upset men and women most. The limitation of this method of offering different dilemmas for rating by the participants, is that when the option of rating upset along an interval scale is given, both men and women indicate upset to a high degree in response to both sexual and emotional infidelity of the partner. This reveals that both sexes are equally upset about their partner’s deception, whether of a sexual or emotional nature, or of both combined. To overcome this limitation in using imagined scenarios, it is essential to extend the research study to collection of data from men and women who have experienced deception from their partner in the form of sexual or emotional infidelity, or both. Additionally, to increase the validity of the research, data regarding divorced couples should be obtained from records accessible to the public. The reason for divorce would be available from the records, since it is usually mandatory for the petitioners to provide the information. Further, to gain a better understanding of the outcomes of deception, the causal conditions behind break-ups or forgiveness need to be examined. The financial dependence or otherwise of the wife, the presence or lack of small children in the family, or the certainty versus improbability of finding another partner may be some of the factors that influence the outcome of discovering the partner’s infidelity. Offense Frequency, Discovery Method and Regret Affect Forgiveness Romantic relationships can be deeply affected by deception practised by one of the partners. However, forgiveness of the unfaithful partner is a probability, particularly in stronger and more nurtured relationships, or for any of the reasons given above. Additional factors that affect forgiveness are: the frequency of offense committed by the deceiver, method of discovering the transgression: whether by self-admission, or through another source, the manner in which the matter came to light, and the erring partner’s sincerity of regret and apology for their conduct. In order to study forgiveness as an outcome of deception based on the variables: offense frequency, method of discovering the infidelity, and the presence or lack of apology, Gunderson and Ferrari (2008) conducted a research study on 196 participants. The subjects read a vignette on an imaginary romantic partner cheating on them by engaging in sex with another person. They then answered a list of questions based on the above variables associated with forgiveness. The evidence from the study indicated that the method of discovering the infidelity was not relevant to the outcome of forgiveness, if the offense was committed as an isolated incident, and an apology was also offered by the partner. Thus, apology and low frequency of transgression were found to be the most important factors in eliciting forgiveness from the cheated partner. The main limitation of this study is the fact that the participants had never been through cheating by a romantic partner, hence the sample may have been a biased one. Further, in the hypothetical scenario of cheating, the participants who responded that they would forgive their partner in the given circumstances may not react in the same way in real life (Gunderson & Ferrari, 2008). Hence selection of participants should be appropriate for the study. Method of Discovery of Deception Impacts Relational Outcomes Contrary to the results obtained by Gunderson and Ferrari (2008) above that the method of discovery of infidelity was irrelevant if the deception was an isolated occurrence and the betrayer offered an apology for the transgresson, it was found by Afifi, Falato and Weiner (2001) that the method by which the clandestine affair came to light affected the romantic relationship outcome. The researchers used an identity management framework, and argued that betrayal’s impact on the relationship is directly related to the extent to which the method of discovery produces threats to the deceived partner’s identity. Two factors affect the degree of face threat: the extent to which knowledge about the infidelity is public, and the degree to which immediate compensation to loss of face is present. These factors impact damage to face which subsequently impacts the relationship outcomes. Dating infidelity among college students is a fairly common occurrence. The different methods of discovery from the most damaging to the least harmful are: unsolicited information from third party sources, catching the partner red-handed, discovering infidelity as a result of extensive seeking of information, and through unsolicited partner disclosure (Afifi et al, 2001). College students 115 in number who had experienced infidelity in a dating relationship formed the study sample.They were assessed to determine the method of discovery and the infidelity’s impact on the relationship. The results of the study support the use of an identity management framework by protecting the individual’s loss of face and identity. According to Afifi et al (2001, p.305), the evidence from their research indicates that “the best chance to minimize relational damage caused by discovered infidelity is to disclose the transgression to the partner prior to its solicitation”. This method provides maximum saving of face for both members in the romantic relationship. However, this still led to break up in the relationship in 44% of the cases. Therefore other essential factors such as the cognitive implications of infidelity and the method of dicovery need to be considered further for forgivenss to take place. The Beneficial Use of Prosocial Relational Repair Strategies A research study conducted by Aune, Metts and Hubbard (1998) analyzed the different ways in which individuals coped with the discovery of deception in a relationship. The study sample consisted of 210 participants; they were required to fill questionnaires with details of their use of repair strategies following deception. The results indicate that the use of repair strategies varied among different relational types. Aune et al (1998) found that the use of prosocial relational repair strategies was directly associated with the target’s increase in trust for the deceiver, along with increase in their expressions of affection for the deceiver, and greater relational intimacy. Moreover, relational satisfaction was positively correlated with the use of prosocial strategies. The deceived individual’s perception of the relational significance of the duplicity impacted the deceiver’s selection of message to assuage the feelings of the partner. When the deceiver believed that the partner attributed relational significance to the act of deception, the deceiver used prosocial strategies towards the target. Thus, encouraging improved social functioning of the target through supportive behavior was found to be an effective strategy to overcome the effects of deception in a romantic relationship. However, for acquiring more accurate information on the specific prosocial relational repair strategies used by the deceiver towards achieving maximum increase in trust, this research study needed to include direct interviews of both partners, to supplement the questionnaires answered by the participants. Empathy towards the Unfaithful Partner Leads to Forgiveness “Forgiving is a motivational transformation that inclines people to inhibit relationship-destructive responses” (McCullough, Worthington & Rachal, 1997, p.321), and enables them to behave in a positive manner toward someone who has behaved destructively towards them. The researchers used a model of forgiveness built on the hypothesis that the extent to which people forgive others depends on the degree of empathy they feel for them. Two research projects studied the empathy model of forgiveness. In the first study the researchers developed measures of empathy and forgiveness. The evidence from research supported the hypothesis that increased empathy is at the root of accepting an apology and for forgiving the deceiver. Forgiving is based on conciliatory and avoidance behavior towards the offending unfaithful partner. In the second study, the authors carried out an intervention whereby empathy was manipulated to study more closely the relationship between empathy and forgiving. The results confirm the concept of forgiving as “a motivational phenomenon in the empathy-forgiving link” (McCullough et al, 1997, p.334). Besides the social psychology of forgiving, the empathy-forgiving relationship can be studied on the basis of attributional change. Attributional theory states that a change in causal attributions regarding the hurtful or damaging behavior of another person can make the observer more empathetic and forgiving towards the offending person. Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Research on the Topic This paper has highlighted the relational outcomes of deception in romantic relationships. The main outcomes are either breaking up of the relationship by the betrayed partner or forgiving the deceiver. Forgiveness and patching up the relationship occurs based on sex differences, the nature of the infidelity: whether sexual or emotional or a combination of both, the method of discovery of the deception, the frequency of the offense and the expression of regret or apology by the unfaithful partner. The method of discovery of deception in relation to face saving and protection of the betrayed partner’s identity was found to be an important factor. Similarly, prosocial relational repair strategies were found to be beneficial in saving romantic relationships. It was found that empathy towards the unfaithful partner leads to forgiveness; and empathy and forgiveness arise from a change in causal attributions regarding the hurtful or damaging behavior of the partner. For improved investigation, data can be collected on divorces from publicly accessible records, and the causes can be studied, to determine the extent to which infidelity is given as the reason for the marriage breaking up. Future research on the outcomes of deception in romantic relationships should include certain modifications and extensions of the research currently studied. To overcome the limitations imposed by forced choice depicting imagined scenarios used in the study by Shackelford et al (2002), participants should be asked to think about real betrayals that they have experienced. Further, participants who have actually experienced a partner’s infidelity of any type, should be selected for the study. Individuals who have experienced a particular method of discovery of sexual infidelity may have different perspectives regarding forgiveness on the basis of the partner’s apology, or the frequency of offense. To understand forgiveness further, it is important for future research to investigate the relationship between the betrayed person’s empathy, causal attributions about the unfaithfulness and forgiving the partner. Moreover, the role of relational closeness in facilitating the empathy-forgiveness link should be studied. Further, the reasons for forgiving the partner’s infidelity may include causal factors such as financially dependent wife, stay-at-home mom, small children to be cared for, or lack of further possibilities for remarriage. The probable existence of such reasons can be investigated in future research on the topic. For further knowledge on how infidelity affects romantic relationships, studies should be planned to take account of the complex interactions between the cognitive implications of infidelity, the method by which the deception comes to light, as well as face-saving strategies adopted post discovery. References Afifi, W.A., Falato, W.L. & Weiner, J.L. (2001). Identity concerns following a severe relational transgression: The role of discovery method for the relational outcomes of infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(2): pp.291-308. Aune, R.K., Metts, S. & Hubbard, A.E. (1998). Managing the outcomes of discovered deception. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(6): pp.677-689. Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(1): pp.107-129. Gunderson, P.R. & Ferrari, J.R. (2008). Forgiveness of sexual cheating in romantic relationships: Effects of discovery method, frequency of offense, and presence of apology. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(1): pp.1-14. McCullough, M.E., Worthington, Jr., E.L. & Rachal, K.C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2): pp.321- 336. Shackelford, T.K, Buss, D.M. & Bennett, K. (2002). Forgiveness or breakup: Sex differences in responses to a partner’s infidelity. Brief Report. Cognition and Emotion, 16(2): pp.299-307. Read More