How White Lies can Be Good for Your Marriage - Literature review Example

Running Head: HONEY, I LOVE YOU SO, I NEED TO LIE A LITTLE BIT Honey, I Love You So, I Need to Lie a Little Bit: A Literature Review Discussing How White Lies Can Be Good For Your Marraige Name Here School Name Here HONEY, I LOVE YOU SO I NEED TO LIE A LITTLE BIT Most marriage vows consist of promises to be honest in a relationship. While these promises are blanketed statements that a couple makes to vow that they will always love one another, marriage vows are generally meant for the large scale ideas of fidelity and faithfulness. As part of being in a committed relationship, the notion of being considerate of each other’s feelings comes in to play. In an effort to safeguard your partner from seemingly unimportant or potentially embarrassing issues, people will at times tell “white lies.” These small, insignificant lies are meant to protect the feelings of your partner. A classic example of a white lie includes a person saying they like something when in reality, they might not but, say so in order to keep their partner happy. These instances generally concern a situation that is no big deal in relation to the grand scheme of life’s concerns. In translating this idea to a more academic realm, this literature review is going to analyze research on the importance of trust and communication in an interpersonal relationship. What happens when white lies are told? Is it better to always tell the truth or to safeguard the feelings of your significant other by telling them a simple, unassuming lie? The aim of this literature analysis is to determine if the practice of telling white lies can lead to more serious transgressions of trust within a relationship. The following ten journal articles will divulge this argument of white lies in a relationship to determine whether or not they help or harm a relationship. In order to discuss the literature surrounding this argument, this analysis will review articles about trust and deception within relationships. Within these journal articles, analyzing the positive and negative components of white lies against these relationship ideas will help to determine the effect that minor lies can have on a romantic connection. Beginning with trust in relationships, Fletcher and Simpson’s 2000 journal article on the Ideal Standards Model discusses what components are necessary for the makings of a good relationship. The Ideal Standards Model contains three categories of warmth-loyalty, vitality-attractiveness and status-resources. In placing the ideas of truth and honesty into the loyalty category, it is evident that truth plays a vital role in a relationship. While one can argue that people show their devotion and commitment to one another by demonstrating continuous truth and honesty in a relationship, the question also arises of protecting feelings. According to Fletcher and Simpson, showing your partner compassion and being attentive to their needs for respect and intimacy will increase the chances of a successful relationship. As part of this notion, one can argue that in showing respect for your partner you support them in whatever endeavor they are choosing to follow. In the cases of situations where opinions are not vitally important, such as choosing a movie, going to a concert or picking a new color for an upstairs bathroom, if one person in the relationship truly has their heart set on one idea, is it really worth arguing over? According to Fletcher and Simpson, a couple in a successful relationship will take opportunities such as this to allow their partner to be happy by telling an insignificant white lie by just agreeing with their choice. As Fletcher and Simpson highlight the components of truth in a successful relationship, Charles Smith’s 2007 article concerning deception highlights its role within the context of a partnership. According to Smith, deception is something that can happen on multiple levels within our lives. We can be deceived by how we perceive things are connected or in the ways they may be mysterious. For example, we can deceive ourselves by thinking that a relationship means more or less than what the other person thinks it does. When thinking along these lines, we can see how misreading relationship cues or scenarios is a form of deception. With deception being a form of non-truth, Smith argues that no relationship is without a type of deception. While these degrees of deception can vary between severe things such as faithfulness or money issues, they can also include the small, mundane aspects of white lies. As Smith argues, if deception is a given aspect to any relationship, it is more important to focus on how to adapt to the idea of deception versus the deception itself. With this article establishing that deception is a factor in any relationship, it makes the idea of telling white lies to protect another more viable. In furthering Smith’s notions on deception, Judee Burgoon and Kory Floyd’s article on the motivational drive to tell the truth versus deception discusses how people try to lie to one another. Written in the year 2000, this article makes the argument that the harder a person tries to lie to another, the more difficult it is for them to successfully tell those lies. In translating this notion to the context of this literature analysis of white lies in relationships, it is evident that attempting to maintain large, damaging lies such as an extramarital affair cause great strain within a relationship. On the opposite side, small, simple and mundane white lies such as saying you like a new dinner or a new set of bathroom towels are easy forms of deception to maintain. When weighing the gravity of these issues against the painful and serious issues that can come into play in a marriage, it is evident that a white lie does not hold much ground in the context of all scenarios. In forwarding the idea of the strain that deceivers feel with their partners, Seiter, Bruschke and Bai’s 2002 article on the social acceptability of deception discusses what society thinks is alright in regard to truth in relationships. According to the article, society finds that it is acceptable for strangers to be deceptive with one another for the sake of protecting their privacy but, that same behavior is not acceptable in marriages. With the understanding that American society expects marriage to consist of open relationships, it is clear where there can be a negative stigma associated with telling white lies. That being said, this article also discusses the fact that the notion of telling the truth comes down to the three-pronged combination between relationship, motive and culture. Essentially, this article breaks down to say that determining how one will tell the truth in their marriage is dependant upon these three items. For example, a person who is motivated to protect their personal business and comes from a cultural background where privacy is important will generally not honor the idea of open communication within a relationship. Under these constrains, white lies could start bad behaviors within a relationship but, in the context of a relationship where communication is open and there is a high degree of trust, a simple white lie will prove no real harm. While the understanding of society’s views on deception have serious implications within both public and personal relationships, Argo, White and Dahl’s article on social comparison theory among consumers highlights the notion of what people find acceptable for their own individual sense of honesty. According to the article, people often use social comparison theory to compare themselves to those around them. With this understanding, it is evident that people use deception in regard to this theory to bolster their internal opinions of others. In translating this study to the idea of white lies within a marriage, it is evident that another component to this is that people may also be using white lies to bolster their own image to their partner and themselves in areas where they may feel inadequate. While people may tell white lies to build up their own self esteem, the following article speaks about the potential downfalls that can accompany deception within a marriage. According to Jang, Smith and Levine, practicing deception within a marriage leads to the inevitable possibility that the relationship may not survive once the full deception is discovered by the other partner. While this is not saying that one person should leave another once it is realized that a white lie has been told, it is insinuating that these white lies may be the catalyst for serious decisions if previous instances of deception have had serious consequences within the relationship. As this study indicates that 92 percent of people admit to deception within their romantic relationship. With this understanding, it is clear that deception exists on nearly all fronts in the relationship. For couples who want to make an honest effort for a healthy relationship, one can argue that white lies must be the only amount of deception present within a union. The realization of making an honest effort within a relationship is the basis of Candida Peterson’s 1996 article analyzing the role of deception within an intimate relationship. According to Peterson, the one key realization that not most people are understand is that each person in a relationship is guilty of telling white lies but, does not assume that their partner is also doing the same practice. It is this realization perhaps that is the crux of this entire argument. If each person in the relationship is guilty of telling small lies to safeguard the feelings of another, is this a bad thing or is it a part of love? As Peterson suggests, maybe this truth is one of the markers of a relationship where the feelings of another are held higher than your own. In continuing this idea under the umbrella of white lies, it is clear that these small deceptions are part of being a human and must be dealt with accordingly. In order to demonstrate how the ideas of truth are a viable part of all relationships, the following article highlights how truth and deception play into the core of all relationships. According to Rowell, Ellner and Kern-Reeve, the practice of dishonesty can signify a balanced system between people during the initial stages of their relationship. As the study indicates, the notion of deception during the new phases of a relationship coordinates with human beings wanting to present the version of themselves which they want others to know. The potential downfall of this type of thinking though is that when practicing this type of deception, it will be required to keep up this front for the entirety of the relationship or to finally come clean with the actual factors of one’s personality. In addition to this factor, a romantic trueist also should believe in the idea that a lasting relationship is based on the fact that each person loves the other for who they are, no more and no less. By playing this evolutionary game, human beings have the opportunity to create more meaningful and long-lasting relationships. After discussing the role of deception at the foundational level of a human being, we can translate this idea into how truth and deception is developed within human beings from a young age. According to Reddy, an analysis of toddlers and young children demonstrates how the varying degrees of social living, including learning how to lie and deceive others. The importance of understanding how human beings develop in this way is to acknowledge that these traits are inherently born within human beings as they strive to protect their own feelings as well as the development of social intelligence among young children. By understanding how little ones learn the concepts of deception and lying as part of social living, this article also establishes the fact that white lies are an unavoidable part of every relationship as we are predisposed to telling mis-truths from childhood. Through this acknowledgment, it is clear that total honesty is something which adults must strive to achieve. As the summary of all the journal articles, the final selection is by Greenwood and Guner. Written in 2008, this article discusses the changes in marriage since the post World War II society. By analyzing these statistical developments, one can garner that in the decades following the 1950s, the increase of freedoms for women resulted in a decrease of marriage rates. With more women being able to be independent and marry for love versus just to be housewives and mothers, society views on marriage have changed. As marriage percentages fell in the decades after World War II, divorce rates also rose. Upon analysis, one can argue that once women had the ability to control more aspects of their lives, they were less tolerant in dealing with romantic relationships that did not make them happy. In translating this idea to the concept of white lies in marriage, it is evident that taking extra precautions to safeguard the feelings of your significant other may not necessarily be a bad thing. By showing extreme care and compassion for one another, partners can demonstrate how much they really do care for one another by letting go of insignificant issues or details and focusing on the grand and large scale issues of a relationship such as happiness and love. Upon review of the ten articles for this literature review, it is evident that there are varying angles of white lies within a marriage. While every couple is different, general research findings demonstrate that it is necessary for all people to understand that deception is a factor in every relationship at some degree. If these instances of deception are kept to a minimum then there is no real risk of white lies transforming into more serious transgressions within a relationship. Essentially, couples should focus on staying committed and keeping each other happy. If doing so requires an occasional white lie about liking a new throw pillow or wanting to go see a new release of a war drama, then that practice will build and strengthen compassion and loyalty within a relationship. Works Cited Argo, J., White, K., & Dahl, D. (2006). Social Comparison Theory and Deception in the Interpersonal Exchange of Consumer Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 99-108. Burgoon, J., & Floyd, K. (2000). Testing for the Motivational Impairment Effect During Deceptive and Truthful Interaction. Western Journal of Communciation, 64 (3), 243-267. Fletcher, G., & Simpson, J. (2000). Ideal Standards in Close Relationships: Their Structure and Functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9 (3), 102-105. Greenwood, J., & Guner, N. (2008). Marriage and Divorce Since World War II: Analyzing the Role of Technological Progress on the Formation of Households. NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 23 (1), 231-276. Jang, S., Smith, S., & Levine, T. (2002). To Stay or To Leave? The Role of Attachment Styles in Communication Patterns and Potential Termination of Romantic Relationships Following Discovery of Deception. Communication Monographs, 69 (3), 236-252. Peterson, C. (1996). Deception in Intimate Relationships. International Journal of Psychology, 31 (6), 279-288. Reddy, V. (2007). Getting Back to the Rough Ground: Deception and ‘Social Living.’ Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 362, (1480), 621-637. Rowell, J., Ellner, S., & Kern Reeve, H. (2006). Why Animals Lie: How Dishonesty and Belief can Coexist in a Signaling System. The American Naturalist, 168, (6), 180-204. Seiter, J., Bruschke, J., & Bai, C. (2002). The Acceptability of Deception as a Function of Perceivers’ Culture, Deceiver’s Intention, and Deceiver-Deceived Relationship. Western Journal of Communication 66, (2), 158-180. Smith, C. (2007). Deception Meets Enlightenment: From a Viable Theory of Deception to A Quirk About Humanity’s Potential. World Futures, 63, 42-54. Read More