Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T11:47:55.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Lying and Deception in Close Relationships

from Part VII - Threats to Relationships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2018

By
Timothy R. Levine  and
Mark L. Knapp
Edited by
Anita L. Vangelisti  and
Daniel Perlman
Anita L. Vangelisti
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Daniel Perlman
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Greensboro
Get access

Summary

Why do people stay in a personal relationship? For decades, scholars have attempted to answer this deceptively simple question. In doing so, they have often invoked the concept of commitment. Relationship commitment is a core construct within relationship science, and theorizing and research on it, including its antecedents and consequences, has been active for years. This chapter reviews what is known currently about commitment processes, including why it remains a particularly important construct in understanding relationships today. We begin by providing basic conceptualizations offered for the construct, highlighting why the construct seems of importance given shifts in how people relate with one another at the current time. We then review particularly generative extant theoretical models of commitment (including the Cohesiveness Model, the Tripartite Model, and the Investment Model of Commitment Processes), before turning to a detailed review of known antecedents of commitment. We also review known consequences of commitment (including cognitive, affective and behavioral consequences). We end the chapter by considering topics for potential future exploration.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships , pp. 329 - 340
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration. New York, NY: Holt.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B. M., & Ansfield, M. E. (2002). The development of deception detection skill: A longitudinal analysis of same-sex friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 536–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariely, D. (2012). The honest truth about dishonesty: How we lie to everyone – especially ourselves. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Aron, A. & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. A. (1994). A pack of lies: Towards a sociology of lying. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Lying to yourself: The enigma of self-deception. In Lewis, M. & Saarni, C. (eds.) Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 166–183). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Wotman, S. R. (1992). Breaking hearts: The two sides of unrequited love. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E., & Peplau, L. A. (1983). The emerging science of relationships. In Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L., & Levinger, G., et al. (eds.) Close relationships (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
Blair, J. P., Levine, T. R., & Shaw, A. J. (2010). Content in context improves deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 36, 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, C. F. Jr., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bond, C. F., & Global Deception Research Team (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 60–74.Google Scholar
Bond, C. F. Jr., Levine, T. R., & Hartwig, M. (2015). New findings in nonverbal lie detection. In Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Vershuere, B. (eds.) Deception detection: Current challenges and new directions (pp. 37–58). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clare, D., & Levine, (2014). Spontaneous, unprompted deception detection judgments. Unpublished manuscript. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Comadena, M. E. (1982). Accuracy in detecting deception: Intimate and friendship relationships. In Burgoon, M. (ed.) Communication Yearbook 6 (pp. 446–472). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1982). Friendship and love relationships. In Davis, K. E. & Mitchell, T. O. (eds.) Advances in descriptive psychology (Vol. 2; pp. 79–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., & Bell, K. L. (1996). Truth and investment: Lies are told to those who care. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 703–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. L., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy–confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dibble, J. L., Levine, T. R., & Park, H. S. (2012). The Unidimensional Relationship Closeness Scale (URCS): Reliability and validity evidence for a new measure of relationship closeness. Psychological Assessment, 24, 565–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, B. (1993). How do I love thee? Let me consult my prototype. In Duck, S. (ed.) Individuals in relationships (pp. 87–120). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forward, S. (1999). When your lover is a liar: Healing the wounds of deception and betrayal. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Halevy, R., Shalvi, S., & Verschuere, B. (2014). Being honest about dishonesty: Correlating self-reports and actual lying. Human Communication Research, 40, 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. Jr. (2011). Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 643–659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartwig, M., & Bond, C. F. Jr. (2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: Meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, 0. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). Does training improve the detection of deception? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 43, 283–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. N. (2014). Predatory personalities as behavioral mimics and parasites: Mimicry-deception theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 445–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, T. R. (2010). A few transparent liars. In Salmo, C.n (ed.) Communication yearbook 34 (pp. 41–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Levine, T. R. (2014a). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R. (2014b). Active deception detection. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 122–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R. (2015). New and improved accuracy findings in deception detection research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Ali, M., Dean, M., Abdulla, R., & Garcia-Ruano, K. (2016). Toward a pan-cultural typology of deception motives. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Asada, K. J., & Massi, L. L. (2003). The relative impact of violation type and lie severity on judgments of message deceptiveness, Communication Research Reports, 20, 208–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Blair, J. P., & Clare, D. (2014). Diagnostic utility: Experimental demonstrations and replications of powerful question effects and smaller question by experience interactions in high stake deception detection. Human Communication Research, 40, 262–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Clare, D., Blair, J. P., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Park, H. S. (2014). Expertise in deception detection involves actively prompting diagnostic information rather than passive behavioral observation. Human Communication Research, 40, 442–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Clare, D. D., Green, T., Serota, K. B., & Park, H. S. (2014). The effects of truth–lie base rate on interactive deception detection accuracy. Human Communication Research, 40, 350–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., & Kim, R. K. (2010). Some considerations for a new theory of deceptive communication. In Knapp, M. L. & McGlone, M. S. (eds.) The interplay of truth and deception (pp. 16–34). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., & Blair, J. P. (2010). (In)accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: An initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments. Human Communication Research, 36, 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., & Hamel, L. M. (2010). People lie for a reason: An experimental test of the principle of veracity. Communication Research Reports, 27, 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Kim, R. K., Park, H. S., & Hughes, M. (2006). Deception detection accuracy is a predictable linear function of message veracity base-rate: A formal test of Park and Levine’s probability model. Communication Monographs, 73, 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (1992). Linking love and lies: A formal test of McCornack and Parks’ model of deception detection. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (2001). Behavioral adaption, confidence, and heuristic-based explanations of the probing effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 471–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (2014). Theorizing about deception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Park, H. S., & McCornack, S. A. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “veracity effect.” Communication Monographs, 66, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, T. R., Serota, K. B. Shulman, H., Clare, D. D., Park, H. S., Shaw, A. S., Shim, J. C., & Lee, J. H. (2011). Sender demeanor: Individual differences in sender believability have a powerful impact on deception detection judgments. Human Communication Research, 37, 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinger, G., & Senn, D. J. (1967). Disclosure of feelings in marriage. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 13, 237–249.Google Scholar
Maxwell, G. M. (1985). Behavior of lovers: Measuring the closeness of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A. (1997). The generation of deceptive messages: Laying the groundwork for a viable theory of interpersonal deception. In Greene, J. O. (ed.) Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 91–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McCornack, S. A., & Levine, T. R. (1990a). When lies are discovered: Emotional and relational outcomes of discovered deception. Communication Monographs, 57 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A., & Levine, T. R. (1990b). When lovers become leery: The relationship between suspicion and accuracy in detecting deception. Communication Monographs, 57, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A., Levine, T. R., Torres, H. I., Solowczuk, K. A., & Campbell, D. M. (1992). When the alteration of information is viewed as deception: An empirical test of information manipulation theory. Communication Monographs, 59, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., Paik, J. E., Wiser, A. M., & Zhu, X. (2014). Information manipulation theory 2: A propositional theory of deceptive discourse production. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 348–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCornack, S. A., & Parks, M. R. (1986). Deception detection and relationship development: The other side of trust. In McLaughlin, M. L. (ed.) Communication Yearbook 9 (pp. 377–389). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Metts, S. (1989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, P. (2011). How to spot a liar. Retrieved from www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liarGoogle Scholar
Millar, M., & Millar, K. (1995). Detection of deception in familiar and unfamiliar persons: The effect of information restriction. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. R., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, W. L., Sternglanz, R. W., Ansfield, M. E., Anderson, D. E., Snyder, J. L. H., & DePaulo, B. E. (2016). A longitudinal study of the development of emotional deception detection within new same-sex friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 204–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1996). The construction of relationship realities. In Fletcher, G. J. O. & Fitness, J. (eds.) Knowledge structures in close relationships (pp. 91–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nahari, G., Vrij, A., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). Exploiting liars’ verbal strategies by examining the verifiability of details. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19, 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., McCornack, S. A., Morrison, K., & Ferrara, M. (2002). How people really detect lies. Communication Monographs, 69, 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parks, M. R. (1982). Ideology of intimacy: Off the couch and into the world. Communication Yearbook 5 (pp. 79–107). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Parks, M. R., & Floyd, K. (1996). Meanings for closeness and intimacy in friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C. (1996). Deception in intimate relationships. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneier, B. (2012). Liars and outliers: Enabling the trust that society needs to thrive. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Serota, K. B., & Levine, T. R. (2015). A few prolific liars: Variation in the prevalence of lying. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of reported deception. Human Communication Research, 36, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Blackstone, T. (1995). When the head protects the heart: Empathic accuracy in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamp, G. H., & Knapp, M. L. (1990). The construct of intent in interpersonal communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, 282–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiff, J. B., Kim, H. J., & Ramesh, C. N. (1992). Truth biases and aroused suspicion in relational deception. Communication Research, 19, 326–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. (2011). The folly of fools: The logic of deceit and self-deception in human life. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Turner, R. E., Edgley, C., & Olmstead, G. (1975). Information control in conversations: Honesty is not always the best policy. Kansas Journal of Sociology, 11, 69–89.Google Scholar
Vrij, A. (2015). A cognitive approach to lie detection. In Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (eds.) Deception detection: Current challenges and new approaches (pp. 205–229). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Werth, L. F., & Flaherty, J. (1986). A phenomenological approach to human deception. In Mitchell, R. W. & Thompson, N. S. (eds.) Deception: Perspectives on human and nonhuman deceit (pp. 293–311). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1–59). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×