Deception in Romantic Relationships Essay Example

not based on the number of lies they tell, but rather on the intention behind those lies. DePaulo, et al., conducted a study that did not explore how their findings might impact romantic relationships. Initially, one could argue that if women lie to protect their partner's feelings, then they would be more honest about important matters like cheating. However, it is also possible for women to deceive their partner about infidelity if they think it will prevent them from experiencing pain.

Additionally, DePaulo et al. (2006) found that women are generally less prone to telling white lies when interacting with men. This tendency may vary in the context of a romantic relationship but is likely to become more evident as the romance fades. In some cases, damage to the relationship may not be caused by an actual lie but rather by the perception of one. Edwards and Shepherd (2004) emphasized that people use different models of communication - expressive, conventional, or rhetorical - which shape their intentions and determine how they deliver their messages.

Expressive communicators prioritize clear communication and resist the impact of contextual changes, emotions, or expressions. They perceive messages as either completely truthful or false. On the other hand, Conventional communicators recognize that meaning is influenced by the context of communication. The same words can possess varying meanings in different contexts (Edwards & Shepherd, 2004, p. 214).

In their 2004 study, Edwards and Shepherd explored how communication models (Expressive, Conventional, and Rhetorical) interact with an individual's philosophy of human nature and world view. They discovered that individuals who favor a Rhetorical logic design tend to have greater success in

complex or challenging interactions. The distinguishing feature of this design is its capacity to adapt and adjust the context to enhance the conveyed message.

The research shows that people who prefer an Expressive communication style tend to be more cynical and have a more negative interpretation of messages and events than other communicators. Moreover, Edwards and Shepherd's study indicates that Expressive communicators typically receive less positive feedback from others. In fact, others described these individuals as "insensitive, inadequate, or annoying" and responded with "anger, indifference, or insensitivity in return" (Edwards ; Shepherd, 2004, p. 214).

According to a study by Edwards and Shepherd, individuals who use a Rhetorical communication style are more effective in persuading others and achieving successful negotiations. This ultimately results in consensus development. These findings have significant implications for romantic relationships, where partners with an Expressive communication style may distrust their counterparts or feel deceived. Conversely, partners with a Rhetorical style may find their Expressive partners' cynical paranoia tiresome and aggravating, particularly when falsely accused of dishonesty. It is crucial to recognize the validity of these accusations.

The Expressive communicator may perceive the Rhetorical partner's utilization of changing context, metaphoric language, and other non-literal language as dishonest and deceptive. However, the Rhetorical communicator regards these techniques as advanced language tools employed for emphasizing and clarifying ideas. The Expressive communicator is not a target of dishonesty but rather tends to interpret it as deceitful behavior. Just as there are diverse communication styles, beliefs and expectations concerning love and romantic relationships also vary.

The text discusses the different "love styles" identified by Lee (1977, cited by Levin, Strzyzewski,

; Park, 2006). There are six love styles: Eros, which is characterized by emotional intensity and strong commitment; Storge, which is based on long-term friendship and relies less on physical attraction; and Ludus, where love is seen as a game that can involve multiple partners. It is worth noting that Ludic lovers find deception and manipulation acceptable in their love game but consider commitment, jealousy, and strong emotional attachment unacceptable.

The text examines three love styles: Agape, Pragma, and Manic. Agape love is characterized by putting the needs of others before one's own, while Pragma love evaluates compatibility through logic and reasoning. Manic love is marked by dependency, uncertainty, jealousy, and a constant need for reassurance. Levin, Strzyzewski, and Park (2006) argue that individuals may experience different aspects of love at various stages in their lives or within a relationship; thus there is no perfect love style.

According to Levin, et al. (2006), love styles significantly impact romantic relationships, influencing how individuals communicate. Different love styles respond differently to various types of communication. In the early stages of a relationship, Pragmas prefer direct lines, such as straightforward introductions or invitations to a specific activity. On the other hand, Manics and Agapes respond better to innocuous lines that may not clearly indicate an interest in starting a romantic relationship. Ludics and Agapes, however, favor cute or flippant lines like clever "pick-up" lines or jokes (Levin, et al., 2006, p. 279).

Levin et al. (2006) found that Eros, who strongly believes in love at first sight, had a consistent reaction to various opening lines. This could be because these lines typically highlight physical appearance

and other abstract elements of attraction. The study also investigated the relationship development and preferred communication methods of individuals with different love styles in long-term partnerships.

Levin et al. (2006) found that individuals with an Agape love style place a higher priority on honesty and trust compared to those with Ludic love styles, who prioritize sexual performance. It is important to note that all participants in this study recognized the significance of honesty in their relationships. However, it is possible that Ludics' acknowledgement of honesty may have been influenced by societal expectations rather than genuinely reflecting their values, considering their focus on sexual performance.

Levin and colleagues' research has significant implications for honest communication in relationships. Agapes, who prioritize honesty, are more prone to emotional pain when suspecting or discovering their partner's dishonesty. In contrast, Ludics, who place less importance on honesty and believe some deception is acceptable in romantic relationships, are less concerned about their partner being untruthful.

Manics, who require constant reassurance, could be devastated if they believed their partner was being dishonest with them. According to DePaulo, et al. (1996), everyone lies frequently. However, it is also likely that what we perceive as deception is often a result of miscommunication. Couples can improve their relationships by not hastily assuming their partner is being truthful and by making an effort to comprehend their partner's communication preferences and love style.