Why a Partner's Affection Could Be Deceptive

Throughout my Psychology Today series, I have written about the concept of deceptive affection. This is a concept I proposed around 2009 and it describes what happens when feeling and communicating affection diverge. That is, you can withhold the expression of your felt affection. Alternatively, you can express deceptive affectionate messages (DAMs), which are expressions of affection that are inconsistent with your current feelings of affection.

In a recent study, Neil Caton and I examined how the frequency of DAMs might relate to mate-retention behaviors, and the role that infidelity played in understanding this process. The study, published in a journal titled Evolutionary Psychology, surveyed nearly 2,000 people currently in romantic relationships. We asked them about their DAM use, the perceived risk of their partner cheating on them, and their mate-retention behaviors.

When discussing mate retention behaviors, we used the approach that has been adopted in previous research. That is, researchers propose that we retain our relational partners by using various behaviors. This approach involves two general categories: benefit-provisioning mate retention and cost-inflicting behavior.

Examples of benefit-provisioning mate retention behaviors include:

• Positive Inducements:
  "Bought my partner an expensive gift."
  "Performed sexual favors to keep my partner around."
• Public Signals of Possession:
  "Put my arm around my partner in front of others."
  "Bragged about my partner to other men."

Cost-inflicting mate-retention behaviors include:

• Direct Guarding:
  "Called to make sure my partner was where they said they would be."
  "Spent all my free time with my partner so that they could not meet anyone else."
• Intersexual Negative Inducements:
  "Pleaded that I could not live without my partner."
  "Told my partner that we needed a total commitment to each other."
• Intrasexual Negative Inducements:
  "Told other people my partner was a pain."
  "Stared coldly at a person who was looking at my partner."

We found a number of things but, in the interest of space, I will highlight only a few of these findings (readers are encouraged to consult the study for a full summary of findings).

We first found positive relationships among DAMs and mate-retention behaviors of direct guarding, intersexual negative inducements, and intrasexual negative inducements. In addition, we found negative relationships between DAMs and public signals of possession. That is individuals who reported higher use of DAMs also reported more use of direct guarding, intersexual negative inducements, and intrasexual negative inducements. Moreover, those who reported higher use of DAMs also reported lower use of public signals of possession.

Importantly, we examined these factors in conjunction with the perceived risk of partner infidelity. We found the “relation between DAMs and general mate retention was mediated by the perceived risk of partner infidelity (Hypothesis 1b). Those who enacted DAMs were more likely to enact general mate retention behaviors, and this was because they thought their partner might be unfaithful toward them...[and] that perceived infidelity mediated the negative relation between DAMs and benefit-provisioning mate retention. The more one enacted DAMs, the less one used benefit-provisioning mate retention because of the heightened perceived risk of partner infidelity.". This study meaningfully adds to our understanding of deceptive affection by studying DAMs in conjunction with mate retention and perceived infidelity risk. Though we have previously identified various motives for DAMs (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2013), fear of infidelity appears to be another motive that guides the use of deceptive affection.

Facebook image: fizkes/Shutterstock