Deception in Romantic Relations Dissertation Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Deception in Romantic Relations - Dissertation ExamplePaterson (1996, pp. 283) renowned that students who were gaining the near satisfaction from their couple consanguinitys w ere the least likely to conceal things from their partners by making advisedly deceptive e statements. Nevertheless, this statement implies that relationship satisfaction leads to transp atomic number 18ncy. However, it is also possible reverse that statement reason that couples who were to a greater extent intimate and honest with each other derived more satisfaction. According to her study, except white lies, relationship satisfaction fronts to be correlated with the other types of deception. Furthermore, the blatant lie w as regarded as the most dishonest. It is also very interesting to find that deception is a two-edged sword. Not only the ones who believed that their partners deceived them were unhappy but, the ones who deceived seem also dissatisfied due to their deceptive behavior. Paterson (1996, pp. 285) stated that When respondents own self -reported frequencies of using the s ix different type s of deception were analysed individually, blatant lies, half truths, and failed deceptions were all statistically significant negative predictors of satisfaction. The major flaw of Patersons research is that the question with regard to the preference is biased in a understanding that it asked whether the students preferred deception over fight. This question assumed only one possible motivation for deception, which is the dodging of an argument. Thus, it was a manipulative question forcing the students to make between argument or deception. In that sense, it was not an unrestricted question exploring the possible reasons of the deceptive behaviors. Accordingly, the research actually found what it set out to find, the students lied in order to avoid argument while it did not leave any other option to choose as their motive. The major gap of the study is also pointed out by the researcher herself, she noted that more research is needed including the samples of adults from different cultures. However, her sample must have been more varied in damage of the ages of the participants. It is even doubtful whether the university students are capable of handling truly intimate, adult and mature relations since, they tended to battle casually. Young people might have preferred to deceive in order to argue, since most of them are neither mature nor committed enough to develop conflict-resolution mechanisms as much as the older people. In fact, the title of the article should have been Deception in Intimate relationships of the Australian Students. Gerald R. Miller (1986) studied how some(prenominal) differences between impersonal and personal relationships may affect deceptive behavior in Invited Article Fudging with Friends and imposition to Lovers Deceptive Communication in Personal Relationships. According to him, lies are told to resolve threats to relations hip he accented the protective function of lies while describing the motivation of lying as preserve social relationships. His account is same to Patersons and probably influenced her study. However, Millers term of deceptive communication is misleading. Deception means a deliberate distortion of communication. Hence, deceptive communication sounds paradoxical and oxymoronic. In Linking Love and Lies A Formal foot race of the Mccornack and Parks Model of Deception Detection, Levine and McCornack(1992) tested the sit down developed by McCornack and Parks presented the results. The model of