This research describes perceived rules pertaining to honesty in romantic relationships, identifies sources of accuracy and bias affecting consensus on rules, and clarifies implications for couple conflict. Couples typically idealize honesty; yet, situational rules are vulnerable to different interpretations due to ambiguous properties of deception and pressures to balance openness with discretion. The research distinguishes obligatory rules, which prescribe disclosure or proscribe deception, and discretionary rules, which grant flexibility. Couples agreed on obligatory rules more than discretionary rules, although females endorsed obligatory rules more than males. Individuals overestimated agreement, overattributed sex-stereotypic rule endorsement to the partner, and showed minimal understanding of expectations unique to the partner. Agreement on obligatory rules was associated with lower conflict, whereas understanding predicted greater conflict.
AcitelliL. K.KennyD. A.WeinerD. (2001). The importance of similarity and understanding of partners’ marital ideals to relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 8, 167–185.
2.
AfifiT. D.AfifiW. A. (Eds.). (2009). Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 279–299). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
AfifiT. D.CaughlinJ.AfifiW. A. (2007). The dark side of avoidance and secrets in interpersonal relationships: Reasons to question the ideology of openness. In SpitzbergB. H.CupachW. R. (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 61–92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
AfifiT. D.JosephA. (2009). The standards for openness hypothesis: A gendered explanation for why avoidance is so dissatisfying. In AfifiT.AfifiW. (Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions (pp. 341–362). New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
ArgyleM.HendersonM. (1984). The rules of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 211–237.
6.
AuneR. K.WatersL. L. (1994). Cultural differences in deception: Motivations to deceive in Samoans and North Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 159–172.
7.
BaxterL.DunT.SahlsteinE. (2001). Rules for relating communicated among social network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 173–199.
8.
BurgoonJ. K.LevineT. R. (2010). Advances in deception detection. In SmithS. W.WilsonS. R. (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 201–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
9.
CampbellL.SimpsonJ. A.KashyD. A.FletcherG. J. O. (2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 447–462.
10.
CaughlinJ. P. (2003). Family communication standards: What counts as excellent family communication and how are such standards associated with family satisfaction?Human Communication Research, 29, 5–40.
11.
ClatterbuckG. W. (1979). Attributional confidence and uncertainty in initial interaction. Human Communication Research, 5, 147–157.
12.
ColeT. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 107–129.
13.
CollettP. (1977). The rules of conduct. In CollettP. (Ed.), Social rules and social behavior. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, pp. 1–27.
14.
CronbachL. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity.”Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.
15.
CupermanR.HowlandM.IckesW.SimpsonJ. A. (2011). Motivated inaccuracy: Past and future directions. In SmithJ. L.IckesW.HallJ.HodgesS. (Eds.), Managing interpersonal sensitivity: Knowing when-and when not-to understand others (pp. 215–233). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
16.
CushmanD.WhitingG. C. (1972). An approach to communication theory: Toward consensus on rules. Journal of Communication, 22(3), 217–238.
17.
DePauloB. M.MorrisW. L.SternglanzR. W. (2009). When the truth hurts: Deception in the nature of kindness. In VangelistiA. (Ed.), Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 167–190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
FinkenauerC.HazamH. (2000). Disclosure and secrecy in marriage: Do both contribute to marital satisfaction?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 245–263.
19.
FletcherG. J.ThomasG. (1996). Close relationship lay theories: Their structure and function. In FletcherG. O.FitnessJ. (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
FletcherG. J. O.KerrP. S. G. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 627–658.
21.
GageN.CronbachL. (1955). Conceptual and methodological problems in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 62, 411–422.
22.
IckesW. (2003). Everyday mind reading: Understanding what other people think and feel. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
23.
JacksonD. D. (1965). The study of the family. Family Process, 4, 1–20.
24.
JonesE.GalloisC. (1989). Spouses’ impressions of rules for communication in public and private marital conflicts. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51, 957–967.
25.
KennyD. A.AcitelliL. K. (1994). Measuring similarity in couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 417–431.
26.
KennyD. A.AcitelliL. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 439–448.
27.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: NY: The Guilford Press.
28.
LaingR. D.PhilipsenH.LeeA. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory of method and research. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
29.
LapinskiM. K.LevineT. R. (2000). Culture and Information Manipulation Theory: The effects of self-construal and locus of benefit on information manipulation. Communication Studies, 51, 55–73.
30.
LevineT. R.KimR. K.HamelL. M. (2010). People lie for a reason: Three experiments documenting the principle of veracity. Communication Research Reports, 27, 271–285.
31.
LevineT. R.McCornackS. 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.
32.
LevineT. R.McCornackS. A.AveryP. B. (1992). Sex differences in emotional reactions to discovered deception. Communication Quarterly, 40, 289–296.
33.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 568–579.
34.
McCornackS. A. (1992). Information manipulation theory. Communications Monographs, 59(1), 1–16.
35.
McCornackS. A. (1997). The generation of deceptive messages: Laying the groundwork for a viable theory of interpersonal deception. In GreeneJ. O. (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 91–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36.
McCornackS. A.LevineT. R. (1990). When lies are discovered: Emotional and relational outcomes of discovered deception. Communication Monographs, 57, 119–138.
37.
McLeodJ. M.ChaffeeS. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American Behavioral Scientist, 16(4), 469–499.
38.
MeadG. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39.
MettsS. (1989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 159–179.
40.
MichelaJ. L. (1990). Within-person correlational design and analysis. In HendrickC. (Ed.), Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 279–311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
41.
ParksM. R. (1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: Off the couch and into the world. In BurgoonM. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook6 (pp. 79–107). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
42.
PearceW. B. (1976), The coordinated management of meaning: A rules-based theory of interpersonal communication. In MillerG. R. (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 17–36). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
43.
PetersonC. (1996). Deception in intimate relationships. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 279–288.
44.
RoloffM. E.MillerC.W. (2006). Social cognition approaches to understanding interpersonal conflict and communication. In OetzelJ. G.Ting-ToomeyS. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
RusbultC. E.MartzJ. M.AgnewC. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391.
46.
ScheffT. J. (1967). Toward a sociological model of consensus. American Sociological Review, 32, 32–46.
47.
SillarsA. (2011). Motivated misunderstanding in family conflict discussions. In SmithJ. L.IckesW.HallJ.HodgesS. (Eds.), Managing interpersonal sensitivity: Knowing when-and when not-to understand others (pp. 193–213). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
48.
SillarsA. L.FolwellA. L.HillK. C.MakiB. K.HurstA. P.CasanoR. A. (1994). Marital communication and the persistence of misunderstanding. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 611–617.
49.
SillarsA. L.ScottM. D. (1983). Interpersonal perception between intimates: An integrative review. Human Communication Research, 10, 153–176.
SwannW. B.GillM. J. (1997). Confidence and accuracy in person perception: Do we know what we think we know about our relationship partners?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 741–151.
52.
TiggleR. B.PetersM. D.KelleyH. H.VincentJ. (1982). Correlational and discrepancy indices of understanding and their relation to marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44, 209–215.
YeungL. N.LevineT. R.NishiyamaK. (1999). Information manipulation theory and perceptions of deception in Hong Kong. Communication Reports, 12, 1–11.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
