Expressing and receiving affectionate messages have emotional and physiological benefits (Floyd, 2006a). Previously, research has called for an examination of why people withhold affectionate messages that may provide these positive effects (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2013). Accordingly, this study examined instances of withholding affection in a variety of romantic relationships. Participants initially completed general scales of deception and affection followed by a 7-day diary detailing what they felt when they withheld affection, what they communicated in place of affection, and their deceptive motives. After inductively developing a coding scheme, 12 themes were identified for what participants felt, the most common of which were liking, a desire for affection, and irritation. Eleven themes emerged for what was communicated in lieu of affection, some of which were moderated affection, rejection, and jealousy-evoking. Eleven themes emerged for reasons why participants withheld affection, including concern for perception, inappropriate circumstances, punishment, and using withholding affection to test a romantic partner. There were no variations in frequency of deception, expressed or received affection based on participant sex or relationship type. Withholding affection is a common and complex process in relationships.
AndersenP. A.GuerreroL. K. (1998). Principles of communication and emotion in social interaction. In AndersenP. A.GuerreroL. K. (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 49–96). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
2.
BaxterL. A.WilmotW. W. (1984). “Secret tests”: Social strategies for acquiring information about the state of the relationship. Human Communication Research, 11, 171–201. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00044.x
3.
BaxterL. A.WilmotW. W. (1985). Taboo topics in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 253–269. doi:10.1177/0265407585023002
4.
BrainerdE. G.HunterP. A.MooreD.ThompsonT. R. (1996). Jealousy induction as a predictor of power and the use of other control methods in heterosexual relationships. Psychological Reports, 79, 1319–1325. doi:10.2466=pr0.1996.79.3f.1319
5.
BondC. F.JrDePauloB. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
6.
BullerD. B.BurgoonJ. K. (1998). Emotional expression in the deception process. In AndersenP. A.GuerreroL. K. (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 381–398). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
BurgoonJ. K.BullerD. B. (1994). Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal dynamics. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 155–184. doi:10.1007/BF02170076
8.
Chory-AssadR. M.Booth-ButterfieldM. (2001). Secret test use and self-esteem in deteriorating relationships. Communication Research Reports, 18, 147–157. doi:10.1080/08824090109384792
9.
ColeT. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 107–129. doi:10.1177/0265407501181005
10.
DaileyR. M.PalomaresN. A. (2004). Strategic topic avoidance: An investigation of topic avoidance frequency, strategies used, and relational correlates. Communication Monographs, 71, 471–496. doi:10.1080/0363452042000307443
11.
DaintonM.GrossJ. (2008). The use of negative behaviors to maintain relationships. Communication Research Reports, 25, 179–191. doi:10.1080/08824090802237600
12.
DePauloB. M.KashyD. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63–79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63
13.
DePauloB. M.KashyD. A.KirkendolS. E.WyerM. M.EpsteinJ. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63–79. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.70.5.979
14.
EkmanP.FriesenW. V. (1975). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
FloydK. (2001). Human affection exchange: I. Reproductive probability as a predictor of men’s affection with their sons. Journal of Men’s Studies, 10, 39–50. doi:10.1177/0265407505049323
16.
FloydK. (2002). Human affection exchange: V. Attributes of the highly affectionate. Communication Quarterly, 50, 135–152. doi:10.1080/01463370209385653
17.
FloydK. (2006a). A new theoretic approach. In K. Floyd (Ed.), Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context (pp. 140–184). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
FloydK. (2006b). Human affection exchange: XII. Affectionate communication is associated with diurnal variation in salivary free cortisol. Western Journal of Communication, 70, 47–63. doi:10.1080/10570310500506649
19.
FloydK.BorenJ. P.HannawaA. F.HesseC.McEwanB.VekslerA. E. (2009). Kissing in marital and cohabiting relationships: Effects on blood lipids, stress, and relationship satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 113–133. doi:10.1080/10570310902856071
20.
FloydK.HessJ. A.MiczoL. A.HaloneK. K.MikkelsonA. C.TusingK. (2005). Human affection exchange: VIII. Further evidence of the benefits of expressed affection. Communication Quarterly, 53, 285–303. doi:10.1080/01463370500101071
21.
FloydK.HesseC.HaynesM. T. (2007). Human affection exchange: XV. Metabolic and cardiovascular correlates of trait expressed affection. Communication Quarterly, 55, 79–94. doi:10.1080/01463370600998715
22.
FloydK.MikkelsonA. C.TafoyaM. A.FarinelliL.La ValleyA. G.JuddJ…WilsonJ. (2007a). Human affection exchange: XIV. Relational affection predicts resting heart rate and free cortisol secretion during acute stress. Behavioral Medicine, 32, 151–156. doi:10.3200/BMED.32.4.151-156
23.
FloydK.MikkelsonA. C.TafoyaM. A.FarinelliL.La ValleyA. G.JuddJ…WilsonJ. (2007b). Human affection exchange: XIII. Affectionate communication accelerates neuroendocrine stress recovery. Health Communication, 22, 123–132. doi:10.1080/10410230701454015
24.
FrisbyB. N.MalachowskiC. M. (2012, July). Hurtful events and the aftermath: An examination of uncertainty, conflict, forgiveness, rumination, and trust. Paper presented at the bi-annual conference of the International Association of Relationship Research, Chicago, IL.
25.
GeorgeJ. F.RobbA. (2008). Deception and computer-mediated communication in daily life. Communication Reports, 21, 92–103. doi:10.1080/08934210802298108
26.
GillenH.HoranS. M. (in press). Toward an understanding of the relationships among deceptive affection, deceptive beliefs, and relational qualities. Communication Research Reports.
27.
GoodboyA. K.HoranS. M.Booth-ButterfieldM. (2012). Intentional jealousy-evoking behaviors in romantic relationships as a function of received partner affection and love styles. Communication Quarterly, 60, 1–16. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.688792
28.
HancockJ.Thom-SantelliJ.RitchieT. (2004). Deception and design: The impact of communication technology on lying behavior. CHI 2004, 6, 129–134. doi: 10.1145/985692.985709
29.
HayesJ. G.MettsS. (2008). Managing the expression of emotion. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 374–396. doi:10.1080/10570310802446031
30.
HoranS. M. (2012). Affection exchange theory and perceptions of relational transgressions. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 109–126. doi:10.1080/10570314.2011.651548
31.
HoranS. M. (2013, April). Further understanding affectionate communication as maintenance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Pittsburgh, PA.
32.
HoranS. M.Booth-ButterfieldM. (2010). Investing in affection: An investigation of affection exchange theory and relational qualities. Communication Quarterly, 58, 394–413. doi:10.1080/01463373.2010.524876
33.
HoranS. M.Booth-ButterfieldM. (2011). Is it worth lying for?: Physiological and emotional implications of recalling deceptive affection. Human Communication Research, 37, 78–106. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01394.x
34.
HoranS. M.Booth-ButterfieldM. (2013). Understanding the routine expression of deceptive affection in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 61, 195–216. doi:10.1080/01463373.2012.751435
35.
HoranS. M.HouserM. L. (2012). Understanding the communicative implications of initial impressions: A longitudinal test of predicted outcome value theory. Communication Education, 61, 234–252. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.671950
36.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analyses: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
37.
HustonT. L.CaughlinJ. P.HoutsR. M.HoutsR. M.SmithS. E.GeorgeL. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 237–252. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.237
38.
KaplarM. E.,GordonA. K. (2004). The enigma of altruistic lying: Perspective differences in what motivates and justifies lie telling within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 11, 489–507. doi:10.1111/j.1475- 811.2004.00094.x
39.
McAuliffeT. L.DiFranceiscoW.ReedB. R. (2007). Effects of question format and collection mode on the accuracy of retrospective surveys of health risk behavior: A comparison with daily sexual activity diaries. Health Psychology, 26, 60–67. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.1.60
40.
SampJ. A.MonohanJ. L. (2009). Alcohol-influenced nonverbal behaviors during discussions about a relationship problem. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 193–211. doi:10.1007/s10919-009-0069-y
41.
SampJ. A.MonohanJ. L. (2011). Communicating about a relational problem while (not) intoxicated: Influences on goal judgments and message features. Communication Studies, 62, 328–348. doi:10.1080/10510974.2010.550667
42.
SerotaK. B.LevineT. R.BosterF. J. (2010). The prevalence of lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Communication Research, 36, 2–25. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01366.x
