Charlie Mershon

Deception, the thought of the word could be construed into something evil and most

frequently is used to get what is desired without regard for another’s feelings or physical

wellbeing. There can be honor or at least well meanings behind this word as well the meaning

of it can be demonstrated as a method to conceal ones true feelings in a positive way.

In some form or another, whether it is through concealment or fabrication, deception

plays a role in all of our relationships. Most people, however, do not like to acknowledge this,

especially when it comes to love and romance.

Nevertheless, every now and then, people discover something about a romantic

partner that makes the issue of lying impossible to ignore. Making such a discovery can be

unsettling because it violates our basic notions about intimacy and trust.

The potential problems for deception sets up for love are placed when the deceiver is

using their deception to gain the desired things from another individual. Whether that is

physical conquer or material items, the effect, and methods are often the same. Although

lovers lie and speculation is that deception plays a role as a “social lubricant” that safely

separates partners and their thought in the regulation of romantic attachment. Not surprisingly

detecting deception often involves discovering negative emotional responses on both parties’

ends, especially when the information remains uncovered for an extended period and is

considered significant.

Deception is found to be most frequent in romantic relationships and specifically

when one partner is more likely to be concerned for the other in the relationship. While these

comparisons show how deception differentiates between relationship styles. When introduced

to a person, an individual will neglect to reveal too much information regarding their personal

life style and put the “best foot forward” appearing to be something they are not, possibly out

of fear of being ostracized or for more sinister ends. It is hoped that with investigating the

readings with their romantic dyads and our understanding of the writer’s attempt to convey

what was being addressed.

1
 Charlie Mershon

There are several potential issues regarding deception and social order is quite

interesting in regards to depending where one’s social class exists it will determine how the

person acts towards an individual. If the person is spoken to is lower in class than the

individual then that person the one being addressed may be looked down on and if the person

is of a higher social standing then they will be more inclined to be polite and use more

cordiality with that person. As we saw in The Coronation of Poppeia there were several

instances where Nero, although emperor treated Poppeia differently than he would had she

been just another servant or a senator. His admiration for her was quite high and full of

admiration.

The deception in this case however went both ways, while Nero may have actually

cared for Poppeia, some aspects of her behavior suggested that there was not a mutual sharing

of this emotion. Her love seems more for the sake of social accent and procession of wealth.

This deception is reversed from its typical male used tactic to a female implementing the

same tactic in order to achieve her ultimate goal.

While concepts of trust lead to broadened investments, the inverse should also be true:

thoughts of fellow deceitfulness should result in the resignation of relational resources. Given

the decision to avenge with a comparable resource, it is plausible that individuals approach to

seek compensatory atonement by paralleling their partners’ scheming action. Simply put,

partners thought to engage in deception are Cole Relational deception 109 probably not

entitled to the same resource that they are believed to withhold.

Lastly, individuals do more than simply punish against non-cooperative partners.

Humanity also tries to become less involved with such individuals. Hence, when engagement

to a partner diminishes, individuals should be more likely to engage in actions that enfeeble

interdependence and restore autonomy. Ironically, fraud may help human beings accomplish

this goal. It is likely that keeping or counterfeiting facts aids individuals to command

relational boundaries regulate their independence and keep others at a comfortable distance In

2
 Charlie Mershon

line with this reasoning, cross-relational research indicates that the use of falsification is

oppositely related to emotional affinity. Wherefore, when people decide to forego

commitment, falsification may be summoned upon to accomplish this effect. Lower levels of

commitment will be related to the use of deception.

With respect to telling the truth, important benefits accrue to disclosing information in

personal relationships. Partitioning facts can be a rewarding wisdom that may lead to

amplified faithfulness and the feeling of being accepted. However, telling the truth is not

always in one’s best interest.

Analysis on self-disclosure demonstrates that there are many risks associated with

confessing facts to others. Confidants may share private information with others or react in an

adverse, carping manner. In romantic relationships, secrecy may not be as faultfinding as a

partner’s response to unwelcome facts. Most anonymity that occurs within romantic affinities

integrates caution to which others are already privy. Additional research suggests that

deception is most likely to be motivated by fear of a partner’s disapproval. In particular, the

willingness to lie appears to be issue and target specific. People are more likely to lie about a

topic when the behavior in question violates a specific target’s expectations.

In summary, the cooperation use of deception is based on the succeeding ideas.

Assuming that a partner is deceitful is relationally costly; hence, such concepts will succeed

in atrophy in undertaking and the desire to avenge. Deflated engagement is also expected to

advance to the use of deception as a means of exerting greater relational independence.