Deceptive behavior in social relationships: A consequence of violated expectations

Abstract Deceptive behavior is viewed as a mechanism by which a threat to the maintenance of a social relationship is temporarily resolved. In this study, we investigated two social relationships: parent-child and employer-employee. Eighty American students evaluated 32 behaviors from the perspective of a son or daughter and from the perspective of an employee. The students made judgments regarding the extent to which the employer and the parent expected them to avoid engaging in certain behaviors, and the extent to which they would lie about involvement in each behavior. Students also indicated how guilty they would feel about lying. Results indicated that the students used deception when their behavior violated the perceived expectancy of their role partner. The students experienced guilt, however, only with a violation of their own expectations, their role partner's expectations, and a match between their own and their role partner's expectations.

Within-subjects design with 80 American college students evaluating 32 behaviors from both child and employee perspectives, rating perceived expectations, likelihood of lying, and anticipated guilt across relationship contexts.

Background & Context

This 1988 study by Karen Millar and Abraham Tesser represents an important early contribution to understanding the psychology of deception within social relationships. The research emerged from Tesser's broader program on self-evaluation maintenance theory, which examines how people manage their self-concept in relation to close others.

Deceptive behavior is viewed as a mechanism by which a threat to the maintenance of a social relationship is temporarily resolved. This theoretical perspective was novel for its time, framing lying not simply as moral failure but as a strategic interpersonal tool. The study focused specifically on hierarchical relationships—parent-child and employer-employee—where power dynamics and expectations create complex pressures that may motivate deception.

The research addressed a significant gap in understanding when and why people lie to those closest to them, particularly in contexts where violated expectations create relational tension. This work laid groundwork for subsequent research on relational deception and expectancy violations.

Research Design & Methodology

Eighty American students evaluated 32 behaviors from the perspective of a son or daughter and from the perspective of an employee. The students made judgments regarding the extent to which the employer and the parent expected them to avoid engaging in certain behaviors, and the extent to which they would lie about involvement in each behavior. Students also indicated how guilty they would feel about lying.

The within-subjects design asked participants to adopt two distinct role perspectives, evaluating the same set of behaviors from both filial and employment contexts. This methodological approach allowed direct comparison of deception propensity across relationship types while controlling for individual differences in moral reasoning.

Key dependent measures included:

• Perceived expectations of the role partner (parent or employer)
• Self-reported likelihood of lying about each behavior
• Anticipated guilt associated with deception
• Participants' own expectations regarding the appropriateness of each behavior

Results & Key Findings

Results indicated that the students used deception when their behavior violated the perceived expectancy of their role partner. This finding supported the core hypothesis that deception serves as a relationship-maintenance strategy when behavior falls short of what significant others expect.

The most nuanced finding concerned guilt. The students experienced guilt, however, only with a violation of their own expectations, their role partner's expectations, and a match between their own and their role partner's expectations. This suggests a three-part condition for guilt:

• Participants had to personally believe the behavior was wrong
• They had to perceive that their role partner also disapproved
• When their own and their partner's expectations aligned, guilt was most pronounced

Importantly, the findings revealed that people would lie to avoid relational consequences even when they felt guilty, indicating that relationship preservation can override moral discomfort. The similarity of patterns across both parent-child and employer-employee relationships suggested that expectancy violation operates as a general mechanism across hierarchical social bonds.

Discussion & Significance

This research advanced deception science by demonstrating that lying is not simply a function of individual dishonesty but is embedded in relational dynamics and expectancy management. The findings challenged simplistic moral accounts of deception, showing that people strategically deploy lies to navigate social expectations and maintain valued relationships.

The distinction between lying and experiencing guilt proved theoretically important. The fact that guilt required alignment between personal and perceived partner expectations suggested that moral emotions depend on internalized social norms rather than behavioral violations alone. This insight connected to broader work on moral development and the role of significant others in shaping conscience.

The study's theoretical foundation in self-evaluation maintenance theory provided a framework for understanding why deception emerges specifically in close relationships. When behaviors threaten a person's standing in the eyes of someone important to them, deception becomes a tool for managing that threat temporarily, even if it creates other psychological costs.

Limitations & Considerations

The study relied on self-report measures and hypothetical judgments rather than actual deceptive behavior. Students rated how likely they would be to lie rather than being observed actually lying, which introduces social desirability bias and intention-behavior gaps. The scenarios were necessarily abstract, lacking the emotional intensity and contextual complexity of real parent-child or employment conflicts.

The sample consisted entirely of American college students, limiting generalizability across age groups, cultures, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Young adults may have different expectancy dynamics with parents and employers compared to other developmental stages. Cultural variation in collectivism, power distance, and moral foundations would likely influence when and why people lie in hierarchical relationships.

The study design treated parent-child and employer-employee relationships as comparable, but these relationships differ substantially in intimacy, duration, emotional investment, and consequences of discovery. The relative ease of terminating employment versus family relationships may influence deception strategies differently than the study captured.

Practical Applications

For polygraph examiners and investigators, this research highlights the importance of understanding relational context when evaluating deception. People are more likely to lie when they perceive their behavior violates someone's expectations, particularly in hierarchical relationships. Pre-test interviews should assess what the examinee believes relevant others (supervisors, family members, law enforcement) expect from them, as these perceived expectations may motivate both the original behavior and subsequent deception about it.

The guilt findings have implications for detection strategies. Examiners should recognize that lack of guilt does not necessarily indicate truthfulness—people may lie while feeling little remorse if they don't personally condemn the behavior or perceive misalignment with authority figure expectations. Conversely, individuals showing guilt may still be truthful if they feel bad about the underlying behavior rather than about lying. Understanding the complex relationship between expectancy violations, deception, and guilt can inform more nuanced interpretations of physiological and behavioral indicators during examinations.